Atheism as a Faith: The (Hopefully) Final Debate

[razeontherock]

So when comments are made about "weak believers" because they see others who are not Creationist

Just for clarification, I made no such comment. Since your post was in reply to something from me you quoted ...

 

[razeontherock]

There is no difference between the processes involved in micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is merely micro-evolution over a longer period of time. If you do not believe in macro-evolution, then it's up to you to prove that there is a magical barrier that stops evolution when the new generation is a certain distance away (genetically speaking), from the original ancestor.

That's not how things work. You're a bright guy and usually think better than this, but it is your side of the aisle asking (well no, demanding) all others to accept what has never been observed, in the name of science. When observation and repeatability have always been 2 key components of science.

No repeat, no observation, no scientific fact. Theory.

Evolution is evolution, there is no difference. If think there is a difference between macro and micro-evolution, then it is up to you to demonstrate it.

Not only has it been demonstrated throughout the entire body of science, it has been repeatedly pointed out by me in these very forums. How many generations of single cell organisms have we had under observation in a lab now? Bacterium are still bacterium. Viruses are still viruses. And finches are still finches. None of the processes available to Ev have managed to create a more complex lifeform, unless you want to look at those that merely usurp another's DNA, which would not have been available early in the development of life. The evidence you seek is staring you right in the face (yet again)

 

[Eudaimonist]

No repeat, no observation, no scientific fact. Theory.

That is the back-of-a-cereal-box description of science. Science is not as limited in its methods as you are suggesting. Not all research happens in a test tube. Evolution is amenable to scientific research, and is both a scientific fact and an established scientific theory/model.

I personally know Ph.D. scientists working with biochemistry research, which very often touches on issues pertaining to evolution. I've gone to many science lectures from experts in the field at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY, where a great deal of biochemical research goes on. My father is a Ph.D. research scientist. You can take my word for it, you don't see science clearly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dewaddict84]

No repeat, no observation, no scientific fact. Theory.

Important parts have been repeated. We can observe evolution in action. It is both a theory and a fact. Just like there is the fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity.

But seriously, take it to CrEvo. Ask for AV1611VET, you'll love him. Tell him dewaddict sent you and he'll explain his embedded age theory to you with only minor grandstanding.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Whales descended from tiny deer-like mammals

 

[Eudaimonist]

Whales descended from tiny deer-like mammals

Nature is amazing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dragons87]

Nature is amazing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Amazing? What's so amazing about nature just getting on with what it's getting on with - i.e. eliminating weaker species in favour of stronger ones? How would you believing it's "amazing" aid you in your relentless competition with other members of your species to pass on your genes to "ensure" the surviveability of your family line? Stop wasting your time thinking things are amazing. Focus on breeding!

 

[Eudaimonist]

How would you believing it's "amazing" aid you in your relentless competition with other members of your species to pass on your genes to "ensure" the surviveability of your family line?

I don't believe that it's amazing. I experience it that way. Much as I might feel amazed by the stars in the night sky, even though they are "nature just getting on with what it's getting on with".

BTW, why should I care about passing on my genes? I don't. I'm 43 with no kids currently, and should I decide to have children, that decision would have nothing to do with a desire to engage in "relentless competition with other members of [my] species to pass on [my] genes to 'ensure' the surviveability of [my] family line."


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

Perfect example Jane! That assertion is not fact, but at best shows plausibility. In every instance pertinent details show common ancestry back to G-d, just as well (if not better than) as it shows anything currently accepted by the scientific community at large. And the current state of peer review is no different than the petty strife within the Church contributing to the plunge into the dark ages; the partisan split is along different lines, that's all. The new "cannon" is how the data is interpreted, with anything suggesting than humanity is held responsible to a higher power being anathematized.

Which logically concludes that atheism is most certainly a Faith, with the only casualty of war being intellectual integrity, confined to a few areas. (so far)

 

[Dragons87]

I don't believe that it's amazing. I experience it that way. Much as I might feel amazed by the stars in the night sky, even though they are "nature just getting on with what it's getting on with".

BTW, why should I care about passing on my genes? I don't. I'm 43 with no kids currently, and should I decide to have children, that decision would have nothing to do with a desire to engage in "relentless competition with other members of [my] species to pass on [my] genes to 'ensure' the surviveability of [my] family line."


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm not sure whether this conversation fits exactly this, but there is something I don't understand with evolutionists. They describe how they believe firmly how nature works, maybe express amazement and awe at its processes (with no real need to), and when pressed to answer whether that's a good way of organising human societies, they (well, all people really) suddenly think its repulsive and stress that "we are equal".

If you could contribute to resolving what I see as a hypocrisy, I would be very grateful. How can belief in natural selection not end up in prescribing it for humans?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How can belief in natural selection not end up in prescribing it for humans?

It's not prescriptive, it's descriptive.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your concern. I can't think of any reason why something descriptive must end up prescriptive.

The existence of stars engaging in nuclear fusion doesn't make blowing up fusion bombs on the Earth's surface a good idea.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dewaddict84]

They describe how they believe firmly how nature works,

Yeah, we know some parts. There's still plenty to figure out though. There's a firm belief that evolution happened, but some of the mechanics are still mysterious. And we still don't yet have a C++ to DNA bytecode compiler.

maybe express amazement and awe at its processes (with no real need to),

Well from an engineering perspective of "let's make a self replicating, learning machine that will contend with other such machines in a eon-long battle royale", yeah, it is pretty neat. Very slow though. And I think one of the biggest struggles that the theory of evolution has faced is the sheer disbelief that such a process could create all the variety and usefulness we see in life around us.

and when pressed to answer whether that's a good way of organising human societies, they (well, all people really) suddenly think its repulsive and stress that "we are equal".

How can belief in natural selection not end up in prescribing it for humans?

Oh, easy. A lot of people were stupid and got some really bad ideas from the idea of evolution. Some really took the phrase "survival of the strongest" to heart. As in, "durr I have more muscle mass then you, I'mmagonna get da girl". But it's not the strong that survive, it's the "fittest". What constitutes fitness? A whole lot of things, from not eating too much, to fitting in to small places, to having an agressive behaviour, to having a passive behavior, to having sharp claws, to having dull claws for digging. If it helps, it makes you fit. And that can mean opposite things at different times.

Some people also think that "selection" is just a euphemism for killing off people. That also isn't true. Selecting who passes on their genes, you know, giggity, is the big step. Surviving to that stage is kind of a pre-requisite though.

And then there's that eugenics thing, which really didn't have any legs to stand on and caused a lot more trouble then any supposed benefit there was.

But humans are a social creature. If it's good for my neighbor, then it's good for me, even on a evolutionary scale.

So the misapplication of this idea has lead to some stupid people doing stupid things. And there's no need to encourage that. That's why you'll see a lot of "evolutionists" fight back against ideas about taking control of our genetic future. Come on, you asked this quesiton when Eud said he wasn't going to have kids. There's nothing really wrong with that.


And lastely, we ARE being subjugated to natural selection. I choose my wife based on certain criteria. We're thinking about kids. There's selection for you. Humanity has changed the game a little, but the game is still going on. Cats, for example, are ruled by selection of the cutest. This is still a form of natural selection, even if it's widely different then before. Another example is the latest fashion for selecting mates has done a 180 and now we like skinny girls. That wasn't always so. I think that happened some time around 1850's right? Anyway, that's a piddly amount of time for there to be evolutionary forces shaping our genes. Barely 15 generations. And there's more then enough outbreeding to keep the race stable.

 

[Dragons87]

It's not prescriptive, it's descriptive.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your concern. I can't think of any reason why something descriptive must end up prescriptive.

The existence of stars engaging in nuclear fusion doesn't make blowing up fusion bombs on the Earth's surface a good idea.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hm. That's a good point. I'm a very "action" person, I suppose. I want to do things all the time.

 

[Dragons87]

Yeah, we know some parts. There's still plenty to figure out though. There's a firm belief that evolution happened, but some of the mechanics are still mysterious. And we still don't yet have a C++ to DNA bytecode compiler.

Okay.

Well from an engineering perspective of "let's make a self replicating, learning machine that will contend with other such machines in a eon-long battle royale", yeah, it is pretty neat. Very slow though. And I think one of the biggest struggles that the theory of evolution has faced is the sheer disbelief that such a process could create all the variety and usefulness we see in life around us.

Why would you look at nature from an engineering perspective if nature doesn't look at it from that perspective? Aren't you trying to inject meaning into something that is essentially meaningless?

Oh, easy. A lot of people were stupid and got some really bad ideas from the idea of evolution. Some really took the phrase "survival of the strongest" to heart. As in, "durr I have more muscle mass then you, I'mmagonna get da girl". But it's not the strong that survive, it's the "fittest". What constitutes fitness? A whole lot of things, from not eating too much, to fitting in to small places, to having an agressive behaviour, to having a passive behavior, to having sharp claws, to having dull claws for digging. If it helps, it makes you fit. And that can mean opposite things at different times.

Good point.

Some people also think that "selection" is just a euphemism for killing off people. That also isn't true. Selecting who passes on their genes, you know, giggity, is the big step. Surviving to that stage is kind of a pre-requisite though.

It doesn't have to be as strong as killing off people, just discrimination in the name of natural progress.

And then there's that eugenics thing, which really didn't have any legs to stand on and caused a lot more trouble then any supposed benefit there was.

Fair enough.

But humans are a social creature. If it's good for my neighbor, then it's good for me, even on a evolutionary scale.

Hm. I'm not sure that's necessarily true.

So the misapplication of this idea has lead to some stupid people doing stupid things. And there's no need to encourage that. That's why you'll see a lot of "evolutionists" fight back against ideas about taking control of our genetic future. Come on, you asked this quesiton when Eud said he wasn't going to have kids. There's nothing really wrong with that.


And lastely, we ARE being subjugated to natural selection. I choose my wife based on certain criteria. We're thinking about kids. There's selection for you. Humanity has changed the game a little, but the game is still going on. Cats, for example, are ruled by selection of the cutest. This is still a form of natural selection, even if it's widely different then before. Another example is the latest fashion for selecting mates has done a 180 and now we like skinny girls. That wasn't always so. I think that happened some time around 1850's right? Anyway, that's a piddly amount of time for there to be evolutionary forces shaping our genes. Barely 15 generations. And there's more then enough outbreeding to keep the race stable.

You aren't so much being subjugated to natural selection; you have made a conscious decision to choose your mate. Does "nature" make conscious decisions to choose mates?

Lol. I'm slightly confused. I really should be concentrating on my work, and I will do that. So cheerio for now!

 

[Delphiki]

Dragon,

Part of what makes biology and cosmology so intriguing is the 'orchestration' that actually goes in to the things we commonly take for granted. In contrast to biblical creation, where most things are explained away as just being blinked (er.., spoken, more accurately) into existence, there doesn't seem to be quite as much depth.

When you look to the night sky, and realize that each twinkling dot is actually a massive collection of gasses, fusing and burning under their own weight, having taken millions of years to form, many of them much larger than our own sun, I think the reality is much more breathtaking than the notion of God poking tiny holes in the dome of the heavens.

It suggests that, if there is a God, then it's far more infinite and complex than the one that most major religions subscribe to. Or even if just nature itself, if you believe there isn't a God. Either way, the reality of the way we now know things are seems to trump the confusing simplicity of the Genesis story.

 

[Dragons87]

Dragon,

Part of what makes biology and cosmology so intriguing is the 'orchestration' that actually goes in to the things we commonly take for granted. In contrast to biblical creation, where most things are explained away as just being blinked (er.., spoken, more accurately) into existence, there doesn't seem to be quite as much depth.

When you look to the night sky, and realize that each twinkling dot is actually a massive collection of gasses, fusing and burning under their own weight, having taken millions of years to form, many of them much larger than our own sun, I think the reality is much more breathtaking than the notion of God poking tiny holes in the dome of the heavens.

It suggests that, if there is a God, then it's far more infinite and complex than the one that most major religions subscribe to. Or even if just nature itself, if you believe there isn't a God. Either way, the reality of the way we now know things are seems to trump the confusing simplicity of the Genesis story.

Funnily enough, I share your observation of the world, though starting exactly where you haven't started from.

To me, atheistic nature is ultimately meaningless. Yes, each twinkling dot is a massive collection gases, fusing, burning and doing whatever they do - but so what? So...nothing. Any kind of awesomeness you project on to it is ultimately meaningless, because objectively speaking there is nothing to be awesome about. It would be helpful if you could clarify just what it is about gases burning far, far away that you think is awesome. Just how is it different from having gases burning in your back garden for your BBQ (which I don't think you think is as awesome, right?)?

On the other hand, when God spoke things into being, it expresses the beauty of a design plus the immense awesomeness of his power. The design is objectively beautiful. The objects created are objectively awesome. It means that when I look into the skies, I can exclaim, "that's beautiful", and it would mean something.

The Judeo-Christian awe of God's Creation doesn't end at Genesis 2 - it continues throughout the Bible, and it truly is awe. Consider, for example, Psalm 147:4, which says "[God] determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name." Other Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets and Ecclesiastes all continue on this theme of awesomeness of God's Creation.

Consider also what Jesus said here in Matthew 6: "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?"

The suggestion that we don't matter because the universe is so big (a view even Richard Dawkins subscribes to) is, I find, ridiculous. Just what's so impossible about it? Think about how us humans treat atoms - mere atoms! Just because atoms are small doesn't mean that we don't care about them. So what exactly is stopping a massive God from caring for his tiny people? Consider Psalm 8. The view has been considered by someone who believes in God, and had no problem reconciling the fact that he's small and God is big. I see no reason why that should stop us today.

 

[dewaddict84]

Aren't you trying to inject meaning into something that is essentially meaningless?

No, there's quite a bit of meaning to all this nature stuff. There's a reason that cats can see in the dark, why dogs howl, why an elephant flaps it's ears, and why a zebra has stripes. I think you're stuck in philosophy mode. Engineers look at it all and say "hey, that works, we should make stuff like that (but better)"

Hm. I'm not sure that's necessarily true.

Are you unsure that humans are social creatures, or that individuals benefit from good things happening to their neighbor?

If it's the first, uh, just look around you. We form societies. Some people are jerks and try to break it down, but people living out in the woods by themselves is a rarity.

It it's the latter, life isn't a zero-sum game. If your neighbor wins the lotto, maybe he'll buy you a round. Or he'll waste it all on hookers an blow, but at least then the hookers might buy you a round.

To me, atheistic nature is ultimately meaningless.

Well, ultimately, maybe. But it's the journey that counts, not the destination. Speaking of which, so you die, you get judged, and then you go to heaven and be happy forever...

Then what?

What's the purpose of heaven? Ultimately, what's there to do? Eternal euphoria probably gets old after a while.

 

[Delphiki]

The difference, then, is that some people have a profound emotional reaction to the ever-unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Others are satisfied with "God did it".

While you point out that creation doesn't stop at Genesis, it's still in a book that's been around for a few thousand years, with (allegedly) the same descriptions of the nature of our universe. Compare that to the ever-growing collection of knowledge mankind has been able to achieve. It was long ago that we discovered the earth was round, bat aren't birds, and the heliocentricity of our solar system (and yes, that stars don't just "pop" into existence). We've since moved on to the earliest moments of the universe (which our observations predate the biblical estimate by some 13.7 billion years), and are still reaching beyond this with quantum and M-theory.

Those who find beauty and meaning in the universe as I do are most likely the ones that aren't satisfied with a couple-thousand-year-old "answer".

edit: and it's not that the scientific understanding of mankind isn't that we "don't matte" it's that we have little to no effect on the universe as a whole -- hence the 'awesomeness' of the universe. There's a difference.

 

[Greg1234]

The difference, then, is that some people have a profound emotional reaction to the ever-unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Others are satisfied with "God did it".

When you look at your computer and say the programmer did it, inquiry begins, not ends. The problem for the atheist is, when confronted with the blatant facts will attempt to subjugate a non natural cause, to the material. And as a materilaist, adhering to a purely material world view, his or her's thirst is never quenched until that cause is of the material. And it is on this need, Darwinism thrives. You should never forget that your view is not universal. The idea that God is primitive, is yours. The idea that the non material never played a part in the manifestation of the material is yours. The idea that life is contingent upon the animation of flesh, is yours.

 

[dewaddict84]

When you look at your computer and say the programmer did it, inquiry begins, not ends.

Yeah, tell me about it. What in the world were the webdevs at christianFforums thinking?