BuDo wrote:And it is these unanswerable questions which makes it wise to take an agnostic approach. I will not try to foolishly prove or refute that of which I know nothing about.
Atheism (prefix 'a') is simply to live under the assumption that there is no deity intervening in daily affairs in one's life. It doesn't mean you accept evolution or you hate god. You can be an atheist and wish there was a god and reject evolution. It's a great assumption to make if you believe atheists want to disprove god, which is laughable in itself because that's like trying to punch air. To be a fence-straddler for equally absurd reasoning is delusional at best (Delusional in the sense that you believe it to be the wisest position). Science does not try to "disprove god". The only thing science-oriented people bring to the table is empirical evidence for guidelines to how our natural planet works. The fact that they're inconsistent with religious texts or that a god is not required to answer essential questions to our being is another matter entirely.
@NuclearSilo No, it just means you don't know how evolution works lol. I posted an extensive list of various studies that have concluded evolution to be factual. The fact that you're unable to grasp or accept the concept of evolution doesn't mean its false. That's called an argument from personal incredulity, or arguing from ignorance.
NuclearSilo wrote:There is not enough material facts to explain how a fish can transform into a dinosaur. The evolution we know till know is that there is relation between species. And natural selection is a guess because we didn't actually see it with our own eyes.
We can't witness natural selection with our own eyes? Go check out bacteria. Get back to me.
No, that would take billions of years. The bacteria could evolve and form a new species of bacteria that's better adapted to its environment within a reasonable amount of time.
Last edited by Nick Invaders on Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NuclearSilo wrote:There is not enough material facts to explain how a fish can transform into a dinosaur. The evolution we know till know is that there is relation between species. And natural selection is a guess because we didn't actually see it with our own eyes.
You trolling. Also...god's a guess because we didn't see it with our own eyes? Your brain's a guess because I can't see it with my own eyes?
NuclearSilo wrote:So a bacteria transformed into a dinosaur...?
You said we haven't witnessed natural selection, I gave you an example of natural selection. The fact you equate natural selection to evolution shows your weak understanding of the theory. Natural selection is a component of evolution, but not the only one.
NuclearSilo wrote:There is not enough material facts to explain how a fish can transform into a dinosaur. The evolution we know till know is that there is relation between species. And natural selection is a guess because we didn't actually see it with our own eyes.
We can't witness natural selection with our own eyes? Go check out bacteria. Get back to me.
Blurred wrote:On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.
why don't all religious people research all the possibilities of the non existence of a god. why must atheists do all the work? i did my research
Religion is based on faith. I can assure you that most religious people know this or else they wouldn't be praying to a god. You will often hear a religious person in times of crisis saying words like 'have faith' or something of similar matter. One thing I've noticed on SRF is that some atheist don't even know the definition of atheism. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god. If that's the case, then lets take religion out of the picture and focus on another philosophical belief that was mentioned earlier, deism. My point is, most atheist only know about religion and use that to bash a god. Religion could be false, but there could also be other means of a god existing.
NuclearSilo wrote:
EvGa wrote:
NuclearSilo wrote:There is not enough material facts to explain how a fish can transform into a dinosaur. The evolution we know till know is that there is relation between species. And natural selection is a guess because we didn't actually see it with our own eyes.
We can't witness natural selection with our own eyes? Go check out bacteria. Get back to me.
So a bacteria transformed into a dinosaur...?
LOL!
Spoiler!
Btw, I like this thread. I am learning as I try and debate. =D
NuclearSilo wrote:So a bacteria transformed into a dinosaur...?
So a sperm and an egg transformed into a human?
Stop limiting your worldview to such minuscule time frames.
EDIT:
Although we're talking about the branching of species over eons, something that many people can't grasp. There is empirical evidence that shows the gradual evolution of species.
To say that a God has given people free will entirely refutes the purpose of free will in the first place. Do you not see the paradox? If we do have free will it's because we have no other choice.
Blurred wrote:Religion is based on faith. I can assure you that most religious people know this or else they wouldn't be praying to a god. You will often hear a religious person in times of crisis saying words like 'have faith' or something of similar matter. One thing I've noticed on SRF is that some atheist don't even know the definition of atheism. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god. If that's the case, then lets take religion out of the picture and focus on another philosophical belief that was mentioned earlier, deism. My point is, most atheist only know about religion and use that to bash a god. Religion could be false, but there could also be other means of a god existing.
i can agree that its based on faith but even still how many people pick their religion? most just grow up to use their parents religion. i grew up catholic went to their little classes to teach me the word of god or what ever. why am i not catholic? because i did research and thought for myself. i honestly don't see very many people do that these days. i have to agree that a lot of "atheists" call themselves that because it became popular somehow.
could their be a god sure it would fit but i don't believe that. am i open to the idea? yea i am does that make me not an atheist? no i still believe that a "god" is made up and people should start thinking for themselves. i have no issues with someone who believes that their is a god and does not follow an organized religion. its the ones that follow an organized religion that i start to challenge.
you can say oh your saying you believe you have faith that there is not a god! yes that is true but at least i don't have someone telling me what i believe in. with the information i have seen plus life experiences i have made my own choice and believe what i believe. organized religion is what i argue against not religion itself.
Nick Invaders wrote:No, that would take billions of years. The bacteria could evolve and form a new species of bacteria that's better adapted to its environment within a reasonable amount of time.
So did you witness the transformation between species or you are hoping/guessing that a species A transform into B through mutation?
TOloseGT wrote:So a sperm and an egg transformed into a human?
The point is you didn't actually witness the event. So you are here, now, today, judging an event from the past using guesses basing on what you observer in your current time.
Stress wrote:
To say that a God has given people free will entirely refutes the purpose of free will in the first place. Do you not see the paradox? If we do have free will it's because we have no other choice.
Wonderful.
I don't see any paradox here. We have no choice because we lack of free will, therefore god gives it to people?
When a girl is raped and a person convicted (after the fact) because of a DNA match. Was the prosecutor just 'making a guess' or did he have firm grounds to declare who the criminal is/was. He wasn't there to see it? Must be a guess? Even though he has empirical data to show exactly who it was, it's only a guess?
NuclearSilo, we have witnessed natural selection, speciation, a fossil record that gradually changes, retro virus insertions, etc, etc, etc.
There are many causes for mutation. You are not even sure the natural selection is the unique cause that cause species to transform. Or you are not even sure but only guessing that it plays a part
There are many causes for mutation. You are not even sure the natural selection is the unique cause that cause species to transform. Or you are not even sure but only guessing that it plays a part
Please stop trolling, you make no sense. In the meantime, PLEASE go read up on evolution and the mechanisms by which it works.
UnbeatableDevil wrote:I don't see how religion contradicts evolution, maybe specific religions like Christianity, but not all religions
No one here is using that argument. NuclearSilo is just trolling.
You did, many times, in old religion thread.
Not as an argument against god's existence, only against organized religion itself. However, certain aspects of religion can be used as arguments against itself in how it defines its god, etc.
Blurred wrote:Religion is based on faith. I can assure you that most religious people know this or else they wouldn't be praying to a god. You will often hear a religious person in times of crisis saying words like 'have faith' or something of similar matter. One thing I've noticed on SRF is that some atheist don't even know the definition of atheism. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god. If that's the case, then lets take religion out of the picture and focus on another philosophical belief that was mentioned earlier, deism. My point is, most atheist only know about religion and use that to bash a god. Religion could be false, but there could also be other means of a god existing.
No.. That would create the (grand) assumption that a God or deity are unequivocally factual. To deny X assumes that X exists. To claim that a God exists in some other vague sense is ridiculous to say the least. It does not change the fact that no one has ever provided proof that the existence of a God or deity is necessary. The idea of a deity or God is superfluous. Many have claimed that one does exists in that same vague sense, but the validity of those claims is always in question. You are essentially looking for reasons to believe in something you ALREADY decided must exist. And that's the greatest flaw you present. If you were honestly searching for reason without your a priori bias, you will immediately find that adding some invisible entity to the equation does NOTHING but complicate the equation even more and leads to infinite regression. What created that entity? And if you decide this alleged entity can be excluded from that rule, why shouldn't the universe be? A deistic approach would be one where a deity could exist outside our physical universe and does not intervene with the physical world at all, but the moment you begin searching for some type of emotional reason to find the deity, you become a theist. Your argument is flawed as is your logic.
More importantly, atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity, thus the "a-theism".
To put it into simpler terms, imagine theism as red, atheism would be the lack of red.
I see this all the time on forums where religious people, Christians mostly, by the very nature of their belief, place atheism in the religion block as the "denial" of God, as if God is neutral and everything else spawns from it.
EvGa wrote:Read up on evolution and natural selection yet?
Yes basically they said it started with the fossils, saw some similar in gene. And so they are assuming that specie evolve because of natural selection. But they didn't actually witness the changes, right? Just guessing based on what they observe today
EvGa wrote:Read up on evolution and natural selection yet?
Yes basically they said it started with the fossils, saw some similar in gene. And so they are assuming that specie evolve because of natural selection. But they didn't actually witness the changes, right? Just guessing based on what they observe today
EvGa wrote:Read up on evolution and natural selection yet?
Yes basically they said it started with the fossils, saw some similar in gene. And so they are assuming that specie evolve because of natural selection. But they didn't actually witness the changes, right? Just guessing based on what they observe today
Say I if your just ignoring the idiotic BS post by NuclearSilo as you read the comments.
NuclearSilo wrote:
EvGa wrote:Read up on evolution and natural selection yet?
Yes basically they said it started with the fossils, saw some similar in gene. And so they are assuming that specie evolve because of natural selection. But they didn't actually witness the changes, right? Just guessing based on what they observe today
Natural Selection wasn't suggested because of some fossil, have you even read Darwin's book. I highly doubt you've read nor even understanding the basic of natural selection.
NuclearSilo wrote:One person has unique DNA
There are many causes for mutation. You are not even sure the natural selection is the unique cause that cause species to transform. Or you are not even sure but only guessing that it plays a part
Any mutation wether good or bad is a result of evolution, natural selection is just one mechanism of evolution, so stop throwing bs around.
NuclearSilo wrote:
Nick Invaders wrote:No, that would take billions of years. The bacteria could evolve and form a new species of bacteria that's better adapted to its environment within a reasonable amount of time.
So did you witness the transformation between species or you are hoping/guessing that a species A transform into B through mutation?What species in question are we talking about or is this just some hypothetical bs.
TOloseGT wrote:So a sperm and an egg transformed into a human?
The point is you didn't actually witness the event. So you are here, now, today, judging an event from the past using guesses basing on what you observer in your current time. Again what event are we talking about?
Stress wrote:
To say that a God has given people free will entirely refutes the purpose of free will in the first place. Do you not see the paradox? If we do have free will it's because we have no other choice.
Wonderful.
I don't see any paradox here. We have no choice because we lack of free will, therefore god gives it to people? Right....cause you saw that happen eh?
| 
| Tarnished Coast
