Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[SayidSomal]

Originally posted by Sayid*Somal:

Wixii an Illah aminsaneyn waa laga roonyahay. :cool:

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Nadan-

 

Aaah! *points a finger in the air* now I understand your meaning... So what you and Johnny boy were saying is that if let us say generally the responsibility of proving ones faith lies with the original claimers surely if they are unable to prove anything (qauntifiable)would it be a rationally reasonable option (at that precise time) to not accept their word until further evidence is provided?

 

Hmmm...Now I see what you mean it doesn seems a rather reasonable enough attempt to simplify things I suppose if not a little closed off and compartmentalised. I mean there are things within this universe that are unexplained-would it truly be that bad to listen to all views, assess them individually and if there is no clear answer leave a question mark on it instead of boxing it into the skeptical "bollocks" category

 

Otherwise we become subject to not only a culturally acceptable arroagance but ignorance in the face of unaswered gaps. An example of such a rationality led to the idea that the earth was flat-until proven otherwise, that genetics does not occur via a system of "blending~" infact but mendelian genetics. So you see if they (the scientific ie somewhat rational community) can be wrong? Then so can you...

 

All I propose is that people keep an open mind and leave aside any presumptuous notions without either the evidence to support or negate it. Its rather simple. I guess people in general are not happy with leaving questions marks all over the place and wish instead to fill the gaps within their understing-for what purpose I don't know.In pursuit or the truth? Or as a result of the basic forms of human self preservation? *Shrugs* Perhaps? Who knows..

 

Ps GG LOL-Sister if you'll permit me to give you one piece of advice try not to provide religious answers to those who are not "religous" in the form of I.e telling them of the maricles within the Quran when they most likely don't accept the Quran as a historically acceptible document anyway. Right or wong...it would save you a lot of time arguing. Try to find a common ground for which discussions can commense without it coming to blows-with another person sprouting verses from the quran. Wonderful and rather lovely do I find these verses yes... but others? I doubt it would be of relevance to them.

 

Ps 2. I didn't even get to watch District 9-Totally pissed. Perhaps this eve?

But should the claimer be required to provide proof to an Atheist??? An Agnostic maybe, but to someone who has gone past that stage and is a full blown Atheist (who says there in NO God)? I don't think so. The onus is on the Atheist.

[The_Siren]

^-Hmm, true it would be difficult if not a rather heated affair but surely if one makes a claim then they should go about either proving or disproving that claim to whomever is truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge? Regardless of their own personal beliefs.

 

Should we go down the route of excluding the share of knowledge based upon a series of stringent criteria it would become a serious error in judgement.

 

Having said that inorder for one to recieve any sort of information they must be capable of being susceptible to openly discussing said matter/matters with an open clear and relatively objective mind.

 

In anycase, it matter not that an athiest doesn't believe in the essense of God in the first place...provide compelling evidence and all shall fall to their knees regardless of their prior dominant stances. The truth is a very difficult thing to hide-instinctually we know when we see it or feel it. Some merely require more info than others to "believe". Its within the open lines of communication where the most mesmerizing of human transitions of "faith" can be brought to fruition. Segregation of the "truth" is never a good idea.

[Naden]

The_Siren, if you haven't seen my review of District 9 in the general section, I would urge you to save your money (I wish I had). Never have I seen a more infuriating and insulting film. And the story development is overrated (any sci-fi film in the past 15 years can rival it). The only thing it has going for it is the large budget.

[5]

THE SIREN - did you read the 3rd post in this thread? The one by me? I do realize the uselessness of trying to make a blind person read with their eyes - cue the braille system. My original post (that would be the second one, the first was just an intro) was not religious.

Now what comes to my reply to Johnny B; the religious bit's purpose was to refute Johnny B's angel example. Johnny Bravo claiming he is an angel and expecting people to simply prove him wrong, cannot be compared to the Quran telling us Islam is the true religion and providing proof. This is not just saying the Quran provides proof, but the fact that Quran provides proof makes it very different from, and ultimately incomparable to, Johnny B's angel analogy which excluded proofs. Do you understand what I'm getting at? This has nothing to do with religion or being religious. I can actually come up with more appropriate analogies for Johnny B - which would consequently be harder to refute, but I don't want to engage in an debate with myself.

 

The only person I replied purely religiously to was Garmaqaate. I indulged in Islam praise, and for that I will not apologize but will say it was primarily aimed at Garmagaate and other religious people, and not part of the debate as per se.

 

OFF-TOPIC ALERT - Naden, you're out of your mind - and I just don't mean you being an atheist . District 9 is one of the best film to have come out this year. I cannot wait for the sequel.

P.S. The budget was actually low at 30 million dollars. Transformers 2 was a little over 200 million. And that movie just offended everybody - and I mean EVERYBODY. Even my cat felt insulted.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Excuse me for the quick rambles everyone...I was half stuffing myself with Aftur. Oh and I'd just like to point out one other reply which was missed out.

 

One I found rather interesting...quite refreshing even as its definitely a difference stance altogether. Now this really would make for an interesting discussion piece.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by humble.:

Shabeel and JB, first I am not really too bothered about proofs or non-proofs or existence or non-existence or some such thing that might throw us into the whirl wind of claims and counter-claims, but let me, for the benefit of discussion, be more of a complete nutter and reduce the whole argument of this thread as being simply

2of many other human or imaginative explanation of what exists or doesn't exist. What if there could be more arguments than just these two? What if there are other explanations more inclusive than Darwinism? Or that of religion?

 

What I find very amusing in all human arguments is that its not merely the truth that humans are after, but somehow the 'missing link or truth' becomes the very exercise of 'countering the other'. And slowly by slowly, the need for truth itself becomes redundant since it doesn't either support one or another side of the argument.

 

Perhaps we should find the hidding place of the truth?

 

BTW, I don't think this forum exists, it is the constract of my imagination. I somehow created it. Now counter that.

Definitely outside of the box and I like it.

...and that was NOT even a shameless attempt to seduce its author with compliments. Nothing but unadulterated honesty.

Siren, my dear, thans for picking up my view. For you and I, shame is irrelevant. But honesty is of the essence. I look at this particular discussion and thought how futile it is to be frank.

 

Some argument for evolution which disputes God's existence while other argue that God indeed exists.

 

Now all it takes to settle this is to put the arguments in their proper place - chronologically - in the very history of existence itself.

 

Evolutionists claim to account for all of man's (and the world's) history which is thinking infinately back into the past and then the future.

 

Yet again, religionists claim to account for the history of man/existence within a limited period of years (say for the 100 thousand years? less or more).

 

So may question is if evolution involves constant human adaptation, and humans found the necessity to invent one or two religions, isn't religion a TRUTH in itself we humans have evolved into? Doesn't that make religion the natural truth (for this moment in history, that is)?

[The_Siren]

^-Hmm, religion an absolute truth which we envolved into eh? Then I would ask precisely what the nature of truth is and whether its something which is evolving and adaptable. If so how can if ever trust its validty as one unique trait of the truth-its that its usuallly seen as being a constant unalterable force.

 

GG-I didn't insinuate that you should apologise for anything and I was refering to your answers to Johnny the proof being in the quran part. Sure his angel analogy was rather amusing and lacking some but the idea that the quran provides truth? Well...does it really contain detailed descriptions of scientific descoveries way before its time or do we humans merely romantically read what we wish into the translations depending upon what progress we've made in the world? Does the Quran contain hidden messages we only see after accumulating knowledge or prior to this?*shrugs* Still... actually refering to a holy scripture in which someone doesn't accept to be valid rational document is rather well, benign. Hope you understanding what I meant if not? Then I shall drop the matter altogether.

 

Ps Naden thanks for the heads up but I didn't see your review unfortunately and either way I was desperate to watch this film...and I've just come back from watching it...guess what?

 

I LOVED IT! LOL I know yes it was racist, cheesy and not especially original but it came from SOUTH AFRICA? And it wasn't especially subtle with its references to its aparthied history. But it had human idiocy and I found it difficult not to form any compassionate feelings of sorrow with the "prawns" who just wanted to go back home. It was rather touching ending and I'm left thinking...will christopher come back? to help that poor selfish white africana? Who ended up finding the true essense of human compassion through the ironic transformation into the very creatures he was abusing? ...or perhaps I'm just a soft touch for old stories re-told? The nigerians thing was a bit over done..Still I was laughing with relish at the whole juju-alien eating thing.

 

To further go OFFTOPIC There is one movie I am fairly foaming at the mouth to watch and thats Guy Richies Sherlock Holmes. Downy junior has excellent comic charm and I for one cannot wait! Jude law puts me off though...

[Raamsade]

Norfsky, I'm here but your evidence for the Theory of Special Creation or Creationism is not here. What happened? Lost "faith" in your own evidence for the creation of adam and eve? You can't in good honesty ask me to provide evidence for human evolution when you can't produce evidence for the "special" creation of Adam and Eve mere thousands of years ago.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

I really didn’t want to post anything here

I think you shouldn't have either since you haven't acquitted yourself honorably here as we will see.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Some aspects of Evolution and so called comparative anatomy is not dissimilar to those wondrous fairy tales children hear in books. Why? Well do scientists not have to use their “imagination” to see how a certain muscle from a hind leg of a (50 million year old creature) would have moved in a creature deemed to be its modern day ancestor?

Scientists are guilty of using their imagination but they're not the only ones. Religious people also use their imagination and have come up with a impressive body of myths and fairy tales for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But for you to equate the process of science (which works) to fairy tales betrays either woeful ignorance of how science works or deliberate misrepresentation. In either case you're in the wrong.

 

Scientists use their imagination to come up with conceptual frameworks that explain observed facts. For example, scientists have come up with the theory of Gravity to explain the fact of gravity. Similarly, scientists have come up with the theory of Evolution to explain the fact of evolution. But what distinguishes fruitful product of human imagination from non-fruitful ones is empirical evidence. Science goes where the evidence leads. If the outcome of the imagination of scientists don't conform to the empirical evidence, the former must give way to the latter.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

An example of which is the that whole-Jurassic park bird fiasco that put it into the average Joes head that “birds” have indeed evolved from dinosaurs. Is that so? Well what was the evidence for this blasé attempt at understanding? Oh yes well its because one palaeontologist just happened to have found a Fossil (Archaeopteryx) which is thought to be the missing link between birds and reptiles

First, it wasn't one specimen of Archeopteryx that was discovered but several over many years. Second, Archeopteryx is just but one evidence for the descent of modern birds from dinosaurs. Third, long before the theory of evolution and suggestions that birds descended from dinosaurs appeared, people including famous creationists like Linnaeus have been pointing out the close similarities between birds and reptiles. Fourth, the significance of Archeopteryx was that it solved the puzzle of how land-dwelling, flightless dinosaurs led to birds with wings capable of flight.

 

Your insinuation above -- that scientists today believe birds descended from dinosaurs because and only because of Archeopteryx fossil -- demonstrates you're a novice and don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Now what these paradigms of unearthly scientific splendour perhaps seemed to have forgotten at the time is that modern day geese for example have also got teeth,

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make but once again you're clueless. Birds don't have teeth. What they instead have is the genes that code for teeth and we occasionally see birds with teeth just like we occasionally see whales with hind legs. Evolution Theory beautifully explains these observations.

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

there are also some species of birds living today which have claws on their wings.

You mean birds like Hoatzin? The bird lives in the jungles of the Amazon and obviously needs to grasp trees. The fact that mother nature met this need by having it grow some claws is not anything unusual. After all we have some dinosaurs fossils showing clear birds features like feathers and airsacks then we found younger fossils of early birds that looked more like dinosaurs than birds and lastly we find even much younger fossils of modern birds with still identifiable dinosaur features. Birds like Hoatzin probably fits in the last category. Again, what is your point?

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Simply because of a superficial link one easilt comes to the conclusion that this is “proof” that birds came from dinosaurs?

Well, you're simply mistaken. The evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs is massive and continuing to pile up. We have evidences from varied fields as paleontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, behavior, biogeography... all collaborating each other.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Well my friends there is no fossil record to date where one can make an irrefutable claim that for example birds came from dinosaurs and thus equally and more humorously (much to the disdain of eager-Darwinists) humans from a greater ape.

I'm curious, what kind of evidence will convince you that birds descended from dinosaurs?

 

Second, humans DID descend from aep-like creatures and there is conclusive and "irrefutable" evidence if you so care to know I'm happy to disabuse you of your ignorance.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Well its hard to just “believe” if the existence of a “water-tight” argument fails at a several hurdles. Ie, incomplete fossil records, genetic-irregulariti es (which is why neo-darwisnism came about because the initial theory of Darwin’s evolution-went against the basic principles of genetics altogether)

First, the fossil record TODAY is more complete than it was a hundred years ago and will be more complete in the future. Second, most animals that ever lived never fossilized because their bodies were not made of hard stuff.

 

Third, Evolution theory is in accord with genetics. So what genetic-irregulariti es are you on about it? Or are you just making stuff up again?

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

…which brings me to idea of mutations if said mutations are to have a desired positive effect-ie for the purpose of natural selection? And thus survival then how come nearly every human mutation comes a direct result of “hindering” its subject.

There you again. Pontificating on things you're ignorant of. The overwhelming majority of mutations are what's called point mutations and they're neither beneficial nor deleterious. So they can't be hindering anything. Instead, they slowly add to the genetic diversity of a population so that when there is environmental pressure for particular traits, Natural Selection can filter the advantageous traits.

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Ie Sickle cell (Don’t even mention the protective effects of malaria-when there is a 1 in four chance of conceiving a dead baby ie with fatal Sickle cell anaemia while the half carry it and other lot survives without the baggage of carrying a lethal condition. How on earth can that be a benefit?

Sickle Cell anemia is a classic example of Natural Selection at work. In malaria prevalent zones, Sickle Cell trait was "selected" for. Why? Because people with only one allele for sickle cell condition were resistant to malarial infections; therefore that trait was selected for. The fact the condition is fatal when a person has the two alleles was worthy trade-off. Isn't Evolution Theory beautiful? It's ability to explain the diversity and puzzles of life is simply unparalleled.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Another example is Down syndrome -you’d think that an increase in genetic material and thus increase in the complexity of an orgasm would enhance ones survival options as is suggested by Darwin’s own ideas but neigh-you find that quite the opposite, as today all significantly altering mutations existing within human actually occurs as a detriment to the species and not as an adaptive advantage.

This is getting tiresome. Where did you read "an increase in genetic material and thus increase in the complexity of an orgasm would enhance ones survival options?" Dinosaurs were complex but no longer with us. Of course evolution or mutations had nothing to do with their extinction.

 

Each one of us is born with a new set of mutations that we didn't inherit from our parents. These new mutations code for protiens that do pretty much that same thing but slightly differently. That's why we look different from each other otherwise we'll be clones. It is this diversity that natural selection acts upon when there is selective pressure not when "increase in genetic material or complexity."

 

Moreover, Evolution is not directional, ie linear progression from less complex to more complex. And it's not purposeful.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Furthermore to this-genetic alterations (mutations) can only ever occur within a set limit of existing genetic material and genetic material is not spontaneously produced like the X-men-(as Stan Lee’s Marvel Comics enterprise want to believe)…No, any deletions, duplications or crosslinking alterations which do occur all do so at the expense of shuffling about new information or…losing certain features/variations in a downward trend. Simply put- I will always be a black arsed qaxooti gazing up at the moon and much to my own chagrin will not sprout majestic wings Icarus himself would be proud of.

This is classic creationist quibble and even though it's been explained to you guys countless times, you never get tired of repeating old debunked arguments. Genetic diversity is continuously added to the gene pool of a population. As you I pointed out earlier, you and everyone else is evidence for this fact as you have new mutations different from the ones you inherited from your parents.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

this notion of free will and does it truly exist?

Not if the God of the Bible and Quran exists. There can be no free will in a world lorded over by an all knowing, omnipotent "creator" with free will who created everyone.

[The_Siren]

*Sighs* you know you've given me naught else but disagree for the sake of it and without proving anything of any real substance to the equation.

 

Like I said ambitious imagination at its best and though I am tempted to divulge further and get into a heated debate....wsell I truly don't have either the energy or care as for the genetic aspects of evolution? Natural selection can only take you as far microevolution but macro? *lifts a brow*

 

But I shall leave you with this birds don't have teeth? Eh?

 

 

Indeed then what do you call that? lacerations?

 

I would suggest that anyone whose truly interested look but the evidence and research themselves instead of taking it on peoples word. Thats me done.

[Cara.]

^Hehe. Those aren't teeth. They are serrations in the mandible, and made of keratin rather than bone. Do you notice the distinct lack of gums?

 

I was expecting something more like this

 

[5]

THE SIREN, you're on about religion again. I get what you mean, but frankly I don't still understand why you're on it. I'll said it again: it was not about religion, but logic.

 

Example: Johnny B says:" I am an angel and it's your duty to prove the contrary"

 

That would mean that the original argument would've been: "God exists and it's your duty to prove the contrary". That is not the case. The original argument went:"God exists and here is the proof/reasoning for why He exists - now it's your turn to explain why He doesn't exist."

 

I really don't understand why you dragged this into a debate about the Truth. Proof does not necessarily equal to truth. Proof can be refuted, truth cannot.

 

Here is a better analogy Johnny B could have used: "There is a giant blue elephant in the universe, I saw it in a vision - prove there isn't a blue giant elephant somewhere in the universe."

 

This is exhausting, unnecessary and I just missed my bus. Please if you really want us to have interesting and intelligent conversations, then ask something, don't attack something which doesn't exist.

 

I'll be back in a couple of hours, iA!

[Garmaqaate]

Faith my friends, religion is all about faith first, faith second and faith everytime. Any person who chooses not believe in a "God" can be excused for he lacks faith. I only see a problem, a conflict if i may say so, when a supposedly non-religious person criticises religion and then goes ahead and pontificates on his own new religion - "atheism".

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by The_Siren:

*Sighs* you know you've given me naught else but disagree for the sake of it and without proving anything of any real substance to the equation.

First of all there is no such thing as prove in the real world only evidence and arguments. So no one can prove anything notwithstanding the colloquial use of the word "prove."

 

More pertinently, I have comprehensibly demolished your pathetic and error-filled screed on Evolution. The terse response in your last post against your more prolix earlier posts indicates I've done pretty good job.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

I truly don't have either the energy or care as for the genetic aspects of evolution?

Intellectually laziness is characteristic of creationists. This is why you prefer the more lazy "God did it" to the more complex, enriching, enlightening and factually accurate Evolution theory.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

Natural selection can only take you as far microevolution but macro? *lifts a brow*

This micro vs macro evolution bifurcation is an old obsession of creationists in an attempt to skirt the unassailable evidence for evolution. You won't find this in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For your information, MACRO-evolution is observed fact and the evidence for it is quite copious.

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

But I shall leave you with this birds don't have teeth? Eh?... Indeed then what do you call that? lacerations?

Those are not teeth but serrations on the bird's bill. Teeth are made of enamel -- that white stuff -- and modern birds don't have 'em that's why they're birds. Do you know anything about bird's digestive system? About crops? Gizzards?

 

Confusing bird serrations for teeth bears out what I said earlier. You are truly ignorant of what you're so against - Evolution Theory. I don't fault you though. You're a victim of religious indoctrination which makes you believe in things where there is no evidence and reject in theories backed by plenty of evidence.

 

 

 

Originally posted by The_Siren:

I would suggest that anyone whose truly interested look but the evidence and research themselves instead of taking it on peoples word.

What an ironic statement coming from a creationist of all people!

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by G G:

The original argument went:"God exists and here is the proof/reasoning for why He exists - now it's your turn to explain why He doesn't exist."

Again, there is no such thing as proof only evidence and reason. Lets, arguendo, change proof to evidence. Furthermore, let us drop all evidence for God's existence since we know you can't produce any evidence for God's existence that's perceptible to the human senses. Supposed miracles are discounted for obvious reasons. We're now left with reasons (that is logically sound reasons) for God existence. Do you have any? I ask because none have been presented thusfar. And even though this thread was ostensibly about Atheism, people have been attacking the scientific theory of Evolution.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

I only see a problem, a conflict if i may say so, when a supposedly non-religious person criticizes religion

That "conflict" would never exist if the pious kept their piety to themselves and not tried to impose their beliefs on everyone else.