Why I'm an Atheist

[quadz]

We would all love to think there is some great benefactor in the sky looking out for us and watching over us, and I guess the essential difference between an atheist and a person of faith is our acceptance, or otherwise, of the fact that there isn't.

You know this for a fact?

I know nothing 'for a fact', quadz.

I couldn't tell from your response whether you caught what I was referring to.  But if not, I've highlighted it.

[Tubby]

We would all love to think there is some great benefactor in the sky looking out for us and watching over us, and I guess the essential difference between an atheist and a person of faith is our acceptance, or otherwise, of the fact that there isn't.

You know this for a fact?

I know nothing 'for a fact', quadz.

I couldn't tell from your response whether you caught what I was referring to.  But if not, I've highlighted it.

Yes I got that quadz. You're asking how I can state that there is definitely no 'great benefactor in the sky looking out for us'.

As I stated in a previous post, a true atheist will tend to base their ideas on contemporary scientific thought (for lack of anything better).

Contemporary scientific thought does not indicate the existence of a benevolent (or otherwise) god. Therefore, as an atheist, I currently conclude that there is no god - benevolent or otherwise - looking out for us.

Rather, I tend towards accepting the idea of Darwinian evolution as a more reasonable process around the development and evolution of man, as this concept is more universially accepted within the scientific community - which applies far more rigorous processes to the understanding of their beliefs than any religious community I am currently aware of..

[haunted]

Why I'm a Mormon:

1) All men(lucky me) get their own planet after they die
2) They are God of this planet, and get to do as they please/wish.
3) This includes populating the planet yourself(really blows the whole 40 virgin thing out of the water)
4) You get to do all of this while emulating the goodness of Jesus.

Really there's a lot more I could list, but I think the debate was just won. My undies that I wear to protect myself from all evil also work against non-mormon / atheist responses on this thread. So best of luck.

[reaper]

Rather, I tend towards accepting the idea of Darwinian evolution as a more reasonable process around the development and evolution of man, as this concept is more universially accepted within the scientific community - which applies far more rigorous processes to the understanding of their beliefs than any religious community I am currently aware of..

so we found some skulls of gorilla like people, and found out that small changes over long periods of time can have big effects.  not a very satisfying or encompassing answer, now why do _you_ think that is?

[haunted]

Rather, I tend towards accepting the idea of Darwinian evolution as a more reasonable process around the development and evolution of man, as this concept is more universially accepted within the scientific community - which applies far more rigorous processes to the understanding of their beliefs than any religious community I am currently aware of..

so we found some skulls of gorilla like people, and found out that small changes over long periods of time can have big effects.  not a very satisfying or encompassing answer, now why do _you_ think that is?

I know this isn't addressed to me, but personally I think that it isn't a satisfying or encompassing answer because it's only .0001% of the facts that support evolution. So yes, if all I knew in regard to this matter was limited to hominid fossils and micro-evolution I would be rather dissatisfied.

[reaper]

Small simple organims to a human brain, via evolution small changes over long periods of time lead to this.  It seems to me that the main "problem" is the complexitity of the brain, at a "practical" level.  In other words, how do you get something so complex with mutations, offspring, and their survival.  The important part of the process to understand is the small changes and the amount of time, so I consider what I said very accurate.

I will get back on why I figure this is not a complete explanation of life, and why it's disatisfying; although I've raised many of the arguments before.  these arguments aren't going anywhere either, despite flawed studied about "ahtiest countries", because they are obvious - the natural solution.

[haunted]

Yes but I don't think you understand the concept of time like you speak of, nor are you making the proper comparisons.

The concept of time is very important, you're right. Acknowledging that small changes occur over time is nice, but I don't get how you find it incomprehensible for tens of thousands+ of these "small changes" to add up into a "large change" over a near immeasurable time span. To me, it would be foolish to at least not be open-minded to the fact that this COULD be true. Your lack of open-mindedness to this fact suggests to me that you possibly don't understand the concept of time in this theory. If you make the comparisons from hominid taxonomy to literally any other group of inter-related specie then you will see similar patterns, over similar amounts of time. Making the point that you aren't satisfied because of the analogy of a simple organism to the brain just demonstrates a lack of understanding for the topic. You act like that there should be a single, absolute answer explaining the transformation of a simple organism to the human brain, and in turn you ffwd/skate over 99.999% of the facts that support the theory of evolution. It's just not an intellectual way to think about it, IMO.

I'm not taking a side though in this, I pretty much never do. Though I do think you wouldn't run into so many 'snags' in this debate if you focused your argument solely on intelligent design, without literal divine influence, and tying it into science as well.

[reaper]

I never said I don't agree with evolution.  If I look at a chimp it looks like a human, if I look at the changes in species I can see patterns, and so on. 

I don't even agree that some systems have to many components for evolution to work, like a machine requires 100 pieces a certain way, and these small changes couldn't add up to to a working machine.  All in all since we can see evolution happen, have the fossil records, and a good understanding of it, I have no problem believing these scientist's explanations of evolution.  What I have a problem with is saying how it applies to life and man.  For one evolution is just the start, like a method once the conditions of the universe are correct, and you get a good planet, things might happen.  In addition to that, the start is just an explosion into planets and stars which form life.  A little odd if you ask me, but I have much more to say than just that, and I welcome the arguments.

[Whirlingdervish]

I"m not sure what this obsession with evidence is

[fdrjk]

Quoth the reaper, nevermore.

[|iR|Focalor]

If I look at a chimp it looks like a human,

Some people look like monkeys. Black people have wide noses like gorillas.

[reaper]

reaper says, I"m not sure what this obsession with evidence is

yes and I still agree with that as well, I don't consider evolution an answer to much.

[|iR|Focalor]

Simba, the circle of life is complete!

[fdrjk]

reaper says, I"m not sure what this obsession with evidence is

yes and I still agree with that as well, I don't consider evolution an answer to much.

Why do you always delete the links in your quotes? 

[reaper]

what links?