Apes Copying Humans Does Not Constitue Evidence For Evolution!!!

[Dr.Trax]

You need to open a new branch of science. :skeleton:

Or learn what science is about.

Friendo do you believe in Ghosts or demons?

 

[wilberhum]

Friendo do you believe in Ghosts or demons?

Nope.

Don't believe in vampires either.

You need help and I need to go to bed. :thankyou:

 

[Dr.Trax]

Nope.

Don't believe in vampires either.

You need help and I need to go to bed. :thankyou:

Friendo you need help,what do you say about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-F6Ztstgk

And one of your Atheisto friend said:
As far as evolution goes, who knows? "Ghosts" could be beings that have evolved beyond corporeal limitations, or they could use some kind of alternative biochemistry, be protrusions from other spatial dimensions, the list goes on. It's probably best to be agnostic in terms of "ghosts" for the time being.

Now I do not understand!!?I think evolution deny that!!!

 

[Draco]

Look, you are brainwashed!!!
Look at the mirror and you will see who you are....
Let it be your last streetword on the forum!ok?
If you do not understand,you are not capable to think!!!
Did I ever attack someone?Try with prove little brainy!

I didn't attack you - I merely stated a fact. For you to think that God creates and destroys species whenever he feels like it can only mean that you have been brainwashed to such an extent by your religion that you refuse to even contemplate the theory of Evolution. Hence why it is almost certainly a waste of time attempting to explain it to you. You clearly are not posting your own views on evolution, you're just attempting to publish propaganda. I doubt you have read a single credible book on the theory. And moreover I doubt you would allow yourself to because your religion is so entrenched in your mindset.

 

[Draco]

Friendo you need help,what do you say about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-F6Ztstgk

You’re not seriously using this to support your argument are you? A show on Bravo about an American family who think they have a ghost in their house. This is laughable. I shouldn’t need to explain this but since you posted in I think I need to spell out that this is a hoax and these people are being paid to put on this charade.

And one of your Atheisto friend said:
As far as evolution goes, who knows? "Ghosts" could be beings that have evolved beyond corporeal limitations, or they could use some kind of alternative biochemistry, be protrusions from other spatial dimensions, the list goes on. It's probably best to be agnostic in terms of "ghosts" for the time being.

Now I do not understand!!?I think evolution deny that!!!

You’re right in that something that we might describe as ghost-like could have evolved - but not on this planet. And we can say that because we have no supporting evidence for it. We can say the same of dragons, demons, fairies, pixies, all those characters in Lord of Rings, and any other mystical character we care to dream up. There is no evidence so we would be foolish to be agnostic about the existence of every creation that the human mind can manifest.
In any case, by your own logic – YOU should be agnostic about the existence of God. He’s just another manifestation of the mind that we have no evidence for.

 

[Trumble]

The soul could not be explained in any way in terms of materialist claims.

Probably true, which is one reason why Descartes went through so many hoops to come up with a metaphysics that would accommodate an immaterial soul in what was becoming a 'scientific', materialist world. Materialism has an easy answer though, there is no soul. Problem solved.

Darwinism, which produced countless fictitious tales regarding the imaginary evolution of species, remained silent in the face of the existence of the soul. Because the soul was not matter, it was a metaphysical concept. And metaphysics was something that materialists were completely unable to accept, because metaphysics did away with all the unconscious events, coincidences and random processes that they had deified. Metaphysics submitted evidence of a conscious creation, in other words, of the existence of Allah. That, in any case, was why materialists had been denying the existence of the soul ever since the days of Ancient Greece.

You seem to be confusing 'metaphysics' with a particular variety of metaphysics, i.e a dualist one. There are still plenty of metaphysicists about, most (not all) of whom have rejected dualism in favour of some sort of materialist alternative - even those without atheistic agendas. Metaphysics does not, and never has, supplied "evidence of a conscious creation". Metaphysical theories, just like scientific theories, are mental constructs that explain evidence, not produce it. Some metaphysical theories accomodate (and were designed to accomodate) the idea such creation occurred, that is all.

Science definitively proved that the human soul observed all things as they were presented to it and that there could be no reference to any reality beyond these perceived images.

Again, I'm afraid this is unsupportable nonsense. Please provide me with references showing that 'science' has "definitively proved" the soul exists, let alone that it has particular properties.

This proof by science is of importance in convincing minds that deify materialist philosophy.

Again, what proof? Produce it! Where are the experiments, the articles, the papers - the scientists who actually share your opinion? One of the reasons (although by no means the only one) most philosophers today are materialists is because that is the metaphyics that scientific evidence supports (not proves, supports) a materialist metaphysics.

If human beings are possessed of souls, they cannot have been created haphazardly. There is a purpose behind their presence in this world. All people bear a soul that belongs to Allah and are being tested in this lifetime, after which they will be held responsible for all their thoughts and deeds. There is no randomness or aimlessness in life. There are no chance events, as Darwinists maintain. Everything has been created by the will of Allah to become part of the tests to which we are subjected. In this life, which will end in death, the only thing that will be left behind is the body. The soul, on the other hand, will live for all eternity in the Hereafter, which is its true abode.

This is philosophical speculation, not science. Why would having a soul disqualify being "created haphazardly"? Why does there need to be a purpose behind our presence in this world? Important questions, but not ones addressed by science. According to most forms of dualism the 'soul' they could accommodate may well be immortal, but again there is no scientific evidence those metaphysical views are correct, indeed as I said, what evidence there is rather suggests the contrary.

Darwinists, however, will continue to refuse this reality with all their means and maintain that they do not possess a soul.

You are assigning "reality" to your own belief without offering any scientific evidence of philosophical argument to support doing so.

The human soul is a terrible dilemma for Darwin and the supporters who came after him. It is the basic evidence which they cannot explain, which they cannot refute and cannot resolve.

It is not a 'dilemma' at all. The soul would only be a problem (and not necessarily an unsolveable one) if you accept it exists and there is no scientific evidence, 'basic' or otherwise, that it does. Your overall position, stripped of the faith-based element, seems to amount to no more than the suggestion that the fact (which I will accept for sake of argument) that science cannot deal with an immaterial soul somehow represents a scientific proof that such a thing actually exists, and has certain properties. That is clearly nonsense.

The problem you, and presumably www.darwinism-watch.com have is that your whole argument is based on a certain set of assumptions, in this case that there IS a soul, and that there IS a creator God, and that dualist metaphysics is essentially correct. It is very easy (just the same for atheists, BTW) when such assumptions are so important and fundamental to your world-view to forget that assumptions are all they are. If you accept those assumptions then your position makes some sort of sense (the same way that many aspects of Islam are claimed to be 'logical') but not only do atheists and/or evolutionists (not necessarily the same thing) not have to accept them, they generally DON'T accept them. From that starting point your argument carries no weight at all... there is no scientific evidence suggesting that they should accept those assumptions. That's why philosophical materialism came about in the first place.

 

[Draco]

The problem you, and presumably www.darwinism-watch.com have is that your whole argument is based on a certain set of assumptions, in this case that there IS a soul, and that there IS a creator God, and that dualist metaphysics is essentially correct. It is very easy (just the same for atheists, BTW) when such assumptions are so important and fundamental to your world-view to forget that assumptions are all they are.<snip>

Trumble I think you’ve dispatched with the argument convincingly. But I’m curious about your implication that atheists also make assumptions similar to that of the religious. What did you mean by this?

 

[Trumble]

Trumble But I’m curious about your implication that atheists also make assumptions similar to that of the religious. What did you mean by this?

Generally the reverse assumptions, i.e. that there is no creator God, dualist metaphysics is wrong (or at least less right than one or more monistic alternatives), there is no immortal 'soul' and so on. We all make assumptions - you have to get anywhere. The trick is realising that is all they are, and many theists are able to do that as well as atheists and agnostics.

To illustrate, as a Buddhist I do not believe there is a creator God that operates outside the laws of cause and effect that effect the rest of us. Nor do I believe in an immortal 'soul'. However, that does not change the fact that are are fundamental elements and assumptions in my world-view that not only cannot be 'proved' by science but that we believe to be unproveable by science... you'll come across many books on assorted 'parallels' between elements of Eastern religious thought, science and psychology but no Buddhist would consider attempting to 'prove' Buddhism to be 'right' using either as anything more than an exercise in futility. I know they are assumptions, just assumptions that I believe to be true. As I said, many theists also accept that regarding their own assumptions. It's a faith thing.. but faith is not science!

 

[Draco]

Generally the reverse assumptions, i.e. that there is no creator God, dualist metaphysics is wrong (or at least less right than one or more monistic alternatives), there is no immortal 'soul' and so on. We all make assumptions - you have to get anywhere. The trick is realising that is all they are, and many theists are able to do that as well as atheists and agnostics.

Religious people make an assumption or hold a belief and then build everything else on top of that assumption/belief. Atheists don’t make actually make assumptions such as there is no God, no soul etc. (Most) Atheists examine the evidence we have for such things and come to the conclusion that based on the evidence there is no grounds for belief. That’s very different from making an assumption. You cannot club atheists and the religious together in this way.

 

[Draco]

…To illustrate, as a Buddhist I do not believe there is a creator God that operates outside the laws of cause and effect that effect the rest of us. Nor do I believe in an immortal 'soul'. However, that does not change the fact that are are fundamental elements and assumptions in my world-view that not only cannot be 'proved' by science but that we believe to be unproveable by science... you'll come across many books on assorted 'parallels' between elements of Eastern religious thought, science and psychology but no Buddhist would consider attempting to 'prove' Buddhism to be 'right' using either as anything more than an exercise in futility. I know they are assumptions, just assumptions that I believe to be true. As I said, many theists also accept that regarding their own assumptions. It's a faith thing.. but faith is not science!

Again, my point stands that atheists do not make assumptions of the kind you speak of. The ‘world-view’ is constructed from the evidence we are able to observe and test. This ‘world-view’ is perfectly entitled to change as we learn more and new evidence comes to light but be under no illusions that it is evidence based reasoning that is not dependant on some root assumption.

Also, not being able to prove something in the mathematical (or scientific) sense does not mean that you should become a fence-sitter about every non-disprovable idea that was ever thought of by mankind. Some ideas are simply not disprovable but are nevertheless so improbable that to give them a 50/50 chance of being true is ludicrous. We cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy but we don’t say that the chances of the toot fairy being more than a childhood story is 50/50 do we?

I would like to know what assumptions Buddhists are required to make in order to form their world view – in particular, the ones that science are supposed to have no say in.

 

[Trumble]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I believe that you can, in general terms anyway.

Religious people make an assumption or hold a belief and then build everything else on top of that assumption/belief.

You are generalizing unjustifiably, although that is certainly true of many. However a great many people, including scientists, have come to the opinion that there must be a God because of the evidence as they perceive it. You could argue that that isn't scientific evidence, but in doing so you must sacrifice your own position.. you are assuming that scientific evidence is in some way more important or influential than any sort of evidence.

Atheists don’t make actually make assumptions such as there is no God, no soul etc.

A little picky, but I'd argue that that comment might apply, at best, to when they are formulating their views on the subject. Once they are atheists, more and more assumptions are made... although I don't mean to imply that their minds are 'closed' in any way.

I would like to know what assumptions Buddhists are required to make in order to form their world view – in particular, the ones that science are supposed to have no say in.

One of the advantages of religious belief that does not involve an omnipotent God is that you are not 'required' to do anything! However, it's not so much that science is not supposed to have a say in them as that it is not necessary that it does, and unlikely that it would.

The basic foundation of Buddhism is the 'Four Noble Truths', namely

1. Life is dukkha (a difficult word to translate; the usual is 'suffering' but it's more a mix of that with 'disatisfaction')

2. Dukkha is caused by selfish desire (attachment).

3. The cessation of dukkha is attainable.

4. The (Eightfold) path to ending dukkha (you can look that up if you are unfamiliar with it).

All Buddhists believe those 'truths' to be true, whatever other trappings there may be on top (which can vary enormously). But where do you think science could get a grip on it? "Life is dukkha"... I think you can provide an unassailable case for that being true on purely experiential grounds, but how could science 'prove' it? How could it prove that following the Eightold Path could eliminate it, let alone the consequences in Buddhist metaphysics (nop more rebirth) that follows. You are assuming a certain metaphysics to be true, but that is no different in assuming a 'scientific' materialist metaphysics to be true. Neither science or Buddhist metaphysics can prove that the soul, or the immaterial substance of which Descartes believed it to be composed, does not exist. If they did exist, the case for an immortal soul is philosophically quite a strong one but either way it is hard to see how science, which deals in the material, could resolve the matter either way.

I suppose someone could eventually come up with a sound eliminative materialism/neurobiology, but you are probably aware of the huge problems with attempts to do so to date. Religion can worry about it if and when it ever happens.

 

[Isambard]

There is scientific,but not materialistic:

Scientific method (making something 'scientific') is a product of materialism and positivism

Science definitively proved that the human soul observed all things as they were presented to it and that there could be no reference to any reality beyond these perceived images. To put it another way, it openly declared that the only absolute Entity was Allah.

No it hasnt

This proof by science is of importance in convincing minds that deify materialist philosophy.

No it hasnt

In fact, though, all who possess reflection and intellect are aware that they possess a sublime soul. Anyone who can reason at all will understand that it is the soul that rejoices, thinks, decides, judges, experiences joy and excitement, loves, shows compassion, gets anxious, enjoys the taste of an apple, takes pleasure from listening to music, builds planes, raises skyscrapers and constructs laboratories in which it examines itself.

Er? Quite the opposite.


Yes,for him(Allah)everything is easy.He has created them and he will cause them to die,and create a new creation,such as Elephants!!!He is Supreme!!!eace:

So allah is wasteful?

 

[Draco]

You are generalizing unjustifiably, although that is certainly true of many. However a great many people, including scientists, have come to the opinion that there must be a God because of the evidence as they perceive it. You could argue that that isn't scientific evidence, but in doing so you must sacrifice your own position.. you are assuming that scientific evidence is in some way more important or influential than any sort of evidence.

What other kind of evidence is there? If by evidence you’re talking about something that’s personal to an individual then that’s simply not evidence. It’s just a personal belief and may have little to do with what’s actually true.

A little picky, but I'd argue that that comment might apply, at best, to when they are formulating their views on the subject. Once they are atheists, more and more assumptions are made... although I don't mean to imply that their minds are 'closed' in any way. .

Again – what assumptions do atheists make? Let’s clear up the terminology here. By assumption, I take it to mean that you need to believe in something without really knowing if it is true or not – or more specifically, without having any evidence that supports it. I’ll say it again – atheists need not make such assumptions. Every conclusion about the way things are can be based on testable evidence.

One of the advantages of religious belief that does not involve an omnipotent God is that you are not 'required' to do anything! However, it's not so much that science is not supposed to have a say in them as that it is not necessary that it does, and unlikely that it would.

The basic foundation of Buddhism is the 'Four Noble Truths', namely

1. Life is dukkha (a difficult word to translate; the usual is 'suffering' but it's more a mix of that with 'disatisfaction')

2. Dukkha is caused by selfish desire (attachment).

3. The cessation of dukkha is attainable.

4. The (Eightfold) path to ending dukkha (you can look that up if you are unfamiliar with it).

All Buddhists believe those 'truths' to be true, whatever other trappings there may be on top (which can vary enormously). But where do you think science could get a grip on it? "Life is dukkha"... I think you can provide an unassailable case for that being true on purely experiential grounds, but how could science 'prove' it? How could it prove that following the Eightold Path could eliminate it, let alone the consequences in Buddhist metaphysics (nop more rebirth) that follows. You are assuming a certain metaphysics to be true, but that is no different in assuming a 'scientific' materialist metaphysics to be true. Neither science or Buddhist metaphysics can prove that the soul, or the immaterial substance of which Descartes believed it to be composed, does not exist. If they did exist, the case for an immortal soul is philosophically quite a strong one but either way it is hard to see how science, which deals in the material, could resolve the matter either way.

There are two problems here. One is your over-emphasis on needing ‘proof’. As I said before, there are numerous things that one cannot disprove; the soul is perhaps one of them. But this does not mean that every assertion there ever was has validity and should be taken seriously. Surely you don’t expect us to go about our daily lives believing that everything and anything could happen.

Second is your invocation of the NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) argument. You cannot assert the existence of something and then say that it lies outside the realms of science to test for its existence as a way of escaping scientific scrutiny. It just weakens your argument. Fancy sounding phrases that are allegedly difficult to explain such as "Life is dukkha", may well be true (although not in my opinion). But if you think that science can’t dissect the reasons that make it true then you’re mistaken. Buddhism is one of the biggest culprits (in my opinion) when it comes to confusing the heck out people so that they think a concept is extremely complex and unexplainable in simple terms. Suffering and dissatisfaction (call it what you will) does exist no doubt; they are real human emotions. But I don’t think it takes a scientist to explain why it is we feel suffering and dissatisfaction at times. Anyone who has experienced the emotions could probably tell you the exact reasons why, and a scientific argument could deeper explore those reasons. Why should religion declare itself ruler of a particular domain? I’d like to hear of even one thing that religion explains better than science. Do you have an example?

 

[Trumble]

What other kind of evidence is there? If by evidence you’re talking about something that’s personal to an individual then that’s simply not evidence. It’s just a personal belief and may have little to do with what’s actually true.

It is evidence to them! 'Just' a personal belief? The world revolves around our personal beliefs.

Let me give you an example. One of the most respected posters here has explained to us that the principle (if not the only) reason he converted to Islam was that having read the Qur'an in Arabic(he learned Arabic before becoming a muslim) was that he does not believe, based on it's structure and style, that the Qur'an could have been written by a human being. That may 'just' be a personal belief or, to be precise, a matter of individual aesthetic judgement, but to him it constitutes very strong evidence that the Qur'an is the work of God, there being no other suitable candidate. Whether you or I consider it evidence of anything doesn't really matter much to him.

Again – what assumptions do atheists make? Let’s clear up the terminology here. By assumption, I take it to mean that you need to believe in something without really knowing if it is true or not – or more specifically, without having any evidence that supports it.

There is no need to 'believe' it, or them, but as I said it is sometimes necessary to accept it without verification to get anywhere. An example. Try and prove to me, scientifically, that there is actually any physical world at all and that the whole of creation doesn't consist only of your own individual conciousness. You'll find that it can't be done (and a great many people have tried) but, nonetheless, the idea is so counter-intuitive and seemingly improbable that it is (almost) universally rejected. Nevertheless, that rejection is still no more than an assumption necessary to make any scientific progress at all.

I’ll say it again – atheists need not make such assumptions. Every conclusion about the way things are can be based on testable evidence.

So, as an atheist who has presumably concluded that God does not exist you can therefore prove to our theist friends using testable evidence that He doesn't? As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever done that, either.

There are two problems here. One is your over-emphasis on needing ‘proof’.

I'm not sure I understand you. I believe I was saying exactly the opposite? I have no need for 'proof'.

As I said before, there are numerous things that one cannot disprove; the soul is perhaps one of them. But this does not mean that every assertion there ever was has validity and should be taken seriously. Surely you don’t expect us to go about our daily lives believing that everything and anything could happen.

No, but somewhere a decision needs to be made as to what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't. Such a decision needs certain criteria.. which in turn must be the result of a decision. It can't be an infinite regression so at some point the buck stops.. with an assumption.

You cannot assert the existence of something and then say that it lies outside the realms of science to test for its existence as a way of escaping scientific scrutiny.

Yes I could. And you cannot question that without making certain assumptions regarding the nature of science! I don't think I did, though.. anybody who wishes to apply scientific scrutiny to Buddhist belief is perfectly at liberty to try. I just don't think they'll get very far. I make no claims for "ultimate truth", I am just stating what I believe it to be.

Fancy sounding phrases that are allegedly difficult to explain such as "Life is dukkha", may well be true (although not in my opinion).

I think maybe you should re-read that bit. The phrase is neither fancy sounding nor particularly difficult to explain; I merely drew attention to one word that is is usually left in the original language because it has no direct equivalent in English and is often misunderstood as a consequence.

But if you think that science can’t dissect the reasons that make it true then you’re mistaken.

It hasn't done much of a job so far. What is the scientific answer to the question "why do we suffer"? What is the scientific answer to the question "how do we stop suffering"? Do you expect science to provide answers any time soon?

Buddhism is one of the biggest culprits (in my opinion) when it comes to confusing the heck out people so that they think a concept is extremely complex and unexplainable in simple terms. Suffering and dissatisfaction (call it what you will) does exist no doubt; they are real human emotions.

In fact Buddhism offers a very simple explanation for those phenomena; precisely the opposite to what you claim. However, I assume from what you say that the scientific answer assumes that suffering and dissatisfaction are "real human emotions". Science can therefore, presumably, provide a full universally verifiable description of what an 'emotion' is. What is it?

Why should religion declare itself ruler of a particular domain?

When that domain is religion itself I wouldn't have thought such a declaration was necessary.

I’d like to hear of even one thing that religion explains better than science. Do you have an example?

"What is the purpose of life?" Actually, my answer to that question would probably be much closer to yours than to that of the theists here, but nonetheless it is a question that religion answers better than science as it is one science does not, and cannot, attempt to answer at all. The best it can do is attempt to redefine the question in its own terms.

 

[Science101]

Dr.Trex. I went over what you said a few times. It seems like you are trying to describe something real but the words you are using do not work the same way in science.

In science there are two very important words. The word "Intelligence" and the word "Consciousness".

Intelligence requires no consciousness (knowing that it is alive). Computers are based on "Artificial Intelligence" which also models how brain cells and brains work. Here is something I wrote to better show what "intelligence" is and how it is studied.

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=692

Consciousness is the ability of the "intelligence" to know it is alive, that it exists. Snakelegs posted one on consciousness that shows one way it is being studied.

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-...n-cells-tied-conciousness-reported-found.html

The study did not show how consciousness works, but it might be helpful.

The words "soul" and"spirit" describes something with consciousness. But since science does not know how consciousness works, or has spirits that come to labs to be experimented on, there is no science that can say either way. So we don't know for sure if there is a soul/spirit or not. That has to be taken on faith as it has always been.

Many of the claims you are finding on the internet come from people who wrongly attack evolutionary theory without knowing what it really is. Like I keep saying, our offspring not all look exactly alike, makes it impossible for something with so much change in it, to sustain us for so long. So you must explain where and when we suddenly appeared, and how something that keeps changing into something new can never change.

Evolutionary science is no threat to Islam. In my opinion the threat are those who are saying you must stop doing what Muhammad said and follow them instead.

 

[Dr.Trax]

I am back again!
Please answer to me these questions here:

The Concept of “Consciousness”

Who is it who observes and enjoys a brightly colored flower garden in a darkened space with no need of the eye, retina, lens or optical nerves?

Who is the entity that recognizes in electrical signals the voices of its friends without the need for an ear, who recognizes them and rejoices to hear them?

Who is it who smells the scent of cake in the bakery, and takes pleasure from this?

Who is it who delights in seeing a flower, who feels affection when he sees a kitten, who strokes its fur with no need for any arm, finger or muscle?

Can a piece of tissue consisting of nerve cells and weighing just a few hundred grams be the cause of the lives we lead, our sorrows, joys, friendships, loyalty, honesty and excitement?

If the entity that perceives all these things is not the brain, then who is it?

Is it a “little man” inside our brains who perceives the external world?

Or the “observer” to which quantum physics refers?

Is this observer somewhere inside the brain?

If not, then where is it?

 

[Science101]

I am back again!
Please answer to me these questions here:

The Concept of “Consciousness”

Can a piece of tissue consisting of nerve cells and weighing just a few hundred grams be the cause of the lives we lead, our sorrows, joys, friendships, loyalty, honesty and excitement?

There are no "sorrows, joys, friendships, loyalty, honesty and excitement" left in an organism after its brain has been suddenly removed. That is common knowledge.

The questions are saying that is not true?

 

[ranma1/2]

Nope.

Don't believe in vampires either.

You need help and I need to go to bed. :thankyou:

ah but what about smurfs, unicorns, pixies, goblins, GFSMs (sbuh), Xenu,.....

 

[ranma1/2]

Friendo you need help,what do you say about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-F6Ztstgk

And one of your Atheisto friend said:
As far as evolution goes, who knows? "Ghosts" could be beings that have evolved beyond corporeal limitations, or they could use some kind of alternative biochemistry, be protrusions from other spatial dimensions, the list goes on. It's probably best to be agnostic in terms of "ghosts" for the time being.

Now I do not understand!!?I think evolution deny that!!!

untill there is evidence for them there is no reason to believe ghosts exists.
now of course many people might have their imagination play tricks on them(that old primal fear fo the dark part of us) as for atlanteans or ancients, ill leave that to fiction till we have evidence otherwise.

 

[Draco]

What other kind of evidence is there? If by evidence you’re talking about something that’s personal to an individual then that’s simply not evidence. It’s just a personal belief and may have little to do with what’s actually true.

It is evidence to them! 'Just' a personal belief? The world revolves around our personal beliefs.

Let me give you an example. One of the most respected posters here has explained to us that the principle (if not the only) reason he converted to Islam was that having read the Qur'an in Arabic(he learned Arabic before becoming a muslim) was that he does not believe, based on it's structure and style, that the Qur'an could have been written by a human being. That may 'just' be a personal belief or, to be precise, a matter of individual aesthetic judgement, but to him it constitutes very strong evidence that the Qur'an is the work of God, there being no other suitable candidate. Whether you or I consider it evidence of anything doesn't really matter much to him.

The world may revolve around our personal beliefs I agree, but that doesn’t make them true. I may think all sorts of great things about myself or my favourite sports team or whatever, but that doesn’t make them true. The subject of your example was convinced that a human did not write the Qur’an – so what? Another person may very well think the exact opposite. Now we have two conflicting opinions, both of which cannot be correct so how can we tell which one is? We cannot put any credence in what either one’s opinion or personal belief is. This is where science steps in and attempts to find the answers by non-subjective means. Each candidate would have to present evidence to support their case and then others would need to examine both and make a decision based on which evidence is the strongest. But an opinion or belief is just that and cannot be used as useful argument for or against anything – surely you see that.

Again – what assumptions do atheists make? Let’s clear up the terminology here. By assumption, I take it to mean that you need to believe in something without really knowing if it is true or not – or more specifically, without having any evidence that supports it.

There is no need to 'believe' it, or them, but as I said it is sometimes necessary to accept it without verification to get anywhere. An example. Try and prove to me, scientifically, that there is actually any physical world at all and that the whole of creation doesn't consist only of your own individual conciousness. You'll find that it can't be done (and a great many people have tried) but, nonetheless, the idea is so counter-intuitive and seemingly improbable that it is (almost) universally rejected. Nevertheless, that rejection is still no more than an assumption necessary to make any scientific progress at all.

Oh yes – and of course we could all be living as human batteries like in the Matrix movies! We could go on all day thinking up different fantasies like these but as you said, what good would it do us? You’re trying to take a philosophical question and use it to infer that because we make some basic assumptions about our reality, any and every other assumption must also be equally valid.

I’ll say it again – atheists need not make such assumptions. Every conclusion about the way things are can be based on testable evidence.

So, as an atheist who has presumably concluded that God does not exist you can therefore prove to our theist friends using testable evidence that He doesn't? As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever done that, either.

There are two problems here. One is your over-emphasis on needing ‘proof’.

I'm not sure I understand you. I believe I was saying exactly the opposite? I have no need for 'proof'.

How about you read your own response. In the previous two paragraphs you’ve asked me for proof in both. (Go ahead – read it again to make sure). I’ll say it one last time for your benefit and I’ll quote myself to save typing it again “As I said before, there are numerous things that one cannot disprove; the soul is perhaps one of them. But this does not mean that every assertion there ever was has validity and should be taken seriously…”. Again, not being able to disprove something does not give it a 50/50 chance of being true. Ask yourself why you do not believe in fairies, ghosts, pixies, goblins, hobbits, etc. etc. (please tell me you don’t believe in those things). Then ask yourself how you have come to the conclusion that they do not exist when nobody has proven that they do not exist? I cannot explain it better and if you don’t see the logic there then I’ll never be able to explain it. In any case the burden of proof is not on the atheist to prove that God does not exist. It’s for the person asserting the existence of the thing to provide the proof (or at least the evidence). And Buddhist or not, that I’m sure you’ll agree has not been provided.

It hasn't done much of a job so far. What is the scientific answer to the question "why do we suffer"? What is the scientific answer to the question "how do we stop suffering"? Do you expect science to provide answers any time soon?

The answer may be that you cannot. Although what makes you think that question even has an answer? Just because you can form a grammatically correct question doesn’t mean it’s a valid question or has a sensible response (what is the smell of the colour blue?). Science and evolution will tell you we are in constant competition for survival and a stimulus that produces ‘suffering’ is likely to be detrimental to the replication of our genetic material. Forgive me for making an assumption, but I don’t think you will understand that because the more I read your responses the less I think you understand about evolution by natural selection (perhaps I could recommend some books?)

In fact Buddhism offers a very simple explanation for those phenomena; precisely the opposite to what you claim. However, I assume from what you say that the scientific answer assumes that suffering and dissatisfaction are "real human emotions". Science can therefore, presumably, provide a full universally verifiable description of what an 'emotion' is. What is it?

I don’t want to get sucked in to a philosophical debate. See my answer above relating to how science explains suffering.

"What is the purpose of life?" Actually, my answer to that question would probably be much closer to yours than to that of the theists here, but nonetheless it is a question that religion answers better than science as it is one science does not, and cannot, attempt to answer at all. The best it can do is attempt to redefine the question in its own terms.

Again this is the kind of response that makes me think you know little about biological evolution. If you understand the ‘how’ we came to be here, then the ‘why’ are we here becomes all too apparent. You just don’t understand the how.