Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 3

[KalMart]

Should have shown her this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Point out how many transitional fossils that we know of. It's quite extensive. The 'missing link' argument is ridiculous.

I often try to point out to those who ask about 'missing links' that when you think about the nature of fossilization and probability, the chances of any bones being able to be preserved and then later identified is remarkably low with climate, scavenging, geological changes, and the inherently decompositional nature of organic material such as flesh and bone. To even find three separate fossilized skeletons (or most of them) of any species from millions of years back probably speaks to it being an extremely widespread species just to give some remains the chances of being preserved in, say, a bed of river silt that doesn't get disturbed enough ever again to disallow the fossilization.

So if it's that relatively rare to preserve fossils for the settled, successful species that last a long time...think of how exponentially rarer it must be for that good luck to fall upon a species that's transitional and shorter-lived between the successful ones. The rationale for 'link' species is much more logical and sensible than an argument against them in lieu of fossils. The fossils of the successful, non-transitional species, as well as further scientific support for evolution as a whole, proves the precedent for there being links to begin with.

And as you've pointed out, we have found quite a few.


Just no crocoduck yet.

 

[enterthemadness]

Maybe they're trying to convert him...how many atheists raised money to help him?

Oh, I don't know.

Now onto your other post, which I like.

If there was no God or Gods, I'd still pray to Mother Earth. If there was only a Christian or Islamic God...guess I'm bad, still a Pagan.

 

[Sloth7d]

I've asked this to some before...but say we were somehow able to prove/show/discover that that there really is no God.

Would that mean that we would abolish all churches, or anything associated with religion? Or would they immediately become the stuff of folklore and mythology? What would all the priests, and bishops, and misters, and monks, and nuns, and etc. suddenly do with their lives?

The evidence against the big three religions is pretty overwhelming as it is, between internal contradictions with scripture, historical and archaelogical inconsistencies, and of course the scientific errors contained within their holy texts. This hasn't stopped the majority of religious people from being religious. We both know that this isn't about evidence with most people. The only way to do away with religious beliefs is to deal with the psychological needs that in people that draw them towards it. However, I wouldn't even go that far. I've said before that I don't believe all religions are bad.

Would we suddenly abandon much of morality or our concepts of altruism now that we knew that a presupposed supernatural intelligent designer/provider didn't actually exist? Would we be like chickens with our heads removed?

I don't think a higher sentient power can be the source of what is and isn't moral else make morals arbitrary and nihilistic. At best a higher sentient power can enforce moral law, but it cannot be moral law itself if morals are to be objective in some sense. As is, most of our moral concepts are based around people what kind of society we would want to live in. You don't want anyone to get away with murdering you or someone you love, so you reason that it shouldn't be okay for anyone to just go around killing anyone and getting away with it.

On the flip side...what if we could prove that God exists? Would those who weren't religious have to become religious, go to church, pray, change their minds over what they disagree with in scripture and so on for fear of being punished or damned? And what if it turned out that the Islamic version of God and his teachings were the 'right' one...would we all become Muslims, or require our women to be covered from head to toe?

It's up to them. It's hard for me to take serious the notion of the Abrahamic God being real at this point, but all I can say is it depends on whether a higher sentient power can be the source of morals. If proven to exist, a strictly practical person may yeild to it because he has no hopes of overcoming it. If proven to exist, an idealist may oppose it in a refusal to compromise. And then there are others whose sense of morals already line up with their God.

Honestly, I'm often pretty glad that we don't know for sure...we may be better off never knowing for sure.

Is it better to hide the truth because it's scary or undesirable? Were that the case, I know I'd still be religious. Why would I want to believe I descended from apes, that I'm just another animal (albeit the most cognitive of the species), or that I don't have an immortal soul?

 

[KalMart]

The evidence against the big three religions is pretty overwhelming as it is, between internal contradictions with scripture, historical and archaelogical inconsistencies, and of course the scientific errors contained within their holy texts. This hasn't stopped the majority of religious people from being religious. We both know that this isn't about evidence with most people. The only way to do away with religious beliefs is to deal with the psychological needs that in people that draw them towards it. However, I wouldn't even go that far. I've said before that I don't believe all religions are bad.



I don't think a higher sentient power can be the source of what is and isn't moral else make morals arbitrary and nihilistic. At best a higher sentient power can enforce moral law, but it cannot be moral law itself if morals are to be objective in some sense. As is, most of our moral concepts are based around people what kind of society we would want to live in. You don't want anyone to get away with murdering you or someone you love, so you reason that it shouldn't be okay for anyone to just go around killing anyone and getting away with it.



It's up to them. It's hard for me to take serious the notion of the Abrahamic God being real at this point, but all I can say is it depends on whether a higher sentient power can be the source of morals. If proven to exist, a strictly practical person may yeild to it because he has no hopes of overcoming it. If proven to exist, an idealist may oppose it in a refusal to compromise. And then there are others whose sense of morals already line up with their God.



Is it better to hide the truth because it's scary or undesirable? Were that the case, I know I'd still be religious. Why would I want to believe I descended from apes, that I'm just another animal (albeit the most cognitive of the species), or that I don't have an immortal soul?

Or is it better that the 'truth' be what we honestly, respectfully, and ethically make of it for ourselves...regardless of who or what we do or don't accredit it to...since it's ultimately objectively unknowable?

And you're not another animal....you're human. How we got there is no more or less special or remarkable be it via natural causes or divine ones. To somehow think that evolution is a less wondrous and awesome thing is not giving it enough credit. It's completely worth it either way.

 

[Sloth7d]

Or is it better that the 'truth' be what we honestly, respectfully, and ethically make of it for ourselves...regardless of who or what we do or don't accredit it to...since it's ultimately objectively unknowable?

Well, yeah, in a way. The truth only can be what we make of it since we're limited to our senses. I agree. But assuming that we can prove the existence of a higher sentient power, I don't think we should hide that. Everyone should be given a chance to deal with the implications for themselves.

And you're not another animal....you're human. How we got there is no more or less special or remarkable be it via natural causes or divine ones. To somehow think that evolution is a less wondrous and awesome thing is not giving it enough credit. It's completely worth it either way.

Well, bit of valuative perspective here. For the most part, I agree with you, but should I choose to Christianity as my religion, well, I'm made in God's image. That's some claim to aestetic vanity I would have. Though at the same time my ancestor would be made from dirt, so, yeah I guess it balances out, lol. Yeah, it all depends on how you look at it.

 

[Sloth7d]

I'm thinking of taking the moniker King of Edits. Smh.

 

[EML420]

Even when we die do we really get an answer if there isnt a heaven then both athiest and people who belive dont really know there gone.

I was reading the Vampire Lestat and the line was something along those lines struck me lol I think Anne Rice was still an athiest when she wrote that book.

 

[mara]

The evidence against the big three religions is pretty overwhelming as it is, between internal contradictions with scripture, historical and archaelogical inconsistencies, and of course the scientific errors contained within their holy texts. This hasn't stopped the majority of religious people from being religious. We both know that this isn't about evidence with most people. The only way to do away with religious beliefs is to deal with the psychological needs that in people that draw them towards it. However, I wouldn't even go that far. I've said before that I don't believe all religions are bad.



I don't think a higher sentient power can be the source of what is and isn't moral else make morals arbitrary and nihilistic. At best a higher sentient power can enforce moral law, but it cannot be moral law itself if morals are to be objective in some sense. As is, most of our moral concepts are based around people what kind of society we would want to live in. You don't want anyone to get away with murdering you or someone you love, so you reason that it shouldn't be okay for anyone to just go around killing anyone and getting away with it.



It's up to them. It's hard for me to take serious the notion of the Abrahamic God being real at this point, but all I can say is it depends on whether a higher sentient power can be the source of morals. If proven to exist, a strictly practical person may yeild to it because he has no hopes of overcoming it. If proven to exist, an idealist may oppose it in a refusal to compromise. And then there are others whose sense of morals already line up with their God.



Is it better to hide the truth because it's scary or undesirable? Were that the case, I know I'd still be religious. Why would I want to believe I descended from apes, that I'm just another animal (albeit the most cognitive of the species), or that I don't have an immortal soul?

I'd like to add to this. Bare with me, most of you prob know all this but I can't answer without explaining first lol

If one digs deep enough (historically), and breaks down the individual religions, one will find a peculiar pattern. One will find repeats of stories all the back to the worlds oldest civilization, the same stories only the names have changed and in certain cases, condensed from thousands of gods to one or just a few. The reason is that modern science is relatively new, religion was humanities first attempt at science, to explain the stars or a lightning bolt. Humanity didn't understand so they assigned deities to explain it all. As modern science developed deities were eliminated, and now we have just a few issues that science still cannot explain, such as death. (I would add the creation of the universe but Hawking's M Theory is pretty good at explaining that one. ) Humanity still uses deities to explain what science cannot. The search for immortality continues, they need to believe that there is more, that this isn't all there is. That's the psychological aspect of it that needs to be addressed, fear of the unknown. So, humanity still needs religion and I'm cool with that so long as it's not violent or stands in the way of progress.

So, because of what I said above IMO, we will never discover the existence of a god.

Morality is a different arena, one that can fall under neurology and psychology. Which I can't explain other then to say its in the brain, and there is scientific evidence for this. (for example, a CT scan can reveal the differences in a serial killers brain compared to a non-violent person) Beyond that it would take forever for me to explain morality so I'll just leave it at that. Bottom line, religion is not necessary, but it can be helpful for those raised in a poor environment.

The truth should never be swept under the rug. We would never have come so far if it were that simple. Education is key. There can be no progress without it.

Sorry for the ramble, after 10 years of study, simple explanations are beyond me. lol

 

[KalMart]

Well, yeah, in a way. The truth only can be what we make of it since we're limited to our senses. I agree. But assuming that we can prove the existence of a higher sentient power, I don't think we should hide that. Everyone should be given a chance to deal with the implications for themselves.

I don't think it's a case of hiding...more that its greatest worth and usefulness to us is in not being truly knowable. Some would say 'that's what faith is'.

Well, bit of valuative perspective here. For the most part, I agree with you, but should I choose to Christianity as my religion, well, I'm made in God's image. That's some claim to aestetic vanity I would have. Though at the same time my ancestor would be made from dirt, so, yeah I guess it balances out, lol. Yeah, it all depends on how you look at it.

I think that even for a theist, with all due respect, the whole 'in God's image' and creationism can't be the crux of whether one believes or not, or something they have to accept as part of the package. We just know better nowadays. So in a lot of ways, it also falls on the shoulders of those who don't believe in Genesis that it shouldn't open the door to mockery/dismissal/etc of one's religion. Evolution is for knowledge and better understanding, it's not a 'point for atheism'. I would think it should be fine for a theist to accept and admit that being 'designed' or what have you by God is more symbolic than it is scientific or rational. Others think it is the very essence of religion and believing that we are somehow 'chosen' to be special.

Basically....it can't come down to that. Just as we've evolved culturally, intellectually, and scientifically...we probably have to evolve religiously as well and better understand how it's still 'true' and important without relying so heavily on a notion that's clearly becoming less and less likely by each generation. I think it also comes down to not so much loosing a foothold on accuracy, explainability or plausibility...but on authority, or at least the perception of it. And that, as we can probably all agree, can have a way of wanting to cloud the 'truth', as we put it, if it's not to its advantage.

 

[KalMart]

I'd like to add to this. Bare with me, most of you prob know all this but I can't answer without explaining first lol

If one digs deep enough (historically), and breaks down the individual religions, one will find a peculiar pattern. One will find repeats of stories all the back to the worlds oldest civilization, the same stories only the names have changed and in certain cases, condensed from thousands of gods to one or just a few. The reason is that modern science is relatively new, religion was humanities first attempt at science, to explain the stars or a lightning bolt. Humanity didn't understand so they assigned deities to explain it all. As modern science developed deities were eliminated, and now we have just a few issues that science still cannot explain, such as death. (I would add the creation of the universe but Hawking's M Theory is pretty good at explaining that one. ) Humanity still uses deities to explain what science cannot. The search for immortality continues, they need to believe that there is more, that this isn't all there is. That's the psychological aspect of it that needs to be addressed, fear of the unknown. So, humanity still needs religion and I'm cool with that so long as it's not violent or stands in the way of progress.

So, because of what I said above IMO, we will never discover the existence of a god.

Morality is a different arena, one that can fall under neurology and psychology. Which I can't explain other then to say its in the brain, and there is scientific evidence for this. (for example, a CT scan can reveal the differences in a serial killers brain compared to a non-violent person) Beyond that it would take forever for me to explain morality so I'll just leave it at that. Bottom line, religion is not necessary, but it can be helpful for those raised in a poor environment.

The truth should never be swept under the rug. We would never have come so far if it were that simple. Education is key. There can be no progress without it.

Sorry for the ramble, after 10 years of study, simple explanations are beyond me. lol

Scientifically speaking, death is merely the completion of a cycle of state...matter continues to eventually become other things and energies...or something like that. So we all go on after death...just not as people.

Uplifting, ain't it?

 

[mara]

Scientifically speaking, death is merely the completion of a cycle of state...matter continues to eventually become other things and energies...or something like that. So we all go on after death...just not as people.

Uplifting, ain't it?

The clones in Clone Wars has an awesome saying, "We seed the stars." Its a perfect fit.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Most scientists would argue that science has made gods irrelevant. There is a correlation between intelligence and irreligion (that is, a lack of religiosity, not atheism per se). And vice versa. So presumably if humans continue to learn more about the universe, and broaden their own minds (either gradually, or through artificial means), religion will become irrelevant to the entire species.

Though I somewhat doubt that.

 

[KalMart]

Most scientists would argue that science has made gods irrelevant. There is a correlation between intelligence and irreligion (that is, a lack of religiosity, not atheism per se). And vice versa. So presumably if humans continue to learn more about the universe, and broaden their own minds (either gradually, or through artificial means), religion will become irrelevant to the entire species.

Though I somewhat doubt that.

There's too much to appreciate what religion...or at least the need for it...has done for us to confidently call it in any way unnecessary. This was already cited, but I basically have the kind of outlook that de Botton does....

[YT]2Oe6HUgrRlQ[/YT]

...although some theists might see that as trying to swing a free lunch out of life.

 

[mara]

Most scientists would argue that science has made gods irrelevant. There is a correlation between intelligence and irreligion (that is, a lack of religiosity, not atheism per se). And vice versa. So presumably if humans continue to learn more about the universe, and broaden their own minds (either gradually, or through artificial means), religion will become irrelevant to the entire species.

Though I somewhat doubt that.

Exactly. It may happen but possibly not for a very long time...Humanity has a long way to go.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No, it is unnecessary. With the knowledge we have today. At least, if you believe it isn't true, like presumably, most atheists do. If you do believe in religion, then obviously, it has value to you.

Yes, I enjoy Christmas carols. But you don't need religion to come up with good music.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Exactly. It may happen but possibly not for a very long time...Humanity has a long way to go.

I'm fairly confident that humanity will wipe itself out. Whether or not religion becomes irrelevant before that happens is hard to say.

 

[KalMart]

Maybe...I doubt it...but maybe we won't actually have religion...a la a consensus of belief in a deity et al. But I very much doubt we'll still be able to continue without retaining much of the merit that religion has provided us.

But just that I don't feel that there are any immutable moral absolutes uniquely borne from religion, I also don't feel that any evils are either. It's a powerful enabler, to be sure, but the good or bad that it may aid in facilitating comes from us.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Again, this depends on whether or not you believe. But if you are an atheist, god is made by man. Ergo, religious morality is manmade as well.

Compared to what harm religion has done, the good is minuscule, and will likely be forgotten sooner than the harm.

 

[KalMart]

Again, this depends on whether or not you believe. But if you are an atheist, god is made by man. Ergo, religious morality is manmade as well.

Compared to what harm religion has done, the good is minuscule, and will likely be forgotten sooner than the harm.

Again, that notion itself is not the end of the argument to decide on the entire validity and merit of an ideology like this. And you're being way too dismissive of religion's merits, even as a human construct, in putting its harm so overwhelmingly and generally above its good. That's not debating religion, that's persecuting it....which no one or thing deserves.

 

[mara]

I'm fairly confident that humanity will wipe itself out. Whether or not religion becomes irrelevant before that happens is hard to say.

Heh, that's another arena as well. Earth has a few issues at the moment.

 

[KalMart]

People may wipe eachother out...the Earth will eventually rebuild itself just fine. It's already dealt with much greater cataclysms than we could ever dish out.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let me put it this way. Do we remember the virtues of ancient religions? I'm sure they had some. But no, we don't. We remember the human sacrifices and bloody wars.

Now obviously, our religions have become more civilized. But in the future, people will remember the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the countless other religious conflicts, before they remember the positive things, if they remember them at all.

So, I respectfully disagree. Though I will concede that there has been some damn good music.

 

[KalMart]

Let me put it this way. Do we remember the virtues of ancient religions? I'm sure they had some. But no, we don't. We remember the human sacrifices and bloody wars.

Do we appreciate the merits and beauty of ancient cultures...or not because they're gone?

Again, fueled and committed by humans for human purposes...some of which was emboldened by religion. Through it all, religion has also endured as a source of goodness and personal growth for people as well, despite the different forms and versions. The need for religion has stayed constant. Of course, if you look at keys to knowledge and how thing physically work, of course that's a realm increasingly and continually defined by science. But that doesn't reduce the role of religion unless you put the onus solely on physical provability.

Sure, that does eat away at it, but it also emboldens its importance to many. In no way does that ensure that they will be more likely to wage wars et al. Wars will always be fought over power...with or without religion.

Now obviously, our religions have become more civilized. But in the future, people will remember the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the countless other religious conflicts, before they remember the positive things, if they remember them at all.

You mean like the Bible? I've heard it's still pretty popular.

So, I respectfully disagree. Though I will concede that there has been some damn good music.

It's not so much disagreeing, it's just that you're taking too narrow...and frankly disrespectful...an outlook on it to be taken too seriously on this. It's like trying to take down a mountain with a rock hammer...sure you'll chip away at stone with each swing, but you'll need a lot more to make a real dent.

I don't think religion will ever become extinct as a whole, but I do believe it will evolve.

 

[mara]

Again, this depends on whether or not you believe. But if you are an atheist, god is made by man. Ergo, religious morality is manmade as well.

Compared to what harm religion has done, the good is minuscule, and will likely be forgotten sooner than the harm.

Again, that notion itself is not the end of the argument to decide on the entire validity and merit of an ideology like this. And you're being way too dismissive of religion's merits, even as a human construct, in putting its harm so overwhelmingly and generally above its good. That's not debating religion, that's persecuting it....which no one or thing deserves.

This is the classic, "Is religion a force for good in the world?" Anyone who's familiar with history, and is not an apologist will answer no. Then again a religious group such as the salvation army can be a strong force for good. So like every coin, it has two sides.

Edited.

 

[enterthemadness]

I enjoyed that video, K-Mart . Got the old brain thinking.