Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[Alisa]

I just finished reading Dawkins "The God Delusion", in which he talked about the correlation between level of education and atheism. i.e., more scientific/technical/educated populations have more atheists (that explains why there are so few atheists in U.S., just look at the educational system).
So lets have a poll. I know there are lots of educated people on this board. Are you an atheist? I'll start. I have always been an atheist (luckily born to non-religous parents), and have always found it incomprehensible that other people can bring themselves to believe there is some supernatural being in the sky responsible for our existence, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence to support that belief.

 

[Dennisk]

It's a shame that millions of children every year are brainwashed into the belief system of their parents.

Religion should be for over 18 only.

 

[Mike375]

I clicked agnostic.

In my experience there are very few genuine atheists. Some give the game away by using (and living by).....the harder I work the luckier I get...what goes round comes around..etc and etc.

I certainly agree with you as to education but only if you are talking about formalised religion. A lot of medical specialists are in the "I don't really know" area.

Acceptance of some type of "outside force" is also very common with salesmen, and especially higher level salesman who seek out business as opposed to waiting for a customer. In the case of America a lot of religion is not due to lack of education but because their whole business enviroment is far more sales orientated than other countries.

Personally, I think both the Bible and evolution are just ways of each side trying to explain things and I am not sure which requires the greatest faith. Actually a lot of people think they believe in evolution when in reality they believe in species adaptation through natural selection. The Peppered Moth is always a good example. If England changed to solar power then eventually the light coloured moth would again be the prevalent colour.

As a side note one of my interests is dinosaurs and reptiles, so have been well down this path before

 

[Alisa]

Mike, there are so many things in your post that I disagree with that I don't even know where to begin.

In my experience there are very few genuine atheists. Some give the game away by using (and living by).....the harder I work the luckier I get...what goes round comes around..etc and etc.

Well, you are talking to a genuine atheist right now, and no, I don't believe that what goes around comes around.

Personally, I think both the Bible and evolution are just ways of each side trying to explain things and I am not sure which requires the greatest faith.

You do not need one iota of any sort of faith to understand evolutionary theory. That is a tragic misunderstanding that can easily be remedied by studying the subject. There are many great books on the subject, several by Dawkins himself in fact. In these books you will not find anyone asking you to take anything on faith. You will only find the evidence that lead us to our current understanding of evolutionary theory. Contrast that with the Bible. Yes the Bible is a historical document, but that in and of itself does not make anything that is written within the Bible true. You need a ton of faith to believe even a single page in the Bible, because there IS no evidence to go on.

Actually a lot of people think they believe in evolution when in reality they believe in species adaptation through natural selection.

The basis of evolutionary theory IS natural selection. What are you trying to say?

 

[Alisa]

I undertstand something of a big bang, what came before that? Do these books have an answer, or at that point do we go back to faith?

I agree with you that this whole business would be a lot easier if science could answer those questions - what was before the big bang? Where did matter come from? But I disagree with your (il)logical conclusion - if science can't explain it, it must be supernatural. Isn't it possible that it is not supernatural, but that science has just not gotten that far yet? There are many things that were historically considered supernatural, but were later understood to be natural phenomena, explicable by science. Isn't it at least possible that the origins of the universe fall into this category?

Even if you think my "possibility" is unlikely, isn't the existence of god even more unlikely? After all, if you want to use god to explain the origin of the universe, then where did god come from?

 

[Rabbie]

I clicked Atheist but if god appeared I would change my mind. As has already been said I have seen no convincing evidence that there is a god and I have seen a lot throughout life to convince me ot the truth of the statement that without religion good people do good things and bad people do bad things but with religion good people can do terrible things.

I have read "The God Delusion" and also "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I personally think is a better book.

 

[Alisa]

I have read "The God Delusion" and also "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I personally think is a better book.

I haven't read that one - I will check it out. Thanks for the rec.

 

[Mike375]

Alisa,

I wasn't expecting much agreement

Well, you are talking to a genuine atheist right now, and no, I don't believe that what goes around comes around.

I did not say there were no genuine atheists but many who claim to be atheists are not so.....they might not believe in God or a god but at the back of their mind there is something.

You do not need one iota of any sort of faith to understand evolutionary theory. That is a tragic misunderstanding that can easily be remedied by studying the subject. There are many great books on the subject, several by Dawkins himself in fact. In these books you will not find anyone asking you to take anything on faith.

The major probem with evolution is for a complete change of a species. For example, if we take the case of Chimp (or your choice) through to Man that is quite easy to see. The change from chimp to man does not involve eons of time where the transitional species would be totally vulnerable. But try getting from lizard to snake. Evolution becomes its own enemy because part of the basis of evolution promotion is the huge span of time involved.

While the bible bashers like to talk about a lack of transitional fossils they are also on firm ground. By definition transitional fossils should be a very large proportion of the fossils found but that is very far from the case.

You will only find the evidence that lead us to our current understanding of evolutionary theory. Contrast that with the Bible. Yes the Bible is a historical document, but that in and of itself does not make anything that is written within the Bible true. You need a ton of faith to believe even a single page in the Bible, because there IS no evidence to go on.

It is worth remembering that Dawin's original theory was in the area of species adapation, not the "for real" evolution. Evolution and the Bible both have one thing in common...they both look like reasonable explanations. A to evidence in the Bible I don't really agree with that because the Bible's evidence come because of holes in evolution.

Actually a lot of people think they believe in evolution when in reality they believe in species adaptation through natural selection.

The basis of evolutionary theory IS natural selection. What are you trying to say?

Not really. Natural selection is more about species adaptation with the Peppered Moth being the classic example. In fact there is an interesing one that has been developing in recent years with rattle snakes and is a by product of the Amercan Rattle Snake round up What is happening is the prevalence of rattle snakes that can't rattle is increasing. Of course the reason being that the rattle snake's rattle which serves as a warning to cattle, horses etc becomes its undoing with rattle snake round up.

Rabbits don't become immune to Myxomatosis or the Calici virus. Rather some individuals are immune and they are the ones that survive and breed.

True evolution is supposedly caused by mutations that go onto breed etc and etc. and the mutations are well adapted to the environment and is not related to natural selection. As an example we know that x% of births result in deformed children. Siamese twins etc and whatever. Currently, without human intervention noe of them would survive. However if the environment changed then such deformed children might be ideally suited for that environment. This, if that was the case and we came back in a few hundred years time them such children/adults would be common. Natural selection would only have served to increase their number but was not initially responsible.

 

[Alisa]

So science cannot explain it, neither can religion, So you put you faith in science ignoring its failings?

No, science does not require me to have faith. Let me break it down:
1. Science has not yet come up with a theory to explain the origin of the universe. No faith is required to "believe" this statement.
2. It is within the realm of possibility that there will eventually be a scientific theory to explain the origin of the univierse. No faith is required to "believe" this one either. Just stating a possibility.
3. God created the universe. Need lots of faith for this one, because there is no evidence for it. If God exists, where is he? Where did he come from?

(3) is not the only alternative to (1). (2) is a more reasonable alternative to (1) because it does not require any faith. It only requires patience.

 

[Mike375]

Isn't it possible that it is not supernatural, but that science has just not gotten that far yet? There are many things that were historically considered supernatural, but were later understood to be natural phenomena, explicable by science. Isn't it at least possible that the origins of the universe fall into this category?

QUOTE]

This a very valid point but it is also a point that puts true evolution into the "faith bin with the bible". Remember that "science" has been horribly wrong many times. Consider the great Isaac Newton. His laws of gravity are worthless once big distances come into play. Thus NASA has to use Eintein to put those robots on Mars

Full acceptance of evolution ranks right along with the "born again" Christians and the Bible.

 

[Mike375]

No, science does not require me to have faith.

Scienc does require you to have faith. What evidence do you have that there are electrons buzzing around a nucleus.

3. God created the universe. Need lots of faith for this one, because there is no evidence for it. If God exists, where is he? Where did he come from?

The evidence is that currently there is no other explanation.

As where is God etc. that is self solving if you take the position that God exists as the all powerful etc. Trying to figure out where God is or why He does this or that is like your pet ant or pet lizard trying work why you do what you do or come and go.

 

[Rabbie]

True evolution is supposedly caused by mutations that go onto breed etc and etc. and the mutations are well adapted to the environment and is not related to natural selection. As an example we know that x% of births result in deformed children. Siamese twins etc and whatever. Currently, without human intervention noe of them would survive. However if the environment changed then such deformed children might be ideally suited for that environment. This, if that was the case and we came back in a few hundred years time them such children/adults would be common. Natural selection would only have served to increase their number but was not initially responsible.

I would not agree with you 100% in separating Evolution and Natural Selection. My understanding is that random mutations will only survive if they are advantageous to the individual so they will be favoured by Natural selection. According to what I have read the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or disadvantageous to the individual.

The neutral changes will survive in the gene pool mostly unnoticed. The disadvantageous ones will not survive many generations and die out.

What one has to remember is the vast time scales of these changes. Most changes are hardly noticable from one generation to the next. It is the cumulative effect over many generations where the change becomes significant

For example if you had a mouse that was 1mm bigger than its parents and this was repeated at each generation It would take only 10 Thousand generations before it towered over an Elephant.

 

[Alisa]

Mike375,
You sound like an intelligent person, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Science will never be able to prove that evolutionary theory is true. In fact, science does not even seek to prove that it is true. In the scientific method, nothing can be proven, only disproven. Yes, evolutionary theory is far from complete. That is why scientists are still hard at work putting the puzzle together, filling in the holes, and questioning their previous assumptions. Yes, they have been wrong before- that is why they are always looking at new evidence, and discarding or modifying their theories when they are contradicted by new evidence. In fact, there is a famous line that you may have heard. When asked what evidence would disprove evolutionary theory, Haldane answered, Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

Now lets take your statment,

Evolution and the Bible both have one thing in common...they both look like reasonable explanations.

Evolution looks like a reasonable explanation. It explains quite a lot. Yes, there are holes, as I discussed above. That is the nature of a scientific inquiry. But there is currently no evidence that directly contradicts evolutionary theory. (no-one has ever discovered fossil rabbits in the Precambrian).

The Bible does not look like a reasonable explanation. I cannot even begin to fathom why you made this statement. What is reasonable about it? It doesn't even agree with its own self!

Finally, just because there is a hole in evolutionary theory, doesn't mean we need god to fill it. That is the point I was making in response to Paul's post. Just because science hasn't gotten that far doesn't make god a more reasonable explanation.

 

[Mike375]

I would not agree with you 100% in separating Evolution and Natural Selection. My understanding is that random mutations will only survive if they are advantageous to the individual so they will be favoured by Natural selection. According to what I have read the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or disadvantageous to the individual.

That is basically what I said.

The neutral changes will survive in the gene pool mostly unnoticed. The disadvantageous ones will not survive many generations and die out.

Agree

What one has to remember is the vast time scales of these changes. Most changes are hardly noticable from one generation to the next. It is the cumulative effect over many generations where the change becomes significant

But how do you get from lizard to snake. The eons of time is the killer. To get from lizard to snake will mean the "transitionals" that are perhaps 30% to 70% of the way there will have survive for eons of time is a completely vulernable state.

For example if you had a mouse that was 1mm bigger than its parents and this was repeated at each generation It would take only 10 Thousand generations before it towered over an Elephant.

But at the end it would be just a big mouse. Of course what would (and we are surrounded by this) is that it would reach a maximum size that was limited by its body build. The problem being that volume/weight increases as the cube but cross sectional area of the mucles/bone increases as the square.

 

[Rabbie]

But how do you get from lizard to snake. The eons of time is the killer. To get from lizard to snake will mean the "transitionals" that are perhaps 30% to 70% of the way there will have survive for eons of time is a completely vulernable state.

I am not a specialist in that field so I can't give you a definitive answer but it is easy to see how with very small changes from generation to generation how the changes could have occurred. I have read of creatures which appear snakelike but have residual legs which are only used during mating to grip the partner. as legs got smaller I imagine th creature moved more and mor ein snake like manner. To go deeper I would need to do more research but I know this and similar topics have been discussed at length in his books by Dawkins.

One point made by him is that if you could assemble generation by generation going back at time you would never see a sudden change. All the changes are very small and don't jump out at you.

 

[Alisa]

Has my logic failed me??

Yes your logic has failed you. That is why I did not bother to respond to your last post.

So whats you point, you are a science basher , no better than a bible basher.

I am not bashing science, I am explaining the scientific method, which you really ought to understand before engaging in arguments like this.

 

[Pauldohert]

Are you an atheist? I'll start. I have always been an atheist (luckily born to non-religous parents),

It's a shame that millions of children every year are brainwashed into the belief system of their parents.

 

[fearoffours]

Not sure how far I want to get involved with this thread, but seeing as I'm the only person to have selected the last option in the poll, it would seem amiss for me not to say something!

I've not read Dawkins, though I have some intention of doing so at some point. I can't argue against his theories if I haven't read them.
You may well find that amongst people of faith (I'm speaking as a Christian, but not on behalf of all Christians) there are a wide number of different viewpoints on the Creationist/Evolutionist spectrum. However, I think MOST Christians would agree that whether or not you take the story of Genesis chapter 1 as a literal truth, or whrther you interpret it more liberally, it is difficult to look at the wonders of this world, on both the largest and smallest level, and believe that it all happened through a chance happening.

I also hope all Christians would agree that there are several things within their faith it is far more important to agree upon than the Creation story (like the fact Christ came to Earth as God's only Son to die for our sins and take the punishment we deserved).

 

[Mike375]

Alisa,

Firstly, you will see from my posts that for me the jury is still out.

You sound like an intelligent person, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Science will never be able to prove that evolutionary theory is true. In fact, science does not even seek to prove that it is true. In the scientific method, nothing can be proven, only disproven.

Not so, just the opposite. Science proves things to be true.


Yes, evolutionary theory is far from complete.

Thus full acceptance requires faith????



Now lets take your statment,
Quote:
Evolution and the Bible both have one thing in common...they both look like reasonable explanations.

Evolution looks like a reasonable explanation. It explains quite a lot. Yes, there are holes, as I discussed above. That is the nature of a scientific inquiry. But there is currently no evidence that directly contradicts evolutionary theory. (no-one has ever discovered fossil rabbits in the Precambrian).

Let's take the IndoPacific (saltwater) and Nile crocodile. Both have no natural enemy yet both are heavily armoured but the armour is of no value protecting them from each other. Why are they still that way after at least (on latest evidence) a 110 million years. Like all reptiles they can go for very long periods of time without eating. However, they have one of the most efficient hunting systems of all predators and in adddition a digestive system that allows them to consume the entire animal. Why is that still the case.

The Bible does not look like a reasonable explanation. I cannot even begin to fathom why you made this statement. What is reasonable about it? It doesn't even agree with its own self!

It is reasonable for a couple of reasons. Firstly, like evolution (but more so) it provides and explanation that looks reasonable. Like the chimp to the man, it looks OK.

Secondly, would you agree that the difference between us and chimps is absolutely huge, in terms of what we can do, yet we are very close on a physical basis. So I ask you, what would an animal be like that compared to us was like us compared to a chimp. If one believes in evolution then surely that person must believe that there are animals/beings that are way above us. Perhaps they are the gods.

Finally, just because there is a hole in evolutionary theory, doesn't mean we need god to fill it. That is the point I was making in response to Paul's post. Just because science hasn't gotten that far doesn't make god a more reasonable explanation

But there are not just a couple of small holes in evolution, the holes are huge and it requires great faith to fully accept evolution.

How do get from fish to archosaur then to snake. What about theopod to bird, now that is some change. For starters you need to change the animal from having very powerful bag legs and almost non existant front legs to an animal that has all its power in the fore quarters. You need some very heavy duty faith for that little exercise.

 

[Alisa]

Atheism is not a belief system. I checked option 2 in my own poll. I don't THINK there is a god, but if he appeared tomorrow, I would change my mind. I don't think there is a god, because I don't see any evidence of one. If there were evidence, I would happily change my mind. There is no belief involved in this world view.
I said "luckily" because my parents did not impress ANY belief system upon me (their own or anyone else's). In fact, my parents are not atheists (they believe all that new agey nonsense about higher powers and spirits and whatnot).