Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

You never see athiests doing this!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-05-2013, 21:36
delly
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,851
Well, I'm a bit short on time and it's a long(ish) article. I've skimmed down it but can't see where it mentions telling agnostics what they should think etc. If you can quote a few words that I can search the page with, that'll help.

I can't see any reference to 'true atheism' either. Positive atheism is there - is that what you meant?
It does mention agnosticism, as well as strong, positive and negative atheism.

Maybe you could read it tomorrow to avoid further confusion. "True atheism" was referred to in the dictionary definition I quoted hence why I brought it up.
delly is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-05-2013, 21:37
KJ44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: location location
Posts: 26,552

What Lovecraft created was a specifically twentieth century idea: the universe as an empty, materialist one, in which there is no spiritual meaning to any actions and in which human existence is not significant in any way.


http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.p...lltext=1&media
KJ44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 21:39
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,692
Antireligious people also preach and seek conversions. Buddhists are Atheists too because they don't believe in a god
This point has been made a few times and it isn't strictly true. Some Buddhists are atheist (Theravada) and some are more polytheist (Mahayana). They also believe in re-incarnation and release from the cycle of re-birth - an afterlife - through enlightenment.
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 21:41
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,692
What Lovecraft created was a specifically twentieth century idea: the universe as an empty, materialist one, in which there is no spiritual meaning to any actions and in which human existence is not significant in any way.


http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.p...lltext=1&media
Meh...
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 22:07
ishina
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,030
Did they? Their last post was 139, at which point they still disagreed with you.
They disagreed with me on other points, yes. But they obviously agreed with me on the definition, since they say they accept it.

You can't use them disagreeing with me on other things as evidence of disagreement on the definition.

You've told a self-confessed atheist what atheists believe.
It was actually the other person telling atheists what they believe. They declared that atheism is the assertive belief that god does not exist. I disagreed. I maintain that atheism is more often the lack of belief.

You've got it the wrong way around. I have no idea why, out of the two people involved in that exchange, you chose me as the one telling atheists what they believe. Are you getting names mixed up?

Moreover, how can 'lack of belief' be telling people what they believe? Your argument doesn't make sense. You could argue that I was telling atheists what they lack belief in. But are you really gonna cry foul when I say atheists lack belief in god? Isn't that... y'know, the fundamental distinguishing point of atheism? It's hardly controversial to say atheists lack belief in god. I don't know why you're objecting to it.
ishina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 08:24
grantus_max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
Posts: 2,448
It does mention agnosticism, as well as strong, positive and negative atheism.

Maybe you could read it tomorrow to avoid further confusion. "True atheism" was referred to in the dictionary definition I quoted hence why I brought it up.
Mentioning agnosticism isn't really telling agnostics what they should think, which is what you actually implied was in the article you linked to. What I've been trying to do is explain what atheism and agnosticism actually mean. Now, I'm happy to accept that definitions and understandings change, but when you read the article you linked to, there isn't really any argument against atheism per se being anything other than a lack of belief in a god. There is legitimate discussion about strong and weak atheism, but that's a different question.

You haven't made any attempt to define 'true atheism' yourself and as that's not in the article either, just in your uncited dictionary reference, all it's really adding is the confusion that you're asking me to avoid by reading an article that doesn't mention it.

I noticed that you haven't brought up mseven1 for telling atheists what they think, after criticising atheists for telling agnostics what they think. Somewhat partisan with your criticism don't you think? After all, wasn't it you who said "It is up to individuals to define who they are and what they are, not up to others to re-define it for them."
grantus_max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 08:27
stoatie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: I'm at your house. Call me.
Posts: 45,960
What Lovecraft created was a specifically twentieth century idea: the universe as an empty, materialist one, in which there is no spiritual meaning to any actions and in which human existence is not significant in any way.
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

He might have been a horrible old racist, but I love that line.
stoatie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:34
delly
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,851
Mentioning agnosticism isn't really telling agnostics what they should think, which is what you actually implied was in the article you linked to. What I've been trying to do is explain what atheism and agnosticism actually mean. Now, I'm happy to accept that definitions and understandings change, but when you read the article you linked to, there isn't really any argument against atheism per se being anything other than a lack of belief in a god. There is legitimate discussion about strong and weak atheism, but that's a different question.

You haven't made any attempt to define 'true atheism' yourself and as that's not in the article either, just in your uncited dictionary reference, all it's really adding is the confusion that you're asking me to avoid by reading an article that doesn't mention it.

I noticed that you haven't brought up mseven1 for telling atheists what they think, after criticising atheists for telling agnostics what they think. Somewhat partisan with your criticism don't you think? After all, wasn't it you who said "It is up to individuals to define who they are and what they are, not up to others to re-define it for them."
Good try but no it isnt. I have only brought attention to the fact that some atheists were telling agnostics what to think and re-defining the position. It is up to the individual to define themselves. Not to be told.

'True atheism' was part of the agnosticism definition. I didn't bring it up for any other purpose until you asked me about it, which is why I then supplied the link. If you are going to tell people who they are then you have the right to be challenged.

I will quote the whole conversation back if you would like. Don't try and turn it around. I am not the one telling people who they are and what the definition is. And, I didnt agree with m7's definition only that it was up to the individual.

I am not atheist. What don't you understand about definitions? There have been atheists who don't agree with your definitions.

As for my 'uncited' definition. Do google other dictionary definitions, google the BBC definitions, google Wiki, just google. There are plenty of definitions to choose from.

Which begs the question what is true atheism? Which was the only original question posed which YOU picked up on.

I am not atheist, how could I answer. Although, some atheists on here do like to tell the religious what and who we are.
delly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:52
ishina
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,030
I am not atheist. What don't you understand about definitions? There have been atheists who don't agree with your definitions.

As for my 'uncited' definition. Do google other dictionary definitions, google the BBC definitions, google Wiki, just google. There are plenty of definitions to choose from.

Which begs the question what is true atheism? Which was the only original question posed which YOU picked up on.

I am not atheist, how could I answer. Although, some atheists on here do like to tell the religious what and who we are.
From Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, by George H. Smith:

“Prominent atheists have defended for many years the view that an atheist is a person who lacks theistic belief. Baron d'Holbach took this view when he argued, "All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God" Charles Bradlaugh, Britain's most important crusader for atheism, upheld a similar position, noting that "no position is more continuously misrepresented" than atheism. Bradlaugh stated: "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God."

J.M. Robertson, the great historian of freethought, remarked on the negative atheism of Charles Southwell, who, in 1842, founded the Oracle of Reason, England's first avowedly atheistic periodical:

“The Oracle pursued a logical course of confuting theism, and leaving "a-theism" the negative result. It did not, in the absurd terms of common religious propaganda, "deny the existence of God." It affirmed that God was a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition. It did not even affirm that "there are no Gods"; it insisted that the onus of proof as to any God lay with the theist, who could give none compatible with his definitions.”

The historian Edward Royle has also described the "negative atheism" of Carlile, Southwell, Cooper, Holyoake, and other nineteenth-century atheists:

“Logically, this kind of atheism did not prove that there was no God.... On the contrary, Southwell was typical in placing the onus probandi on those who affirmed the existence of God and Holyoake regarded himself as an atheist only in his inability to believe what the churches would have him believe. They were content to show that the Christian concept of the supernatural was meaningless, that the arguments in its favor were illogical, and that the mysteries of the universe, insofar as they were explicable, could be accounted for in material terms.”

As Royle indicates, negative atheism went hand in hand with the "onus-of-proof" principle. Annie Besant, who defined atheism as "without God," clearly explained the importance of this principle:

“If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.”

This negative definition of atheism carried over into the twentieth century, especially among British atheists. When a critic accused atheists of dogmatism for positively denying the existence of God, G.W. Foote challenged the critic "to refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God." Foote continued: "Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the 'A' before 'Theist' really means."

Joseph McCabe, author of dozens of books and articles pertaining to atheism, defined atheism as "the absence of theistic belief." The same idea was put forcefully by Chapman Cohen, President of Britain's National Secular Society and a prolific defender of atheism. Cohen wrote:

“If one believes in a god, then one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist -- he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God.”

Perceptive critics of atheism have also defended the negative definition. For example, the learned theologian Richard Watson wrote:

“ATHEIST, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms ... signifying without God.”

That able defender of theism, Robert Flint, had no doubt about the proper definition of atheism. Flint declared:

“The atheist is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds.... [E]very man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.”

Flint concluded, "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less."

Perhaps the greatest confusion over atheism's definition was caused by A.J. Ayer in his classic presentation of logical positivism, Language, Truth, and Logic. In defending empirical verifiability as a criterion of meaning, Ayer rejected all "metaphysical" utterances, including theistic claims, as nonsensical. To say that God exists, according to Ayer, "is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false." The claim does not "possess any literal significance."

Ayer cautioned against confusing his noncognitivist position with atheism. Atheism, which Ayer construed positively as the denial of God's existence, presupposes that the concept of God has meaning. But "if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted."

Unfortunately, Ayer's treatment lacks historical perspective on what atheists have argued for many years. In introducing noncognitivism as a supposed alternative to atheism, Ayer misled a generation of philosophers, for noncognitivism has always been an important weapon in the atheist's arsenal.

For example, the importance of noncognitivism was discussed extensively in the seventeenth century by Ralph Cudworth, whose True Intellectual System of the Universe remains one of the most interesting critiques of atheism ever penned. Some philosophers adopt atheism, Cudworth noted, "because theists themselves acknowledging God to be incomprehensible, it may be from thence inferred, that he is a nonentity." The very notion of an infinite God, atheists maintain, "is utterly inconceivable." Atheists argue that the attributes of God are a "bundle of unconceivables and impossibilities, huddled up together...."

The atheist Baron d'Holbach argued that "what has been said of [God] is either unintelligible or perfectly contradictory; and for this reason must appear impossible to every man of common sense." In The System of Nature, a masterpiece of Enlightenment thought and perhaps the best defense of atheism ever written, Holbach devoted considerable space to the position that the term "God" is meaningless. He concluded:

“Can theology give to the mind the ineffable boon of conceiving that which no man is in a capacity to comprehend? Can it procure to its agents the marvellous faculty of having precise ideas of a god composed of so many contradictory qualities?”

The noncognitivist argument was commonly found in the writings of nineteenth-century atheists, as illustrated in this passage from Annie Besant's Why I Do Not Believe in God:

“Never yet has a God been defined in terms which were not palpably self-contradictory and absurd; never yet has a God been described so that a concept of Him was made possible to human thought.”

Many similar quotations could be given. Clearly, noncognitivism -- the position that the term God is literally meaningless - has been standard atheist fare for centuries. Therefore, when Ayer argued for his version of noncognitivism, he was not, as he believed, offering a true alternative to atheism. Rather, Ayer's argument placed him squarely within a venerable atheistic tradition.
ishina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:02
grantus_max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
Posts: 2,448
Good try but no it isnt. I have only brought attention to the fact that some atheists were telling agnostics what to think and re-defining the position. It is up to the individual to define themselves. Not to be told.
Didn't notice you saying this to mseven1, despite him doing exactly that with regards to atheists - more so in fact, as he wasn't just saying what we *believe*, but what we *do*.

Like I say, partisan criticism. From someone with an obvious issue with vocal non-believers perhaps?

'True atheism' was part of the agnosticism definition. I didn't bring it up for any other purpose until you asked me about it, which is why I then supplied the link. If you are going to tell people who they are then you have the right to be challenged.
I've no problem being challenged, but if your challenge doesn't make sense to me and you cite articles that don't seem to bear any relation to the points you are making, then it's reasonable for me to call you on it.

I will quote the whole conversation back if you would like. Don't try and turn it around. I am not the one telling people who they are and what the definition is. And, I didnt agree with m7's definition only that it was up to the individual.
It really depends what we're arguing about. I don't think I've made any claims about what it means to be an atheist that aren't backed up by the article you linked to. Your initial reply to me included the line "Of course, it does beg the question what is true 'atheism' which is another question altogether" which is what I picked up on. It's reasonable to me to challenge someone who claims that a particular label means something that I don't think it does.

Is there anything in the article you linked to which contradicts the basic premise that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in a deity, regardless of how vocal or how sure they are that there is no god?

If not, then I don't see how anything I've posted in response to mseven1 is incorrect.

I am not atheist.
What's that got to do with the price of fish?

What don't you understand about definitions? There have been atheists who don't agree with your definitions.
I'm sure there are and they are free to say so with whatever arguments they consider to be relevant. That's exactly what I'm doing with mseven1. He can argue why I may be incorrect if he likes, as can you. So far all you've done is confuse the discussion whilst he's gone on to demonstrate his complete failure to understand basic evolutionary theory


As for my 'uncited' definition. Do google other dictionary definitions, google the BBC definitions, google Wiki, just google. There are plenty of definitions to choose from.
It was really so I could see if the source had any information about what it meant by 'true atheism'. However, we can come back to that. In any case, mseven1 has already disagreed with the definition of agnostic that I go by, despite it being there in the definition that you provided.

Which begs the question what is true atheism? Which was the only original question posed which YOU picked up on.
Yes, I did pick up on it because you seemed to be making some sort of comment about atheists that you weren't prepared to follow up, not at that point anyway.

I am not atheist, how could I answer. Although, some atheists on here do like to tell the religious what and who we are.
Not being an atheist shouldn't bar you from having an opinion about what one a 'true' one is. No doubt some atheists do pander to stereo-types about particular religions. I'm sure I do as well, although I try not to. However, I know what I mean when I say I'm an atheist, what it also means to apply agnosticism to my atheism, what the general definitions of atheism are. It is my opinion the definitions of atheism and agnosticism as used by mseven1 are inaccurate and misleading. Other opinions are available.

You seem somewhat antagonistic towards anyone on here who self-identifies as an atheist. What's your beef exactly? I know some atheists talk as much crapola as the next person, but not all. Most of the time seems to be spent correcting misunderstandings about what is meant by the term atheist - this thread is a prime example. Does that annoy you that we want to clarify our own positions?
grantus_max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:13
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 23,219
I might have to start calling myself godless...
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:27
simmons_5251
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Caerdydd 
Posts: 12,718
I think it was hitchens who said imagine 1 morally good thing that theists can justify that atheists cannot. You can't.

But imagine 1 morally bad thing that theists can justify that atheists could not. Plenty.
simmons_5251 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:40
mseven1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 419
Buddhists believe in a non-anthropomorphised deity, but they aren't atheists.
They don't believe in god or heaven, they believe in reincarnation and no after life. So they are atheist, although their beliefs can be seen as spiritual they are atheists because they don't believe in god.

Please continue telling me what I believe and getting it wrong. It's really adding a lot to the discussion.
I wasn't telling you what you believe, I was stating the fact that atheists don't believe in god but come up with people like a spaghetti monster or fairies as an argument


Got any quotes to back that statement up? I'm pretty well up on what Dawkins says and that ain't it.
Are you saying have never heard Dawkins say there is no god and given examples why he believes there is no god?


I don't know either, but I don't profess a belief, as don't you. I know you don't want to accept it, but that makes us both atheists.
If I was an atheist I would claim that god doesn't exist. I am an agnostic and base my belief on logic and I don't know if god exists.


The same cannot be said of the creationist 'theory', which seems to consist of unsupported assertion, denial of any inconvenient contradictory evidence, misrepresentation and wishful thinking. I'm not sure how that can be considered on equal terms.
No, what I was saying was there are many theories of how we got here which involve or don't involve a god. The Darwinian evolution theory has flaws, not as many as does the god created things theory but these two are the main ones discussed. Like I said the world could have been created this morning and made to look like it has been here for billions of years and all out memories were pre programmed. In the end of the day we don't know how we got here and I don't see why it should have a big impact on our lives


Bloody hell, you *really* need to do some research into what evolution actually is. You've completely misunderstood how and where evolution happens - i.e. it's not an infant growing into an adult. You also need to investigate how science thinks complex organs developed - the eye for example.

I'm not sure I have the energy to walk you through all this stuff and you don't appear to be the sort of person who's prepared to listen when people think you've got it wrong.

Be nice if you proved me wrong, but judging by the above, you have a heck of a lot to learn.
The human evolving and eye evolution are two flaws which are usually mentioned in the evolution theory, they aren't my particular findings. Even in Darwin's book he questioned how the eye could have evolved because for millions of years we would have eyes that do nothing and eyes are similar in all mammals, if the eye had evolved they would be majorly different.

Earlier on in this thread you were quite happy to tell snozzcumber, an atheist, that their definition of atheism was incorrect. IMO, both you and m7 are trying to define atheism to suit your own arguments.
I disagree, atheism means they don't believe in a god. I said what many people call atheism is anti religion and a religion is a common belief that doesn't require a god.

I remember watching an educational programme on philosophy and there were atheists wanting a cross taken off of a church because it was some how offending them.
mseven1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:47
mseven1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 419
I noticed that you haven't brought up mseven1 for telling atheists what they think
I am not telling atheists what they think I am saying that an atheist doesn't believe in a god, a theist believes in a god and an agnostic has varying views.
mseven1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:49
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 23,219
If I was an atheist I would claim that god doesn't exist. I am an agnostic and base my belief on logic and I don't know if god exists.
If you were an atheist you would say that you have an absence of belief in god(s). You might then claim that god doesn't exist, but equally you might not.

Oh, and you really do need to read up on evolution.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 13:49
ishina
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,030
I wasn't telling you what you believe, I was stating the fact that atheists don't believe in god but come up with people like a spaghetti monster or fairies as an argument
Why are you so stupid?
ishina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:03
simmons_5251
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Caerdydd 
Posts: 12,718
Agnostics are by definition atheist. Agnosticism is the position that it is unknown, but you can still claim it is unknown yet lack the belief in a God. The negation of the claim I believe there is a God is it is not the case I believe there is a God. This encompasses agnosticism too. Truth is binary, there is no inbetween idea. Either you believe in God, or you have a lack of believe. The claim that it is unknowable is an epistemic claim not a metaphysical one.
simmons_5251 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:09
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,692
You can also hold a view by thinking it without necessarily stating any claim. One could be an apathetic agnostic.
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:09
towers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 9,406
They don't believe in god or heaven, they believe in reincarnation and no after life. So they are atheist, although their beliefs can be seen as spiritual they are atheists because they don't believe in god.



I wasn't telling you what you believe, I was stating the fact that atheists don't believe in god but come up with people like a spaghetti monster or fairies as an argument




Are you saying have never heard Dawkins say there is no god and given examples why he believes there is no god?




If I was an atheist I would claim that god doesn't exist. I am an agnostic and base my belief on logic and I don't know if god exists.




No, what I was saying was there are many theories of how we got here which involve or don't involve a god. The Darwinian evolution theory has flaws, not as many as does the god created things theory but these two are the main ones discussed. Like I said the world could have been created this morning and made to look like it has been here for billions of years and all out memories were pre programmed. In the end of the day we don't know how we got here and I don't see why it should have a big impact on our lives




The human evolving and eye evolution are two flaws which are usually mentioned in the evolution theory, they aren't my particular findings. Even in Darwin's book he questioned how the eye could have evolved because for millions of years we would have eyes that do nothing and eyes are similar in all mammals, if the eye had evolved they would be majorly different.



I disagree, atheism means they don't believe in a god. I said what many people call atheism is anti religion and a religion is a common belief that doesn't require a god.

I remember watching an educational programme on philosophy and there were atheists wanting a cross taken off of a church because it was some how offending them.
Not at all, every decade we're discovering an ancient fossil which appears to show a link between humans and apes - we can't be 100% certain but these fossils do have some human elements and some ape-like elements in the same individual - and really, when you watch female gorillas on film carrying their babies in their arms across water, they do look very human. The fact is, the human race has moved forward over the centuries thanks to just a few individuals, not because we're all remarkably intelligent.

Darwin's book was written 150 years ago, science has moved forward.
towers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:09
TheSilentFez
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In the corner of your eye...
Posts: 7,603
No, what I was saying was there are many theories of how we got here which involve or don't involve a god. The Darwinian evolution theory has flaws, not as many as does the god created things theory but these two are the main ones discussed. Like I said the world could have been created this morning and made to look like it has been here for billions of years and all out memories were pre programmed. In the end of the day we don't know how we got here and I don't see why it should have a big impact on our lives
Actually, the Theory of Evolution has very very few flaws indeed. It is one of the best and well tested theories in all of science...and remember ALL of science is theory so don't bring up this "it's only a theory rubbish".
Evolution is as close to a fact as you can get in science.



The human evolving and eye evolution are two flaws which are usually mentioned in the evolution theory, they aren't my particular findings. Even in Darwin's book he questioned how the eye could have evolved because for millions of years we would have eyes that do nothing and eyes are similar in all mammals, if the eye had evolved they would be majorly different.
Darwin's book was written over 150 years ago. Since then huge advances have been made.
Nowadays, the evolution of the eye is fairly well understood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Not at all, every decade we're discovering an ancient fossil which appears to show a link between humans and apes - we can't be 100% certain but these fossils do have some human elements and some ape-like elements in the same individual - and really, when you watch female gorillas on film carrying their babies in their arms across water, they do look very human. The fact is, the human race has moved forward over the centuries thanks to just a few individuals, not because we're all remarkably intelligent.

I think the worry for many atheists is that religion will go back to being 'compulsar
Umm... we don't need evidence to connect humans with apes. We are apes. That much is blatantly obvious and can be seen by simply comparing our DNA with chimpanzees. We have even sequenced the Neanderthal genome and it's even more similar.
The taxonomy of humans also puts us in the same family as apes "hominidae".
TheSilentFez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:11
grantus_max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
Posts: 2,448
Are you saying have never heard Dawkins say there is no god and given examples why he believes there is no god?
Saying that he believes there is no god is not the same as him stating that there is no god. Dawkins very clearly acknowledges that he cannot know for sure that there is no god because such a statement cannot be supported.

This is why his atheism, as is mine, is agnostic. I.e. he and I are not claiming knowledge that there is no god.
grantus_max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:18
grantus_max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
Posts: 2,448
If I was an atheist I would claim that god doesn't exist. I am an agnostic and base my belief on logic and I don't know if god exists.
Thereby implying that atheists don't base their position on logic, whilst claiming knowledge of the non-existence of deities.

The former seems to be some sort of ad hominem whilst the latter indicates a repeated misunderstanding of the basic meaning of atheism - i.e. a lack of belief in a god.

No, what I was saying was there are many theories of how we got here which involve or don't involve a god. The Darwinian evolution theory has flaws, not as many as does the god created things theory but these two are the main ones discussed. Like I said the world could have been created this morning and made to look like it has been here for billions of years and all out memories were pre programmed. In the end of the day we don't know how we got here and I don't see why it should have a big impact on our lives
It's difficult to take someone's opinions on the Theory of Evolution seriously when they have already demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what it says. What flaws are you referring to? There are gaps in our knowledge as well as alternative suggestions to various mechanisms, but flaws? You'll need to provide more information about that claim.

The human evolving and eye evolution are two flaws which are usually mentioned in the evolution theory, they aren't my particular findings. Even in Darwin's book he questioned how the eye could have evolved because for millions of years we would have eyes that do nothing and eyes are similar in all mammals, if the eye had evolved they would be majorly different.
For crying out loud. Read this - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
grantus_max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 14:20
grantus_max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
Posts: 2,448
I am not telling atheists what they think I am saying that an atheist doesn't believe in a god, a theist believes in a god and an agnostic has varying views.
Do forgive me. You're not telling atheists what to think, you're telling us what we are thinking.

Guess what I'm thinking right now...
grantus_max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 16:09
delly
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,851
Do forgive me. You're not telling atheists what to think, you're telling us what we are thinking.

Guess what I'm thinking right now...
I know what I am thinking, that you are going around in ever decreasing circles. No-one is telling atheists what they are or what they think. Clearly, people have different definitions to you about agnosticism. Clearly you are trying to put agnosticism in the same bracket as atheism. It isn't, which is how I started this discussion.

How do I know this? Because before I became theist, I was agnostic. I didn't just decide out of the blue. I was never atheist.

Who is telling who what they are, what they think and what they believe?

YOU are.

Stop pigeonholing people.
delly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 16:13
delly
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,851
Why are you so stupid?
Why are you so insufferably patronising?
delly is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05.