atheism

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
[b] I would disagree. My faith appears logical and not at all blind. For example: I see an automobile; I have faith in an engineer, I see a house; I have faith in an architect. If you write a letter is the information in the ink?[/QUOTE]You are playing games with the word, "faith". You have faith in the engineer and architect because of experience and positive evidence of their existence. The sole basis of modern ID is a lack of positive evidence; i.e. irredicable complexity. A lack of evidence for a natural system is not positive evidence for God.One of Behe's IC examples is blood clotting, yet scientists are already making headway in explaining a possible natural explanation.Remember, the foundation for ID is that there is no other possible explanation for a phenomena than Godidit, so all one has to do to invalidate the claim is to show a possible naturalistic mechanism.

quote:

---

Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity. So, I see the ordered and complex world around me and easily place faith in a 'designer'.

---

Why do you equate the fact that human artifacts were designed by humans with the idea that we are somehow "God's artifacts"? Life is not in any way similar to the things humans have created, so why make any connection at all?I could ask the question, then, "What designed God"?

quote:

---

Your view, on the other hand, requires a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason and formed itself into complex information systems against everything we observe today.

---

Strawman.Your statement, "a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason" is incorrect. I don't know if there was a reason, and I don't know where matter came from.That the simple can become the complex is not, OTOH, a unreasonable position to support, as we have observed such things happening in nature.DS: Are you are saying that God is such that He cannot be known by man or that He simply doesn't exist? Either way, you are claiming to know something about God. This claim to knowledge is inconsistent with your claim to be an atheist."

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-06-2002][/b][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

---One cannot grasp "complex" concepts, therefore one turns to God. That comment, in and of itself, exemplifies your extremely limited and biased view of those who think contrary to you.

---

Ascribing supernatural sources to that which we do not understand has been a strong theme throughout all of recorded human existence, wouldn't you agree?Perhaps we don't think that Thor is throwing down thunderbolts, but how is religious or supernatural attempts to explain natural phenomena really any different from this concept?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Wow, do you really believe in stigmata?Have you ever heard of an actual, independently-verified case?From what I have read, stigmata occurs in these people without anyone seeing the entire episode from start to finish, so why believe in this as a miracle? Isn't it MUCH more likely that they are just injuring themselves for all the attention it gets them?Don't you think it odd that this phenomena occurs among Catholics but not much among other Christian denominations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
I am in no way inconsistant. I stated that we have no observable evidence of a greater being, a god, or of planet eating turtles ravaging the cosmos. As there is no obsevable data in support of a god, I doubt in the existance of such a being. How can I have knowledge of something we have no evidence for?

---

Sorry, Punisher said this in reply to you, and I was replying to Punisher but I left this bit of his message at the end of my reply.I do not question why you are an athiest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
theyre are still things that are unexplained and are paranormal. such as ghosts and ufos but lets not go down that road.

---

Hoowee, you really do have a full allotment of "beliefs", don't you?UFO's? Unidentified Flying Objects? Sure, I think that there are objects which people see flying in the air that they cannot identify.Going any further than that in explanation without evidence is pure speculation, however.How can something be supernatural, yet be detectable and have effects in the natural world?If a phenamena has effects which are detectable in the natural world, then it is natural, not supernatural.So far, even after lots and lots of research, nobody has found any credible evidence of ghosts, or that we are being visited by alien spacecraft (which is what you really mean by UFO's, right?)The human imagination is a very powerful thing. We can convince ourselves of nearly anything if the emotional payoff is good enough.May I suggest a couple of books?Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World-Science as a Candle in the Dark", and Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Wierd Things."The psychology of belief is a fascinating subject, but reading about it does require you to be able to step back from your own beliefs and examine them rather objectively. Some are not really able to do that.
Nevertheless, the books are excellent, compassionate, and may provide some insight.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
[b]You are getting to the root of my question which is this: How can an evolutionist believe in the validity of reason?[/QUOTE]

​

We use reason because it works.

​

It works, in the practical sense, to help us do what we want to do, and to help us understand the natural Universe.

​

quote:

---

How can time and chance acting on matter produce reason?

---

​

You are oversimplifying evolution to say that it is only 'time and chance acting on matter'. The big part you are leaving out is selection by the environment. Those individuals with a greater ability to reason would have been selected for if it was a reproductive advantage.

​

quote:

---

If you see a chemical reaction, it doesn't occur to you to say that it is true or false, it just is. So, my Christian/creation beliefs are just a complex chemical reaction in my head. And your beliefs are simply a different chemical reaction. So why do you think my chemical reaction is false and yours is true.

---

​

Post-modern relatavism?

​

Be careful, this will almost certainly backfire on you. If there is no objective reality and all perceptions are equally valid, then Satanism is just as "true" as Christianity.

​

[QUOTE]It appears that atheist evolutionists borrow reason from theism to argue their case. For those who do not believe in God, the only consistent position is nihlism. Basically, anything goes. If we are the process of chemical reactions, then the strongest survive and absolute standards of right and wrong do not exist. Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. So, your atheism must rest on an unsupported presuppostion, not on a claim to reason.[/b]

---

OK, but what does this have to do with Biology and the ToE?Would you care to discuss the evidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
A favorite yet weak argument. First, I won't mention the millions and millions that have been killed by atheist/evolutionist fueled beliefs (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot). Second, I challenge you to find Scriptural support for the inquistion and the crusades. Many ignoble things have been done in the name of "God" but that does not negate the Truths laid out in His word. That argument is like saying St. Andrews Cross is a symbol of racism simply because a group like the skinheads choose to wave it as their banner.

​

---

What does the misapplication and distortion of a scientific theory by political players and idealogues have to do with the validity of the theory?If anything, capitalism much more closely resembles evolution than communism or fascism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
I thought the topic was atheism. Sorry if I mis-read the subject line of the post. I am discussing the evidence in a number of threads.

---

You are right. The topic is "Atheism'.I answered your questions and made comments; are you interested in replying?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
No need to get short, I am involved in a number of threads, give me some time.

---

Sorry about how that message "sounded". I wasn't meaning to be snippy at you, just brief and to the point. Take all the time you need.Allison

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Nothing, that was the point of my post. Someone mentioned the inquistion and the crusades in an attempt to invalidate Christianity.

---

Well, you are the one who brought up the misuse of the ToE in order to discredit it, so I don't think you meant "nothing" by it.Ah, but there is a big difference between people misapplying a scientific theory for political ends and the use of Christianity to perpetrate the Crusades and the Inquisition.Using the ToE (or any theory) in this way is completely inappropriate because scientific theories are only meaningful and useful when one is doing science. IOW, in that narrow focus. These ideologues extrapolated far, far beyond what the evidence showed and inserted a great deal of their own philosophy into the theory where it was not AT ALL supported by any evidence.The Bible, OTOH, is meant to instruct us on moral and ethical behaviors. Obviously, a great many people, for a great many years, interpreted the Bible to mean that the Inquisition and the Crusades were GOD'S WILL and holy and wonderful acts.People who kill doctors and bomb Planned Parenthood clinics think they are doing God's work, too.The problem with Christianity is that it is not evidence-based, but relevatory, in nature. That means that anyone who interprets the Bible in a certain way, and who also gets a large enough group to agree with that interpretation, is going to have a lot of influence. Interpretation can obviously be wildly different depending upon the person and the circumstances, and this is why we have hundreds of Christian denominations.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
[b]

quote:

---

You are oversimplifying evolution to say that it is only 'time and chance acting on matter'. The big part you are leaving out is selection by the environment. Those individuals with a greater ability to reason would have been selected for if it was a reproductive advantage.

---

​

Selected by whom? The environment? Could you be more specific? Isn’t that the same thing as saying time and chance?[/QUOTE]

​

Yes, selection by the environment, and no that's not at all the same as saying "time and chance".

​

See, the only random part of evolution is mutation. The mutations which are allowed to remain in the population is determined by the environment. The environmental pressures on a population are non-random.

​

Here is further info which should be helpful:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance

​

""The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

​

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be
inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating."

​

quote:

---

Post-modern relatavism?
Be careful, this will almost certainly backfire on you. If there is no objective reality and all perceptions are equally valid, then Satanism is just as "true" as Christianity.

---

​

My example was from an atheistic standpoint. Am I correct in stating that our thought processes (according to your belief) are nothing but chemical reactions?

---

Yes, but what does that have to do with Atheism, or your insistance that all thoughts are somehow equally valid when it comes to describing the natural world?I am not an Atheist, BTW.

quote:

---

OK, but what does this have to do with Biology and the ToE?

---

I’m sorry; I honestly don’t understand the question. [/b][/QUOTE]Let's drop this last point, as it's kind of a rhetorical question anyway.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solid Snake:
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY.

---

Cool.Glad I could be helpful. ------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solid Snake:
Thats exactly my point. (Maybe not so much in this case). But rules are ussually crap. You ever buy something new and it comes with a whole bunch of stupid warnings and cautions. No one ever read those things, but they're there to cover someones butt. I really have better things to do with my time, than read " Caution: Coffee is hot" In 4 different languages. Oh and don't worry, I know some of the people personally on this board.

---

Yeah, those stupid rules about stopping at red lights while I'm driving. I think they are really dumb and useless. I don't think that we should have rules for driving anymore because it's so unfair.