RE: Any atheists here?

RE: Any atheists here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/18/2008 7:12:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Hold any spiritual belief you want but don't deny the overwhelming evidence of science in the process it just makes you and your beliefs look bad to paraphrase St. Augustine. The problems that arise with the notion of a Creator have been mentioned before, and I would not attempt to defend the idea. But natural selection is largely a "horizontal" process of adaptation. What drives evolution forward toward more and more complex forms of life? The standard answer is chance mutations, but attributing something to "chance" is simply a way of not explaining it. K. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary processes contained in your query that I'll try and explain before making a stab at more fully explaining natural selection and mutation. Evolution is not necessarily a progressive, simple to complex or smaller to bigger etc, process. It sometimes works this way but it is far from common. While evolution has lead from all of life's common ancestor, some sort of unicellular organism, to man that same process in the same amount of time has also lead to amoebas, slime molds, beetles and all the rest of life. We as large multicellular complex organisms tend to believe that we rest at the apex of the evolutionary ladder but evolution isn't a ladder but more of a tree and every species is a leaf on the same tree. Now as to mutation and natural selection it is necessary to understand that while mutation is an essentially random process natural selection acts as a non random filter. Thus the result is not random.

meatcleaver -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/18/2008 7:25:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is about 'why', maybe it is a human need but its not a need everyone has and it is a futile need since it can't be answered, even Budha recognized that when he said god(s) were a part of human desire and by implication, a cause of human misery. Huh? Faith is not about 'why', although a lot of people make it out to be (including you, apparently). If you apply logic to it, you will eventually arrive at a simple fact: 'why' is a question without any answer but what we set for ourselves, whether you are a god/dess, a spirit, a human, an animal or a rock. Therefore, some of us are content to simply live, without looking for any 'why' beyond whatever purpose we select for ourselves, much like the rock, save that the rock doesn't change it's mind (and a very Zen mind that is: its awareness of itself is one with itself, and its only thought, neh?). My religion does not supply an answer to 'why', except to look to yourself. Essentially, to look to who and what you are, and to what purpose life has prepared you for, if any. Regardless of who and what you are, I doubt you will find a more viable approximation to an answer to 'why' anywhere. Health, al-Aswad. Religion is about truth, its about beliving in that truth, whether it is true or not which is why religion is faith, it is having faith that that belief is true. Idle speculation might be rewarding and might bring one some philosophical answers to ones philosophical questions but that isn't religion. We can go around all day analysing language and discussing the accuracy of words. Words aren't accurate, they are units in an external sign system which is why many modern philosophers spin in a whirlpool of analysis and disappear up their own arses.

hardbodysub -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/18/2008 8:10:02 AM)
Depends on your exact definition of the term. To some, the term "atheist" means the complete rejection of any belief in any deity. To others, it just means the unwillingness to claim certainty in the existence of God or gods. I'm not a theist, meaning that I don't subscribe to the belief that God or gods exist. But I don't claim to know for a fact that God or gods don't exist, either. Frankly, I think that the only rational view on deities is "I really can't know for sure", unless you've personally been spoken to by a deity, in which case you're probably crazy rather than blessed with a religious experience.

philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/18/2008 9:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy A vast amount of what could be described as mutant businesses suddenly sprang into being to take advantage of a new business environment. I'm missing whatever it is you see in this example as analogous to the forward evolution of higher and more complex forms of life. But try this analogy: I posted that the standard answer to how do you win at craps is by chance. You argued no, the correct answer is by "successful" chance. That clears everything up, eh? ......well, if the losing attempts at craps disappeared, then yes. You win at craps by successful chance, because obviously unsuccessful chance means you lose. However, the craps analogy doesn't quite fit because it's not adaptive. But the key word is successful. i see complexity as a mere survival adaptation and not as an end in itself. In that charming humancentric way we all have we easily see more complex as equalling higher lifeforms, and thus the way evolution is headed. Not necessarily so, bacteria aren't that complex. They do change and adapt, but they don;t need to get more complex.......they just need to survive. That which survives breeds, and so evolution continues.......not necessarily a process of becoming kore complex, just as a process, a by product, of surviving. Humans have become complex beasties because of scale. We are essentially (like all lifeforms bigger than a bacteria) massive colonies of cells. Every single cell of our body has been parasitised in the distant past (and for those who don't know what that means goggle mitochondria). Cars are a fair example. As they've developed they've become increasingly complex to deal with the ever increasingly complex environment they operate in, it's not just the weather i'm talking about here....customer requirements, competition, regulatory requirements, these are some of the ways that their operating environment have become more complex. However, some structures that make up the car haven't needed to become more complex. Wheels are still round. Exhausts are still pipes. i've realised i need more coffee, cos my typing sucks, but hopefully i've conveyed a little more of my thinking on the subject.....

meatcleaver -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/18/2008 10:59:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What drives evolution forward toward more and more complex forms of life? The standard answer is chance mutations, but attributing something to "chance" is simply a way of not explaining it. K. The evidence is that evolution doesn't drive forward to ever more complex forms of life per se but life adapts to the environment that it finds iteself in and if it doesn't it dies. There is some evidence of an extinct primitive human on one of the indonesian islands becoming smaller and developing a smaller brain which means it was evolving backwards. That suggests if a species can survive long enough in adverse conditions it can simplify in order to survive. Life seems to be the goal, any life, life doesn't necessarily have to evolve into what we call higher species. We might be being rather conceited to consider ourselves higher life forms as the doesn't seem to be anything evolutionary special about us.

ineedotk -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/19/2008 8:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: ineedotk quote: ORIGINAL: NormalOutside quote: ORIGINAL: ineedotkwhen you consider how complex the world is, and how much of a detailed, self-sustaining machine the human body is, and the extent of our thinking, reasoning, and creative abilities, do you really think this all came about simply through some kind of evolutionary process? I know it did. You would too, if you read into it. It's scientifically proven. To deny evolution is to deny science, and if you're on that boat, you're already sunk. "Sorry!" Actually, I have read into it. And having done so further strengthened my belief in creation over evolution. Because the more researched it, the more convinced I became that there was no way that evolution could have resulted in the world and all thats exists in it that we see today. Creation by some kind of higher source is the only thing I can come up with. This world is too great to have just evolved from something. Evolution isn't a theory, its an observable process. Why would you dismiss something that can be observed for a preference that is a figment of the imagination? You and Dom Ken are stating that evolution is an observable process, with much evidence that it exists. Well, I have yet to observe anything I would call evolution. Sure, you have some similarities between different species of plants and animals. But so what? That hardly proves evolution. Also, if evolution really did occur, then why is it so drastically incomplete? Most people who believe in evolution claim that humans came from apes or monkeys. If this is true, then why do we still have apes and monkeys? Is it that only a few evolved whereas the others didn't? And if you believe that that's what happened, then you are only believing in a theory no more or less provable than creationism. Most evolutionists say that believing in creation stems purely from religious beliefs. Religion in the general sense refers to beliving in that which cannot be or has not yet been proven. So if you believe in evolution, guess what, you're just as religious as those who believe in creation - only difference being that the two "religions" are different from each other. [sm=meh.gif]

philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/19/2008 8:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ineedotk You and Dom Ken are stating that evolution is an observable process, with much evidence that it exists. Well, I have yet to observe anything I would call evolution. sighs...then go get yourself some fast breeding bacteria, a bit of a scientific education, a petri dish and a decent microscope and see for yourself.........muck around with their environment and watch them adapt........ .....there, evolution in a dish. Enjoy.

DomKen -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/19/2008 9:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ineedotk You and Dom Ken are stating that evolution is an observable process, with much evidence that it exists. Well, I have yet to observe anything I would call evolution. Sure, you have some similarities between different species of plants and animals. But so what? That hardly proves evolution. Also, if evolution really did occur, then why is it so drastically incomplete? Most people who believe in evolution claim that humans came from apes or monkeys. If this is true, then why do we still have apes and monkeys? Is it that only a few evolved whereas the others didn't? And if you believe that that's what happened, then you are only believing in a theory no more or less provable than creationism. Most evolutionists say that believing in creation stems purely from religious beliefs. Religion in the general sense refers to beliving in that which cannot be or has not yet been proven. So if you believe in evolution, guess what, you're just as religious as those who believe in creation - only difference being that the two "religions" are different from each other. [sm=meh.gif] This post proves you didn't actually do any real research into evolution but instead simply believed lies told to you by creationists. Your claims are standard canards of the worst of the creationist movement and even a very minor search in google would have turned up explanations of the fallacies of your claims. There are still monkeys and apes because evolution is not a linear progression but a branching one. We share a common ancestor with apes and other primates (and all othe rlife as a matter of fact) but our various lienages evolved differently just as surprisingly as all of your great grandparents great grandchildren not being you and you alone. As to the science is religion claim, religion requires faith. Science provides evidence.

atursvcMaam -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 2:20:13 AM)
i don't believe in atheists. God made the world in six days flat, on the seventh day He said, "I'll rest." So He let the thing into orbit swing, to give it a dry run test. A billion years went by, and God decided to take a look at the whirling blob, His spirits fell as He sighed, "oh well, it was only a six day job." The Mitchell Trio, THE SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT MITCHELL TRIO (early 1960's, i think.)

Aswad -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 3:59:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Religion is about truth, its about beliving in that truth, whether it is true or not which is why religion is faith, it is having faith that that belief is true. You're confusing religion with belief, it seems. Religion is about life, and how to live it. Incidentally, I don't think you could say Wittgenstein disappeared up his own ass. Thanks for the mental image of "Goatse, Ph.D." though; TV-series idea? [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

sirsholly -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 4:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Religion is about truth, its about beliving in that truth, whether it is true or not which is why religion is faith, it is having faith that that belief is true. You're confusing religion with belief, it seems. Religion is about life, and how to live it. imho....organized religion is about the collection plate.

Aswad -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 4:09:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Life seems to be the goal, any life, life doesn't necessarily have to evolve into what we call higher species. The notion of a goal moves back out of the realm of science, and into what Kirata was talking about. Essentially, we artificially introduce the idea of a goal because we are looking for one. Unidirectional entropy in a causal universe gives rise to a certain process. What we think we know of that process, we may call evolution. But the notions of "success" and "goals" are our own. quote: We might be being rather conceited to consider ourselves higher life forms as the doesn't seem to be anything evolutionary special about us. The extent to which we are able to host a new order of evolution (memetic biology), as well as adapting the environment to ourselves, rather than the other way around, is in itself special. Not higher, better, or any of the other terms we humans invent to describe how palatable or familiar something is, but simply special. Language and engineering allow ideas and technology to evolve, using us as the host environment in which to do so. One could say that this is a backwards way to view it, since we could theoretically stop doing it, but that's no different from any other case of one entity (the idea to stop doing it) conquering all others at the expense of an extinction level event in that biosphere (the cessation of language and engineering). And it's not bloody likely, either, since the symbiosis between us and this memesphere we host is what allows us to survive, despite exceptionally poor adaptation by animal standards. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 4:18:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly imho....organized religion is about the collection plate. That's simplifying things radically, but, yes. Organizations tend to be concerned with finances. Go figure. Ever see that Beatles concert when the guy is playing with his elbows and stuff? That's worship. Some would call it idolatry. I would leave it at "they're worshipping their idols" and let people connect the dots. Way back when, the "titans, heroes of old, men of renown" were the ones being worshipped. Babylonian kings had their images cast in metal, which people venerated in essentially the same manner as the Catholics venerate images of various idols of their own. This is actually one of the more insightful observations made in the movie "Queen of the Damned," with Lestat thinking that pop idols are gods, and therefore deciding to become one. Our media icons would seem like nothing less to people from an older culture. I wonder how the future will view us, in this regard. Will there be ahollywoodists who blame all ills of the world on the irrational veneration of media icons? One thing seems clear, in any case: the collection plate is pretty pivotal to the hollywoodians, less so to the indiefilmians. Health, al-Aswad.

meatcleaver -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 5:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Religion is about truth, its about beliving in that truth, whether it is true or not which is why religion is faith, it is having faith that that belief is true. You're confusing religion with belief, it seems. Religion is about life, and how to live it. Well there isn't enough hours in the day to clarify everything to the point of infinity (which I know isn't a point). Religion is not at all about life as many of us know it, it is about the external governance of life and how one should live in accordance to rules set out by an external supreme supernatural being(s) or laws or entities (imaginary ones I may add) that no one can provide a modicum of objective evidence that can vbe shared but merely a clai"m "That's my personal experience". quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Incidentally, I don't think you could say Wittgenstein disappeared up his own ass. Thanks for the mental image of "Goatse, Ph.D." though; TV-series idea? [:D] Health, al-Aswad. I think Wittgenstein more or less admitted he disappeared up his own arse.

meatcleaver -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 5:23:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Life seems to be the goal, any life, life doesn't necessarily have to evolve into what we call higher species. The notion of a goal moves back out of the realm of science, and into what Kirata was talking about. Essentially, we artificially introduce the idea of a goal because we are looking for one. Unidirectional entropy in a causal universe gives rise to a certain process. What we think we know of that process, we may call evolution. But the notions of "success" and "goals" are our own. Everything said on this subject is a human construction and in that way everything is artificially introduced. Science makes no claims beyond it being a human construction, it is religion that claims it knows what some supernatural being says on the hotline.

Rule -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 5:50:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Words aren't accurate If they are not, then neither your above statement nor any other statement you have made or will make, has any meaningful content. Some people are not able to express themselves accurately because they are semantically confused or handicapped, but that is another cause of misunderstandings entirely.

meatcleaver -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 11:02:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Words aren't accurate If they are not, then neither your above statement nor any other statement you have made or will make, has any meaningful content. There is a difference between accuracy and nonsensical. Language is an external communication system. When I write these words they will mean something different to what they would mean if I verbally spoke to you because written language is a different sign system to spoken language and we perceive each differently. Imagine a colour, then describe it to me in words so I could accurately represent it on a canvas. Of course it is impossible and it is impossible because the sign system (language) we use is crude and inaccurate. That is why many 20th century philosophers have ended up in a whirlpool as they try to define the accuracy of language and in the end confuse themselves as to what they were trying to explain in the first place.

Rule -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/20/2008 1:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver When I write these words they will mean something different to what they would mean if I verbally spoke to you because written language is a different sign system to spoken language and we perceive each differently. I prefer the written word. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Imagine a colour, then describe it to me in words so I could accurately represent it on a canvas. Of course it is impossible and it is impossible because the sign system (language) we use is crude and inaccurate. Pratchett imagined the colour of magic. I seem to recall that he had a name for it, but I have forgotten how he described it. Anyway, if you discern a lack, then add to the language please.

ineedotk -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/21/2008 10:46:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: ineedotk You and Dom Ken are stating that evolution is an observable process, with much evidence that it exists. Well, I have yet to observe anything I would call evolution. sighs...then go get yourself some fast breeding bacteria, a bit of a scientific education, a petri dish and a decent microscope and see for yourself.........muck around with their environment and watch them adapt........ .....there, evolution in a dish. Enjoy. What you just described is "reproduction" and "adaptation", NOT "evolution". As far as the first two go, of course, I observe them daily. There's no denying them. Evolution refers to an actual change in a species such that the original species is now a different species, for example, an ape becoming a human. Pretty much everything in the living world reproduces itself and adapts to its environment. But they all stay the same species. They don't just become a new species overtime.

bamabbwsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (11/21/2008 10:49:49 PM)
Nope. I'm a believer.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875