This thread's main purpose is to ask questions to atheists and see what answers they can provide, if it is logical or not.
I want to know more about Atheistic beliefs.
Let me ask the first question.
If there is no Divine Intervention involved in the procreation of life, can man create life out of basic organic matter?
Some athests who adhere to evolution say we came from single-celled organisms. Is it possible to mutate these single-celled organisms into fully bred human beings through artificial means?
I'm not talking about cloning or artificial insemination. I'm asking if it is possible to make a human being from separate cells without a human host.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
So you want people to take hundreds of millions of years of evolution, throw it out of the window, and create a human being in the span of a year or so (you gave no time span, I know, but just for argument's sake)? Is that what you're asking?
Yes, they do.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
EDIT: I mean, 1) evolution has nothing to do with atheism and 2) evolutionary theory does not predict we should be able to build humans from single cullular organisms. Your question is not about either evolution or atheism...
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Mar 14th, 2009 at 12:43 PM
This is quite pointless. Just because someone might be an atheist doesnīt mean they know the answer to everything.
At least they say that they donīt know & give maybe some feasible possibility. Unlike religious people who just have their easy way out answer "God did it". Which doesnīt explain anything and is just as effective as saying that "the third star of Orion is a biological creation machine that made everything", this has just as much validity as "God made it".
I'm aware of the meaning of the word 'adhere' I was questioning its usage in this context; acknowledging the theory of evolution as fact does not mean that one 'adheres' to it. Here the word 'adhere' has subjective, spiritual connotations that do not fit with scientific fact.
I'd say it is reasonable to say there might be atheists who "adhere" to evolution. These are likely the same ones who ask you to look things up in Dawkin's work and who have totally given their consciousness over to someone else's thoughts.
There is a nearly "cult" (used in the sociological way, meaning new religious movement) of atheism at the moment, with people following the words of a select few intellectuals. It is absurdly ironic, especially to me, as part of being an atheist for myself was the rejection of such thought control.
That's silly though. Is it that they did not look at the evidence and so just put their faith in a different kind of prophet (or leader or guide or what have you)? It seems to defeat the purpose of rejecting a supernatural power if one is simply going to replace it with a mortal version.
agreed, but you can see it even in some of the discussions on this board.
Frequently, "atheists" will come here, make the "God is dead" "God is a delusion" etc. quip, then when pressed, will say stuff like, "oh, I don't get it, but look up this by Dawkins or Hitchens".
I think it exposes the fact that many people don't really understand their own faith well enough to defend it against a logical attack, so they either react negatively toward Dawkins, or they accept his words as truth. Sam Harris actually does a talk (I've posted it a bunch of times, I'll pm it if you want) where the woman introducing him is like "I read his book, started marking passages, memorizing them, getting my friends to read it". At the end of the talk (it was about why atheists shouldn't identify themselves as such) there are even people saying things like "but I need to identify myself with something". its so weird imho.
Then again (from a theistic perspective) they would be atheists. It's interesting actually, just about everyone has a version of "god" (deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion) that they follow. I've always wondered why that would be, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit from it except perhaps as a way of focusing one's self.
Seems more like intellectual laziness. People can have a very good understanding of their beliefs/morals but not feel the need to defend them in the first place. I assume negative reactions are more of a "it's none of your business" knee-jerk.
She sounds like a born again Christian
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
That's scary. Not only is she talking in buzzwords but she could be the posterchild(woman whatever) for how not to pick beliefs. She read four books and changed her mind four times? Oh, yes clearly she's an atheist.
That would seem to be exactly the kind of thinking that Dawkins and Co would want to dissuade people from (and if it's not they've gone completely "wrestle with monsters" on the issue).
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I could hum a couple of bars about neurological pathways and how narratives of events are built before we think about them, but ya, it is weird.
We are all guilty of it, but how do you stop viewing the world through your own personal experiences?
I'm not saying that they need to defend them, but, almost like what that evangelical article Robtard posted, about the tenets of the faith not being as important as the egotistic feeling of being religious.
I'm saying that anyone who is convinced by reading something probably doesn't have a solid ground for their beliefs in the first place.
I know. good thing I'm not an atheist
I couldn't believe it when I saw it the first time. Its extra ironic considering Harris' talk, but damn, I wanted to slap her
sometimes, from the rhetoric they use, I wonder.
Given some of the things Harris, Dawkins etc have said, especially their stance against moderate religion, which to me is a stance against individual freedom, I have to wonder if they wouldn't prefer a world where everyone was indoctrinated atheist rather than free to choose a religion.
I guess the short answer to that question is "you don't" with the long answer being "you try to empathize and bring other perspectives into your own."
Yes, probably. Beliefs should ideally be something that you develop as you learn new things about the world rather than something that is dictated to you. Although, I don't doubt that still happens, besides cosmetic changes that people make when they convert the principles they stand on tend to remain broadly similar. Hence the old point that atheists don't flip put and go on killings sprees due to their beliefs changing.
Hopefully they're assuming that people will think critically and assume that critical thinking inherently leads to atheism (which is a different discussion altogether).
I was listening to Harris' speech and he makes an interesting point about how an "atheist" world would be one where the idea of atheism is non-existent. Which made me thing about a story I'm working on which (among other things) contains physically present deities that have always been around.
Besides setting up parts of the story I also eventually figured out that their existence would result in a totally atheist (from our perspective) society. Not out of incompetence, I'm trying to avoid that particular cliche, but by fundamentally altering the meaning of the word "god" so that atheism does not exist outside of thought experiments.
The presence of something that people can point to and say "that's a god" totally erases religious debate and effectively religion by forcing it entirely into philosophical terms (or, for the kids, "my favorite god could totally beat up yours!").
Heh, now I get why you write so much.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 14th, 2009 08:38 AM
