449 réponses à ce sujet

[Emperor Mars]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

Emperor Mars wrote...

I am a catholic.
I believe in evolution, I believe the resurrection, I do not think that the Eucharist physically becomes the body and blood of Christ, but I think it does obtain some form of spiritual significance. I think that the big bang is a likely form of universal creation, I also believe in God.

This is not a black and white, mind slave vs enlightened world. I have seen different people in many places call the religious mind slaves, which I take more offense to then when just argues atheism. In a way, I am less of a mind slave then pure atheists as I subject to almost every scientific theory about highly controversial subjects and still believe in God/religion.

Do I take offense to atheists pushing their beliefs on me, yes I do, But I also feel the same towards religious folk who are as others have said are ignorant/arrogant and force their beliefs on others.

I think religion is a private matter, and up to each individual. Each idea is correct, each is incorrect.

This is a debate that will last until the universe rips itself apart, and then for some reason I think it will manage to continue on after that.

A lot of people have more of a problem with the organised religion rather than the members themselves. I mentioned the catholic church earlier and the way they do disgusting things in the name of God. My problem lies with the Pope who has the power to say "ok, you can use condoms now" and save thousands upon thousands of lives by doing so. Yet he doesn't.

That being said, I know I'm not much better than these extremist zealots or pushy atheists when I meet a person who will happily blind themselves to science and fact if it contradicts with a book of theirs. Theres something about people seriously claiming that evolution was a lie that makes me want to bang thier head against a wall until they see what's right in front of their eyes. I dont actually do that, I'm just compelled to argue forever like a moron and get nowhere.

Lol, The preachers that come onto my campus everynow and then are like a amusment spectical, especially when another person from the other extreme starts arguing with them.

And I agree, the church can really **** things up, the HIV debate is a good example.  If the church was to get another Pope like John Paul II then things would go smoother I think. The way I see it is, if we were meant to blindly follow, we wouldnt have brains, or alteast advanced brains capable of abstract thought. At the same time the church is stupid powerful and has the potential to do astoundingly good things that will earn respect amoung the world (education about HIV and allowing protected sex is a good example).

It is completely possible to be both religous and reasonable, the way I see it is, I believe in God (more of a creator in that sense--universe creator I mean, though I do like the idea that man evolved  and God had a hand in it somehow), and he/she/it deserves respect. Those who blindly wail on those who offer different opinions are not respectful to anothers beliefs, and in a way, that is also disrespectful to God (those who do the wailing, not those who offer different ideas).

Modifié par Emperor Mars, 01 mars 2010 - 04:30 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Collider wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
How did that end up happening?   My entire point was that Atheism is a kind of religion because of the above.    lol.   

Atheism is NOT a religion. You seriously equate not believing in something as a religion? Dang. Not believing in leprechauns is a religion too then I guess.

If your going to define a religion as a system of beliefs regarding a greater power and etc. than atheism is a religion. With your logic believing cake is real would also be a religion.

[ImperialOperative]

addiction21 wrote...

I know it is called the "golden rule" but long long long before it was called that it was named karma.  FYI your religion does not have a monopoly on morales nor did they "create" them.

Christianity didn't coin the term "Golden Rule."

Many cultures around the world, even when they were exclusive from eachother came up with the Golden Rule at various times, even thousands of years before Christianity.

[newcomplex]

ReconTeam wrote...

Collider wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
How did that end up happening?   My entire point was that Atheism is a kind of religion because of the above.    lol.   

Atheism is NOT a religion. You seriously equate not believing in something as a religion? Dang. Not believing in leprechauns is a religion too then I guess.

If your going to define a religion as a system of beliefs regarding a greater power and etc. than atheism is a religion. With your logic believing cake is real would also be a religion.

Indeed.

I see no problem with that.   


Also, FYI, you don't need to disagree with christians when their essentially agreeing with you.      

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:29 .

[Emperor Mars]

Meant to edit, my bad.

Modifié par Emperor Mars, 01 mars 2010 - 04:29 .

[haberman13]

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

Adaptation to environment doesn't stop, I'm certainly not saying life is static.  I'm saying frogs didn't "adapt" their way into a different family.  The number of frog species however has greatly expanded via adaptaion.

(sorry, I incorrectly used species before, my intent was "family")

So uh, why couldn't frogs loose legs and become salamanders those funky amphibians without any legs?   As uh...frogs lengths are clearly variable to their enviromental demands?

Neither of us knows the biology of a frog/salamander enough to say yes or no to that... but the (known) fossil record does not indicate that transition.  Otherwise we would have evidence of a half frog/salamander as it began a transition that would take thousands of years.  Also, there are as many salamander species as there are frog, which we have evidence of in the fossil record; why haven't these variations changed into new families by now?

[Collider]

ReconTeam wrote...
If your going to define a religion as a system of beliefs regarding a greater power and etc.

Atheism does not require a belief. It requires a lack of one - a lack of belief in God.
And if you mean believing that there is no God - that is ONE belief with NO rituals and no worldviews. That is not a SYSTEM of beliefS. Atheism is not a religion.

[Dogmatic Atheist]

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not.  Respect that.   Though Christians should respect you too.  

That would be a nice world to live in...yeah...

Too bad it'll never exist, and we'll continue hating, burning, killing, murdering each other for what the the internet colloqually deems as "nerd rage" for as long as we can still be considered human by all modern medical definitions of human

That being said, I would pay so much ****ing money to see Atheist v Jihadist v Scientologist deathmatch, though I'm somewhat appalled that were comparing the latter to the former 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

Logic cannot give us meaning because meaning is emotional and cannot be addressed by logic.

The problem here is to assume that there is or must be a meaning to existence. There simply isn't anything to suggest that there is an objective meaning to this life that can only be found in a certain belief system. The fact that there are so many damned different beliefs about what the meaning of life is can only suggest that the meaning is entirely subjective. The only person who can define the meaning of your life is you.

Religion is not truth, it's assertion. Atheism is the rejection of that assertion. That's as basic as it gets.

[ImperialOperative]

haberman13 wrote...

Neither of us knows the biology of a frog/salamander enough to say yes or no to that... but the (known) fossil record does not indicate that transition.  Otherwise we would have evidence of a half frog/salamander as it began a transition that would take thousands of years.  Also, there are as many salamander species as there are frog, which we have evidence of in the fossil record; why haven't these variations changed into new families by now?

Are you a biologist? Does your knowledge on the matter go beyong googled articles? No?

OK just making sure.

[newcomplex]

Dogmatic Atheist wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not.  Respect that.   Though Christians should respect you too.  

That would be a nice world to live in...yeah...

Too bad it'll never exist, and we'll continue hating, burning, killing, murdering each other for what the the internet colloqually deems as "nerd rage" for as long as we can still be considered human by all modern medical definitions of human

That being said, I would pay so much ****ing money to see Atheist v Jihadist v Scientologist deathmatch, though I'm somewhat appalled that were comparing the latter to the former 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

Logic cannot give us meaning because meaning is emotional and cannot be addressed by logic.

The problem here is to assume that there is or must be a meaning to existence. There simply isn't anything to suggest that there is an objective meaning to this life that can only be found in a certain belief system. The fact that there are so many damned different beliefs about what the meaning of life is can only suggest that the meaning is entirely subjective. The only person who can define the meaning of your life is you.

Religion is not truth, it's assertion. Atheism is the rejection of that assertion. That's as basic as it gets.

What Assertion does religion Assert lol?   And I mean, all religion, not just specific or popular ones.    

You'll see Atheists make similar Assertions.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:31 .

[Inarai]

The assertions varies from religion to religion. Existence of a divine power is often a central one.  And as he said, atheism is nothing beyond the rejection of those assertions.  Ergo, making no assertions.  It's not a belief system, or a complex package of ideas.  It is 1 answer, to one question.  The question is whether or not there are divine powers, the answer is no.  Atheism is absolutely nothing beyond that, everything beyond that is something ELSE, something other than.

Modifié par Inarai, 01 mars 2010 - 04:35 .

[newcomplex]

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

Adaptation to environment doesn't stop, I'm certainly not saying life is static.  I'm saying frogs didn't "adapt" their way into a different family.  The number of frog species however has greatly expanded via adaptaion.

(sorry, I incorrectly used species before, my intent was "family")

So uh, why couldn't frogs loose legs and become salamanders those funky amphibians without any legs?   As uh...frogs lengths are clearly variable to their enviromental demands?

Neither of us knows the biology of a frog/salamander enough to say yes or no to that... but the (known) fossil record does not indicate that transition.  Otherwise we would have evidence of a half frog/salamander as it began a transition that would take thousands of years.  Also, there are as many salamander species as there are frog, which we have evidence of in the fossil record; why haven't these variations changed into new families by now?

Except their are transitionary fossil records.   Humans have a missing link, but the transition between a wolf like creature to whales have been fully documented with stages, DNA evidence, taking the course of millions of years. And theirs the obvious dinosaurs getting feathers thing.    

[haberman13]

ImperialOperative wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Neither of us knows the biology of a frog/salamander enough to say yes or no to that... but the (known) fossil record does not indicate that transition.  Otherwise we would have evidence of a half frog/salamander as it began a transition that would take thousands of years.  Also, there are as many salamander species as there are frog, which we have evidence of in the fossil record; why haven't these variations changed into new families by now?

Are you a biologist? Does your knowledge on the matter go beyong googled articles? No?

OK just making sure.

I only had one college year in biology before switching to computer science... does that mean I am less capable of understanding biology?

Googled articles are helpful, books are far better, are you suggesting that this information isn't relevant because I don't have a degree in it?

[newcomplex]

Inarai wrote...

The assertions varies from religion to religion. Existence of a divine power is often a central one.

AHHA

*insert image meme*

And I pointed out previously, Atheists must construct a value system (love, happiness, evolution, sex, drugs w/e).   In order to asser tthat it is true, it requires the construction of a divine power.   By divine, I mean that it is universal yet has no foundations in math, and is wholly unprovable.        

By asserting their is no divine power, you require the construction of a divine power.   Its as simple as that.   Unless you want to explain to me (if your an atheist) what are the universal foundations for the reason why you haven't killed yourself.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:37 .

[haberman13]

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

Adaptation to environment doesn't stop, I'm certainly not saying life is static.  I'm saying frogs didn't "adapt" their way into a different family.  The number of frog species however has greatly expanded via adaptaion.

(sorry, I incorrectly used species before, my intent was "family")

So uh, why couldn't frogs loose legs and become salamanders those funky amphibians without any legs?   As uh...frogs lengths are clearly variable to their enviromental demands?

Neither of us knows the biology of a frog/salamander enough to say yes or no to that... but the (known) fossil record does not indicate that transition.  Otherwise we would have evidence of a half frog/salamander as it began a transition that would take thousands of years.  Also, there are as many salamander species as there are frog, which we have evidence of in the fossil record; why haven't these variations changed into new families by now?

Except their are transitionary fossil records.   Humans have a missing link, but the transition between a wolf like creature to whales have been fully documented with stages, DNA evidence, taking the course of millions of years. And theirs the obvious dinosaurs getting feathers thing.    

DNA evidence is irrelavent, considering a fish and human have 98% the same template strands.

The dinosaur debate is still raging, most scientists consider dinosaurs and birds to be very similar biologically so dinos with feathers wouldn't be surprising.

Fossil evidence is the most weighted, as it is the only true record of what existed, of which there is minimal evidence (where there should be a plethora) to suggest that cross family evolution happened.


edit: I should mention that evolution is irrelevant for me from a religious perspective, if god used evolution then he used evolution; I just don't see evidence for it.  Maybe I'm wrong, nbd either way.

Modifié par haberman13, 01 mars 2010 - 04:38 .

[PyroFreak301]

Emperor Mars wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

Emperor Mars wrote...

I am a catholic.
I believe in evolution, I believe the resurrection, I do not think that the Eucharist physically becomes the body and blood of Christ, but I think it does obtain some form of spiritual significance. I think that the big bang is a likely form of universal creation, I also believe in God.

This is not a black and white, mind slave vs enlightened world. I have seen different people in many places call the religious mind slaves, which I take more offense to then when just argues atheism. In a way, I am less of a mind slave then pure atheists as I subject to almost every scientific theory about highly controversial subjects and still believe in God/religion.

Do I take offense to atheists pushing their beliefs on me, yes I do, But I also feel the same towards religious folk who are as others have said are ignorant/arrogant and force their beliefs on others.

I think religion is a private matter, and up to each individual. Each idea is correct, each is incorrect.

This is a debate that will last until the universe rips itself apart, and then for some reason I think it will manage to continue on after that.

A lot of people have more of a problem with the organised religion rather than the members themselves. I mentioned the catholic church earlier and the way they do disgusting things in the name of God. My problem lies with the Pope who has the power to say "ok, you can use condoms now" and save thousands upon thousands of lives by doing so. Yet he doesn't.

That being said, I know I'm not much better than these extremist zealots or pushy atheists when I meet a person who will happily blind themselves to science and fact if it contradicts with a book of theirs. Theres something about people seriously claiming that evolution was a lie that makes me want to bang thier head against a wall until they see what's right in front of their eyes. I dont actually do that, I'm just compelled to argue forever like a moron and get nowhere.

Lol, The preachers that come onto my campus everynow and then are like a amusment spectical, especially when another person from the other extreme starts arguing with them.

And I agree, the church can really **** things up, the HIV debate is a good example.  If the church was to get another Pope like John Paul II then things would go smoother I think. The way I see it is, if we were meant to blindly follow, we wouldnt have brains, or alteast advanced brains capable of abstract thought. At the same time the church is stupid powerful and has the potential to do astoundingly good things that will earn respect amoung the world (education about HIV and allowing protected sex is a good example).

It is completely possible to be both religous and reasonable, the way I see it is, I believe in God (more of a creator in that sense--universe creator I mean, though I do like the idea that man evolved  and God had a hand in it somehow), and he/she/it deserves respect. Those who blindly wail on those who offer different opinions are not respectful to anothers beliefs, and in a way, that is also disrespectful to God (those who do the wailing, not those who offer different ideas).

I respect anyone that has put enough thought into the issue and come to their own belief through a bit of self-inspection, much like you have.

It's just when I talk to people like Massive_Effect who will blindly quote passages from the Bible in response to any legitimate questioning of his belief, I can't help but keep at it... it feels like I should help him by opening his eyes to the world. Ironically, this is exactly the same reason religions preach their message... they feel they are helping people by introducing them to religion. I guess the 2 groups aren't so opposite after all.

[newcomplex]

[quote]haberman13 wrote...

[quote]newcomplex wrote...

[quote]haberman13 wrote...

[quote]newcomplex wrote...

[quote]haberman13 wrote...

[quote]newcomplex wrote...

[quote]haberman13 wrote...

[quote]newcomplex wrote...

[quote]haberman13 wrote...

[quote]redhead1979 wrote...

[quote]haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.[/quote]

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?
[/quote]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<
[/quote]

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

[/quote]

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

[/quote]

Adaptation to environment doesn't stop, I'm certainly not saying life is static.  I'm saying frogs didn't "adapt" their way into a different family.  The number of frog species however has greatly expanded via adaptaion.

(sorry, I incorrectly used species before, my intent was "family")

[/quote]

So uh, why couldn't frogs loose legs and become salamanders those funky amphibians without any legs?   As uh...frogs lengths are clearly variable to their enviromental demands?

[/quote]

Neither of us knows the biology of a frog/salamander enough to say yes or no to that... but the (known) fossil record does not indicate that transition.  Otherwise we would have evidence of a half frog/salamander as it began a transition that would take thousands of years.  Also, there are as many salamander species as there are frog, which we have evidence of in the fossil record; why haven't these variations changed into new families by now?
[/quote]

Except their are transitionary fossil records.   Humans have a missing link, but the transition between a wolf like creature to whales have been fully documented with stages, DNA evidence, taking the course of millions of years. And theirs the obvious dinosaurs getting feathers thing.    

[/quote]

DNA evidence is irrelavent, considering a fish and human have 98% the same template strands.

The dinosaur debate is still raging, most scientists consider dinosaurs and birds to be very similar biologically so dinos with feathers wouldn't be surprising.

Fossil evidence is the most weighted, as it is the only true record of what existed, of which there is minimal evidence (where there should be a plethora) to suggest that cross family evolution happened.

[/quote]

Ugh...continueing this debate would require actually citing sources.   too much effort for intarweb arguments.   I'm sticking to my garage metaphysics.     (which are totally and incontrovertibly true)

I'll just leave it at

urwrong

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:39 .

[Inarai]

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

The assertions varies from religion to religion. Existence of a divine power is often a central one.

AHHA

*insert image meme*

And I pointed out previously, Atheists must construct a value system (love, happiness, evolution, sex, drugs w/e).   In order to asser tthat it is true, it requires the construction of a divine power.   By divine, I mean that it is universal yet has no foundations in math, and is wholly unprovable.        

Utterly incorrect.

1: Value systems are outside atheism's scope, not a part of the answer to that one and only question, see above.
2: Since when do I need some universal law or divine power to come up with my own ideas?  If you'd like to know how I, personally, come by my values, I'd be happy to discuss that.  I first require that you explicitly acknowledge that is not part of atheism, so that I know you have at least some understanding from all this.

[tripehound1]

newcomplex vs haberman13 /snip 

Awww but I was enjoying watching him/her drown in a sea of their own illogic! my apologies if that is mean but:

"DNA evidence is irrelavent, considering a fish and human have 98% the same template strands"

Modifié par tripehound1, 01 mars 2010 - 04:53 .

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

massive_effect wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

Christmas isn't a purely christian celebration, especially now that it's more of a consumer event than anything else.

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ for me.

Actually Christmas is "not" a christian holiday at all. Infact it was absolved much like other holidays by christians to keep peace among the people. Christmas is just a rename. The holiday celebrates the Roman Sun Gods rebirth a day which people celebrated and gave gifts to children. Since Roman catholicism wanted to make sure no one brought any complaints of the take over they decided to absolve said holiday and change the name, christ's true birth is on easter. Its the same situation for halloween, or all hallows eve which began as Saoin( a celebration of when spirits walked the earth(pagan holiday) in which the druids and other pagan believers would wear animal pelts. Saoin soon gained notice of the vatiquen and so all saints day was named on saoin as to supress the "evil" of saoin. All saints day is a day dedicated to worship of saints and give offering. But it could not be contained so halloween surpased the church and was like christmas absolved into the religion to prevent further bloodshed over the topic.(did I mention they shed blood).)

[addiction21]

ImperialOperative wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

I know it is called the "golden rule" but long long long before it was called that it was named karma.  FYI your religion does not have a monopoly on morales nor did they "create" them.

Christianity didn't coin the term "Golden Rule."

Many cultures around the world, even when they were exclusive from eachother came up with the Golden Rule at various times, even thousands of years before Christianity.

You are right but it is clear that he is of a (or just pretending to be to troll. Not entirely sure right now) Christian so I just wanted to make it clear that it is not their sole creation and exsisted before and under different names.

[ImperialOperative]

haberman13 wrote...

I only had one college year in biology before switching to computer science... does that mean I am less capable of understanding biology?

Googled articles are helpful, books are far better, are you suggesting that this information isn't relevant because I don't have a degree in it?

For an internet debate, it's sufficient (however ignorant it may be).

To get to an adequate level of ligitimacy would require citations and a great amount of work which would ultimately be a total and utter waste of time.

Otherwise, you're just talking a whole lot of garbage.

[PyroFreak301]

Can you guys above start cutting the 20 long quotes down a bit? There's hardly room for 1 word per line anymore!

[newcomplex]

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

The assertions varies from religion to religion. Existence of a divine power is often a central one.

AHHA

*insert image meme*

And I pointed out previously, Atheists must construct a value system (love, happiness, evolution, sex, drugs w/e).   In order to asser tthat it is true, it requires the construction of a divine power.   By divine, I mean that it is universal yet has no foundations in math, and is wholly unprovable.        

Utterly incorrect.

1: Value systems are outside atheism's scope, not a part of the answer to that one and only question, see above.
2: Since when do I need some universal law or divine power to come up with my own ideas?  If you'd like to know how I, personally, come by my values, I'd be happy to discuss that.  I first require that you explicitly acknowledge that is not part of atheism, so that I know you have at least some understanding from all this.

Value systems are tied to Atheisms scope.   Religion accepted god, and thus, has a predefined purpose, and meaning to go along with that.     To reject that, you reject those aspects as well.    Human beings need a reason to live (even if it something like happiness, thats a valid reason).    Thus, Atheism requires the construction of a independent value system.   This can be whatever.   

Now, explain to me the universal purpose for your existence that can be provable.    If you succeed, they should give you the Nobel prize.     Every one of them.    Forever.    No, you can't.    By being unable to, your require the construction of a faith system.    A religion.    

[ImperialOperative]

FFS you mother mitches, LEARN TO SNIP OFF THE 10^60 quotation boxes.