Atheists....

[Quark]

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.

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

I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell. If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view. If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them.

Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.

Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true

I never argued the contrary

[The Atheist]

I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell.

Unfortunately, any discussion of this kind inevitably does. When one side only has the bible and the bible's the word of a god, then there isn't actually a lot of room to manoever away from "goddidit".

If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view.

No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable. There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way. A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.

If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?

In two words - Thomas Aquinas. "Truth cannot contradict truth". This is why the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches accept evolution - to deny it is to ignore a large amount of factual evidence. Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict have no doubt that the earth is billions, not thousands of years old and that life has evolved from single-celled organisms. This is the problem - not christianity, but people who cannot accept factual evidence. The bible and science or religion and science can work alongside each other as long as they do not contradict each other. Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.

Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.

Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.

Same old, same old...

[Durgamol]

it may sound naive, but i think it's easier to believe: we have some reason for living and behaving "well" . If there is no life after death, then all the sins wouldn't be so much forbidden anymore. why to try be human if there is no reward? Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

[Lote-Tree]

why to try be human if there is no reward?

That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?

Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

Revenge is easy.

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

[Durgamol]

That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?



Revenge is easy.

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no, if there are no "upper" rules? As i said i know it is easier to live like this. And naive. But people are finding being cruel as something natural - it comes too easy to hurt someone. So it is better to believe something not completely rational then not to believe anything and care only about myself.
the question i was asking myself since is: how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others. How someone can kill and say that believes? i don't get it...

[Lote-Tree]

what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no

"Good" is anything that minimises suffering? Is not that A Criteria to go by?

how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others.

It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

[Durgamol]

It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

That is probably a mechanism. You put it in words really well. But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive

[soumyakans]

The debate on existence vs. non existence of God has been as old as mankind itself. i was treated to many interesting arguments in this thread - i only have this to add. Several Scientists have attempted to analyze the "force" that rules this universe - and only culminated in the view point that finally all is one - a view echoed by ancient Chinese and Indian philosophies.
i suggest that you read one or all of these books and it will pass for an interesting reading leave alone solve the debate of theism vs. atheism:
"The Tau of Physics" - Fritjoff Kapra
"The dancing Wu-Li Masters" - Gary Zukav

[Hand_Of_God]

I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's.

I think one should be a little crazy to believe in god (look at tom cruise!)

[Lote-Tree]

But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive

To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)

The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.

Are you up for that challenge :-)

[Durgamol]

To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)

The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.

Are you up for that challenge :-)

i wish i was such a good person, but the answer is no: there are moments when revenge seems to be so sweet
So no, this challenge is not tempting me that much: i prefer to stay naive but at least a bit good, than realistic and really cruel. But Your arguments are really good - i can't wait to talk on some other matters with You

[Lote-Tree]

i wish i was such a good person, but the answer is no: there are moments when revenge seems to be so sweet

LOL :-)

Even FAITH teaches Forgivenes is better for you :-)

So no, this challenge is not tempting me that much:

Why? do you not try to better yourself :-)

i prefer to stay naive but at least a bit good, than realistic and really cruel.

But one has to grow out of naievety? Just like a child grows out of childhood?

But Your arguments are really good - i can't wait to talk on some other matters with You

LOL :-)

[RobinHood3000]

Frankly, I think that one of the things that people find most appealing about religion is that it allows them to feel vengeful without being the person wreaking said revenge. "Hey, this guy wronged me - so, I shall take take comfort in knowing that he shall burn for eternity in a torturous world of fire, brimstone, and propane grills." On the one hand, it allows the theist to purge their vengeance without taking drastic action. On the other hand, is it really that healthy to have vengeful feelings at all?

[Redzeppelin]

No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable.

That some Christians believe evolution doesn't make it more credible; in fact, based on your argument that religious people are generally dumber than non-believers, such a claim as you make above seems odd - like it's supposed to bolster your position. When is having "dim" people agree with you a plus?

There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way.

Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.

A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.

Incorrect as well: a person's world-view is always in effect in the interpretation of "facts." Atheists do have a belief: they believe there is no God (it has to be a belief because they can't prove He doesn't exist). That's the same type of argument from ignorance the evolution often argues: "since we don't know exactly what happened, and hypothesis that fits the evidence will do."

Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.

Your fair admittance of the first statement leads to good odds that the second will be disproved as well.

Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.

Same old, same old...

There's plenty of ID info out there to suggest an intelligent designer; once that's granted, then creation becomes very feasible.

[cuppajoe_9]

Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.

Absolute balderdash. There is no evidence whatsoever for ID, and there can never be any evidence for it because it makes no predictions. Here is about the briefest possible summary of the evidence for univeral common descent. You may notice that it is very long. This is becase there is a lot of evidence.

To summarize the summary:

1. All living organisms fit into a historical, unique nested phylogical tree (some of which you can read here). This is exactly what one would expect if they had evolved from a comon ancestor as opposed to being created all at once. This is not a subjective arangement, it is mathematically verifiable.
2. Anatomical vestiges and atavisms are consistent with the theory of universal common descent, and always show up in the organisms that one would expect them to, given their position in the phylogical tree (mammals sometimes have vestigal gills, but reptiles never have vestigal fur).
3. Vestiges can be seen on the molecular level, in the form of non-functional 'pseudogenes'. Humans have a pathway for manufacturing vitamin C that would be completely functional except that the gene needed to manufacture a single enzyme is missing, for example.
4. Present biogeography is consistent with evolution. Animals are found where their recent ancestors were, not where the habitat is best suited to them. The exceptions to this rule are cases of extreme mobility, such as in birds or when humans introduce different species to new habitats.
5. Widespread pharmacology (similarity of organs in structure despite difference in function) is consistent with evolution. It is a reasonable assumption that an intelligent designer would choose organs for their functionality and not for their similarity to other organs in different animals. This is not the case, as can be seen on both macroscopic and microscopic levels.
6. Protein functional reduncany. I quote the argument from the source I give:

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

7. Transpons are parastic DNA which serve no function and are transmitted only by heredity. They are found across species.
8. Endogenous retroviruses are similarly transmitted only by heredity. They are found across species.
9. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and the wild.
10. The fossil record conforms exactly to molecular evidence and the phylogenic tree.

I don't expect you to believe a word of this, and frankly don't care. What does concern me is the idea of you teaching others factually false statements such as "Evolution has no more evidence that proves it than ID does". Please stop doing that.