semantics i guess, it is random in that there isn't a guided purpose, but that in evolution things over time changed and old things died out, but there wasn't a plan or something to create a being. i guess i struggle with how evolution explains something like an eyeball, how do all the parts slowly appear over time without having the others (what advantage would it be for a being to have just one of those parts without the others)
There a lot of specific explanations on how this happened, here's a few images that will give you a good idea of from simple to complex.
David Attenborough on this:
This is also one of the best explanations of the Eye's evolution, brilliantly explained.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
semantics i guess, it is random in that there isn't a guided purpose, but that in evolution things over time changed and old things died out, but there wasn't a plan or something to create a being.
Not semantics, I think it's an important thing to understand about evolution that really trips up people who don't understand it.
Evolution isn't directed, isn't guided to arrive at a specific result (i.e. humans), and I think that's what you are getting at.
But be careful to understand that it isn't random at all, things change over time as a result of a very non-random process and which things die out and which do not is very non-random.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
i guess i struggle with how evolution explains something like an eyeball, how do all the parts slowly appear over time without having the others (what advantage would it be for a being to have just one of those parts without the others)
And that's fair, not everything is immediately obvious. However with respect to an eye (for example), if you took two organisms that were otherwise identical except one had a patch of light sensitive skin, it's not difficult to see how that patch of skin might convey an advantage to its owner over the other one. And if there's an advantage, there's a non-random selection that occurs which promotes the genes for the light sensitive patch of skin to spread throughout the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
i guess, its something we just can't answer, but its not like big bang theorists have a leg up, they can't explain why the bang happened, people believing in God can't explain how he came to be. trying to understand time is beyond what we can understand, so i agree it isnt meaningful in itself, but just in relation to neither side having factual evidence. its belief in a religion/God or in experiments. people used to believe in a flat earth (unfortunately some still do) and it was commonly accepted 'fact'.
I get what you are saying. I have fewer qualms with deists and there are days I myself would like to be one.. as you say as things are right now there's little difference between some unknown natural process which spawned our universe and a deist god that created our universe.
Except I throw a big "at this time" at the end. While science says "I don't know", saying "therefore some kind of god" just seems unnecessary and puts me in a position where I could have to backtrack later if it is found that the universe is a result of a black hole in a parent universe, or whatever. And given the history of the ever shrinking role of god in the workings of the physical universe I think there's good reason to withhold judgment for now.
I fully understand, now that you've explained yourself, what you're talking about, but I don't think you expressed yourself very well. Anything with the words 'I believe...' is a belief statement. The former statement takes on a different rhetorical purpose, but that purpose is entirely rhetorical, there is no real logical difference between the two. There is a logical difference between "there is no god" (which many of my fellow atheists will say, though obviously many, possibly even most will qualify that with a 'probably,' saying "there probably is no god," a much more acceptable statement) and "I do not believe there is a god," that we can agree on. We can also agree that one may be an atheist who says they do not know if God exists or not, as I pointed out in an earlier post, and I'm that sort of atheist, a 'weak atheist,' if you will.
Good point, I see what you mean.
I think most atheists are weak atheists to one degree or another, most would say that if they were given sufficient evidence they would believe.
I still see a difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god" though, but maybe because I still can't come up with a clean definition of belief in my mind that is completely separated from knowledge.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I still see a difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god" though, but maybe because I still can't come up with a clean definition of belief in my mind that is completely separated from knowledge.
Sounds like the difference between strong explicit atheism and agnostic atheism, no?
I didn't really read most of this thread, but it got me thinking.
I don't really leave the city much, so I've never really thought about...how much of Calgary is religious, and to what extent? I went to a public school and the only religious people i ever tend to meet are muslims and christian girls... not to generalize or anything.
All I know is that americans online tend to be vehement that evolution can't exist.
I think atheism is a completely acceptable position. My biggest problem is that so many atheists are only capable of justifying their position through some poor grasp of evolutionary theory and a smattering of the latest quotes from Dawkins, Hitchens et al...
Personally, me being a conditional deist, I'd be a lot more interested in atheism if many of you were capable of philosophically describing why you don't believe in God(s) and what impact you think it will have on humanity's ability to create without going into all this "living free without fear" rhetoric which I hear way, way too much.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Why do so many people assume that people who have religion only give to charity because they are being told to rather than because they feel it is the right thing to do and they like helping?
That would be like saying that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet only give to charities because they want to improve their public image or because of some kind of social guilt about being wealthy. Maybe they just like to help... (BTW, doing a bit of research, they both actually sound more like varying degrees of agnostics than atheists).
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I didn't really read most of this thread, but it got me thinking.
I don't really leave the city much, so I've never really thought about...how much of Calgary is religious, and to what extent? I went to a public school and the only religious people i ever tend to meet are muslims and christian girls... not to generalize or anything.
All I know is that americans online tend to be vehement that evolution can't exist.
Calgary has many large religious communities from Mormons to Ismaili Muslims to regular ol' Catholics to Baha'i's, etc.
That said, I don't think it's particularly influenced by religion, that is to say I don't think the culture of the city is particularly infused with religion. Most people are quiet and don't talk about it all that much. Going to university in Lethbridge, I definitely noticed much more of a religious influence there, and more active religious communities. Not just Christians either, the small number of Muslims there seem more present to me as Muslims, whereas here in Calgary there are a decent number of ethnic Canadian Arabs, about 50-60% of which we can assume to be Muslim, and plenty of Pakistanis, etc. but they don't seem to be all that present as Muslims, more in their ethnic community. Same goes for the Jews in Lethbridge, I got a very strong sense of religious community there everytime I encountered a Jew, whereas here the Jews are a notable presence in the city but again mostly as an ethnic group kind of removed from religious practice. I don't mean that the Muslims and Jews and Christians in Calgary don't practise their religions, just that it isn't particularly notable to me, whereas down in Lethbridge I got a much bigger sense of religion being a big part of the culture.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Awesome discussion for the most part. I am proud to be included in it, even if in a very small way.
First off, and i want this clear, I am not a religious guy. Period. In any way, shape, or form of what is being said here do I "believe" in anything I am told to "beleive" in.
Yet, I "believe".
In what then?
Simply, in something larger than myself. What that is I have an idea but never once have i seen it articulated the way I would agree with, whether by any defined religion or any group of people that name themselves something else.
That doesnt matter to me as I have no desire to "belong" to anyone that wants to share my views. I cannot say the same for "Christians", "Muslims", or any other established religion that screams from the rooftops or from the streets that they are "right".
That is a defined difference between faith and "fairy tales" IMO.
I go back to what I said in this string (thats for bingo, never said i didnt kiss ass sometimes) originally......... that being....
Quote:
Whether one is fanatical about there being no god, or one is fanatical about there being a god...both are still fanatics.
Take that at face value and it cannot be denied. Yet, I have responces that say it is or is not true....depending on "beliefs". This is where the entire discussion becomes not just unravelled, but also no longer up for a "debate". It now becomes preaching, no matter what side of the spectrum you fall on.
My long time adversary on CP (and a guy who will be a good drinking buddy when i get back to Calgary whether he likes it or not damnit) Rouge Underoos said this in response to my above statement...
Quote:
You can say the same thing about people who are fanatical about the color blue or fanatical about scrambled eggs. Fanatics are fanatics.
I've personally never met a fanatical atheist. Never had one on my doorstep, never seen one excommunicated for having radical beliefs, never seen them chanting in the streets for the death of people who believe something else, never seen a news story that involved an atheist blowing up a cafe full of other atheists with vaguely different beliefs.
Can you give me an example of a fanatical atheist
I love the first part, cause it proves my point in a warped way....and it's true. And i agree.
The rest of it becomes nothing more than the "core" of the entire debate. Whether one shows up on a doorstep screaming from the top of their lungs about how their god is best, or how there is no god, means little.
Even if ANY religions are more organized, well funded, crazy, or driven to do well (or do harm) to/for others...it changes not one single "belief"...for anyone. People are what they are for the most part. That now becomes applicable to those that dont believe in any greater existance. Yes or no?
I guess it all boils down to a very simplistic yet contensious issue... live and let live even if living means you have to try and persuade others to live as you do.
/end semi-coherent rant
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
"Here's a question. Is religion ultimately for people who are afraid of death? Because really, religion tells us to be good while we're alive so that we can be rewarded after we die. The whole idea behind religion is that, if you're not good while you're alive, then you'll be punished when you die. "
I don't know about religion but the Christianity that I know certainly isn't about the fear of death. When Christ arose from the dead it was written "Grave where is thy victory? Death where is thy sting?" A Christian should not fear death and that is a point that some people raise against Christianty actually i.e. that a zealot will wwelcome their reward and wish death. That is wrong also because Christianity is called the abundant life and those who follow should be lovers of life.
The being good for your reward is one of the most misunderstood claims made about Christianity. Everlasting life is promised but life on earth is to be one of helping others, forgiveness, generosity, love, grace and a positive mindset. The saying to be so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good comes to mind. Christ called his followers to engage with the world as he did. He loved people and would often be found in taverns chatting with people. He did it so much that the Pharisees called him a wine bibber (drunk).
The negative confession faith as quoted on the top line of being motivated by fear is the baby steps of a believer. The fear of God is the BEGINNING of wisdom. Maturity in faith shows a world that is much much more comprehensive and embracing. To pidgeon hole the Creator of the Universes plan into such a simple explanation is akin to a Creationist claiming the world was made in 7 days in a 7,000 year old earth. Such simple explanations are not sufficient.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Smelly Fred For This Useful Post:
Personally I am a theistic evolutionist. I have no problem with evolution and believe God used it in his process of creating us. Where I do have problem is those who use evolution and science to claim Christianity is against science and evolution. God created science so why would he be against it? The physics that he set in motion were the physical laws governing our world. If one looks to the Big Bang as the beginnings of our Universe then the fine tuning which had to be done and the enormous numbers of probabilty that ensues point to a God who set this in motion. For life to be formed from the bang requires events whose odds are so enormous to happen that they must have been guided to fruition. To me that is the only logical explanation of the origins of the Universe.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Smelly Fred For This Useful Post:
There is no conclusive proof that there is no God. There are plenty of good philosophical arguments for atheism, but there are also decent arguments for believing in God.
I'm an atheist, but I'd never pretend that my position on the existence of a God was 'fact.' It's not fact. It's a belief, a faith.
It is actually a requirement that fact be falsifiable (but not falisfied), which is why "there is no God" is true until proven otherwise, whereas "there is a God" is not true until proven otherwise, if there is no accepted possible test that might disprove the existance of that God.
There can never be conclusive proof that there is no God, but there could be conclusive proof that there is. Ironically, it is exactly this that makes "there is no God" a scientific fact (though not an absolute truth), and "there is a God" belief.
If you can tell me why God, in fact, could never be proven to exist, only then you can tell me that "there is no God" is a belief.
Where I do have problem is those who use evolution and science to claim Christianity is against science and evolution.
I agree! Most of those who I run into that claim this are Christians who equate evolution with atheism.
I try to point out that most Christians accept evolution, and that there are many Christians among prominent evolutionary scientists, but they usually respond that those aren't true Christians.
There are some cases where science is against a specific claim of some Christians and their interpretation of the Bible (the earth is 6000 years old, that there was a global flood a few thousands years ago, the earth is flat, bats are birds, etc), but that's just specific claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smelly Fred
If one looks to the Big Bang as the beginnings of our Universe then the fine tuning which had to be done and the enormous numbers of probabilty that ensues point to a God who set this in motion. For life to be formed from the bang requires events whose odds are so enormous to happen that they must have been guided to fruition. To me that is the only logical explanation of the origins of the Universe.
Except the universe isn't fined tuned for life, %99.99999999999999 of the universe will kill you instantly.. life is fine tuned for this razor thin layer on the surface of a planet, not the other way around. It's like saying the shape of each glass is fine tuned for the water to fit exactly into it.
I don't think it's valid to say that there are events who's odds against are enormous. I think there are some things which appear unlikely but to establish actual fine-tuning you have to eliminate all possibility that they are a result of natural processes or just appear fine tuned when in fact they couldn't have turned out any other way or that separate things are actually facets of the same thing.
And even if you did establish fine-tuning that doesn't necessarily point to any god in particular, or any god period, just to something capable of tuning.. which could be a process similar to natural selection or a powerful race which have engineered previous universes to produce this one or any other number of possibilities.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
This line of reasoning is, however, obviously fallacious because it assumes that the universe is all there is, that if there were no universe there would be nothing.
We've been through all this before on many, many threads on CP. We always see the same posters positing the same positions. I don't think any proselytizers have converted any non-believers and none of the atheists have caused the religious to become apostate. Hopefully however, these discussions have given everyone more to think about, and outside their usual comfort zones.
I have actually given up talking about religion with many people, despite a strong yearning to do so, simply because I realize that it is a deeply entrenched position that few will ever be moved from once it is set - although I do not rule it out as an impossibility. Even if no offense is meant, you are often challenging views that define people's very lives and offense will often be taken - or their perception of you and your relationships and the level of trust may change.
Regarding this McLean's article however, the thesis is poorly constructed. The real question should be: "Are atheists more skeptical of organized charity?". The answer of course, has to be yes. It has been noted previously in this thread, that a strong motivating factor in the personalities and thought processes of atheists and agnostics is a strong sense of questioning and skepticism.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-12-2010 at 11:59 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
And yet, something is causing the number of atheists to grow, and before those people were atheists, they were theists. There may be some immovable theists, but generally speaking, the arguments for atheism do affect people.
And yet, something is causing the number of atheists to grow, and before those people were atheists, they were theists. There may be some immovable theists, but generally speaking, the arguments for atheism do affect people.
That is maybe why CP is a safer place to discuss these things, because doing it in real life can harm relationships with friends and family and here we can all hide behind the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Evolution of the human brain?
It's actually the evolution and advancement of society more than anything. It's no coincidence that places that were once deeply religious such as Quebec and most of Western Europe are now almost entirely atheist or irreligious.
There are many religious groups carrying out missions to 3rd world countries, etc. when they really should be trying to reconvert Western Civilization because that's where the biggest slide as it were, has occured.
