A case for religion, and against AA.

[norseamd]

I would suggest reading this entire page thoughtfully, researching existentialism, nihilism, and then reading it again.

am not doubting what you put up. all i am saying about this is that many people do not bother with all the material from nietzch and instead only think about the thought of nordic superman when thinking about ubermensch

 

[norseamd]

There are no organisms that are not "transitional." Every single organism is in transition between it's ancestors and its descendents. Species are never fixed in principle, so your request not only makes no sense, it betrays a deep ignorance of biology and the theory of evolution.

was about to post the same thing. technically there are no species there are only different organisms which have some differences. the recognition of race ethnicity and species is just a grouping of said different organisms into groups of organisms that share things in common

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That looks like a horrible birth defect.

Also:not a complete skull.

You're committing an argument from incredulity fallacy. That is -- you're just gainsaying whatever is supplied to meet your request without actually falsifying it upon any rigorously defined criteria. This is common among creationists because they don't really understand the subjects that they pontificate upon, and they are even well aware of that fact, but they are always loathe to admit it. They just assert and re-assert their own correct-ness, never daring to speak frankly about the facts and details.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There are no organisms that are not "transitional."

don`t be too sure of yourself....

 

[Agent11]

If you know you are right it is a virtue.

 

[Agent11]

am not doubting what you put up. all i am saying about this is that many people do not bother with all the material from nietzch and instead only think about the thought of nordic superman when thinking about ubermensch

Nietzsche is a rather tragic and imposing figure, however when compared with Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky, Sartre, I think understanding Nietzsche is much easier and very enlightening.

 

[flexy]

Sure we shouldn't lie to children and tell them some religion is 100% right, because none really can be without 100% of the information in the universe.

Have a little faith that these children will figure that out for themselves sooner or later if they just become educated enough.

Religion is all about that someone "tells someone" since our Western religions are not having a religious "experience" as a basis (like, say, beliefs where things like meditation are used in a way to reach or "experience" the godly).

In our religions you are "taught" either by your family, a priest or in school etc....you get 3rd hand experience where the only option you have is to believe those 3rd hand accounts or to reject them.

You obviously also missed the fact that many religions in-fact claim "100% knowledge" and validity...and the chance that religious people "figure out" (whatever that would be) are rather slim since we're dealing with beliefs that are indoctrinated (or as above pointed out) taught...it's not based on RATIONALITY, it's not something that is always "figured out" with education.

(Western) Religion PER SE contradicts science and education, at least the more "fundamental" religions. This is implied. Education does not automatically make one realize their belief may be wrong - in fact it may even lead to things like rejecting/denying science, this happens all the time.

 

[norseamd]

You obviously also missed the fact that many religions in-fact claim "100% knowledge" and validity...and the chance that religious people "figure out" (whatever that would be) are rather slim since we're dealing with beliefs that are indoctrinated (or as above pointed out) taught...it's not based on RATIONALITY, it's not something that is always "figured out" with education.

eastern religion is more relative

 

[Retro Rob]

That is -- you're just gainsaying whatever is supplied to meet your request without actually falsifying it upon any rigorously defined criteria. .

....only a matter of "when" you trot this out now. And it's one heck of a safety net.

 

[schmuckley]

There are no organisms that are not "transitional." Every single organism is in transition between it's ancestors and its descendents. Species are never fixed in principle, so your request not only makes no sense, it betrays a deep ignorance of biology and the theory of evolution.

So..Where are the remains of some of these transitional organisms?

You seem the type that would like to read this: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232

There ya go;Hypothesis,proof,and sources.

You know,unlike you;I learned a long time ago to speak plainly to people and not get fancy with it.That way no one is looking at you like:"What?!".I'm sure you get that look quite often.

Anyways,On Topic:If people believe in God and an afterlife, and by doing so are an attribute to humanity;then what's the harm?At least it gives one hope.

 

[JEDIYoda]

....only a matter of "when" you trot this out now. And it's one heck of a safety net.

They have a whole website devoted to such safety nets.....sort of like daemn what rob M. is saying hold water.....better go to the website and pick out my safety net!!..lolo

 

[soulcougher73]

They have a whole website devoted to such safety nets.....sort of like daemn what rob M. is saying hold water.....better go to the website and pick out my safety net!!..lolo

LOL Mr. Copy&Paste is talking about safety net websites. Oh the irony.

 

[Retro Rob]

They have a whole website devoted to such safety nets.....sort of like daemn what rob M. is saying hold water.....better go to the website and pick out my safety net!!..lolo

The funny thing about that, too, is that as long as you're in agreement with him, you don't need to "rigorously define" anything...but lord forbid you bring contradictory information in rebuttal to his argument(s), or dare to disprove them...you'd be demanded to "rigorously define" things 'till the cows come home.

It's a good strategy designed to never lose an argument.

 

[JEDIYoda]

LOL Mr. Copy&Paste is talking about safety net websites. Oh the irony.

That's the best you can do.....
It`s far easier to read and then if you agree with something to copy and paste.
Plus some of us have other lives that actually involve helping the poor and needy and hurting. Or as one of your fellow atheists stated -- I will just quote the last part of what he said -- being involved in the more serious matters of the world!

yet it is really interesting how you all use the same reasons for hardly ever answering question without asking another question as the answer to a question..... and the same talking points. If you google it you will find a whole website devoted to all your talking points!

I find it ironic that I am not suppose to copy and paste yet when backed into a corner you all demand proof of this and proof of that...lol

How ironic....

 

[soulcougher73]

That's the best you can do.....
It`s far easier to read and then if you agree with something to copy and paste.
Plus some of us have other lives that actually involve helping the poor and needy and hurting. Or as one of your fellow atheists stated -- I will just quote the last part of what he said -- being involved in the more serious matters of the world!

yet it is really interesting how you all use the same reasons for hardly ever answering question without asking another question as the answer to a question..... and the same talking points. If you google it you will find a whole website devoted to all your talking points!

I find it ironic that I am not suppose to copy and paste yet when backed into a corner you all demand proof of this and proof of that...lol

How ironic....

Quoted for irony. Too stupid to see this applies to him and his side of the isle.

 

[dphantom]

Quoted for irony. Too stupid to see this applies to him and his side of the isle.

You may disagree and provide your reasons, but if all you can do is call one side of a discussion stupid, perhaps staying in P&N is better. I will discuss the topic, but will not respond to personal attacks. Please keep this a civil discussion even though the topic can be quite emotional.

neither atheists nor theists are stupid or any other derogatory name you may think of. But we each have deep beliefs that hold great meaning to our respective viewpoints. That should not stop the discussion from going forward in a respectful manner.

 

[Exophase]

What about all the other species?There are no "arm-flipper" fossils,or
"wing-arm" arm fossils;
because there never have been.

Tiktaalik seems to be a fish in the process of developing limbs. Rodhocetus seems to be a mammal in the process of developing into a limb-less whale. Compare most moden bird skeletons with a pterodactylus skeleton and you'll see the latter had more distinct arm, hand, and digit structure while the former has skeletal support for wings. Now compare with a bat skeleton, which looks like a mammal specializing wings much like the pterodactylus, with the characteristic root five mammalian digits extending throughout its wings.

These are all just obvious things that easily come to the mind of a lay person, an actual evolutionary biologist could give much more in-depth examples along with the associated fossil and genetic evidence. But it's hard to see anything as evidence if you look at all species, extant or otherwise, as being deliberately designed, no matter how much they're adapted to a particular local ecology, or how much their position in the geological strata matches the interpolation of their features and the interpolation of their genome, or how much this aligns with geological and other data that independently describes the local ecology of their ancestors..

 

[soulcougher73]

You may disagree and provide your reasons, but if all you can do is call one side of a discussion stupid, perhaps staying in P&N is better. I will discuss the topic, but will not respond to personal attacks. Please keep this a civil discussion even though the topic can be quite emotional.

neither atheists nor theists are stupid or any other derogatory name you may think of. But we each have deep beliefs that hold great meaning to our respective viewpoints. That should not stop the discussion from going forward in a respectful manner.

I did provide my reasons. He is not smart enough to realize what he said describes himself while trying to make a point against the other side. He tries to mock people for quoting websites that support their opinion when that is his schtick he is famous for. Captain Copy&Paste is his name.

If that is not the text book definition of a hypocrit, well then i dont know what to tell you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So..Where are the remains of some of these transitional organisms?

What part of "there are no organisms that are not 'transitional'" was unclear you?

You seem the type that would like to read this: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232[

You were close -- I'm the type that HAS read that and heaps of tripe just like it, and realizes the author's fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the facts.

There ya go;Hypothesis,proof,and sources.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You know,unlike you;I learned a long time ago to speak plainly to people and not get fancy with it.That way no one is looking at you like:"What?!".I'm sure you get that look quite often.

No, actually not. Most of the people I interact with have proper educations.

Anyways,On Topic:If people believe in God and an afterlife, and by doing so are an attribute to humanity;then what's the harm?At least it gives one hope.

Did you mean to say "asset"? Because this word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[AViking]

We've reached the absurd conclusion to this thread and then gone one step further.

Does anyone have any constructive ideas on how to debate religion with people who do not have an education, don't understand the scientific method, require no evidence or proof, and are just trying to label people as atheists and put people in little categories to make themselves feel better?

I don't get emotional about this subject. I just shake my head. However it has become very clear that some people feel the fabric of their being torn from them if religion is questioned.

I propose we switch from Christianity for a while. It's not constructive. I hesitiate to switch to Islam but at the same time I think Islam is fascinating and there's a lot to learn from that religion, how it formed, and how it differs from other religions. It's probably worth comparing the contributions of Islam to other religions as well. After all people have brought up Pascal's wager and hope as reasons for believing in god from a Christian point of view but that's not how all religions are.

 

[Retro Rob]

Does anyone have any constructive ideas on how to debate religion with people who do not have an education, don't understand the scientific method, require no evidence or proof, and are just trying to label people as atheists and put people in little categories to make themselves feel better?

I find that quite interesting, because if something doesn't have evidence or proof, then we conclude that that something doesn't exist.

It begs the question, then...why do you and other atheists spend much of your time in threads like these arguing about something that doesn't exist?

 

[richaron]

It begs the question, then...why do you and other atheists spend much of your time in threads like these arguing about something that doesn't exist?

I can't speak for all. Personally I wouldn't say I spend much of my time ~arguing about something which doesn't exist~. But like most moral people, I believe in doing something to make the world a better place.

By all means learn from these religious fables, there is a purpose to them. But a world without dogma, zealots, and religious schisms would be a wonderful thing.

 

[soulcougher73]

I find that quite interesting, because if something doesn't have evidence or proof, then we conclude that that something doesn't exist.

It begs the question, then...why do you and other atheists spend much of your time in threads like these arguing about something that doesn't exist?

That is just the logical way to look at reality. You work with what you can observe and draw conclusions based from that data.

A good example is the one someone else brought up. Do you believe an invisible tea pot orbits around Jupiter?

 

[Retro Rob]

That is just the logical way to look at reality. You work with what you can observe and draw conclusions based from that data.

I think you totally missed the point of me saying that. Anyway...

A good example is the one someone else brought up. Do you believe an invisible tea pot orbits around Jupiter?

Well, let start here: I see no evidence of an invisible teapot because there is no evidence to postulate that one could possibly exists. And why is that? Well of course, its arbitrary, and thus, cannot be a valid analogy to the existence of the [Christian] God....since this is the one we're referring to.

Yaweh/Jehovah isn't some 19th centrury imagined being as Russell's teapot is because those who wrote the Bible, according to the Bible anyway, didn't believe in God until some evidence of his existence was put forth, and then they believed, and wrote it down.

Why is this distinction important? Because we know Russell's teapot is a completely arbitrary, imagined...thing. However, I do not think the same thing can be factually said about the God of the Bible because we cannot say for certain that the miracles put forth to support the existence of God didn't happen.

We can speak to the improbablility of those things not happening, sure. But it's another thing to say "those things didn't happen". You simply don't believe them, and I however, do.

What does this boil down to? The Bible writers wrote down what they "allegedly" saw (for the sake of argument), whereas Russell didn't see anything, nor did the FSM creators...those are simply imagined enities put forth in a effort to say the Bible writers did exactly the same thing, but one thing is missing to make that conclusion true...and that's something called "evidence". (Yeah, you need that too)

We know Russell saw no evidence of a Teapot, but can we factually say that about the Bible writers?

I think that's the ultimate question, in my opinion.

 

[Retro Rob]

I can't speak for all. Personally I wouldn't say I spend much of my time ~arguing about something which doesn't exist~. But like most moral people, I believe in doing something to make the world a better place.

Well, a lot can be done aside from trashing the beliefs of random religious people on the internet -- that only makes the world a more hostile place.

Be an educator, motivational speaker, etc...becasue the feeling I get from statements like the one you made in your second paragraph is that religion is entirely the blame. That's quite foolish and is an over-simplification of the problem and creates something this world can use less of: prejudice.

You're pointing to a single cause. That's a breeding ground for prejudice.