The Adult Atheist Thread

@boagie,

Quote:

We probably agree on more than it might appear.

Yes I think we do.

I think you're very right to point out that there is a difference between a Christian (as in someone who would answer "Christian" if asked what their religion was) and a Christian (as in someone who thinks deeply on the way of life Christ suggested and tries to behave accordingly).

Incidently I think this might have some common ground with someone's (I think it was Aedes) earlier point about atheism being "unencumbered" - and that there is something alarming about the recent media phenomenon of athiests wanting to identify with one another as a group and ascribe common qualities to athiests (such as "Bright" - which I find embarrassingly twee if nothing else).

Of all theisms atheism is the only one that has developed independantly of itself in different cultures seperated by lengths of time or space (something I think does it a lot of credibility). I think this evangelic strain of atheism risks damaging that.

Quote:

I don't blame you. And I don't blame you for being an atheist either, because, as you have so well summarized, popular forms of theism and Christianity are so revolting.

The main reason for me is that I simply see no need for divinity.

If anything I think Christ's message is more credible stripped of miracle or ressurection. If what he said was worthy of respect and consideration - what of it if he was the son of God? If he is the son of God - why the failure to communicate his message to so many people?

Lao Tzu and Buddha also say many beautiful things about harmonious living, and the message is just as strong even though these people aren't thought of as divinities (though buddhism does seem to come with its fair share of mystical baggage).

I perceive religious ideas to meet a phychological need that some feel more than others and I don't think I feel it particularly strongly.

Having said that I do notice I use such words as "God" "Jesus" or "Heaven" or "Hell" as an almost instant reaction to being confronted with the lottery of fate (as an ironic example - the last time I read the God Delusion I did so in the bath, and I clumsily fumbled it so that it fell in the water. "Jesus!" I exclaimed.)

I think this aknowledgment of things out of my control or sphere of knowledge is probably what other people might see as spiritualism. I know I am a tool of fate and I have to make my peace with that. I do so in a secular fashion - but I suppose I might do so otherwise if I was raised or "wired up" in a different way.

Having done a bit of research the actions of Pope Pius XII in WWII are a little more confusing than I first thought, an article can be found on the following site:
Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

I think you're very right to point out that there is a difference between a Christian (as in someone who would answer "Christian" if asked what their religion was) and a Christian (as in someone who thinks deeply on the way of life Christ suggested and tries to behave accordingly).

Thank you! Thinking deeply on the way of life Christ suggested is something anyone can do. I speculate that some atheists are closer to true Christianity than are those who practice the popular forms of Christianity without doing the thinking.

2 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Hi all!!

I think something needs clarification, I really do not think atheism is going to become institutionalised, what the real attempt here is the showing of numbers in order to eventually be treated with respect. I think most atheist realize that some form of supernatural religion is always going to be around, but there always tends to be this dictatorship of the majority. One must realize that although majority rule is democratic, the majority in certain aspects, certain locations would never concede equal rights to a minority, black people in the southern United States, would never have gotten equal rights if their treatment in the south had not been broadcasted across the nation. There is an inherent flaw in the concept of majority rule which on occasion needs adjustment--tweaked!

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

I speculate that some atheists are closer to true Christianity than are those who practice the popular forms of Christianity without doing the thinking.

It's all true Christianity, because people define themselves. Maybe what you mean is that some atheists live more like Jesus would have lived, or live a Jesus-like ideal. But religion is both a group experience and a personal experience, not just a guide to behavior, and I don't think you can very easily judge people on how true their Christianity is.

1 Reply

@boagie,

This might be a bit off topic, but another thing I think goes unacknowledged by atheists is the huge impact religious thinking has had on the arts.

I'm not sure I would want to risk missing out on what this chap has done:

YouTube - Alasdair Gray Jonah and the Whale

Or this:

YouTube - "Oh, my lord" Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds High Quality

One thing that science certainly doesn't seem to seem to inspire in anywhere near as great quantity as religion is moving works of art.

Perhaps because religion and art both deal in symbols?

Or at least symbols with some sort of level of abstraction in common - rather than science which often seeks to get past abstraction.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Mythology in general is an expression of the psyche of man. Below Campbell recieving award for his contribution to the arts.

YouTube - Joseph Campbell--- Receiving an award from the National Arts Club

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

This might be a bit off topic, but another thing I think goes unacknowledged by atheists is the huge impact religious thinking has had on the arts.

Arts aside, mankind has built little, perhaps nothing, more beautiful than that inspired by God. Many of the churches and cathedrals of my country are still amongst the most breathtaking things I've ever seen... and Gaudi's Sagrada Familiar... and the statue of 'Christ the Redeemer' in Rio de Janero... The world would be worse off without them all. It's just a pity that not all Christian endeavours were quite so non-violent, let alone beautiful.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Mythology in general is an expression of the psyche of man. Below Campbell recieving award for his contribution to the arts.

Yet I very rarely hear of artists crediting inspiration to "the imprint upon my psyche of mythology in general".

Joseph Campbell himself must have admitted that were it not for religion his life and philosophies would have been impoverished.

In an earlier movie you posted of him he speaks of a Hinduistic oneness that sounds to me very at odds with Dawkins, for example.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Yet I very rarely hear of artists crediting inspiration to "the imprint upon my psyche of mythology in general".

Joseph Campbell himself must have admitted that were it not for religion his life and philosophies would have been impoverished.

In an earlier movie you posted of him he speaks of a Hinduistic oneness that sounds to me very at odds with Dawkins, for example.

Dave Allen, Smile

Mythology was Campbell's life, but one defination of mythology is, the other man's religion. Campbell was not anti-religion, he was indeed a very spiritual fellow. As he stated about religions, they are all true, but when one gets stuck with ones metaphors thinking them fact, well, your in trouble then. I think where religion does damage is in not insisting upon a mature understanding of the symbolisms in each tradition. The mass of people who call themselves religious have an extremely simplistic understanding, a literal interpretation, it is obviously a dangerous situtation and that is what people like Dawkins are reacting to.

People tend to forget that this rise of the atheist started as a reaction to the churches assault upon science and reason itself, trying to force creationism into the schools taught as science. Religion is never going to go away, it is part of man's psyche, but why could it not be up dated, they are still trying to push the science of two thousand years ago onto a modern situtation. It is really that which is in the most conflict the science of today in conflict with the science of the past. Personally I find Dawkins charming, it is not the holy jihad of the people of the book, it is reasoned, appealing to reason--he does not threaten to kill you if you do not agree.---Allah is great---lol!!--f--k Allah!!

pat condell youtube - Live Search Video

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It's all true Christianity, because people define themselves. Maybe what you mean is that some atheists live more like Jesus would have lived, or live a Jesus-like ideal. But religion is both a group experience and a personal experience, not just a guide to behavior, and I don't think you can very easily judge people on how true their Christianity is.

I think I understand what you mean, but I can't go along with the relativism to that extent. We can disagree about the definition of Christianity, and about who practices it within the confines of any given definition, but to say that "it's all true Christianity" is to leave it undefined. An ignorant or deluded person who thinks he is a Christian is not a Christian, but just an ignorant or deluded person.

Also, I hope I didn't say anything to imply that I think religion is just a guide to behavior!

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Personally I find Dawkins charming, it is not the holy jihad of the people of the book, it is reasoned, appealing to reason--he does not threaten to kill you if you do not agree.---Allah is great---lol!!--f--k Allah!!

Well, there are charming Muslims who don't threaten anyone too. Salman Rushdie, for example.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Well, there are charming Muslims who don't threaten anyone too. Salman Rushdie, for example.

\

Dave Allen, Smile

You picked a wonderful choice, he did have a contract out on him for sometime, does he think he is safe from Muslim wrath now? Europeans are now begining to realize they have a fifth column in their midst, a terrible thought I know, but an inescapable conclusion none the less--praise be to Allah-----lol!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

Darwins theory of evolution fails because he wasn't able to give evidence of the intermediary species that should fill in the gaps between a less complex species to a more complex species of the allegedly same line of species. And the abiogensis theory doens't hold up against the biogensis theory. I don't know what's left for the atheist to resort to ideas such as evolution to come with a convincing argument.

P.S.

I respect any beliefs or ideas, its just intresting to know why there is still a recourse to such theories.

2 Replies

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

Darwins theory of evolution fails because he wasn't able to give evidence of the intermediary species that should fill in the gaps between a less complex species to a more complex species of the allegedly same line of species. And the abiogensis theory doens't hold up against the biogensis theory. I don't know what's left for the atheist to resort to ideas such as evolution to come with a convincing argument.

P.S.

I respect any beliefs or ideas, its just intresting to know why there is still a recourse to such theories.

Patty,

For one thing abiogensis is not the same study as biogensis, certianly I am no expert on evolutionary biology but the resistence to said theory makes me wonder what is going on with those whom deny the testimony of the scientific community. Is it believed that these people are just evil liars, or just very stupid people or both?, Please enlighten me. It has been one hundred and fifty years since the publication of the origin of species, one hundred and fifty years of constent assault by the religious on the premises of said theory, all have fail miserably. The evidence is overwhelming and on so many levels as to make denial absurd.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Patty,

For one thing abiogensis is not the same study as biogensis, certianly I am no expert on evolutionary biology but the resistence to said theory makes me wonder what is going on with those whom deny the testimony of the scientific community. Is it believed that these people are just evil liars, or just very stupid people or both?, Please enlighten me. It has been one hundred and fifty years since the publication of the origin of species, one hundred and fifty years of constent assault by the religious on the premises of said theory, all have fail miserably. The evidence is overwhelming and on so many levels as to make denial absurd.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Like what I said, I was just wondering, if the evolution theory doesn't hold up, which I think is the only possible foundation to support an argument to explain the world w/o having to invoke God, then what can be the basis for an atheistic interpretation of the world? The slow evolutionary process must also have the evidence of intermediary species necessary to explain that all things evolve from a single life source. Evolution per se is very much inadequate in explaining the whole necessary chain of progression, such as evidences of the transitions, what more about the origin of life in general - where no life form can be produced coming from a non-living matter.

2 Replies

@Patty phil,

Patty.

I think this about covers your objections. Talk origins is really a good source, that is ware I accessed this. There is a section of creationist objections that are delt with in that catagory.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

Links:

Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
References:

The theory of evolution by natural selection is falsifiable if such an evidence were to be presented...I am just not aware of any such evidence. Evolution could be falsified by observations that organisms do not display variation. Evolution could be falsified by observations that all members of a species manage to survive to reproduce (i.e. that for any organism, two parents could produce two offspring in their lifetime and the population will not decrease). Evolution could be falsified if there was no mechanism for passing on the traits of a parent to its offspring. Evolution could be falsified if organisms existed that did not share common features with other organisms (living or fossil). The list goes on. Evolution is falsifiable, it's just that attempts to falsify it have not been successful.

Smile

0 Replies

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

Darwins theory of evolution fails because he wasn't able to give evidence of the intermediary species that should fill in the gaps between a less complex species to a more complex species of the allegedly same line of species. And the abiogensis theory doens't hold up against the biogensis theory. I don't know what's left for the atheist to resort to ideas such as evolution to come with a convincing argument.

P.S.

I respect any beliefs or ideas, its just intresting to know why there is still a recourse to such theories.

You really should go back ant look at the evolutionary evidence of the human species. There is a reason why the Great Apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) have recently been grouped into the same evolutionary family as humans. I do not know where you derive your infromation from, but I recommend looking into biological anthropology before you invoke god or aliens as the cause for human beings.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

You really should go back ant look at the evolutionary evidence of the human species. There is a reason why the Great Apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) have recently been grouped into the same evolutionary family as humans. I do not know where you derive your infromation from, but I recommend looking into biological anthropology before you invoke god or aliens as the cause for human beings.

It's mean for you to accuse me of cowardingly invoking God or aliens as cause of human beings, when I'm just finding a reasonable reason for an atheist to believe such theory.

What triggered Darwin is not the idea of God but actually the idea of separate creation of species. He believed that because of the seamlessly similarities of yet different species, there cannot be a creation of separate species. But then, his theory although is not impossible, cannot be accepted universally for it cannot explain the origin of life. Maybe it can explain the origin of species, but not life.

Question: can we say that the apes that we have are bound to an evolutionary progress that these species will then eventually become humans?

2 Replies

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

It's mean for you to accuse me of cowardingly invoking God or aliens as cause of human beings, when I'm just finding a reasonable reason for an atheist to believe such theory.

What triggered Darwin is not the idea of God but actually the idea of separate creation of species. He believed that because of the seamlessly similarities of yet different species, there cannot be a creation of separate species. But then, his theory although is not impossible, cannot be accepted universally for it cannot explain the origin of life. Maybe it can explain the origin of species, but not life.

Question: can we say that the apes that we have are bound to an evolutionary progress that these species will then eventually become humans?

Patty,

find below a further response to your query.

"Darwins theory of evolution fails because he wasn't able to give evidence of the intermediary species that should fill in the gaps between a less complex species to a more complex species of the allegedly same line of species. And the abiogensis theory doens't hold up against the biogensis theory. I don't know what's left for the atheist to resort to ideas such as evolution to come with a convincing argument." quote

"Well the 'lack of intermediates' point is nonsense. Just look at, well, pretty much any group in the fossil record. Both the tansition from land to water with the evolution of whales, and from land to the air with the evolution of birds have had entire books devoted to them for example. Hundreds of dinosaur fossils representing dozens of species track the change from fully terrestrial, un-feathered predators, to fully feathered, powered flying birds with no teeth, modified forelimbs, reduced fingers, changed toes and a lost tail. If you look at the invertebrate fossil record from soemthing like ammonites or formaniniferans, the species become hundreds or thousands, and speciemns run to the millions, if not billions! That is quite a few intermediates. As for changes within a species, this article () is less than a month old and documents a scientific paper showing changes in a species measured in less than a human lifetime. These things are being studied and published constantly. What about human evolution with resistance to the HIV virus evolving in some African populations with higer exposure rates?

Evolution by Natural Selection has nothing to say about abiogeneis at all really, so that is also largely irrelevant (from a point of evolutionary theory).

As for 'gaps' in evolutionary theory, yes there are some, but they do not undermine the theory, these are things that have yet to be filled in. There will alwasy be more work to do and more facts to test and ideas to check, but natural selection is backed by a colossal ammount of data and analyses, so to suggest that a few ideas that remin to be tested or explained fundametally undermine it is not true. You can build a 50 storey building with a few bricks missing from the walls with no real effect and (to extend the analogy) if people are constantly reneforcing the base and walls with new bricks (new studies, new tecnhiques) *and* filling in those missing bricks (checking new ideas) the structure is not going to fall - it's not even vagely unstable." quote David Hone

I believe they have a good idea of just how the first self-replicating molecules began but its true I think, it is not conclusive. Evolution deals with the transformation of species, not necessarily the origin of life itself.

"But then, his theory although is not impossible, cannot be accepted universally for it cannot explain the origin of life. Maybe it can explain the origin of species, but not life." quote

I believe you are right, the origin of the being of the world and your own being remain a mystery, but perhaps not to remain so. Your interest in this I can see is quite sincere. I am myself quite inadequate to answer to your questions, without accessing sites like talk origins, do try it, it is very informative. Talk origins does have the answers you seek.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

You picked a wonderful choice...

Yes. A muslim who I feel is undeniably intelligent, creative, happy to satirisie his own beliefs and culture.

The fact that the Ayatollah issued a fatwa against Rushdie doesn't change any of the above, don't you think?

1 Reply

The Adult Atheist Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know