Atheism

[redbaron]

lol "I am a God Warrior!"

[bujin]

www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/talking_point_atheism.html

VERY simplistic viewpoints there. Doesn't really capture what atheism is about.

* Believers say that without God and religion there are no ethical or moral codes.

Bulls*it. As Dawkins says, if people get their ethical and moral codes from religion, they cannot have read their religious texts, or they pick and choose which bits of text to use.

For example, is it still moral to stone people to death if they work on the weekend?

* Believers accuse godless societies such as Stalin's Russia of carrying out murderous crimes but atheists say his crimes were committed without reference to his beliefs about religion.

I forget who said it, but someone said that without religion, you'd get good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. With religion, you also get good people doing bad things in the name of their religion.

* Believers claim that atheists cannot disprove the existence of God.

Bertrand Russell's Teapot. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fairies. Unicorns. etc... You know the argument.

* Some scientists are religious and some scientists have become priests.

Compartmentalisation. They don't approach the idea of God in a scientific way.

* Some religious scientists believe that the complex and intricate structure of the natural world proves that it was created by 'intelligent design' and is not the result of evolution.

Then they're not real scientists. The whole "complex and intricate structure of the natural world is easily, and more elegantly explained through things like natural selection.

* Some religious believers ask what preceded the big bang.

Well if it was God, where did God come from and what was before him?

* Advocates of religion admit that their beliefs are based on faith in what they cannot see and unquestioning belief in sacred texts. They claim that atheists, too, are basing their ideas on faith – in the powers of science – and won't question texts such as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.

Utter bulls*it. If someone came along with some evidence that disproved Charles Darwin's theories, the vast majority of scientists would accept it. But it requires evidence. There is no need for FAITH to be involved.

Currently, 55% of the people believe that without religion, there would be no moral codes. I remember Richard Dawkins on one interview in his recent tour of North America, assisted by the radio show host, absolutely destroying the argument of one religious guy who phoned in and made him look like a complete arse, by constantly asking him if there was no religion, would he kill his next-door neighbour for no good reason, and this guy responding that he probably would! Then he can't really be a good person if he is only doing good things for fear of the wrath of God!!!

I also remember a discussion on another forum whereby one religious poster said that if the Bible said it was ok to rape women, he would have no problem in doing so. (Incidentally, the Bible mentions rape and degrading of women on several occasions).

People who believe they would act immorally in the absence of religion are not very nice people. I don't believe in religion or God, yet I don't even like killing insects, let alone people! I used to be horribly arachnophobic, but where some people would use their vacuum cleaner to remove the little critters, I'd trap them and throw them out of the house - even though it made my pulse race, my throat go dry, my stomach nauseous, etc... I don't kill things unless it is absolutely necessary.

But I don't believe in God. I shall surely go to hell. If it exists...

[Amaris]

bone said:

I hope you are going to watch "30 Days" tonight where an atheist is going to be living with a religous Texas family..that should be interesting.

Yep I am, should be good....but got to watch it at 10 because my son is watching football

As for the Atheist programme I missed it but I have read in reviews of Dawkins book that religious critics have accused atheists of being comparable to believers, but I don't get that comparison, it seems illogical.
I am STILL reading Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion ( it's quite heavy going for me & not having much time lately!! lol ) but its very interesting & although I am a believer in a creator as such ( not biblical!!) I do like to read and listen to arguments against it so I can make informed decisions. And having read most of the bible I made a very good "informed decision" there and decided it was b*****ks

[lowrider]

Some good points but also some simplistic answers to.

* Some religious believers ask what preceded the big bang.

Well if it was God, where did God come from and what was before him?

That answer don't really address the question.

* Some religious scientists believe that the complex and intricate structure of the natural world proves that it was created by 'intelligent design' and is not the result of evolution.

Then they're not real scientists. The whole "complex and intricate structure of the natural world is easily, and more elegantly explained through things like natural selection.

Again that is a huge generalization.
They are not real.

I am happy to admit that my knowledge of this subject consists of little more then the content of this prog.
So i may be thinking in a very simplistic manner.
In no way could i claim to have the level of knowledge you seem to have from your reply.
But that is two areas in you post that jar with me.

[bujin]

lowrider said:

Some good points but also some simplistic answers to.

* Some religious believers ask what preceded the big bang.

Well if it was God, where did God come from and what was before him?

That answer don't really address the question.

Many religious types use the pre-Big Bang argument to say that God must have started it. Just because scientists cannot answer the question as yet (and may never be able to), it still does not mean that God must be the answer...

If God created the universe, who created God?

* Some religious scientists believe that the complex and intricate structure of the natural world proves that it was created by 'intelligent design' and is not the result of evolution.

Then they're not real scientists. The whole "complex and intricate structure of the natural world is easily, and more elegantly explained through things like natural selection.

Again that is a huge generalization.
They are not real.

Everything I've ever read about the "intelligent design" argument is deeply flawed - and I'll be honest here, that I was never any good at biology in school. But the whole evolution and natural selection argument not only seems a lot more plausible and actually makes sense, there is also a wealth of direct evidence to support it. Once again, there is little or no evidence to support the idea that everything we see around us was created by an intelligent "god" being. And it again begs the question, if God created the universe, who created God?

Intelligent design poses more (and bigger) questions than it answers.

[Amaris]

Wasn't it interesting that the atheist, at the end of the 30 days, did encourage the bible study group ( mostly the ladies) to think more about & question more about their beliefs.
Also I don't think the husband was too happy when his Christian wife found an empathy with the Atheist lady in their roles as Mothers, when she realised that non christians can be good parents too!

[lowrider]

amaris said:

Wasn't it interesting that the atheist, at the end of the 30 days, did encourage the bible study group ( mostly the ladies) to think more about & question more about their beliefs.
Also I don't think the husband was too happy when his Christian wife found an empathy with the Atheist lady in their roles as Mothers, when she realised that non christians can be good parents too!

Yep he was hostile at many times.
Open minded,i think not.

[bujin]

Here's an interesting article by Sam Harris on myths surrounding atheism:

www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1

[lowrider]

Interesting,many of those points and stats were quoted in that and other progs i watched.
Never would have thought there would be so much stigma attached.

[bujin]

There's certainly not as much stigma attached here as in America. I've heard of a heck of a lot of stories over the past few months of how atheists can be treated over there, including in some circumstances, how atheists are treated in a similar way to how black people were treated back in the 1960s! It's quite amazing how a so-called "civilised" society still treats people. It's also quite ironic that they seem happy to tolerate people with belief in a different god (or different way of praising the same god), but are extremely intolerant of and hostile to people who have no belief in a god of any kind!

[leahj]

bujin said:

There's certainly not as much stigma attached here as in America. I've heard of a heck of a lot of stories over the past few months of how atheists can be treated over there, including in some circumstances, how atheists are treated in a similar way to how black people were treated back in the 1960s! It's quite amazing how a so-called "civilised" society still treats people. It's also quite ironic that they seem happy to tolerate people with belief in a different god (or different way of praising the same god), but are extremely intolerant of and hostile to people who have no belief in a god of any kind!

Hi there! As an atheist, I agree with the points you've made in this and previous posts in this thread. I actually know of people who have been sacked, constructively dismissed or sent to coventry because of their atheism. It really is a 'dirty' word in America.

A few things I'd like to add:

What many people don't realise is that when scientists speak of 'theory' it doesn't mean just an idea, it is a proposition that fits all the currently known facts (in this case, evolution). If and when something is discovered that fails to fit those facts then the theory falls. It's interesting to note that since its inception, the basic concept of evolution continues unchallenged.

It is for the person who makes a positive claim to prove it, not for everyone else to disprove it. If I claimed to have fairies at the bottom of my garden, the burden of proof would be on me.

As to the question of where our morals and ethics come from, we initially learn from our parents what is 'good' or 'bad', as we grow we (should) learn to treat people as we would like to be treated ourselves. And of course, we obey the laws of the land (hopefully! Like you, Bujin, I cannot kill any living thing. I, too, catch spiders and other insects and put them outside. I believe everything has a right to life. Of course, if it came to a choice I'd put a human being before an animal or insect.

Finally, atheism is our natural state as we are all born without belief in a god or gods.

[alexraybould]

lowrider said:

I was interested both in the Darwin piece in that if this theory holds up why don't we find that physical and mental disabilities at birth have not been bred out?

I didn`t watch the documentary, but your question is explainable by Darwinian theory itself. Darwin`s entire natural selection theory relies entirely on the fact that genetic mutations and disabilities exist in the first place! A species can only evolve if genetic mutation exists. For example, it is assumed that a giraffe evolved from the horse, or a common ancestor to the horse. One day, millions of years ago, this horse was born with a particularly long neck. He and his pack had to relocate due to predators, environmental changes, or just generally migrated across land. Then suddenly they found they were in an area where the trees were much taller. Needless to say the longer necked horse survived in this area, whereas the shorter necked horses died off because they couldn`t reach the leaves on the trees, which was the only source of food in the area. Thus, the long neck in the pack became a dominant gene over time. Eventually we have what we now call the giraffe.

By the law of natural selection, if it were not for physical and genetic abnormalities, then we would have never even become apes, nevermind humans. I believe Darwin stated that genetic mutations were functional rather than accidental, for this very reason.

Besides, even if we assume that physical and mental defects and abnormalities are random genetic flaws, then Darwins theory would not mean that these flaws would not continue to happen. Much in the same way that man designs and constructs a computer. He doesn`t design it to go wrong, but often it does. And a batch of computers may have to be recalled by a manufacturer if there is a fault with them all.

Also, for the first time in the history of man, we now have a society in which the weak are protected, and do not necessarily die before the age of procreation. That protection is called Social Security. Therefore those with mental or physical defects can potentially reproduce and pass on their genes to the gene pool, whereas not so long ago they would have been placed in a "lunatic asylum" or died on the streets before passing on their genes to the next generation.

[Meercat]

Nicely put alexraybould

[lowrider]

Well as i have said my only knowledge came from this prog.
But it seems from that post lots of things that were very significant to evolution "just happened".
I have no concrete belief either way but it seems at odds to the thoughts that everything is explained.
Anything that is not seems to be put down to chance to paper over any holes in the theory.

[bujin]

How do you mean "just happened"?

With reference to the giraffe thing, it wasn't that there was one day a horse and then all of a sudden, a baby horse was born with a long neck and so a new species appeared. The neck length would have grown over a considerable period of time - probably many thousands of years. Each time, the longer neck length would have given advantages over the animals with shorter necks, and so the probability that the animal would reach the age to pass on their genes is higher, so the longer neck gene survives.

"Chance" doesn't come into it. Genetic mutations are random, but after that randomness, evolution occurs due to an elegant explanation - that successful genes survive (because they make the animal more successful), and unsuccessful genes don't.

There ARE holes in the evolution theory. There ARE things that are still unexplained. But there's nothing so unexplained that the whole theory falls down and needs to be replaced. Given its short history, it has a massive amount of evidence in its favour.

[lowrider]

I understand what you are saying and i did state that i have limited knowledge.
But who knows that a longer neck was an improvement.
In many cases it would not be.
You use terms such as "probably" and "probability".
Which to means a good guess or a theory.
Or maybe it fits with fossils found.
I don't know.
But when doubt is thrown into any area it casts doubt on others.

[bujin]

I wanted to respond to this post yesterday, but I lost my internet connection just as I finished typing it...

lowrider said:

But who knows that a longer neck was an improvement.

The longer neck must have been an improvement otherwise it wouldn't have happened. The animals themselves knew (although not in the sense that they were thinking "hey, I've got a long neck! That's an advantage, I think I'll keep it...".

In many cases it would not be.

Agreed. And that's why we have different species.

You use terms such as "probably" and "probability".

...because in the real world, there is no such thing as a certainty.

Which to means a good guess or a theory.

A scientific "theory" is not the same as a "good guess".

Or maybe it fits with fossils found.

The physical evidence fits in well with the theory of evolution.

But when doubt is thrown into any area it casts doubt on others.

If something comes along which casts doubt on the whole theory of evolution, scientists will accept the new theory and move on. So far, in over 150 years, while there have been little bits and pieces which have led to a modification of the theory, nothing has emerged which means the theory has to be completely abandoned.

[lowrider]

Wish i knew enough to go into this further.
Might have to do some research.

[alexraybould]

lowrider said:

Wish i knew enough to go into this further.
Might have to do some research.

You are keeping an open mind, and that`s a very good thing. To expand on Bujin`s points, with reference to "probability" and "probably", i believe Bujin meant that the evidence we have best fits the explanation that he described. As you may be aware, in science, a theory is a model of explanation which "best fits" the evidence supplied. As none of us were ever there and lived millions of years to witness evolution with our own eyes, then by definition, the "Theory of evolution" will only ever be just that.. a theory. Therefore Bujin is just being pragmatic when he uses these terms.

I remember having a conversation with a work collegue a couple of years ago. He is a Muslim, and being a muslim, he was convinced that god created man in a week, and before this point the universe didn`t exist. I asked him how he therefore explained the evidence (i.e fossils) which had been discovered for hundreds of years. His reply was "How do you know that scientists didn`t just manufacture the fossils and bury them in order to prove their theory once they were discovered". I know everybody is entitled to their beliefs but that was stretching it! That`s a classic example of blind belief clouding objective reasoning!

When you said that in many cases, a long neck may not have been an advantage, it purely depends on the context of the environment in which the species existed during it`s evolution. If we make an admittedly big assumption that a giraffe evolved from the common ancestor to the horse, then a horse born with an abnormally long neck may have flourished in an area where there were little predators and the only food that existed was on tall trees. It`s genes would have therefore been reinforced into the gene pool as the shorter necked horses died from starvation. However in an area of many predators and food was everywhere, a longer necked, heavier, and clumsier horse may have been fairer game for predators. Hence this gene was weeded OUT of the gene pool for that species. One species became a giraffe, the other remained a horse, or evolved into something else.

I do agree however that the natural selection theory behind the the theory of Evolution only adds up to an extent. The human machine is so complex and sophisticated that it seems somewhat difficult to accept that it could have been shaped by random genetic flaws being reinforced or dying out due to environmental and circumstantial factors. The human eye for example is a very small, but very perfect and sophisticated optical device.

Personally what I find frustrating, and surprising is that everyone I have ever known who has voiced an opinion on this matter falls into one of two camps, either they are atheists who are total believers in the random chance of natural selection, or they are god fearing creationists who derise evolution theory as make believe, and never the twain shall meet. Personally, I don`t see why the two theories HAVE to be mutually exclusive. Who`s to say that "god" didn`t create us, and the method by which this god created, modified, and improved us and all other species over the course of millions of years is evolution itself? Evolution could be analogous to a car manufacturer who creates a vehicle for which every year a new model is brought out which is an improvement on the last one. The car didn`t appear out of nowhere, it was created, but none the less it "evolves" over the course of time.

[bujin]

alexraybould said:

I do agree however that the natural selection theory behind the the theory of Evolution only adds up to an extent. The human machine is so complex and sophisticated that it seems somewhat difficult to accept that it could have been shaped by random genetic flaws being reinforced or dying out due to environmental and circumstantial factors. The human eye for example is a very small, but very perfect and sophisticated optical device.

The human eye is a perfect example of evolution AND it is also a perfect example of why it was NOT created by a designer - or, if it WAS created by a designer, that designer is flawed and got it wrong! But do not religions claim that God is perfect?

You say the eye is a "perfect" device - the eye is certainly not perfect, having been "wired up" in an illogical way.

I, personally, fall into the "atheist" category you mention, although where you say:

either they are atheists who are total believers in the random chance of natural selection

I feel the need to correct you - natural selection (as I'm sure you know) is not "random chance". The mutation part of evolution is random, but the selection part is not.

I'd admit to not being a biologist, and have only really begun to understand evolution in the past few months, but it just seems such an elegant theory - so simple, and as we all know, the simplest explanation is more usually the correct one. The only thing that cannot be explained by evolution at the moment which leaves the door open for a "designer" is that very first step, where we went from a lifeless planet to a planet teeming with bacterial life.

I don't like the "God Theory" because it's too easy to just claim that "God did it" and give up on looking for the real explanation. If that was the case, we'd still be worried every time it thunders that Thor is unhappy with us!