The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[KevanG]

It's their own fault. If they're smart enough to be delicious then they should be smart enough to make themselves not be delicious.

 

[redhawk23]

The idea of these smart animals does make one think. For those who believe in evolution, it would be reasonable to think it will continue. So, I wonder what certain animals will be like in another 500 years or so, provided they don't end up extinct.

I mean many of them have been around longer than humans, so likely about where they are now, unless they go extinct of course.

Years ago Discovery channel had a kind of preposterous special attempting to imagine the future of earth life if all humans left. This was on a scale of millions of years.

They had Squid monkeys and Octopus elephants. Basically Planet of the cephalopod.

Lynx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7yQ9Yf6mO4

 

[Marvolo]

I mean many of them have been around longer than humans, so likely about where they are now, unless they go extinct of course.

Years ago Discovery channel had a kind of preposterous special attempting to imagine the future of earth life if all humans left. This was on a scale of millions of years.

They had Squid monkeys and Octopus elephants. Basically Planet of the cephalopod.

Sharktopus!

 

[MrsKent26]

I mean many of them have been around longer than humans, so likely about where they are now, unless they go extinct of course.

Years ago Discovery channel had a kind of preposterous special attempting to imagine the future of earth life if all humans left. This was on a scale of millions of years.

They had Squid monkeys and Octopus elephants. Basically Planet of the cephalopod.

Lynx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7yQ9Yf6mO4

I'm watching the video now. While it's just pure speculation, it is amusing.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The idea of these smart animals does make one think. For those who believe in evolution, it would be reasonable to think it will continue. So, I wonder what certain animals will be like in another 500 years or so, provided they don't end up extinct.

Well, I doubt they'll be noticeably different in 500 years – barring mutations caused by nuclear war. But give them a million years, and... who knows.

Still, evolution doesn't necessarily result in increased intelligence. The shark and crocodile are ancient, but their intelligence hasn't shot up dramatically.

If humans are any indication, too much intelligence can lead to extinction.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I remember that special. I also remember going to the Queens Museum of Science and going to the library there. There was a book that was about speculative evolution. It had crazy illustrations of future species that I thought was cool. Giant whale like creatures evolved from Penguins, flightless predatory bats, and lemur-like cats. I wish I had a copy of that book today.

 

[MrsKent26]

Well, I doubt they'll be noticeably different in 500 years – barring mutations caused by nuclear war. But give them a million years, and... who knows.

Still, evolution doesn't necessarily result in increased intelligence. The shark and crocodile are ancient, but their intelligence hasn't shot up dramatically.

If humans are any indication, too much intelligence can lead to extinction.

I think the problem of humanity is that the majority of humans are too smart to live simply and too dumb to live efficiently.

 

[Doctor Evo]

First time you mentioned who you are, and I decided to not debate with you well before you showed who you are so your point here is meaningless.

What point? I never said that your decision not to discuss evolution with me had anything to do with my expertise in the field of evolutionary biology. I was making a tongue-in-cheek remark of no particular importance or weight.

My objection is because you are full, not humbling yourself for potential food. I'm here for Christ, not to win debates.

Right. Which makes you a massive hypocrite. Which part of this are you still missing? I can't exactly draw a diagram.

Also, just to clarify: did you just admit that your sole aim in this thread is proselytization?

 

[The End]

Rather than a direct reply to a poster or two, I thought I would work all in a new post.

Is God a loving God? If so, then why does God kill people, both young and old, such as when he (God) sent the Hebrew people into Canaan to kill everybody. God is indeed good and the answer is completely justified. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites[/URL]

Have you even read this link?

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you're even attempting to engage with this material critically.

Would you even be capable of telling us in your own words Dr. Craig's explanation? Because I tell you what, it sure is frustrating to spend a lot of my time going through this material, when at the back of my mind I'm thinking that you're not even reading it yourself.

Here is William Lane Craig's postion...

I’ve often heard popularizers raise this issue as a refutation of the moral argument for God’s existence. But that’s plainly incorrect. The claim that God could not have issued such a command doesn’t falsify or undercut either of the two premises in the moral argument as I have defended it:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you understand the implication of this reasoning, when applied to god commanding the slaughter of the canaanites? Everyone, young and old?

Do you even understand, how circular this argument is?

Whatever god does is good because objective moral values come from god. If god commands the slaughter of canaanites, it is good, because god commanded it.

This is circular reasoning.

You can justify ANY action as long as that action is attributed to god.

This simply isn't good enough, rodhulk. This is what I mean by apologists surrendering their brains.

Craig continues.

Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.

You get that? Craig absolves god of all responsibility.

This is really what bothers me, the bottom line. You don't have to be a genius, to see what nonsense this is. You don't have to be a genius to see that this isn't a moral system worth following.

Objective morality comes from god therefore what god does is good therefore god can command slaughter and therefore the slaughter is good because god commanded it because objective morality comes from god. Oh, and god loves you.

BAT. ****. CRAZY.

This type of reasoning is even worse, once you realize that the same people that believe that, also believe they know the will of this god. That, to me, is like a horror movie.

There's an excellent video on youtube called The End of Theistic Morality. It goes into great detail in comparing theistic morality and secular morality and seeing what holds up logically. If you're interested in actual moral systems that are useful, and seeing more detail why theistic morality doesn't hold up, I very much recommend watching the video in full.

[YT]9cUVj7rdWyA[/YT]

There's a portion that covers William Lane Craig's moral argument.

Skip to 57:42 for that specific portion.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In summary, its a circular argument all the way through. By Craig's own definitions, objective moral values are intrinsic to god's nature. Objective moral values are a divine attribute of god. Objective moral values are not something outside of god's nature.

1. If God does not exist, god's nature does not exist.

2. God's nature does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

You can break that down even further once you realize how circular it is.

1. If God does not exist, god does not exist.

2. God does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The whole argument assumes what it wants to prove. It's completely circular, and therefore invalid.

We have much more useful definitions for morality, much more useful systems for being moral, than to arbitrarily appeal to a god who's actions are always good even when those actions are to command slaughter.

 

[The End]

This is a thread for discussions related to atheism, is it not?

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is NOT a podium for religious folks to try converting the heathens.

Enough is enough, rodhulk. Go to the Worship thread because if you keep on with this talk that makes it seem like you're here to convert people, I may have to ask a mod if they think that's an appropriate use of this thread.

Don't bully him off the thread. I love discussing this stuff. And frankly, the more he gives us, the more holes we can poke, the more he has to reflect on what he believes. It's win-win.

 

[The End]

Let's not do that. This isn't the Worship thread, where they have a double standard on who can post.

Let him speak his mind, even if it is little more than proselytizing.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Except that, ya'know... there is a clear reasoning, and a crap ton of evidence behind the idea that species survive or perish because of how well they are adapted to the conditions in their environment. That's not circular logic.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Craig is a philosopher. Philosophers are rarely accused of good logic. Take the philosophy of macro-evolution for example: "The survival of the fittest."

Why did it survive?
Because it was the fittest.
Why is it the fittest?
Because it survived.

Great philosophically, but a circular argument as far as logic. (If not a complete tautology to begin with.)

1) This isn't limited to macroevolution - so why make that distinction? It's completely arbitrary.

2) Fitness has less to do with survival than it does with reproduction.

3) "Survival of the fittest" isn't a philosophy - at least as far as biological evolution is concerned.

4) "Fitness" is actually quantifiable - it's not a completely abstract concept.

5) What you've presented doesn't actually constitute circular reasoning, primarily because fitness is defined by relative rates of survival and reproductive success.

Nice try, though.

 

[regwec]

That's one thing I always found notable about Islam: While they allow for translations, study of the Quran is required to be done in the original language.

I know that's more difficult for the Bible, having been compiled from many different sources and several languages, but still, it is very strange to me to encounter American Fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the Literal Word of God but never take time to consider that it is a translation.

Interestingly, the translators of the KJV were aware of this, and prayed together before each session in the hope that their god would guide them and sort out any errors or inconsistencies.

It is startling to think that some modern believers are more convinced of the text's literalism and accuracy than were its compilers.

A rebuttal Ive encountered against the Bible being "The Word of God" is that we dont have the originals. The originals would have been the word of God. We have copies. We dont even have direct copies. We have the copies that were made from copies of lost copies of copies of copies. Saying our current copies are the word of god is next to meaningless because we cant check our copies against the originals to see if their are errors in the copies. And we know there likely is because our copies dont even match. Our copies arent the word of God unless your saying that God needs an editor and cant keep his **** straight.

Add the fact that the distinction between the "biblical" books and the apocryphal texts (which most Christians have never read) is arbitrary, variable, and has never been properly settled.

Don't bully him off the thread. I love discussing this stuff. And frankly, the more he gives us, the more holes we can poke, the more he has to reflect on what he believes. It's win-win.

He doesn't seem the reflective type, to me.

Given that he is a believer in the rapture and all that crap, I suggest that he is given the necessary time and space to reveal the bigotry and homophobia that seems to be synonymous with such belief.

Then he can be banned.

 

[The End]

Another thing is evolution doesn't rely on philosophical arguments. All you need is to look at the evidence.

Old Timer, I'd be curious as to how you'd respond to human chromosome 2, check out what I said about it a few pages back.

Rodhulk, I'm disappointed that you've basically copy/pasted your own posts, repeating yourself, repeating stuff that I've already addressed and you seemingly haven't taken the time to look at (and that took me such a long time to write, too). You're not doing a good job of living up to the name truth seeker.

 

[The End]

He doesn't seem the reflective type, to me.

Even so, its good to have the argument for the sake of any other christians, or anyone on the fence, that happens to wonder into the thread, its good exercise too. The thread would be boring if its just atheists.

Given that he is a believer in the rapture and all that crap, I suggest that he is given the necessary time and space to reveal the bigotry and homophobia that seems to be synonymous with such belief.

Then he can be banned.

I don't want him banned If it were up to me, no one would be banned, even for homophobia. I just see it as another opportunity to expose the weaknesses in the thinking that leads that way.

It's only through the open expression of ideas that we can grow. It's fundamentalists that ban ideas.

 

[The End]

I'd like Rodhulk's take on this too. As far as I can see he hasn't addressed this.


Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the other apes have 24. Human chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome from chimp chromosomes. It's a telemere to telemere fusion, the centromeres show that they are from chimp chromosomes. This is overwhelming evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf
http://vega.sanger.ac.uk/Homo_sapie...ion=AC009336.13.1.175667;t=OTTHUMT00000359252

This was brought up in a trial against 'intelligent design' proponents.

Scientist and christian Ken Miller explains how that went.

[YT]zi8FfMBYCkk[/YT]

If someone wants to say "god just did it that way" to reject the common ancestor, they're inventing a much more complex explanation, than the natural explanation. See Occam's Razor.

So you see, if you want to interpret Genesis literally, Genesis is WRONG, it does not hold up to reality, the genuine and honest seeker of truth has to reject the Genesis account.

 

[The End]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html

Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution, having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg16:114455823–114455838), where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple subtelomeric duplications to chromosomes 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21 and 22 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. 3a, region A). During the formation of human chromosome 2, one of the two centromeres became inactivated (2q21, which corresponds to the centromere from chimp chromosome 13) and the centromeric structure quickly deterioriated42.

 

[The End]

Your reply doesn't even indicate that you understood the evidence presented.

Firstly, chimps and humans are 96% similar genetically.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

Secondly, I don't think you understand the weight of human chromosome 2.

Let's go through this again, and we'll go through it sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly.

Part of the power of science is in its ability to make predictions. Scientists develop theories and models that explain reality; they are able to say,

Okay, if this is true, we'd expect to find x.

If we don't find x, then our theory or model is in some way wrong.

The theory of evolution and the fossil record predicts that we'd find similarities between humans and chimps in the genes.

And sure enough, the similarities are there.

HOWEVER, there is a problem. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

How to account for the missing pair?

The prediction is made that they'd find a fused chromosome that corresponds.

If they don't find it, evolution is wrong!

And sure enough, they found it! A fused chromosome! Human chromosome 2! And they know that it corresponds with chimp chromosome 13.

The evidence meets the prediction.

This is NOT some insignificant thing that you have imagined in your brain. This is THE confirmation, THE smoking gun evidence that we share common descent with chimps. More so than the fossil record, more so than the other genetic similarities. Here's a way to falsify common descent once and for all, and it passes the test. You can't get more precise when looking for relation, than looking right at the damn genes.

Your denial of this evidence requires that you totally misunderstand it and totally miss the point.

Make no mistake,

If you cannot accept this as evidence for common descent, there is no evidence you will accept.

As someone that actually wants to learn and understand, its a great frustration to meet someone that's wilfully ignorant to the point that they won't understand something so rigorously tested and understood.

 

[The End]

If someone knows how scientists can get more precise than this when showing the evidence for common descent, please let me know.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html

Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution, having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg16:114455823–114455838), where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple subtelomeric duplications to chromosomes 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21 and 22 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. 3a, region A). During the formation of human chromosome 2, one of the two centromeres became inactivated (2q21, which corresponds to the centromere from chimp chromosome 13) and the centromeric structure quickly deterioriated42.

 

[regwec]

They could hide behind a bush, set fire to it, and then shout out a declarative statement in early 17th century English.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Your reply doesn't even indicate that you understood the evidence presented.

Firstly, chimps and humans are 96% similar genetically.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

Secondly, I don't think you understand the weight of human chromosome 2.

Let's go through this again, and we'll go through it sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly.

Part of the power of science is in its ability to make predictions. Scientists develop theories and models that explain reality; they are able to say,

Okay, if this is true, we'd expect to find x.

If we don't find x, then our theory or model is in some way wrong.

The theory of evolution and the fossil record predicts that we'd find similarities between humans and chimps in the genes.

And sure enough, the similarities are there.

HOWEVER, there is a problem. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

How to account for the missing pair?

The prediction is made that they'd find a fused chromosome that corresponds.

If they don't find it, evolution is wrong!

And sure enough, they found it! A fused chromosome! Human chromosome 2! And they know that it corresponds with chimp chromosome 13.

The evidence meets the prediction.

This is NOT some insignificant thing that you have imagined in your brain. This is THE confirmation, THE smoking gun evidence that we share common descent with chimps. More so than the fossil record, more so than the other genetic similarities. Here's a way to falsify common descent once and for all, and it passes the test. You can't get more precise when looking for relation, than looking right at the damn genes.

Your denial of this evidence requires that you totally misunderstand it and totally miss the point.

Make no mistake,

If you cannot accept this as evidence for common descent, there is no evidence you will accept.

As someone that actually wants to learn and understand, its a great frustration to meet someone that's wilfully ignorant to the point that they won't understand something so rigorously tested and understood.

Isn't our DNA also about 98 or 97% identical to that of mice, except the chimps?

 

[rodhulk]

Have you even read this link?

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you're even attempting to engage with this material critically.

Would you even be capable of telling us in your own words Dr. Craig's explanation? Because I tell you what, it sure is frustrating to spend a lot of my time going through this material, when at the back of my mind I'm thinking that you're not even reading it yourself.

Here is William Lane Craig's postion...



Do you understand the implication of this reasoning, when applied to god commanding the slaughter of the canaanites? Everyone, young and old?

Do you even understand, how circular this argument is?

Whatever god does is good because objective moral values come from god. If god commands the slaughter of canaanites, it is good, because god commanded it.

This is circular reasoning.

You can justify ANY action as long as that action is attributed to god.

This simply isn't good enough, rodhulk. This is what I mean by apologists surrendering their brains.

Craig continues.



You get that? Craig absolves god of all responsibility.

This is really what bothers me, the bottom line. You don't have to be a genius, to see what nonsense this is. You don't have to be a genius to see that this isn't a moral system worth following.

Objective morality comes from god therefore what god does is good therefore god can command slaughter and therefore the slaughter is good because god commanded it because objective morality comes from god. Oh, and god loves you.

BAT. ****. CRAZY.

This type of reasoning is even worse, once you realize that the same people that believe that, also believe they know the will of this god. That, to me, is like a horror movie.

There's an excellent video on youtube called The End of Theistic Morality. It goes into great detail in comparing theistic morality and secular morality and seeing what holds up logically. If you're interested in actual moral systems that are useful, and seeing more detail why theistic morality doesn't hold up, I very much recommend watching the video in full.

[YT]9cUVj7rdWyA[/YT]

There's a portion that covers William Lane Craig's moral argument.

Skip to 57:42 for that specific portion.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In summary, its a circular argument all the way through. By Craig's own definitions, objective moral values are intrinsic to god's nature. Objective moral values are a divine attribute of god. Objective moral values are not something outside of god's nature.

1. If God does not exist, god's nature does not exist.

2. God's nature does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

You can break that down even further once you realize how circular it is.

1. If God does not exist, god does not exist.

2. God does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The whole argument assumes what it wants to prove. It's completely circular, and therefore invalid.

We have much more useful definitions for morality, much more useful systems for being moral, than to arbitrarily appeal to a god who's actions are always good even when those actions are to command slaughter.

Here is a plain denial of what is set before you. You asked at the start if I even read the link and that I only respond as per links?? Yet you yourself in your previous post to me was full of links??? Hmmmmmm....

Yes, God judges fairly and that is why he had to wait until the sins of the people were complete before sending the Hebrew people in. God only punishes when punishment is due. The US in it's many wars kill tons of kids and while sad, it is accepted. Why is it wrong with God? God judges people and their sins and when they reach a certain level, his actions are just. If the kids had lived, they would have caused a future outbreak of sins. But those kids have eternal life. It won't mean anything to you but that's because you are not in the spirit so why would you understand this? Nonetheless, you received an answer to all your questions but you only answered this one. What about all my other answers?

 

[Alex_Spider]

I mean many of them have been around longer than humans, so likely about where they are now, unless they go extinct of course.

Years ago Discovery channel had a kind of preposterous special attempting to imagine the future of earth life if all humans left. This was on a scale of millions of years.

They had Squid monkeys and Octopus elephants. Basically Planet of the cephalopod.

Lynx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7yQ9Yf6mO4

The only animals that I could see forming a higher intelligence and closer to ours are apes. Maybe after some thousand years

For many years, humans were considered to be the only tool-using animal. Observation in 1960 of chimpanzees using sharpened twigs to fish for termites has since changed this. Both humans and chimpanzees are able to modify their environment to forge tools to help with daily challenges. Chimpanzees will make spears, use stones as hammers and anvils, and mash leaves into a pulp to use as makeshift sponges. It is thought that as a result of walking upright, our front limbs were much freer to use tools, and we have refined tool use to an art. We live constantly surrounded by the products of this ability, and much of what people consider makes us ‘successful’ is rooted in our tool making.

 

[rodhulk]

And we're done. I'm not a fan of Christians who believe in the end times because they seem so excited about it and they see atheists and homosexuals and feminists as the signs that those times are coming. It's disgusting. People who revel in the idea of the rapture or of sinners being stuck on Earth to rot are awful human beings.

You guys deny the Bible as being true. I'm showing you that it is true (which would result in it's salvation message). I've given my reasons and they've stood the testing around here thus far. The only thing the has really been objected against is the "after their kinds" (though it has not been done away with, I could easily show info from a creation site to support what I've said) And perhaps that God judges the world in too harsh of ways (but sin, just like crime in our real world, demands punishment). But that "mountains rose" after being under water, that God spread out the heavens, that God created a "circular" earth, that the earth hangs on nothing (not sure I have actually mentioned this but it's found in Job 26:7), etc... plus the stuff on Israel etc... Yes, God has provided more than enough evidence of his existence from the Bible's explanations of the real world and universe. Amen.