Torero Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 Evolution is the theory explaining the biodiversity (and similarities) we see all around. Abiogenesis is the process by which living molecules formed from amino acids. I see no problems in the bio-chemistry of that. Afterlife is impossible to prove or disprove. It is however easy to explain as the result of a fear of dying that we, conscious creatures, have by default.
WontStandForIt Posted March 5, 2016 Author Posted March 5, 2016 Okay, it is your choice to believe in a theory based on chance, and my choice to believe a religion that is based on culture that has existed for thousands of years.
Torero Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 Okay, it is your choice to believe in a theory based on chance, and my choice to believe a religion that is based on culture that has existed for thousands of years.It's quite funny that there doesn't need to be any conflict. My fiancée is catholic but at the same time sees evolution as the most logical theory to explain the biodiversity all around us. You however seem to see that conflict. At the same time I have no problems if she sees in something I would call "coincidence" 'a sign from God'. After all I have no possibility to 'prove' it was coincidence. No need to either. Not every christian is the same.
AncapFTW Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 Okay, it is your choice to believe in a theory based on chance, and my choice to believe a religion that is based on culture that has existed for thousands of years. 1) you seem to think that belief based on evidence, reason, and repeatable experimentation is equal to belief based on "that's what I waw told" and tradition. 2) evolution isn't just "based on chance". Chance is only one step. There are multiple other steps which work because of chemistry, physics, and other reasons, and result in a somewhat predictable outcome. Sure the outcome isn't 100% known, but there are tendencies which can account for the variety of life that you see.
neeeel Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 Okay, it is your choice to believe in a theory based on chance, and my choice to believe a religion that is based on culture that has existed for thousands of years. So, If I choose to believe in santa, thats fine, because its my choice? You know this is just a bullshit non argument, right?
WontStandForIt Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 I can prove that santa is not real, you give me proof that God isn't real. I believe that evolution (That is the argument that we evolved from single cell organisms) is bullshit, there is no proof that we were once single celled. So yeah I can as easily believe evolution as you could god. Diversity is from adaptations and mutations. That makes sense. There is no proof whether deity exists or not. There is no proof whether evolution is true. So it is a choice that an individual has to make. Believe it or not, I need not say that your wrong, I personally think that a deity is more possible.
Torero Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 If evolution is not true, how -without going irrational (so into deities)- do you explain: - the various dog races - the similarities between brown and polar bears - the fact that humans and apes very very much are alike If you can explain that without a claim on creationism/a deity (superstition, irrationality, metaphysics) you have a breakthrough. Until that moment Darwin's theory stands as solid as the Galapagos islands above the Pacific Ocean... 1
WontStandForIt Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 no you cant Then who am I to say that there is no possibility that he is real? If evolution is not true, how -without going irrational (so into deities)- do you explain: - the various dog races - the similarities between brown and polar bears - the fact that humans and apes very very much are alike If you can explain that without a claim on creationism/a deity (superstition, irrationality, metaphysics) you have a breakthrough. Until that moment Darwin's theory stands as solid as the Galapagos islands above the Pacific Ocean... Wow, trying to pull that on me huh? Well I have to say, that when my theory is that god created animals... you are putting an unfair question on me. That is like me asking you the same question, but switching the word deity with evolution. My personal theory is that god created animals and they bred differently, making dog "races" and that some species got isolated from the rest of their species, mutating/adapting, making them different. This happened with several different animals. Also the whole apes thing, they are one of god's creations that he decided to make similar to humans. Simple. I will sort of refine what I said prior to this and say that I believe evolution happened to a degree.
Torero Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 That's not a "theory", not even a hypothesis, it's an idea. Nothing "unfair", just curiosity. Evolution is not some kind of belief. The Big Bang Theory (no, not the TV series) one could see as belief. It is untestable Adaptation due to restricted living space you accept. Mutation you take as true. Still you stick to this redundant deity idea because of your parents. Or how many christians do you know who were born in a(nti)theistic families who didn't read the Bible but "suddenly were christian"? An omnipotent yet deliberately passive deity is immoral, you see that?
neeeel Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Wow, trying to pull that on me huh? Well I have to say, that when my theory is that god created animals... you are putting an unfair question on me. That is like me asking you the same question, but switching the word deity with evolution. My personal theory is that god created animals and they bred differently, making dog "races" and that some species got isolated from the rest of their species, mutating/adapting, making them different. This happened with several different animals. Also the whole apes thing, they are one of god's creations that he decided to make similar to humans. Simple. I will sort of refine what I said prior to this and say that I believe evolution happened to a degree. You can make up , or come up with, any theory you want. The question is, is it actually true? Is there any evidence for it? How likely is it? How does it fit in with other theories? How did you arrive at your theory? You are free to believe whatever you want. But dont expect me to believe what you believe, unless you can support your theory with evidence.
A4E Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 "Without god what makes you strive even when your existence will just eventually just die out?" Lets say that you were able to ask the same question to a tree, or an ant, or a fungous, or an elephant, by whatever means in their language. What do you think they would say? Throughout my life I abandoned quite a number of beliefs that were severely hampering my ability to live my life as I wanted. A range of beliefs of which had a strong to weak influence on me. Religion is just one page in that book. These beliefs had been imprinted on me from other people who had them. Meaning I was being directed by other people. Letting other people decide what I will think about anything, is self erasure, and truly a form of mind control. It can and usually also is debilitating. I am pretty sure I still have lots of beliefs, but at least I am getting better and better at not letting them control me. 1
dsayers Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 These beliefs had been imprinted on me from other people who had them. Meaning I was being directed by other people. I enjoyed your post. It made me smile. In order to help you with your stated goal, can I make a suggestion regarding verbiage? To me, imprinted doesn't sound very human. I think the word inflicted does a better job of portraying that it was from a person, was active, and was deliberate. It helps to assign responsibility where it is due. This should help you to emotionally connect better with what was done to you.
A4E Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 I edited my post right after or while Dsayers posted and adding the question at the top. My 'stated goal' was something like "For me, its not that I won't find meaning if I don't have a belief, its that I won't find meaning if I let the beliefs from other people control me." It was a messy sentence, so I did not like it after a while. I enjoyed your post. It made me smile. In order to help you with your stated goal, can I make a suggestion regarding verbiage? To me, imprinted doesn't sound very human. I think the word inflicted does a better job of portraying that it was from a person, was active, and was deliberate. It helps to assign responsibility where it is due. This should help you to emotionally connect better with what was done to you. I understand what you mean, thanks. But you are entering into an area of belief that I have abandoned.
vahleeb Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Hi Wontstandforit, I can only tell you this much. You are, because of your young age, at a great disadvantage when debating on this board. I know you are not trying to be annoying but you sometimes come across as that and it's not your fault, but it just comes from the fact that you are facing a significant deficit of knowledge when you come to the table. I don't want to pull on you the old parenting crap of "when you've lived as long as I have", but at 14 there just hasn't been enough time to amass any kind of knowledge or to develop any sort of sound reasoning skills or debating skills. At my own 14, I was so indoctrinated that I used to pray along with my entire class before some more significant tests. The country I live in has mandated public education and part of the course had been (at least since I was 11) Religion (it meant Cristian Orthodox indoctrination, which is the majority religion in my country). Also I remember that time as just being a kid and just toying with the idea of critical thinking for only a year at most. I also couldn't help but cringe when you mentioned that you were going to take the debating points back to your priest and the reason for that is because there is exactly the same gap in knowledge and skill between you and him as there is between you and the people that have debated you thus far. If you're really interested in a step-by-step debunking of the whole religion thing, I would like to point you to the following (very old) FDR podcast episode FDR29. And if you could give the following a go afterwards as well: FDR277. As far as lack of purpose from the atheist perspective of life, I don't think you should worry about that, yet. You can't understand it because you don't yet see things from the atheist perspective. Most of us didn't have the privilege of being brought up in an atheist environment and we had to go through this transformation and we did do it at a great personal cost to most of us. My advice to you is to not be so bent on deciding who you are at such an early age but to absorb as much as you can from everyone. The next 4-7 years are going be a rollercoaster of hormones and emotions that will make you feel like your own life and your own identity has been put through the spin cycle of a mad washer and dryer. Questions like "is there a god" or "how should i live my life" should probably be explored again at the end of that period. I think if you value knowledge over everything else you will succeed in the end. 2
csekavec Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 This is barely on topic so I beg forbearance. Huff Post article on Arizona Rep Juan Mendez. Quote from the article: "We need not tomorrow's promise of reward to do good deeds today," Mendez said in his invocation. "For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth. Take these words to heart as we move this great state of Arizona forward. It is our responsibility to honor the Constitution and the secular equality it brings. And so shall it be."
A4E Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Throughout primary school we had a christian teacher as the main teacher for our class, who was a very nice person that everyone respected, because she always gave everyone a chance to speak about everything. She focused on all the good pacifist sides of religion. She even let us watch a whole series of animated films about christian stories. Atheism was and still is prominent, so she would sometimes get hard questions from some students because she let everyone talk, and her go to answer was "Yes good question. And I can not give you all the answers, its up to each to decide for themselves." Great advice that most certainly helped me later. My encounters with religion is nothing compared to a lot of other people, of which I am thankful, but I've had my fair share of other nasty influences.
Buford T. Justice Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 If you believe that all of you memories, and everything that you ever worked for will just be destroyed for you, and everything will just go blank forever, what drives you to live? Without god what makes you strive even when your existence will just eventually just die out?If you believe in heaven why are you in no rush to get there? Surely every close brush with an oncoming car must fill you with joy. ... reminds me of what Alan Watts said about Christians, that deep in their hearts they know it's a three-card monty. If they •truly• believed that the fate of their eternal souls depended on eighty years of life here on planet earth, they'd be tearing their hair out, paralyzed with fear.
Jer Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 Atheism was and still is prominent, so she would sometimes get hard questions from some students because she let everyone talk, and her go to answer was "Yes good question. And I can not give you all the answers, its up to each to decide for themselves." Great advice that most certainly helped me later. This advice sounds like cultural relativist BS. So if I decide that God exists and his prophet married a child before riding to heaven on a winged horse, that's all good because she doesn't have all the answers? What if i decide I can draw square circles?
junglecat Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 Wow! I read through the whole thread and not one person answered the question. The one that came closest to answering basically said 'don't think about it.' The philosophy of the ostrich. How banal. I'd choose anything but that. How about Carlos Castañeda and the awareness of one's personal death giving meaning to life, cutting away the pettiness. So much for deep thinkers.
neeeel Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 Wow! I read through the whole thread and not one person answered the question. The one that came closest to answering basically said 'don't think about it.' The philosophy of the ostrich. How banal. I'd choose anything but that. How about Carlos Castañeda and the awareness of one's personal death giving meaning to life, cutting away the pettiness. So much for deep thinkers. maybe the question doesnt make much sense? But keep insulting
junglecat Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 maybe the question doesnt make much sense? But keep insulting Are you saying it makes no sense to contemplate one's mortality?
dsayers Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Wow! I read through the whole thread and not one person answered the question. The question is disingenuous as it poisons the well by implying that theism is the origin and atheism is the deviation.
junglecat Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 The question is disingenuous as it poisons the well by implying that theism is the origin and atheism is the deviation. A 'dangerous' question? It frightens you that much? And nobody can answer it from an atheistic perspective? If that's the case, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".
shirgall Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 A 'dangerous' question? It frightens you that much? And nobody can answer it from an atheistic perspective? If that's the case, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks". He didn't say dangerous, he said disingenuous. The very way you ask the question casts a negative light on one side of the argument. It implies atheists are nihilists in general. While some are, not all are.
Libertus Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 > What drives you to live as an atheist? The non-belief in a deity, based on lack of evidence.
dsayers Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 too much, meth You need to get high that much? Nobody can address the topic from a sober perspective? One of the more creative trollings. Thanks for that.
neeeel Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Are you saying it makes no sense to contemplate one's mortality? no, I am not saying that, and that is a totally different question from "what drives you to live as an atheist". A 'dangerous' question? It frightens you that much? And nobody can answer it from an atheistic perspective? If that's the case, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks". the answer is, because I dont believe in a deity. Which is inherent in the question ( atheism) so thats why the question doesnt make sense to me, and implies that there is more going on than just the simple question, the OP had an agenda to bring.
junglecat Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 You need to get high that much? Nobody can address the topic from a sober perspective? One of the more creative trollings. Thanks for that. Oh wow! What a beautiful misunderstanding! I read dangerous instead of disingenuous and you read methinks as meth. I was actually quoting Shakespeare. Let me rephrase the original question or maybe simply ask my own: Assuming one believes in complete annihilation at death, no soul transmigration, no afterlife, etc. what kind of result does the contemplation of one's personal death bring? Does it bring sadness? Sobriety? Does one avoid the thought due to a tendency towards obsessive morbidity? Is it a genuinely meaningless venture to even contemplate it? Does one think of one's own progeny and the continuation of one's bloodline? The species in general? I remember reading Ingmar Bergman's thoughts on the subject. His early films dealt with the 'religious' question but later in life he dropped such notions and became an atheist. He said something like "Now I think of death as closing my eyes and entering an infinite dreamless sleep and that brings me great comfort." I may not have the quote perfect but that was the gist of it.
neeeel Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Oh wow! What a beautiful misunderstanding! I read dangerous instead of disingenuous and you read methinks as meth. I was actually quoting Shakespeare. Let me rephrase the original question or maybe simply ask my own: Assuming one believes in complete annihilation at death, no soul transmigration, no afterlife, etc. what kind of result does the contemplation of one's personal death bring? Does it bring sadness? Sobriety? Does one avoid the thought due to a tendency towards obsessive morbidity? Is it a genuinely meaningless venture to even contemplate it? Does one think of one's own progeny and the continuation of one's bloodline? The species in general? I remember reading Ingmar Bergman's thoughts on the subject. His early films dealt with the 'religious' question but later in life he dropped such notions and became an atheist. He said something like "Now I think of death as closing my eyes and entering an infinite dreamless sleep and that brings me great comfort." I may not have the quote perfect but that was the gist of it. that is a better phrasing of the question, although it still is slightly disingenuous, in that it implies that atheists should ( and do ) think of life as a hopeless morbid thing. It comes with the implication ( perhaps I am reading too much into it, I dont know) that, without a belief in god, there is no hope, or enjoyment, that all is morbid and depressing. Lets say thats true, it STILL doesnt make it true that there is a god. If you want to believe in a god because it makes you feel better, thats up to you. That is the conclusion behind this question. you are basically saying "it must be really depressing to not believe in life after death" and my answer is "Im not going to believe in something just because it might make me feel better"
junglecat Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 that is a better phrasing of the question, although it still is slightly disingenuous, in that it implies that atheists should ( and do ) think of life as a hopeless morbid thing. It comes with the implication ( perhaps I am reading too much into it, I dont know) that, without a belief in god, there is no hope, or enjoyment, that all is morbid and depressing. Lets say thats true, it STILL doesnt make it true that there is a god. If you want to believe in a god because it makes you feel better, thats up to you. That is the conclusion behind this question. you are basically saying "it must be really depressing to not believe in life after death" and my answer is "Im not going to believe in something just because it might make me feel better" I think you have theism on the brain. I think it's safe to say many people think of death as morbid, whether you're atheist or theist or any stripe. The words tend to go hand in hand. Maybe they don't for you. I'd love to know. My question is completely sincere. I brought several examples to illustrate my question. You zeroed in on one word and then added your own, "hopeless", to it. That seems disingenuous to me. It also seems disingenuous to put words into my mouth that I never intended. "you are basically saying "it must be really depressing to not believe in life after death" and my answer is "Im not going to believe in something just because it might make me feel better" No, that's not what I'm saying at all. And I am in no way asking you to believe in something for any reason. That's absurd. You could answer the question or not but please don't put words in my mouth, ok?
neeeel Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I think you have theism on the brain. I think it's safe to say many people think of death as morbid, whether you're atheist or theist or any stripe. The words tend to go hand in hand. Maybe they don't for you. I'd love to know. My question is completely sincere. I brought several examples to illustrate my question. You zeroed in on one word and then added your own, "hopeless", to it. That seems disingenuous to me. It also seems disingenuous to put words into my mouth that I never intended. "you are basically saying "it must be really depressing to not believe in life after death" and my answer is "Im not going to believe in something just because it might make me feel better" No, that's not what I'm saying at all. And I am in no way asking you to believe in something for any reason. That's absurd. You could answer the question or not but please don't put words in my mouth, ok? like I said, maybe I am reading too much into it, but this is what I get from your question I dont get a sense that you are curious of what the answer is, you insult and insinuate ("The philosophy of the ostrich. How banal. I'd choose anything but that") . Of course its about theism/atheism, its in the question ! Its in the Atheism/religion sub section of the board! you start off your question with "Assuming one believes in complete annihilation at death, no soul transmigration, no afterlife, etc." This directly relates to theism , god, etc ie, "given that there is no god, how does that make you feel when you look at death?" Why are you asking this? what relevance does it have to anything? If you just asked, how do you feel when you look at death, that would be a different question, theres no shoehorning in of motives or hidden assumptions or questions. contemplating death, I get sadness, or fear, or regret, or worry.
junglecat Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 like I said, maybe I am reading too much into it, but this is what I get from your question I dont get a sense that you are curious of what the answer is, you insult and insinuate ("The philosophy of the ostrich. How banal. I'd choose anything but that") . Of course its about theism/atheism, its in the question ! Its in the Atheism/religion sub section of the board! you start off your question with "Assuming one believes in complete annihilation at death, no soul transmigration, no afterlife, etc." This directly relates to theism , god, etc ie, "given that there is no god, how does that make you feel when you look at death?" Why are you asking this? what relevance does it have to anything? If you just asked, how do you feel when you look at death, that would be a different question, theres no shoehorning in of motives or hidden assumptions or questions. contemplating death, I get sadness, or fear, or regret, or worry. I sense a sort of fascistic political correctness from you and the rest in this whole exchange. Any implication that there is such a thing as theism or people who believe in that nonsense is not to be tolerated. I get it, I get it. Lighten up, Francis. So you get round to answering the question and all I get is four words. Can you elaborate? Why fear? Why Sadness? Why regret? Why worry? Fear of pain I can understand. Fear of death is strange. It's like fear of deep sleep. Why? Sadness I can understand. We all cling to a certain extent. Maybe you have dependents? Regret? I'm seriously interested in what you would have to regret. Maybe it's just a touchy subject? I don't know. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. Maybe you feel shy about opening up to a complete stranger. I can respect that.
dsayers Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Oh wow! What a beautiful misunderstanding! I read dangerous instead of disingenuous and you read methinks as meth. I was actually quoting Shakespeare. I'm familiar with the quote and my butchering was deliberate to imitate what you had done. Let us suppose that you read my post accurately. Did you notice how you instantly went to it being proof of something? And that you were so driven to that conclusion that you saw something in my post that made it easier to refute in your mind? The reason I ask is because you did it again. Asking what people experience when they think about death has no bearing on the (in)validity of a deity.
junglecat Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I'm familiar with the quote and my butchering was deliberate to imitate what you had done. Let us suppose that you read my post accurately. Did you notice how you instantly went to it being proof of something? And that you were so driven to that conclusion that you saw something in my post that made it easier to refute in your mind? The reason I ask is because you did it again. Asking what people experience when they think about death has no bearing on the (in)validity of a deity. Yes, and I was countering your sarcasm. I'm not talking about a deity. I have zero interest in what you think about a deity. I have yet to understand how the man's question was disingenuous. How can you read the sincerity or lack thereof? All I see is your atheistic bias and political correctness. If you're not interested in engaging the question then don't. Save me the dry analysis of what you think my intent is. Here's what happened. Let's recap. I read the original question and then read all the replies. I noticed nobody answered his question. I got a barrage of replies explaining why the question didn't matter. I rephrased the question in a secular manner giving multiple examples. Some replied that one of my examples was theistically biased and ignored the rest. One person gave me a four word answer: sadness, fear, worry, regret. "Love is not love when it is mingled with regards that stand aloof from the entire point." 1 1
Recommended Posts