NationStates Jolt Archive

agreed entirely. to be athiest is not to believe in any religion. (for whatever reason) so if you begin to believe it's a religion you've kinda missed the point

A more appropriate belief might be agnosticism which, to the best of my understanding, is the suspension of belief in the face of a lack of evidence. Like, "I don't actively disbelieve in the existence of a higher power, but I haven't seen any good evidence for it so... I don't know and am not in a rush to figure things out."

I fail to see why one would *actively* become atheist or agnostic though. It's not like you have to go to a geneticist and baptised in vodka to be absolved of all previous religion and spirituality. If someone doesn't believe or doesn't know, they don't believe or don't know.

Finally. Let us not forget that there are *many* other faiths than Christianity. It is not just Christianity vs. Atheism.

Perhaps, if your friend is having a crisis, they might be interested in something that is more of a philosophy than a religion. Many eastern philosophies are this way. Take Zen for example (yes, I'm a bit biased on this, but not totally). There is definitely a mystical component to it, but you can seperate it out for the core philosophies of mindfulness and not holding on to the pains we experience in life. Sure, your friend might not believe that this is the way to nirvana, but they might find that it makes life simpler and clearer.

So, if you like that idea, I suggest getting the person a book by Thich Nhat Hanh (a Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk once nominated for the Nobel peace prize by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) or the Dhalai Lama. I might suggest "Peace is Every Step" by Nhat Hanh or "The Art of Happiness" by the Dhalai Lama.

Also remember, religion and spirituality can be seperate. I am one of the most spiritual people I know and I hold to no religion but draw my spirituality where it is fitting.

Well, the same is true for science, actually. If you show that fundamental senses and the information they provide us can not be trusted, then science collapses.

Additionally, you're using a specific to prove a general. Sure, if a body was found and it had that little placard on it (for the sake of argument, at least), it would cast serious doubt on the Christian faith. However, it wouldn't cast the least bit of doubt on religion as a whole.

The same is true for science. Use evolutionary theory as an example. Lamarckian inheritance was surplanted by Darwinian inheritance. In effect, Lamarckian inheritance was found to be incorrect, however this doesn't nullify the idea of evolution completely, just that specific concept.

So too with religion. Removing the fundamental basis of one specific religious identity may be enough to capsize that particular identity, but it doesn't sink the whole concept.

I'm maybe not clear enough there... but I don't consider all religions to be sunk by the disproof of one religion... although it would probably make it harder to maintain some of the outlandish claims of another sect if one of them took a dive.

My point was supposed to be, almost exactly what you said: you can kill a theory (Lamarckism) and the science (Here, the principle of evolution - so the science is Biology, I guess) gets STRONGER.

Any clearer that time?

I'm maybe not clear enough there... but I don't consider all religions to be sunk by the disproof of one religion... although it would probably make it harder to maintain some of the outlandish claims of another sect if one of them took a dive.

My point was supposed to be, almost exactly what you said: you can kill a theory (Lamarckism) and the science (Here, the principle of evolution - so the science is Biology, I guess) gets STRONGER.

Any clearer that time?

Yes, I think I see what you're saying, but I still don't understand why this same line of reasoning wouldn't apply to religion as well, of course maybe I'm still not understanding the totality of your point.

A more appropriate belief might be agnosticism which, to the best of my understanding, is the suspension of belief in the face of a lack of evidence. Like, "I don't actively disbelieve in the existence of a higher power, but I haven't seen any good evidence for it so... I don't know and am not in a rush to figure things out."

I fail to see why one would *actively* become atheist or agnostic though. It's not like you have to go to a geneticist and baptised in vodka to be absolved of all previous religion and spirituality. If someone doesn't believe or doesn't know, they don't believe or don't know.

Finally. Let us not forget that there are *many* other faiths than Christianity. It is not just Christianity vs. Atheism.

Perhaps, if your friend is having a crisis, they might be interested in something that is more of a philosophy than a religion. Many eastern philosophies are this way. Take Zen for example (yes, I'm a bit biased on this, but not totally). There is definitely a mystical component to it, but you can seperate it out for the core philosophies of mindfulness and not holding on to the pains we experience in life. Sure, your friend might not believe that this is the way to nirvana, but they might find that it makes life simpler and clearer.

So, if you like that idea, I suggest getting the person a book by Thich Nhat Hanh (a Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk once nominated for the Nobel peace prize by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) or the Dhalai Lama. I might suggest "Peace is Every Step" by Nhat Hanh or "The Art of Happiness" by the Dhalai Lama.

Also remember, religion and spirituality can be seperate. I am one of the most spiritual people I know and I hold to no religion but draw my spirituality where it is fitting.

People don't 'actively become' atheists or agnostics.

People are atheists if they do not believe in a god or gods. They don't get up and go sit in the atheist camp... if you are not a believer, you are an atheist... it's the default setting if you opt out, I guess.

People are agnostics because they (may or may not belive that a god or gods could exist) do not believe it is POSSIBLE for the mind to COMPREHEND the existence or non-existence of god or gods.

Like I say - it's not a choice. It's just what 'happens' when you don't believe in a god or gods.

Sorry, I just get really worked up about this... "Interpret." Sorry.

I think you missed the point of one of my posts about Midgard. See, something either created itself or was created by something it created. It's the only thing that makes sense. Whether or not that is a God is up for questioning, but to say that there is nothing that created the universe is false, and whatever this is can be perceived as a God, because (as I said before) we can't understand anything more complicated.
---
Luckily, as a protestant, I can safely say that I do believe in Evolution. Creationism is most likely metaphorical and describes evolution in terms one might understand in a different time, IE. when the books were written; hey, if not all people understand evolution now, what makes you think someone would understand it before we discovered evolution?
---
In response to a different series of quotes, I have to say something about free will. You have free will in the form that you believe you can make a choice. However, thought processes are actually just brain chemicals being interpreted by your mind. It goes to the point where you think you are thinking, but you're actually not. You're not technically a sentient being, you just think you are.


Um, I never said "nothing created the universe." Matter of a fact, at the top of page 10 I voted for the monkeyfish. :D But actually, the possiblity that the universe came from nothing is just as valid as having something create it. Because, simply put, there seems to be a need for a beginning. Quantum mechanics can say that the universe came into being by chance. As to how those laws came into being, no idea...it is kinda hard to figure out what happened before the existence of everything.

And it is true only a few denominations of the Protestant persuasion doubt evolution openly. The Pope endorses evolution as the "hand of god" so I don't see what all the rest of you Christians are whining about ;)

And it is good to finally see a Christian that argues against free will. I thought the argument against free will was in the bible somewhere in Romans but I could be wrong...not my book after all :)

But, as far as I'm concerned, I'm sentient. Do you realize you just said I'm not sentient because chemicals are interpreted by my MIND. That argument doesn't quite work. Of course it is all just chemicals, all we all are is just a chemical chain reaction. That doesn't mean we don't think.

it is all a matter of faith

Earlier, somone brought up the secular humanist page. Allow me to put my mind to that.

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.[2]
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Etc.



Um, no. None of those hold up, sorry. If a god exists, there is no absolute need for it to be perfect, creator of the universe, omnipresent, omniscent, omnipotent, or a person, or transcendent. You've limited your concept of a "god" to the Christian one. While they are nice to show that the Christian god does not exist, that doesn't matter, because the Christian god isn't based in logic, it is based in faith. Therefore, no matter how illogical a Christian god is, the Christians will believe, because a core tenant of the religion is faith. What must be done is to show that faith itself is a flawed concept or that faith in that particular religion is flawed. But I see leave to their own horrible fates :D

The greek gods were none of those things. The Hindu gods were not all of those things. You've gotta keep an open mind when looking at the god question.

Yes, I think I see what you're saying, but I still don't understand why this same line of reasoning wouldn't apply to religion as well, of course maybe I'm still not understanding the totality of your point.

Okay: I'll try it one more time, and if we can't hammer it out, we have to agree that it's not a ten-paces, now-turn-and-fire-thing...

A religion has basic premises: The Crucifixion and Resurrection would, I would say, be the central premise of Christianity. If Jesus turned up dead - then Christianity dissolves, as it has been based on a lie.

Similarly: If it becomes evident that, for example, the Missing First Page of the Talmud appears (The one that says... copyright blah blah blah, all persons and events contained within are completely fictitious... etc.) then the Judaistic faith takes something of a kick to the head.

But:

Going back to Evolution... did Darwin weaken science? No... not as a whole.
Did he even weaken the area of science that his work affected? Well, he caused a bit of an uproar, and people basically threw stuff at him, but, overall - Biology is stronger for Darwin. The Lamarckian model was good - but not good ENOUGH, and it was supplanted by a better model - and evolution is stronger for it, biology is stronger for it, science is stronger for it.

Um, no. None of those hold up, sorry. If a god exists, there is no absolute need for it to be perfect, creator of the universe, omnipresent, omniscent, omnipotent, or a person, or transcendent. You've limited your concept of a "god" to the Christian one. While they are nice to show that the Christian god does not exist, that doesn't matter, because the Christian god isn't based in logic, it is based in faith. Therefore, no matter how illogical a Christian god is, the Christians will believe, because a core tenant of the religion is faith. What must be done is to show that faith itself is a flawed concept or that faith in that particular religion is flawed. But I see leave to their own horrible fates :D

The greek gods were none of those things. The Hindu gods were not all of those things. You've gotta keep an open mind when looking at the god question.

Er, sorry...misread that whole post...I was in a hurry....but then again I guess it works...still, sorry for the confusion.

Okay: I'll try it one more time, and if we can't hammer it out, we have to agree that it's not a ten-paces, now-turn-and-fire-thing...

A religion has basic premises: The Crucifixion and Resurrection would, I would say, be the central premise of Christianity. If Jesus turned up dead - then Christianity dissolves, as it has been based on a lie.

Similarly: If it becomes evident that, for example, the Missing First Page of the Talmud appears (The one that says... copyright blah blah blah, all persons and events contained within are completely fictitious... etc.) then the Judaistic faith takes something of a kick to the head.

But:

Going back to Evolution... did Darwin weaken science? No... not as a whole.
Did he even weaken the area of science that his work affected? Well, he caused a bit of an uproar, and people basically threw stuff at him, but, overall - Biology is stronger for Darwin. The Lamarckian model was good - but not good ENOUGH, and it was supplanted by a better model - and evolution is stronger for it, biology is stronger for it, science is stronger for it.
If Jesus was found to be dead, Christianity wouldn't completely die. Many people would refuse to believe that this is truly Jesus, no matter what evidence is provided. Many would quickly become Atheists or convert, most likely to Judaism. Even so, some of us would remain; maybe our faith would be shattered, and maybe we are no longer Christians in faith, but there are still the teachings. It's not the miracles that were important in New Testament, as most Catholics would have you know, but the teachings. Jesus taught us to love, to share, to be friendly with one another. There are the 10 commandments, even. Even if these were not truly the work of God, someone would still worship the commandments as a staple of morals that all should uphold; maybe not the work of god, but close enough.

...meaning free will is a joke. Thank you.

Yet I am without faith. How do you explain that?




I STRIVE to be without faith. I find faith to be the easy way out. Yet, I keep getting hung up on the idea that I must at least have faith in the concept of logic. I have faith that logic is the way to attempt to percieve the universe.

You seem to have a pretty good grasp on logical argument. If you can help me around this little problem, I would be very grateful.

What evidence do you have that the universe is only as it appears?

Ah. I will now be a person to come in with EVIDENCE! Want to know which side my evidence supports? Neither! I do intend to poke holes in the "Only what can be seen argument." And this will support mysticism, but not religion.

Two words: Quantum Physics.

Anybody studied anything or read anything about them or the discoveries and connotation made?

Well, of late I've been reading a book called the "Tao of Physics", and I don't have time to academically express the arguments made in that book, but let me summarize the basic premise and some of the findings.

Quantum physics shows some startling parrallels with mysticism. This book focuses on Eastern mysticism (since that's what the author knows best), but if you understand and have studied them at all, it also parralelles mystical traditions in much of western philosophy such as Christianity, Judaism, Greco/Roman philosophy, and ancient Celtic faiths. (All of these things are frequently forgotten. Yes there is Christian mysticism which frequently gets forgotten in light of religious dogma).

Now, these parallels I speak of occur in the core nature of mysticism and frankly it's all pretty tough to comprehend the scientific findings, and mystical traditions are difficult to put into words:

We can not passively observe the world. It is impossible to seperate the observer from the process that is being observed (this is incredibly obvious in quantum physics). This leads to the concept of interconnectedness of things, which is the heart of all mystical traditions.

Additionally, science *does* have a metaphysical component. Simply stated, scientific theories are expressed as mathematical equations which are very precise... but not necessarily accurate. They are *models*. That is all that scientific theory offers is models to explain and predict natural phenomena. Precision is not accuracy though. This is where the metaphysics comes in. The metaphysics of science is the writen explanation of what is happening and what it means, not just the numbers.

And all these are, are models. It is not the world itself. Mysticism is about experiencing the world directly. What you believe makes up the world... that's up to you. I've had interesting experiences with energy healing systems such as Reiki. I tested them as best as I could in as controlled an environment as possible. I've talked to other people who have done the same and we could come up with no good "scientific" explanation for the results (no, not even "power of suggestion" since I know of things being done on animals and people who were not aware that anything 'mystical' was being done to them). You don't have to believe in that if you don't want to though.

*Sigh* Science is a process. It is not a belief system. It helps us explain the world... but not necessarily understand it. Many scientists are religious and/or spiritual. Many are not.

My point is: quantum physics.

If you really understand science, you know there is plenty out there beyond what we can see.

But, as far as I'm concerned, I'm sentient. Do you realize you just said I'm not sentient because chemicals are interpreted by my MIND. That argument doesn't quite work. Of course it is all just chemicals, all we all are is just a chemical chain reaction. That doesn't mean we don't think.
You think, you're just not in control what you're thinking. You think you're in control, but you're not actually.

Either way, being able to think is just as nice anyway.

My main reason for atheism is that I cannot see how my belief that there is no God is any less logical than the belief that any form of deity exists. In fact - as I have had no experience of a God, and that reason doesn't seem to provide any explanation why God is more probable than the existence of Unicorns or Harry Potter - it could be said to be more logical not to believe.

I also don't want to waste my life, living for death, thinking that if i behave exactly as a Holy Book says is correct, then i will be granted everlasting life in a perfect place. I'd rather live how i see fit, make my own moral decisions, feel like I've overall been a good person and go to hell with a feeling that justice has not been served, than die and discover I've wasted my life following rules I hate and disagree with, and that in fact oblivion is all that waits.

The way I see religion is as a superstition. People who believe will be shocked by the complete dismissal of their beliefs by other people, while the people who don't believe will just laugh when they're told what they're doing is wrong, that they'll get seven years bad luck, that they'll go to hell.

I can't say who's right, and if I do end up burning in a pit, I won't be too surprised, but I'm sticking to the idea that I don't need God. You can have him.

Um, I never said "nothing created the universe." Matter of a fact, at the top of page 10 I voted for the monkeyfish. :D But actually, the possiblity that the universe came from nothing is just as valid as having something create it. Because, simply put, there seems to be a need for a beginning. Quantum mechanics can say that the universe came into being by chance. As to how those laws came into being, no idea...it is kinda hard to figure out what happened before the existence of everything.

I disagree whole heartedly. You are familiar with the laws of conservation of mass and energy. (These are scientific *laws* not just theories). To sum them up, you can't get something from nothing.

"Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, they can only change forms."

I know you're saying, "Duh".

Well, for those "scientific" people, if this can't have come from nothing, it had to have always been there... even before the big bang. So where did it come from? And it must be eternal.

For those religious people, let's face it, you can't refute scientific law. That's like saying, "No, gravity doesn't exist." And there's no reason a god can't work through laws of physics. So... the universe can't come from nothing. In the beginning you believe there was just god (presumably) and that god created the univers (yes, I purposefully do not capitalize "god"). What did this god create the universe from? God can't have made it from nothing. God had to use something that was already there and theat only changed forms (see top). If all there was in the beginning was god... then that is all there ever will be and everything is god, in a different form. You are the christ.

I STRIVE to be without faith. I find faith to be the easy way out. Yet, I keep getting hung up on the idea that I must at least have faith in the concept of logic. I have faith that logic is the way to attempt to percieve the universe.

You seem to have a pretty good grasp on logical argument. If you can help me around this little problem, I would be very grateful.
Logic insofar as the "Aristotilean Trinity" are self-evident.

Identity. A = A

Excluded Middle. A or ~A

Non-Contradiction. !(A and ~A at the same time and respect)

The very concept of proof is dependent upon them.

Logic is the science of correct reasoning and correct identification. Without logic, there is simply nonsense. It's not some "attempt to perceive the universe". It's the method of structuring thoughts and statements into coherence. It's all we have.

What is the alternative. Deny identity, for example. What do you get? 1 = 2? 1 + 1 != 1 + 1 + 1 - 1?

I disagree whole heartedly. You are familiar with the laws of conservation of mass and energy. (These are scientific *laws* not just theories). To sum them up, you can't get something from nothing.

"Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, they can only change forms."

I know you're saying, "Duh".

Well, for those "scientific" people, if this can't have come from nothing, it had to have always been there... even before the big bang. So where did it come from? And it must be eternal.

For those religious people, let's face it, you can't refute scientific law. That's like saying, "No, gravity doesn't exist." And there's no reason a god can't work through laws of physics. So... the universe can't come from nothing. In the beginning you believe there was just god (presumably) and that god created the univers (yes, I purposefully do not capitalize "god"). What did this god create the universe from? God can't have made it from nothing. God had to use something that was already there and theat only changed forms (see top). If all there was in the beginning was god... then that is all there ever will be and everything is god, in a different form. You are the christ.
"Does that mean I can dodge bullets?"
"No. I'm saying when the time comes, you don't have to."

Perhaps God created the universe from himself? I remember reading something about particular mythology that shares a similar belief; can't remember much about it, though.

If Jesus was found to be dead, Christianity wouldn't completely die. Many people would refuse to believe that this is truly Jesus, no matter what evidence is provided. Many would quickly become Atheists or convert, most likely to Judaism. Even so, some of us would remain; maybe our faith would be shattered, and maybe we are no longer Christians in faith, but there are still the teachings. It's not the miracles that were important in New Testament, as most Catholics would have you know, but the teachings. Jesus taught us to love, to share, to be friendly with one another. There are the 10 commandments, even. Even if these were not truly the work of God, someone would still worship the commandments as a staple of morals that all should uphold; maybe not the work of god, but close enough.

This is what bugs me about Christianity. It focuses on Jesus' death. What about his *life*? Is his death really more important than his life and what he *taught*? I don't think so. I think people could still follow him as the teacher and master he is.

Oh, and know what else? Pretty much all of the miracles attributed to Jesus were greko-roman and egyptian myths. Water into wine? That's funny. That's totally Dionysian (Dionysius was the god of wine and the wheat harvest... drunken revelry essentially). Even dying and rising in three days (it could have been three weeks or months, but always 3) is straight from the classic myth of the male deity who sacrifices himself in the winter goes into the underworld and returns with the spring. This is most well seen with Ra, the sun god but also Dionysius. Heck, even the Ule Log is a tradition in this vein.

Why are these all myths? Well... the bible wasn't written until a few hundred years after Jesus died. In this time, people were converting the Roman nobility and needed a set of mythology they could hold onto. Much in the same way that a few minor Christian holidays are really pagan without much disguise. I forget which ones... Oh yeah! Easter and Christmas! (Chickens, rabbits, etc... Even the name... "Easter" which would be "Esther" or "Eoster" depending on your language. Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity aside from the name. Heck, we even know that Jesus wasn't born anytime near December).

Certainly is.


Then show the ontology for it! Don't just assert that it's possible. Show. Me. The. Ontology!


*laughs*

You're such a child.


No, you can't do it because you haven't the ontology.


False analogy. The wavelength of blue can be shown on an oscilloscope. Try again.


And why do you assume that I am a secular humanist, hmmmm?

Your problem is that you've decided that you can just make up a story and thus because you've made it up, it is true. That's wrong. Sorry. hate to disturb you like that, but there it is.

Alright, I'll try to make my point as succinctly as possible, and you're not going to like it. But was I ever trying to please you? Heh, was I ever trying to please me? No, just saying what I know.

1) THERE IS NO ONTOLOGY FOR A GOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAW!!! It isn't there. Why? Because, as I said, we would have to use a physical analogy to describe something non-physical, and you still haven't shown me how something can't exist outside the universe. You're trying to prove a negative.

Note: In my "blue light" analogy, you mentioned that you can see the wavelength of blue light. I would like to make your sentence more succinct. You can see the wavelength of light that we see as blue. Blue is a subjective property. We only see things as blue because that's how our eyes interpret the light they catch. Blue itself is an analogy that our mind uses to cope with light that has a higher wavelength than red or green.

2) YOU DON'T NEED ONTOLOGY FOR SOMETHING TO EXIST!!! Alright, I'll come right out and say it, I'm giving up debating this particular ontology issue with you, because, from my view, you will not see the light (no pun intended). If something is true, you don't have to know it to make it true. Two hundred years ago you couldn't convince anybody that the atoms that make up the body were mostly empty space, made up of protons, neutrons, and a small cloud of randomly moving electrons, and that neutrons themselves are simply protons stuck to electrons. But does that mean that atoms as we know them didn't exist back then? May it never be! Gloat as you will, I don't care. Ontology issue closed. I say there might possibly be something apart from the universe. You deny the possibility (and in the effort you are trying to prove a negative). All you get from me are repeated arguments, and all I get from you are words my mother would faint to hear.

I didn't read the entire thread... too long. But has anyone tried agnosticism?

Face facts: we don't know whether God exists. I believe he does, for reasons that would take too long to explain here. But that is all I do: believe. I will happily admit the possiblity that God doesn't exist. Too many people use the word 'believing' as a substitute for 'knowing'.

This is why I don't follow any major religion; how can they prove anything they say? God may be good, bad, neutral, may have stopped caring, there may be more than one, or of course he may not exist. No-one can genuinely know the truth. So how can they write huge books on the subject and claim to be right, every last detail?

This is my belief: God may or may not exist. I don't know, and no-one else does either. Hence, I will put some vague faith in his existance, but I would not dare to presume I know anything about him (or her...or it), or what he's done, or what he wants from us. Why follow Christianity or whatever, when it could all be wrong?

You can't attribute right or wrong to God; suicide bombers would argue they can do the things they do because it is right in the eyes of God. Their victims would disagree. Most people say Mother Theresa was a good woman, but there are those who would argue God wants sick people to die, so what she did was wrong in the eyes of God. Hence, religious extremism is just WRONG, because so many people over the ages have died over what is almost certainly LIES.

Think about the makeup of the universe... life, and stuff like that. God could exist. He may not. I believe he may exist, admit he may not, and leave it at that. Nothing else. I've found it to be a much more satisfying stance to take than atheism, and if there is a God... well, I get the feeling he'd understand what I'm getting at.

If he exists... :)

I disagree whole heartedly. You are familiar with the laws of conservation of mass and energy. (These are scientific *laws* not just theories). To sum them up, you can't get something from nothing.

"Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, they can only change forms."

Well, for those "scientific" people, if this can't have come from nothing, it had to have always been there... even before the big bang. So where did it come from? And it must be eternal.

For those religious people, let's face it, you can't refute scientific law. That's like saying, "No, gravity doesn't exist." And there's no reason a god can't work through laws of physics. So... the universe can't come from nothing. In the beginning you believe there was just god (presumably) and that god created the univers (yes, I purposefully do not capitalize "god"). What did this god create the universe from? God can't have made it from nothing. God had to use something that was already there and theat only changed forms (see top). If all there was in the beginning was god... then that is all there ever will be and everything is god, in a different form. You are the christ.

Who ever said creating a universe from a quantum "probability" violated the conservation of energy? First off, you are assuming that the law of conservation of energy applies to something that wasn't the universe yet. Maybe and maybe not. But, seeing as that we are talking about quantum mechanics working then, I'll say okay. What is outside the universe? Well, if the universe is created by a quantum probabilistic-type of event, a negative energy well. That well + all the mass/energy in the universe = zero. There, the laws of conservation of energy are satisified.

Of course, there are other ways to balance the equation. All that has to happen is for the universe to end with zero energy. That can happen any number of ways...currently it looks like we might expand into oblivion, that means that the "energy" is all dissapated as entropy and it is gone. The universe then "shears" itself apart and we are back to zero. I'm not a physics person, so I'm sure I messed up those explanations a bit...but basically, as long as the universe comes out zero in the end, that is all that matters.

So, as for the universe being eternal, I say maybe it is just a infinitely small blip on the background of infinitely long nothing.

Oh, and as for "science" and "just a theory" stuff...you do realize that in truth the "laws" of conservation of energy and matter, as well as the laws of gravity are really just theories. Just because there is math doesn't mean anything. Everything can be defined by math. I mean, taking the rules that are used to describe the law of universal gravitation, you can just as easily say that evolution is a law....

Now, before anyone has a seizure, realize that all evolution says is that "organisms acquire mutations that selection and/or genetic drift may act upon, and this action upon said mutations leads to changes in the overall genotype of the population." That's it folks. No monkeys, no anything. That is evolution. All the rest is evolutionary theory. So, calling things "just a theory" is not a very wise approach to looking at science. If you do, you'll only look at evidence that is over two hundred years old.

And if you want to worship me as some type of messiah, I should let you know that I don't answer prayers. :D

"God" as you call it, does exist. Its really stupid to think anything else. And reasons such as "he has never done anything for me" or "why is there so much misery" and all those pathetic excuses are irrelevant. Sure, the Bible says "God" is all good and stuff, but maybe that isn´t entirely true. I mean, who says "God" HAS to be good? I just know it exists. Let me emphasise that. I KNOW that "God" exists. I THINK there is a Heaven, Hell, etc. But I do not KNOW that. Our Universe is perfect. I`m not talking about life in the Universe, I am talking about the Universe itself. Its perfect. It has to be. If anything in the Universe were off by ANY amount whatsoever, existence would be impossible. Someone, or something intelligent HAD to have done that. To say the Universe was a freak accident, or any bull like that, is illogical and stupid. That is like saying that the Mona Lisa ws just an accident. Like says that someone just tripped for whatever reason, and his paint splashed all over the canvas, and there was the Mona Lisa! Yeah...really smart atheist people....

And why do we have to call "God"..well...God? That is a pretty primitive way of referring to such a being. I prefer "The Creator". It is an undeniable truth, that is there is an All-Powerful Creator, whether in spirit or whatever, To deny its existence to like denying the existence of anything right in front of you. "No that table doesn´t exist...yes I see the table, but I am going to find another explanation, the table just isn´t going to work for me". It exists, whether you like it or not. Make explanations, excuses, whatever, it doesn´t matter, its still there (probably laughing at you).

You know, what may be causing people to be atheist (besides a life that sucks, or whatever) may be that do not want to accept the fact that there is a "higher authority". Than there is a "higher authority" superior to them in every way. In other words, alot of atheism comes from some psychological reason.

I have been shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would suggest god exists. Therefore I do not believe there is a god. In any case, even if there was I would not worship them because they have done nothing for me nor anyone else.

You know, when it really comes right down to it...the universe could well be god. It has all those spiffy properties of god. It is omniscent (hmm, maybe not this one...at least it knows all that is known...and it sees everything), omnipresent, omnipotent, and it created us all. We are all the children of this god, and we are part of this god, and in the end we will be with god (star dust maybe, but who cares how really) There you go.

Of course this won't fly because, well, the universe doen't care what happens to us. Not as far as anyone can tell at least. And I will go out on a limb and say that most people that are religious (monotheistically speaking at least) need their god to love them. It isn't good enough that I can see this god, if it doesn't love me and hope the best for me, then it isn't good enough.

I say go ask your parents to love you, or maybe a boy/girlfriend...whichever you like. The universe has better things to do than console you people.

Hmmm, that's a bit harsh isn't it? Sorry.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

There are many perceptions of god besides "benevolent" and "nonexistant." A deist, for example, would believe that god created the world and no longer takes part in it, either because it was created perfectly or because he doesnt care and just wants to watch. Hence, miracles wouldnt happen.
Or, if she think that god probably doesnt exist, or if he does, we have no way of telling what hes like, and just generally not knowing, the correct term would be "agnostic," which means "lacking knowledge."
Or, she could think up whatever you want and call it a god. She'd be the one believing in it, after all.
sorry if this was already covered, but i dont feel like reading 200 posts to make sure.

Certainly is.
Then show the ontology for it! Don't just assert that it's possible. Show. Me. The. Ontology!
No, you can't do it because you haven't the ontology.
False analogy. The wavelength of blue can be shown on an oscilloscope. Try again.
And why do you assume that I am a secular humanist, hmmmm?
Your problem is that you've decided that you can just make up a story and thus because you've made it up, it is true. That's wrong. Sorry. hate to disturb you like that, but there it is.
Alright, I'll try to make my point as succinctly as possible, and you're not going to like it. But was I ever trying to please you? Heh, was I ever trying to please me? No, just saying what I know.
Well, you're going to get stomped. Just to let you know.

1) THERE IS NO ONTOLOGY FOR A GOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAW!!!
Then you clearly have no idea what ontology is. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics (the other is cosmology) which deals with the nature of being itself. So if your god doesn't have to follow any law, and has no ontology, it therefore DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST.

It isn't there. Why? Because, as I said, we would have to use a physical analogy to describe something non-physical, and you still haven't shown me how something can't exist outside the universe.
You have to show me how something can. You claim it's there. You show it.

You're trying to prove a negative.
Which, of course, can be done.

Note: In my "blue light" analogy, you mentioned that you can see the wavelength of blue light. I would like to make your sentence more succinct. You can see the wavelength of light that we see as blue. Blue is a subjective property.
And has a specific wavelength. Have a nice day.

2) YOU DON'T NEED ONTOLOGY FOR SOMETHING TO EXIST!!!
YES, YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, ontology is the study of the nature of being. If you don't have an ontology for your thing which exists outside of the universe, then you're just spouting nonsense!

Alright, I'll come right out and say it, I'm giving up debating this particular ontology issue with you, because, from my view, you will not see the light (no pun intended). If something is true, you don't have to know it to make it true. Two hundred years ago you couldn't convince anybody that the atoms that make up the body were mostly empty space,
No one had posited such. False analogy.

You've not the first clue as to anything in philosophy, and you're trying to cover for it. Educate yourself.

"God" as you call it, does exist. Its really stupid to think anything else. And reasons such as "he has never done anything for me" or "why is there so much misery" and all those pathetic excuses are irrelevant. Sure, the Bible says "God" is all good and stuff, but maybe that isn´t entirely true. I mean, who says "God" HAS to be good? I just know it exists. Let me emphasise that. I KNOW that "God" exists. I THINK there is a Heaven, Hell, etc. But I do not KNOW that. Our Universe is perfect. I`m not talking about life in the Universe, I am talking about the Universe itself. Its perfect. It has to be. If anything in the Universe were off by ANY amount whatsoever, existence would be impossible. Someone, or something intelligent HAD to have done that. To say the Universe was a freak accident, or any bull like that, is illogical and stupid. That is like saying that the Mona Lisa ws just an accident. Like says that someone just tripped for whatever reason, and his paint splashed all over the canvas, and there was the Mona Lisa! Yeah...really smart atheist people....

And why do we have to call "God"..well...God? That is a pretty primitive way of referring to such a being. I prefer "The Creator". It is an undeniable truth, that is there is an All-Powerful Creator, whether in spirit or whatever, To deny its existence to like denying the existence of anything right in front of you. "No that table doesn´t exist...yes I see the table, but I am going to find another explanation, the table just isn´t going to work for me". It exists, whether you like it or not. Make explanations, excuses, whatever, it doesn´t matter, its still there (probably laughing at you).

You know, what may be causing people to be atheist (besides a life that sucks, or whatever) may be that do not want to accept the fact that there is a "higher authority". Than there is a "higher authority" superior to them in every way. In other words, alot of atheism comes from some psychological reason.

Wow, did you come up this all by yourself, or did some of your German buddies from back in the 1940's help you?

You know, you've added nothing to this thread but another cynical, hateful remark, so I thought I'd return you one.

And, while I'm not atheist (although I doubt you can understand the differences I've explained earlier) I do not believe there are any gods. I don't do this because my life sucks, or to escape higher authority...my life is decent and I have plenty of authorities in my life that tell me what to do. I do not believe because belief is a flawed concept. I see no need for a god, but you do. Okay. If I can explain things is a nice logical manner, and you have to invoke a supernatural being, which of us is being "stupid"?

Oh well, no big deal, flame on if you wish.

I didn't read the entire thread... too long. But has anyone tried agnosticism?
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It is orthogonal to atheism and theism.

Eh, BAAWA, you're really not getting what he's saying. There is the possibility that we do not KNOW the ontology of God because we never have analysed him in such a way that would give us the ontology. Same with the Universe. Why did the Universe come into being? Answer that, and if you can do it without referencing a superior power, you've succeeded. Failure will be intolerable.

God has not yet f*cking come down riding on a pale horse and told us his Ontology. When he does, we'll be sure to let ya know.

Shouldn't need a reason to be an atheist. Should have a reason to be anything but.

Why have a religion? If the only reason is because you were brought into it before you were old enough to decide for yourself, step back and find a reason.

Shouldn't need a reason to be an atheist. Should have a reason to be anything but.

Why have a religion? If the only reason is because you were brought into it before you were old enough to decide for yourself, step back and find a reason.

I totally agree. If the only reason you believe, is because you were trained to, you don't REALLY believe at all, you're just used to following orders.

Who ever said creating a universe from a quantum "probability" violated the conservation of energy? First off, you are assuming that the law of conservation of energy applies to something that wasn't the universe yet. Maybe and maybe not. But, seeing as that we are talking about quantum mechanics working then, I'll say okay. What is outside the universe? Well, if the universe is created by a quantum probabilistic-type of event, a negative energy well. That well + all the mass/energy in the universe = zero. There, the laws of conservation of energy are satisified.

Of course, there are other ways to balance the equation. All that has to happen is for the universe to end with zero energy. That can happen any number of ways...currently it looks like we might expand into oblivion, that means that the "energy" is all dissapated as entropy and it is gone. The universe then "shears" itself apart and we are back to zero. I'm not a physics person, so I'm sure I messed up those explanations a bit...but basically, as long as the universe comes out zero in the end, that is all that matters.

So, as for the universe being eternal, I say maybe it is just a infinitely small blip on the background of infinitely long nothing.

Oh, and as for "science" and "just a theory" stuff...you do realize that in truth the "laws" of conservation of energy and matter, as well as the laws of gravity are really just theories. Just because there is math doesn't mean anything. Everything can be defined by math. I mean, taking the rules that are used to describe the law of universal gravitation, you can just as easily say that evolution is a law....

Now, before anyone has a seizure, realize that all evolution says is that "organisms acquire mutations that selection and/or genetic drift may act upon, and this action upon said mutations leads to changes in the overall genotype of the population." That's it folks. No monkeys, no anything. That is evolution. All the rest is evolutionary theory. So, calling things "just a theory" is not a very wise approach to looking at science. If you do, you'll only look at evidence that is over two hundred years old.

And if you want to worship me as some type of messiah, I should let you know that I don't answer prayers. :D


You are officially the worst scientist ever known to man. The laws of science you determine to be "theories" are in fact laws, as any member of the scientific community could tell you. If you are too headstrong to take this as fact and let it go then you are a fool. They are laws because no test ever devised has disproved these laws.

Definition of a scientific law
This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

They have ALWAYS been observed to be true. However, you, in your arrogance, ignore FACT, and create a poorly defined fiction to explain away something that has never been disproved. If you consider yourself to be a scientist/physicist , then your teacher is probably rolling in their grave.

First, we should understand that no one disagrees with micro-evolution. This is where a species changes physical characteristics, but it is still the same species (although perhaps with a different color). Macro-evolution, is based on absolutely no fact, and therefore to term it a "theory" is inaccurate.

Definition of a hypothesis:
This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

This is what macro-evolution is. There is no basis in fact for macro-evolution. No one has ever found "the missing link" or anything else to suggest that macro-evolution (change of one species to another species) can occur, or has ever occured. To suggest so is futile, because you can never prove it.

And srg_science, I hope you read this, because you CAN NOT explain the Universe in a nice, logical way. First, the Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. Scientists (real ones) have absolutely no explanation for this. Second, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can be changed, but neither created nor destroyed. This is why the Big Bang theory does not work. That matter had to come from somewhere. I asked my Physics teacher how that could have happened. His answer? "That's a good question."

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that although the total amount of matter stays the same, over time some of this matter is transformed into heat energy (a change which is irreversible). This results in the characteristic of objects to continually break down and become less perfect. Everything, the human body, the sun, EVERYTHING follows this pattern. However, according to macro-evolution, objects become more advanced over time. See a problem?

In short, if you choose to ignore scientific law in favor of a hypothesis, then you are no scientist, and as an atheist, you are most certainly a fool. Why? Because you believe something that cannot be proven, while at the same time insult christians for the very same thing.

This is your science lesson for the day.

You are officially the worst scientist ever known to man.
Definition of a scientific law
This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.


OFFICIALLY the worst ever huh? Do I win a prize?

And congrats on memorizing some terms in high school.

-Hook's law is false. Show me something that obeys it and I'll give you a dollar. Hook's law is a construct for something with perpetual motion. Guess what? Those things don't exist. Unless there is a much more complicated version buried somewhere in the physics literature...but that isn't my field so I don't know.

-The law of gravity...hmmm I assume you are referring to the law of universal gravitation? Well, um, it has been outpaced by relativity (a theory) and the simple fact that we are not sure that gravity is decreases linearly with the square of the distance. It could be to the 6th or some huge power with a correction factor...all we know is that the square model seem to be a good estimate. I've read work where some people argue it is a higher power of than the square of distance...but I don't think it was widely accepted in the phyics world. Simply because we can't measure gravity well enough to tell if we are right or wrong. See, that's the funny thing about this "law"...there is no real proof that it is absolutely true, just that the standard errors of our measurements allow for it. Of course, new theories with anti-gravity (personally, I'm not convinced by them, but the physicists seem to be taking it seriously) to explain the expansion of the universe throw the whole idea of universal gravitation into doubt.

-LAWS of thermodynamics, there are more than one. They are fairly good as far as I know. But, like I said...as long as you balance out in the end, you are okay. That is how a positron and an electron can come out of nothing and annhilate back to nothing via quantum mechanics (a theory).

They have ALWAYS been observed to be true. However, you, in your arrogance, ignore FACT, and create a poorly defined fiction to explain away something that has never been disproved. If you consider yourself to be a scientist/physicist , then your teacher is probably rolling in their grave.

My teachers are all still alive. And I'm not a physicist. And I've created no fictions, I only go by the facts as they are presented to me. And they have not always been taken as true...even in the 1700 and 1800's people questioned thermodynamics because "life doesn't follow the same rules". Of course, it does, but people questioned them and of course there were only accepted as laws well after they were postulated.



First, we should understand that no one disagrees with micro-evolution. This is where a species changes physical characteristics, but it is still the same species (although perhaps with a different color). Macro-evolution, is based on absolutely no fact, and therefore to term it a "theory" is inaccurate.

You are going into evolutionary theory...I already covered that.

Macroevolutionary theory is not impeded by the second law of thermodynamics in the least. The earth is not a closed system.

Yes, everything does decay into disorder, but by your arguments we'd all be dead. If life couldn't fight and win the battle against entropy, then how do we keep ourselves saturated with oxygen, sugar, and everything else we need? Because, that's what life is about, always adding energy to the system and disposing of entropic wastes as best as possible. See, the thermodynamic decay of life on this planet is kept at bay by a little thing called SUNLIGHT. The sun feeds extra energy into the system, and when that happens the system can grow more complex, like say by sprouting a new tree.

Macroevolutionary theory says we all have a common ancestor. What's so scary about that to you? All the evidence, however circumstantial or direct it is, points in that direction. You can ignore it as inferences that prove nothing if you want...fine. Come up with a theory that have strong evidence for it, and I'll listen. You don't like the fossil record, or maybe molecular data? Well, what's wrong with them?

It amazes me that people really think the second law of thermodynamics impedes evolution...do you really think it would be such a widely accepted idea if physics said it wasn't possible? Get real. There is no vast conspiracy out to poison people's minds with lies from science. I see evolution, and I deal with it daily. Evolution changes my worm lines unless I act to impede it. Evolution allows me to use selection to create a more useful microbe. Evolution allows me to predict gene structure for a gene I've never seen in a organism where it has never been studied. If it just happens to be the way some creator made it, then wow does he want to test your faith...what a prick such a god must be.

Okay, enough of you...you missed the point that by relying on all these laws you are ignoring 200 years of science. I will not live in the 1700-1800's with you, sorry.

And srg_science, I hope you read this, because you CAN NOT explain the Universe in a nice, logical way. First, the Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. Scientists (real ones) have absolutely no explanation for this. Second, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can be changed, but neither created nor destroyed. This is why the Big Bang theory does not work. That matter had to come from somewhere. I asked my Physics teacher how that could have happened. His answer? "That's a good question."


I missed the Law of Biogenesis part...hahahahah. Law of Biogenesis indeed. Another ancient idea before the concept of evolution was even really around. Well, okay then...you got me.

-An experiment that shows maggots don't make themselves out of thin air and show up on meat

-an experiment that shows that sterilized water if kept sealed won't grow anything.

Yep, those conclusively show that evolution can't happen. Are you really that uninformed or are you just trying to trick me???

And the physics teacher....was that highschool I assume? There are plenty of theories talking about the big bang...I already put forth a couple of ideas. Read the posts you are attacking please.

Okay: I'll try it one more time, and if we can't hammer it out, we have to agree that it's not a ten-paces, now-turn-and-fire-thing...

Good. I hate guns. I'd much rather have a discussion. :)


A religion has basic premises: The Crucifixion and Resurrection would, I would say, be the central premise of Christianity. If Jesus turned up dead - then Christianity dissolves, as it has been based on a lie.

For the sake of the argument, I'll agree, but with a caveat. You must understand that, from a personal standpoint, my theism doesn't specifically acknowledge Jesus as an unreachable avatar. Simply he had a uniquely close relationship with divinity (as have many spiritual leaders of all types and varieties). This relationship, though, is not unattainable and there is a sincere striving to foster that type of relationship with whatever divinity exists (assuming one does). Therefore, if it turns out that Jesus did not indeed rise from death and ascend into heaven, this doesn't present as much problem to me and my faith as I've only ever used "Religion" as a comfortable tool set to explore possibilities rather than an end in and of itself.

However, I freely admit that many Christians would indeed be devistated if such proof were to be found, so, again, at least for the sake of argument, I'll agree.



Similarly: If it becomes evident that, for example, the Missing First Page of the Talmud appears (The one that says... copyright blah blah blah, all persons and events contained within are completely fictitious... etc.) then the Judaistic faith takes something of a kick to the head.

Again, agreed.



But:

Going back to Evolution... did Darwin weaken science? No... not as a whole.
Did he even weaken the area of science that his work affected? Well, he caused a bit of an uproar, and people basically threw stuff at him, but, overall - Biology is stronger for Darwin. The Lamarckian model was good - but not good ENOUGH, and it was supplanted by a better model - and evolution is stronger for it, biology is stronger for it, science is stronger for it.

I agree with this as well. Perhaps the problem is I haven't defined my terms well enough.

Like I mentioned, I don't consider religion, the accrued mass of terminology, ritual and dogma that a specific theistic concept gets bogged down with like barnacles, to be the purpose. Religion is only a set of tools that can allow for exploration and should never be confused with the ultimate point of that exploration, which is a greater understanding of existance and, if you believe in it, divinity.

I guess what I mean is, religions come and go. They always have and they always will. What endures is belief, the notion that not only do answers to these questions exist, but that they are, at least in part, understandable. Every culture has had it woven through it since we first walked upright and perhaps even before then. Belief, even if it is only belief in the self, is as intrinsic to human existance as breathing. Religions give us a way to quantify and qualify that belief. As one is found to be lacking, it's discarded for one that better answers the questions or codifies the belief. Thus, belief, like evolution, endures even as it's specifics change and to remove one set of premises and exchange them for another, more aptly suited one only makes for a stronger belief.

-Hook's law is false. Show me something that obeys it and I'll give you a dollar.

-LAWS of thermodynamics, there are more than one. They are fairly good as far as I know. But, like I said...as long as you balance out in the end, you are okay. That is how a positron and an electron can come out of nothing and annhilate back to nothing via quantum mechanics (a theory).

My teachers are all still alive. And I'm not a physicist. And I've created no fictions, I only go by the facts as they are presented to me. And they have not always been taken as true...even in the 1700 and 1800's people questioned thermodynamics because "life doesn't follow the same rules". Of course, it does, but people questioned them and of course there were only accepted as laws well after they were postulated.

You are going into evolutionary theory...I already covered that.

I'd respond to the rest, but I have to get back to work...I'll cover it in another post hopefully.

Let me just say that your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and macro evolution are horribly flawed...time to go turn off my gel.

___________________________________________________
Hooke's Law- You don't even know what this IS apparently.
This is Hooke's Law http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot2.html#c3
The linear dependence of displacement upon stretching force.

You were right about one thing. You DIDN't know. What you were talking about. Elasticity refers to the property of an object to return to its original form after being stretched. Some object are more or less elastic. Read the definition that is on the rest of the site, referring to what elasticity is. It is made to be an easy read for idiots like you.

The LAWS of Thermodynamics
I suppose you didn't read closely enough to note that I labeled them the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. I am well aware that there is more than one of them, since I directly mentioned TWO. If you are so blind as to be unable to discern between two entirely different points, which utilized two different laws of thermodynamics, then you are completely unqualified to discuss this matter with me.

And unfortunately, it doesn't work as long as you balance out in the end. There is no real world analogy for such an occurence. If you have one apple, and then another one miraculously appears, then would a horse eating one of the apples make this event make sense? No. You would still have no explanation for how the second apple got there. And you still have no answer to my points.

I guess I have to explainthe Second Law of Thermodynamics again, as I shall also explain macro-evolution, and consequently explain to you why you are still a fool.

2nd Law (Again)- Although the amount of matter in the universe stays the same, over time some is converted to heat energy (or wasted), which cannot be converted back into matter.

This law, in fact, is WHY perpetual motion machines don't work. Nothing proves it wrong. Nothing in the universe defies it. According to macro-evolution, creatures evolve over time into more complex and elaborate creatures. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this is impossible. I can not spell it out any clearer. If you deny it, then you are a fool. You make obscure and invalid references without any knowledge of the matters of which you speak.

Also, you referred to the laws of thermodynamics, in that they were initially disbelieved when they were postulated. However, the difference is that they did not contradict a current scientific law. If a hypothesis can be shown to be wrong, even once, then it is WRONG.

Also, you are right, Quantam Mechanics is a theory. However, you don't even understand IT. First, Quantam Mechanics (a theory) is a very imprecise science, mainly because no one truly understands it. However, it is used to describe subatomic behavior. Quantam Mechanics is used as an electron theory, but only in the sense that a PRE_EXISTING electron can appear almost anywhere, on the basis of probability. Quantam Mechanics does not propose that an electron can appear out of nowhere, as you seem to believe. Once again, you speak of things you do not understand.

Now, you questioned my definition of macro-evolution.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.

Go read any book, or find any website, and this is exactly what you will find. The mildest form of macro-evolution is the split of one species into two. After that is only the option of change into another species. You do not understand anything I am talking about.

You know nothing of evolutionary theory, which should already have been dropped because of its obvious flaws. You also know little or nothing of Quantam Mechanics, aside from what you read on a website. You seem content to make up ridiculous responses, which are wildly inaccurate, in an attempt to make yourself look "smart." You are more ignorant than I could possibly have supposed, and every time you post it only enforces that view.

First, you did not even know what Hooke's Law WAS, or even what the term "elasticity" applied to. Then, you tried to debunk Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (populerly referred to simply as the law of gravity), which smarter scientists than yourself have failed at. You make idiotic conjectures based in Quantam Mechanics, a field which you have shown yourself to have absolutely no knowledge of. You defy the Law of Biogenesis, why I noticed you still have not answered. You ignore the Law of Thermodynamics, citing that "as long as it balances out in the end it is ok." This is the biggest load of crap I have ever had the displeasure of listening to.

You attempt to discredit me by contesting my definitions/understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and macro-evolution, when my definitions are textbook-perfect, and my undertanding more flawless than your comprehension of Hooke's Law, which you apparently had no knowledge of whatsoever.

In essence, your last post was a pathetic waste of my time. It was chock-full of rubbish, and horribly innacurate rubbish at that. Perhaps you need to go BACK to school and relearn those terms that I got the first time.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.


Mainly because I have no reason to believe god exists.

EDIT: Sorry that's probably been said like 50846 times by now.

You know, religious wars are all very good and well, but if you really want a nasty catfight, just piss off two scientists and let them go at it.

Now THAT'S entertainment.

lol, thx Berk, good to know I'm keeping you entertained.

Now, I'm gonna go see a movie, and when I get back I'll see what else this fool has posted.

Our Universe is perfect.
Perfection is a platonic anticoncept.

I`m not talking about life in the Universe, I am talking about the Universe itself. Its perfect. It has to be. If anything in the Universe were off by ANY amount whatsoever, existence would be impossible.
Lookit the stars
Aren't they pretty?
Therefore god exists.

That's your argument. It's called the argument from awe logical fallacy. Don't do it again.

Eh, BAAWA, you're really not getting what he's saying. There is the possibility that we do not KNOW the ontology of God because we never have analysed him in such a way that would give us the ontology.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying god doesn't need one because he's outside of the universe, which flagrantly begs his own fucking question.

Same with the Universe. Why did the Universe come into being?
The universe can neither come into nor go out of existence. It is the metaphysical primary.

You are officially the worst scientist ever known to man.
This will become all the more ironic as I slaughter your bullshit.

First, we should understand that no one disagrees with micro-evolution. This is where a species changes physical characteristics, but it is still the same species (although perhaps with a different color). Macro-evolution, is based on absolutely no fact,
...except for all the observations of it, you mean.

Definition of a hypothesis:
This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

This is what macro-evolution is.
Nah. It's been observed.

There is no basis in fact for macro-evolution. No one has ever found "the missing link"
"Missing link" is a cretinist strawman.

or anything else to suggest that macro-evolution (change of one species to another species) can occur, or has ever occured. To suggest so is futile, because you can never prove it.
Oh really?

(grins evilly)

Watch and learn.

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy


5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature


5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Want me to go on?

And srg_science, I hope you read this, because you CAN NOT explain the Universe in a nice, logical way. First, the Law of Biogenesis
There is no such law, dumbshit.

Second, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can be changed, but neither created nor destroyed. This is why the Big Bang theory does not work.
*laughs*

Now can we see the irony? Dumbshit has no clue about physics, yet presumes to tell everyone about it.

That matter had to come from somewhere. I asked my Physics teacher how that could have happened. His answer? "That's a good question."
Meaning that your "science" teacher doesn't know shit about modern cosmology.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that although the total amount of matter stays the same, over time some of this matter is transformed into heat energy (a change which is irreversible). This results in the characteristic of objects to continually break down and become less perfect. Everything, the human body, the sun, EVERYTHING follows this pattern. However, according to macro-evolution, objects become more advanced over time. See a problem?
Nope. No problem at all except for YOUR FUCKING MISAPPLICATION OF THE 2LOT.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Here's one of my favorites ways to prove that there must be a God. All you athiest (sorry 'bout spelling) try this yourself, and scientists try it a few times for me. Here's the experiment.

Items needed: Empty box

Step one: Take the box with absolutely NOTHING in it, and make a watch. Alright? Take the nothing, and make the something. If you can do this with NOTHING, I will personally become your faithful slave for the rest of my life. Ok? Now remember, matter transporting stuff dosen't count, because you already had the watch. You must take the box, with NOTHING in it (stress on nothing) and make a watch.

*snip and stuff*

Jesus, BAAWA, I like you, then I hate you, then I like you again. It's all very confusing.

Here's one of my favorites ways to prove that there must be a God. All you athiest (sorry 'bout spelling) try this yourself, and scientists try it a few times for me. Here's the experiment.

Items needed: Empty box

Step one: Take the box with absolutely NOTHING in it, and make a watch. Alright? Take the nothing, and make the something. If you can do this with NOTHING, I will personally become your faithful slave for the rest of my life. Ok? Now remember, matter transporting stuff dosen't count, because you already had the watch. You must take the box, with NOTHING in it (stress on nothing) and make a watch.

Er, what does this prove, exactly? I'm not following your reasoning.

Here's one of my favorites ways to prove that there must be a God. All you athiest (sorry 'bout spelling) try this yourself, and scientists try it a few times for me. Here's the experiment.

Items needed: Empty box

Step one: Take the box with absolutely NOTHING in it, and make a watch. Alright? Take the nothing, and make the something. If you can do this with NOTHING, I will personally become your faithful slave for the rest of my life. Ok? Now remember, matter transporting stuff dosen't count, because you already had the watch. You must take the box, with NOTHING in it (stress on nothing) and make a watch.
And this shows there must be a god....how? Seems to me all it shows is that god couldn't have created anything, since it shows that creation ex nihilo is impossible, yet that is what god is claimed to have done.

Or did you want to shoot yourself in the foot?

I am filled with despair when I see the multitudes of the so called "developed" world succumb to atheism which is simply another name for satanism due to the apathy which has infested every aspect of human life slowly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

All of you atheists who have posted in this forum must be deeply depressed people, and I encourage all of you to seek help from your local church

I am filled with despair when I see the multitudes of the so called "developed" world succumb to atheism which is simply another name for satanism due to the apathy which has infested every aspect of human life slowly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

All of you atheists who have posted in this forum must be deeply depressed people, and I encourage all of you to seek help from your local church

Oh dear, THAT'S not going to go over well at all...

stupidity
Sums it up.

yes well the masses do not like hearing the truth I suppose, that is why they come up with one word comebacks like my poor inutilis freind baawa

I am filled with despair when I see the multitudes of the so called "developed" world succumb to atheism which is simply another name for satanism due to the apathy which has infested every aspect of human life slowly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Atheism isn't the same thing as satanism. There's a distinct lack of worship or ritual in atheism which is required to 'worship' the Christian devil, last time I checked.

All of you atheists who have posted in this forum must be deeply depressed people, and I encourage all of you to seek help from your local church

Oh yes, we must be depressed! It's just killing you that people can be happy without religion, isn't it?

more stupidity
Sums it up again.

nequam capitale baawa

nequam capitale baawa

Worthless cattle?

Or did you just call him a bad cow?

For me, it is an existential decision. I am a better person because there is no God. Moreover, I am not agnostic in any way. If someone did "prove" the existence of God to me, I would still not believe. If God dropped in for a visit, in a thundering cloud of fire, I would come up with another explanation. I would have to. Because "God" just doesn't work for me.

Say you were sick. You may be a better person without the sickness, but does that mean that it's not there?

Good. I hate guns. I'd much rather have a discussion. :)


Me too... do you realise the tiny minority we currently inhabit?


For the sake of the argument, I'll agree, but with a caveat. You must understand that, from a personal standpoint, my theism doesn't specifically acknowledge Jesus as an unreachable avatar. Simply he had a uniquely close relationship with divinity (as have many spiritual leaders of all types and varieties). This relationship, though, is not unattainable and there is a sincere striving to foster that type of relationship with whatever divinity exists (assuming one does). Therefore, if it turns out that Jesus did not indeed rise from death and ascend into heaven, this doesn't present as much problem to me and my faith as I've only ever used "Religion" as a comfortable tool set to explore possibilities rather than an end in and of itself.

However, I freely admit that many Christians would indeed be devistated if such proof were to be found, so, again, at least for the sake of argument, I'll agree.


Caveats granted. I realise there are 'christian' thinking individuals that don't necessarily buy the whole storefront. I guess, I'm referring to the christians who cannot seperate the philosophy from the phenomenon.


I agree with this as well. Perhaps the problem is I haven't defined my terms well enough.

Like I mentioned, I don't consider religion, the accrued mass of terminology, ritual and dogma that a specific theistic concept gets bogged down with like barnacles, to be the purpose. Religion is only a set of tools that can allow for exploration and should never be confused with the ultimate point of that exploration, which is a greater understanding of existance and, if you believe in it, divinity.

I guess what I mean is, religions come and go. They always have and they always will. What endures is belief, the notion that not only do answers to these questions exist, but that they are, at least in part, understandable. Every culture has had it woven through it since we first walked upright and perhaps even before then. Belief, even if it is only belief in the self, is as intrinsic to human existance as breathing. Religions give us a way to quantify and qualify that belief. As one is found to be lacking, it's discarded for one that better answers the questions or codifies the belief. Thus, belief, like evolution, endures even as it's specifics change and to remove one set of premises and exchange them for another, more aptly suited one only makes for a stronger belief.

If I'm getting you... you are saying that: although one religion may die... the concept of religion marches on. And I'd basically agree... people always seem to NEED something...

Where religion is falling down, for me, in this equation is that every religion (generalised he, wildly) claims to basically be the only TRUE religion... so, essentially, the admission of flaws would kill religion... for that belief-group.

Or did I just skillfully muddy the waters we had so carefully cleared?

I am filled with despair when I see the multitudes of the so called "developed" world succumb to atheism which is simply another name for satanism due to the apathy which has infested every aspect of human life slowly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

All of you atheists who have posted in this forum must be deeply depressed people, and I encourage all of you to seek help from your local church

My God! How have I been so blind... of course.

I was depressed! My life was hollow, and now I feel fulfilled by the spirit of God.

And, now that I am redeemed, I can see the fallacy of evolution and the devil-worshipping naivety of atheism.

How can I ever thank you enough, Free Worlds League?

You are officially the worst scientist ever known to man. The laws of science you determine to be "theories" are in fact laws, as any member of the scientific community could tell you. If you are too headstrong to take this as fact and let it go then you are a fool. They are laws because no test ever devised has disproved these laws.

Definition of a scientific law
This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

They have ALWAYS been observed to be true. However, you, in your arrogance, ignore FACT, and create a poorly defined fiction to explain away something that has never been disproved. If you consider yourself to be a scientist/physicist , then your teacher is probably rolling in their grave.

First, we should understand that no one disagrees with micro-evolution. This is where a species changes physical characteristics, but it is still the same species (although perhaps with a different color). Macro-evolution, is based on absolutely no fact, and therefore to term it a "theory" is inaccurate.

Definition of a hypothesis:
This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

This is what macro-evolution is. There is no basis in fact for macro-evolution. No one has ever found "the missing link" or anything else to suggest that macro-evolution (change of one species to another species) can occur, or has ever occured. To suggest so is futile, because you can never prove it.

And srg_science, I hope you read this, because you CAN NOT explain the Universe in a nice, logical way. First, the Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. Scientists (real ones) have absolutely no explanation for this. Second, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can be changed, but neither created nor destroyed. This is why the Big Bang theory does not work. That matter had to come from somewhere. I asked my Physics teacher how that could have happened. His answer? "That's a good question."

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that although the total amount of matter stays the same, over time some of this matter is transformed into heat energy (a change which is irreversible). This results in the characteristic of objects to continually break down and become less perfect. Everything, the human body, the sun, EVERYTHING follows this pattern. However, according to macro-evolution, objects become more advanced over time. See a problem?

In short, if you choose to ignore scientific law in favor of a hypothesis, then you are no scientist, and as an atheist, you are most certainly a fool. Why? Because you believe something that cannot be proven, while at the same time insult christians for the very same thing.

This is your science lesson for the day.

1) laws are, just like any other human knowledge, theories. denying this brings you back to the 17th century (in which absolute knowledge could be gathered)
2) a law can still be proven wrong. an example might be the fall of objects, which were discribed by laws in newtons theory. These laws don't match with einsteins theories.
3) a law that is considered true in most situations can still be considered false in certain conditions. for example your law of Hooke:
There is a point at which the lineair correlation between extention of the spring and the force of the spring disappears. Eventually the spring will break.

I am filled with despair when I see the multitudes of the so called "developed" world succumb to atheism which is simply another name for satanism due to the apathy which has infested every aspect of human life slowly since the dawn of the industrial revolution.


odd, then, how atheists by definition don't believe in Satan, and therefore could not worship him. odd, also, how education level and atheism are positively correlated...perhaps you see getting an education as an exercise in apathy?

All of you atheists who have posted in this forum must be deeply depressed people, and I encourage all of you to seek help from your local church

replace "atheist" with "theist" and "church" with "psychiatrist" and you and i will be in agreement.

I admire Atheists. It takes a lot of faith to believe that after death is... nothing. Especially considering the penalty if they're wrong. ;)

In fact, I would say that an atheist's faith is every bit as strong as any other fundamentalist.

I guess there's two main reasons why I'm an atheist.

The first one is basically science. There is no scientific evidence that God exists, and no reason to suggest that He might. While science can't prove God doesn't exist, science also can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

I tend to feel that all atheists have a responsibility to teach themselves enough science to answer the 'important questions' to their own satisfaction. It wasn't until my early 20s that I realised, "Hangon, I'm an atheist, but I don't have a clue how the universe started, how it's going to end, what's the meaning of life?".

And so I read books and learned about how the first atoms formed, why the beginning of life on an appropriate planet is not just possible but almost inevitable, and how evolution can create such amazingly complicated structures as a flea, a palm tree, an eye, and a human being.

Once I'd taught myself all that (it's an ongoing process), it was like a religious epiphany for me. I can look at a leaf and just imagine the molecular machinery, the physics of the capillary action, and its chemical ability to photosynthesis. I stare at molecular diagrams of the four bases of DNA, how they're transcribed into the amino-acid chains that become proteins, and the quantum-mechanical bonds that keep the double helix joined together, and it's just absolutely awe-inspiring.

And to be quite honest, the idea that some God just waved a little wand and made that all magically happen seems like a vicious bloody insult to the wonder that is nature.

The second reason I'm an atheist is because of a logical fallacy I came across years ago. It's a childish thing, but nobody's been able to explain to me why it's false. In fact, back in my evangelical days, I even converted a Christian using this argument. I felt bad about that, actually.

Anyway:

God is omniscient. He loves me, He knows me, He knows everything about me. He knows everything I've ever done, and He can see into the deepest recesses of my mind. Therefore, obviously, He understands even better than I do why I don't believe in Him.

And since it's for sensible reasons based on my upbringing, culture, and decision-making based on rational thought, and not because I'm a wicked, evil person, He can't possibly hold it against me, right?

If we ever get to chat, I'll apologise profusely and ask Him why he couldn't have, you know, signed "God" into a fjord on the coast of Norway or something to give us all a hint.

Maff :)

I admire Atheists. It takes a lot of faith to believe that after death is... nothing. Especially considering the penalty if they're wrong. ;)

LOL what an absurd statement!

As far as we know there is nothing after death. Therefore, until evidence is presented, "no life after death" must be the default position. One doesn't need faith to believe that there is nothing after death, as explained it's the logical position to adopt. What else should we not beleive about death? The possibilities are endless! The point is what we should beleive about life after death, and that belief is one that should be based on evidence. Otherwise whats the point in holding a belief such as this?

When you speak of penalties I think you are thinking of Pascal's wager? Well..I've always thought that was an argument for atheism because regardless of which god I choose, I'm always going to go to another Faith's version of hell!

In fact, I would say that an atheist's faith is every bit as strong as any other fundamentalist

Wrong again.. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. How is the lack of faith, a faith? That's like saying 'bald' is a hair colour. Or 'health' is a 'disease' ! :headbang:

It seems to me that not many people distinguish between religion (faith) and church. In the terms most people use, I am an atheist. This does not mean that I do not believe in anything, it only means that I do not believe in God. I have no idea whether an exatrordinary force exists. No one does. That it why the whole thing is called 'faith'. It's like an axioma.

However, if we assume that such a force exists, God is only the projection of this force in the human mind. God, as Christians worship Him (or it :) ) is a purely human creation. Assuming that a supra-natural force exists, you have no poof whatsoever that God is an accurate description of that. There is a lot of contradiction in the construction of God. Of course, a priest will find a way to clear all those contradictions, but that requires a lot of debate and, um..., well, faith.

The point is that I would not bother myself with a problem that I cannot solve. In this case, I won't bother to find out whether God exists or not, because I can't know that. If this problem has an answer, I think 5000 years would have been enough to find out.... So it makes sense to me to choose whether God exists or not for you... and stick with that choice. I believe in many things, and in some of them I believe with the strength of a religious person. We all have a religion of ourselves... it's just that not all of us believe in supra-natural forces.

So far, religion has been the source of much more evil than good. There are so many of us who delcare themselves Christians or Muslims or whatever, but have nothing to do with the spirit of being a Christian or a Muslim. I find myself to be a better Christian than many of those who go to church every Sunday.

The only thing that actually bothers me about the whole religion stuff is that most of religions claim to have THE ANSWER. If you are Christian, then there is only one God. If you are a Muslim, then there is only one Allah. To claim that you have THE ANSWER is sooooooo outdated...

I fail to see how a Chrsitian can go to war... I fail to see how you can voluntarily adhere to an ideology (relogion) and so many things the other way...

One of the reasons for which I do not believe in God (Christian) is that 90% of you - those who claim to believe in Him - thrash every single day the God you have created yourself...

I admire Atheists. It takes a lot of faith to believe that after death is... nothing. Especially considering the penalty if they're wrong. ;)

In fact, I would say that an atheist's faith is every bit as strong as any other fundamentalist.

Yea no kidding. Also what about the penalty while they live out thier life spans. They are persecuted by narrow minded question beggers. Sad, petty little creatures that make thier case through appeals to force!

I have no proof to offer and I could be wrong but my gut feelings tell me that GOD has us in mind when we die and that we will all be were we are supposed to be. I trust GODs judgement about what will happen to me when I die. But also consider that hell is an illogical concept.

Punishment is for teaching.
revenge is for a sadistic pleasure.
revenge has no purpose.
punishment does.
what good is it to be taught a lesson if the lesson learned can not be applied by the sinner in a meaniful way?
Can good exist in hell? If not then hell is not a punishment but a revenge.
revenge has no purpose nor does hell.

I sincerely believe that if there is an afterlife for me then there is most certainly an afterlife for all honorable people regardless of thier belief systems.
AND THAT INLCLUDES ATHEISTS! erm.. and all honorable christians.

I have as much proof as the christian. That is......... I have none. I only have proof for me. Sorry folks.

A deist can be honest. Most christians can not regarding anything that is contrary to the bible or the traditions that have been inculcated into thier hollow heads and hearts.

"Fear not mortals! Death can not banish you from the universe!"
---Benjamin Franklin. A Deist ----

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. How is the lack of faith, a faith? That's like saying 'bald' is a hair colour. Or 'health' is a 'disease' ! :headbang:

Health IS a disease. Everyone who has it, eventually dies. :)

The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death. Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.

What happened is still up for debate. How long it lasts is also up for debate. WHat isn't debatable is that without proof, you are taking it on faith that there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

Health IS a disease. Everyone who has it, eventually dies. :)

The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death. Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.
What happened is still up for debate. How long it lasts is also up for debate. WHat isn't debatable is that without proof, you are taking it on faith that there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

You are correct Sir! I have faith in an afterlife not proof. Faith is nothing to be ashamed of by the way so long as it doesnt annoy others. lol.

Care to share some books showing this. Some Links? something?

The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death. Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.


An why is that a reason to believe in God? 10.000 years people couldn't explain thunder and they assumed that Zeus is angry... Why should I believe in Heaven only because I don't YET know what happens after I die (if I actually die...)

An why is that a reason to believe in God? 10.000 years people couldn't explain thunder and they assumed that Zeus is angry... Why should I believe in Heaven only because I don't YET know what happens after I die (if I actually die...)

For the same reason that you believe in nothing at all. Because for some, it makes the concept of life and death easier to bear.

Lacking evidence, I have no reason to assume anything happens after I die and no reason to assume the naked assertions you make about the afterlife are true. It's called logic.

"I don't know" makes much more sense to me than "God made it that way".

Health IS a disease. Everyone who has it, eventually dies. :)

No you die because of a lack of health.. Health isn't the cause of death, the absence of health causes death.. that's just rediculous.


The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death. Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.

How can I give you evidence that something doesn't exist? I can't prove a negative such as this, It's pointless, which is to say that the question has no validity. The alternative imaginative possibilities of something are limitless, so whats the point of believing in any of them without evidence? also just because I can't prove a negative doesn't mean that your idea is true by default.
How about you give me your reasons for why you beleive that there is life after death.. and whilst your at it please explain the metaphysical nature of this existence?
People that have NDE's may not be actually dead, since no one that has actually died for a long period of time has ever come back to life.


What happened is still up for debate. How long it lasts is also up for debate. WHat isn't debatable is that without proof, you are taking it on faith that there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

I agree no one knows if there is life after death.. but also no one knows that people don't turn into cucumbers after death either, or that people don't go to an invisible Tesco's in Aile 7, just down from the frozen peas!
DO you get my point? The possibilities are endless!

An Idea without evidence is just that.. 'an idea' and will remain so until theres evidence. So I don't need faith not to believe :headbang: I only need faith to believe, if you prefer that. (although I only have faith of sopemthing I have proir knowledge of).

For the same reason that you believe in nothing at all. Because for some, it makes the concept of life and death easier to bear.

Considering the evidence both beliefs are equally valid.

Also it would be nice if these "proofs" of people remembering things after they come back to life could be provided. Because Im sure that we are being told everything. nevermind Ill do it myself and share the knowlege. Rutgers Universiy has many webpages for all sorts of interesting things. Ill share links.
I will share what I find. I will post it on this thread tommorow. I have a life in RT.

Lacking evidence, I have no reason to assume anything happens after I die and no reason to assume the naked assertions you make about the afterlife are true. It's called logic.

Christian logic = naked assertions, question begging, appeals to force.
They can be honest so long as thier bible has nothing to do with the topic.
Or at least thats what Ive seen so far.

I admire Atheists. It takes a lot of faith to believe that after death is... nothing. Especially considering the penalty if they're wrong. ;)

In fact, I would say that an atheist's faith is every bit as strong as any other fundamentalist.
Either this is deadpan satire or whacked-out lunacy.

The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death. Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.
Actually, no one has ever come back from death.

Actually, no one has ever come back from death.
I fear you are right but I will look for anyways. I wanna LIVE!!! NO DEATH PLEASE!!! LOL.

For the same reason that you believe in nothing at all. Because for some, it makes the concept of life and death easier to bear.
i don't believe what i believe because it makes things easier; quite the contrary, in fact. i know it is harder to find joy in my life than it would be if i could blindly accept an all-powerful, all-good being making sure everything was just and right. it is harder to face many difficult life events when one does not have the comfort of thinking the Creator of the Universe is lovingly watching out for you.

i don't see wishful thinking as a solid basis for beliefs, though. i don't believe in ignoring reason or fact or logic or evidence just to make myself more comfortable. sometimes you have to be strong and face unpleasent realities. i understand that not everybody is always strong enough to do that, but i can't understand why so many people take PRIDE in their weakness.

I admire Atheists. It takes a lot of faith to believe that after death is... nothing. Especially considering the penalty if they're wrong. ;)

In fact, I would say that an atheist's faith is every bit as strong as any other fundamentalist.

And, I would argue that IF the only reason you 'believe' in god, is for fear of the punishments if you didn't - you don't have belief, you have fear.

Health IS a disease. Everyone who has it, eventually dies. :)

The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death. Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.

What happened is still up for debate. How long it lasts is also up for debate. WHat isn't debatable is that without proof, you are taking it on faith that there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

I notice you are talking about near death experiences here (nde from now on). I would like to state that these persons have never been dead in my eyes. the hallucinations that people see during a nde are induced by a chemical reaction in the brain, probably a lack of oxigen. Nde can be induced by putting magnets on certain parts of the brain.

As in science every thought and every experience a person goes through is produced by a chemical reaction in our brains (and this one has tons of evidence), the halting of this typical proces followed by the decay of the brain itself will stop you from thinking, experiencing and existing. Therefore the default is that there is nothing after dead. End of discussion untill someone else brings up new facts.

I'm an atheist and I'm also a very strong believer in life after death. Just not my life :) I do find that oddly comforting, though.

When it comes to near-death experiences, there's a lot of explanations. It's well known that when the visual cortex starts getting conflicting or incomplete information it fills in with pretty much anything it can 'think' of. When suffering hypoxia or apoxia (partial or complete loss of blood to the brain), it's fair to say the brain would get a little confused. Hell, just standing up too fast makes me see white dots all over the place.

And this is a very simplistic idea, but one I've always liked, 'cause it's cute:

What do most people see when they've 'died' of cardiac arrest? It's generally described as a bright white tunnel.
And where are most people revived from cardiac arrest? On an operating table.
And what's directly above a patient on an operating table? An incredibly bright white light.

Maff :)

The fact of the matter is that no evidence exists to support the notion that nothing happens after death..
Yes that is true. But the burden of proof rests on you since you are the one making claims. see below.

Just the opposite, actually. People have died and come back. They tend to indicate that something 'did' happen after death.. Are you one of those atheist pranksters pullin' my chain by "playing the theist" in order to mock xians? Do you always make naked assertions and then act like your statements are factual? Are you a crack head? A headless chicken?


What happened is still up for debate.How long it lasts is also up for debate.. Well then why don't you share your vast knowlege of these debates. Books? Links?


WHat isn't debatable is that without proof, you are taking it on faith that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. Are you sure your not taking us for a ride? Christian faith (baseless conviction) isnt as demanding as it readily graspes for what is possible. Its an addiction/mental illness. The Free thinker rests his/her faith (confidence) on what is probable. And if a free thinker does have faith in what is merely possible they do not expect others to believe it.

Anyways I couldnt find much of anything. But here is something anyways.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/19/coolsc.outofbody/

Out-of-body experience clues may hide in mind
Scientists: Misfiring brain behind bizarre sensation

Neurology researchers in Switzerland report the case of a woman who described "floating above her own body and watching herself" while she was undergoing testing and treatment for epilepsy. The strange experience only occurred when one particular part of her brain, the angular gyrus in the right cortex, was stimulated with an electrode. And it happened every time the angular gyrus was stimulated.

"Of course it was a big surprise when she told us," said Dr. Olaf Blanke, a neurologist at Geneva University Hospital, and author of the findings in this week's edition of the British journal Nature.

"You hear strange reports sometimes, but in five or six years of doing this I've never gotten that sort of response before," said Blanke.

He says the patient wasn't really frightened, but she did say it was a very strange sensation.

Blanke said it would have been difficult for the patient to fake such an experience. She had up to 100 electrodes implanted in her brain for these sessions, and had no idea which electrode would be stimulated, or when. The stimulations each took 2 seconds or less.

At other times during the same session, Blanke said, the patient screamed, because she "saw" her legs shortening, and "saw" her knees about to hit her face.

Electrodes and brain 'mapping'
The unidentified 43-year-old patient had suffered from epileptic seizures for 11 years. Doctors were using electrodes to try to pinpoint the origin of her seizures. Such brain "mapping" is also used to help doctors identify critical areas of the brain, like those responsible for speech or movement, so they aren't damaged during surgery.

While the electrodes are implanted under full anesthesia, patients are fully awake during the testing procedure, so their comfort, language skills, and responses can be constantly monitored.

Lots of people try to explain something away which is for many people, an amazing experience that has transformed their lives. I hope we can add some precise neuroscience and try to collaborate with people in many fields.
-- Dr. Olaf Blanke






This case is a little unusual for researchers, since the out-of-body experience was a surprise to both the patient and the doctors. Since nothing was planned, as it would have been in standard research, there were no control groups or other measures, like perhaps videotaping the session.

Others in the field say these serendipitous findings sound plausible, and intriguing for further study.

"It does fit in with a body of work on how we perceive our bodies and space," said Dr. Barry Gordon, professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions.

He says similar descriptions have come from other people with epilepsy, and from stroke victims and others who have had seizures. This region of the brain may also tie in to the well-documented descriptions of "phantom limbs" by amputees.

"Our brains are not built the way we think; the inner mind is more bizarrely constructed than we might think," said Gordon.

As an example, Gordon said, when you look at an apple, you might see red and round and shiny and think of the word, "apple." But the brain may see the red in one place, the round and shiny in another, and process the word "apple" in yet another. We count on our brains to sort it all out and combine it into something we understand, he said.

An out-of-body experience may be a slight disconnect or misfiring of the processing of information. And, said both Blanke and Gordon, the trauma of having electrodes implanted in one's skull, plus the fear and uncertainty that go along with a complex clinical procedure, could possibly help trigger such a misfiring of information, such as the case of the Geneva patient.

"Sometimes patients describe looking down on their own bodies, and that experience is actually an aura or a warning that a seizure is about to occur," said Dr. Cindy Kubu, a neuropsychologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. She has worked with patients with epilepsy for more than a decade.

She said some patients see lights flashing, others see cartoon characters, others have feelings of deja vu, or its opposite, jamais vu (when what is really a very familiar experience seems to be happening for the first time). All of these events can be precursors to a seizure.

Neuroscience and the paranormal
The angular gyrus is a complex part of the brain, responsible for things like body and space awareness, and logical sequencing.

If something is awry there, said Kubu, a patient might put on his pants first, and then his underwear, and not understand that there's a problem. Or the patient might feel like a hand or arm is not connected to the rest of the body, and he can't make it function.

The next step in learning more about out-of-body experiences will likely be efforts to try and replicate the results in other patients who agree to take part in such tests.

"This is fun, fascinating stuff," said Kubu. "And it could help our patients get better," she said.

As for Blanke's patient in Geneva, she is doing much better, he says, and her seizures are under control.

Dr. Blanke is hopeful that many different experts will be able to work together in using this unexpected information from his patient. He says there's even some value in what's often viewed as the "paranormal."

"Lots of people try to explain something away which is for many people, an amazing experience that has transformed their lives. I hope we can add some precise neuroscience and try to collaborate with people in many fields," said Blanke.

Did you notice that they have no proof except what the woman said, they don't even have video of her being filmed in the experiment. Sheesh.

I mean I would accept it as proof to have two experts in the field showing their notes, but quite often that is unnacceptable.
Anway this sounds like a wonderful topic for another thread.

Lacking evidence, I have no reason to assume anything happens after I die and no reason to assume the naked assertions you make about the afterlife are true. It's called logic.

Lacking evidence, I have no reason to assume anything happens after I die [/B]
Wow! I understand not needing a reason to make assumptions if there is no evidence. But to me my gut feelings and feeling of a presence when I pray is proof for me.( But not anyone else)
Have you ever felt a presence when you have prayed in the past? If not, wow! How is this possible that some feel a presence and some don't?
Maybe I am crazy and there is no GOD. Or maybe GOD made sure that there are some people around to be total matterialists so that deep down inside everyone has a seed of doubt. I mean think about it. GOD intended us to live. (because we exist)
So consider this. What if we all knew for a fact that there is a GOD and some of us who might be grieving because they dont like the way they look, arent rich enough, arent smart enough, etc.. want to die and go to the afterlife sooner only to avoid living "our crummy lives" instead of becoming proficient at adapting , learning, improving, and enjoying the simple and easy to reach pleasures in life as well as reaching for the stars. I dunno. I am speculating.

But I must say that the atheist position is practical for atheists and is reasonable. What else can I say?

So let me get this right. Because you have no evidance you know there is no proof either way so you don't waste time thinking about or living your lives in order to appease someone (GOD) that you are not aware of.

yes? no?

___________________________________________________
Hooke's Law- You don't even know what this IS apparently.
This is Hooke's Law http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot2.html#c3
The linear dependence of displacement upon stretching force.

You were right about one thing. You DIDN't know. What you were talking about. Elasticity refers to the property of an object to return to its original form after being stretched. Some object are more or less elastic. Read the definition that is on the rest of the site, referring to what elasticity is. It is made to be an easy read for idiots like you.

You missed my point entirely...I can tell you are just a flamer on these forums. But here goes nothing.

Nothing have a truly linear dependence of displacement upon a stretching force. It is only true over very small distances. If it were true, you'd have rubber bands that could stretch around the earth and springs that could be compressed to a nanometer long.

And you are right, when you add the 2nd law of thermo into any idea of a perpetual motion machine, it won't work. But if you use just Hooke's law of linear displacement, it looks possible. Hooke's law is very useful, however, at approximating many things, especially at the quantum level.

No, Hooke's law is an approximation of the action of elastic materials when stretched small amounts. Nothing is truly elastic as Hooke's equations explain, because molecular bonds only have so much give to them.

You sure have a long memory for grudges. Are you a dwarf by chance?

If your friend has a life that is so dismal that she no longer believes in god, she is already an atheist. What she is deciding to do is to express her atheism - come out of the 'atheist' closet.

WOW! I had never believed in god. Is my life dismal? Well I don't think it is!
Why is it always Christians who say "If you don't believe in god you are stupid/a terrorist/have a crumby life"? Why can people not just accept other people for who they are? Is it really that hard?

God gave her life and then gave her all the food, oxygen, etc. that she needs to sustain life. It seems to me that God has done a lot for your friend, she's just too self-centered to realize it.

God will not begin to work in her life until she accepts Him in His rightful place in her life. Also, she needs to keep in mind that His plan for her may not be her plan for herself. I'm a perfect example of that. I was living my life the exact way I'd envisioned it, and I was miserable. I prayed, asking God what He wanted for me and told Him I'd accept His will for my life instead of my own, just show me what He wanted. And, 2 years later, my life is not at all what I'd envisioned, but I'm happier than I ever imagined I could be.




you are asserting your faith like we're supposed to believe it for some logical reason noone yet has been able to find any evidence of.
You assert also that the almighty and good god only helps people that believe in him, the others can die, it's sort of a "believe or suffer" blackmail system. And finally, you are rejecting your own freedom, placing yourself in the position of a slave. Well, disgusting.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

See that's wrong reasoning.

If god exists he/she/it really wouldn't do anything for you as long as you live. Why should it?

That's why I hate those people who get in accidents and say 'God saved me!'
They fail to realise it was a circumstance of actions, work of doctors and there own will to live that kept them alive. God doesn't care about mortal bodies because the soul is what counts, right?

Mind you being a atheist because you really feel there is nothing more then the material, that would be a good reason.

First, the word is spelled a-t-h-E-I-s-t. "athiest" = most athy

Oh..god...can't...stop....laughing....

Thanks, I want to use that as a sig...

To the OP: Your friend doesn't have a very good reason for being an Atheist. I, myself, tend to drift between atheism, deism, and agnosticism in regards to my beliefs on (G)(g)(o)(_)d(ess)(es)(s) depending on mood/circumstance.

Human beings, are wired a certain way. We evolved (or were created) to be tool wielders and makers. Our only distinct advantage over our competition has depended on our ability to recognize and exploit patterns in our environment. As such we have devlopped (or were given), roughly 3 and a half pounds of pattern recognition wet-ware stuck smack between our ears. Our brains are built to find patterns, and are quite capable of seeing patterns even where they do not exist. This is often called, the placebo effect.

As makers we make stuff. Nearly everything we come in contact with on a daily basis was made/reshaped by us. Modern man even moreso than early man. Hell, even the animals we eat have been reformed to suit our needs. There is a pattern that comes forth from this, and causes many to induce that if we make things, that something must have made us.

In short we are wired to believe in a creator. That may be because there is one/more-than-one, and he/she/it/they want us to know it. Or, it may just be because that is the the result of seeing one more pattern where none exists.

As yet, there has been no material evidence put for that can prove the first contention, so it is logical to assume that it is just another placebo affect and the second one is the more likely candidate.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.
A poor reason for the situation. If she thinks God exists yet just ignores her, than she isn't athiest.

I'm an Atheist because I feel that God does not exist. There are no other reasons for people to call themselves atheists.

I'm an Atheist because I feel that God does not exist. There are no other reasons for people to call themselves atheists.

Actually, another possible reason would be because people THINK that God does not exist.

Thinking is not the same thing as feeling.

Actually, another possible reason would be because people THINK that God does not exist.

Thinking is not the same thing as feeling. Okay, so I phrased myself poorly. You knew what I was trying to say.

Let us go back to the beginning.
To the time of the cave man (proven in science,) and ask ourselves:
'HOW CAN WE CONVINCE ALL THESE SAVAGES TO DO OUR BIDDING?'

BRAINSTORMING:
Threats. Rewards. A common enemy. A common purpose. Rituals that get them attention, respect, acceptance, love, sex.

Budding human #1: “If we threaten them, they might fight back and kill us.”

Budding human #2: “You’re right, they are savages after all. If we promise them anything and don’t come through with it, they’ll likely kill us for that too.”

Budding human #1: “The threats and rewards have to come from someone they can’t kill.”

Budding human #2: “But who can’t they kill?”

Budding human #1: “Hmmm…. How about we just make someone up?”

Budding human #2: “Yeah. That’ll do it. We’ll always have plausible deniability. What about the common enemy, we could make it the [insert nearby competing savage group here?]

Budding human #1: “But, what about after they’re conquered. We’ve killed off our enemies before and then they don’t obey anymore. I think we need a made up common enemy as well.”

Budding human #2: “Bloody brilliant! We’ll be full humans in a week at this rate! We can even make up the reward and the threat too! We’ll put our leader in the sky – the heavens, with the stars and our common enemy in the deepest bowels of the earth.”

Budding human #1: “But how do we threaten them? Made up people from made up places can’t really do any harm. I think it’s a bust.”

Budding human #2: “Hmmm…. There’s gotta be a way we can make them at least feel they are in danger or that they’re going to get some reward. You know there’s only a problem until their dead. Then it really doesn’t matter. What if we tied the reward and the punishment stuff to their death…. But how could we do that?

Budding human #1: “Everybody’s terrified of death because they think that’s the end. But what if it wasn’t the end? What if we rewarded them with eternal blissful life if they obeyed and eternal pain and burning if they didn’t obey?”

Budding human #2: “I think we’ve done it. Let’s work out the details tomorrow. Becoming a full fledged human is tiring business, but when all those little savages are on their knees bowing and scrapping before us it’ll be SO SWEEEEEEEET!


Hmmm…. If way pay attention to the nature of man, it’s all so clear, isn’t it?

"Relax and feel sleepy as you listen to my voice. "

Heres why i am an atheist:
science has actually given some sort of reazonable explanation to stuff religion expects me to believe Yeah, problem with that is, modern science points toward an original creator. Anyone who thinks that science proves a divine creator wrong needs to brush up a bit. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution are seen as proof that a god doesn't exist, when in reality, they themselves require a god to be true. In the big bang theory, all matter orignates from a small piece of matter, which you have to wonder how that came about *coughdivinecreatorcough*. Also, evolution may give some insight, but even then it doesn't point to the origin of life, it only explains variation. Science does nothing but reinforce that a divine creator exists. So meh!

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

Tell her not to stop believing in god. Tell her to hate the motherfucker every day of her life. Works for me.

Yeah, problem with that is, modern science points toward an original creator. Anyone who thinks that science proves a divine creator wrong needs to brush up a bit. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution are seen as proof that a god doesn't exist, when in reality, they themselves require a god to be true. In the big bang theory, all matter orignates from a small piece of matter, which you have to wonder how that came about *coughdivinecreatorcough*. Also, evolution may give some insight, but even then it doesn't point to the origin of life, it only explains variation. Science does nothing but reinforce that a divine creator exists. So meh!

Actually, many scientists believe that the big bang was, itself, just another link in the great chain of causality. It may have been the origins of our universe, but that it may well have been caused by the collapse of a previous universe, and that there may well have been an infinite succession of such universes.

All depends on who you ask, really.

Whoa, when did people start posting in this thread again?

Actually, many scientists believe that the big bang was, itself, just another link in the great chain of causality. It may have been the origins of our universe, but that it may well have been caused by the collapse of a previous universe, and that there may well have been an infinite succession of such universes.

All depends on who you ask, really.
Either way, it still comes down to an endless chain of the material world relying on something else within the material world. That universe would have required a universe before it, and another before it, and so on. Something outside of this material world would have had to created it for any of this to happen in the first place.

Either way, it still comes down to an endless chain of the material world relying on something else within the material world. That universe would have required a universe before it, and another before it, and so on. Something outside of this material world would have had to created it for any of this to happen in the first place.

So who ever said there had to be a beginning?

So who ever said there had to be a beginning?
Eh, good point, but it's almost one of the laws of our universe, that anything based upon matter required some sort of beginning or first formation. Anything that you see around you that is comprised of matter had some sort of formation or beginning to it. Andthen you have to wonder what caused the first universe to create in the first place. Unless time is in some sort of loop, something would have had occured to set everything in motion, some sort of event that would tip the dominoes to cause this endless chain of universes forming and collapsing. The only solution to something material not having a beginning is a neverending loop of time.

Its to not believe in any god.

atheism is the belief that that follows...

Wrong idea: I dunt believe in god...
correct idea: i dunt believe of a god....

atheism is belief of there not being gods or any other higher beings.. *and remeber... beliefs are not a religious aspect... i can believe that if i shot u in the face... you will die... that doesn't make it areligion*.. saying you do not believe in god is saying there is a god... but you do not believe he is truthful or correct in what he does... this is not atheism... it is the bellief that god is wrong... atheism is the believe there is NO GODS...

Eh, good point, but it's almost one of the laws of our universe, that anything based upon matter required some sort of beginning or first formation. Anything that you see around you that is comprised of matter had some sort of formation or beginning to it. Andthen you have to wonder what caused the first universe to create in the first place. Unless time is in some sort of loop, something would have had occured to set everything in motion, some sort of event that would tip the dominoes to cause this endless chain of universes forming and collapsing. The only solution to something material not having a beginning is a neverending loop of time.

Actually, the idea there there would be a first cause at all is purely an assumption. Not even a reasoned assumption. There is absolutely no reason at all to suppose there ever had to be a beginning, or that there ever will be an ending.

That's not to say there couldn't be a first cause. Just that the main reason we think of there as being one is due to the way people think, as opposed to any kind of empirical evidence or logical extrapolation of said evidence.

And even if it did go on forever, that STILL doesn't help one prove/disprove the existance of one or more gods. At most it would modify how god(s) get described.

EDIT:
Actually, proving it had an absolute beginning via a non-material cause wouldn't really help either. Non-material cause doesn't necesarily equate to anything that would be considered a god. Could be nothing more than a physical law of a higher-order meta-reality.

But that's getting warped and silly. Basicly, trying to prove either side is impossible, so why bother. If you want to belive in god, fine. If you want to disbelieve, fine. Just don't go trying to force your beliefs on others, and claim they are logical, because all logic leads ultimately to agnosticism.

Whoa, when did people start posting in this thread again?

Yesterday, 9:59 PM

The protestants are on the right track... For them, religion is just a system so that you know what to do with corpses, or what to do when you've been a long time in a relationship...etc.