I know, Isn’t that cool? I wonder if you could roast the little guys over an open fire? I think they might taste like bacon. Mmmm bacon! No wonder they went extinct. LOL
1 Like
Don’t beat yourself up, Asia is massive, who has the time to look everywhere. 
1 Like
Well, not to mention that the dog-rinos are really good at hiding… 
1 Like
Apparently one did not need to look everywhere, it was just a matter of looking anywhere. Skriten was right, those little doggie rhinos sure were good at hiding. Hey! Why do rhino’s have red eyes? So they can hide in the straberry patches. You ever seen a rhino in a strawberry patch? See how good they are at hiding!
2 Likes
That god is a sneaky fuck alright.
1 Like
Hmm… I’m not particularly interested in feeling superior to anyone. I never have been. Moreover, I think I’m the least interesting part of this debate.
I believe there is a general misunderstanding with this phrase. I am not saying that evolution as a theory implies anything supernatural or Gods. What I mean here is that natural selection appears to eliminate human groups that do not hold beliefs in mythological figures. The outcome that seems to be strongly selected is those human groups that somehow connect with their environment as sentient beings.
It does not prove anything; it is simply an observation.
1 Like
Actually that is exactly what it asserts.
Well this is not remotely what you said of course, in fact it more closely mirrors what others responded with, that superstitions and religious beliefs could easily be conceived to have a survival benefit by providing societal cohesion, at least during our evolution, in post industrialised societies it may be a more pernicious influence, than it was among small groups of hunter gathers.
I am wondering is this turn around, has something to do with the objective evidence that among elite scientists in the related field of biology atheism is almost universal, higher in fact than any other scientific field? Thus your claim that “evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality.” is demonstrably false. Since I haven’t seen you address my post anywhere?
It was demonstrably wrong, as the evidence of rates of atheism among elite scientists in that field of study demonstrates unequivocally. The scientific theory of evolution neither evidences nor requires any deity, or anything supernatural. Therefore far from “not supporting an atheistic understanding of reality”, as you claimed, species evolution is wholly compatible with atheism, quod erat demonstrandum.
1 Like
Human beings are social animals. That is how we survived. Religions of all kinds have proved to be very beneficial in providing social frameworks. And when societies find other ways to form social groups, religions are dropped. Hence the move towards atheism by most first world countries. Pair that with the fact that religion is simple. A magical belief in supernatural woo woo that no one can explain or understand. It’s magic. Just have faith and believe. Any moron on the planet can be religious, you have to pass a driving test to drive a car.
Well, many times when we have a model that matches our observations, we tend to assume that this model describes all that exists, when in reality, it only represents all that we can observe (and interpret intellectually). Something similar happens with logic; we assume something is logical when we are unable to find logical flaws. Many times, the only thing we do is place logic flaws where we are unable to detect them.
A good example is our inability to reconcile quantum physics with relativity. Both theories describe the same reality, but they work at different scales and result in incompatible models. In both cases, we follow a perfect logical process that leads to a contradictory result because we assumed we were being logical when, in fact, we were placing all mistakes outside our view.
Are you suggesting that the “inability to reconcile quantum physics with relativity” means mistakes were made when arriving at them?
What on earth are you talking about? You claimed that “evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality”, and I pointed out that in the elite National Academy of Sciences atheism is almost universal among biologists, higher in fact than any other scientific field, and clearly this fact is entirely at odds with your claim. I assumed nothing about any scientific idea, and I did not even mention physics?
Do you accept that the fact that atheism is almost universal among elite biologists, is entirely at odds with your claim that “it is quite evident that evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality.”?
As I said your claim was simply wrong, and nothing in the theory of evolution evidences nor does it require any deity.
1 Like
He seems to be implying that this means both science and logic are unreliable, and I assume by extension his relentless use of irrational claims somehow gets a free pass.
I believe I have already explained this point.
Yes and no. Science and logic are reliable, but they can occasionally lead us to incorrect conclusions regarding the nature of reality, so they should not be considered the sole source of truth. Like everything in life, they should not be taken to the extreme. At times, a seemingly flawless logic can prove to be entirely wrong when put into practice. Therefore, it is essential to maintain an open-minded perspective.
Those that interpret the science make mistakes, science is simply the tool and it by far the most reliable one we have.
Science isn’t the sole source, but when we ask to asign probabilities to what is more likely to give accurate information, science easily beats out all other methodology.
And yet, theists cannot do this. Their beliefs must be respected and they try to impose their beliefs on law, culture, education etc…
Most atheists are of the most open minded position possible, we state that we are unconvinced of the claim of theism in regards to the god hypothesis, but we are willing to change our minds if demonstrable and empirical evidence comes along to support the notion.
4 Likes
You didn’t. your explanation not only didn’t address your original claim, or my response (you didn’t address that at all btw), but your claim that you were not “saying that evolution as a theory implies anything supernatural or Gods” was demonstrably false since you originally claimed that "evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality”. Now those claims are mutually exclusive, so i suggest you try again, with a lot more candour, and address the objective evidence I offered in light of your original claim, not the new position of the goal posts.
What else are you suggesting we use that is more or equally reliable, unevidenced archaic superstition? FYI no method humans create can be infallible, so suggesting that science and logic are fallible is meaningless, suggesting this makes unevidenced superstition valid is frankly risible.
Who is taking science to the extreme, and what does that involve? Only this sounds like the excuse people use when their beliefs don’t match scientific facts, or are demonstrably irrational.
I very much doubt it, however I also don’t see how this addresses your many uses of known logical fallacies? Rather than make dubious and sweeping generalisations, point to an argument you disagree with, and specifically explain the flaw in it, or where it violates any principle of logic?
As for science, if you genuinely believe you know better then the entire scientific world, then that is not just risible hubris, it also makes being lectured about “taking science to extremes” even more laughable.
Why do you keep making these straw man assertions? Could you tell me concisely what you think open minded means, or who you think here is not being open minded and why?
I can’t speak for others, but as I stated to you plainly, there is no belief I won’t abandon in the light of sufficient objective evidence, I treat all claims the same in that my belief is predicated on them being supported by sufficient objective evidence. That seems to be open minded to me, perhaps you disagree?
FWIW religious faith and the belief the bible or Koran is the immutable word of an infallible deity, are the very definition of closed minded.
1 Like
.
Quin,
ONCE AGAIN, CyberLN and I have asked you a very simple question relative to your posted thread, and that is WHICH GOD are you saying exists?!!!
Why are you so SCARED in answering this very important question regarding your threads topic? All of your posts made to the membership are MOOT without stating which God you are referring too in the first place, GET IT?!
For your conveniance, shown below AGAIN from my post #91 are some of the primitive Bronze and Iron Age Gods that at this time you are sheepishly running away from, but without stating which primitive God concept you are referring to, your presense withing this thread is useless, period!
Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Jesus, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma"at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama, Vera, and last but not least is the “Flying Spaghetti Monster!”
Quim, please don’t embarrass yourself any further and just pick which God your thread topic is all about, okay?
.
2 Likes
Now, now, 21st. Cool your jets a bit, okay? Choosing a specific god to worship is a very deeply personal matter. We cannot expect our dear Quim to reveal such sacred private information to a bunch of strangers on the internet. Besides, it should not matter to us which god Quim idolizes. The only thing that matters is that Quim’s god is the ONLY One True God, with the other several thousand gods being totally irrelevent. So how 'bout maybe you and the others stop being so damn nosy, okay? 
(Edit for enquiring minds wanting to know.)
3 Likes
I agree, for me it would probably be Macuilcozcacuauhtli, the Aztec deity of gluttony. If I weren’t an atheist.
2 Likes
This question is so childish that it may sound like an argument to you, but it is ridiculous to me.
If you lack even a minimal knowledge of how mythology repeats patterns across the globe, how humans project their psychological experiences, and how humans deal with the unknown, it doesn’t make much sense to even start answering this question.
In other words, to make it understandable for you, your question makes as much sense as asking what the real name of water is.
Eau, Water, shui, jur…?
As you can see, this is truly a stupid question.
I apologize if the answer seems harsh, but this is how I perceive it.
1 Like