The Adult Atheist Thread

You have made so many improper points it will take me hours to address them (e.g., because we know randomness occurs we should infer random change can be counted on to be constructive?),

I DO NOT dispute evolution happened, I DO dispute there is the slightest bit of proper evidence that randomness and selection for fitness has been shown to be behind organ creation. Yet there you are in your quote stating clearly there really is "very extensive and detailed study to mutation and natural selection."

What a self-deception! Show me all this evidence that gives one iota of support to, for example, that mutation was random; I read incessantly and I can't find a single bit.

Ahhhh, and here we go with the strawman tactic. I love science, so don't start this baloney please. Relativity has confirming evidence, cosmology (like the BB theory) has the expansion of the universe to support it as evidence.

The ONLY thing I am pointing to is that neither you, nor any other evo "believer" has bothered to demonstrate how we can know randomness decided genetic changes that built organs OR that selection for fitness would construct organs even if the right parts were provided for organ building.

What should we call it but a mere theory when you can't, and won't even try to, provide evidence for the very "engine" the theory claims evolved life?

And that's why you have atheist, religion-hater Dawkins telling the world, "Evolution is a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that the Earth is round and not flat, [that] the Earth goes round the Sun." What a load of BS . . . it is only a "fact" that life gradually evolved over time, it is not a "fact" that mutation/NS did it.

Addendum (couldn't resist)...

You had your version . . ..

But yes, all scientists are motivated by anti-religious sentiments. None have ever done anything because they were interested in it. My electron transport methods will hopefully initiate the complete collapse of the Roman Catholic church. And the Higgs boson will be kryponite to Protestants.

Darwin's theory was based on observations. It also allowed him to make predictions that transpired to be true. Have you not seen Adaptation? (You should... it's really good.)

. . . there was nothing to 'appropriate'.

Yes, we will all stop pretending the issue is closed. Round about the time we have evidence that the universe is conscious. You will be our leader.

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?

What version is that? I have no version, I am at least honest enough to admit I don't know, unlike those who think they have the "truth" because they can explain the mechanics of things.

Forgive my come-back sarcasm, I am weary from years of debating exaggerating, subject-avoiding, straw-man arguing, physicalists who assume the truth of their theory and then "dismiss" and slap the label ignorant or understudied on anyone who tries to call them on their bullsh*t pretensions of being scientific.

I wasn't talking about scientists, I was talking about "scientism" believers who think only science can answer all answerable questions; and those scientism devotees who then go on to pretend something is proven, which isn't, in order to remove anything but physicalness from the creation story.

What observations? Any that prove the simple adaption abundantly observed on extant organs today was the same process that built the organs in the first place? Any that prove what caused the genetic variations that led to organs?

I've read everything Darwin wrote, along with several shelves more of books on the subject I've accumulated over the last 40 years. Stop acting superior.

Sure there was: who/what the creator is. The "religion" of scientism claims they've basically proven the creator stems from the potentials pf physicalness alone, which of course makes them the high priests of understanding reality.

The central spot where the creation of life forms took place had to be genetic change because if the changes hadn't taken place to begin with, nothing could have been selected. The sneaky little tactic used, is to make that change "random" (which fits physicalism) but then attempt to ameliorate our natural "huh" reaction to that fantastic hypothesis by adding selection for fitness post hoc.

The resulting organization is still dependent on changes that ended up producing the most sophisticated system in the known universe. Although Mr. Dawkins recommends belief in the constructive power of chance, the only experience we have with chance tells us that the more we leave physical situations to randomness the more likely they are to get chaotic.

I don't know about you, but I am conscious, I am in the universe, ergo, the universe is conscious. You just want to make the creator (whatever that is) a machine so you can understand it the way you understand physics, like the guy whose only tool is a hammer and so treats everything like a nail. In the respect of wanting the "truth" and clinging blindly to something still unproven as though it is a fact, scientism believers are no different than the deluded of religions . . . scientism delusion is just smarter.

Me, I believe nothing except what I experience, and no experience I've yet discovered indicates physicalness can self-organize past turning repetitive after a mere few steps. It is physicalness' lack alone, not some a priori belief that reality must have a God or conscious field or whatever, that keeps me a total skeptic about the potentials of a physical cell and a physical environment producing changes that created a conscious human being a few hundred million years after single cells started hooking up.

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!

...With that in mind, I would be very interested in knowing the primary reasons why people have chosen the atheistic perspective. My experience up to now has been that atheism is largely a reaction against naive forms of theism. ...

It does seem that the vast majority of religious folks are just following something they were indoctrinated into, while atheists usually came to their conclusions for more intellectual reasons. That's my impression, anyway. Then, also, as we have noticed in multiple other threads here, Christianity (which is the religion that most of seem to have been in contact with the most) is widely understood to be a matter of setting aside your intellect and just believing things on the basis of authority. On top of that, you have a lot of conservative Christians (I'm using the term in the broad sense) who think it is essential to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and thus they have rejected fundamental scientific observations.

So, it's no wonder that, at least in our culture, theism, for many, has come to represent anti-intellectualism, while atheism can be seen by some as a more intellectual position.


However, I think the divide is not a necessary one. The merits of either position can be carefully examined by those who wish to do so.

With that in mind, I would be very interested in knowing the primary reasons why people have chosen the atheistic perspective.

Let's talk about 'choosing the atheist perspective'. I am an atheist by default since I am not born with a religion, ... I just wanted to be clear on that, because the common view of theists is that atheists actively choose atheism, frequently out of spite, or to embrace immorality, or for some other dark motive. It's very difficult to correct this fallacy as theists seen to have some vested interest in perpetuating it, perhaps for their own self-validation.

Patty,

A literal interpretation of the bible speaks of itself as a anti-intellectual endeavor, I was told my self in my youth that in order to believe one must leave reason behind and take a leap of faith, that by its own defination is anti-intellectualism. As far as the intution of a higher power goes, there is no such thing as a closed system, so of necessity, we are all a part of something larger than ourselves, that is common sense not faith, that is reason not faith. In the United States the religious attack upon science, the attempt to usurp the public classroom to teach a myth in place of science screams anti-intellectaulism. Yours truely, the talking snake!

Well, I certainly concur that we can't have good dialog if either side in the debate harbors hidden agendas or ascribes bad motives to the other.

On the other hand, I think many theists would challenge the idea that people are atheist by default. And any examination of that question could be very enlightening, I would think, regardless of whether you are a theist or atheist.

True enough. When I was younger, maybe 15 16, a Bible scholar priest talked about the Genesis, and told that us that it wasn't to be understood literally. He even argued, and I believe as well as other priests, that Evolution can be true but still not outside creation. Evolution after creation. He also emphasized that the book of Genesis is not a myth, but rather a symbolical story of what happened and is happening to the world. It doesn't really account for the literal creation of the world.

I think for a lot of people it is that kind of reactionism; to varying degrees. It might very well have been that way for me too; 15 or so years go.

In any case, as to your question, to me its immensely simple. You use the word "chosen"; for me it isn't a choice, not if I'm honest. The preponderance of evidence that I count as valid simply doesn't point me in that direction. We could inject numerous levels of "what ifs" here but what it boils down to is either you have a reason to adhere to this kind of notion or you don't.

Reasonable, but I have to disagree, with regard to theism = anti- intellectualism and atheism = intellectual position

... Religion is not against Intellectualism, it simply is not its domain. However, many theologians are great philosophers, like Thomas Aquinas. He is often times quoted only because of his 5 ways in proving God's existence. Anyone interested in a very systematic metaphysics should read his work.