Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[cacian]

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?

[JCamilo]

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?


1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it.

2 - Atheism predates Darwin.

3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.

[YesNo]

I think I agree with JCamillo's answers. Atheism comes long before Darwin and the sort of materialistic atheism that I'm opposed to probably had its high point around 1800 when it most agreed with deterministic scientific theories.

I don't see why evolution should be a problem for religion except for those that insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I think we have all been around the block many times incarnated as many different species. Evolution fits in nicely with that.

[cacian]

I see.
Would say however that the three are somehow linked?

[cacian]

1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it.

2 - Atheism predates Darwin.

3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.

Thank you for that.
About Darwin and Religion.
I meant it the other way like this.
Wasn't Darwin out to prove that Religion/or the concept of God did not exist hence his theory on Evolution.

[JCamilo]

No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer.

Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.

[cacian]

No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer.

Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.

It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
That does not make senseto me.
Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
It is just a thought.

[Climacus]

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evolutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?

As for (1), theism and evolution are obviously compatible. Of course, certain particular theologies - southern fundamentalist baptism, for instance - are not compatible with evolution. Too bad for them.

About (2), both atheism and evolutionary theory antedate Darwin.

Your last question (3) is debatable - if I understand what you're asking. Nobody's completely unpartisan. And Darwin's theories may have had ulterior anti-theistic motives - but this in no way alters the truth or falsity thereof. At any rate, Darwin was (or became) anti-theistic. He wrote such things as: "I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity . . . produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs."

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-9105

[JCamilo]

It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
That does not make senseto me.
Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
It is just a thought.


He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life.

And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?

[Varenne Rodin]

I would have been atheist without Darwinism. It doesn't make sense to base belief on something that was said to have happened in an illiterate culture in a desert, especially when the Chinese were already well established and had a rich, documented history and written language that said nothing of Christianity. That doesn't mean I would be a Buddhist either. I don't know. No one has presented sufficient evidence for such fantastical claims for ANY theology. Darwin is one scientist in a long line of people documenting, exploring, and questioning science. If he hadn't made certain advances, someone else would have.

Atheists who remain atheists don't retain anger at a god. That's nonsensical. My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd. It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.

[Climacus]

My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd.
How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on.

It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.
You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.

[Varenne Rodin]

How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on.

You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.

I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god.

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.

[Calidore]

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.

[Climacus]

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.
The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.

[Varenne Rodin]

A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.

There is theism or atheism. It's pretty cut and dry at this point.

[Climacus]

I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god.

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.
Unreasonable, irrational, illogical, incoherent, whatever. But you still haven't shown how plain old theism, in the broad philosophical sense, is any of those things. You'll find it's no easy task. Again, maybe it is one of those things. But no one's managed to prove as much.

[Climacus]

A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.
No, it's neither theism nor atheism. The theist says "God exists." The atheist says "God doesn't exist." Both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something. And, yes, they are contraries - that is, they cannot both be true, neither can they both be false. (I gave you an ad absurdum argument against your position which you did not refute - you said is was "silly," and that's the point of an ad absurdum argument, it leads to an absurdity.)

[Darcy88]

Unreasonable, irrational, illogical, incoherent, whatever. But you still haven't shown how plain old theism, in the broad philosophical sense, is any of those things. You'll find it's no easy task. Again, maybe it is one of those things. But no one's managed to prove as much.

Positing the existence of an all-powerful being in spite of the total lack of evidence, there being not a trace of His activity, is indeed all of those things.

[Varenne Rodin]

Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Atheists don't just say the gods that men have concocted do not exist, most atheists will tell you we have no way of knowing, so we couldn't possibly allow ourselves to believe in something so far fetched and dangerous.

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists) is the physical world. No god or afterlife in sight. No legs to stand on. If a person has picked a single guess and made that guess their reality based on nothing reasonable, they're likely dead in the water. Atheists understand that there are endless possibilities. It's a lot healthier for the imagination than clinging to a single fantasy fetish. Theism is masochistic.

[Climacus]

Positing the existence of an all-powerful being in spite of the total lack of evidence, there being not a trace of His activity, is indeed all of those things.
But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

[Climacus]

Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Atheists don't just say the gods that men have concocted do not exist, most atheists will tell you we have no way of knowing, so we couldn't possibly allow ourselves to believe in something so far fetched and dangerous.

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists) is the physical world. No god or afterlife in sight. No legs to stand on. If a person has picked a single guess and made that guess their reality based on nothing reasonable, they're likely dead in the water. Atheists understand that there are endless possibilities. It's a lot healthier for the imagination than clinging to a single fantasy fetish. Theism is masochistic.

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists)
All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist. So the proposition "Married bachelors don't exist" is true.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

[Varenne Rodin]

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

It's not anti-intellectualism to fight against cults pushing singular ideals on the masses that cause division, derision, and suffering. I think you're confusing atheists with nihilists at times. I don't say there is no god. I say there is no evidence of one, so one cannot be pushed as a creator of reality, because there are infinite possibilities. How can an atheist be less open to possibilities than a theist who has chosen their lot? Your argument is in defense of narrow mindedness, single-mindedness. It's unjustifiable.

[cacian]

He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life.

And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?

what the evolution theory?
between you and me, and I am not being rude, I would have worked it out myself is not a good idea.
I would not have needed Darwin to point it out for me.
It is obvious that inbreeding is unhealthy.

[cacian]

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.


there weren't any.
That is not atheism.
That is just that nothing.
Atheism is a negation to something like God/deity/a belief.

[Varenne Rodin]

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

I'll not respond to your attack on my communication skills other than to say please read with great attention and be careful of infractions.

Agnosticism is more to do with confusion and avoidance of choice. People are free to say they aren't atheists. That's fine. I'm an atheist. Out of the infinite possibilities, I think the idea of a singular god watching and meddling in our every movement is ridiculous. If it's true, I will be mighty surprised. Physically, it does not make sense and is not supported by anything factual. Other ideas and theories are more likely, but it's obvious that man, in all of his clumsiness and limited abilities, has not stumbled upon the answer that must be pushed forth against all others. A person can not believe in "god" and still attempt to seek answers to the big questions. Check out Hitchhiker's Guide if you don't want to take my word for it. Some would argue that many agnostics are also atheists. If you don't drink the kool-aid, you don't drink the kool-aid.

Personally, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist and a free thinker. I will fight against theism gaining ground until I'm dead. It's servitude and it's vicious.

[Climacus]

I'll not respond to your attack on my communication skills other than to say please read with great attention and be careful of infractions.
I didn't mean any ill-will, Varenne, really. I was serious. Do you have any arguments, logically-valid arguments? Three things are necessary for a sound argument: (1) clear and unambiguous terms (to avoid fallacies of equivocation), (2) plausible premises (if not obviously true), and (3) valid reasoning. Have you ever studied logic formally? (Again, not a pejorative question - most people nowadays haven't.)


Personally, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist . . .
Yes, I figured that out.

[billl]

No, it's neither theism nor atheism. The theist says "God exists." The atheist says "God doesn't exist." Both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something. And, yes, they are contraries - that is, they cannot both be true, neither can they both be false. (I gave you an ad absurdum argument against your position which you did not refute - you said is was "silly," and that's the point of an ad absurdum argument, it leads to an absurdity.)


The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something. (I don't see us coming up with physical evidence for such pre-historic people, but it isn't completely random and goofy to suggest that there might have been some. Not crazy to point to religion being around in pretty much every culture too, though.) Anyhow, "lack of belief in god(s)" is a VERY popular position among atheists today.

It's true, though, that these kinds of atheists today end up, when the rubber hits the road, often resorting to out-of-nowhere-but-very-very-low percentage probabilities that God might exist (because they can't be sure he doesn't), and maybe call themselves agnostic-atheists after pointing to negative atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism), and so on. Because, in the end, they are in a discussion with people who believe in God, and are taking the opposite position (they don't have such beliefs...). But the fact that they see no reason to hold such beliefs (in god(s)) is something that would simply be the case, if there weren't people walking around saying that there is a god.

Could theists simply "get on with things" and abandon their theism (their belief) once it was no longer necessary to deal with any "atheists" still running around? Because atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists. Even though they (apart from the occasional John Lennons) wouldn't imagine it happening any time soon, I think this is the sort of thing they're shooting for, this is I think the stance they're trying to take. And this is the possibility the hypothetical pre-historic pre-theism human example is meant to illuminate. Nothing about trees and rocks.

It might seem beside the point, since there are theists all over the place, and atheists are, indeed, aware of the concept of a God, and they are often arguing against people who are believers in the existence of God. But it isn't beside the point, and not allowing them this common (these days) definition of themselves sets them up for traps that rightly seem unfair to them, enmeshing them in discussion of doubt, certainty, and faith about something that in itself they aren't really too interested in (except when others' belief in it is affecting their governments and schools, say).

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something. (I don't see us coming up with physical evidence for such pre-historic people, but it isn't completely random and goofy to suggest that there might have been some. Not crazy to point to religion being around in pretty much every culture too, though.) Anyhow, "lack of belief in god(s)" is a VERY popular position among atheists today.

It's true, though, that these kinds of atheists today end up, when the rubber hits the road, often resorting to out-of-nowhere-but-very-very-low percentage probabilities that God might exist (because they can't be sure he doesn't), and maybe call themselves agnostic-atheists, and so on. Because, in the end, they are in a discussion with people who believe in God, and are taking the opposite position (they don't have such beliefs...). But the fact that they see no reason to hold such beliefs (in god(s)) is something that would simply be the case, if there weren't people walking around saying that there is a god.

Could theists simply "get on with things" and abandon their theism (their belief) once it was no longer necessary to deal with any "atheists" still running around? Because atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists. Even though they (apart from the occasional John Lennons) wouldn't imagine it happening any time soon, I think this is the sort of thing they're shooting for, this is I think the stance they're trying to take. And this is the possibility the hypothetical pre-historic pre-theism human example is meant to illuminate. Nothing about trees and rocks.

It might seem beside the point, since there are theists all over the place, and atheists are, indeed, aware of the concept of a God, and they are often arguing against people who are believers in the existence of God. But it isn't beside the point, and not allowing them this common (these days) definition of themselves sets them up for traps that rightly seem unfair to them, enmeshing them in discussion of doubt, certainty, and faith about something that in itself they aren't really too interested in (except when others' belief in it is affecting their governments and schools, say).

Thank you, Billl. I love you.

[billl]

Thank you, Billl. I love you.

This is maybe a little embarrassing, but I actually edited that a bit after you quoted it. No big deal, heh-heh.

[Darcy88]

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

It is incredibly unlikely that an all-powerful being would be passive and undetectable. The onus of proof is on the theists. It is philosophically indefensible to believe something without evidence or reason. I don't have to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory. Nothing contradictory about unicorns but belief in them is unreasonable.

[Darcy88]

And you simply can't refute theism. Nothing is impossible with God. Try debating a Christian and you'll see what I mean.

[JCamilo]

what the evolution theory?
between you and me, and I am not being rude, I would have worked it out myself is not a good idea.
I would not have needed Darwin to point it out for me.
It is obvious that inbreeding is unhealthy.

All right, I also find very easy all that I discovered and that by accident, was just like what others knew.

[Darcy88]

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist. So the proposition "Married bachelors don't exist" is true.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

Most atheists are those who find no reason to believe in God. When they argue against theists its not so much that they are saying "God cannot possibly exist," but more like "you have no good reason to believe that He exists."

Again, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is it therefore reasonable to believe in them? It seems that you think it is.

[Varenne Rodin]

I didn't mean any ill-will, Varenne, really. I was serious. Do you have any arguments, logically-valid arguments? Three things are necessary for a sound argument: (1) clear and unambiguous terms (to avoid fallacies of equivocation), (2) plausible premises (if not obviously true), and (3) valid reasoning. Have you ever studied logic formally? (Again, not a pejorative question - most people nowadays haven't.)


Yes, I figured that out.

You are welcome to reread my comments. I don't speak vaguely.

I will give you a new argument to pick apart, since you did not find the previous one to your liking. I can live and love without dogmas. As long as theists try to belittle or hinder love and kindness that happens without dogmas, I will defend free life and love. As long as people are divided I will hope for unity, and oppose clubs that support servitude to "higher" beings and individuals at the expense of club members and non-members.

Now, what is your argument? What is your motivation? Do you understand mine? If not, I will move on to talking to people who don't find such difficulty in parsing through my sentences.

[Climacus]

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?
I was using a logical formula called modus ponens: if p then q; p, therefore q. I left the final "q" for the reader to draw. But it looks like I should've spelt it all out. And you've missed the point of the ad absurdum argument. The whole idea is that it's absurd to call inanimate things atheists. But given that definition, we would have to. Therefore, that definition is false.

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something.
No, the point doesn't stand. An atheist is someone who makes the following knowledge-claim: "God doesn't exist." However, I'm happy to concede your point for conversation's sake. If we want to re-defing atheism for conversation's sake, I'll go along with that. :)

(because they can't be sure he doesn't)
Of course they can.

. . . atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists.
Maybe, maybe not. We're dealing with counterfactuals. New generations would be the problem. Some philosophers think theism is what they call "properly basic." And some evolutionary psychologists think that theism is "wired" into us.

[Climacus]

It is incredibly unlikely that an all-powerful being would be passive and undetectable.
That's a premise not an argument.

It is philosophically indefensible to believe something without evidence or reason.
Agreed.

I don't have to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory.
Well, that would be the way to refute theism.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is maybe a little embarrassing, but I actually edited that a bit after you quoted it. No big deal, heh-heh.

It happens to me all the time, Billl. Haha. Before and after edits, I liked what you said. I finally felt well represented and I appreciate it so much.

[Climacus]

And you simply can't refute theism. Nothing is impossible with God. Try debating a Christian and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, Darcy, you can. Prove it to be as incoherent as a four-sided triangle and you'll have done just that. Granted you'll never conquer someone who says that God can even do logically impossible things. But those people are loonies, anyway. And, yes, I've debated Christians before.

[Climacus]

Most atheists are those who find no reason to believe in God. When they argue against theists its not so much that they are saying "God cannot possibly exist," but more like "you have no good reason to believe that He exists."

Again, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is it therefore reasonable to believe in them? It seems that you think it is.
I'll grant you all of this. Unicorns certainly are logically possible. But the analogy you're drawing is false, a category error. Moreover, not only are there no good arguments for unicorns, there are good arguments against unicorns. (For instance, we know that their supposed horns were narwhal tusks, etc.)

[Darcy88]

I'll grant you all of this. Unicorns certainly are logically possible. But the analogy you're drawing is false, a category error. Moreover, not only are there no good arguments for unicorns, there are good arguments against unicorns. (For instance, we know that their supposed horns were narwhal tusks, etc.)

A flying soda can is not logically contradictory. I'd say a flying soda can is no less likely than an all-powerful passive and undetectable being.

Its not about logic. Its about what is reasonable. Make absolute certainty the standard which all assertions must satisfy and we enter into a world where almost anything is possible. Possible does not equal likely and likelihood ought to be a condition for belief.

[Climacus]

I will give you a new argument to pick apart, since you did not find the previous one to your liking. I can live and love without dogmas. As long as theists try to belittle or hinder love and kindness that happens without dogmas, I will defend free life and love. As long as people are divided I will hope for unity, and oppose clubs that support servitude to "higher" beings and individuals at the expense of club members and non-members.
There are no formal arguments here. You seem to be having trouble understanding what a logical argument is, and that's OK. Again, most people haven't studied logic. Arguments, either deductive or inductive, move step by step, from propositions called premises, to a proposition called a conclusion. Here's an example of a syllogistic argument against God: "All that which exists is empirically verifiable. But God is not empirically verifiable. Therefore God doesn't exist." The conclusion follows deductively from the premises, so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well. This is the sort of thing I'm asking for. If you're having trouble articulating it, post it anyway and I'll formulate it to your satisfaction, if I can.

Now, what is your argument? What is your motivation?
That's a topic for another discussion. You said that you're an atheist. I've made no such metaphysical truth-claims. You don't know what I am. :wink5:

[Climacus]

A flying soda can is not logically contradictory.
It may be. We'd would have to unpack what sort of properties a flying soda can has. There may be an implicit contradiction there. Same thing with the unicorn, if it comes to that.


I'd say a flying soda can is no less likely than an all-powerful passive and undetectable being.
Well, again that's not an argument. Just a question-begging premise.


Its not about logic. Its about what is reasonable.
Logic defines what is reasonable.

[Darcy88]

Logic defines what is reasonable.

No it doesn't. Belief in unicorns is not logically contradictory but is nonetheless unreasonable. I'd take Varenne's instinctive shyte-detector over your formal logic any day. Its about hard and proven facts, not abstract exercises. The ptolemaic model is not logically contradictory.

[Climacus]

No it doesn't. Belief in unicorns is not logically contradictory but is nonetheless unreasonable.
And how will you prove that it is unreasonable? With something other than logic?

[billl]

I was using a logical formula called modus ponens: if p then q; p, therefore q. I left the final "q" for the reader to draw. But it looks like I should've spelt it all out. And you've missed the point of the ad absurdum argument. The whole idea is that it's absurd to call inanimate things atheists. But given that definition, we would have to. Therefore, that definition is false.

Originally, you said:

The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God."

What did you mean by "one"? You use the word "who" directly after it...

If you want to use modus ponens, you can't just go changing what the p's and q's stand for. Your "reductio ad absurdum" was a mis-direction, ignoring that the discussion is about belief, and would rightly include only those with the capacity for belief. Varenne was, of course, saying that atheists are people who have no belief in god(s).




No, the point doesn't stand. An atheist is someone who makes the following knowledge-claim: "God doesn't exist." However, I'm happy to concede your point for conversation's sake. If we want to re-defing atheism for conversation's sake, I'll go along with that. :)


I, in the past, have been just as frustrated about this as you seem to be. But, in the end, it isn't just for conversation's sake. It is also for discussion's sake. In the end, if atheists and theists are going to debate/discuss/converse, then it is fair to not get confused about who is taking what position. The "traditional definition" might lead to arguments that interest some of us more, but it isn't the definition that people run up against too often these days, at least on LitNet.


Of course they can.

Should I have said they "aren't" sure? No, really, their point in being agnostic-atheists/negative-atheists is that they "can't" be sure, though...


Maybe, maybe not. We're dealing with counterfactuals. New generations would be the problem. Some philosophers think theism is what they call "properly basic." And some evolutionary psychologists think that theism is "wired" into us.

Yes, good points. Practically speaking, only the John Lennons might think that sort of result possible. I'm just trying to show their "angle" on this, and how it is different from the situation theists are in--and how these (now common) sorts of atheist might not want their position to be strictly about the existence of something, or the negation of it.

[Darcy88]

And how will you prove that it is unreasonable? With something other than logic?

None have ever been found. Unicorns don't fit with the current biological data. You can call that logic if you like. Someone says something that strikes me as odd and I experience an immediate gut reaction that screams "say what?!"

Is the scientific method synonymous with logic? Do scientists train in logic? Maybe, I don't really know.

[Varenne Rodin]

There are no formal arguments here. You seem to be having trouble understanding what a logical argument is, and that's OK. Again, most people haven't studied logic. Arguments, either deductive or inductive, move step by step, from propositions called premises, to a proposition called a conclusion. Here's an example of a syllogistic argument against God: "All that which exists is empirically verifiable. But God is not empirically verifiable. Therefore God doesn't exist." The conclusion follows deductively from the premises, so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well. This is the sort of thing I'm asking for. If you're having trouble articulating it, post it anyway and I'll formulate it to your satisfaction, if I can.

That's a topic for another discussion. You said that you're an atheist. I've made no such metaphysical truth-claims. You don't know what I am. :wink5:

You have no argument? What about intention? Is it to give me lessons on how to speak according to sixth grade standard formats? I'm not some dunce. I know what I'm doing, kid. Please yourself.

[Climacus]

None have ever been found. Unicorns don't fit with the current biological data. You can call that logic if you like. Someone says something that strikes me as odd and I experience an immediate gut reaction that screams "say what?!"

Is the scientific method synonymous with logic? Do scientists train in logic? Maybe, I don't really know.

Science presupposes logic. A priori logical truths are not accessible to the scientific method, but the scientific method wouldn't work without them. You can't run from logic, Darcy.

[Climacus]

I'm not some dunce. I know what I'm doing, kid. Please yourself.
I know you're not a dunce, and I didn't mean to imply that you were. But if you tell me that you've studied formal logic, you'd be lying (or else, you've forgetton all that you learned). You don't know how to formulate an argument. That's OK.

[Darcy88]

I think of our ape ancestors, picking berries, climbing trees. A weak branch or poisonous berry meant death. They had to be sure. Instinct was their compass.

A priori, logic, formal arguments, ect. These are not necessary when figuring out what is true or false. We don't deal with absolute certainties. We deal with likelihoods. Even with science.

In theory the scientific method deals with logic, but in its actual implementation its about observing and theorizing. You seem to make sense of the world through the lens of logic and to me this is backwards.

And you shouldn't fault someone for not studying formal logic. There are people far more intelligent that you or I who have never studied it. Its ridiculous to require someone be familiar with formal logic for them to be taken seriously.

[Climacus]

If you want to use modus ponens, you can't just go changing what the p's and q's stand for. Your "reductio ad absurdum" was a mis-direction, ignoring that the discussion is about belief, and would rightly include only those with the capacity for belief. Varenne was, of course, saying that atheists are people who have no belief in god(s).
There's nothing wrong with my ad absurdum, Bill. I didn't alter the propositions. (I did misname it though; I meant to say modus tollens, sorry.)

Here it is again: If (p) atheism is merely a lack of belief, then (q) rocks and trees are atheists. But (not-q) rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc (not-p).

I thought the omitted (not-p) at the end was obvious.

[OrphanPip]

There's nothing wrong with my ad absurdum, Bill. I didn't alter the propositions. (I did misname it though; I meant to say modus tollens.)

Here it is again: If (p) atheism is merely a lack of belief, then (q) rocks and trees are atheists. But (not-q) rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc (not-p).

I thought the omitted (not-p) at the end was obvious.

Rocks and trees are atheistic, people with a lack of belief are atheist. You can't use these arguments to demonstrate something about semantics because of how semantics functions. The implicit definition of atheist by its conception only incorporates people, as Bill pointed out. Your conclusion also isn't even absurd, rocks are implicitly atheistic, since they have no capacity for belief in anything. The conclusion is banal, not absurd.

This is the debate between implicit and explicit atheism, it's all a matter of definition.

[Varenne Rodin]

Thanks, Darcy. :)

[billl]

There's nothing wrong with my ad absurdum, Bill. I didn't alter the propositions. (I did misname it though; I meant to say modus tollens, sorry.)

Here it is again: If (p) atheism is merely a lack of belief, then (q) rocks and trees are atheists. But (not-q) rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc (not-p).

I thought the omitted (not-p) at the end was obvious.

Well, I did get Calidore and Varenne mixed up, I can now see.

Anyhow, if anyone jumped to the conclusion that the element p (an atheist) was anything other than a person who subscribes to the proposition that they have no belief in gods, it was you alone. I don't see the utility of the move, except to drag things out. Changing it to simply "lack of belief" and then pointing to rocks and trees is a low rhetorical trick, and it'd get you laughed out of your logic class.

Calidore is making an argument for the position that Negative Atheists make. Again, it's a very common definition of atheism.

[Climacus]

A priori, logic, formal arguments, ect. These are not necessary when figuring out what is true or false. We don't deal with absolute certainties. We deal with likelihoods. Even with science.

In theory the scientific method deals with logic, but in its actual implementation its about observing and theorizing. You seem to make sense of the world through the lens of logic and to me this is backwards.
You're wrong on every front here. Logic is prior to science. If it weren't for logic, science wouldn't work. If you deny logic, you cut the branch out from under science. And, yes, a priori truths are necessary for ascertaining truth. The world would be a madhouse without them. If we woke up tomorrow and modus tollens no longer held, we'd be in serious trouble.

And you shouldn't fault someone for not studying formal logic. There are people far more intelligent that you or I who have never studied it. Its ridiculous to require someone be familiar with formal logic for them to be taken seriously.
Now, now Darcy. Don't straw-man me. Of course, there are extremely intelligent people who've never studied logic formally. And I never said I didn't take anybody seriously. But logic used to be part of our curriculum. From the time of Aristotle up to the later nineteenth century. It's now a specialist course in universities. And that is lamentable.

[Darcy88]

We don't deal with absolute certainties. We deal with likelihoods. Even with science.


Regardless Climacus, this statement of mine still stands. I don't need final irrefutable logical proof to claim that belief in God is unreasonable. I need it to say that there is no possible way God exists, but that's not what I or most atheists believe. We simply believe that there is no good reason to believe that He does exist. You have no logical certainty behind your lack of belief in unicorns, centaurs, lizard people, ect. Its about likelihood.

[Climacus]

Anyhow, if anyone jumped to the conclusion that the element p (an atheist) was anything other than a person who subscribes to the proposition that they have no belief in gods, it was you alone. I don't see the utility of the move, except to drag things out. Changing it to simply "lack of belief" and then pointing to rocks and trees is a low rhetorical trick, and it'd get you laughed out of your logic class.
You don't refute an argument with ad hominem attacks, Bill. (And I would hope people laugh at it. It's supposed to be funny.) Arguments can fail in one of three ways: (1) ambiguous terms, (2) false premises, and (3) invalid reasoning.

Here it is again: "If atheism is merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, atheism is not merely a lack of belief."

The terms are unambiguous, the reasoning is valid. So, is one of the premises false? Which one? You seem to be suggest that the following conditional is false: "If atheism is merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists." But rocks and trees do lack belief. So if atheism is merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists.

Now, it's just a silly little thought experiment. I don't care about it either way. But nobody's refuted it as such.

[billl]

Now, it's just a silly little thought experiment. I don't care about it either way. But nobody's refuted it as such.

I'll agree with this. Now, can you show where I was wrong about the mis-application of your modus ponens example/thought-experiment to the discussion?

[Calidore]

All this argument about whether an argument is really a proper argument is getting dangerously close to a Monty Python sketch brought into real life.

[Climacus]

I'll agree with this. Now, can you show where I was wrong about the mis-application of your modus ponens example/thought-experiment to the discussion?
Are you asking why I talked about the re-definition of atheism as a lack of belief? If so, because Varenne hinted at in an earlier post (#15), and because most of these debates are plagued by equivocation, so it's good to tackle definitions first-off.

[Climacus]

All this argument about whether an argument is really a proper argument is getting dangerously close to a Monty Python sketch brought into real life.

:wink5: Well, it's all pretty straightforward. It's just logic-101 stuff that you'll learn in any introductory course on the subject. Your terms must be clear, your premises plausible, and your reasoning valid. If one of these ingredients is missing, your arguments are no good.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ugh. Logic talk. The plague of the forum.

[Darcy88]

Regardless Climacus, this statement of mine still stands. I don't need final irrefutable logical proof to claim that belief in God is unreasonable. I need it to say that there is no possible way God exists, but that's not what I or most atheists believe. We simply believe that there is no good reason to believe that He does exist. You have no logical certainty behind your lack of belief in unicorns, centaurs, lizard people, ect. Its about likelihood.

Eh Climacus?

[Climacus]

Eh Climacus?
In that case, one has recourse to inductive rather than deductive logic.

I agree with you, by the way. I only stressed the point because you kept saying that we can't disprove the proposition "God exists," but of course we can.

[Calidore]

:wink5: Well, it's all pretty straightforward. It's just logic-101 stuff that you'll learn in any introductory course on the subject. Your terms must be clear, your premises plausible, and your reasoning valid. If one of these ingredients is missing, your arguments are no good.

It's fine to insist that everyone follow those rules to the letter in a formal setting where everyone's doing the same, but speaking for myself, as long as I'm clearly making my point, I don't really care whether the structure of my argument is an airtight modus tollens or ad absurdum or ad hominem or e pluribus unum or whatever. I'm much more interested in discussing the effects of religion on people vs. the effects of people on religion.

[Climacus]

It's fine to insist that everyone follow those rules to the letter in a formal setting where everyone's doing the same, but speaking for myself, as long as I'm clearly making my point, I don't really care whether the structure of my argument is an airtight modus tollens or ad absurdum or ad hominem or e pluribus unum or whatever.
I've never seen so many logic-bashers in one place. :p

Don't you want to make your points as well and as cogently possible? Well, here's how (short of taking a lengthy rhetoric course). There are three easy-to-follow steps: your terms must be clear, your premises plausible, and your reasoning valid. That's all. We're not talking about quantum mechanics here. Don't you want your terms to be clear and unambiguous rather than unclear and ambiguous? Don't you want your premises to be plausible rather than implausible? Don't you want your reasoning to be valid rather than invalid?

[Calidore]

I don't think anyone's bashing logic, just rolling their eyes at the over-insistence by one person that everyone else follow stringently formal rules when all we're doing is simply having a friendly discussion. We all understand each other just fine most of the time, and we clarify when we don't.

I'm very sorry you never got to meet Musicology. That would have been incredibly entertaining.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think anyone's bashing logic, just rolling their eyes at the over-insistence by one person that everyone else follow stringently formal rules when all we're doing is simply having a friendly discussion. We all understand each other just fine most of the time, and we clarify when we don't.

I'm very sorry you never got to meet Musicology. That would have been incredibly entertaining.

Yes. He would've had a ball with him.

I agree with this, though. I don't even know who's being the logic stickler here and whether it's justified (and sometimes it is), but often times discussions--which is what these are, just discussions--become arguments about logic and what point can be made this way or that way, and before you know it that's turned into the argument. Oh, I'm sorry, [insert one of several possible names here], that you can't posit a negative or some stupid bull**** . . . just answer the question.

[Darcy88]

I've never seen so many logic-bashers in one place. :p

Don't you want to make your points as well and as cogently possible? Well, here's how (short of taking a lengthy rhetoric course). There are three easy-to-follow steps: your terms must be clear, your premises plausible, and your reasoning valid. That's all. We're not talking about quantum mechanics here. Don't you want your terms to be clear and unambiguous rather than unclear and ambiguous? Don't you want your premises to be plausible rather than implausible? Don't you want your reasoning to be valid rather than invalid?

There was nothing invalid, unclear or implausible about my or anyone else's argument. You say you agree with me. If all your training in logic has lead you to the same place where I am, well then, what was the point?

You want all conclusions to meet your standard of logical rigour. I guess I should go study formal logic, that way I can come back and state the exact same conclusions in a fancier more pretentious way.

I wonder what someone like Epictetus or Lao Tse would have to say about all this. They'd probably laugh.

[Darcy88]

And Climacus I think you are very much correct in your main point. Just because evidence for something is lacking it does not logically follow that said thing necessarily does not exist. My point is that atheists do not make this claim. Rather, they point out that since there is no evidence for God's existence it is reasonable to conclude that there is no reason to believe in Him. I have no reason to believe that there is at this moment a man in a red sweater-vest standing on one foot in Time's Square. I do not however think its impossible. I won't argue that its a logically incoherent assertion. I just have no reason to believe it.

[Calidore]

Analogy, probably a poor one, but it's getting late:

It's like someone showing up to a dinner party dressed to the nines and insisting everyone else dress for dinner because that's what's done. Except the party is just a backyard barbecue with everyone casually lounging around. Dressing for dinner has its place, but that place isn't everywhere.

[cyberbob]

Here's another analogy:

You have a lot of knowledge on basket-weaving. You never get to use this knowledge because it has very little practical application, but you are very passionate about it.

When you see people having a discussion somewhat related to basketweaving on the internet, you become very anal about how they discuss it because this gives you a rare opportunity to flaunt your basketweaving talents.

[billl]

Are you asking why I talked about the re-definition of atheism as a lack of belief? If so, because Varenne hinted at in an earlier post (#15), and because most of these debates are plagued by equivocation, so it's good to tackle definitions first-off.

It isn't important, I don't think--but Varenne's post#15 was after your redefinition of atheism. I think you were responding to Calidore's #13. And, yes, it's good to get definitions straight.


I've never seen so many logic-bashers in one place. :p


I hope you don't count me among the logic bashers because I would never ever want to do that. But I hope you, as a student of logic and it's application to careful discussion, consider yourself less than perfect in your application of logic to this discussion. I respect your commitment to logic, it's a commitment that I share--but it pays to be careful and argue in good faith.

You, without any clear reason, decided to remove the idea that an atheist "would be a person who..." when creating the premise of your now famous formulation (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1099130#post1099130), which created a reductio that thus had no bearing on the discussion, a formulation which Varenne responded to in the next post by saying that you were being silly--yet you insisted that the point was valid, and that she should respond to it, because the silliness was for a good reason, when in fact it was entirely arbitrary and misguided. Later, you attempted to sooth her with your sympathies about how she didn't know how to make an argument--which we should not mistake as any sort of ad hominem, since you apparently believed you were on to something with all of this, and you are quite right about how logic should be a (mandatory, in my opinion) part of high school education.

In the face of your mistake being pointed out (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1099192#post1099192) (and, yes, people make mistakes when they are trying to get the hang of applying things from logic texts/classes to discussion), you proceeded to (twice) explain the internal logic of your reasoning, when the thing that was in doubt was your decision to address something that was apart from what was being discussed--the actual topic being whether ancient peoples, Varenne, or any other person calling themself an atheist would need to be someone who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." Suddenly it became a bare "no beliefs", allowing you to point at things like rocks, to no useful purpose.

In the end of course, you seemed to admit that it was silly and seem to finally suggest it was supposed to be a joke--despite your earlier urging of Varenne to refute it and learn about how to make an argument (like you presumably have begun the study of, I guess) or whatever. One wonders if you might still be championing the silliness as if it were the virtue of a relevant reductio... I certainly hope not.

So, yes, that part where you "talked about the re-definition of atheism as a lack of belief" rather than affording it the expected "person who lacks a belief in god(s)" as you had previously done with your explanation of the "historical definition of atheism"--yes, that is what I was referring to.

[Climacus]

I don't think anyone's bashing logic, just rolling their eyes at the over-insistence by one person that everyone else follow stringently formal rules when all we're doing is simply having a friendly discussion. We all understand each other just fine most of the time, and we clarify when we don't.

I'm very sorry you never got to meet Musicology. That would have been incredibly entertaining.
Your still implying that I'm demanding "stringently formal rules." But I'm not. I'm just asking, insofar as one is propounding an argument, for the bare minimum - clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning. Again, this applies to arguments. And arguments are the things I was asking for.

If, like Varenne, you just want to voice subjective personal opinions or explanations. That's fine. They needn't be logical in any way. But if you're putting an argument forward, it must have those three qualities, or it's no good.

[Climacus]

There was nothing invalid, unclear or implausible about my or anyone else's argument.
There have been very few arguments in this thread, Darcy. But people are implying that they have arguments. And I've been trying to squeeze them out. But they're not coming. Instead of arguments, you kept posting premises, and question-begging ones at that.


You say you agree with me. If all your training in logic has lead you to the same place where I am, well then, what was the point?
I meant that I agreed with this sentiment of yours:

"I don't need final irrefutable logical proof to claim that belief in God is unreasonable. I need it to say that there is no possible way God exists, but that's not what I or most atheists believe. We simply believe that there is no good reason to believe that He does exist."

But I do not agree that the proposition "God doesn't exist" cannot be proved true. It can be proved true.


You want all conclusions to meet your standard of logical rigour. I guess I should go study formal logic, that way I can come back and state the exact same conclusions in a fancier more pretentious way.
No. I only the want the conclusions of arguments to be logical, to be logically valid.

[Climacus]

You . . . created a reductio that thus had no bearing on the discussion, a formulation which Varenne responded to in the next post by saying that you were being silly--yet you insisted that the point was valid, and that she should respond to it, because the silliness was for a good reason, when in fact it was entirely arbitrary and misguided.
Again, you seem to be missing the point of an ad absurdum. It leads to an absurdity. And absurdities do not exist. The idea of rocks and trees being atheists is absurd. But it follows from the antecedent. It's "silly" in that sense, in the sense that the antecedent premise is silly. But that's the whole point. That's what the argument is supposed to show. Moreover, I still see it as relevant. Since both Calidore and Varenne, if not others, have suggested that atheism is merely a lack of belief. But it's obviously stronger than that. Change rocks and trees to dogs and cats if you want. Since dogs and cats have beliefs. The argument still holds.

[Climacus]

Later, you attempted to sooth her with your sympathies about how she didn't know how to make an argument--which we should not mistake as any sort of ad hominem, since you apparently believed you were on to something with all of this, and you are quite right about how logic should be a (mandatory, in my opinion) part of high school education.
An ad hominem occurs when someone goes after a person instead of their argument. It isn't just being nasty. Your response to the ad absurdum was, technically, an ad hominem. Since you didn't touch the argument itself. My response to Varenne, technically, was not. Since she had no arguments for me to touch. It may have been impolite. And I apologised, on her profile, for upsetting her.

Intellectually honesty is something we should all be striving after. And something we need continually to be reminded of - myself included, of course. You guys seem to think I'm a hair-splitting sophist. Sorry about that - really. Not the sort of impression I'm going for. (And I'm glad you're for reintroducing logic, Bill. Amen to that.)

[Climacus]

Let's draw together some of the threads of this defining atheism problem. Some of you suggested that atheism was merely a lack of belief in God. I gave a harmless little ad absurdum to show that this is false. And so far, most of you guys agree with it - though you don't seem to have noticed. You want to qualify the definition. Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God, you say, but a special sort of lack of belief that only certain agents can have. But, note well, the ad absurdum still holds given this qualification. For it was conditional and said "if atheism is merely a lack of belief . . ."

Maybe you mean something like this. Agents that are capable of forming the concept of God, but have not done so, are atheists. (I'm shifting the focus from believing to forming, because forming concepts is prior to believing in concepts.) Trees and rocks - which can't form any concepts - and dogs are cats - which can form some concepts - are incapable of forming the concept of God, so they're not atheists. Cave-women with very primitive cognitive faculties can't form the concept of God, thus they're not atheists either. But somewhat more advanced cave-women may be able to form the concept of God, yet if they still do not do so, they're atheists. Do you guys mean something along these lines?

[Darcy88]

An atheist is a PERSON who does not believe in God. I just looked it up in several dictionaries and each definition includes the word "person."

And how can God be proved not to exist?

[Climacus]

An atheist is a PERSON who does not believe in God. I just looked it up in several dictionaries and each definition includes the word "person."

I used the term "agent," which means the same thing. You can substitute "person" if you want. I'm thinking of self-conscious agents or persons. (Remember, also, all humans are persons, are agents, but not all persons - in the philosophical sense - are humans, not necessarily.)

And how can God be proved not to exist?
We've been over this a few times already. Take the concept of God (a maximally-great or maximally-perfect being), unpack it, and find an incoherence. Incoherent things can't exist. So, if the concept of God is incoherent, then God can't exist. Case closed. Can a married bachelor exist? Can a four-sided triangle exist? Demonstrate that God is like these things and you'll have disproved theism.

[Darcy88]

God isn't like a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle. Neither are unicorns, centaurs, fortune-tellers or lizard people for that matter.

[Varenne Rodin]

Your still implying that I'm demanding "stringently formal rules." But I'm not. I'm just asking, insofar as one is propounding an argument, for the bare minimum - clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning. Again, this applies to arguments. And arguments are the things I was asking for.

If, like Varenne, you just want to voice subjective personal opinions or explanations. That's fine. They needn't be logical in any way. But if you're putting an argument forward, it must have those three qualities, or it's no good.

I don't just voice subjective personal opinions. That is false. Laughable coming from someone of the opinion that the words "reason" and "rationalization" have the same meaning. Good effort.

[cafolini]

I used the term "agent," which means the same thing. You can substitute "person" if you want. I'm thinking of self-conscious agents or persons. (Remember, also, all humans are persons, are agents, but not all persons - in the philosophical sense - are humans, not necessarily.)

We've been over this a few times already. Take the concept of God (a maximally-great or maximally-perfect being), unpack it, and find an incoherence. Incoherent things can't exist. So, if the concept of God is incoherent, then God can't exist. Case closed. Can a married bachelor exist? Can a four-sided triangle exist? Demonstrate that God is like these things and you'll have disproved theism.

Ah, but God could be like a 4-sided triangle. That could hardly prove that it doesn't exist. God could even be a volumetric plane. Are you trying to be funny?

[Climacus]

God isn't like a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle.
You're assuming that. Much is involved in the concept of God - a maximally-great being. There's a lot to unpack. It's not unreasonable to think that there might be a contradiction lurking somewhere. Anyway, you asked how we can disprove God. Well, that's how. Find an incoherence.

[Climacus]

Ah, but God could be like a 4-sided triangle. That could hardly prove that it doesn't exist.
The impossible is the contradictory. (The possible, on the other hand, is the non-contradictory.) Four-sided triangles are contradictory and thus impossible. If God is contradictory, too, then he is impossible.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is all supposing that atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god, or that we should provide evidence of his non-existence if we want to remain atheists. It's unnecessary. I could set about attempting to disprove all things imagined and invisible, but why should I? The burden is not on the atheist to provide proof or else embrace delusion.

Premise - conclusion - happy?

[Climacus]

I don't just voice subjective personal opinions. That is false. Laughable coming from someone of the opinion that the words "reason" and "rationalization" have the same meaning. Good effort.
Well, you haven't put forward an argument. That's what I'm waiting for. You think God doesn't exist. OK. Do you have any arguments, deductive or inductive, that argue to that end? I'm not asking you to tell me why you're an atheist. (That's all very interesting, though, no doubt.) What I'm after is arguments against God. Again, here's an example of a deductive argument against God:

"All that which exists is that which is empirically verifiable (premise 1). God is not that which is empirically verifiable (premise 2). Therefore God is not that which exists (conclusion)."

Now, this argument has clear enough terms, and valid reasoning. But premise 1 is false. And so the argument fails.

But do you have something along these lines - a logical argument?

[Climacus]

This is all supposing that atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god, or that we should provide evidence of his non-existence if we want to remain atheists. It's unnecessary. I could set about attempting to disprove all things imagined and invisible, but why should I? The burden is not on the atheist to provide proof or else embrace delusion.

Premise - conclusion - happy?
I didn't see this before my last post. Now I better understand your position. So, you don't have arguments against God, and you don't think you need any. OK.

[Darcy88]

The burden of proof is on the theists!

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: you don't need logical certainty to justify disbelief. A dozen times I've mentioned that there's no logical argument against unicorns, centaurs, ect. Varenne stated that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Its true. Give me some evidence. Not just an argument but some hard evidence of God's existence. You'd think an all-powerful being would leave some trace, some foot-print. In the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe. Without a logical argument I may not be able to uphold the impossibility of God, but I can sure maintain His unlikelihood.

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess we should try to ask the question, is it impossible for there to be a supernatural entity that is able to create beyond the natural laws. If there is one who chooses not to believe that there is a God, but would at least concede that there may be a possibility of such an entity, it could easily be accepted. However, most of the atheists at this site choose to disbelieve AND demand that anyone who would believe MUST be an idiot for such unreasonable considerations.

[BienvenuJDC]

The burden of proof is on the theists!

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: you don't need logical certainty to justify disbelief. A dozen times I've mentioned that there's no logical argument against unicorns, centaurs, ect. Varenne stated that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Its true. Give me some evidence. Not just an argument but some hard evidence of God's existence. You'd think an all-powerful being would leave some trace, some foot-print. In the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe. Without a logical argument I may not be able to uphold the impossibility of God, but I can sure maintain His unlikelihood.

I disagree. There is but one problem that science does not reasonably answer. Since it is proven that matter is not eternal, therefore it must have a beginning. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means. Then something Supernatural must of created matter at the point that it was created. This seems fairly simple. Those in the scientific community try to explain this by using incomprehensible jargon and so-called logic that would take more faith to believe than if one would just choose to believe in a Supernatural Creator in the first place.

[Varenne Rodin]

I didn't see this before my last post. Now I better understand your position. So, you don't have arguments against God, and you don't think you need any. OK.

I'll offer something else, though it seems rather redundant to do so. God cannot be observed. It cannot be tested. It cannot be replicated. I will not put faith into something that does not exist in this reality. Does that mean no gods exist? No. Do I believe in something unseen? No. If someone creates a fantasy, that fantasy does not automatically become fact.

Go ahead and critique. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

God cannot be observed. It cannot be tested. It cannot be replicated.

This is also true with evolution.


Do I believe in something unseen?

I bet that you believe in many things that no one has seen.

[Darcy88]

This is also true with evolution.



I bet that you believe in many things that no one has seen.

Evolution can most certainly be observed Bien. The amount of data corroborating evolution is staggering.

[BienvenuJDC]

Evolution can most certainly be observed Bien. The amount of data corroborating evolution is staggering.

Sorry, I believe that claim as much as you believe the claim that there is evidence that supports the Bible and its claims. Those who believe in evolution often spout that claim of evidence, but never produces anything concrete.

[Darcy88]

Sorry, I believe that claim as much as you believe the claim that there is evidence that supports the Bible and its claims. Those who believe in evolution often spout that claim of evidence, but never produces anything concrete.

In the last thread in which this subject arose JuniperWoolf laid out much of the evidence for evolution. I'll post links if you want. Its all out there for anyone who wants it though. At this point denying evolution is almost akin to denying genetics or Newtonian physics.

[BienvenuJDC]

In the last thread in which this subject arose JuniperWoolf laid out much of the evidence for evolution. I'll post links if you want. Its all out there for anyone who wants it though. At this point denying evolution is almost akin to denying genetics or Newtonian physics.

And like denying the evidence out there that shows that other cultures had witnessed dinosaurs?

[Darcy88]

And like denying the evidence out there that shows that other cultures had witnessed dinosaurs?

What evidence would that be? Those fabricated stones which also show pictures of ancient astronauts?

[Varenne Rodin]

I guess we should try to ask the question, is it impossible for there to be a supernatural entity that is able to create beyond the natural laws. If there is one who chooses not to believe that there is a God, but would at least concede that there may be a possibility of such an entity, it could easily be accepted. However, most of the atheists at this site choose to disbelieve AND demand that anyone who would believe MUST be an idiot for such unreasonable considerations.

I don't see how it could easily be acceptable with infinite other possibilities to consider. Those infinite other possibilities make your singular possibility highly improbable. It is acceptable that you believe in your singular unsubstantiated idea. It is not acceptable to attempt to force that idea as fact in everyone's reality. It is not acceptable to teach the fantasy in schools or enact laws that revolve around its supposed rules.

I don't presume to know whether you are an idiot. You do believe in highly improbable ideas and you seem to seek a feeling of validation through the opinions and acceptance of peers. That's the downside and the upside to fantasy. On the upside, you can have whatever fantasy you wish. On the downside, if you take your fantasy public that public might not embrace it. It is an error to try to force others to accept a fantasy position as universal reality.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't see how it could easily be acceptable with infinite other possibilities to consider. Those infinite other possibilities make your singular possibility highly improbable. It is acceptable that you believe in your singular unsubstantiated idea. It is not acceptable to attempt to force that idea as fact in everyone's reality. It is not acceptable to teach the fantasy in schools or enact laws that revolve around its supposed rules.

I don't presume to know whether you are an idiot. You do believe in highly improbable ideas and you seem to seek a feeling of validation through the opinions and acceptance of peers. That's the downside and the upside to fantasy. On the upside, you can have whatever fantasy you wish. On the downside, if you take your fantasy public that public might not embrace it. It is an error to try to force others to accept a fantasy position as universal reality.

God is not unsubstantiated. There are not an infinite amount of other possibilities, in fact, the one other possibility is unsubstantiated. I don't try to force my belief, but it is a fact that the fantasy of evolution in forced into the school system. I wish that it wasn't. We should really just leave the unsubstantiated philosophies out of science class. Let's just teach what we know and leave the unknown subjectivity of origins out of school altogether.

[BienvenuJDC]

What evidence would that be? Those fabricated stones which also show pictures of ancient astronauts?

Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.

[Darcy88]

Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.

I don't think you realize that thousands of men and women have devoted their lives to studying the natural world and that the theory of evolution best explains all that they've observed. When you call the theory fantasy you are essentially saying that you know better than all of them.

[billl]

Again, you seem to be missing the point of an ad absurdum. It leads to an absurdity. And absurdities do not exist. The idea of rocks and trees being atheists is absurd. But it follows from the antecedent. It's "silly" in that sense, in the sense that the antecedent premise is silly. But that's the whole point. That's what the argument is supposed to show.

Again, you seem to be thinking that you have some explaining to do about how logic, argument, and debate work. We'll do this one more time. As I mentioned, it is not that the reductio had no right to be absurd. However, if your formulation is beside the point and silly, and based on arbitrarily altered premises, it is merely bobbing and weaving (to put it charitably) for you to claim that that silliness is due to it being a reductio ad absurdum.



Moreover, I still see it as relevant. Since both Calidore and Varenne, if not others, have suggested that atheism is merely a lack of belief. But it's obviously stronger than that. Change rocks and trees to dogs and cats if you want. Since dogs and cats have beliefs. The argument still holds.

The moreover is unnecessary, since this is what is being objected to. You are (and this is sophistry in its purest form) asserting that people tieing atheism to lack of belief (merely a lack of belief in god, and not a belief in the non-existence of god) have left an opening for the inclusion of rocks and dogs into their camp. As OrphanPip pointed out earlier, this would be banal at best. It certainly wouldn't undermine the particular shorthand definition's validity (a definition introduced in its shorthand by you) as a stance that people might take. They would still be people who have no beliefs in god(s)--whether you tie their position on the issue to rocks or dogs or whatever.

Like you, though, I think that it would fairly be considered absurd to call a rock an atheist. But the problem (the absurdity) is that you have, for no useful reason, decided to suddenly omit personhood from your re-definition. Now we have a bunch of nonsense where you seem to think you need to explain what agents are, and perhaps want to bring, along with people, cats and E.T. entities into the discussion or something? Just so you can do some "explaining" now?

Because, try as you might, a person can fairly describe themself as having no belief in god(s) without any absurd consequences. The position that cats and rocks might be taking on the issue (or failing to take) is beside the point, and your jokey thought-experiment simply created a sideshow. Do you see how it is inappropriate to defend it by explaining over and over again things you have learned by studying logic?

Perhaps it would help you get the bigger picture here if I told you that there has been no need to clear up what a reductio ad absurdum is for me--perhaps you are stuck on that possibility. I am looking at the application of your argument. I'm not going to dig out my old transcripts for this, but I have had at least 15 hours of study of logic/symbolic logic, including two courses at the graduate level (one in a U.S. Top 10 Computer Science Department and one in the same school's Philosophy Department, and yes the grades were quite good).

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think you realize that thousands of men and women have devoted their lives to studying the natural world and that the theory of evolution best explains all that they've observed. When you call the theory fantasy you are essentially saying that you know better than all of them.

Just because there is a belief among the masses doesn't make it true. I bet that you would have joined with the flat earth and the geocentric people if you lived in that time....yeah, you seem the type.

[Varenne Rodin]

Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.

Supposed eye witness accounts mean very little.

I witnessed Jesus Christ in a department store yesterday. He was a red haired man with freckles wearing a purple pimp suit and hat. I can even draw a picture of him. He told me we should all go live in the ocean and only eat pomegranates that grow on the fjords of Norway, the chosen land of blessed food. We should follow his teachings, right? You believe me, right? Not believing me would mean that you are insensitive and insulting to my beliefs. Not getting in the ocean immediately is like calling me an idiot, right?

Individual eye witness accounts without physical evidence mean absolutely nothing. A drawing is not usable evidence.

[BienvenuJDC]

Supposed eye witness accounts mean very little.

I witnessed Jesus Christ in a department store yesterday. He was a red haired man with freckles wearing a purple pimp suit and hat. I can even draw a picture of him. He told me we should all go live in the ocean and only eat pomegranates that grow on the fjords of Norway, the chosen land of blessed food. We should follow his teachings, right? You believe me, right? Not believing me would mean that you are insensitive and insulting to my beliefs. Not getting in the ocean immediately is like calling me an idiot, right?

Individual eye witness accounts without physical evidence mean absolutely nothing. A drawing is not usable evidence.

There were many eye witness accounts of Christ. They are written down too. But those are just cast aside. Oh...and many many very reputable witnesses at that.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is also true with evolution.



I bet that you believe in many things that no one has seen.

What do you think those things are?

[Varenne Rodin]

There were many eye witness accounts of Christ. They are written down too. But those are just cast aside. Oh...and many many very reputable witnesses at that.

People in desert cultures eating shrooms and peyote without the benefits of greater education.

Do you discount ancient Chinese traditions and teachings? How or why do you think Christianity is any more valid?

[BienvenuJDC]

People in desert cultures eating shrooms and peyote without the benefits of greater education.

Do you discount ancient Chinese traditions and teachings? How or why do you think Christianity is any more valid?

That is where my faith comes in, just as you use your faith to believe in a chaotic big bang that produced intricate order.

[Ecurb]

Individual eye witness accounts without physical evidence mean absolutely nothing. A drawing is not usable evidence.

This is silly. Individual eye witness accounts are admissable in courts of law, which consider very carefully what does and what does not constitute "evidence". I don't doubt that eye witness accounts are not certain "proof" -- but why do they "mean absolutely nothing"?

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." -- G.K. Chesterton, noted Catholic and Christian apologist. Logical proofs are merely restatements of the postulates, in different words.

[Darcy88]

Just because there is a belief among the masses doesn't make it true. I bet that you would have joined with the flat earth and the geocentric people if you lived in that time....yeah, you seem the type.

Well if that's not projection I don't know what is. Bien, denying evolution at this point is a mere step away from affirming the geocentric model. And I don't think learned experts who dedicate years to research should be dismissed as "the masses."

On one hand we have thousands of biologists with phds who've gathered mounds of evidence, and on the other we have you.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is silly. Individual eye witness accounts are admissable in courts of law, which consider very carefully what does and what does not constitute "evidence". I don't doubt that eye witness accounts are not certain "proof" -- but why do they "mean absolutely nothing"?

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." -- G.K. Chesterton, noted Catholic and Christian apologist. Logical proofs are merely restatements of the postulates, in different words.

Some of the eye witness accounts in the bible have been discredited. Some were stories taken from pagans. Most were taken from Judaism. Many Jews stated over and over that these were fables used to raise children with decent morals. Fables.

Where are the eye witness accounts today? Dead people don't testify. Would a person claiming to be a prophet be taken seriously in a court of law today? Absolutely not. People lie. People write stories. People attempt to collect followers for personal and financial gain.

Read my other posts. My eye witness account of a pimped out Jesus sounds like nonsense, right? I certainly hope no one turns my nonsense into a religion.

[Varenne Rodin]

Bottom line, theism does not HAVE to be believed. It is an attack to attempt to deny atheists the freedom to shun your fantasies.

[cafolini]

The impossible is the contradictory. (The possible, on the other hand, is the non-contradictory.) Four-sided triangles are contradictory and thus impossible. If God is contradictory, too, then he is impossible.

Ah, but God could be very powerfully impossible, contradictory, and anything you'd like in existence and being. Are you blind? Don't you see that everyday? I think you are still trying to be funny.

[Ecurb]

Some of the eye witness accounts in the bible have been discredited. Some were stories taken from pagans. Most were taken from Judaism. Many Jews stated over and over that these were fables used to raise children with decent morals. Fables.

Where are the eye witness accounts today? Dead people don't testify. Would a person claiming to be a prophet be taken seriously in a court of law today? Absolutely not. People lie. People write stories. People attempt to collect followers for personal and financial gain.
.

I didn't suggest that eye witness accounts were proof, but that they constitute "evidence".

Let me ask you: Would you believe your own eyes?

[cafolini]

I usually call him Jesupiter because of the unmistakable parallel with Socrates, although the latter occurred under the hegemony of an Olympian state. Crucifixion was not popular; hemlock was the menace. In those days the magnum testament farts still came from oracles. Jesupiter could not apologize to the state because the state makes him appear as God in a man’s form. But, like Socrates, Jesupiter marches voluntarily to trial and the cross, equivalent to the hemlock but more violent and public.
There was however a problem with responsibility regarding Socrates. For what God of the Olympian collection could have taken the authorship of his creation? Well, there was the chief, Jupiter, but he did not have absolute authority. So the ultimate responsibility for the assassination of Socrates had to be taken by the state. That was not a pleasant aspect of the divine comedy of the day, and it was not effective torture in the satirical makeup of propositions. It was necessary for the state to pass judgment.
Then came the conquest of the Jews and the study of their religion. They had been able to postulate messianic democracy and had been able to sell it well. The result was a civilization superior to anyone previously undertaken by any state. The Romans figured that if the Jews were able to sell the possible coming, they should be able to sell the actual one. The difference between Socrates and the new guest was that the latter was an act of God the father. And he was sold as God the son.
Master Jesus had unsurpassable abilities. He could cure the paraplegics better than Oral Roberts, and even restore sight to the psychosomatic blind. He was not only a mustard seed that could move mountains, but also an expert in the dynamics of density. He was the first case to realize that density changed with impact. It is a mistake to think that he walked on water because there were unseen rocks under the surface. He could have done easily because he had x-ray vision far more advanced than Clark Kent. But he also had the ability to trot with supersonic speed, turning water into a firm wall without the use of some medium such as starch to make it denser before proceeding. He would have been better in travelling through swamps, and much faster than the Pygmies of the forests of Africa, as Isabel Allende depicted in her Forest of the Pygmies. No one could beat Jesus at anything, because no one went to the father except through him. No one could compete against him in any extraordinary event, not even marching voluntarily and superdignified to the cross.

[Varenne Rodin]

I didn't suggest that eye witness accounts were proof, but that they constitute "evidence".

Let me ask you: Would you believe your own eyes?

There would have to be very convincing proof. Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.

I frequently believe my own eyes or, rather, I trust them when they're viewing things easily viewed by the whole of the world. Ocean waves, for example. I've seen them many times. I've felt the water and the push and pull of the sea. I've ridden on boats. The water has been photographed and filmed above and below. I don't think there are many people who would tell you that oceans don't exist.

There are many people who would tell you we have never seen god. In saying this, I'm not saying there isn't a god, but he didn't make himself known, he didn't tell us who to hate and who to love and how to live. If he had, he still could. He could come back and give us refresher courses that would fit our changing world.

See "The Tree of Life" movie if you want to better understand that stories of man, while very special, are too small to be relevant to our universal situation. It made me want to be more kind to others.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What evidence would that be? Those fabricated stones which also show pictures of ancient astronauts?


Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.
No she's not. You posted pictures of stones that were supposed to be compelling evidence, and when people pointed out that they were false, you either outright ignored them, or said they were wrong and should prove it, even though you're the one that posted the pictures. And then you blab about people needing to post good evidence for evolution when all you've done is posted a link to an underwhelming video and pictures of fraudulent stones. It's laughable.

I don't think you realize that thousands of men and women have devoted their lives to studying the natural world and that the theory of evolution best explains all that they've observed. When you call the theory fantasy you are essentially saying that you know better than all of them.


Just because there is a belief among the masses doesn't make it true.
Except when it comes to Jesus, of course.

I bet that you would have joined with the flat earth and the geocentric people if you lived in that time....yeah, you seem the type.
And the first ad hominem goes to . . . BienvenuJDC! :hurray: Bravo, sir!

[Ecurb]

"Tree of Life", was far from suggesting that "stories of man, while very special, are too small to be relevant to our universal situation." I would say that "Tree of Life" suggested that stories of man are both very special and revealing of universal truths.

[BienvenuJDC]

And the first ad hominem goes to . . . BienvenuJDC! :hurray: Bravo, sir!

The first? I don't think so...

Oh, and I posted the pics, others made undocumented claims that they weren't authentic. Is it my responsibility to verify their claim? Again...I don't think so...

[BienvenuJDC]

Bottom line, theism does not HAVE to be believed. It is an attack to attempt to deny atheists the freedom to shun your fantasies.

Theism is not an attack to deny anyone anything. You have the freedom to believe what you wish.

[Darcy88]

The first? I don't think so...

Oh, and I posted the pics, others made undocumented claims that they weren't authentic. Is it my responsibility to verify their claim? Again...I don't think so...

I'd say it was your responsibility to verify the authenticity of those stones instead of neglecting to do the 30 second search which would have revealed to you the fact that the supposed discoverer of the stones has confessed to having fabricated them.

The only people who consider those stones meaningful are fundamentalist Christians and ancient astronaut theorists.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'd say it was your responsibility to verify the authenticity of those stones instead of neglecting to do the 30 second search which would have revealed to you the fact that the supposed discoverer of the stones has confessed to having fabricated them.

The only people who consider those stones meaningful are fundamentalist Christians and ancient astronaut theorists.

But no one ever showed me where the supposed discoverer claimed that they were fake. That so far is merely a claim of someone on this site. If that is the case, then it is the case. However, there is still a tremendous amount of evidence that shows that many cultures had seen real dinosaurs. You all are just in denial of anything that isn't a part of your own fantasies.

[Darcy88]

But no one ever showed me where the supposed discoverer claimed that they were fake. That so far is merely a claim of someone on this site. If that is the case, then it is the case. However, there is still a tremendous amount of evidence that shows that many cultures had seen real dinosaurs. You all are just in denial of anything that isn't a part of your own fantasies.

My fantasies? Oh you mean the theory supported by thousands of biology phds who spend their lives studying the natural world and come to the conclusion that evolution best explains their observations.

I suppose you believe in ancient astronauts as well?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But no one ever showed me where the supposed discoverer claimed that they were fake. That so far is merely a claim of someone on this site. If that is the case, then it is the case. However, there is still a tremendous amount of evidence that shows that many cultures had seen real dinosaurs. You all are just in denial of anything that isn't a part of your own fantasies.

You're so full of ****. You're EXACTLY THE SAME WAY YOU CLAIM EVERYONE ELSE TO BE.

[Varenne Rodin]

"Tree of Life", was far from suggesting that "stories of man, while very special, are too small to be relevant to our universal situation." I would say that "Tree of Life" suggested that stories of man are both very special and revealing of universal truths.

There is a misunderstanding here. You have seen the movie, so I have to assume you have some understanding of existence. If there is a god, do you really think it condescended to speak directly to desert people and give them specific laws? Do you think we could conceivably prove or disprove the presence of a god? Do you think what you imagine in a creator gives you license to judge others, or know what "sin" is?

My point in bringing this up is that there very well could be some kind of force, like theists want there to be, but it would have to be too huge to understand, describe, or define. Atheists aren't denying the possibility. After all we have learned and seen, the theist stories defining our existence seem petty, small, assuming, and disrespectful. Disrespectful to life, to science, to me, to you, to earthlings.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Also, Bein, from Wikipedia. I don't like to use Wikipedia, but this information is cited from this article (http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/259/jurassic_library_the_ica_stones.html) and the following book:

Carroll, Robert P. (2003). The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley.


In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones he gave to Cabrera during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

As for more saying the stones are false, there's this (http://paranormal.about.com/cs/ancientanomalies/a/aa041904.htm), this (http://www.answers.com/topic/ica-stones), this (http://skepdic.com/icastones.html), this (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/hoaxes.html), this (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html), this (http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958/weekly/weekly56.htm), and this (http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/swift.htm). I'm sure they're all disreputable sources, though.

[Varenne Rodin]

Theism is not an attack to deny anyone anything. You have the freedom to believe what you wish.

Wrong. A primary goal of your chosen theism is to "spread the word" and convert non-believers. It's an offense to spread this drivel and to make numerous attempts to demean observed science with the intention of putting it on an equal or lower plane than your fantasy. Christians need to stop attempting to knock down progress for the sake of elevating their ages old telephone game. It's a sadistic power play. The intention is to control the masses, to get everyone to "serve" this god fetish, to validate your own masochistic hopes and wishes. Until theists learn to keep their fantasies to themselves, they will be enemies to free thinkers and technology.

[Varenne Rodin]

Simplified: A person is a fan of a fictional story? Fine. Some people wrote some fables? Cool. Don't tell the world these things are reality and feel angry and sad when the world disagrees. Don't inflict the brainwashing on kids.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't like to use Wikipedia.

Aww, I love Wiki. It's changed the world. In the past, information always came at a price. Nowadays, anyone with computer access can learn some basic information about whatever they want, it's beautiful. Sure some of the information is tampered with but there are lovely Wiki-fascists who devote a large part of their exististance to weeding them out.

...Off topic, sorry.

[Calidore]

Wikipedia's information may not be totally reliable, but it's a great source for links and references.

[Darcy88]

I'm sure biologists have found evidence proving the truth of Genesis. They just think its a good idea to tick off the all-powerful creator of the universe.

[cafolini]

If there is a God do you think it is still having the same great fun he had listening to the reports of Mark Twain sending him letters from the earth? Probably not because now he can get better, more succulent reports by listening to a thread like this one.

[Climacus]

. . . try as you might, a person can fairly describe themself as having no belief in god(s) without any absurd consequences.
Of course they can. You're misunderstanding my position altogether. What I’m objecting to is the idea that people who merely lack a belief in God are atheists. Lack of belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that some caveman, for instance, who has never formed the conception of God is an atheist, seems vacuous to me. The hypothetical caveman lacks a belief about the existence of God. True. But is he an atheist by virtue of that lack? He lacks a belief about the non-existence of God as well. Does that make him a theist? No, he is neither a theist nor an atheist.

At any rate, it is not how the term is and has been used, for millennia. And none of the atheists here are atheists in the sense that they merely lack belief. For, they’ve all formed the conception of God, however imperfectly, and then rejected it. It isn’t just that atheists lack belief in the proposition “God exists,” for they go on to affirm the proposition’s contrary. The atheists here - correct me if I'm wrong, atheists - all agree with the proposition: "God doesn't exist" or else "Probably, God doesn't exist." And, it seems to me, that is what makes them atheists. And that is a metaphysical truth-claim. Atheists, like theists, claim to know something about the world, about reality.

Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”

Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”

[Varenne Rodin]

Of course they can. You're misunderstanding my position altogether. What I’m objecting to is the idea that people who merely lack a belief in God are atheists. Lack of belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that some caveman, for instance, who has never formed the conception of God is an atheist, seems vacuous to me. The hypothetical caveman lacks a belief about the existence of God. True. But is he an atheist by virtue of that lack? He lacks a belief about the non-existence of God as well. Does that make him a theist? No, he is neither a theist nor an atheist.

At any rate, it is not how the term is and has been used, for millennia. And none of the atheists here are atheists in the sense that they merely lack belief. For, they’ve all formed the conception of God, however imperfectly, and then rejected it. It isn’t just that atheists lack belief in the proposition “God exists,” for they go on to affirm the proposition’s contrary. The atheists here - correct me if I'm wrong, atheists - all agree with the proposition: "God doesn't exist" or else "Probably, God doesn't exist." And, it seems to me, that is what makes them atheists. And that is a metaphysical truth-claim. Atheists, like theists, claim to know something about the world, about reality.

Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”

Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”

Pardon me, but this is rubbish. Atheists don't have to take any leaps of faith to say that there is no god in this reality. If a god exists anywhere at all, it is, as of now, not known to us. I don't have a God. I don't have theism. If I get some, I'll let you know.

[Darcy88]

An atheist who says there is no God is really saying there is no good reason to believe there's a God. Its as simple as that.

[OrphanPip]

Of course they can. You're misunderstanding my position altogether. What I’m objecting to is the idea that people who merely lack a belief in God are atheists. Lack of belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that some caveman, for instance, who has never formed the conception of God is an atheist, seems vacuous to me. The hypothetical caveman lacks a belief about the existence of God. True. But is he an atheist by virtue of that lack? He lacks a belief about the non-existence of God as well. Does that make him a theist? No, he is neither a theist nor an atheist.

That's why there is a long standing tradition of distinguishing between implicit atheism (i.e. atheism that derives from a lack of knowledge about the concept of theism) and explicit atheism (a conscious objection to the concept of theism). Explicit atheism can then be further divided into weak (atheism that derives from a general doubt about the existence of gods) and strong (atheism that asserts the absolute non-existence of deities).



At any rate, it is not how the term is and has been used, for millennia. And none of the atheists here are atheists in the sense that they merely lack belief. For, they’ve all formed the conception of God, however imperfectly, and then rejected it. It isn’t just that atheists lack belief in the proposition “God exists,” for they go on to affirm the proposition’s contrary. The atheists here - correct me if I'm wrong, atheists - all agree with the proposition: "God doesn't exist" or else "Probably, God doesn't exist." And, it seems to me, that is what makes them atheists. And that is a metaphysical truth-claim. Atheists, like theists, claim to know something about the world, about reality.

That simply isn't true, these distinctions and definitions have existed since the 18th century. Dictionaries are a bad source for nuanced definitions that reflect complex philosophical discourses. The dictionary provides the dominant definition, which has derived from the popular (theistic biased) definition, and ignores the nuances of the identity category (as any identity category is incredibly complicated when we chip away at the stereotype). An atheist does not need to make a truth claim about the universe, an atheist does not need to say there is no God to say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Saying, "I think it unlikely that God exists" is different than saying, "God does not exist." In fact, the earliest use of atheist, from Greek sources, was used merely to refer to the irreligious, which arises from the fact that Athenian society did not distinguish between religion (as social institution) and theism.



Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”

Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”

The definitions are not nuanced, why do we need an essential definition of something, when that something has multifaceted meanings? Let's not further derail this into a debate about semiotics.

Var's definition was neither unconventional or novel, it is a very common part of the dialogue about atheism, and has been for over 200 years. To make claims about the traditional meaning, when that meaning has not been exclusive for 200 years, is simply a pointless distraction.

[cafolini]

Pardon me, but this is rubbish. Atheists don't have to take any leaps of faith to say that there is no god in this reality. If a god exists anywhere at all, it is, as of now, not known to us. I don't have a God. I don't have theism. If I get some, I'll let you know.

Now we are going to have to wait for Varenne. How long will it take?

[BienvenuJDC]

Explicit atheism can then be further divided into weak (atheism that derives from a general doubt about the existence of gods) and strong (atheism that asserts the absolute non-existence of deities).



Dictionaries are a bad source for nuanced definitions that reflect complex philosophical discourses.


The definitions are not nuanced, why do we need an essential definition of something, when that something has multifaceted meanings? Let's not further derail this into a debate about semiotics.




Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”

Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”

I think that Climacus makes a valid point. However, we don't have to take "nuanced" definitions to determine this to be the case. We can merely look at how each of the atheists here demand that believing in God is preposterous. They refer to it as "fantasy" and they are demeaning to one who has such a belief. I think that the definitions here are well founded in the threads on this site.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, well, well. This is such a shock! I provide links supporting the suggestion that those stones are false, and what does Bien do? IGNORES IT! Too funny.

[Varenne Rodin]

Now we are going to have to wait for Varenne. How long will it take?

You're right, Cafolini. I am going to continue to voice opposition to people who seek to convert others to a life of servitude for something unseen. A life where people attempt to behave based on a punishment/reward system like dogs. Christians confuse people into thinking their actions please or anger their master. It's not freedom, so should I lie down and shut up like an obedient dog to avoid hindering their freedom to enslave?

It's good to have voices opposing bullies who call themselves servants to their "Lord" and want to make you one, too; people who call atheists insulting for saying it's a bully system.

I don't hear of atheists trying to make people into slaves.


Well, well, well. This is such a shock! I provide links supporting the suggestion that those stones are false, and what does Bien do? IGNORES IT! Too funny.

Sometimes nothing gets through. The lie will be clinged to at all costs.

[Alexander III]

I don't hear of atheists trying to make people into slaves.

http://chicagoboyz.net/wp-content/uploads/stalin-burla.jpg


I couldn't stop myself...

[Climacus]

An atheist does not need to make a truth claim about the universe, an atheist does not need to say there is no God to say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Saying, "I think it unlikely that God exists" is different than saying, "God does not exist."
This is very near to what I said. (What I said was: "The atheists here . . . all agree with the proposition: 'God doesn't exist' or else 'Probably, God doesn't exist.'") However, both are truth-claims.

Edit: By the way, are you suggesting that "I think it unlikely that God exists" isn't a truth-claim? Because it is a truth-claim. It is the truth-claim "It's unlikely that God exists." Prefacing it with "I think" or "I say" doesn't make it less of a truth-claim. If by "I think" you mean something like "well, ya know, it's possible" then the truth-claim reads "it's possible that it's unlikely that God exists." And that's pretty innocuous and inconsequential. Theists can affirm that too.

The definitions are not nuanced, why do we need an essential definition of something, when that something has multifaceted meanings?
An essential definition - that which gives both genus and specific difference - is the best sort of definition to have when discussing or arguing about something. For it tells just what it is we're talking about, and how it is different than everything else. (Dictionaries often give merely nominal definitions.) If something has many meanings, we need to decide which meaning we're going with for discussion's sake, lest fallacies of equivocation run rampant, as they have in this thread.

[cafolini]

You're right, Cafolini. I am going to continue to voice opposition to people who seek to convert others to a life of servitude for something unseen. A life where people attempt to behave based on a punishment/reward system like dogs. Christians confuse people into thinking their actions please or anger their master. It's not freedom, so should I lie down and shut up like an obedient dog to avoid hindering their freedom to enslave?

It's good to have voices opposing bullies who call themselves servants to their "Lord" and want to make you one, too; people who call atheists insulting for saying it's a bully system.

I don't hear of atheists trying to make people into slaves.



Sometimes nothing gets through. The lie will be clinged to at all costs.

I'm not going to argue your good points. I will only show your presuppositions. I probably wouldn't even argue that.
The point is that you are generalizing about religion. We have seen plenty of civilizations rise in the hands of so-called atheists which were very tyranical and criminal. Did you know for example that around 1979, long before the fall of Russian communism, Sadam Hussein was a staunch Stalinist and an atheist, just to give a minor example of what was repeatedly the case in the USSR. What about Poland.
It is not easy to cope with life, which makes a lot of people extremely hypocritical. But I have known a lot of good Christians that did a lot of good to society, regardless of the BS they launched to the four winds, God, and the sea in their small backyard.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm not going to argue your good points. I will only show your presuppositions. I probably wouldn't even argue that.
The point is that you are generalizing about religion. We have seen plenty of civilizations rise in the hands of so-called atheists which were very tyranical and criminal. Did you know for example that around 1979, long before the fall of Russian communism, Sadam Hussein was a staunch Stalinist and an atheist, just to give a minor example of what was repeatedly the case in the USSR. What about Poland.
It is not easy to cope with life, which makes a lot of people extremely hypocritical. But I have known a lot of good Christians that did a lot of good to society, regardless of the BS they launched to the four winds, God, and the sea in their small backyard.

I didn't mean to suggest that no atheist has ever inflicted cruelties. My point was that atheism doesn't have a group agenda to amass servants. A dictator tells someone to serve him. Tyrants are tyrants. Atheism doesn't make people into tyrants. Christianity certainly seeks to convert people to service positions to an "all powerful god."

All things said, I think we agree, Cafolini. Thank you for your thoughtful input. :)

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, I'm not entirely lumping religions together. When there is something specific to Christians I try to remember to separate that from theism in my posts. If I think the matter is particular to Christianity in the United States, I try to throw in something like "Christians in my country" because I know Christians aren't the same worldwide. I do think that it's a master/slave relationship worldwide, however, and I don't think it has to be.

I think theism in general is at least somewhat reflective of the arrogance of man insofar as he thinks he found the answers, and those answers are best for the world.

I could be wrong, but Buddhism has always seemed the least offensive.

[OrphanPip]

This is very near to what I said. (What I said was: "The atheists here . . . all agree with the proposition: 'God doesn't exist' or else 'Probably, God doesn't exist.'") However, both are truth-claims.

One is a truth claim about their beliefs though, not about the universe. If they said simply "I think it probable a deity exists, but I don't believe in it" you can see the distinction more clearly. As then their claim about the existence of god in the universe would be in line with theistic thinking, but then their personal identification is atheist.

We can then also incorporate theological noncognitivist approaches, which would argue that the question of "God" is unintelligible, so it is impossible to make a statement of belief or nonbelief about God, and these people can then often self-identify as atheist.

Your conception of atheism is too narrow, it assumes that atheism must make claims about the existence of God, rather than be merely a claim about a persons personal inclinations. Note that what I said is that atheism does not need to make truth claims about the universe.



An essential definition - that which gives both genus and specific difference - is the best sort of definition to have when discussing or arguing about something. For it tells just what it is we're talking about, and how it is different than everything else. (Dictionaries often give merely nominal definitions.) If something has many meanings, we need to decide which meaning we're going with for discussion's sake, lest fallacies of equivocation run rampant, as they have in this thread.

Not when such essentializing of a term requires the exclusion of meaningful distinctions and schools of thought. You either end up with a reductionist definition that is useless or into a pointless debate about semantics. Thus, why it is more expedient, and more useful, to incorporate more nuanced distinctions, such as implicit or explicit atheism.

[Climacus]

Just edited my above post, OrphanPip, before seeing yours. I don't know if you saw the edited version.

[Climacus]

One is a truth claim about their beliefs though, not about the universe. If they said simply "I think it probable a deity exists, but I don't believe in it" you can see the distinction more clearly. As then their claim about the existence of god in the universe would be in line with theistic thinking, but then their personal identification is atheist.
Right. I'm with you here, more or less. But they're still truth-claims. That was my point. Take "I think it probable a deity exists, but I don't believe in it." There are two propositions here. (1) "It's probable that a deity exists." And (2) "I don't believe in a deity." Again, both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something about the world.

Your conception of atheism is too narrow, it assumes that atheism must make claims about the existence of God, rather than be merely a claim about a persons personal inclinations. Note that what I said is that atheism does not need to make truth claims about the universe.
A truth-claim about a personal inclination is a truth-claim about the universe. "X has the personal inclination Y" is a proposition, thus it is either true or false. And it tells you something about the universe.

[Climacus]

Not when such essentializing of a term requires the exclusion of meaningful distinctions and schools of thought. You either end up with a reductionist definition that is useless or into a pointless debate about semantics. Thus, why it is more expedient, and more useful, to incorporate more nuanced distinctions, such as implicit or explicit atheism.
No, an essential definition is always the best sort of definition for arguing and philosophising and discussing. What you're decrying would be a bad, incorrect essential definition. (Or else it would be a good, correct essential definition that is being misapplied.) If something has multiple meanings, then it will need multiple definitions. And, again, in each case, essential definitions would be best. The problem here is not just reductionism and semantic quibbling, it's equivocation.

[cafolini]

Also, I'm not entirely lumping religions together. When there is something specific to Christians I try to remember to separate that from theism in my posts. If I think the matter is particular to Christianity in the United States, I try to throw in something like "Christians in my country" because I know Christians aren't the same worldwide. I do think that it's a master/slave relationship worldwide, however, and I don't think it has to be.

I think theism in general is at least somewhat reflective of the arrogance of man insofar as he thinks he found the answers, and those answers are best for the world.

I could be wrong, but Buddhism has always seemed the least offensive.

Depends on how and where you look at Buddhism. It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed. Some very tyranical. One only has to dig into the Japanese prior to 1945, who were among other things very Budhistic and Shogunnish. But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens. Overall the Buddhistic religions have been, if not more tolerant in their hearth, more constructive of nonviolence. Many nihilistic nontheless.

[Paulclem]

Depends on how and where you look at Buddhism. It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed. Some very tyranical. One only has to dig into the Japanese prior to 1945, who were among other things very Budhistic and Shogunnish. But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens. Overall the Buddhistic religions have been, if not more tolerant in their hearth, more constructive of nonviolence. Many nihilistic nontheless.

It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed

Buddhism is distinct from other religions, but if you mean it co-existed with other religions in different cultures, then you are correct.

I think Buddhism was repressed in Japan before the conquest of Asia, and the aggressive imperialism of japan had much more to do with the cult of the Emperor and Shinto.

But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens.

Reincarnation is part of the Buddhist philosophy. You are correct to state that Buddhism is the pursuit of happiness - usually referred to as the ending of suffering. This is achieved through the attainment of Nirvana - Enlightenment - which results in an ending of the cycle of birth death and rebirth - reincarnation. It's not the case that reincarnation has been endorsed when it had been denied by the Buddha. The aim is to end reincarnation though.

Also in stories of The Buddha, he ascends to various heavens. These do not resemble Judeo-Christian concepts of eternal heavens, but are filled with beings who are still subject to samsara and will eventually be reborn into a lower rebirth when the good karma that helped them there runs out. this kind of existence, whilst being considered fortunate, is not as fortunate as a uman rebirth, as the distractions are too great for the beings to commit to a spiritual path.

Many nihilistic nontheless.

This is incorrect. The Buddha taught The Middle Way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. Anything that advocates nihilism can't be described as Buddhism.

[Paulclem]

I've just looked up the link to militarisation in Japan, and you are right. Most of the schools supported the Japanese militarisation.

[cafolini]

It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed

Buddhism is distinct from other religions, but if you mean it co-existed with other religions in different cultures, then you are correct.

I think Buddhism was repressed in Japan before the conquest of Asia, and the aggressive imperialism of japan had much more to do with the cult of the Emperor and Shinto.

But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens.


Reincarnation is part of the Buddhist philosophy. You are correct to state that Buddhism is the pursuit of happiness - usually referred to as the ending of suffering. This is achieved through the attainment of Nirvana - Enlightenment - which results in an ending of the cycle of birth death and rebirth - reincarnation. It's not the case that reincarnation has been endorsed when it had been denied by the Buddha. The aim is to end reincarnation though.

Also in stories of The Buddha, he ascends to various heavens. These do not resemble Judeo-Christian concepts of eternal heavens, but are filled with beings who are still subject to samsara and will eventually be reborn into a lower rebirth when the good karma that helped them there runs out. this kind of existence, whilst being considered fortunate, is not as fortunate as a uman rebirth, as the distractions are too great for the beings to commit to a spiritual path.

Many nihilistic nontheless.

This is incorrect. The Buddha taught The Middle Way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. Anything that advocates nihilism can't be described as Buddhism.

You are confused as to Buddhism in general. You can't generalize it because there are tens of interpretations. Reincarnation was not the Buddha's statement. On the contrary. But it was paramount in many Buddhistic religions.
Nihilism is in every religion. Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it. It's just as nihilistic as the overcoming of the senses in Christianity. Closed case.

[Paulclem]

You are confused as to Buddhism in general. You can't generalize it because there are tens of interpretations. Reincarnation was not the Buddha's statement. On the contrary. But it was paramount in many Buddhistic religions.
Nihilism is in every religion. Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it. It's just as nihilistic as the overcoming of the senses in Christianity. Closed case.

It's not closed. The Buddha taught The Middle way which taught, amongst other things, that eternalism - having a soul - and nihilism - extinction of everything at death - were extreme views.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

Reincarnation - or more specifically rebirth - is a fact of buddhist belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29

many Buddhistic religions

What do you mean by Buddhistic religions?

Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it.

The overcoming of Karma does not lead to nihilism in the Buddhist worldview. It is a contributing factor to the attainment of Enlightenment which is not nothingness.

[cafolini]

It's not closed. The Buddha taught The Middle way which taught, amongst other things, that eternalism - having a soul - and nihilism - extinction of everything at death - were extreme views.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

Reincarnation - or more specifically rebirth - is a fact of buddhist belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29

many Buddhistic religions

What do you mean by Buddhistic religions?

Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it.

The overcoming of Karma does not lead to nihilism in the Buddhist worldview. It is a contributing factor to the attainment of Enlightenment which is not nothingness.

And when the Buddha attempted to starve himself? That was not a form of nihilism?
I know, don't tell me. It was a way to accompany and have compassion for all the people that were being starved by their government. He probably wanted to train them like the donkey that learned how not to eat and then die. Ha!
Enough. Have fun.

[Darcy88]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

[BienvenuJDC]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

Darcy, while it is true that many fossils have been unearthed, the dating of those fossils is not accurate. Therefore you haven't provided one shred of evidence, you just made a claim.

[Darcy88]

Darcy, while it is true that many fossils have been unearthed, the dating of those fossils is not accurate. Therefore you haven't provided one shred of evidence, you just made a claim.

Flat out denial. Resistance to the facts. Some minds won't be changed, no matter the evidence offered.

Edit: All right, throw away the dating, deny that the very sun shines forth in the sky, and still you have these incrimentally advancing fossil specimens wherein the spine progressively straightens and the cranial capacity progressively expands and innumerable other minute changes occur, painting a plain and perfect picture of our evolution from ape to man.

To deny the truth of evolution is indeed no less blind and mad than denying that the sun shines in the sky.

[BienvenuJDC]

Flat out denial. Resistance to the facts. Some minds won't be changed, no matter the evidence offered.

But you didn't offer any evidence. You claimed that there was evidence.

[Darcy88]

Those fossils are evidence. Powerful, undeniable, incontrovertible evidence. When you deny the veracity of the dating you are saying that science itself is wrong, off the mark. All those scientists are in error, all their years spent researching and studying just a big waste of time, their phds not worth the paper they're written on.

There is no evidence that will change your mind. Its like shouting across a street at a deaf man.

[BienvenuJDC]

Those fossils are evidence. Powerful, undeniable, incontrovertible evidence. When you deny the veracity of the dating you are saying that science itself is wrong, off the mark. All those scientists are in error, all their years spent researching and studying just a big waste of time, their phds not worth the paper they're written on.

There is no evidence that will change your mind. Its like shouting across a street at a deaf man.

Oh, I believe that there are fossils, but I also believe that the methods used for dating required certain variable data and assumptions for the calculations to be made. However, you still haven't offered any evidence. You have only stated that there are fossils, and that there are some scientists who have dated them to certain eras. However, you ignore that there are other scientists that disagree with them. You haven't shown me what the fossils are of, who said that they are dated to what period, or what method that they used to date the fossils.

Yes, it's like shouting across a street, but I can clearly hear you. But you still haven't offered any evidence. Please show me at least one of the fossils, and then explain how that one fossil proves your claim. How does a fossil prove that which you claim, and what exactly is it that you are claiming (based on that fossil)?

[Darcy88]

I've stated explicitly in my last three posts exactly what those fossils prove. Read them again. I'd quote them but all you have to do is scroll up a bit.

Maybe a few fringe (hack) scientists question the dating method. Regardless, its been accepted by the overwhleming almost absolute majority of scientists out there. They know carbon-dating is legitimate.

Your beef is not with the evidence, its with evidence, with science, in general.

[Darcy88]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

Thousands of them Bien, thousands. I guess its just a coincidence that the dates correspond to the places the fossils occupy in the gradual evolution of ape to man. The new ones are like us, the older ones closer to chimps, and the ones in between half and half. Its like looking at photographs of a person growing up, progressing from infancy through childhood, puberty, adulthood and then old age. You lay them out and its really that obvious. Once again, to deny this is to deny that the sun shines.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've stated explicitly in my last three posts exactly what those fossils prove. Read them again. I'd quote them but all you have to do is scroll up a bit.

Maybe a few fringe (hack) scientists question the dating method. Regardless, its been accepted by the overwhleming almost absolute majority of scientists out there. They know carbon-dating is legitimate.

Your beef is not with the evidence, its with evidence, with science, in general.

No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.

[BienvenuJDC]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

Again...this is merely your claim that there is evidence. Some of these fossils are nothing but one tooth. There's Lucy that is supposedly a pre-sapien human, but later study shows that it was nothing more than an ape. You can manipulate the fossils to be what you want them to be, that doesn't prove anything. Without something to discuss, your evidence is nothing more than hearsay. Let's discuss an actual piece of evidence.

[Darcy88]

No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.

Yes, people once thought the earth was flat. Back before the scientific revolution, before the rapid rise of technology, back when science was making its first baby steps if it can even be said to have yet been born.

The evidence for the flatness of the earth is nothing like the evidence for carbon dating. Its a false analogy.

You get evidence and then you proceed to question it by questioning the very principle of evidence itself. "Science is wrong. They once told us the earth was flat!"

[Darcy88]

Again...this is merely your claim that there is evidence. Some of these fossils are nothing but one tooth. There's Lucy that is supposedly a pre-sapien human, but later study shows that it was nothing more than an ape. You can manipulate the fossils to be what you want them to be, that doesn't prove anything. Without something to discuss, your evidence is nothing more than hearsay. Let's discuss an actual piece of evidence.

Its not hearsay. Its solid, concrete, physical evidence. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there's nothing to it.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yes, people once thought the earth was flat. Back before the scientific revolution, before the rapid rise of technology, back when science was making its first baby steps if it can even said to have yet been born.

The evidence for the flatness of the earth is nothing like the evidence for carbon dating. Its a false analogy.

You get evidence and then you proceed to question it by questioning the very principle of evidence itself. "Science is wrong. They once told us the earth was flat!"

If you want to appear to quote me, then actually quote me. If you can't quote me correctly, why should I believe anything that you claim to quote.

"...science is merely knowledge..." I never said that Science was wrong, I said that the interpretation of the evidence was inaccurate.

Let's discuss one of the pieces of evidence that you have. I'm tired to going over you claims of the evidence. Let's look at something real.

[Darcy88]

Have you ever talked to an actual scientist? I took a few first year science courses and remember how knowledgable some of my professors were. My physics prof would go off on these 1000 mile an hour tangents, shooting off theories rapid-fire and scrawling equations across the board. They're not stupid. Maybe it would take me hours, but if I went carefully step by step I could add the pieces until the truth of some principle was revealed, soild as pyamid. Science is complicated, bafflingly so. But its well-founded. For something like carbon-dating to become as accepted as it is its had to pass through countless trials, a veritable gauntlet of obsessively nit-picking experts each ready to pounce on the slightest flaw.

We've come a long way since the flat earth days. Back then there was little to seperate fact from fantasy. Today we have methods and technologies that seem not centuries but rather light-years ahead of what they had then.

[Darcy88]

I don't see the point in discussing individual items of evidence. You don't trust the dating method anyway.

[Paulclem]

And when the Buddha attempted to starve himself? That was not a form of nihilism?
I know, don't tell me. It was a way to accompany and have compassion for all the people that were being starved by their government. He probably wanted to train them like the donkey that learned how not to eat and then die. Ha!
Enough. Have fun.

Ah the Coup de Grace. Unfortunately that is only part of the story. He rejected that path and then adopted The Middle Way between the extremes of indulgence and self inflicted pain.

Buddhism as it was then grew within a Hindu society, and so had no connection to the rulers, although it was supported by patrons later. In that sense it was a subversive religion.

I'm afraid your sarcasm is misplaced.

[JuniperWoolf]

What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting.

So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with. You're saying that they all worked together and managed to execute a huge, impossible lie (and trust me, for scientists, especially ones from different fields, "working together" is impossible enough even if the lie in question WASN'T way too huge for even a small group to maintain, which in this case it is). For what purpose?

Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation. Carbon-14 decomposes at a fixed rate, and this has been observed millions of times by millions of people, anyone who has ever studied carbon-14 in chemistry, or biology, or anthropology, or archaeology, &c. If you measure how much carbon-14 is left in a thing verses how much it had to start with, you can take that fixed rate into account and determine how long that thing has existed. It's like an hour glass, except instead of sand leaving the top part and falling into the bottom, carbon-14 is leaving the thing that you're carbon dating. It's an easy concept, and can be used to date things up until about 60,000 years. That is 52,000 years older than you claim the earth to be.

I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples for why the earth is older than 8000 years and why evolution exists. I could mention how there has never been a single fossil of a modern organism buried in a lower (older) strata level than it's ancestor (and each strata has a different, obviously observable composition depending upon the age in which it was produced - you've seen them, they look like lines in cliff faces). I could bring up the fact that we have literally watched evolution happen, we have CAUSED it to happen by breeding new species which no longer have the ability to mate with it's previous incarnation (and a new species created from an old one as in artificial selection is evolution, except that on a large scale there would be no humans around to employ artificial selection so they would change via the much slower natural selection which is also observable). It literally takes almost no effort at all to refute your claim that the earth is 8000 years old. Almost every person on the face of the earth (coincidentally everyone except for the people in your tiny religious niche) is of the opinion that your idea of a young earth is impossible.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Darcy, while it is true that many fossils have been unearthed, the dating of those fossils is not accurate. Therefore you haven't provided one shred of evidence, you just made a claim.


But you didn't offer any evidence. You claimed that there was evidence.


Oh, I believe that there are fossils, but I also believe that the methods used for dating required certain variable data and assumptions for the calculations to be made. However, you still haven't offered any evidence. You have only stated that there are fossils, and that there are some scientists who have dated them to certain eras. However, you ignore that there are other scientists that disagree with them. You haven't shown me what the fossils are of, who said that they are dated to what period, or what method that they used to date the fossils.

Yes, it's like shouting across a street, but I can clearly hear you. But you still haven't offered any evidence. Please show me at least one of the fossils, and then explain how that one fossil proves your claim. How does a fossil prove that which you claim, and what exactly is it that you are claiming (based on that fossil)?


No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.


Again...this is merely your claim that there is evidence. Some of these fossils are nothing but one tooth. There's Lucy that is supposedly a pre-sapien human, but later study shows that it was nothing more than an ape. You can manipulate the fossils to be what you want them to be, that doesn't prove anything. Without something to discuss, your evidence is nothing more than hearsay. Let's discuss an actual piece of evidence.
:lol: Pot, meet kettle!

Don't bother posting anything, Darcy, because if you do post something damning to his ideas, he just ignores it.

[Varenne Rodin]

No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.

....but you are questioning them to better cling to your dogmas. The opinions you are presenting are biased, unsubstantiated, not objective and, therefore, should be discarded.

[Varenne Rodin]

So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with. You're saying that they all worked together and managed to execute a huge, impossible lie (and trust me, for scientists, especially ones from different fields, "working together" is impossible enough even if the lie in question WASN'T way too huge for even a small group to maintain, which in this case it is). For what purpose?

Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation. Carbon-14 decomposes at a fixed rate, and this has been observed millions of times by millions of people, anyone who has ever studied carbon-14 in chemistry, or biology, or anthropology, or archaeology, &c. If you measure how much carbon-14 is left in a thing verses how much it had to start with, you can take that fixed rate into account and determine how long that thing has existed. It's like an hour glass, except instead of sand leaving the top part and falling into the bottom, carbon-14 is leaving the thing that you're carbon dating. It's an easy concept, and can be used to date things up until about 60,000 years. That is 52,000 years older than you claim the earth to be.

I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples for why the earth is older than 8000 years and why evolution exists. I could mention how there has never been a single fossil of a modern organism buried in a lower (older) strata level than it's ancestor (and each strata has a different, obviously observable composition depending upon the age in which it was produced - you've seen them, they look like lines in cliff faces). I could bring up the fact that we have literally watched evolution happen, we have CAUSED it to happen by breeding new species which no longer have the ability to mate with it's previous incarnation (and a new species created from an old one as in artificial selection is evolution, except that on a large scale there would be no humans around to employ artificial selection so they would change via the much slower natural selection which is also observable). It literally takes almost no effort at all to refute your claim that the earth is 8000 years old. Almost every person on the face of the earth (coincidentally everyone except for the people in your tiny religious niche) is of the opinion that your idea of a young earth is impossible.

Brilliant. Thank you!

[cafolini]

So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with. You're saying that they all worked together and managed to execute a huge, impossible lie (and trust me, for scientists, especially ones from different fields, "working together" is impossible enough even if the lie in question WASN'T way too huge for even a small group to maintain, which in this case it is). For what purpose?

Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation. Carbon-14 decomposes at a fixed rate, and this has been observed millions of times by millions of people, anyone who has ever studied carbon-14 in chemistry, or biology, or anthropology, or archaeology, &c. If you measure how much carbon-14 is left in a thing verses how much it had to start with, you can take that fixed rate into account and determine how long that thing has existed. It's like an hour glass, except instead of sand leaving the top part and falling into the bottom, carbon-14 is leaving the thing that you're carbon dating. It's an easy concept, and can be used to date things up until about 60,000 years. That is 52,000 years older than you claim the earth to be.

I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples for why the earth is older than 8000 years and why evolution exists. I could mention how there has never been a single fossil of a modern organism buried in a lower (older) strata level than it's ancestor (and each strata has a different, obviously observable composition depending upon the age in which it was produced - you've seen them, they look like lines in cliff faces). I could bring up the fact that we have literally watched evolution happen, we have CAUSED it to happen by breeding new species which no longer have the ability to mate with it's previous incarnation (and a new species created from an old one as in artificial selection is evolution, except that on a large scale there would be no humans around to employ artificial selection so they would change via the much slower natural selection which is also observable). It literally takes almost no effort at all to refute your claim that the earth is 8000 years old. Almost every person on the face of the earth (coincidentally everyone except for the people in your tiny religious niche) is of the opinion that your idea of a young earth is impossible.

This is indeed a very good post. Far more than an opinion.
What's interesting is that these quacking freaks would argue against this but wouldn't argue about the craziness of Jurassic, where they have actually guessed the anatomy of animals as if it were a fact. Not to speak about how they readily ate Freud's stuff of philogenetic fantasy, where the fetus in the womb goes through every stage of prehistory. Insanity finds no bounds and often becomes famous.

[BienvenuJDC]

So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with.

Did you pull that 99% figure out of thin air?


Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation.

You're right, it is an equation, but there are too many variable, and some assumptions have to be made to plug in for some of the variables. That is where the inaccuracies begin.


I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples

And you are rambling. Do you know that for sure? Do you have any evidence of that?

You see the problem with that logic is that we define the age of the strata based on what we find in it....and we define the age of that which we find in a strata based on the age of the strata. That is circular reasoning....and absolutely no evidence at all.

[hillwalker]

You see the problem with that logic is that we define the age of the strata based on what we find in it....and we define the age of that which we find in a strata based on the age of the strata. That is circular reasoning....and absolutely no evidence at all.

Ever hear the quote 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?' That statement you have just posted is living proof.

To simplify how geology works, if we focus on two simple scenarios:

1) dating strata from its fossils:

Some fossilised remains can be dated using Carbon dating (giving an accurate age - which obviously you may choose to refute because you consider science nothing more than conjecture).

But as far as scientists are concerned the facts are irrefutable, and there aren’t ‘too many variables’ to cast doubt on these facts.
Science is too self-critical and indeed too b1tchy to accept shoddy research as a basis for establishing facts.
Carbon dating is as accurate as counting the rings in a sawn-off tree stump to give the age of the tree. Unless of course you think dendrochronology is also flawed.

So it seems reasonable to conclude that any strata of rock containing fossils found to be of a certain age will belong to the same geological period as the fossils found within it. And the same will apply to any other set of strata containing fossils of that same age.
That’s how it is possible to conclude that rocks in Pennsylvania and in the UK both belong to the same geological period (Carboniferous) because they share fossils of the same age.

2) dating fossils from the strata in which they are found:

On this basis other fossils found within the same strata will be accepted as belonging to the same geological period even though they might differ in appearance and indeed be of different species from fossils that have already been accurately dated. The logical assumption being that they were buried at the same time, so co-existed.

It’s not circular reasoning - a case of one relying on the other and vice versa. It's called applying scientific knowledge logically.

H

[BienvenuJDC]

Ever hear the quote 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?' That statement you have just posted is living proof.

To simplify how geology works, if we focus on two simple scenarios:

1) dating strata from its fossils:

Some fossilised remains can be dated using Carbon dating (giving an accurate age - which obviously you may choose to refute because you consider science nothing more than conjecture).

But as far as scientists are concerned the facts are irrefutable, and there aren’t ‘too many variables’ to cast doubt on these facts.
Science is too self-critical and indeed too b1tchy to accept shoddy research as a basis for establishing facts.
Carbon dating is as accurate as counting the rings in a sawn-off tree stump to give the age of the tree. Unless of course you think dendrochronology is also flawed.

So it seems reasonable to conclude that any strata of rock containing fossils found to be of a certain age will belong to the same geological period as the fossils found within it. And the same will apply to any other set of strata containing fossils of that same age.
That’s how it is possible to conclude that rocks in Pennsylvania and in the UK both belong to the same geological period (Carboniferous) because they share fossils of the same age.

2) dating fossils from the strata in which they are found:

On this basis other fossils found within the same strata will be accepted as belonging to the same geological period even though they might differ in appearance and indeed be of different species from fossils that have already been accurately dated. The logical assumption being that they were buried at the same time, so co-existed.

It’s not circular reasoning - a case of one relying on the other and vice versa. It's called applying scientific knowledge logically.

H

I guess it's really impossible to discuss these things in generalities. We can claim whatever we want to if we don't have to look at specific examples. I understand what you are saying, but we cannot really discuss it unless we have a real example to look at.

[Varenne Rodin]

At what point do we start charging tuition?

[JuniperWoolf]

Did you pull that 99% figure out of thin air?

I guess we could argue that the people who get their "science" degrees from religious institutions don't actually count as "scientists," so in that case the figure would actually be 100%.


You're right, it is an equation, but there are too many variable, and some assumptions have to be made to plug in for some of the variables.

No, there are two variables. The rate of carbon-14 decomposition is fixed, so the only VARIABLES are the original quantity of carbon-14 and the remaining quantity of carbon-14.


Do you know that for sure?

Yes.

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess we could argue that the people who get their "science" degrees from religious institutions don't actually count as "scientists," so in that case the figure would actually be 100%.


Yeah...I guess you are totally blowing smoke...

There's no real discussion here.

[JuniperWoolf]

There's no real discussion here.

No kidding. Your viewpoint is doomed, it doesn't fit into reality. I give it two more generations.

[YesNo]

I think there are two kinds of people: (1) those who want to change other people's minds, and (2) those who want to be open enough to change their own minds. Of course one shouldn't change one's mind without a good reason to do so.

JuniperWoolf provided evidence that the earth is older than 8000 years using carbon-14's rate of decay and hillwalker provided evidence on how fossil stratification can lead to comparative geological dating. I think they did a good job of accepting BienvenuJDC's challenge to provide evidence rather than just expect him to accept their authority on what is right. However, the fact that he doesn't accept the evidence should not lead to frustration. It is an opportunity for those who accept the evidence to understand it better. There should ultimately be no need to change his mind.

[Alexander III]

I think it might have been mentioned before but arguing with Bien about science, is like arguing with the sky.

At the end of the day you always loose. Because a man shouting at the sky is never a winner.

[cafolini]

No kidding. Your viewpoint is doomed, it doesn't fit into reality. I give it two more generations.

Excuse me. This one is a funny one. It's already been dead for two at least. I think you have impossible hopes. Loved it, so to speak.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Excuse me. This one is a funny one. It's already been dead for two at least. I think you have impossible hopes. Loved it, so to speak.
If it's been dead for two generations, how come I've encountered multiple people in my own generation who still think the way Bien does?

[BienvenuJDC]

If it's been dead for two generations, how come I've encountered multiple people in my own generation who still think the way Bien does?

Good point! There are many more that you guys don't encounter. Eventually, people are going to start seeing the holes in the "theory". And just like I've experienced here, people are going to start seeing that the lack of evidence provided and the lack of substance. Again..."claims" of evidence (which is all that has been provided here, is not the same as evidence. Y'all are in a very small minority, just a very noisy minority.

[Darcy88]

Good point! There are many more that you guys don't encounter. Eventually, people are going to start seeing the holes in the "theory". And just like I've experienced here, people are going to start seeing that the lack of evidence provided and the lack of substance. Again..."claims" of evidence (which is all that has been provided here, is not the same as evidence. Y'all are in a very small minority, just a very noisy minority.

Bien, Juniper and Jack of Hearts dropped two atom bombs of enlightening posts direct upon your head. With this they blew away any veneer of credibility that may have hung to your beliefs. They provided straightforward, solid refutations of your objections to the theory. Your unwillingness to accept it is your fault, not theirs.

We are not the minority. Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution. Were the research heads of all the institutions of higher learning and all the scientists who submit articles for peer review polled, I'd bet this figure of 100 percent would result.

Its one thing to affirm one's faith in the face of the facts. There's a certain honour and honesty to that. Its quite another to deny the facts, to distort reality and refashion it in accordance to one's liking.

[Varenne Rodin]

Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.

[BienvenuJDC]

Bien, Juniper and Jack of Hearts dropped two atom bombs of enlightening posts direct upon your head. With this they blew away any veneer of credibility that may have hung to your beliefs. They provided straightforward, solid refutations of your objections to the theory. Your unwillingness to accept it is your fault, not theirs.

We are not the minority. Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution. Were the research heads of all the institutions of higher learning and all the scientists who submit articles for peer review polled, I'd bet this figure of 100 percent would result.

Its one thing to affirm one's faith in the face of the facts. There's a certain honour and honesty to that. Its quite another to deny the facts, to distort reality and refashion it in accordance to one's liking.

I've provided facts, but (without any documentation) there was posted a claim of discredit. All you guys can do is provide vague claims of what scientists say. You have provided no evidence or documentation of evidence. Claims of evidence mean absolutely nothing. All I see is a blind faith in claims of scientific theory. Scientific theoretical claims are meaningless without actual evidence.

"Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution."

Seriously? You don't even have faith in your statement. "most likely"??? She made an absolutely undocumented claim with NO SUPPORT. Please show how carbon dating is accurate beyond 5,000 years. CLAIMING that scientists believe that it is accurate isn't any kind of evidence.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/c14_allosaurus2.jpg

If you actually read this site, you'll see that there is a legitimate question to the accuracy of Carbon 14.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

I'm sure that you're explanation is that these things aren't by legitimate scientists. That explanation isn't going to work, especially since no one has documented anything that they've claimed.

[Darcy88]

Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.

What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.

[BienvenuJDC]

What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.

You mock God, and you then question HIS justice and love. That's irony.

[Darcy88]

Its an appeal to authority, but if the overwhelming majority of learned phd-accredited scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating, well then that's good enough for me.

So you're saying that all these pre-human fossil remains which resemble us ever progressively more close, those which least match our anatomy buried deeper, those more alike to us nearer the surface, that all these are a mere coincidence if not an outright hoax? How do you explain this? It is reasonable to take them as evidence of evolution. Only by abject bias can they be interpreted as anything else.

[Darcy88]

You mock God, and you then question HIS justice and love. That's irony.

I note to myself His profound lack of love and justice, then I openly mock Him and follow it up by stating from whence this mockery proceeds.

[Varenne Rodin]

I couldn't get that site to load on my computing device. Whatever the case, I doubt it could prove to me that god exists and I should drop speaking up for education based on reality. Best of luck with it though.

[Darcy88]

God's existence is somewhat of an open matter. His character, however, his character is certain. Just as we can't say with 100 percent certainty whether the boogyman exists or not, but we know for a fact that if he does he is one mean sob.

[Varenne Rodin]

What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.

Very good company, Mr. Darcy. ;)

[JuniperWoolf]

Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise.

According to the 2001 census, 21.6% of Albertans are secular (that's where I'm from) and we're by far the most conservative province.


http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/c14_allosaurus2.jpg

A grainy screenshot of a random person's correspondence that you found on a Christian website. That's a... uh... good point you got there...

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, so we really shouldn't expect ourselves to be able to change Bien's mind. He's like fifty years old and he's faced direct proof that his position is invalid since he was a child, if he hasn't conceded by now then he won't concede. It's eerie, but I'm still adamant in my belief that people like this won't make a dent in scientific and technological advancement because no one takes them seriously (this is especially true outside of the United States).

[Varenne Rodin]

Man, I love Canada. I just need a place in Canada that has California weather and I'll be all set.

[Darcy88]

Man, I love Canada. I just need a place in Canada that has California weather and I'll be all set.

I'm afraid no place in Canada has California weather. My area is the most temperate, and we still have to deal with 5 straight months of cold and rain.

I agree Juniper. He won't change his mind. Its not only evolution and carbon dating he's pitted himself against. Its a whole plethora of well-established theories (facts.) Continental drift, astrophysics, the formation of mountains, archaeology, genetics. Pretty much all of science. His faith is a quixotic candle stubbornly defying a category 5 hurricane.

[Varenne Rodin]

Rain I can handle, cold too. Too much snow (to the point where I can't leave home for weeks) or too much heat and humidity get me down.

[OrphanPip]

Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.

[cafolini]

Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.

Excellent post. The cross-examination is the key to its correctness.

[Darcy88]

Rain I can handle, cold too. Too much snow (to the point where I can't leave home for weeks) or too much heat and humidity get me down.

You say that now. Coming from California I bet half-way into a BC winter you'd be cursing the dark grey sky. I've quit thinking of our seasons as being four in number. Instead I consider them but two - wet and dry.

[The Bystander]

According to the 2001 census, 21.6% of Albertans are secular (that's where I'm from) and we're by far the most conservative province.



A grainy screenshot of a random person's correspondence that you found on a Christian website. That's a... uh... good point you got there...

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, so we really shouldn't expect ourselves to be able to change Bien's mind. He's like fifty years old and he's faced direct proof that his position is invalid since he was a child, if he hasn't conceded by now then he won't concede. It's eerie, but I'm still adamant in my belief that people like this won't make a dent in scientific and technological advancement because no one takes them seriously (this is especially true outside of the United States).

No he's not "like fifty years old, he'll be 39 on Wednesday.

[KCurtis]

Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.

I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution. As an educator in a middle school in Massachusetts, we keep religion out of evolution- and we teach evolution in science class. We do not talk about or criticize a religious belief concerning it though-that is the way it should be. Those students who question it and state they don't believe in scientific evolution are told to discuss it with their parents. Maybe I just opened up a can of worms here, oh well.

[BienvenuJDC]

A grainy screenshot of a random person's correspondence that you found on a Christian website. That's a... uh... good point you got there...

The validity of the evidence has nothing to do with
* how grainy it is
* where it was posted

You did NOTHING to check out the real validity


He's like fifty years old

As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.


and he's faced direct proof that his position is invalid since he was a child,

There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.

[Zemouli Chahra]

[QUOTE=Varenne Rodin;1101119]I couldn't get that site to load on my computing device. Whatever the case, I doubt it could prove to me that god exists and I should drop speaking up for education based on reality. Best of luck with it though.[/QUO
Make yourself relaxed.... beside nature... look deeply around you.... to your body and how it is wee made... every thing is controled.. how you breathe .. you move and speak ... then you will know that you are not a chance or accident... you are created by a Great creatore... By God.

[cacian]

God's existence is somewhat of an open matter. His character, however, his character is certain. Just as we can't say with 100 percent certainty whether the boogyman exists or not, but we know for a fact that if he does he is one mean sob.

How do you mean his character?
His character as in a book?
Funny that everyone assumes that God is masculin.
Could it noe be both a man or a woman?

[KCurtis]

There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.

Speak for yourself. I guess the only science you will accept and learn about is the limited science that won't challenge your belief system. Religion and evolution coexist for many people who also consider themselves christians.

[cafolini]

I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution. As an educator in a middle school in Massachusetts, we keep religion out of evolution- and we teach evolution in science class. We do not talk about or criticize a religious belief concerning it though-that is the way it should be. Those students who question it and state they don't believe in scientific evolution are told to discuss it with their parents. Maybe I just opened up a can of worms here, oh well.

No, I don't think you opened a can a of worms. I think you pretty well closed it with a good alternative. Freedom of religion implies that religion cannot be a curriculum because who will teach it fairly and with what bias when there are hundreds of them around? If religion were taught, many, among those who are believers, would not be free to believe as they choose. Good points.

[Varenne Rodin]

How do you mean his character?
His character as in a book?
Funny that everyone assumes that God is masculin.
Could it noe be both a man or a woman?

Character as in the nature of his persona if he exists. If he exists, he allows and visits horrors on the people he has made. It doesn't matter whether he's male or female, though in Christianity he has often been called a he. That's not the kind of character classification Darcy was making.

[KCurtis]

No, I don't think you opened a can a of worms. I think you pretty well closed it with a good alternative. Freedom of religion implies that religion cannot be a curriculum because who will teach it fairly and with what bias when there are hundreds of them around? If religion were taught, many, among those who are believers, would not be free to believe as they choose. Good points.
Why thank :grouphug:you.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The validity of the evidence has nothing to do with
* how grainy it is
* where it was posted

You did NOTHING to check out the real validity



As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.



There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.

And what about the websites I posted and you just ignored? I have a feeling that's why no one else goes to the effort of doing research, even a small amount like me, because you just IGNORE it. So, what's the point? Why should anyone go to the trouble?

[Darcy88]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm



"It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil discoveries. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.[49]
For many years, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.
Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection."




"According to a recent article published in Science, the Colorado River began to cut its course through the Grand Canyon 17 million years ago. The authors base their claim on radiometric dating of cave formations found in the canyon walls.

Polyak, V.; Hill, C.; Asmerom, Y. Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleotherms. Science 2008, 319, 1377-1380.
Their method, a type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating, relies on the fact that uranium isotopes radioactively decay to form lead isotopes. By comparing the amount of each isotope in a sample, the age of the sample can be calculated.1

Radiometric dating not only supports the geologic "evolution" of the Grand Canyon, it validates a central tenet in a much different theory of evolution - a theory introduced by Charles Robert Darwin in his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."2
An important criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution was its requirement for "an almost infinite number of generations", when evidence at the time suggested earth was less than 100 million years old. Nearly 50 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, research on radioactive elements in rocks provided the first reliable evidence that the earth was old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms. In 1907, Bertram Boltwood published an article describing a novel, radiometric method for determining the age of minerals - a method he used to date a rock sample at more than 2 billion years:

"Knowing the rate of disintegration of uranium, it would be possible to calculate the time required for the production of the proportions of lead found in the different uranium minerals, or in other words the ages of the minerals."3
Boltwood's method is conceptually similar to the dating method used by Clair Patterson in 1956 to determine the currently accepted age of the earth.4 Darwin would likely agree that Patterson's calculation of 4.55 billion years satisfies evolution's requirement for a "vast lapse of time".2


Contributed by
Peter S. Carlton, Ph.D.
CAS Communications"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth


http://teachthemscience.org/evidence

[BienvenuJDC]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm



"It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil discoveries. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.[49]
For many years, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.
Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection."




"According to a recent article published in Science, the Colorado River began to cut its course through the Grand Canyon 17 million years ago. The authors base their claim on radiometric dating of cave formations found in the canyon walls.

Polyak, V.; Hill, C.; Asmerom, Y. Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleotherms. Science 2008, 319, 1377-1380.
Their method, a type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating, relies on the fact that uranium isotopes radioactively decay to form lead isotopes. By comparing the amount of each isotope in a sample, the age of the sample can be calculated.1

Radiometric dating not only supports the geologic "evolution" of the Grand Canyon, it validates a central tenet in a much different theory of evolution - a theory introduced by Charles Robert Darwin in his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."2
An important criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution was its requirement for "an almost infinite number of generations", when evidence at the time suggested earth was less than 100 million years old. Nearly 50 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, research on radioactive elements in rocks provided the first reliable evidence that the earth was old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms. In 1907, Bertram Boltwood published an article describing a novel, radiometric method for determining the age of minerals - a method he used to date a rock sample at more than 2 billion years:

"Knowing the rate of disintegration of uranium, it would be possible to calculate the time required for the production of the proportions of lead found in the different uranium minerals, or in other words the ages of the minerals."3
Boltwood's method is conceptually similar to the dating method used by Clair Patterson in 1956 to determine the currently accepted age of the earth.4 Darwin would likely agree that Patterson's calculation of 4.55 billion years satisfies evolution's requirement for a "vast lapse of time".2


Contributed by
Peter S. Carlton, Ph.D.
CAS Communications"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth


http://teachthemscience.org/evidence

Shall I respond as you guys do?

Oh, all of that is invalid because it's from an evolutionist website!

Ok, we could take each little part bit by bit...let's start with this one from your site...


The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis 1989)

This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.

There is a claim here that there would be a large gap between humans and apes in respects to sizes. This is a ridiculous claim. There are humans of many different sizes and shapes. There are currently people who have frames that could be similar to that of some apes. Genetics are mixed and interbred to make many different characteristics. If scientists are using such logic to make their assumptions, then their "scientific" methods need to be discredited. As I read the evolutionist evidence, this is the poorest example of "evidence" that I have ever seen.

[Darcy88]

Shall I respond as you guys do?

Oh, all of that is invalid because it's from an evolutionist website!

Ok, we could take each little part bit by bit...let's start with this one from your site...



There is a claim here that there would be a large gap between humans and apes in respects to sizes. This is a ridiculous claim. There are humans of many different sizes and shapes. There are currently people who have frames that could be similar to that of some apes. Genetics are mixed and interbred to make many different characteristics. If scientists are using such logic to make their assumptions, then their "scientific" methods need to be discredited. As I read the evolutionist evidence, this is the poorest example of "evidence" that I have ever seen.

Scientists can tell the difference between the skeleton of a human and that of an ape. For one thing apes have much longer arms, since they walk around on all fours.

We were supposed to have learned all this stuff in school. I was under the impression that basic science was still taught in American public schools.

You must either believe that scientists as a whole are stupid or that they are engaged in some vast international multi-generation conspiracy to fabricate theories on weak or non-existent evidence. This would have to be the single largest conspiracy ever devised. It would encompass thousands of individuals and span entire centuries. Or biologists must on average be of a level of intelligence far below the norm. If you've ever studied the hard sciences, even at a high school or first year university level, you'd know this is not the case.

[BienvenuJDC]

Scientists can tell the difference between the skeleton of a human and that of an ape. For one thing apes have much longer arms, since they walk around on all fours.

We were supposed to have learned all this stuff in school. I was under the impression basic science was still taught in American public schools.

However, the parts that were being compared were skulls. There are so many different parts that are compared, most times there are fragments that are analyzed without the full set of bones. Assumptions are made...that's the current scientific method...make assumptions that support your theories.

[Darcy88]

...that's the current scientific method...make assumptions that support your theories.

There we have it. You simply do not trust science. You have no understanding of the process of peer review or any of the other measures out there by which theories are deemed reliable or are discarded.

[BienvenuJDC]

There we have it. You simply do not trust science. You have no understanding of the process of peer review or any of the other measures out there by which theories are deemed reliable or are discarded.

I do not trust the type of science that I have seen here. I'll admit that. There are many scientists that deem these scientists unreliable. Science still teaches us that it takes billions of years for coal to form in the ground.

[Darcy88]

But which is it Bien, - stupidity or conspiracy?

[JuniperWoolf]

You say that now. Coming from California I bet half-way into a BC winter you'd be cursing the dark grey sky. I've quit thinking of our seasons as being four in number. Instead I consider them but two - wet and dry.

I've heard that. I'm moving to Van in August to go to UBC. My boyfriend has already lived there and we've had a five-year debate about what's worse, the -40 temperature and six feet of snow or the perpetual greyness and rain. I'll concede that Christmas won't quite be the same with mud instead of snow.


No he's not "like fifty years old, he'll be 39 on Wednesday.

Thanks Mr. Completely-misses-the-point. Welcome to litnet, that's a swell first post. Great job with those quotation marks by the way.


I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution.

I think this is a good point.


Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.

That's true, besides radiocarbon dating (the one that new-earth people talk about the most for some reason) the same age range overlap is revealed using:

- Uranium-lead dating
- Samarium-neodymium dating
- Potassium-argon dating
- Rubidium-strontium dating
- Uranium-thorium dating
- Fission track dating
- Chlorine-36 dating
- Luminescence dating
- dozens more, blah blah chemistry blah blah
- The Law of Superposition (pay special attention to that word "Law (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm)," it has a specific meaning in science) which we've already covered. That's the "strata" (stratigraphy) we mentioned earlier, the things that look like lines on cliff faces.
- Isochron dating, which takes global events into account. For example, if you're pretty sure that something was exposed during an intense period of volcanism (or any other huge event which would have affected mineral composition), you can check that thing out to see if it contains materials which would have been prevalent if there was intense volcanism.

It's best to nip young-earth theories in the bud because they're sophistry. Superficially it looks like it could be plausible. To someone who has no deeper education, even if they're smart they might swallow it if it goes un-answered. I think that we have sufficiently proven the invalidity of the young-earth theory in this thread, however it would be impossible to type out all of the information there is in this post about the above dating methods in order to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to all young-earth suporters that they believe somthing that our species has already proven is impossible.

So listen: if you still have doubts, if you're still certain that the entire world belives a lie, get yourself some math and science education and try to disprove each dating method independantly from within the scientific community itself. If you can write a peer-reviewed paper which completely disproves radiometric, stratigraphy and isochron dating you will become one of the most influential people on earth, you will rake in millions of dollars, billions of people will know your name throughout the centuries and you will have proven that your position is not something to be laughed at.

So go on, do what science was designed for and prove everyone wrong.


As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.

Sure, just type "examples of straws that young-earth supporters grab at" into google.

What was your problem from that twenty-three year old letter that was written by some guy I've never heard of again? If you want me to dictate the 4-6 years of education that you're going to need in order to understand radiometric dating, you're going to have to start paying me. Most Canadian universities charge about five grand/year, so that'll be fine. You'll still need to do a lot of studying on your own though.

[Alexander III]

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

Look at this thread. Look at all other threads regarding religion which are in this sub-forum. 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007...

It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.

[JuniperWoolf]

It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.

Meh, I'm neither and I hang out here a lot. I like the philosophy, religious and serious discussions sub-forums because debate is fun. It's like fencing, and religion is one of those common topics of discussion on which everyone has an opinion in some context like politics (and like politics the cause-and-effect web of religion is intricate and far-reaching).

[PoeticPassions]

Look at this thread. Look at all other threads regarding religion which are in this sub-forum. 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007...

It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.

Agreed. I have a hard time understanding why people debate and discuss these issues over and over again, without any new or progressive outcome.

''Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' -Albert Einstein

But, hey, I'm all for freedom of speech and sharing of opinions... so if people like to engage in these discussions, then great. I just don't even have the patience or the nerves for it... It's exasperating just to read...

[JuniperWoolf]

I just don't even have the patience or the nerves for it... It's exasperating just to read...

*shrug* Then don't read.

[PoeticPassions]

*shrug* Then don't read.

When it's slow at work, I read... meh, I guess sometimes we like to inflict frustration on ourselves. Besides, I do think some of the arguments put out there are pretty good (taking the side of science, of course)

[KCurtis]

I do not trust the type of science that I have seen here. I'll admit that. There are many scientists that deem these scientists unreliable. Science still teaches us that it takes billions of years for coal to form in the ground.
Who are these scientists? Please reference.

[KCurtis]

originally posted by Juniperwolf
So listen: if you still have doubts, if you're still certain that the entire world belives a lie, get yourself some math and science education and try to disprove each dating method independantly from within the scientific community itself. If you can write a peer-reviewed paper which completely disproves radiometric, stratigraphy and isochron dating you will become one of the most influential people on earth, you will rake in millions of dollars, billions of people will know your name throughout the centuries and you will have proven that your position is not something to be laughed at.

So go on, do what science was designed for and prove everyone wrong.

Good one!! I like this- if you cannot do the above, there is something to think about!!!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think Bien has put me on the ignore list. Or maybe he hasn't. He's ignoring me, either way. It's sort of freeing.

[Alexander III]

Meh, I'm neither and I hang out here a lot. I like the philosophy, religious and serious discussions sub-forums because debate is fun. It's like fencing, and religion is one of those common topics of discussion on which everyone has an opinion in some context like politics (and like politics the cause-and-effect web of religion is intricate and far-reaching).

I prefer real fencing, at least there you have an opponent worthy of you.

[Varenne Rodin]

For me, these conversations end here, but I know that certain groups of religious people go out and continue to preach and to try to convert others. It's important to me to try to persuade them in text to curb that behavior. Their religion should be a personal thing. As long as it isn't, it will be criticized.

[cafolini]

For me, these conversations end here, but I know that certain groups of religious people go out and continue to preach and to try to convert others. It's important to me to try to persuade them in text to curb that behavior. Their religion should be a personal thing. As long as it isn't, it will be criticized.

There is a lot of money in PTL. The Jehovas are not PTL but if they visit, you can always climb the Watchtower, look at the Bambi and urge them to have some feast before Godot repents and eats it all by himself.

[Varenne Rodin]

There is a lot of money in PTL. The Jehovas are not PTL but if they visit, you can always climb the Watchtower, look at the Bambi and urge them to have some feast before Godot repents and eats it all by himself.

I have no idea what any of that means.

[KCurtis]

I have no idea what any of that means.

I think he has had a few.

[cafolini]

Gangs, oh gangs all over the place. One more.

[KCurtis]

Gangs, oh gangs all over the place. One more.
Just one, then go to bed.

[cafolini]

Just one, then go to bed.

Obviously you know what you are talking about.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think Bien has put me on the ignore list. Or maybe he hasn't. He's ignoring me, either way. It's sort of freeing.

You just haven't said anything worth responding to yet.

[Darcy88]

That's true, besides radiocarbon dating (the one that new-earth people talk about the most for some reason) the same age range overlap is revealed using:

- Uranium-lead dating
- Samarium-neodymium dating
- Potassium-argon dating
- Rubidium-strontium dating
- Uranium-thorium dating
- Fission track dating
- Chlorine-36 dating
- Luminescence dating


This settles it. The earth is a heck of a lot older than the fundamentalists say. What I don't understand is why some Christians feel it necessary to resist the obvious. Science disproves neither God nor Christ's resurrection, the two central pillars of the Christian faith. The strongest of faiths is that which accepts the truths revealed by science and then affirms God in spite of them. By denying science the fundamentalist is conceding that fact threatens faith.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You just haven't said anything worth responding to yet.

Right, Bien. I only responded in the way YOU wanted, with support for my argument. That's the message you've decided to ignore. You're just being rude now.

I'll ask a different question, you said that you didn't trust the science presented here. Why is that? What kind of science would you accept?

[Varenne Rodin]

Today my toddler son drank a bunch of sea monkeys. Cycle of life.

[BienvenuJDC]

Today my toddler son drank a bunch of sea monkeys. Cycle of life.

Ok...that is funny and not-so-funny at the same time. I hope that he's alright. As they say..."out of the mouths of babes"...I guess this time it's "into the mouths of babes"...

[Calidore]

He'll be fine. Sea monkeys are just brine shrimp. Probably good for you.

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha. Yeah. I freaked out at first, but he seems fine. He's a little confused as to why I would be sad over him drinking water. Sorry to derail the thread. I just figured this was of supreme importance. We can get back to universal truths and myths and stuff now. :D

[Calidore]

Somehow, I don't think comic book ads are that out of place here.

[hillwalker]

One thing that baffles me about those of Bien's persuasion who denigrate science because it clashes with the 'facts' in the Bible...

They believe God made Man, and Man is fallible... so just as scientists can be fallible (but are working at it) why can't those who wrote the Bible also be fallible? Are we saying intelligence peaked when the Bible was written and we've all become increasingly moronic since the days of Moses or whoever?

H

[Alexander III]

One thing that baffles me about those of Bien's persuasion who denigrate science because it clashes with the 'facts' in the Bible...

They believe God made Man, and Man is fallible... so just as scientists can be fallible (but are working at it) why can't those who wrote the Bible also be fallible? Are we saying intelligence peaked when the Bible was written and we've all become increasingly moronic since the days of Moses or whoever?

H

Apparently men didn't write the bible, God did.

That would be the answer I suppose, though I would have expected God to be a better poet than Dante...

But still God is definitely amongst the top 5 poets. He best work for me is the Quran, but in term of sales his most popular book is the New Testament. In the Old Testament (His first published work) we see that trait which many young and promising writers suffer from, to much egotism and teenage angst. But still a great first book.