Peanut Butter - The Atheist's Nightmare
- Thread starter amateursurgeon
- Start date
wut. This is about the school of evolution, not Hogwarts.
Life is evolving all around us, but it does take time. I thought it fantastic that this case took only 200 years, which is a blink on the evolutionary time scale.
You guys are hysterical. You expect things to happen before your eyes like magic. When it doesn't you say it's bogus. Why this surprises me, when you take fictitious orders from a fairy in the sky, I have no idea.
O'rly? You are truly amazing.
I offer a compelling question and you are able to characterize my entire belief system out of a few sentences.
The God-hate in this thread is not compelling fence-sitters to be shamed into believing we all dropped out of trees some umpteen billion years ago. How do you know what my beliefs are really?
Not one of us where there when God created the Earth.... and nobody was present when that fateful lightening bolt hit a mud puddle and created life.
No matter which way you lean, it's still all faith because we may never know for sure how we got here.
No, it's not. That's the whole point. There's overwhelming evidence for evolution, we do know how we get here as far as life on earth is concerned and we now have an understanding of how all species on earth are interlinked, some more closely to each other than others. All species on earth share the same ancestral gene pool.
We didn't just drop out of trees, I don't think you're grasping the amount of time we're talking about here. The whole of 'modern' human civilisation from 8k years ago is merely a split second in the evolutionary time scale.
Nope, all wrong. This is really simple, too.
We can't witness god creating a world & it's people. Further, the observable laws of the universe won't allow this to happen at all.
We CAN strike a mud puddle with lightning and create life. It's been done over and over since 1955. Plus, we can even create our own custom life from with our choice of eye colors in a petri dish because we know so damn much about genetics and DNA now.
There is no faith here. I don't have FAITH that life happens when you strike mudpuddles with lightning. I have MEMORY of watching a film about it, and having read other sources write about it in my textbooks in college.
Faith is for ignorant people that are too lazy to get shit straight.
I lol'd. That should be on a t-shirt.TurboLapDance said:
actually, i didn't think we were that close (or have ever been). Can you provide some links? This article doesn't mention that type of experiment
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think LotsOfZeros does have a point in that there is still some faith required no matter what you believe, if only in that you have faith that the science was performed without fraud.
One definition of faith reads as "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing". Everyone who subscribes to scientific theories is at least putting faith in the the scientist(s) who develop and test the evidence and also those that review and comment on the evidence.
So while science does work very hard to reduce the set of unexplainable phenomena around us (thus requiring less faith in the supernatural), anytime you take someone else's idea as your own, you are putting faith in them and their work.
That wikipedia entry obviously doesn't do the subject a lot of justice. Here's Carl Sagan back in the 1970's explaining it better than I can:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yet1xkAv_HY]YouTube - Abiogenesis: The Origin Of Life[/ame]
C'mon, did you get that definition out of "Faith for Dummies?"
Obviously the difference is there and is important.
You can prove some things, at least reasonably well, like how 1 phone number will call the same phone two times in a row. It could be argued that you need a modicum of faith to believe you will reach the same phone on the 3rd attempt. Sure, some might call that proven, but it's not really ever proven until after you've done it so until then you have to just have "faith" that it will happen.
Every human uses that kind of faith with every footstep he makes, every breath he takes, etc... This shit just cannot be compared to the silly faith that religious folk dare to call faith.
For the things you can't prove, like a giant, invisible, all-knowing fairy in the sky, that's a whole different ballgame of faith. There really should be a separate word for it, like "Stupid, incorrect belief." -Think we can get the Xtians to all agree to call it that? :jester:
So since the two meanings share the same word, let's smart folk try to use it correctly, ok?
Logically, there is no difference between one and the other.
You are required to assume consistency without any rational basis. Ie, you are betting that the laws of physics that govern activity are consistent.
Which is, in other words, faith.
Oh, but you will say "We have evidence! We have trillions of phone calls worth of evidence that calling a number reaches xy person on the other line."
Any clear thinker will know that this is circumstantial, not direct evidence, and the nature of time as we understand it provides no guarantees that what is n in the past will be n in the future. You're banking on it because your gut tells you to, not because it is so.
I don't expect any of the fundies here to get this. But those that do, respect. It's the first step to understanding science within its proper context instead of treating science like a fuckin' religion.
Can we stop mixing philosophy with science now?
I don't see anybody making any progress thinking like you do.
Scientist A: I discovered a new mutation.
Philosopher B: I don't believe it will happen again unless it happen again.
Me: Jump off a building.
Here's a more thorough explanation, examples given starting 3:00.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9It0VU6lIoo"]YouTube - Do you believe in Australia? p2 | Atheist Experience[/ame]
Why we don't need to have "faith" that Australia exists.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbcS234hvQc"]YouTube - Do you believe in Australia? (1/2)[/ame]
I don't see anybody making any progress thinking like you do.
Scientist A: I discovered a new mutation.
Philosopher B: I don't believe it will happen again unless it happen again.
Me: Jump off a building.
Here's a more thorough explanation, examples given starting 3:00.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9It0VU6lIoo"]YouTube - Do you believe in Australia? p2 | Atheist Experience[/ame]
Why we don't need to have "faith" that Australia exists.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbcS234hvQc"]YouTube - Do you believe in Australia? (1/2)[/ame]
Believing in superstition is the same thing as believing you can reach the same phone calling the right number more than twice?
The later has tons of evidence and proof to support it, testability and repeatability.
Now prove that virgin birth is possible, men can walk on water, heaven and hell exist and that a serpent can talk without a vocal cord.
Pam believes in Austrailia, and well at least you can see chain smoking australia jesus on his youtube channel
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfcs_1xIlHs]YouTube - Jesus is in Australia (Pam's 2nd coming) Part 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OVdIePeJXA]YouTube - Jesus is in Australia (Pam's 2nd coming) Part 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfcs_1xIlHs]YouTube - Jesus is in Australia (Pam's 2nd coming) Part 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OVdIePeJXA]YouTube - Jesus is in Australia (Pam's 2nd coming) Part 2[/ame]
Funny you mention the virgin birth:
Controversial Bible Revision: About That ‘Virgin’ Thing… - TIME NewsFeed
Lemme ask you something. Did "tons of experience and proof" plus "testability and repeatability" when it came to principles of classical mechanics allow us to infer that behavior at the subatomic level follows quantum theory?
Of course not. It was the opposite. When it comes to mechanics, "tons of experience and proof" plus "testability and repeatability" were an impediment to acceptance of quantum theory because you had to reject a vast body of dogma and start over when dealing with mechanics at the subatomic level.
It took a commitment to rationality to make us willing to reject the tons of prior experience and proof that classical mechanics explained everything and the ability to do this led to an increase in knowledge. It was the exact opposite of the blind scientific dogmatism we are seeing in this thread.
This isn't to say we should deny all experience and proof. It's to acknowledge the role that it plays. Keeping in mind that the default state of the universe is not order but chaos, and the second law of thermodynamics dictates that the universe is moving from order to chaos and any evolution in the reverse direction is an anomaly.
It's nice to have consistency and have everything work like clockwork so you have a big body of work to depend on, but it's good to have a healthy degree of skepticism.
Impartiality is where it's at.
Can we please stop the semantic trickery here?
The religioulous have no monopoly on the words "faith" and "belief" .. thse can mean different things from "religious faith" and "religious belief".
Example:
"I put faith in the judiciary system" .. "I believe in democracy".
Please put that shit to rest.
@Rusky
Funny you mention "no scales to feathers" when modern genetics point to birds being related to reptiles.
::emp::
The religioulous have no monopoly on the words "faith" and "belief" .. thse can mean different things from "religious faith" and "religious belief".
Example:
"I put faith in the judiciary system" .. "I believe in democracy".
Please put that shit to rest.
@Rusky
Funny you mention "no scales to feathers" when modern genetics point to birds being related to reptiles.
::emp::
So what you are saying is that if my belief is that we are all made and controlled by a purple monkey who lives in a bush it is just as valid as evolution as they are both faith based. What twaddle. You are either trolling the shit out of this thread or you are in serious need of an education and quite possibly a spell in "rehab"
A couple centuries ago, someone else made a similar argument. I believe it went something like:
"So what thou sayest to me, is that if some clowne is to believe that this hear earthe, this lande we stand upon be not flat, but be spherical in shape, yet he lackes sufficient proofe thereof of such a beliefe, I must remaine openn to the possibilitee? Indubitably preposterous, I say! I shall cutte offe his head!"
Scary how similar your argument is to the anti-scientific arguments throughout history.
This leads me to point I raised in a previous fairy tales vs science thread a while back.
For me, and many others I feel, I don't require faith in science to be an atheist, I just require to not believe in the ridiculousness that is religion. To not believe in some superstition and call myself an atheist does not immediately mean I'm behind science. I actually don't give that much of a toss about whether science is right or wrong about what is currently believed known.
What I am is amused, annoyed, angered and incredulous at religion's claims, it's stories and the effect it's had on the world. I find the whole thing completely and utterly ludicrous and feel like believers are tantamount to insane.
I actually feel sorry for people who believe. I pity them. Are you not able to think rationally? There's just no proof or any intelligent rationale in religious faith. Science not being able to prove things 100% doesn't mean religion is right, that's plain silly.
Religion is not something that needs to be disproved before it becomes considered the fallacy it is, en masse. It needs to be proven, because it's just stupid. Really stupid. We're born atheists (without religion, not believing in science...) and indoctrinated into a religion of our parent's choosing. The burden of proof is in religion's court.
I'm an atheist and I have nothing to prove. Why? Because I don't actually believe in anything, so I don't have to prove why religion is stupid, you have to prove why I'm wrong to find it funny.
I couldn't care less about religion's claims and the fear mongering used to indoctrinate the masses for generations. The same fear used to pilfer millions upon millions of coin in some kind of comical hell focused protection racket. "Oh yes sir, give me money and we'll make sure you gets to heaven..."
Seriously, grow the fuck up. You're not children, you're adults with a mind of your own. Apparently.
Cummon, now I know you are trolling, no one can be that blind. Scientific theory and religious faith have absolutely nothing in common, in fact they are polar opposites, one searches for the truth and the other blindly ignores anything that points away from their unfounded belief.
To invoke religious faith in itself indicates bias. Nobody is interested in imposing theology because theology as a field does not fit within the framework of science in the first place.
You're fighting a strawman if you are going at it from a science vs religion perspective.
The point is to be open to everything. Just like the dominance of classical mechanics dogma was shaken by quantum mechanics, just like the dominance of religious dogma was shaken by scientific inquiry, many of the foundations of our scientific principles could be shaken by a paradigm shift down the road.
It might not be religion. It could be anything. So why work so fervently to shut things down and invoke such a fervently anti-theistic perspective? Is it because of your commitment to atheism or humanism?
If your philosophical commitments stifle an openness to new possibilities, it's time to question the value of your commitment.
Remember, there was a time when the notion that the earth didn't revolve around the sun was ridiculed too.
You're fighting a strawman if you are going at it from a science vs religion perspective.
The point is to be open to everything. Just like the dominance of classical mechanics dogma was shaken by quantum mechanics, just like the dominance of religious dogma was shaken by scientific inquiry, many of the foundations of our scientific principles could be shaken by a paradigm shift down the road.
It might not be religion. It could be anything. So why work so fervently to shut things down and invoke such a fervently anti-theistic perspective? Is it because of your commitment to atheism or humanism?
If your philosophical commitments stifle an openness to new possibilities, it's time to question the value of your commitment.
Remember, there was a time when the notion that the earth didn't revolve around the sun was ridiculed too.
This thread itself is a great example to support both the Evolution and God (faith) theories.
Peanut Butter is for Evolution - What began as just a Peanut Butter thread caused chaos
And
amateursurgeon is for God - For being just one and causing chaos among WFers.
Now, me back to work!
Peanut Butter is for Evolution - What began as just a Peanut Butter thread caused chaos
And
amateursurgeon is for God - For being just one and causing chaos among WFers.
Now, me back to work!