Atheism

[Cheb]

Damn I tried to correct my mistake before anyone did it for me but I guess I was too late. Just replace homo sapiens wiht neanderthals and modern humans = homo sapiens.

 

[The Ruler]

I believe in evolution and I believe in Adam and Eve.

how come??:? im sure bro cheb, dey wernt like monkeys...

 

[Herostratos]

The argument that "as there's no good answer to how the universe was created, therefore my God must be the true one" is a really bad argument, as it can support virtually all kinds of Gods, be it Jahwe, Allah, Zeus or Odin.

Also, it doesn't really answer anything as it just replaces "who created the Universe?" with "who created God?".

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Cheb,

Damn I tried to correct my mistake before anyone did it for me but I guess I was too late. Just replace homo sapiens wiht neanderthals and modern humans = homo sapiens.

I'm not really sure what point you're making with regard to neanderthals evolving into modern humans. Perhaps if you answered this question it would make your views clearer:

So are you suggesting that god interrupted human evolution in order to create homo sapiens sapiens, and the first two he created were called Adam and Eve?

Peace

 

[Cheb]

Ok let me explain this more. I will not deny that evolution exists. Do not think about evolution as evolution of man. What is evolution? It is when living things adapt to suit their environment. What people mistakenly think is that we were apes, and that we evolved into humans. However, even though there are similarities, they are NOT our ancestors. Some scientists mistakenly think about us evolving from apes to Homo Erectus to Neanderthals to humans. However, humans were a different species all together. They were likely to be the main cause of extinction of the Neanderthals. They both existed at the same time. That is not to say that we have not evolved form the time of Adam and Eve. We use to live much longer back then and we were much bigger.

 

[The Ruler]

Ok let me explain this more. I will not deny that evolution exists. Do not think about evolution as evolution of man. What is evolution? It is when living things adapt to suit their environment. What people mistakenly think is that we were apes, and that we evolved into humans. However, even though there are similarities, they are NOT our ancestors. Some scientists mistakenly think about us evolving from apes to Homo Erectus to Neanderthals to humans. However, humans were a different species all together. They were likely to be the main cause of extinction of the Neanderthals. They both existed at the same time. That is not to say that we have not evolved form the time of Adam and Eve. We use to live much longer back then and we were much bigger.

thanks dat makes da concept clearer

 

[Cheb]

how come??:? im sure bro cheb, dey wernt like monkeys...

lol I can imagine what you were thinking
I hope I cleared things up.

Peace.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Cheb,

I have to disagree with Tagrid - I'm now thoroughly confused as to what your point of view is.

Ok let me explain this more. I will not deny that evolution exists. Do not think about evolution as evolution of man. What is evolution? It is when living things adapt to suit their environment. What people mistakenly think is that we were apes, and that we evolved into humans. However, even though there are similarities, they are NOT our ancestors. Some scientists mistakenly think about us evolving from apes to Homo Erectus to Neanderthals to humans. However, humans were a different species all together. They were likely to be the main cause of extinction of the Neanderthals. They both existed at the same time. That is not to say that we have not evolved form the time of Adam and Eve. We use to live much longer back then and we were much bigger.

I'm not sure what you're on about. For a start, most scientists agree with you that the apes that are around today are not our ancestors - we simply share a common ancestor with them.

Are you saying that homo erectus and the neanderthals are completely unrelated to modern humans?

If that is what you're saying then what do you mean by your last sentence?

We use to live much longer back then and we were much bigger.

I think it would help if you answered my question from earlier:

So are you suggesting that god interrupted human evolution in order to create homo sapiens sapiens, and the first two he created were called Adam and Eve?

Peace

 

[Cheb]

Greetings Cheb,

I have to disagree with Tagrid - I'm now thoroughly confused as to what your point of view is.
I'm not sure what you're on about. For a start, most scientists agree with you that the apes that are around today are not our ancestors - we simply share a common ancestor with them.

I may see were you got confused. When I said apes I simply did not know what the first hominids were called so I may have lead you to believe that I was talking about modern apes. I looked it up and they are actually called Australopithecus.

Are you saying that homo erectus and the neanderthals are completely unrelated to modern humans?

Yes!

If that is what you're saying then what do you mean by your last sentence?

What I meant is that God created Adam. In his time, Adam was bigger than modern humans and lived much longer.

So are you suggesting that god interrupted human evolution in order to create homo sapiens sapiens, and the first two he created were called Adam and Eve?

Could you clarify this?
I will try to answer anyway. I am saying that humans did not exist before Adam and Eve and therefore did not interrupt human evolution. What existed during their time were either the Neanderthals or the Homo Erectus.

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

However there is a principle in logic that may help - Occam's Razor. Occam said that when faced with two choices, choose the simpler and least complex. Which is simpler - that the Universe exists and we understand it imperfectly, or the universe exists and we understand it imperfect but outside it all is a bigger and more complex entity which we do not understand at all and have never seen but which sends regular messages to us?

Well the problem is that occams razor doesn't work in a vacuum. Whatever the case, when using occams razor your relying on assumptions. Something only seems logical because it fits well in your world view. A world view based on assumptions, assumptions that can be plainly wrong. As long as this worldview is circular it appears to be logical. Let me show this with an example:
Here’s an illustrating conversation between two friends I recently witnessed.

Juliet: See, Romeo once promised me to invite me over to eat fish, but he never did invite
me. Goes to show how much a men’s promise is worth.
Romeo: Well the reason I never invited you is because you came by once while I was
cooking fish. At this point I asked you to join diner which you accepted. So I no
longer felt the obligation to keep up that promise of “inviting”.
Juliet: You’re an opportunist; you know I don’t remember such things so you made that up.

Whether or not Romeo had actually once cooked fish for her or not, I do not know. I did find it intriguing however that Juliet, although admitting she cannot rely on her own memory to remember so, prefers to believe Romeo was lying, above the more simpler explanation: that she simply forgot. Apparently she judged that thinking of Romeo as an opportunistic liar made more sense according to her feministic paradigm. Coincidently this paradigm is what started the conversation as well as the point she tried to prove.


So an atheist can prove God doesn't exist by occams razor and a theist can prove he does exist by occams razor. In the end of the day, it all comes down to faith.

 

[HeiGou]

So you are saying that you do not believe in God because it is easier not to? What kind of explanation is that?
Besides it is actually the opposite. What is easier, to believe that by some HUGE coincidence everything worked out so perfectly for life to somehow exist, or to say that God simply created all life and all that exists. That is how we exists, HE created us, simple as that!

Well no. I am saying that there may be any number of reasons to believe in God, but I have not seen you produce one yet. And in this case, the most logical argument is not to assume a bigger problem and call that a solution.

What do you mean HUGE coincidence? What is a coincidence? Think about that carefully and remember you are observing the Earth and the Universe from your chair in an office on a warm and friendly planet Earth. So you are here. Is it any wonder you are here? If you were not here, you could not observe and write your posts. Think of all the suns in the Universe. You are not sitting on any of those. As far as we know none of them contain any intelligent life much less Muslims. So God created billions and billions of stars, many of which probably have planets, and only one of them contains more or less intelligent life - this one. Even there God waited a few billion years to produce you and me and Muhammed and everyone else. That is an awfully long wait. You think it is a slight waste? Even within our Solar System there are three planets that might have supported life but only one does.

There is no his God or my God, there is God and nothign else.

Except to be convincing your argument needs to prove not only the existence of God, but of your God. Your argument, in so far as it is a valid explanation for God's existence, applies equally to the Jewish God or to the Christian God, or to one or more Hindus Gods or some God as yet unknown or all of the above. You may insist that your God is the only God, but you must have extra reasons for that belief that you have not yet explained.

Let me explain it more then. We believe that God has only put us on this earth for a limited period of time, and what Einstein's theory suggests is that time will eventually end. Get the similarities?

Well no. The Jewish-Christian-Islamic tradition all insist that that time frame is limited - that God created the world not that long ago, and will end it some time in the near future. Of course science has argued them out of that, but still the universe was created so long ago that all of human existence, much less Islamic history, is an irrelevance, and it will not end for so long in the future, one hopes, that human survival is also an irrelevance. If God has put us on this Earth for a purpose, the Universe and its age suggests that He either grossly over-engineered or we are marginal to His creation.

The theory also suggests that all time already exists. That there is no past and future, there is just time. We believe that God sees all taht is happening even if it is not in our immediate present. If you still dont get it then I cant really explain it more. Please think about it and dont react to it.

I am not reacting to it, but obviously if there is time there is a past and future. You might be able to hypothesise a Being that can move back and forth in four dimensions as we move back and forth in three. But I doubt that Einstein thought so.

That is were thiking in the 4th dimension comes in. That was my point, you cant understand how God could have existed without time or space, even thought HE actually created time and space. Time and space did not exist, but God existed.

I am happy to accept that as a statement of religious belief, but He is not implied by Special Relativity, nor is He required. It is not a scientific claim.

The question was false because you cant ask what existed before God. There was no "before God", just God. If you think that is too complicated well think about it if there was no God, how long has time existed for? was it an infinite number of year before? What was there an infinite number of years ago? it is even harder to understand.

It is not false. It is a perfectly reasonable question. There is a point at which neither time or space existed. You are asserting, on what basis I am unsure, that God existed before that point. Fine. As a statement of religious belief I have no problem with that but I do object to any pretence that is a scientific claim. But you are simply asserting that God existed then and that there was nothing before God. These are not proveable, testable statements but religious dogma. I am happy to accept them on that basis but only on that basis.

Time did not exist before the Big Bang. The universe was reduced to a singularity. We can date the Big Bang fairly accurately if our models are correct. It is hard to understand, but it is simple to say "here be monsters" like on the old maps and say that there is a vaster, more complex Being that we do not and cannot understand. One is difficult, the other is a surrender.

 

[HeiGou]

Well the problem is that occams razor doesn't work in a vacuum. Whatever the case, when using occams razor your relying on assumptions. Something only seems logical because it fits well in your world view. A world view based on assumptions, assumptions that can be plainly wrong. As long as this worldview is circular it appears to be logical.

So an atheist can prove God doesn't exist by occams razor and a theist can prove he does exist by occams razor. In the end of the day, it all comes down to faith.

That approach works as a criticism of both theists and atheists though. And in so far as it is possible Occam's razor does work as a way out - you should assume the simplest explanation even if it is not agreeable to you.

However it is not a proof and Occam does not argue that it is. Just that there is no need to unnecessarily complicate things. Assume the simplest. As it happens we understand the Universe much better without a belief in God than with it. You can see this by thinking about things like weather forecasting. This is notoriously difficult for scientists. But which would you rather rely on - the mathematicians and their computers, the "medicine men" and their prayers, or just give up and say it is all a matter for God to decide and so we cannot know?

 

[root]

Hi All

It's been interesting reading. Just A few points I would like to make about Man & Religion, Neandathols and us then finally Apes and us:

It is understood that "man" was a hunter gatherer and quite nomadic without any Art religion or controversially speech (jury out still on that point). A period of 40,000 years ago is when all archeological evidence finds evidence of burial rituals, stagnant family units art and forms of expressiveness. This is refered to as "the great leap". Further than 40,000 years ago we find nothing. "If" a form of belief started for man then it is prity safe to assume that it came with the big leap so religion "of any kind" can be no older than 40,000 years ago. before 40,000 years ago man appears not as hunter gatherer but hunter herder!

Science does see an Adam & Eve, though not as religion see it, Science see's Adam & Eve as a distinct ancestor by following for example female mytocondrial DNA which is passed on through genes unchanged and ONLY down the female line. Adam and Eve are the last distinct trace of modern human that we all share to this day common ancestory with.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Root,

Science does see an Adam & Eve, though not as religion see it, Science see's Adam & Eve as a distinct ancestor by following for example female mytocondrial DNA which is passed on through genes unchanged and ONLY down the female line. Adam and Eve are the last distinct trace of modern human that we all share to this day common ancestory with.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Are you saying that scientists have located the first two modern humans? Surely not?

Peace

 

[afriend]

Well sure in atheism there may be some good points (my opinion! DON'T think any less of me now, just saw a program about atheists) But then, there's nothing to live for.....I mean live FOR!!!!!!! I don't mean have fun in this life.

And come on, how long can one's fun last 60 years(by this time, you are probably in a care home)? 70? 80 to the most?

then what? What are you going to do? it's going to be a bit boring to die and do nothing...isn't it?

How can one who has lived and was created from nothing at all, just....be gone and turned into mere dust.....

Don't you think that there is something afterwards?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

That approach works as a criticism of both theists and atheists though. And in so far as it is possible Occam's razor does work as a way out - you should assume the simplest explanation even if it is not agreeable to you.

Hmm. well the thing is that "simple" is subjective. What seems simple to one person might seem complicated to the other and vice versa. That's the gist of what I'm trying to say, that occams razor is flawed by subjectiveness.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Steve,

Well the problem is that occams razor doesn't work in a vacuum. Whatever the case, when using occams razor your relying on assumptions. Something only seems logical because it fits well in your world view. A world view based on assumptions, assumptions that can be plainly wrong. As long as this worldview is circular it appears to be logical. Let me show this with an example:

Ockham's razor is not about deciding which of two competing hypotheses is more logical, but which is simpler. Let's look at the two hypotheses on offer:

a. The natural world exists, and was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being called god.

b. The natural world exists.

Which of those two assertions is simpler?

In the absence of convincing evidence either way, Ockham's razor suggests we should believe the simpler of the two options.

[Sorry, I didn't understand your example.]

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

well, wich one is simpler
1. DNA, with a very complex structure formed spontanously out of lifeless matter consistent of difrent complex buildingblocks coincedentially positioning themselfs in the right order in a unfavourable enviroment.
2. Allah created life

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Steve,

well, wich one is simpler
1. DNA, with a very complex structure formed spontanously out of lifeless matter consistent of difrent complex buildingblocks coincedentially positioning themselfs in the right order in a unfavourable enviroment.
2. Allah created life

I'd say the first.

DNA has been observed, and we're beginning to understand how it works in some detail.

Allah has never been observed, and how he (supposedly) created life is a process we certainly don't understand.

Both propositions involve life coming from non-life, so as far as simplicity goes, they are equal on that count. However, as I say, one of the subjects is observable; the other is not. Therefore, the proposition containing the observable agent is simpler.

Incidentally, your clause about building blocks coincidentally positioning themselves in the right order commits the anthropic fallacy.

Peace

 

[Bertsura]

Greetings Steve,


I'd say the first.

DNA has been observed, and we're beginning to understand how it works in some detail.

Allah has never been observed, and how he (supposedly) created life is a process we certainly don't understand.

Both propositions involve life coming from non-life, so as far as simplicity goes, they are equal on that count. However, as I say, one of the subjects is observable; the other is not. Therefore, the proposition containing the observable agent is simpler.

Incidentally, your clause about building blocks coincidentally positioning themselves in the right order commits the anthropic fallacy.

Peace

And, "Allah created life" answers the question simplistically. There's a difference. It's all the excess baggage of Allah's omnipotence and omniscience that make the assertion unnecessarily complex. Or not?