Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by Fennica

Yes.
-Where they got their DNA? From the generation before them in a fabulous chain of humanity.

-I am quite sure you try to pull either deities or Adam&Eve story soon, so I am waiting and smiling.


No.
-As I already explained to you, your `soul´ is your electrical impulses in your brain.

If there is a interruption or damage in your brain, there is a good chance your whole persona will also change.

There is not a single evidence that the electrical impulses which make you a you, go on after your mechanics shut down.
-Celestial plains are told not to have Earthly bodies, therefore the elctrical signal cannot exist in the same form.
(and even if it did, religious teachings state that there is no sorrow in the celestial plains, which in turn means that your `soul´ gets altered anyway)

In short; there is no soul.

Adam and eve where not the only people on the world...They were the beginning of the family line that brought forth the Christ.....Now if you knew anything about Christianity instead of what you wish to believe you would know that. No instead you would rather act like we are all to stupid to understand anything cause only the dumb would have faith............Yep again showing that famous tolerance of the Atheists.


By the way DNA or coded genomes originate from our creator not the generation before us.

See I know there is a soul. Why? Cause I can love.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You got to love the "No Offense but your a dumb ass" Defense you keep using.

Only when reason clashes with religious thoughs and presents an amusing aspects of faithful.

You can not prove God doesn't exist.

Which deity?
-How can you claim that you have faith when you haev zero evidence to present?

Every religious form from the beginning of times have had that issue; the lack of evidence.

Moreover, you are the one with an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof rests firmly on your manly shoulders.

Hell in my highly complex DNA you seem to half ass flaunt there is more evidence saying he does.....Unless the big bang JUST happened to come along and make complex life everywhere.

Two different subjects rammed into one.
-The big-Bang theory, which means an expansion of singularity, has nothing to do with theory of evolution which explains your DNA.
-Your falty idea that complex life come in a magical jump...is from the bible. Scientific method claims no such thing, Cosmology has no connection to that and birth of life is at the moment under careful study.

Still makes no difference. Us pushy Christians dont care that you dont believe ( we feel sad for you but dont really care to stop you).

And yet another mistake.
-Atheists do not believe. Sorry.

Yet for some reason it irritates atheist beyond belief that we do Believe....To the fact that they DEMAND we don't exercise our freedom to worship any damn where we wish.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
-The Christians have taken great many liberties and are nor screaming when they are put in line with every other practise of faith.

Why? Cause it might offend your fragile ideas on faith.....If atheism is so fantastic it should matter to you how we worship or where or with whom.

Fragile? Hardly.
-Recent survey made it very clear that atheists and agnostics know the books of faith better than the religous.

I personally have no issues on faiths, so long as they do not attempt to hijack cultural aspects which are not meant to house faiths.
-The U.S. has suffered that in recent times by brain-loss. Meaning that more and more advanced science is made outside U.S. labs and universities due to the rise of fanatic faithfuls who attempt to take over the classrooms and halls of education.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Adam and eve where not the only people on the world...

Well, according to the contradictionary biblical tales, there were angles on Earth (the fallen angels), no other people and/or other humans this jahve created in one of the part of the genesis.
-So, I would ask you to point out that biblical part you now present.

They were the beginning of the family line that brought forth the Christ.....

Well, the Gospels (which also contradict each others) have include quite a few add-ons to make this supposed Jesus as from that lineage.
-This was done to fulfill messianic event.

Not only that, but the claim that there were others than Adam&Eve also has to be looked via Noah's flood...
-I might ask some biblical quotes and/or passages.

Now if you knew anything about Christianity instead of what you wish to believe you would know that.

Worked with the local parish. Next attempt to ridicule, please.
-Amusing enough, most christian sects, the all 38000 of them, do not agree with what they believe in.

No instead you would rather act like we are all to stupid to understand anything cause only the dumb would have faith............Yep again showing that famous tolerance of the Atheists.

It has more to do with why you believe in. See, scientific method makes nearly all the biblical tales poor comedy at best.
-Tolerance towards ignorant people who want to impose their particular faith-system at the costs of civil liberties and advances of our entire species, I have not.

By the way DNA or coded genomes originate from our creator not the generation before us.

Amusing claim, care to continue??
-Please do!

See, if you read your bible, you will see that the creation made everything in their present form.
-Humans have a long past and lineage. We know that today.

See I know there is a soul. Why? Cause I can love.

Love has nothing to do with anything non-material. It's chemistry.
-If your best jab to defend a notion of a `soul´ is a chemical reaction to tie up people in groups, you are on thin ice.

See, love and marriage, single couple sex and our way of culture is not universal. Nearly all the primitive cultures/tribal societies are not monogamyous. Instead, women can have sex with who they please and children referr all men as `father´. This ensures that men aid women and defend any kid.
-How does your notion of partnership and love stand with that?

Originally Posted by Fennica

I must say that there is a contridiciton then. Scientific field does not assume deities or magic, nor does the science include any holy scriptures.
-Therefore the assumption that Biblical lore is supported and supplemented by science is rather odd stance.

You’ve misapprehended my point. The biblical assumptions are that the Bible is internally consistent, God created the Heavens and the earth and etc. Whereas, the ‘scientific’ [materialist assumptions in this instance, actually] assumptions are that all of reality is explainable in purely materialistic terms ie, as a consequence of natural laws interacting with matter.

It’s important to note that one is no more ’scientific’ than the other since science is merely a method of inquiry---a kind of discipline, in the sense that it has its own rules and methodology. In other words, it could well be that the Bible is true and this would have nothing to say about science or how it operates.

What these debates come down to is a battle of unprovable assumptions---that‘s why there is never a clear winner. Science is a side-bar.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Actually... yes there is.

Keep on the biblical path;
-Adam and Eve are the `first ones´ and therefore all the people are directly related to those two. The same genetic make that they would have had would therefore be in their offsprings... and religious christians say that this means us.
-Genes would be the same.

Only if the angels/deities corrupted bloodlines would be present, would the genetic make be different.
-To rid this taint, jahve killed the entire planet..

Interesting hypothesis, that.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Yeap, that's called evolution.
-THere are precious few scientific theories which have gone through as much scrutiny and the ToE, and it really does expalin every single living organism on this rock.

I strongly disagree with that. At best [and this is being generous], Darwinism explains common ancestry. It has nothing to say about the origin of life or how genomes came into existence in the first place [essentially the same question].

Darwin himself assumed the pre-existence of life as a starting point for his theory.

Originally Posted by Fennica

We have mapped the genome of huge amounts of plants and animals. The commonalities of genetic make does present an answer to that question.

But the conclusion and assumption is one and the same.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Nope, the assumptions of relations between different species of animals can be either confirmed or debunked based on genetics.
-Animals which look similar and have been thought to belong into the same branch within the tree (bush) of life have been moved to the appropriate places thanks to the mapping of their genes.
(same with plants, but Flora actually offers much more precise and clear markings than Fauna)

The claim that these genomes have been created by a deity/-ies has no foundation.
-And bear in mind that evolution is a process which has no final goal.

Some people brought up the subject of devolution but that simply does not happen.

Blind cave salamanders are a clear case of devolution. Vestigal organs are an instance of devolution [reverse evolution for the uninitiated].

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the assuming-the-conclusion fallacy.

Originally Posted by Fennica

I have not made this claim, Young Earth Creationists have.
-They have little understanding on the whole genetics and actually think that grand perfections such as Adam and Eve would not pass on the same genes.
-I claim that if these two imaginary humans would have superior genetic make, WE would have it too.

We do not, they have not therefore existed.

(and the bible speaks that no new generation will have people older than Adam, and then later lists quite a few which supposedly did outlive him)

I think it said that ‘mans years will be 120’ [a kind of maximum limit] and it eventually settled on that number. And indeed, that is where it currently stands.

Regarding genetics: modern genetics as a science was founded by a Christian monk [Mendel] and I’ve never encountered a knowledgeable YEC who didn’t comprehend it---or the distinction between genetics and Darwinism.

Originally Posted by Fennica

That is right, bible does paint that impossible scenario.
-THe question "why" is left in the dark. Why the life-span diminishes? After all, they have the same genes.

The Big Bang paints an impossible scenario. Again, the biblical assumption is that Adam had the same genes as us but they have become corrupted over time and left us with Down’s Syndrome and the myriad other genetic maladies. My only point is that it’s an assumption that can’t be proven or disproved.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Nowhere.
-But what evidence we have that people actually lived that long?

Only the biblical lore, and that is woefully ignorant of the long timelines and other high-cultures around the Globe.

Yes and no. See, the bible speaks of degeneration and long lifespans. It also talks about Global flood and talking snakes. Talks without a hint of evidence.
-It's not a very reliable source, therefore I personally dismiss it alltogether.

If a snake talked thousands of years ago is it reasonable to expect to see evidence of it? Same ditto for the human longevity issue. I think your objection is more along the lines it’s considered impossible because you’ve never witnessed it. Which is fine.

OTOH, have you ever witnessed life emerging from non-life? If not, why you dismiss only one and not both---when there is evidence of neither?

Originally Posted by Fennica

-The biblical timelines are far too short to allow population migrate and adopt itself into new enviroments.
-We (the humans) have found and continue to find ancient high-cultures from far-flung areas which constantly push backwards the historical eras.
-We have suffered all manner of hardship via disease and natural occurances and therefore our rate of breeding has been slow. Moreover, our ability to settle down has required vast amounts of special information. And special specific jobs.
-Before, we migrated and moved in rather small tribes as the areas could not sustain our numbers for very long.
-THe stone-age was followed by the short Copper-Age and long Bronze-Age. Then later Iron-Age. Biblical World jumps right into the eras of Bronze-Age, and assumes that people knew how to craft tools and cultivate lands just like that.
-Domesticated animals have not been with humans for too long, yet bible assumes that we always had those animals on our side. We made them.

Your objection about insufficient migration time is an argument-from-incredulity. In principle, there would be nothing to prevent a small initial population of humans from inhabiting pretty much the whole planet within several thousand years. Note that I’m not saying they did---just that it’s entirely possible.

Let’s see, I agree that man domesticated animals [we didn’t actually ‘make’ them] but I call them products of intelligent design. Because that's what they are.

Reality beckons.

Originally Posted by darth omar

You’ve misapprehended my point. The biblical assumptions are that the Bible is internally consistent, God created the Heavens and the earth and etc.

Consistent, the bible is not.

Whereas, the ‘scientific’ [materialist assumptions in this instance, actually] assumptions are that all of reality is explainable in purely materialistic terms ie, as a consequence of natural laws interacting with matter.

Materialistic views are within the boundaries of reality.
-We have to be in that realm, otherwise magic can be declared.

It’s important to note that one is no more ’scientific’ than the other since science is merely a method of inquiry---a kind of discipline, in the sense that it has its own rules and methodology. In other words, it could well be that the Bible is true and this would have nothing to say about science or how it operates.

Nope, I disagree.
-Scientific label fits only to the scientific method, biblical truths are neither provable nor realistic.

What these debates come down to is a battle of unprovable assumptions---that‘s why there is never a clear winner. Science is a side-bar.

Science is understanding of the World around us. While it is materialistic, it's also within reality.
-Therefore I will never view any religous ideas on par with scientific method.

Interesting hypothesis, that.

It is, and well within the biblical boundaries.

I strongly disagree with that. At best [and this is being generous], Darwinism explains common ancestry. It has nothing to say about the origin of life or how genomes came into existence in the first place [essentially the same question].

I would advice not to use the "Darwinism" word, because that was outdated term in the 19th century. (and YEC use that as they are a bit loss to the theory)
-So, the Theory of Evolution has been altered as new information has become present. Darwin was one of the first to write this mechanics down, but it has very little to do with him these days.

Theory of Evolution does not talk about the beginning, because that is not change over time.
-That is abiogenesis

Darwin himself assumed the pre-existence of life as a starting point for his theory.

That actually bear little meaning. Newton was an alchemist but that part of his works was wrong. Great scientists can get things wrong.

But the conclusion and assumption is one and the same.

Yes, I agree.
-We know that life began quite a many millions of years ago. It is under study.

Blind cave salamanders are a clear case of devolution. Vestigal organs are an instance of devolution [reverse evolution for the uninitiated].

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the assuming-the-conclusion fallacy.

Ah, no. Those examples were expected (I waited any X cave dweller) but they are simply adaptation to the enviroment over period of time. Known as evolution.

I think it said that ‘mans years will be 120’ [a kind of maximum limit] and it eventually settled on that number. And indeed, that is where it currently stands.

And should you look at humans life-spans through-out history, you'd see that generally lives have been...short.
-We are nowadays old because of our medicine, not because of godly set perimiters.

120 years is not the avarage by a -long- shot.
-I might add a nice historical mechanic which makes you think; grain grinder.

Early Jews used grinder-stones to make flour. This method of making flour produced stone into breads which in turn destroyed peoples teeth. There would be 40-year old Jews with no decent bite. They'd have to have quite a soft diet for quite some time.

Regarding genetics: modern genetics as a science was founded by a Christian monk [Mendel] and I’ve never encountered a knowledgeable YEC who didn’t comprehend it---or the distinction between genetics and Darwinism.

Many great scientists during those times were christians, simply because of the Cultural Sphere of influence was as it was in those times.
-Ah, don't use "Darwinism", it's outdated and only YECs use it.

The Big Bang paints an impossible scenario.

We can rewind the cosmic events to that event. How it is an impossible scenario?

Again, the biblical assumption is that Adam had the same genes as us but they have become corrupted over time and left us with Down’s Syndrome and the myriad other genetic maladies. My only point is that it’s an assumption that can’t be proven or disproved.

Corrupted, how?
-Us humans have constant mutations, most of which are not even effective to aid/hamper induviduals. THey are but do not manifest in any way, or manifest in minute way.
But corrupted?

If a snake talked thousands of years ago is it reasonable to expect to see evidence of it?

In paradise.. made by a the very same deity which is supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent. See, the only way the talking snake makes sense when looked at the biblical view, is that jahve made it.. meant it to talk to Adam&Eve and therefore cast humans from Paradise.
-So much for a loving deity.

Same ditto for the human longevity issue. I think your objection is more along the lines it’s considered impossible because you’ve never witnessed it. Which is fine.

It's rationality. Appealing to magic is not too wise.

OTOH, have you ever witnessed life emerging from non-life? If not, why you dismiss only one and not both---when there is evidence of neither?

That is abiogenesis, and at the moment scientists are very close on solving that issue.
-Aminoacids with proper chemical surroundings. Soon.

Your objection about insufficient migration time is an argument-from-incredulity.

Noo, I base it on the many Great-Cultures which are all over the Globe, older than biblical lore suggests. With humans with massive variations.

In principle, there would be nothing to prevent a small initial population of humans from inhabiting pretty much the whole planet within several thousand years.

This. Is. The. Heart. Of. The. Issue.
-It cannot happen. Not with the technological level, migration routes and long history of humanity.
-I also point out towards the human species which have died out.

Note that I’m not saying they did---just that it’s entirely possible.

Not in rational Worldview.

Let’s see, I agree that man domesticated animals [we didn’t actually ‘make’ them] but I call them products of intelligent design. Because that's what they are.

Reality beckons.

Yet bible speaks of the creation of those what we humans made.
-Intelligent design is what we humans do.

fennica,

Let's make this scientific...
"Consistent, the bible is not." - Tell me the FIRST verse in Genesis where YOU find inconsistency.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Not quite, and no one is "teary eyed."

Also, you are wrong. I have no problem with who you believe in. You have every right to worship whatever God you decide on. Just stay out of my life and right to live it the way I see fit. Christians cannot seem to do this else seperation of Church and State would be a non issue. If there is some Atheist running around saying you have no right to worship, take that up with them chief. As for the public part, you may want to elaborate on that a little. Not sure where I ever referenced public displays of religious belief. I can see a potential concern over public meaning involving government space but that is probably another OP and thread.

How is this different than any other impositions that have nothing to do with religion? There are tons of moral laws that are based more on culture than religion. Hell, that's probably the majority of them as the only issue directly related to religion is homosexuality. That's pretty much it.

Originally Posted by Fennica

This yet another fallacy put forth by religious people.
-Christian moralities are brutal, unjust and cruel. Your moralities are the product of the Sphere of Culture you live in.

Really? Hmmm....there is nothing to support that statement but it proves that you actually do hate religion or religious people, regardless of how much you try and deny it.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Liberal by definition allows wide variety of views to be presented and is tolerant.
-Such mindset is what your very founding fathers had and thus were able to form a nation from a groups of different people.

Classic liberalism sure. This is not to be confused with the power hungry, statists who want to control one from cradle to grave to the doctors we go to, to the customers we have, to who are neighbors are, to what we eat, to what our children learn, who give out licenses though they do not own what they license, tax over 50%, indebted over 100%, who parade around by that word today.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Consistent, the bible is not.

In your opinion. My point is that what you are trying disprove is an assumption. Assumptions are notoriously hard to disprove---including materialist assumptions.

Hence, the seemingly eternal debate.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Materialistic views are within the boundaries of reality.
-We have to be in that realm, otherwise magic can be declared.

So, since the boundaries of reality are confined by materialist views, ergo, all of reality is necessarily materialistic. You have a bit of circular reasoning going on there [to put it mildly] and I think you were aware of it because you tried to justify it with the second sentence.

Let’s just say that science is unable to discern another reality than the one we inhabit because it is constrained by methodological naturalism---and leave it at that. Since that is all science has to say about it.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Science is understanding of the World around us. While it is materialistic, it's also within reality.
-Therefore I will never view any religous ideas on par with scientific method.

Well again, science is constrained by its methodology. So ‘it’ makes no statements about any other reality besides the one it can discern with its instruments and methods. It is necessarily mute about it, in fact. So, in the second statement you are speaking for yourself and not science. Further, the second statement has no basis in science unless one wants to resign themselves to circularity of thought---as pointed out previously.

Originally Posted by Fennica

I would advice not to use the "Darwinism" word, because that was outdated term in the 19th century. (and YEC use that as they are a bit loss to the theory)
-So, the Theory of Evolution has been altered as new information has become present. Darwin was one of the first to write this mechanics down, but it has very little to do with him these days.

I say ‘Darwinism’ to make what is all-to-often a necessary distinction in these debates. I mentioned Darwinism in response to this:

Originally Posted by Fennica

-THere are precious few scientific theories which have gone through as much scrutiny and the ToE, and it really does explain every single living organism on this rock.

When you claim that ToE ‘explains every single living organism on this rock’ I took that to mean that it explains their origin. In fact, I don’t know how else to take it. I’m not saying you do it, but I’ve encountered more than a few Darwin advocates who had a bad habit of purposely conflating the two when it suited their rhetorical purposes and then back pedaling and claiming that the apparent failure of abiogenesis, under no circumstances, disproves ToE---since they are two separate things.

Suffice to say, I will cling to my Darwinism since Darwin himself made the distinction in his book.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Ah, no. Those examples were expected (I waited any X cave dweller) but they are simply adaptation to the enviroment over period of time. Known as evolution.

If you want to call that adaptive evolution, fine. The problem is this: in order for it to remain a viable theory it can’t rely on what amounts to a losing proposition in terms of organizational complexity. You’re accountant can be thrown in prison for doing pretty much the same thing.

Originally Posted by Fennica

And should you look at humans life-spans through-out history, you'd see that generally lives have been...short.
-We are nowadays old because of our medicine, not because of godly set perimiters.

120 years is not the avarage by a -long- shot.
-I might add a nice historical mechanic which makes you think; grain grinder.

Early Jews used grinder-stones to make flour. This method of making flour produced stone into breads which in turn destroyed peoples teeth. There would be 40-year old Jews with no decent bite. They'd have to have quite a soft diet for quite some time.

The common sense interpretation of the verse in question is that it was intended as an outer limit and not an average. The bit about the Jewish grinders is interesting but I don’t see how it is relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Fennica

This. Is. The. Heart. Of. The. Issue.
-It cannot happen. Not with the technological level, migration routes and long history of humanity.
-I also point out towards the human species which have died out.

It’s still an argument-from-incredulity. There isn’t some magical barrier that would prevent a relatively small population of humans from dispersing over the planet in 10,000 years or less.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Many great scientists during those times were christians, simply because of the Cultural Sphere of influence was as it was in those times.
-Ah, don't use "Darwinism", it's outdated and only YECs use it.

Yes, many Christians made great contributions to science. As long as there are Darwinian advocates/believers there will be Darwinism since that is what they espouse.

Originally Posted by Fennica

That is abiogenesis, and at the moment scientists are very close on solving that issue.
-Aminoacids with proper chemical surroundings. Soon.

Well, I see absolutely no basis for being optimistic about their prospects. In fact, they are going about it all wrong, imo. The origin of life is a problem of the origin of biological information and not a mere matter of getting the right chemicals to appear in the right places and time.

The fact they are still going about it that way tells me they don’t even understand the problem.

DNA for example, from the standpoint of chemistry, is just a bunch of neucleotides linked together; but what is important about it is the sequence of neucleotides and what that information ’means’ in a biological sense.

Point blank: they are absolutely no where near solving that riddle and it may well, in fact, be inexplicable.

.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

How is this different than any other impositions that have nothing to do with religion? There are tons of moral laws that are based more on culture than religion. Hell, that's probably the majority of them as the only issue directly related to religion is homosexuality. That's pretty much it.

I findit fascinating when I read a posting that is absolute proof that the poster either has never the text they are commenting on or doesn't bother to apply themselves due to emotional or intellectual disinterest.
From the very beginning of the Bible there are narratives and history commenting on the direction of mankind and whether or not the actions of man are considered condusive to mankind's development.

One of God's first opnions us that it is NOT good for Man to be alone and thus REQUIRES a companion to "give constructive criticism and assistance".
The unfortunate fact is that the English compund word to describe the Help/Meet (A-Zer K'Negdoe) is a horrible translation.

God also does not approve of deception as in Kayin (Cain) denying the whereabouts of "his brother" Hevel (Abel ).
God also does not approve of an egregarious attitude, "Am I my brother's keeper?"; well, yeah, you are.
God also does not approve of providing your siblings and children with a bad example, "Cain: Everywhere I go people will want to kill me."; yeah, because you trained them to be selfish a$$holes.

Pay as much attention your bible as to your next acquisition of a laptop.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I findit fascinating when I read a posting that is absolute proof that the poster either has never the text they are commenting on or doesn't bother to apply themselves due to emotional or intellectual disinterest.
From the very beginning of the Bible there are narratives and history commenting on the direction of mankind and whether or not the actions of man are considered condusive to mankind's development.

One of God's first opnions us that it is NOT good for Man to be alone and thus REQUIRES a companion to "give constructive criticism and assistance".
The unfortunate fact is that the English compund word to describe the Help/Meet (A-Zer K'Negdoe) is a horrible translation.

God also does not approve of deception as in Kayin (Cain) denying the whereabouts of "his brother" Hevel (Abel ).
God also does not approve of an egregarious attitude, "Am I my brother's keeper?"; well, yeah, you are.
God also does not approve of providing your siblings and children with a bad example, "Cain: Everywhere I go people will want to kill me."; yeah, because you trained them to be selfish a$$holes.

Pay as much attention your bible as to your next acquisition of a laptop.

I don't know really know how your post relates to what I said, your interest in my biblical understanding aside (which you have no idea how much I know and do not know). If you're trying to say that the Bible, NT or OT, doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality, then you're wrong.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I don't know really know how your post relates to what I said, your interest in my biblical understanding aside (which you have no idea how much I know and do not know). If you're trying to say that the Bible, NT or OT, doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality, then you're wrong.

I apologize for the ambiguity.
You comment on the moral basis of humanity not originating from the Bible.
You're are incorrect.
I gave but a smidgen of examples.

Homosexuality is indeed covered but by Torah standards private sexual behavior should not be the basis for a political campaign.