10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

Ohhh we get dental, and medical. plus free parking in the handicap spots. as long as we pay the athiest chruch 10% of our annual income.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All these benefits don't sound too exciting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, let's make up something exciting for y... oh wait, someone already did.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The freedom to think without someone telling us how to do so or what about.

 

Whether or not something is exciting or appealing doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is factually correct. The fact that your religion promises you eternal life (or whatever) doesn’t make it any more likely to be true. The fact that atheism doesn’t promise you eternal life doesn’t make it any less likely to be true. I could believe that there is a huge pile of gold and diamonds waiting for me on my coffee table, and such a belief would probably make me happy (if I could really believe it); but that doesn't make it any more likely that the pile will be waiting for me, and the mere fact that I would like for it to be true isn't going to make me believe it. In fact, if someone came up to me and told me that the gold and diamonds were waiting for me I probably wouldn't believe it unless I had some convincing evidence – and then my belief would be based only on the evidence that I was presented, not my desire for the gold and diamonds.

 

Truth of what?

 

Conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality when that conformity can be demonstrated.

 

So what makes your life exciting ?

 

I think the deal here is that "Why?" asks the questions...not the other way around

 

Why?

Anger - A realization that the irrelevance of religion is a major distration from solving the real problem in life - death. The momentum of some 4 billion people being convinced that death is a desirable magical gateway to eternal bliss impedes and is impeding any rapid and urgent progress from solving the real issue of involuntary death.

 

No evolutionist believes this. Eviolutionary theory expressly forbids that, denies it. If an evolutionary theory of abiogenesis is correct, that is false.

And so this is shown to be in need of revision:

You don't understand it. Your statement up there, intended to describe what evolutionary theory claims, is almost exactly the opposite of what evolutionary theory claims. It is not only wrong, it is flagrantly wrong, completely backwards.

I think evolutionary theory is very difficult to understand. It's extremely counterintuitive. It takes years of actual study, in my observation, for someone to get a real handle on it. It is an advance in human comprehension almost without peer or parallel, and it does not fit easily into the world as known before either in historical or personal terms.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Man hitchikers guide makes me happy

 

John99,

Evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution has occurred and is occurring, of that there is no doubt among those who understand it. You clearly do not, by the way, as anyone here can see by your bizarre assertions. The how of evolution, is the theoretical part, and while some theories are well understood others are still being formed and established.

Brain size is not an indicator of intelligence but brain complexity is. The human brain is more compact than some large mammals but it has many more folds that give rise to an aggregate total number of neurons that surpass any other living creature.

As for complexity being the result of intelligent design: Do you have any examples of anything complex being designed that was not the result of evolution? Perhaps the modern computer might be a case. Something clearly designed by intelligent man. But wait, these things are so mind bogglingly useful why didn’t the ancient Egyptians design them? These ancients were apparently just as intelligent as modern man. The answer is very simple – intelligent man did not design the modern computer. The computers we have today were the result of a long evolutionary cycle that began when the first cave men began to mark their kills on a bone or stick. Methods of calculation and computation have developed slowly over the centuries and even today each new computer variation builds on its predecessor, usually by adaptation, and trial and error. And there is no end in sight. It is not that something intelligent designed the modern computer but that man’s intelligence was simply a component in the evolution of computers. The overwhelming process is one of gradual change over time – i.e. evolution.

The idea that the complexity of man and life was designed as is without an evolutionary process is based on the allegation that anything complex man has made is the result of his intelligence. But I challenge you to list anything that man’s intelligence has designed that was not primarily the result of an evolutionary process.

You should now understand that the speculation that complexity can only result from intelligent design is false. Or at the very least you have no basis to assert that complexity can result outside of an evolutionary process.

Lastly on the issue of life: What is the difference between something alive and not alive? The distinction is not as clear as you might imagine. The boundary between the simplest cell and inanimate matter is in many cases quite blurred.

 

Evolution is inductive reasoning.

true or false?

 

Why don't you try any sort of reasoning ? I believe there's a form known as abductive which means you behave as if something were true. Should be right up your street.

 

False.

If you are being careful, with the "is".

I've seen a decent argument for that being the logical structure of the process of evolution. I'm beginning to be persuaded by it. It's a wing if it works as a wing - that kind of observation.

 

I was thinking of a process associated with Jung.

How about if it walks like a duck quacks ,like a duck........

 

First i will start of by saying that too much variation performing the same function= Illogical. There is no reason or explanation for it from a purely evolutionary standpoint.

Yes but that is evolution- Change. Your own example point not to intelligence (brain function) evolving but to technology evolving. I am talking about the materials necessary to produce modern computers. The intellect was there as far as ability to learn but the combination of the the material takes years and sometimes what we visualize or will never be realized because a single element is missing, dependent on so many other things not to mention being lucky. Writing data to a device the size of one thumb is pretty incredible, impossible to envision if you dont even have paper. I would say the ability to understand as we do was there from the beginning but the ability to execute these ideas takes so long that it affords the impression of physical evolution. A similar example is the first seismograph, made in China.

Another way to look at it is if you erase every single advancement and left with nothing, no language, no clothes, not even fire. And much less people too. Do you really need to add that the brain evolved from NOTHING to understand why it took so long to get to where we are now? But if the earliest humans had access to what we have now... I see no reason to believe they had the intellect of five year olds. And what would be left to show that advancements, although small, happened much MUCH earlier than we are led to believe.

The fossil record? I would like for you or SnakelLord to explain how the fossil record shows any sign of evolving.
:thumbsup:

 

How much do you consider "too much"?
And if you are saying that there IS too much (i.e. that you think evolution to be illogical) can you give an example?

 

-----more complex organism------------
---------------------------------------
-----slightly more complex organism-----
---------------------------------------
-----less complex organism-------------

If you find homo sapiens on the lower line then there is an issue. Of course everything is where you would expect it to be. The organisms on the higher layers also appear to be modified forms of the older organisms.

- You have 'transitional' forms such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- The fossil record is also in harmony with present biogeography, the phylogenetic tree and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.

Of course this is an extensive topic and not something that can be written in full on a religious forum thread.