Why I'm an Atheist

[l0ckp1ck]

another question, where does knowledge come from and the knowledge of god come from? and before i hear evolution i am going out on a limb to say cavemen humans did not exist. How did the word god and the idea of god come about?


"The term “prehistoric” means “belonging to the era before recorded history. There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men, half-ape creatures crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, we should keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview and are not the result of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves do not entirely agree with each other on the details". Furthermore scientists have still failed to find a conclusive link between so called "cave men" to the transition of real humans, so darwinian theory is flawed.

[|iR|Focalor]

i am going out on a limb to say cavemen humans did not exist.

Hopefully that limb ain't too high up, gravity's a motherfucker.

scientists have still failed to find a conclusive link between so called "cave men" to the transition of real humans, so darwinian theory is flawed.

So because unequivocal proof is missing, it must be a lie? Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said not to go pointing out splinters in others eyes when there is a beam in your own.

[l0ckp1ck]

that could have been done by another species not known as human, that was kinda the point of my last post. there is still no actual evidence of a leap between "cavemen" to humans. whats more i am still of the belief that a force has to have always existed indefinately, because you still can't get something out of nothing, no matter how much you try, and that is scientific fact. For the big bang to have occured something would have had to have existed before hand for it to happen, and what created atoms that caused the big bang? ect ect it just goes on, so the only conlusion you have is either nothing has ever existed or something has always existed, which what i have said before is hard to get your head around because time is man made, so we look at everything in terms of times and timelines.

[|iR|Focalor]

I wouldn't necessarily say that time is man made. How we define it and examine it is man made, but it doesn't really exist. Time is nothingness. In terms of art, molecules are the lines on the paper, and time is the paper itself, the void which the molecules exist in. When you have "time on your hands", you have nothing to do. I'd imagine that time is only relative to the observer and could change dramatically depending on locational perspective much like how the world appears to a child and a full grown adult. If you ever revisit your childhood home as an adult many years later, it's remarkable how much smaller it appears than what you remembered it as.

Perhaps on some far away planet that is billions of times larger than the earth, there exists intelligent life with bodies that compare to ours as fleas or microorganisms compare to us. Perhaps their average lifespan is what we would define as 9000 years. Perhaps their environment is effected by gravity to where they move much slower than we do, facilitating a longer life. Stephen Hawking was not the first to propose such an idea either. Read Voltaire's Micromegas.

On a planet revolving around the star Sirius there lived a young man of great intelligence, whose acquaintence I had the honor of making during his recent visit to our little anthill. He was called Micromegas, an appropriate name for great people. He had a stature of eight leagues, or 24,000 geometrical paces of five feet each, or 120,000 statute feet.

http://www.wondersmith.com/scifi/micro.htm

[QwazyWabbit]

that could have been done by another species not known as human, that was kinda the point of my last post. there is still no actual evidence of a leap between "cavemen" to humans.

If so, where are they? If they are extinct then why did they die out and where are their remains?

There was no leap. They were human. They left their signatures and they were just like us:

[haunted]

i thought caveman was a reference to a "man" living in prehistoric time..............perhaps in a cave? I don't understand at all how these people couldn't be human. lol????

[quadz]

another question, where does knowledge come from and the knowledge of god come from? and before i hear evolution i am going out on a limb to say cavemen humans did not exist. How did the word god and the idea of god come about?

"The term “prehistoric” means “belonging to the era before recorded history. There are some fossilizd ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men, half-ape creatures crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, we should keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview and are not the result of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves do not entirely agree with each other on the details". Furthermore scientists have still failed to find a conclusive link between so called "cave men" to the transition of real humans, so darwinian theory is flawed.

It's like 1859 all over again.

I think Tubby should step up and argue from the opposing viewpoint.

As Tubby observed, sometimes "it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information".

As such, I'm eager to witness what Tubby termed the "fresh insights" that could result in an argument between two people who have taken opposite sides in an argument without (apparently) either side having taken the trouble to educate itself on the past 150 years of discovery in the relevant field.... Ready? Set? Go!

[quadz]

that could have been done by another species not known as human, that was kinda the point of my last post. there is still no actual evidence of a leap between "cavemen" to humans.

If I recall correctly, we have uncovered evidence of evolution of our current species back over at least five or six ancestral species.

After that, there are a few gaps, but based on evidence so far, what we have is a giant jigsaw puzzle, with many of the pieces filled in.  Not just for our own ancestors, but the whole genetic tree of life. 

So we have this huge jigsaw puzzle depicting evolution, each piece fixed in place based on evidence, and it paints an overwhelming picture... and in this picture we have a few gaps, and we get people pointing at the gaps like they've made some amazing discovery.

Seriously Alpha, there are actually books.

Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
Why Evolution Is True

whats more i am still of the belief that a force has to have always existed indefinately, because you still can't get something out of nothing, no matter how much you try, and that is scientific fact. For the big bang to have occured something would have had to have existed before hand for it to happen, and what created atoms that caused the big bang?

Quantum mechanics allows a universe (like ours) having zero total energy to begin as a quantum fluctuation.

Somehow, I doubt you care about the answer, so you may instead want help in re-phrasing your question so that it can occupy the next gap.  (Maybe of the form: "OK, but even if even if a universe like ours can begin from nothing, ...")

[QwazyWabbit]

A great quote from that video:

"The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time - including life." - Lawrence Krauss

[l0ckp1ck]

Quantum mechanics allows a universe (like ours) having zero total energy to begin as a quantum fluctuation

i am no scientific genious but i did do a bit of research on this and this is what i found, and i quote


"The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, however
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question."


by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff Astronomical Society of the Pacific.


so what that says to me you may be right, but then again it could be wrong and just an assumption because as it says they still can't answer where that initial energy comes from, so it is just another theory. however i will say my fav science person to listen to is physicist michio kaku. i never said i believed 100% in god and i don't believe 100% in evolution either. both sides have their arguments and are flimsy at some points. i have always been into the sci fi side but u just never know there could indeed be a god

[Tubby]

Btw Quadz, you never responded to my suggestion that perhaps, sometimes, it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information in order to tell the forest from the trees (post #207). I just put that to you because - as you're obviously highly literate in scientific matters - perhaps you have an inherent bias against someone who argues at a more instinctual level???

He has no bias, nor do I. I have no doubt that you are arguing at the "instinctual level". Rest assured that I know that your views are not widely accepted and are formulated by your best "instinct". What you have trouble with, is when your instinct completely contradicts scientific facts. For example, if someone proved me wrong with factual information: My instinct would be to research this matter and learn about it, if factual information contradicted what I had to say. This is intellectual thought at it's best; learning from your mistakes.. expanding your mind PAST what you know and accepting that your best inference about the topic is wrong .....I say inference because in a complex scientific topic your instinct without research/fact just becomes your best, aimless assumption or inference. This isn't an argument that can be won with philosophy or rhetoric. Applying those concepts to a scientific debate while contradicting factual information makes you lose any credibility, whatsoever.

Haunted, I can't disagree with any of that - apart from one thing:

I started this thread with the intention of discussing Atheism vs. Theism. Since belief or otherwise in a god is as much a philosophical as a scientific question, such a debate cannot be argued on scientific ideals alone.

That's what I mean when I say it's counterproductive to address the topic from a purely scientific (or from a purely philisophical) angle - as you, Quadz, and others seem to suggest I should be doing. I think you need to be a little removed from both, like I said, in order to tell the forest from the trees.

[Tubby]

I think Tubby should step up and argue from the opposing viewpoint.

As Tubby observed, sometimes "it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information".

As such, I'm eager to witness what Tubby termed the "fresh insights" that could result in an argument between two people who have taken opposite sides in an argument without (apparently) either side having taken the trouble to educate itself on the past 150 years of discovery in the relevant field.... Ready? Set? Go!

Wow Quadz, you must have a brain the size of a house to have "educated (yourself) on the past 150 years" of scientific discovery & thought.

If that post was not self-righteous and arrogant beyond anything I have ever posted on this thread, nothing is.

However, Quadz, as you apparently feel qualified to debate the topic at hand - which involves both scientific AND philosophical discovery & thought (which by your definition would require the equivalent of 300 years of education to debate) - I guess you must have a brain the size of two houses.

Good for you.

[|iR|Focalor]

I think Tubby should step up and argue from the opposing viewpoint.

As Tubby observed, sometimes "it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information".

As such, I'm eager to witness what Tubby termed the "fresh insights" that could result in an argument between two people who have taken opposite sides in an argument without (apparently) either side having taken the trouble to educate itself on the past 150 years of discovery in the relevant field.... Ready? Set? Go!

Wow Quadz, you must have a brain the size of a house to have "educated (yourself) on the past 150 years" of scientific discovery & thought.

If that post was not self-righteous and arrogant beyond anything I have ever posted on this thread, nothing is.

However, Quadz, as you apparently feel qualified to debate the topic at hand - which involves both scientific AND philosophical discovery & thought (which by your definition would require the equivalent of 300 years of education to debate) - I guess you must have a brain the size of two houses.

Good for you.

That.

...or you just don't understand how to read.

I don't understand why you would be insulted by the tone of his reply. You basically said, "sometimes it's better to know fuck-all about a subject when putting it to the question." Being someone who admits to basing their understanding of the world on reality rather than faith, I would think you would show more favor towards factual academic knowledge rather than your own fresh ideas which are nothing more than feelings and suppositions (ie FAITH).

Maybe you perceive the reply to be arrogant simply because you subconsciously acknowledge the fact that he is indeed more educated than you are on the subject, thus the reason why your only means of convincing yourself that your opinion is more valid than his is because your thoughts are "fresh insights", whilst his are formulaic spoonfed and regurgitated book-borne facts that are clear evidence of his own brainwashing. Am I right?

Yeah, he ain't the only one laughing at your attempts to wow with bullshit.

[Tubby]

For the big bang to have occured something would have had to have existed before hand for it to happen, and what created atoms that caused the big bang? ect ect it just goes on, so the only conlusion you have is either nothing has ever existed or something has always existed, which what i have said before is hard to get your head around because time is man made

Alpha, you say "for the big bang to have occured something would have had to have existed before hand for it to happen".

That's what you've been told to believe by today's scientists who think they have all the answers right here and right now. But maybe they actually need another 10, 50, 100, or 1000 years of scientific evolution and discovery before they can actually answer your question with confidence.

You need to be aware that everything a scientist tells you today won't necessarily be the 'facts' of tommorow, because scientific ideas and principles inherently change and evolve over time.

Having said that, I'm sure science will one day be able to answer your question - It may just take a little more time (and tolerance) for it to happen.

[Tubby]

I think Tubby should step up and argue from the opposing viewpoint.

As Tubby observed, sometimes "it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information".

As such, I'm eager to witness what Tubby termed the "fresh insights" that could result in an argument between two people who have taken opposite sides in an argument without (apparently) either side having taken the trouble to educate itself on the past 150 years of discovery in the relevant field.... Ready? Set? Go!

Wow Quadz, you must have a brain the size of a house to have "educated (yourself) on the past 150 years" of scientific discovery & thought.

If that post was not self-righteous and arrogant beyond anything I have ever posted on this thread, nothing is.

However, Quadz, as you apparently feel qualified to debate the topic at hand - which involves both scientific AND philosophical discovery & thought (which by your definition would require the equivalent of 300 years of education to debate) - I guess you must have a brain the size of two houses.

Good for you.

That.

...or you just don't understand how to read.

I don't understand why you would be insulted by the tone of his reply. You basically said, "sometimes it's better to know fuck-all about a subject when putting it to the question." Being someone who admits to basing their understanding of the world on reality rather than faith, I would think you would show more favor towards factual academic knowledge rather than your own fresh ideas which are nothing more than feelings and suppositions (ie FAITH).

Maybe you perceive the reply to be arrogant simply because you subconsciously acknowledge the fact that he is indeed more educated than you are on the subject, thus the reason why your only means of convincing yourself that your opinion is more valid than his is because your thoughts are "fresh insights", whilst his are formulaic spoonfed and regurgitated book-borne facts that are clear evidence of his own brainwashing. Am I right?

Yeah, he ain't the only one laughing at your attempts to wow with bullshit.

Focalor, right from the start of this thread I stated that I don't profess to have any facts, and that I only wanted to debate the topic of atheism vs. belief in god.

Others, however, seem to have taken exception to this and responded with what they seem to believe are universal and immutable truths.