| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jamal Bernhard" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2005 05:28:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
.
|
|
| User: "Mike V." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 06:07:14 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 11:08:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> posted :
"Mike V." <michaelav@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway.
If you have to ask that, you must be a sick, sociopathic asswipe.
Why? Are you projecting your carrot and stick?
Which I gathered from your first post.
You're so fucking stupid, it's hard to know where to start.
Maybe that's a sign?
A good place would be for you to recognize that there are people and
have been people in societies in this world that live without the
carrot on the stick you are talking about.
Think about that one for a while, dipshit.
Yeah, they are followed by someone hitting them with the stick and eating
the carrot. lol.
Anyways, atheists are just riding the coat tails of the people with higher
purpose who built them their cradles to sleep in.
I wouldn't know, because I'm not one, but your argument is still
stupid.
The only people that I see riding coat tails are idiot religious
freaks that take advantage of everything that science has to offer on
the one hand, while on the other hand say that they are all full of
*****.
People that don't "believe" in evolution, for instance.
They shouldn't be allowed to use any modern science or medicine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 01:50:10 PM |
|
|
"Mike V." <michaelav@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
A good place would be for you to recognize that there are people and
have been people in societies in this world that live without the
carrot on the stick you are talking about.
Think about that one for a while, dipshit.
Yeah, they are followed by someone hitting them with the stick and eating
the carrot. lol.
Anyways, atheists are just riding the coat tails of the people with higher
purpose who built them their cradles to sleep in.
I wouldn't know, because I'm not one, but your argument is still
stupid.
lol.
The only people that I see riding coat tails are idiot religious
freaks that take advantage of everything that science has to offer on
the one hand, while on the other hand say that they are all full of
*****.
Example? Please... do defend that nonsense statement.
People that don't "believe" in evolution, for instance.
I'm not sure how many people actually don't believe in evolution. Evolution
is demonstratable in a lab, etc. The actual issue is the THEORY of Natural
Selection. Both sides of the debate confuse the two as one.
They shouldn't be allowed to use any modern science or medicine.
Well, neither should you since you confuse theories with facts, then. lol.
Funny stuff, man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Android66" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 07:27:17 PM |
|
|
How so?
I believe in aspirin because my headache goes away and my fever goes
down after I take one, which is just what scientific studies say should
happen. I don't believe the THEORY of evolution, however, because it
does not adequately explain how life began and how it got to this
stage.
Most genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial, for example. The
laws of thermodynamics and entropy suggest that the universe moves
towards disorder not a state of order. Then there is the idea of
irreducable complexity of certain systems. And if animals and humans
all evolved from common ancestors, where are the intermediate species?
For example, we have dogs and we have horses, humans and apes. Horses
are said to have evolved from dogs, and humans from apes. If each step
in the evolutionary process is "better" than the last step, why is it
that we have the original product (apes and dogs) and the final product
(humans and horses), but no intermediate creatures that would have been
superior to the originals and inferior to us?
There are many other reasons for believing that evolution does not
adequately explain our world. Just because I don't think the THEORY of
evolution is correct doesn't mean that I reject *all* scientific
theories and should be unable to benefit from modern science or
medicine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 02:10:17 PM |
|
|
"Android66" <mandrovich@wifibullseye.com> wrote
How so?
I believe in aspirin because my headache goes away and my fever goes
down after I take one, which is just what scientific studies say should
happen. I don't believe the THEORY of evolution, however, because it
does not adequately explain how life began and how it got to this
stage.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory is Natural Selection.
Most genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial, for example.
Natural Selection accounts for this.
The
laws of thermodynamics and entropy suggest that the universe moves
towards disorder not a state of order.
They aren't the only laws and they don't negate Natural Selection.
Then there is the idea of
irreducable complexity of certain systems. And if animals and humans
all evolved from common ancestors, where are the intermediate species?
Dead. It's kind of the main idea in Natural Selection.
For example, we have dogs and we have horses, humans and apes. Horses
are said to have evolved from dogs, and humans from apes. If each step
in the evolutionary process is "better" than the last step, why is it
that we have the original product (apes and dogs) and the final product
(humans and horses), but no intermediate creatures that would have been
superior to the originals and inferior to us?
Locality is one explanation. Tribal fighting. Ecological support systems
only being able to produce enough for one group. The world hasn't always
been as vastly populated with humans over large areas. Like your comment
about disorder, it does not make sense that they would be here, according to
natural selection. There's only room for those that succeed. Natural
Selection doesn't say that humans evolved from modern day apes, but yet they
shared a common ancestor, as far as I understand.
There are many other reasons for believing that evolution does not
adequately explain our world. Just because I don't think the THEORY of
evolution is correct doesn't mean that I reject *all* scientific
theories and should be unable to benefit from modern science or
medicine.
You probably should STUDY the areas of evolution and natural selection and
then you could better defend your position and solidify your stance against
natural selection. Your best gurus are those that challenge you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 07:43:42 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 17:27:17 -0700, "Android66"
<mandrovich@wifibullseye.com> wrote:
How so?
I believe in aspirin because my headache goes away and my fever goes
down after I take one, which is just what scientific studies say should
happen. I don't believe the THEORY of evolution, however, because it
does not adequately explain how life began and how it got to this
stage.
Most genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial, for example. The
laws of thermodynamics and entropy suggest that the universe moves
towards disorder not a state of order. Then there is the idea of
irreducable complexity of certain systems. And if animals and humans
all evolved from common ancestors, where are the intermediate species?
For example, we have dogs and we have horses, humans and apes. Horses
are said to have evolved from dogs, and humans from apes. If each step
in the evolutionary process is "better" than the last step, why is it
that we have the original product (apes and dogs) and the final product
(humans and horses), but no intermediate creatures that would have been
superior to the originals and inferior to us?
Actually they're not. most are neutral.
There are many other reasons for believing that evolution does not
adequately explain our world. Just because I don't think the THEORY of
evolution is correct doesn't mean that I reject *all* scientific
theories and should be unable to benefit from modern science or
medicine.
Only if you are uneducated, ignorant and stupid.
Why are you posting your ignorance to people with a better grasp of
how the world works?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Erickson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
22 Oct 2005 09:50:16 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 17:27:17 -0700, "Android66"
<mandrovich@wifibullseye.com> wrote:
How so?
I believe in aspirin because my headache goes away and my fever goes
down after I take one, which is just what scientific studies say should
happen. I don't believe the THEORY of evolution, however, because it
does not adequately explain how life began and how it got to this
stage.
The theory of evolution does not address the question of life's
origin.
Most genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial, for example.
As I understand it, most mutations make little difference.
The
laws of thermodynamics and entropy suggest that the universe moves
towards disorder not a state of order. Then there is the idea of
irreducable complexity of certain systems. And if animals and humans
all evolved from common ancestors, where are the intermediate species?
For example, we have dogs and we have horses, humans and apes. Horses
are said to have evolved from dogs, and humans from apes. If each step
in the evolutionary process is "better" than the last step, why is it
that we have the original product (apes and dogs) and the final product
(humans and horses), but no intermediate creatures that would have been
superior to the originals and inferior to us?
Humans are not supposed to have evolved from the apes you can still
see. And the theoryof evolution says nothing about anything being
"better" than something else.
There are many other reasons for believing that evolution does not
adequately explain our world. Just because I don't think the THEORY of
evolution is correct doesn't mean that I reject *all* scientific
theories and should be unable to benefit from modern science or
medicine.
You seriously misunderstand the idea -- even the notion of a THEORY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 05:21:24 AM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 17:27:17 -0700, "Android66"
<mandrovich@wifibullseye.com> wrote:
How so?
I believe in aspirin because my headache goes away and my fever goes
down after I take one, which is just what scientific studies say should
happen. I don't believe the THEORY of evolution, however, because it
does not adequately explain how life began and how it got to this
stage.
Evolution is about what happened to life after it got started, and has nothing
to do with where life came from.
Most genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial, for example.
Most genetic mutations, have no effect what so ever.
The
laws of thermodynamics and entropy suggest that the universe moves
towards disorder not a state of order.
But the 2LOT, is only valid, in a closed system.
Earth, is NOT a "closed system. Earth gets extra energy from the Sun, thus
enabling the apparent reversal of the 2LOT.
Then there is the idea of
irreducable complexity of certain systems.
Which is another cretinist argument, built on lies and deliberate
misconceptions.
But in support of your argument for "irreducible complexity", name just one
"system", for which no less evolved version exists, in some other life form.
And if animals and humans
all evolved from common ancestors, where are the intermediate species?
Most of them are extinct.
For example, we have dogs and we have horses, humans and apes. Horses
are said to have evolved from dogs,
No, they aint. They are evolved from something the SIZE of a dog.
and humans from apes.
Agreed.
If each step in the evolutionary process
I think that this is where you cretinists get confused. There are no "steps",
as such, in evolution. Unless, of course you want to call each generation, "a
step".
You can't even call it a "slope", it is more like a branching, meandering, path,
with no fixed destination.
The so called "steps", and merely the identified markers along that path.
They do, however, show the progression of one species, to a later form, or even,
to another species.
Farther more, to say that any of these steps/markers, along the way, is an
"improvement" on it's predecessor, is a reference to that creatures immediate
environment, and nothing more.
is "better" than the last step,
To say that any of these steps/markers, along the way, is an "improvement" on
it's predecessor, is a reference to that creatures immediate environment, and
nothing more.
why is it
that we have the original product (apes and dogs) and the final product
(humans and horses),
First off. Humans do not come from apes. Humans and apes have a common ancestor,
which was NOT an ape, (call it a "proto ape") and humans, ARE apes.
Horses do not come from dogs.
but no intermediate creatures that would have been
superior to the originals and inferior to us?
Superior, in what way? Is it not possible that the *superior * descendant,
killed off, the "inferior" predecessor?
In the case of humans, most of the changes were gradual, but two, were very
distinct.
It is IMFFHO, these two very distinct changes, which made the difference between
us, and the rest of the apes.
One was intelligence, and the other was the female becoming sexually receptive
all of the time, and not just seasonally.
The two elements combined, gave those females, and their off spring, a much
better chance of survival. [Sex, in return for food and protection].
There are many other reasons for believing that evolution does not
adequately explain our world.
Such as?
Just because I don't think the THEORY of
evolution is correct
The "theory" of evolution, could well be incorrect, but it is doubtful.
OTOH, the *facts* of evolution, which the theory sets out to explain, remain
unchanged.
Evolution happened, is happening, will continue to happen. That is a fact.
The explanation of the evidence, of that *fact*, the hows, whys, whens and
where-fors, of it all, is the *Theory*.
Because evolution is not a single process, or the result of a single
circumstance, it is possible that the theory is wrong, in small detail; But
over all, the more evidence we gather, he more evident it becomes that if it is
wrong, it aint wrong by very much.
doesn't mean that I reject *all* scientific
theories and should be unable to benefit from modern science or
medicine.
Are you aware of how much of "modern medicine", owes it's effectiveness, to our
understanding of evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 10:37:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:21:24 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
and humans from apes.
Agreed.
Sorry, wasn't taking a lot of notice.
Humans are NOT, evolved from apes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 10:59:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:37:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
<aqvpl15q4j6dlssb30sreq16o2n005n78g@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:21:24 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
and humans from apes.
Agreed.
Sorry, wasn't taking a lot of notice.
Humans are NOT, evolved from apes.
You are wrong, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 12:32:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:59:06 -0500, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:37:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
<aqvpl15q4j6dlssb30sreq16o2n005n78g@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:21:24 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
and humans from apes.
Agreed.
Sorry, wasn't taking a lot of notice.
Humans are NOT, evolved from apes.
You are wrong, of course.
No, I am not., unless you want to twist " All apes, humans included, have a
common ancestor", to mean that humans are descended from apes.
(alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2) removed from header.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 02:44:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:32:00 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:59:06 -0500, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:37:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
<aqvpl15q4j6dlssb30sreq16o2n005n78g@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:21:24 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
and humans from apes.
Agreed.
Sorry, wasn't taking a lot of notice.
Humans are NOT, evolved from apes.
You are wrong, of course.
No, I am not., unless you want to twist " All apes, humans included, have a
common ancestor", to mean that humans are descended from apes.
Cladistically it would be an ancestral ape. BEcause cladistically
humans are African Great Apes. There is no way to draw up a
(alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2) removed from header.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 05:39:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:44:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
No, I am not., unless you want to twist " All apes, humans included, have a
common ancestor", to mean that humans are descended from apes.
Cladistically it would be an ancestral ape. BEcause cladistically
humans are African Great Apes. There is no way to draw up a
Lacking better data, I prefer to call it "ape like", rather than "ape"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 01:23:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:32:00 GMT, in alt.atheism
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
<ea6ql15rps5uqdaua3tgtneokmemqu4p8f@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:59:06 -0500, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:37:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
<aqvpl15q4j6dlssb30sreq16o2n005n78g@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:21:24 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
and humans from apes.
Agreed.
Sorry, wasn't taking a lot of notice.
Humans are NOT, evolved from apes.
You are wrong, of course.
No, I am not., unless you want to twist " All apes, humans included, have a
common ancestor", to mean that humans are descended from apes.
Why don't you think that the common ancestor of the great apes was an
ape itself?
(alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2) removed from header.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 01:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:23:35 -0500, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Why don't you think that the common ancestor of the great apes was an
ape itself?
I separate the two, in much the same way that people tend to separate human, and
ape, and because, when discussing with fundies, to suggest that man is descended
from apes, is tantamount to saying that we are descended from modern apes.
The branching of monkeys and hominoids occurred, we believe, ( the fossil record
is rather skimpy) in the late Oligocene , 38 to 25 million years ago.
A little too far back to call them "apes".
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 02:09:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:46:51 GMT, in alt.atheism
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
<31aql19jb4lq5sb78fqpt1qnp3vkn5c92g@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:23:35 -0500, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Why don't you think that the common ancestor of the great apes was an
ape itself?
I separate the two, in much the same way that people tend to separate human, and
ape, and because, when discussing with fundies, to suggest that man is descended
from apes, is tantamount to saying that we are descended from modern apes.
But it isn't in the real world. There is no reason to stop learning just
because religious zealots hate knowledge.
The branching of monkeys and hominoids occurred, we believe, ( the fossil record
is rather skimpy) in the late Oligocene , 38 to 25 million years ago.
A little too far back to call them "apes".
I said apes, not monkeys. We share a more recent common ancestor with
the other great apes than we do with monkeys.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 05:01:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:09:19 -0500, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
But it isn't in the real world.
It is close enough.
Besides, too many of those fanatics, don't live in the "real world", they don't
even visit it.
There is no reason to stop learning just
because religious zealots hate knowledge.
Have I suggested otherwise?
The branching of monkeys and hominoids occurred, we believe, ( the fossil record
is rather skimpy) in the late Oligocene , 38 to 25 million years ago.
A little too far back to call them "apes".
I said apes, not monkeys.
So you did.
And the ancestors of apes, the hominoids, split from the ancestors of monkeys,
in the late Oligocene.
We share a more recent common ancestor with
the other great apes than we do with monkeys.
I have not suggest anything else.
However, there is still the question of who/what, branched from where.
The branch from gorillas, is some eight million years ago.
At eight million years, the best you can call them, is "ape like".
But even at five million years, when humans speciate from chimps, you cannot,
strictly, call the ancestor, an ape, only "ape like".
Would you call Homo Hablis, the first large brained hominid, a man?
Of course not, only man like.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 04:03:02 PM |
|
|
You are a compendium of confusion and malapropism, aren't you?
Android66 wrote:
I believe in aspirin because my headache goes away and my fever goes
down after I take one, which is just what scientific studies say should
happen. I don't believe the THEORY of evolution, however, because ...
Ah, here's the first one. "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution," is often
snickered at by religionists who are frightened of its implications.
Whether its a genuine misunderstanding, or just spin to try to make the
ToE look ridiculous, they use this layman's definition of theory:
| An assumption based on limited information or
| knowledge; a conjecture.
When, in fact, the appropriate definition of "theory," in this case, is:
| A set of statements or principles devised to
| explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially
| one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
| accepted and can be used to make predictions about
| natural phenomena.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
... it does not adequately explain how life began ...
That's entirely because it makes no attempt to explain the origin of
*life.* Rather, it attempts to explain the origin of the *species.*
Wikipedia says it well enough:
| In biology, evolution is the process by which
| populations of organisms acquire and pass on
| novel traits from generation to generation,
| affecting the overall makeup of the population
| and even leading to the emergence of new species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
... and how it got to this stage.
There we go, that's in the domain of the ToE. Speciation through means
of natural selection has actually been observed in the relatively short
time frame that the ToE has been around. Coupled with the complete
absence of evidence (or even plausible speculation about) any possible
barriers to this mechanism, and the nested hierarchy we see within
Earth's creatures, past and present, the ToE appears to be a good
explanation of how life has differentiated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
Most genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial,
for example.
Actually, most genetic mutations are neutral. Some can be fixed into
populations by genetic drift, but the harmful mutations tend to make
creatures die before reproduction, or limit their reproduction, while
beneficial mutations tend to enhance the organisms chance of
reproductive success. It is this *selection* of mutations that forms a
principle drive of evolution.
The laws of thermodynamics and entropy suggest that
the universe moves towards disorder not a state of order.
What you are so clumsily stating is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
posits that the universe tends towards disorder.
Your simplification of this law obliterates the real meaning in the
original statement. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is:
| dQ =< T dS
|
| dQ is change in heat
| T is temperature
| dS is change in entropy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.html
Although entropy is often described as "disorder," such that an increase
in entropy would be a decrease in the "order" of a system, it is not the
same type of ordering you would have your teenager do to his room. It
is a specific thermodynamic state that is generally not comparable to
macroscopic definitions -- If your teenager cleans up his room, he may
well *increase* the entropy of the universe in the process.
Another overlooked detail to this law is that the change in entropy
applies to the entire universe. You may have a localized decrease in
entropy, as long as there is a net increase to the entire universe.
You can see this localized decrease in entropy on any day of the week by
visiting an area greenhouse. Most of the sun's radiation is frittered
away, but some of it is used, by plants in that greenhouse, to build the
organized molecules of its system.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/MACPHE3.html
Then there is the idea of
irreducable complexity of certain systems.
There is an idea, yes, but it has not be presented in a way that is
falsifiable -- in other words, it is not subjected to the very test of
science you refer to in your opening paragraph.
And if animals and humans
all evolved from common ancestors, where are the intermediate species?
For example, we have dogs and we have horses, humans and apes. Horses
are said to have evolved from dogs, and humans from apes.
Firstly, the odds of a creature getting fossilized is relatively low, so
an archeologist's job is radically unlike making a trip to the Library
of Congress. That said, there are many wonderfully articulated
transitional sequences:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
One other point that is worth making:
Creationists often complain about all of the "gaps" between species.
Then, when a transitional is found between those two species, the
howling is doubled because there are now two gaps between the three
species! It would be funny if faith-based reasoning were not such a
danger to scientific education.
If each step
in the evolutionary process is "better" than the last step, ...
Simply put, it's not. Evolution does not seek to better a species,
except in terms of its adaptation to a given environment. If that
environment changes, evolution will push it towards adapting to those
new conditions. No species is "more evolved" than any other.
... why is it that we have the original product (apes and dogs)
and the final product (humans and horses), ...
There is no requirement that an "original species" die out if part of
the population differentiates into a new species. What generally
happens is that a population is divided, often by geography, and slowly
changes, adapting to its differing environment, until it can no longer
breed with the original population.
In some respects, the "original species" may no longer be the same
species either. If their environment has changes, natural selection can
also have altered their makeup enough that they could no longer breed
with their ancestors.
but no intermediate creatures that would have been
superior to the originals and inferior to us?
As mentioned above, it's all about a particular species adaptation to an
environment. As long as the environment persists, a species that's
well-adapted to it, can remain in basically its same form.
There are many other reasons for believing that
evolution does not adequately explain our world.
When it comes down to it, you only have two reasons for not believing
that the Theory of Evolution is a good explanation for the observations
of life on Earth:
1) You aren't suffuciently acquainted with what the theory says, or what
the observations are, to make a sensible evaluation.
2) You've heard from someone that the theory conflicts with your
particular brand of religious thinking, and therefore must deny it as a
threat to your faith.
Just because I don't think the THEORY of
evolution is correct doesn't mean that I reject *all* scientific
theories and should be unable to benefit from modern science or
medicine.
There's two more reasons for this as well:
1) Other theories don't conflict with your convictions, as discussed in
Reason #2, above.
2) You'd look like an idiot to *everyone,* including other members of
your congregation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 10:55:19 AM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2005 19:11:56 -0700, "imagenieinabottlebaby"
<ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jamal Bernhard wrote:
ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway. Of course you're going to say "because it's just
the right thing to do." But there's something deeper than just the
incentives. People who do good without expecting rewards, do it because
they believe in the concept of goodness, and they put faith in the
concept of goodness.
RIGHT!!! Everything you just said is correct. Also... everything
you just said does NOT require belief in gods or an afterlife. If you
do good BECAUSE you expect rewards and/or a good afterlife then are
you simply doing it for SELFISH reasons.
An atheist who does good, does it because they want to do good, with
absolutely no concept of a reward or afterlife FOR IT.
Who's more likely to get into your Heaven?
1: The Christian who does it because they KNOW they'll get into
heaven for being good.
2: The atheist who does good because it's the right thing to do, no
reward needed or expected.
This question is one of many that made me seriously doubt my
Christianity and lead to a fullfilling life as an atheist.
Atheism tells us that no matter how good we are
we're going to be destroyed forever, and that kind of thing has a way
of jading you.
And why would you think that? Why would I feel jaded because when my
life is over, it's over. Why couldn't that fact INSPIRE me to do good
and help others? (which it does, by the way)...
You're letting your Theistic worldview and brainwashing of what an
atheist "is" cloud your mind.
If atheism is true, then why would I care about
anything, or love anything or put faith in anything? Atheism is such a
spirit-crushing concept. Nothing matters.
It's really pitiful that you see your life is WORTHLESS without that
carrot dangling out in front of you. Life is Beautiful, wonderful...
full of LOVE. Of course there are negative things in the world, and I
do my small part to fix what I can, but I look forward to each day as
it comes. I'm excited when I wake up. I'm JOYOUS when I create art.
I feel loved when my wife hugs me from behind, just because....
And one day it will be over. So what?
You know 'in the end' you will be fired, let go, or retired from your
job, does that make it not worth doing? One day your house will rot
and disintegrated back into the earth, does that make it not worth
building?
As the Poison song goes,
"give me something to belive in." Because if I'm going to face the
horror of ceasing to exist, I can't be motivated to care, love,
believe, or have faith.
I believe in People. I believe in love. I believe in helping those
around me. I believe in encouraging and teaching the less fortunate.
I believe in standing up for what is right as I see it.
There is no "horror" in not existing... when you die, you die...
there's no horror in that. After you die, parts of you live on in
those you've touched throughout your life. Die with that knowledge.
Die satisfied with your life lived. There's honor in that.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
atheism is the belief that there is no god, and that when we die we
cease to excist.
I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm not sure how atheists can no
believe in gods (lack of evidence), yet believe in an afterlife (exact
same lack of evidence), but that's Their choice.
*IF* there's an afterlife, I'll be pleasantly surprised won't I? And,
contrary, if there isn't, those atheists and theists who believe in
one will never know there isn't. If that carrot of an afterlife
sustains them on their deathbeds, then I'm happy for them.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
28 Oct 2005 03:10:29 PM |
|
|
There is no "horror" in not existing... when you die, you die...
there's no horror in that. After you die, parts of you live on in
those you've touched throughout your life. Die with that knowledge.
Die satisfied with your life lived. There's honor in that.
Not much lives on, even. I do genealogy. It's remarkable how little
is remembered about a person 100 years after they die. "Benjamin
Yoder, born Nov 15 1845, died Oct 28 1905 of fast consumption, lived in
Lackawanna NY, made shoes, married Gertie McBerth in 1868, had seven
children Gwen, Benjamin, Alice, America, Cornelius, Cetus, and Daisy,
plus two stillborn." And nobody cares much about that memory, either.
Most of a person's total effect is on the here-and-now.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 02:04:37 PM |
|
|
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
An atheist who does good, does it because they want to do good, with
absolutely no concept of a reward or afterlife FOR IT.
Who's more likely to get into your Heaven?
1: The Christian who does it because they KNOW they'll get into
heaven for being good.
2: The atheist who does good because it's the right thing to do, no
reward needed or expected.
If you look at the Bible, the requirements for getting into Heaven are
pretty clear - the first is to accept God, the second is to give of
yourself selflessly.
So, I don't think neither would make it into heaven, since the atheist hasn't
accepted God, and the "Christian" who does believe in God, hasn't given
himself up to God.
This question is one of many that made me seriously doubt my
Christianity and lead to a fullfilling life as an atheist.
Yes, I know how you feel. Then again, I always felt the need to question
things, which I didn't think made me a good Christian as I didn't really
think this was showing faith.
Although, I always felt there was...something...out there.
I've recentally read a book which attempts to explain some of the true
messages in the Bible, and partially answered the questions I had - but
dared not ask - when I was younger. I think deep down I knew some of the
answers already, but since they didn't match what the churches were
saying, I began to doubt myself. While some doubt remains, I find myself
drifting back towards Christianity...only it's the Christianity described
in the Bible, and not by a church.
*IF* there's an afterlife, I'll be pleasantly surprised won't I? And,
contrary, if there isn't, those atheists and theists who believe in
one will never know there isn't. If that carrot of an afterlife
sustains them on their deathbeds, then I'm happy for them.
The problem is, if you treat the afterlife like the proverbial carrot (or
stick), then you haven't learned the lesson. Our actions shouldn't be
based on either a carrot or stick that someone is holding over our head.
We alone are responsible for the choices we make.
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
23 Oct 2005 12:43:37 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-21 12:04:37 -0700, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> said:
If you look at the Bible, the requirements for getting into Heaven are
pretty clear - the first is to accept God, the second is to give of
yourself selflessly.
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is HeavenŽ.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have
taken my wages in people.
- Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 03:56:12 PM |
|
|
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 655321 <DipthotDipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 04:06:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:56:12 -0000, in alt.atheism
Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in
<11lqijcfa7g5i7c@corp.supernews.com>:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 655321 <DipthotDipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 08:32:03 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish?
In and of itself, perhaps, but that's a simplistic view of what is at
question. And, you still haven't shown that trying to get into heaven is
implicitly selfish nor mutually exclusive from giving oneself selflessly.
You aren't selfish for taking a breath of air. I'm sure you'd agree on
that. Can you give of yourself selflessly while breathing? Obviously.
Trying to get into heaven does not take anything away from anyone else.
There isn't a limited number of seats, in generally accepted beliefs. So,
there's nothing selfish about it, really.
Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
This line of reasoning is critically flawed and honestly deserves no further
attention other than to point out its flaw.
You are taking one scenario, a motivation of not going to hell, etc, as the
necessary scenario. It's a false dilemma, to be exact, since the act of
doing something good, knowing that from good acts comes reward yet not being
necessarily motivated by that, exists.
So, your attempt to prove that once someone knows that there is a heaven as
a reward for doing good acts, etc, exists, they can no longer give of
themselves selflessly fails.
It's rather pitiful that your atheistic psyche is so weak that you need to
find flaws in other systems to make yourself feel superior in your choice.
A wise person can see the good of other systems even if they don't agree in
the basis of those systems. You seem to act very much like the fools you
condemn. Atheism is a religion to you, actually.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 09:40:42 PM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2005 20:32:03 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in
<435d8a89$0$265$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish?
In and of itself, perhaps, but that's a simplistic view of what is at
question. And, you still haven't shown that trying to get into heaven is
implicitly selfish nor mutually exclusive from giving oneself selflessly.
You aren't selfish for taking a breath of air. I'm sure you'd agree on
that. Can you give of yourself selflessly while breathing? Obviously.
Trying to get into heaven does not take anything away from anyone else.
My initial point was a response to a claim that these were selfless. I
disagreed. Your arguments have not persuaded me otherwise.
There isn't a limited number of seats, in generally accepted beliefs. So,
there's nothing selfish about it, really.
Unless you are a JW.
Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
This line of reasoning is critically flawed and honestly deserves no further
attention other than to point out its flaw.
You are taking one scenario, a motivation of not going to hell, etc, as the
necessary scenario. It's a false dilemma, to be exact, since the act of
doing something good, knowing that from good acts comes reward yet not being
necessarily motivated by that, exists.
It depends on the people. I know many Christians who are good people and
would continue to be good people if they learned tomorrow that there was
no god and no afterlife. I also know people who are obsessed with the
afterlife and incapable of actually doing anything without calculation.
I was specifically talking about those whose behavior is controlled by
their beliefs about the afterlife.
So, your attempt to prove that once someone knows that there is a heaven as
a reward for doing good acts, etc, exists, they can no longer give of
themselves selflessly fails.
Nope. I didn't say that.
It's rather pitiful that your atheistic psyche is so weak that you need to
find flaws in other systems to make yourself feel superior in your choice.
I don't feel superior or inferior. My behavior isn't motivated by
promises from preachers.
A wise person can see the good of other systems even if they don't agree in
the basis of those systems. You seem to act very much like the fools you
condemn. Atheism is a religion to you, actually.
Not at all. I do see the good of people who act well. I also see the
evil of manipulating people with religious promises.
[I have set the follow-up to alt.atheism, since none of the others seem
remotely related to this discussion.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Janssen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 07:23:55 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Not if most of the primary acts consist of being part of an
"underground" PR/group-ethic to help *others* to.
But, what if I--
....TRUST me. We know these things.
Derek Janssen (we got a little more background info, 'kay?)
djanss@charter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 08:26:38 PM |
|
|
Derek Janssen wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Not if most of the primary acts consist of being part of an
"underground" PR/group-ethic to help *others* to.
Forgive me for being dense, but I can't figure out what the hell you
just said. What's "underground"? Does PR mean public relations (and if
so, how does that apply)? Group-ethic? Help others to do what?
I mean, I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, but I'm not
entirely sure that sentence wasn't in code.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Janssen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 01:35:08 AM |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
Derek Janssen wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Not if most of the primary acts consist of being part of an
"underground" PR/group-ethic to help *others* to.
Forgive me for being dense, but I can't figure out what the hell you
just said. What's "underground"? Does PR mean public relations (and if
so, how does that apply)?
You got a good product, you sell it--Generate some customer word-of-mouth.
No better selling tool...So, what's your question again?
Group-ethic? Help others to do what?
I mean, I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, but I'm not
entirely sure that sentence wasn't in code.
Okay, let's try translating that for the dense and/or self-absorbed:
Who said it was just *ourselves* that we were trying to get
upstairs?...Would YOU keep a cool restaurant to yourself if you were
friends with the owner?
Derek Janssen (y'know, it just CAN'T have been this easy for CS Lewis)
djanss@charter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Janssen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 07:23:09 AM |
|
|
Derek Janssen wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to
give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the
point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Not if most of the primary acts consist of being part of an
"underground" PR/group-ethic to help *others* to.
Forgive me for being dense, but I can't figure out what the hell you
just said. What's "underground"? Does PR mean public relations (and if
so, how does that apply)?
You got a good product, you sell it--Generate some customer word-of-mouth.
No better selling tool...So, what's your question again?
Group-ethic? Help others to do what?
I mean, I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, but I'm not
entirely sure that sentence wasn't in code.
"In code", hmm...Y'know, I once read about a Guy who talked JUST LIKE that:
In fact, practically *everything* He said sounded like it was on some
abstract coded double-level thing--
Like, y'know, He'd go on and on with this story-anecdote thing about a
couple farmers who borrowed money or some stupid thing, and you'd think,
"Okay, wait, wait...He's NOT sitting here talking about servants and
planting grains in the field, he's gotta be off wayyy over our heads on
this allegory-symbolism <quote-fingers> 'catch My drift' thing, so
what's *really* goin' on here, right?"
Turns out one time, somebody DID ask Him, "Okay, just what the heck
*are* You talking about, anyway?", and straight out, He just does this,
"Hey, think I'm talking in code?--Guess what: I AM."
But it's like, two weeks later, y'know, you're planting grain, and it's
all of a sudden "Oh...DUH: Servants, grain, got it."...And it's
embarrassing, right?--'Cause didn't sound like it made sense at the
time, and it turns out the whole story was two or three steps ahead of
you? Half the time, He even EXPLAINS it, and you were just sitting
there going, "Duh, that's not a story!"
Oh, man...I mean, go figure. :)
Derek Janssen ("Go". "Figure". Both verbs.)
djanss@charter.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 11:23:08 PM |
|
|
Derek Janssen wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
Derek Janssen wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Not if most of the primary acts consist of being part of an
"underground" PR/group-ethic to help *others* to.
Forgive me for being dense, but I can't figure out what the hell you
just said. What's "underground"? Does PR mean public relations (and if
so, how does that apply)?
You got a good product, you sell it--Generate some customer word-of-mouth.
No better selling tool...So, what's your question again?
So, can you demonstrate this product? Can you show this product is more
than just snake oil?
Group-ethic? Help others to do what?
I mean, I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, but I'm not
entirely sure that sentence wasn't in code.
Okay, let's try translating that for the dense and/or self-absorbed:
Who said it was just *ourselves* that we were trying to get
upstairs?...Would YOU keep a cool restaurant to yourself if you were
friends with the owner?
Ah. You're talking about proselytizing. I didn't catch that since it
was so far off of the topic in discussion. So in your view the way to
get into heaven is to bring others into the fold? I expect you shall do
quite poorly, considering what an ***** you are to those that don't agree
with you.
Of course, you still haven't addressed the claim that working with the
purpose of achieving a reward is inherently selfish.
Personally, while I agree with that claim, I don't think most
Christians consider themselves to be working towards heaven (at least
the ones I've known), so it's largely inapplicable.
Now, as to this cool restaurant, how do you expect to tell someone how
to get there when you've never seen it yourself? More to the point, why
do you come to a newsgroup full of people that have canvassed the map,
trying to find this restaurant, and have come to the conclusion that it
probably doesn't exist and is not worth it to spend the rest of our
lives looking for it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
