Atheists....

[The Atheist]

Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:

1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.

I think that's about everything out of me for the time being.

Extremely well put, but I would argue the religion/intelligence ratio. There are several studies I can dig up links to, if you like. Obviously, it isn't a perfect indicator, but in general terms, the premise is correct.

[The Atheist]

Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.

Hey, I'm just telling you what the bible says - no secret to it. If you want a few chapter numbers, let me know.

[The Atheist]

Since I rarely see you make any real case here (but I do see you dismiss other people's) why don't you lay out your "excellent case for [G]od" - I would love to read it.

I may do that, if I have the time.

You know little about Christians - perhaps you ought to hang around some and listen to them on occasion so that you might stop making such ill-informed statements about them.

As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.

We acknowledge science's veracity in many areas (Christians who deny that gravity works would be denying the existence of God - because He created gravity).

That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.

Your comments are based largely on your non-stop begging-the-question of the truth about evolution. Once again: you have a theory, with some pieces of "evidence" that appear to support that theory. Congratulations. Quit pretending that evolution is equal to gravity - to do so seriously puts to doubt your credibility as a spokesman/woman for evolution.

Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.

[CountingSheep]

I am one serious atheist. Spirituality doesn't bother me... but organized religion causes so much **** it bothers me.

[Redzeppelin]

I may do that, if I have the time.

Please do so.

As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.

Knowledge of "religion" is not the same as knowledge of God. Either way, your generalizations about Christianity are not part of how much "book knowledge" you have about the Bible - it is due to your unfair stereotyping.

That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.

Gravity is here, now. We can study it here, now. Evolution is neither. Only its so-called "traces" are left.

Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

Edit: "We understand the entire [suggested/hypothesized/sepculated] process of evolution."

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, isn't it?

Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.

The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong. Few people thought the Wright Brothers were sane. A university physics professor condemned their experiement as ludicrous.

[hyperborean]

The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong.

Reminds me of Christianity

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

[Redzeppelin]

Reminds me of Christianity

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

It is ideologically driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

[The Atheist]

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, isn't it?

Nope, it's not a problem at all.

See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect.

It is ideologically driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

Wrong.

Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.

[Quark]

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Levin finds himself in a spiritual crisis. He fears that life is meaningless and death will soon destroy every accomplishment that man has produced. He intends to shelter himself from this doubt--or at least find some expression of it--in philosophy. However, this quickly fails. Tolstoy recounts Levin's experience:

"Their ideas seemed to him fruitful when he was reading or was himself seeking arguments to refute other theories, especially those of the materialists; but as soon as he began to read or sought for himself a solution of problems, the same thing always happened. As long as he followed the fixed definition of obscure words such as SPIRIT, WILL, FREEDOM, ESSENCE, purposely letting himself go into the snare of words the philosophers set for him, he seemed to comprehend something. But he had only to forget the artificial train of reasoning, and to turn from life itself to what had satisfied him while thinking in accordance with the fixed definitions, and all this artificial edifice fell to pieces at once like a house of cards, and it became clear that the edifice had been built up out of those transposed words"

Levin rejects philosophy because it is an artificial interpretation of what he feels. It uses words and symbols to replace what he already knows. In the same way, Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

[RobinHood3000]

I THINK what Quark was trying to say on the last page about gravity is that gravity as a concept is nothing but a human construct. We do not observe gravity objectively - we observe the apple falling towards the center of the earth under the force of what we CALL gravity, which (if you want to get technical about the matter) manifests via the exchange of particles called gravitons. We believe firmly in gravity, and for practical purposes so far, it works great. But we used to think the Sun orbited around the Earth, too. However, scientists are willing to acknowledge the limitations of science. Theists are generally less so regarding their respective religious texts - depending on who you are, this could be because a) you believe aren't any flaws, or b) you believe said theist is too dense to see them.

Regarding abiogenesis - it's the same thing. Science acknowledges its limitations on this front - which are not as bad as you might think. Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).

And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics). Besides which, knowing that someone is a theist is not grounds for anyone to treat him/her like an idiot. If they open their mouths and say something stupid, then they may proceed to form opinions at will. But that applies to followers of any belief system, anyway.

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me what theists believe.

[cuppajoe_9]

Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).

Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.

And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics).

Alternate view: a person holding a PhD in molecular biology is more likely than the general population to be 1) a genius and 2) an atheist, thus skewing the results.

[The Atheist]

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

That's precisely the same as asking, "What do philatelists believe?"

"Atheism" isn't a belief system, it simply signifies lack of belief in god/s. Atheists can be rationalists, humanists, anarchists, Buddhists, Universal Unitarians, polytheists and UFO nutters, among others.

Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.

[RobinHood3000]

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.

Couldn't agree more, and would extend it to other forms of theism, as well.

[Redzeppelin]

Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.

The results consisted only of a few amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.

Other notes: Miller and Urey artificially blocked out oxygen and "trapped" only the amino acids favorable to life. There is no way to explain how this could have happened on the early earth.

It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have eliminated early life.

[RobinHood3000]

The results consisted only of a few amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.

Early monocellular organisms are also very far from modern-day forms of life. Just because it's far doesn't mean it isn't traversible.

It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have eliminated early life.

I'm a little unclear on this - what exactly constitutes this "tar"? Given that oxygen is basic to some life and deadly to others, I'm a little leery of saying that any one substance is inherently destructive to life.