Atheism : Love it or Leave it?

[The Chairman]

Funny thing is, although I'm a Christian, I believe all religions are right.

I just feel we view "God" differently.

Of course, there are other reasons why I believe in a higher being, but the idea that we are flawed and cannot understand everything entirely is one my main pillars of belief.

Of course it would seem superficial to you, but it aint to me.

As do I. I pretty much believe for the same reasons you stated.

 

[Backdrifter]

it is believed that the first cells originated in the oceans which were, what has been called, a primordial soup of organic materials. there's no real answer, as I know it, but they think it was just the right combination at the right time linked together and and little lighting luck...

That sounds like you are going on a bit of... faith?

The fact is, there has never been any real science, that is the gathering of data through observation (which we can do) and then of course experimentation (which they have not be able to do) yet somehow they have arrived at a theory that they claim is fact. The theory of evolution somehow managed to skip the part of science where we experiment before we actually devise a theory. So in turn, evolution is actually a philosophy or a world view. Scientists have been able to observe and experiment with micro-evolution, or horizontal evolution. The best example of that is the fruit fly. Scientists have been experimenting and manipulating the DNA of fruit flies. They have managed to make all sorts of changes to the fruit flies, but they have not been able to create a new species. So again, horizontal but not vertical.

What people have failed to realize with evolution is that its full of holes. Ideas and 'discoveries' are forced into the model even if research and evidence screams that it doesn't fit.

I will leave you with a quote from a website that I am sure a lot of you will just simply dismiss, but I urge you to go visit it with an open mind. There are many real scientists out there, secular and creationist, who do not subscribe to the dogmatic views of evolutionary philosophy.

All the scientific deceptions and prejudiced evaluations made to support the theory of evolution show that the theory is a kind of ideology, and not at all a scientific account. Like all ideologies, this one too has its fanatical supporters, who are desperate to prove evolution, at no matter what cost. Or else they are so dogmatically bound to the theory that every new discovery is perceived as a great proof of the theory, even if it has nothing to do with evolution. This is really a very distressing picture for science, because it shows that science is being misdirected in the name of a dogma.
In his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish scientist Soren Lovtrup has this to say on the subject:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary-"adaptation," "selection pressure," "natural selection," etc.-thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.236
​

Further proof that Darwinism is the greatest deception in the history of science is provided by molecular biology.



http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_17.html

Take what you will from that. But, I really urge some people to be a little more skeptical about evolution. I understand that skepticism that is directed towards religion, but it seems that a lot of folks are accepting evolution just as blindly as they claim others are accepting religion. So I guess what I am saying is... practice what you preach!

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Believing that all religions are right is ridiculous.
It is impossible, because some religions strongly, adamantly contradict others.
If one religion says that there is only one way to be saved, and that EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. who doesn't adopt that method is damned.......and then another religion says that th^t religion is wrong, and that, in fact, THEY are the only ones who have that method...*b00m*, all religions can NOT be true.




What a touchy-feely, precious, and totally nonsensical belief that one is.

 

[Spider-Jay]

Believing that all religions are right is ridiculous.
It is impossible, because some religions strongly, adamantly contradict others.
If one religion says that there is only one way to be saved, and that EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. who doesn't adopt that method is damned.......and then another religion says that th^t religion is wrong, and that, in fact, THEY are the only ones who have that method...*b00m*, all religions can NOT be true.




What a touchy-feely, precious, and totally nonsensical belief that one is.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you because unfortunately you wrongly assume my view of religion.

Let me make something clear: I don't believe the Christian religion is absolutely right. I don't believe the Muslim religion is absolutely right. I don't believe the Hindu religion is absolutely right. etc. etc.

I do not blindly follow absolutely everything a religion teaches. I believe what I feel is right and make my own decisions. That's why contraditions among the religions are irrelevant to me.

Personally, I find the whole "DO IT MY WAY OR GO TO HELL" message is utter bull****.

Another main reason for my belief is because I feel it will make me a better person.

And despite their differences every religion preaches the eseential rule:

"Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself."

Thus every religion has good, and by seeing the good in all as opposed to isolating myself to one doctrine, there is nothing to lose.

Make sense now?

I find it funny that you deem someone else's belief as nonsensical. The only nonsensical thing is assuming your own beliefs are somehow more right than others. Which is why I never see atheists as being "ignorant" or "stupid". Their belief is just as valuable as mine no matter my views on it.

 

[Carcharodon]

That sounds like you are going on a bit of... faith?
*A bunch of stuff about evolution*

He's talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution. I'm sick of this mistake being made.

 

[Backdrifter]

He's talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution. I'm sick of this mistake being made.

Even still, this is actually a hypothesis. We've never actually been able to test or recreate this idea in a lab. It requires a great leap of faith to say this is the truth, don't you think?

 

[Carcharodon]

Even still, this is actually a hypothesis. We've never actually been able to test or recreate this idea in a lab. It requires a great leap of faith to say this is the truth, don't you think?

"Truth," "fact," and, "theory," are all very different things, for one. I believe evolution to be an incredibly supported and plausible theory.

Secondly, we've never been able to fully test or recreate this idea in a lab precisely because all experiments to that effect have been performed in the laboratory setting. What's more, we don't actually know the exact conditions of our planet when life was supposed to have spontaneously generated (I'm still referring to abiogenesis, by the way). The Miller experiment, while it demonstrated at least the formation of the basic building blocks of life, operated based on certain false assumptions regarding pre-life earth's environmental conditions.

The site you posted also operates based on certain unverified assumptions; the problem is that they take these assumptions and run with them. Nothing on that site actively disproves evolution (though the site states several times that it does). Our lack of understanding of the Cambrian explosion doesn't invalidate the existing theory. Also, it seems to me that whoever wrote that site has never heard of something called punctuated equilibrium. With the state of the planet back in those times, it's not a leap to assume that there were many incredible environmental shifts and pressures in a short period of time. I suppose the site's largest operative assumption is that evolution somehow takes place at some very steady pace, as though the independent variable is simply time. Thus, the very crux of their argument (e.g., the holes, gaps and inaccuracies of the fossil record) falls pretty flat on its face.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Of course it doesn't make sense to you because unfortunately you wrongly assume my view of religion.

Let me make something clear: I don't believe the Christian religion is absolutely right. I don't believe the Muslim religion is absolutely right. I don't believe the Hindu religion is absolutely right. etc. etc.

I do not blindly follow absolutely everything a religion teaches. I believe what I feel is right and make my own decisions. That's why contraditions among the religions are irrelevant to me.

Personally, I find the whole "DO IT MY WAY OR GO TO HELL" message is utter bull****.

Another main reason for my belief is because I feel it will make me a better person.

And despite their differences every religion preaches the eseential rule:

"Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself."

Thus every religion has good, and by seeing the good in all as opposed to isolating myself to one doctrine, there is nothing to lose.

Make sense now?

I find it funny that you deem someone else's belief as nonsensical. The only nonsensical thing is assuming your own beliefs are somehow more right than others. Which is why I never see atheists as being "ignorant" or "stupid". Their belief is just as valuable as mine no matter my views on it.

uh.........................

While you are smart enough not to accept one religion as 100% correct...

(I can't believe I even have to point this out to you)

SOME people are adherents of religions that DO believe that their religion is 100% correct.

So right there, you don't think their religion is true...therefore, you do not count as a person who thinks all are religions are true, therefore, I was not addressing you.

And no, you are wrong. Every religion does not preach "The Golden Rule".
"Open-Minded" people continually say that, that "Wull, all religions teach basically the same thing. "

Wrong.
It is not true.



Some beliefs ARE more "right".
Guess what...if you believe that there's a colossal turtle God, who carries the Earth on his back?

Your belief is less true than mine.

 

[Spider-Jay]

uh.........................

While you are smart enough not to accept one religion as 100% correct...

(I can't believe I even have to point this out to you)

SOME people are adherents of religions that DO believe that their religion is 100% correct.

So right there, you don't think their religion is true...therefore, you do not count as a person who thinks all are religions are true, therefore, I was not addressing you.

And no, you are wrong. Every religion does not preach "The Golden Rule".
"Open-Minded" people continually say that, that "Wull, all religions teach basically the same thing. "

Wrong.
It is not true.

Is there only one way way to define a certain religion? No.

Is there only one way to view a religion? No.

Is there only one way to practice a religion? No.

Religion to me is not the practice nor the little details, but the common belief.

Which is why, as I stated earlier, that even though I do not believe everything they believe, I do believe in their sense of common good.

Some beliefs ARE more "right".
Guess what...if you believe that there's a colossal turtle God, who carries the Earth on his back?

Your belief is less true than mine.

That's your opinion. For all you know that belief could be more symbolic than literal. However, you missed my point. Believe what you feel is more right but at least show some respect for others' beliefs.

Lack of respect is what is nonsensical.

 

[thebat7]

Some beliefs ARE more "right".
Guess what...if you believe that there's a colossal turtle God, who carries the Earth on his back?

Your belief is less true than mine.

Prove either exists and THEN I'll believe. And how do you *know* you're more right than the turtle god?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Religion to me is not the practice nor the little details, but the common belief.

You don't seem to understand that we're not talking about YOUR view of religions.
I'm talking about the people who FOLLOW the religions.
To some, it IS the practice, AND the little details.
You and your beliefs don't enter into it at all.

Which is why, as I stated earlier, that even though I do not believe everything they believe, I do believe in their sense of common good.

You believe that Reformed Latter Day Saints, on their compounds in the deserts of Utah, who force 12 year old girls to marry and have sex with 58 year old men, because it's "God's perfect will for them", have a "sense of common good"?

LOL

That's your opinion. For all you know that belief could be more symbolic than literal.

Not if the person believes it's literal.

However, you missed my point. Believe what you feel is more right but at least show some respect for others' beliefs.

Lack of respect is what is nonsensical.

No way. Thinking that all beliefs deserve respect is utter insanity.
As I've mentioned earlier, some Africans believe that if you have sex with a baby, it'll cure HIV infection.

Sorry, I have no respect for that belief, nor do I have respect for anyone who respects that belief.

People who believe that homosexuality is such an abomination that anyone caught practicing it should be put to death in the town square...

I have ZERO respect for that belief.


People who believe that women should not be allowed to show their faces or to go to school to learn...and that if they're caught doing either, they should be beaten?

I have ZERO respect for that belief.


If you honestly believe that the Trix Rabbit created the Universe, and formed it out of Play-Doh?

I have no respect for your belief.

 

[Backdrifter]

"Truth," "fact," and, "theory," are all very different things, for one. I believe evolution to be an incredibly supported and plausible theory.

Secondly, we've never been able to fully test or recreate this idea in a lab precisely because all experiments to that effect have been performed in the laboratory setting. What's more, we don't actually know the exact conditions of our planet when life was supposed to have spontaneously generated (I'm still referring to abiogenesis, by the way). The Miller experiment, while it demonstrated at least the formation of the basic building blocks of life, operated based on certain false assumptions regarding pre-life earth's environmental conditions.

The site you posted also operates based on certain unverified assumptions; the problem is that they take these assumptions and run with them. Nothing on that site actively disproves evolution (though the site states several times that it does). Our lack of understanding of the Cambrian explosion doesn't invalidate the existing theory. Also, it seems to me that whoever wrote that site has never heard of something called punctuated equilibrium. With the state of the planet back in those times, it's not a leap to assume that there were many incredible environmental shifts and pressures in a short period of time. I suppose the site's largest operative assumption is that evolution somehow takes place at some very steady pace, as though the independent variable is simply time. Thus, the very crux of their argument (e.g., the holes, gaps and inaccuracies of the fossil record) falls pretty flat on its face.

This is exactly the problem with evolution. It's an idea based on anecdotal evidence, never tested, but still considered a theory. Again, go back to the fruit fly. It's a simple organism with a relatively short strain of DNA. Scientists have been playing them for years and have manged to create all kinds of interesting variations like adding an extra set of wings, making legs grow where antennae should. But, they have not been able to create a new species. While we have observed and experimented with micro-evolution scientists have continually stated that micro-evolution is not a sufficient mechanism for macro-evolution. Not to mention Neo-Darwinists are now saying that random mutation is what creates new species despite the fact that no mutation that we have observed has ever really been positive. Mutations generally are negative. For example, when they were able to add an extra set of wings to the fruit flies, their ability to fly was actually somewhat hindered. In addition, if evolution is true, the fossil record should be littered with transitional species. They should be everywhere. The simple fact is..we haven't found one. For example, the much loved Australopithecus Lucy was actually assembled from pieces of bone that were scattered over an area several square miles wide. Upon further investigation of the skull it was determined that she was actually just another ape and very similar to a chimpanzee. In addition, they determined based on her hands and feet that she actually was a tree dwelling animal that did not walk upright. Yet it is still taught as a fact that Lucy is the closest relative to modern humans in schools. That's the thing about big science. They are all about the big announcements. They declare that they have discovered some revolutionary species that finally proves evolution, but you never get to hear what happens afterward. You never hear about what happens when they actually do some real research and discover that they were wrong. Who is holding these people accountable? Why is it such a problem to accept religion blindly but not unscientific science? It seems to me that evolution has become just a dogmatic and zealous as some religions.


Also, Wall_Crawler, this site isn't the absolute authority on questioning evolution theory, if you read the articles, they are many, many sources from which they draw their material in additional to the other organizations and scientists around the world who also have pointed out evolutions dirty laundry.

 

[Spider-Jay]

You don't seem to understand that we're not talking about YOUR view of religions.
I'm talking about the people who FOLLOW the religions.
To some, it IS the practice, AND the little details.
You and your beliefs don't enter into it at all.

That's too bad, because I was. You directly talked about my beliefs, so I took part and talked about them myself.

You believe that Reformed Latter Day Saints, on their compounds in the deserts of Utah, who force 12 year old girls to marry and have sex with 58 year old men, because it's "God's perfect will for them", have a "sense of common good"?

LOL

LOL indeed!

No way. Thinking that all beliefs deserve respect is utter insanity.
As I've mentioned earlier, some Africans believe that if you have sex with a baby, it'll cure HIV infection.

Sorry, I have no respect for that belief, nor do I have respect for anyone who respects that belief.

People who believe that homosexuality is such an abomination that anyone caught practicing it should be put to death in the town square...

I have ZERO respect for that belief.


People who believe that women should not be allowed to show their faces or to go to school to learn...and that if they're caught doing either, they should be beaten?

I have ZERO respect for that belief.

I don't approve of those beliefs either. Nor do I have much respect for the people who believe in those beliefs.

But once again:

I believe in respecting their right to believe. Every person has the right to believe what they want. And thus, even though I do not agree (in fact I severely oppose) their beliefs, I respect their right to believe in it.

If you honestly believe that the Trix Rabbit created the Universe, and formed it out of Play-Doh?

I have no respect for your belief.

That's a shame. I'd expect a person supposedly twice my age to be at least a little more mature than I am.

I'm done with this. Waste of my time.

 

[Gilpesh]

I believe in respecting their right to believe. Every person has the right to believe what they want. And thus, even though I do not agree (in fact I severely oppose) their beliefs, I respect their right to believe in it.

I don't respect their right to believe in it. You want to know why?

CAUSE THEY'LL PRACTICE IT, CAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN IT!

That belief is so wrong (harms others without reason) they do not have a right to believe in it.

 

[Bubonic]

In an anthropology class today, some guy was getting on my case for opposing female circumcision, as its their belief and their right to practise as they want.

I get really annoyed with these apologist who feel that just because something is a mainstay of a religion, it must be respected.

I doubt he'd want his daughter to go threw with it if he had one.

They loosely believe in their own God, and accept everyone elses... So long as it follows a monotheistic model that make sense to them... And they still wouldn't outright switch to another religion because they most likely believe their interpretation is closest to what is needed for salvation.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That's too bad, because I was. You directly talked about my beliefs,

No, i didn't. I was talking about people who believe that all religions are right. We've established that you don't think all religions are right.
I didn't even enter it because of you, I saw The Chairman talking about how all religions are right and I've seen him do it before.

I don't approve of those beliefs either. Nor do I have much respect for the people who believe in those beliefs.

But once again:

I believe in respecting their right to believe.

Nope. You're changing it now. You started off saying that we have to respect all beliefs. Now you're changing it to "respect their RIGHT to believe".
That implies that I am saying people don't have a RIGHT to believe what they believe.
I'm probably more anarchic and libertarian than anyone else here.
I believe you have the RIGHT to believe whatever you want. But I'm not going to automatically RESPECT that belief.

Every person has the right to believe what they want. And thus, even though I do not agree (in fact I severely oppose) their beliefs, I respect their right to believe in it.
But you said that it's wrong to make judgments about anyone's beliefs, to think that your belief is superior to anyone else's.
Sorry, some beliefs are more sensible, more plausible, or even, Better, in that they're less dangerous to one's self or more importantly, to OTHERS.
Osama Bin Laden thinks it's 100% truth that he is doing God's important, Holy work on Earth when he kills American women and children.

He has every right to believe that, but it's wrong and evil.
You didn't start off talking about respecting their RIGHT to believe whatever they want.
You were criticizing my view that some beliefs are better than others...that some beliefs are nonsensical.

That's a shame. I'd expect a person supposedly twice my age to be at least a little more mature than I am.

You...think the mature thing would be to RESPECT such a preposterous, silly belief?

Yeah, it is a waste of time talking to you if you'd respect that belief.

 

[Anguissette1979]

This is exactly the problem with evolution. It's an idea based on anecdotal evidence, never tested, but still considered a theory. Again, go back to the fruit fly. It's a simple organism with a relatively short strain of DNA. Scientists have been playing them for years and have manged to create all kinds of interesting variations like adding an extra set of wings, making legs grow where antennae should. But, they have not been able to create a new species.

Because speciation is an aggregate of many many mutations and cannot be observed on the scale of a human lifetime, or even several human lifetimes. We can notice changes in the span of our life time (take the peppered moth example - i will elaborate if anyone would like).

The hallmark of speciation is when two separate populations can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. Homo Sapiens Sapies (our subspecies) and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis were not truly separate species despite numerous physical characterisc differences because they could (and likely did) interbreed with each other. However Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus would not have been able to produce viable offspring if they existed at the same time.

Evolution is a looooooooooooooooooooong process. The Abiogenesis people have been speaking of took over a billion years (that's 200 times longer than human and our ancestors back to Australopithecus Afarensis have even existed) to produce the first rudimentary single-celled life.

 

[Carcharodon]

Because speciation is an aggregate of many many mutations and cannot be observed on the scale of a human lifetime, or even several human lifetimes. We can notice changes in the span of our life time (take the peppered moth example - i will elaborate if anyone would like).

The hallmark of speciation is when two separate populations can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. Homo Sapiens Sapies (our subspecies) and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis were not truly separate species despite numerous physical characterisc differences because they could (and likely did) interbreed with each other. However Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus would not have been able to produce viable offspring if they existed at the same time.

Evolution is a looooooooooooooooooooong process. The Abiogenesis people have been speaking of took over a billion years (that's 200 times longer than human and our ancestors back to Australopithecus Afarensis have even existed) to produce the first rudimentary single-celled life.

I'd have to disagree with one point: you speak as though time itself is the independent variable here, when the truth is that generation time is the key (with respect to this debate). That's why microevolution is so easy to observe; comparatively short generation times.

 

[Carcharodon]

This is exactly the problem with evolution. It's an idea based on anecdotal evidence, never tested, but still considered a theory. Again, go back to the fruit fly. It's a simple organism with a relatively short strain of DNA. Scientists have been playing them for years and have manged to create all kinds of interesting variations like adding an extra set of wings, making legs grow where antennae should. But, they have not been able to create a new species. While we have observed and experimented with micro-evolution scientists have continually stated that micro-evolution is not a sufficient mechanism for macro-evolution. Not to mention Neo-Darwinists are now saying that random mutation is what creates new species despite the fact that no mutation that we have observed has ever really been positive. Mutations generally are negative. For example, when they were able to add an extra set of wings to the fruit flies, their ability to fly was actually somewhat hindered. In addition, if evolution is true, the fossil record should be littered with transitional species. They should be everywhere. The simple fact is..we haven't found one. For example, the much loved Australopithecus Lucy was actually assembled from pieces of bone that were scattered over an area several square miles wide. Upon further investigation of the skull it was determined that she was actually just another ape and very similar to a chimpanzee. In addition, they determined based on her hands and feet that she actually was a tree dwelling animal that did not walk upright. Yet it is still taught as a fact that Lucy is the closest relative to modern humans in schools. That's the thing about big science. They are all about the big announcements. They declare that they have discovered some revolutionary species that finally proves evolution, but you never get to hear what happens afterward. You never hear about what happens when they actually do some real research and discover that they were wrong. Who is holding these people accountable? Why is it such a problem to accept religion blindly but not unscientific science? It seems to me that evolution has become just a dogmatic and zealous as some religions.


Also, Wall_Crawler, this site isn't the absolute authority on questioning evolution theory, if you read the articles, they are many, many sources from which they draw their material in additional to the other organizations and scientists around the world who also have pointed out evolutions dirty laundry.

This site addresses nearly all of your points regarding fruit fly speciation: http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm#claim3

As for your argument concerning science being all about, "big announcements" : That's true, to a small extent. Still, for you to completely discount a theory that has been supported so much via the discoveries that most people actually don't know about based on these few errors is rather silly.

 

[Doomed_hero]

I am a athiest.

I have not found a way to pro or dissprove gods existance. Of course the same can be said about Zues, Odin, and Santa claus.

As a student of history, I belive reilgion was used as a tool to explain things that at various time could not be figured out, or a justification for actions that would other wise be looked down upon without it being labeled gods will.

Am I right? who knows, but it works for me and I do think there is good or bad to each reilgion. I just think it has now become to much a form of what you can't do, rather then a inspiriation of what you can do.

 

[Anguissette1979]

I'd have to disagree with one point: you speak as though time itself is the independent variable here, when the truth is that generation time is the key (with respect to this debate). That's why microevolution is so easy to observe; comparatively short generation times.

Right but the way Backdrifter described it he talked about all these traits they've altered in a horizontal fashion (they've made a generation with two sets of wings, or extra legs, or red eyes), not an aggregation of mutations through generations. I was replying to what he had written probably a little too directly.

The global warming thread is better (I didn't major in biology )

 

[Carcharodon]

Right but the way Backdrifter described it he talked about all these traits they've altered in a horizontal fashion (they've made a generation with two sets of wings, or extra legs, or red eyes), not an aggregation of mutations through generations. I was replying to what he had written probably a little too directly.

The global warming thread is better (I didn't major in biology )

Yeah, I got your main point, it's all good. It was just a nitpick.

 

[Anguissette1979]

I am a athiest.

I have not found a way to pro or dissprove gods existance. Of course the same can be said about Zues, Odin, and Santa claus.

As a student of history, I belive reilgion was used as a tool to explain things that at various time could not be figured out, or a justification for actions that would other wise be looked down upon without it being labeled gods will.

Am I right? who knows, but it works for me and I do think there is good or bad to each reilgion. I just think it has now become to much a form of what you can't do, rather then a inspiriation of what you can do.

Welcome to the thread

 

[Gilpesh]

Of course the same can be said about Zues, Odin, and Santa claus.

I hope that he does not read this blasphemy. If necessary, just blame Loki for your misguided statment.

 

[Handsome Rob]

My whole schtick is how Christians (okay, most of them) live more according to the rules that Paul set up instead of what Jesus actually said; Jesus who was against the concept of a 'church,' and so on and so on.

Superhobo, I never thought I was going to find this post, again. This thread has been a-hoppin'.

How do you believe Jesus was against the "church" concept, when a church as its most basic unit is nothing more than a body of believers, and is the body of the Christ at the worldwide level?

How do you define "church?" Because technically, myself and two or three of my friends could meet together and accomplish as legitimate a "church" that exists in one of those mega-churches somewhere in Texas.