Yes the Science works, Yes Evolution is real, I am not denying it at all it is part what makes us human in progressing and evolving knowledge to be pass down, all Equations, Numbers, Letters, and Symbols can describe everything for it is universal and you can find it already in nature. Atoms following the 8 electron rule for it to be stable.
To reject the notion of God is rejecting not only every Religion that existed as fake and unreal even though this is part of our history as a human species.
Its annoying when a person enters a relegion or a belief about anything and inserts Atheistic Perspective into it as if they know a thing or two about what Christ, Buhdda, Zoroaster, etc; taught including knowledge they had with them.
If we do become Gods in creating Humans from Soil and show this to God he will be impress, but he will honestly tell you to go create your own Soil.
Thereâs a thing I call the âError of the Starsâ if we are just a solar system in Space are we moving or are we still, if we are moving why is it that the Constellation of the Stars havenât changed at all throughout human existence and if we are not moving and remain still why is it that every planet is place the way they are.
Truly I say to you that if rejecting my own beliefs comes to the Equation of Life, truly is a sad equation and that I would side with Extreme Ideologies to eradicate humans for the benefit of not climbing the Evolutionary Ladder for I would reject Humanity as Man but treat Man like an Animal equally should be slaughter amongst the rest of the Animals on this planet. For the sense of righteousness doesnât come from one individual but many that have come before you.
Violence and warfare and murder are also part of our history as a human species. That does not make such atrocities as acceptable.
But that is because religions are fake and not real. Talk talk talk, talk talk talk. The amusing part is that science has proven many religious pronouncements as pure BS and false.
The planets do move. If you took the time and put in the effort and tracked the positions of the planets, there is a very real movement. As far as the stars, they move too. But since they are so far away and a thousand years is nothing in the cosmic perspective, it APPEARS they are not moving. (1) Comparing very old Babylonian and Chinese star charts indicates that some stars have moved their position in relation to others. being able to discern this takes thousands of years, not hours or days or years.
Religion makes pronouncements that have nothing to support them. Religion postures itself as having all of the answers.
Science is not so arrogant, we are humble enough to understand that humanity is in a process of still discovering, that we do not know all of the answers and still have a lot to learn. If you deny that, if you have a genuine medical emergency, would you pray or call for professional medical assistance?
(1) Aristotle got it wrong in determining whether the earth rotated around the sun or vice versa. His argument was that using stellar parallax, there was no change and thus the sun orbited the Earth. But he assumed the stars were very close, compared to the reality they were much further away.
You wouldnât believe till miracles and wonders where done in front of you.
You already got your answers, like I said I donât deny the Science nor the Evolution Progression of Animals, Plants, and Humans () not saying that relegion has all the answers. Science we humans can benefit from it but look how we exploit and abuse it.
As far we can know is that a Higher Intelligent Being probably did created us but it prob. wasnât God but Aliens, what is the probability of that.
Where does the idea of Evolution come from? Charles Darwin right but have you actually read his work or view it or did someone else interpret it for you?
Look back in time where your sources first begun and pay your respects to those that come before you in knowing who they are not base on just their work.
You donât know anything about Charles Darwin or who he is you just know him as the guy who introduce Evolution thatâs all you know about Charles Darwin but you wouldnât care for the mans history, character, biography, including what kind of works he is know for other than Evolution.
But you probably didnât respect the man enough in knowing who he is and being spoon feed information.
@CosmicPriest369 I own a book labelled âOrigin of Speciesâ. I am confident I know more about Darwin then you. But that is irrelevant because what matters is what he promulgated. His book kicked off the public interest in evolution, that is what matters. And I do not âworshipâ the man or his work, I just respect his scientific contributions.
Why?
They were just people who ate, fucked, and shit just like you and I.
What is this, a NON-Sequitor, moment? A time to sove as much shit onto a page as you can and pretend you are communicating?
Then you know there is no Goal. You are ascribing purpose when there is none to be had. People like you ignorantly embue ideas like evolution with goals. The active force in evolution appears to be survival of the species.
You are quite confused. Religions exist, the gods they claim are real can be demonstrated to be fake or unsupported by actual evidence, hence, no reason to support their reality in the first place. The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated to be true.
There is no atheistic perspective. You are displayng ignorance of atheism. There is no atheist dogma, belief system, or rules to follow. They do not exist. Atheism is a response to the claim, âGod exists.â The atheist has no reason to believe that claim. (Thatâs all.) Atheists are non-believers in god claims.
For most of us on the site, we get there by being skeptical. Skepticism is a is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma. Again, The time to believe something is when it can be demonstrated to be true. This is a Skeptical attitude towards your God thing, not necessarily an atheists attitude. Atheism is simple non-belief. Children are born into non-belief. This is after all âoriginal sin.â One need do nothing or hold no opinion to be damned by your Christian god; to be called atheist. One need only not believe.
Rambling nonsense. The LSD laced holy water you have consumed is beginning to take effect. You should probably go take a nap and wait for the high to pass. Try chasing the orange butterfly for a time. See if that helps.
Jesus] answered [and said], âIâm not laughing [at you but] at the error of the stars, because these six stars go astray with these five warriors, and theyâll all be destroyed along with their creations.â
Then Judas said to Jesus, âWhat will those do whoâve been baptized in your name?â
More Rambling, drug induced bullshit⊠All we can do now is wait for this buzz to end.
Humans are born with preexisting ideas and thoughts that existed before us? Lord of the Flies obviously got it wrong. An idea with absolutely no support what so ever, vs. the scientific methof of independent verification. We know which one we are choosing. You go an have fun chasing the orange butterflies.
Atheism isnât a rejection of any god, or religion, it is the withholding or lack of belief in any deity or deities, there is an epistemological difference.
Youâre free to be as annoyed as you want, though why youâd bother wasting energy on something so pointless is baffling?
Are you trying to set a record for unevidenced assertions? Firstly can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence for any deity or for a soul, or that such notions are even possible?
I donât know what âjustâ means, but moving, definitely moving.
They have?
"the arrangement of the stars above our heads have changed over the course of the thousands of years since the Babylonians first happened upon them, 3,000 years ago.
Nasa has in the past spoken about the phenomenon of âaxial precessionâ, or the fact that the Earth wobbles as it rotates, a little like a spinning top. That effect means that the stars appear from Earth to be in a different place from where they were 3,000 years ago, and so the constellations that make up the star signs have moved, too."
Wow, a lot to unpack there, firstly we are animals, that is an objective fact, secondly who says animals should be slaughtered, only the bible claims humans have been given divine dominion over all animals, it is an entirely subjective choice how we choose to treat animals in reality. The notion we would simply slaughter any animal just because archaic superstitions turned out to be false is a deeply pernicious and immoral idea in my opinion, but then I care about the suffering of other humans, and to a lesser extent other conscious animals.
Your thinking seems very muddled if you donât mind me saying. Start by examining what if any objective evidence supports the notion of any deity, until sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated for that, all the rest is just coloured bubbles.
There is some semantical nitpicking to be done here. First, religions are just as real whether one reject the god or not, in the same sense as any other social movement or political party is quite real, even if one reject their central tenets or whether they make any sense or not. But the claims or assertions of the religion are not necessarily true or do not necessarily make sense in the real world, just as with political ideas. I can disbelieve or reject the ideas and assumptions of Mein Kampf, but nazism remain just as real as a political movement, no matter how much the ideology disgusts me. And the factual existence of nazi parties do not make the central ideas behind them true.
Again nothing to disagree with there, though I feel obliged (being a through nitpicker ) to point out that political ideologies donât generally make supernatural claims for magic, or appeals to mystery. So a contextual difference really, but the point is otherwise sound.
All true, as a species it is asinine to imagine we can unlearn or extirpate an idea, though Orwellâs 1984 scared the pants off me with a dystopian totalitarianism that came very close.
Again I agree, The existence of believers (on its own) does not validate the belief, that would be a form of argumentum ad populum fallacy I think?
Also I should like to start spelling Shitler with an S, as it seems apropos.
Well, some political ideologies are infatuated with conspiracy theories, which can be construed as mysteries. In particular, the Nazi movement in Nazi Germany was full of mysteries (especially within the SS), with a made-up germanic mythology and with an attempt to start a neo-pagan religion (which failed). Diverse implementations of communistic ideologies are also riddled with conspiracy thinking and conspiracy theories, and the class struggle can also be understood as a mystery (although that might be stretching it a bit). On the other end of the political spectrum, in the ultra-capitalistic camp, the belief in a self-regulated free market without interference from governments or legislation, could be understood as some sort of belief in magic.
I know, Iâm stretching it a bit here, but the parallels are there.
True enough, which is why I said generally, though I have spotted a typo, as I typed the word general, so I will edit that for context. Yes political ideologies can overlap with religious ideologies, and this was very true of many of the prejudices espoused by the Nazis of course, anti-Semitism being an obvious example .
True enough again, though some of the Nazis elite dabbled in that more than others.
Well superstition in humans is often harder to eradicate than cockroaches. Though I take the point, and when I said appeals to mystery I was talking of the superstitious variety, though as you correctly point out not all political ideologies are free from that.
Maybe another stretch, though again I take the point, but personally I prefer to focus on the fact this particular belief can leave many people entirely at the mercy of economics, and I personally feel that should be the other way around.
WOW! Are you off base here? I can see a church out my window and there is a mosque not too far away. Religions are real and I have evidence for them. What kind of dullard would suggest religions are unreal? I would agree the messages are fake. I have not yet seen a religious claim substantiated. On, that we can agree.
No one has to know anything at all about these characters. What are you on about? They make the claims and we simply look at the claims they are making. What evidence is there for the Chritstian version of heaven, the buddhist version of nirvana, the Zorastrian version ânetherworld,â where souls are purified at the end of time. As far as the âknowledge they had within them.â Much of that has survived just fine. But then religion has always taken what was human by nature and attributed it to itself. That is what religions do.
The assumption being âsoil was created.â Can you demonstrate your assertion? If soil was created, how was it created? How do you know soil was created and not just part of a natural process. Iâm very interested in how you know this.
As I donât have a clue what your beliefs might be, perhaps you will share them. I can not reject something about which I know nothing. You would first have to share a belief before it can be rejected. What are you afraid of? Disagreement? Or just being exposed for being an idiot?
Science has one perspective of reality? I never knew that? I thought that all perspecitves of reality were given equal treatment, and then we studied them, tested them, and independently verified them, before believing them. No wonder you are religious, you donât understand science. If I didnât understand science I too would be as intelligent as a 6,000-year-old goat herder. But then of course we would have never met because 6,000-year-old goat herders donât invent computers.
I love the post. Perhaps you could tell us all what you believe and why. Give us your very best reason so we donât have to dick-around with bullshit.
(Why did I just repost to an old thread? Oh well. I took the time to write it so here it sits. Is this guy still around? )
Yes I have - both The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.
Iâve also read several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers from the evolutionary biology literature that were published over 100 years after Darwinâs death.
Note that Linnaeus wrote this SIXTY TWO YEARS BEFORE DARWIN WAS BORN.
So yes, several of us here have done our homework. Next?
Oh I love it when someone presumes to know what I think better than I do myself.
Iâm aware that Darwin originally went to Oxford to train to become an Anglican priest. Iâm also aware that during his voyage on HMS Beagle, he got into a furious argument with Captain Fitzroy over the evils of slavery. Iâm also aware that he wrote a treatise on Cirripedia that is still considered a landmark scientific work in the present day. Indeed, you can find a full online exposition of his work, including that treatise on Cirripedia, at this webpage devoted thereto.
Again, your presumption that you know what I think and how I act better than I do myself, does you no favours here.
And hereâs one of your biggest mistakes.
Those of us who treat this issue rigorously, regard the question of the existence of a god type entity in the most general sense as an unanswered question. Not least because if a genuine, rigorous answer thereto had been presented in the past, this would now be part of our mainstream knowledge, and no one would be arguing about the issue.
However, what I and others here do state, and with good reason, is that the cartoon magic men asserted to exist in pre-scientific mythologies are fatuous and incompetent candidates for the role. Not least because said cartoon magic men are asserted within the requisite mythologies, to possess contradictory or absurd properties. Thatâs before we dissect some of the other asinine assertions contained within those mythologies, which falsify the assertion that said mythologies were puportedly the products of fantastically gifted magic entities.
We donât reject the idea that these religions exist, because they manifestly do. What de do reject, are the manifestly fatuous assertions contained in the foundational mythologies of these religions.
Oh, and thereâs another issue to factor in here, namely that several million peer reviewed scientific papers, document in exquisite detail the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the observational data obtained over the past 350 years, and as a corollary, cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Now on the other hand, if someone were to present [1] a non-mythological candidate for the âgod roleâ, that is either consonant with known physics, or provides consistent extensions thereto, and [2] provides a means of testing for the existence of such an entity, then weâll sit up and take notice. But no one ever exerts this effort here. Instead, mythology fanboys keep gatecashing the site, to post tired and repeatedly destroyed apologetic fabrications, to try and coerce us intro treating their cartoon magic men as fact. We treat said gatecrashing with the scorn and derision it deserves. Indeed, part of the enjoyment of posting here, is seeing smug, complacent mythology fanboys being given a short, sharp lesson to the effect that their drivel isnât some ineffable brand of wisdom thatâs going to leave us in awe, but is repeatedly destroyed nonsense that weâve seen before, and destroyed before.
Indeed, one of the central errors youâve committed with your output, is the mistake of thinking that just because those mythologies contain fantastic assertions, that those assertions must somehow be true. Er, no. You need to learn something about the proper rules of discourse, and understand why this is not the case.
Oh, and by the way, Iâm on public record here and elsewhere, as welcoming genuine evidence for any god type entity that does exist, on the basis that said evidence will falsify all of our infantile pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke.
) not saying that relegion has all the answers. Science we humans can benefit from it but look how we exploit and abuse it.
) to point out that political ideologies donât generally make supernatural claims for magic, or appeals to mystery. So a contextual difference really, but the point is otherwise sound.