Intolerance: Christians vs. Atheists (2 Viewers)

[bshoc]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

And on that note, someone here said that there is no solid evidence for evolution (with the assumption being, why should we believe it?).

Yes, evolution is a theory. But that does not mean that there is no evidence to support it. There is, in fact, over half a billion years worth of evidence, and any holes therein means that we simply haven't found the piece that explains a puzzle yet.

Re: irreducible complexity - there are no current examples of such, as fair as I know; therefore, using this argument to counterpoint evolution is both flawed and ludicrous.

That was probably me so I'll respond.

Yes you could say there is (within the context of the theory itself) half a billion years worth of conditional evidence, the condition being ofcourse that the theory applies to that which it claims to apply (e.g. all of life) and there is no solid counter-evidence.

This is where events like the Cambrian explosion put a nail into the coffin. Evolution - the process of genetic modification itself over spans of geological time, or lifeforms transforming has never been observed or documented in real time or anytime. By looking back in time through fossils etc. you can prove that something lived, but you can in no way prove that something derived from something else, or evolved into something else. Which is why the Cambrian explosion is so important, because it generated complex organisms for which no potential precursor organisms existed.

Evolution is no more a solid theory than god or genesis, it has never been observed and using past records to justify it is conditional at best.

 

[CSI: CRIMES ™]

Hmmm Atheists tend to use science to back up their beliefs. Religion is easier to place faith in than science. Why? People are afraid of change. Religion remains the same. It's been basically the same for a very, very long time. Science constantly changes and evolves through time and time. What could be right one day may be wrong the next. It's harder to have faith in something that may disappear overnight than something you know will be there the next morning. In science, we're responsible for our own fuckups. People would prefer to believe that God is responsible for the bad things that happen to them, for the bad things that happen with humans in general, rather than believe that it's our own ignorance and lack of foresight that screws our lives up. People would rather blame human nature on something else. To elaborate on the above, it partially comes down to the whole "accepting responsibility for your own actions". In religion, you can either blame them on something else, rationalise them, or ask an imaginary force for forgiveness rather than asking real people face to face.

 

[KFunk]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

This is where events like the Cambrian explosion put a nail into the coffin. Evolution - the process of genetic modification itself over spans of geological time, or lifeforms transforming has never been observed or documented in real time or anytime. By looking back in time through fossils etc. you can prove that something lived, but you can in no way prove that something derived from something else, or evolved into something else. Which is why the Cambrian explosion is so important, because it generated complex organisms for which no potential precursor organisms existed.

Evolution is no more a solid theory than god or genesis, it has never been observed and using past records to justify it is conditional at best.

We have observed the evolution of simple organisms (e.g. the example I gave of bacteria and antibiotic resistance). [Edit: Another example is dog breeding where humans, acting as a selective environmental pressure, select certain characteristics which they desire in the breed. The first is evolution by natural selection, while the second is evolution by artificial selection] In other words, evolution is not just based on past records - it has been observed.

Also, observation aside, evolution is to be expected (in statistical terms) given our knowledge of genetics:

1. Individuals are genetically similar to their forebears (they share a lot of traits).
2. Individuals with successful traits (in terms of reproduction and survival) are more likely to pass on their genes.
3. Hence traits/genes which are beneficial in a given environment tend to become dominant (in a population living in that environment) over time.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

This is where events like the Cambrian explosion put a nail into the coffin.

There are thousands of explanations, look it up man it isn't hard. Do you really think the vast majority of the world's leading biological scientists noticed the cambrian explosion was a problem and have merely passed it off because they like evolution?

Evolution - the process of genetic modification itself over spans of geological time, or lifeforms transforming has never been observed or documented in real time or anytime.

Yes it has, explain how you're defining evolution a little further or i'll give you the examples.

Which is why the Cambrian explosion is so important, because it generated complex organisms for which no potential precursor organisms existed.

For which no potential precursor organisms existed? Prove it. Not everything will leave behind fossils, catacylsmic events (i.e. a commet) will also make it quite hard to find the fossils.

Evolution is no more a solid theory than god or genesis, it has never been observed and using past records to justify it is conditional at best.

The God theory doesn't even begin to attempt to use evidence (nor can it), so no - It's not equal.

 

[KFunk]

To bring a bit of logic into this. If the cambrian explosion cannot be explained by evolution then:

Not all biological organisms can have their existence/features explained by evolution, which is equivalent to there exist some organisms whose existence/features aren't explained by evolution.

These do not amount to the claim that no biological organisms can have their existence/features explained by evolution. This latter claim is shown to be false by the examples of evolution I gave above, in particular the development of antibiotic resistance by microbes.

 

[ellen.louise]

In science, we're responsible for our own fuckups. People would prefer to believe that God is responsible for the bad things that happen to them, for the bad things that happen with humans in general, rather than believe that it's our own ignorance and lack of foresight that screws our lives up. People would rather blame human nature on something else. To elaborate on the above, it partially comes down to the whole "accepting responsibility for your own actions". In religion, you can either blame them on something else, rationalise them, or ask an imaginary force for forgiveness rather than asking real people face to face.

Could argue that everyone does this sometimes, though. Heaps of people try to shift the blame from their stuffups onto someone else, regardless of religion. I don't know about other religions, but I do know that christianity encourages people to take respnsibility for their own actions, and while that shouldn't entail people being ratted at about how awful they are (thus the concept of 'forgiveness,') we are engouraged to beleive that, as you said, "it's our own ignorance and lack of foresight that screws our lives up."

 

[Kwayera]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

That was probably me so I'll respond.

Yes you could say there is (within the context of the theory itself) half a billion years worth of conditional evidence, the condition being ofcourse that the theory applies to that which it claims to apply (e.g. all of life) and there is no solid counter-evidence.

This is where events like the Cambrian explosion put a nail into the coffin. Evolution - the process of genetic modification itself over spans of geological time, or lifeforms transforming has never been observed or documented in real time or anytime. By looking back in time through fossils etc. you can prove that something lived, but you can in no way prove that something derived from something else, or evolved into something else. Which is why the Cambrian explosion is so important, because it generated complex organisms for which no potential precursor organisms existed.

Evolution is no more a solid theory than god or genesis, it has never been observed and using past records to justify it is conditional at best.

Um. Actually it sounds like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"Which is why the Cambrian explosion is so important, because it generated complex organisms for which no potential precursor organisms existed."

No. No. No. And again, no.

Homework: Ediacaran fossils.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

i prescribe to both.. in terms of science and religion..

I mean i dun think im very slow or uneducated.. but I believe that there is value to evolutionary theories.. and also religion..

science can do alot of things.. but whether it is right to do them is another question.

religions do tell us to respect life..and provides a moral framework..
im not saying atheism doesnt.. but then.. how do they back up their moral decisions with science? they dun.. they in a way use their "gut instinct" and social norms..

science is an objective tool for looking at the universe and religion/faith/morals are our subjective tools.. famously mythos and lagos can both exist as the ancient greeks thought....

i respect those that are atheist.. but i guess i wonder.. is it a depressing existance?.. mabbe im just a sucker for sweet lies.. but so many yrs of science and im still not convinced to ditch either one exclusively for the other.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

Um. Actually it sounds like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"Which is why the Cambrian explosion is so important, because it generated complex organisms for which no potential precursor organisms existed."

No. No. No. And again, no.

Homework: Ediacaran fossils.

Nice. I was about to join the fray, but then I realised that someone who'd actually understands this stuff would chime in.

<3 David Christian's Maps of Time

i prescribe to both.. in terms of science and religion..

I mean i dun think im very slow or uneducated.. but I believe that there is value to evolutionary theories.. and also religion..

science can do alot of things.. but whether it is right to do them is another question.

religions do tell us to respect life..and provides a moral framework..
im not saying atheism doesnt.. but then.. how do they back up their moral decisions with science? they dun.. they in a way use their "gut instinct" and social norms..

science is an objective tool for looking at the universe and religion/faith/morals are our subjective tools.. famously mythos and lagos can both exist as the ancient greeks thought....

i respect those that are atheist.. but i guess i wonder.. is it a depressing existance?.. mabbe im just a sucker for sweet lies.. but so many yrs of science and im still not convinced to ditch either one exclusively for the other.

What you seem to be saying is that religion fills the holes of the sciences. Unfortunately, the holes will get smaller and smaller, even in the social sciences.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

i respect those that are atheist.. but i guess i wonder.. is it a depressing existance?..

No. It's really not.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

actually i know for a fact that science will continue to have a event horizon where the limits of science cannot answer certain physics questions

but as i do deal with lives..

i ask it.. how does one make a judgement/rationalisation that suicide is wrong?.. from a purely scientific point of view?... i have tried hard but fail miserably at this..

 

[Legham]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

i respect those that are atheist.. but i guess i wonder.. is it a depressing existance?

Uhhhmm.. This is a joke right? Sounds like he's being serious, but nobody can be that dumb

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

Uhhhmm.. This is a joke right? Sounds like he's being serious, but nobody can be that dumb

no im serious.. lolz .. i see the best sides of religion and science.. and i couldnt be an atheist.. mabbe its just sumfing in my mind.. but rationalising it would be something that I am keen on learning about.

interestingly i know some that subscribe to very fundamental principles of religion.. and i wonder how they can practise evidence based medicine at all?!

on a daily basis.. i just observe so many confessing that its faith that gets them thru the day.. and its very scary when its ure medical doctor.. :S

 

[vulgarfraction]

OP:

I reckon your friend's right.

I mean, everyone knows Dawkins has the right ideas. And he knows that everyone knows he has the right ideas. But the way he shows them.. well, it's just stooping to their level.

So let people think whatever stupid ideas they want to think if you want to be able to criticise them for imposing their ideas on you. That sort of thing.

Last poster:

Yeah, you're actually an idiot. If you wanted comfort in your thoughts you could delude yourself as much as you want but it still doesn't amount to true logical belief.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

i dont doubt its a delusion some days but

I know but im still looking for a reason.. see thats the thing.. ure not actualli giving me an answer to my question.. ure just calling me in idiot.. it amounts to nothing..

i have just been thru a very interesting experience with suicidal persons but i would ask.. how did u come up with ure moral principles then? i havent had an athetist tell me honestly.. they just keep tellin me it just is.. like its faith =\

haha to last poster: were u sick of the ISCF ppl too?

 

[UnIqUe_PrInCeSs]

ファック 麿 麿 仄か アジア

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

lol nah i got my answer from my atheist housemate and im happy it was adequate

 

[vulgarfraction]

What moral principles.

Nah, actually, I don't see what religious beliefs have anything to do with that. I'm not going to base what I think's right or wrong on what someone else wrote thousands of years ago which may or may not be rightly based. Think for yourself, people.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: intolerance Christians vs. atheists

religions do tell us to respect life..and provides a moral framework..
im not saying atheism doesnt.. but then.. how do they back up their moral decisions with science? they dun.. they in a way use their "gut instinct" and social norms.

Well yea, we use our insticts, our reasoning power to decide what we feel is just, empathy etc. Pretty much the same as anyone else. You can't tell me that you get all your morals from the bible, for starters you've picked and choosed which morals to accept and which to reject - By what guideline did you do so?

i respect those that are atheist.. but i guess i wonder.. is it a depressing existance?..

I can't say no, but then again I don't think I'd ever be truly any more happy with a religious lie unless I was so compelled by it as to have it overwhelm any thoughts I could ever have. Most of the time it's fine though...

Think of it this way, have you ever built a sand castle? It was fun eh? Sure enough you knew the wind was going to blow it over, the tide was going to come in and wash it away... but it was still fun while it lasted.

i ask it.. how does one make a judgement/rationalisation that suicide is wrong?.. from a purely scientific point of view?... i have tried hard but fail miserably at this..

Suicide brings pain to others, suicide ends all that is you. When you have 1 life... you should cherish that life alot more than those with eternal life, right? Of course we can't objectively say suicide is wrong, but it's one of the more stalwart moral truths we have.

and i couldnt be an atheist.. mabbe its just sumfing in my mind..

Fear maybe? I can understand the fear, well, maybe not as much as a devoted christian who might also fear hell etc.... but yea, when I first realised there was no heaven etc I did go through a small bout of depression.

i just observe so many confessing that its faith that gets them thru the day.. and its very scary when its ure medical doctor..

Well for starters, there really aren't that many atheists. Secondly, alot of people can use the traditions/ceremonies of religion as a way to express themselves. Slightly related, I still participate in lent as I can see some nice symbolism to going without something. I usually go without X and the saved money goes towards a charity, I'm not religious at all but I can still find some value in going along with the symbolism.

I know but im still looking for a reason.. see thats the thing.. ure not actualli giving me an answer to my question.. ure just calling me in idiot.. it amounts to nothing..

I'll give you the nicely worded version of my earlier answer:

"Have you ever built a snowman?" After all, snowmen are ephemeral objects, soon to be melted in the sun. A snowman has no ultimate purpose or goal, and in a few weeks there will be no trace of it's ever existing. We build snowmen because all of us, theists and atheists, live here and now. In the context of our own brief mortal lives, we are able to enjoy this life and gain pleasure from ultimately pointless acts. It is fun to build a snowman, or climb a mountain, or watch the sunset, or go for a long cycle ride in the countryside. The purpose of these things is not "out there" somewhere, waiting to be achieved - the meaning is in what it means to ourselves. I am not overly concerned about some future fifty billion years from now, but I am concerned about the future of humanity here, now and for the generations that follow. That is the context of a mortal life, and that is why I "bother" to live and damn well have fun while I'm doing it.

There is no meaning to life itself. There is no purpose to the universe. You can, however, give life meaning through your actions. Make the world a better place for yourself, your contemporaries and your descendents.

 

[KFunk]

I respect those that are atheist.. but i guess i wonder.. is it a depressing existance?

No, not inherently. I think both religion and atheism can lend themselves to a depressive malaise. As an atheist you can still value things and take wonder in the world around you - likewise you can find meaning and purpose in your existence (as NTB pointed out). The main difficulty, I suppose, is that much of this meaning has to be internally derived, and some people find that difficult to do. As to whether it leads to more depression than religion - that's an empirical issue.

I have just been thru a very interesting experience with suicidal persons but i would ask.. how did u come up with ure moral principles then? i havent had an athetist tell me honestly.. they just keep tellin me it just is.. like its faith =\

It's slightly different to faith, but that depends on how you choose to talk about morality. If you believe that there exist real, infallible ethical principles then you can certainly speak of atheist morality as being faith based, since any given individual would have to have faith that they believe in the right principles. However, I personally don't think it makes sense to speak of 'right' (or absolute) principles because I tend towards the view that morality is a social construct and that, at a base level, 'the good' is what we believe to be good, thus removing faith from the equation.

For the most part I suspect that our moral principles are inhereted, as with religion, be it from parents, society, or some neurobiological evolutionary tendency. What can be seen as an advantage (and a disadvantage by some) of atheism is that it is easier to change one's moral beliefs upon reflection (something which is harder to achieve with a dogmatic text infront of you). A philosopher John Rawls suggested, when examining the concept of justice, a process of reflective equilibrium where we consider the moral principles we hold, determine whether they are consistent with one another, and see whether we agree with their full range of implications. In doing so we may notice parts of our belief system which are in need of alteration. In this manner it could be possible to refine one's moral beliefs (at bare minimum I think erasing contradiction is a worthwhile task).