Atheism

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@queer

so where do neanderthals fit in to your religious beliefs, psyah?

@philosophy

if you can fit neanderthals into your beliefs...then, you take evolution as fact and you don’t even know it

Peace queer and philosophy

I believe there are skeletons that have been found that we are calling “neanderthal” due to their appearance. My take on these skeletons is:

a) They could well be human races that have died out
b) They could well be animal races that have died out
c) They are not a common ancestor between modern day animals and modern day humans

And philosophy … I don’t know about taking evolution as fact, but you have virtually admitted in red that “evolution is a belief” …

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@The_Jinx

true (ref: 55:15) but while we are made of clay (sand and water), can we find sand in our flesh and skin? Allah created us to shape like this. I believe that Jinn can have the same body structure as us even though their origin is different.

That is true as well ... and when they take our form they remain that way ... this is also in various narrations ... Let's keep it simple though for the atheists here ... mostly Jinn dwell in a different form that is not "physical" - I personally understand "clay" to mean "physical - matter" - since clay is a mixture of all chemicals in the periodic table. I believe Jinn may not necessarily be in physical form in their natural state which is why they cannot be seen.

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

Peace queer and philosophy

I believe there are skeletons that have been found that we are calling "neanderthal" due to their appearance. My take on these skeletons is:

a) They could well be human races that have died out b) They could well be animal races that have died out c) They are not a common ancestor between modern day animals and modern day humans

And philosophy ... I don't know about taking evolution as fact, but you have virtually admitted in red that "evolution is a belief" ... :p

you keep on trying to make the lame belief vs. fact and/or true argument. and i ahve ignored it up until now...because it's so not worth a discussion.

our beliefs are our facts. there's no difference. look up the definition of belief in a dictionary. that's only a start. then read some papers on how our brain processes "belief" and "fact"

you will have your answer.

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

if youre still not satisfied, read “The Moral Landscape” I will give you specific page numbers if you’d like.

but PLEASE stop with your elementary arguments.

beleif schlief

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy

you keep on trying to make the lame belief vs. fact and/or true argument. and i ahve ignored it up until now…because it’s so not worth a discussion.

our beliefs are our facts. there’s no difference. look up the definition of belief in a dictionary. that’s only a start. then read some papers on how our brain processes “belief” and “fact”

you will have your answer.

Thanks … but what is it you are contending now? I don’t quite understand …

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy

if youre still not satisfied, read “The Moral Landscape” I will give you specific page numbers if you’d like.

but PLEASE stop with your elementary arguments.

beleif schlief

Peace philosophy

I’ll try to find time to reading this book - thanks

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

hehe. we all know that is exactly THE problem. you don’t understand

but, we’re not giving up on you. will keeep on trying

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy

our beliefs are our facts.

these beliefs/facts changed over the years as soon as new theory was presented for human evolution. These facts will remain facts until a new theory "proves" some different "facts".

At best, matter could not be destroyed but took different form of energy in Newtonian era but can be destroyed now in Einstein's time. Matter did not change. What changed is the scientific "fact".

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy

hehe. we all know that is exactly THE problem. you don’t understand

but, we’re not giving up on you. will keeep on trying

Thanks … That is probably the crux of it then … If only I understood things better … I would be an atheist … So I’m just a religious retard.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy ... by the way ... if you are not giving up on me then please explain your contention .... respond to my post #85.

[queer]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

Peace queer and philosophy

I believe there are skeletons that have been found that we are calling “neanderthal” due to their appearance. My take on these skeletons is:

a) They could well be human races that have died out
b) They could well be animal races that have died out
c) They are not a common ancestor between modern day animals and modern day humans

And philosophy … I don’t know about taking evolution as fact, but you have virtually admitted in red that “evolution is a belief” …

sounds like none of your speculative guesses, which btw seem to span pretty much anything and everything (animal? human? race?), have much of a religious basis. so why not let scientists do their job and explain the neanderthals with actual physical data?

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@queer

sounds like none of your speculative guesses, which btw seem to span pretty much anything and everything (animal? human? race?), have much of a religious basis. so why not let scientists do their job and explain the neanderthals with actual physical data?

Peace queer

Should they have a religious basis? If so why? … I am approaching the subject of neanderthals purely as a scientist and it is my scientific belief that I have presented in a), b) and c) …

[queer]

Re: Atheism

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

@queer

sounds like none of your speculative guesses, which btw seem to span pretty much anything and everything (animal? human? race?), have much of a religious basis. so why not let scientists do their job and explain the neanderthals with actual physical data?

this needs to be posted as a sticky!!!

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy

this needs to be posted as a sticky!!!

What the whole thread? If it's just the post you are getting excited over then make it your signature line ... :)

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

What the whole thread? If it’s just the post you are getting excited over then make it your signature line …

LOL. psyah, can I make the above as my signature since I think the above should be made sticky too?

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

^LOL

[kprasad]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

Peace queer

Should they have a religious basis? If so why? .... I am approaching the subject of neanderthals purely as a scientist and it is my scientific belief that I have presented in a), b) and c) ...

I'm always amused by similar discussions. They are just funny to read and listen to, a great way to kill some time. People that don't understand the scientific process, relegating it.

Psyah: You're conflating religion and science here. Science works on evidence, data, peer review, and experimentation. Religion works on belief. Scientific "belief" is called a hypothesis and needs to be backed up with data and evidence. Religion doesn't work that way!

That evolution occurred is a fact. It happened. Biologists/scientists are piecing together the mechanics of how it happened. They are working backwards, like an investigator piecing together the wreckage of a plane after a crash and trying to find out how it happened. There is no doubt in the scientific community that it happened, and only people that don't understand the data think it's like "Swiss Cheese"

Lastly, one of the great things about science is that one can say:
I don't know how it happened and I don't know what happened, but I want to find out.

With religion, everything must be created by some divinity. Everything has to be according to dogma.

I'm reminded of a fantastic quote from Sam Harris:

I challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

I'm always amused by similar discussions. They are just funny to read and listen to, a great way to kill some time. People that don't understand the scientific process, relegating it.

Psyah: You're conflating religion and science here. Science works on evidence, data, peer review, and experimentation. Religion works on belief. Scientific "belief" is called a hypothesis and needs to be backed up with data and evidence. Religion doesn't work that way!

That evolution occurred is a fact. It happened. Biologists/scientists are piecing together the mechanics of how it happened. They are working backwards, like an investigator piecing together the wreckage of a plane after a crash and trying to find out how it happened. There is no doubt in the scientific community that it happened, and only people that don't understand the data think it's like "Swiss Cheese"

Lastly, one of the great things about science is that one can say: I don't know how it happened and I don't know what happened, but I want to find out.

With religion, everything must be created by some divinity. Everything has to be according to dogma.

I'm reminded of a fantastic quote from Sam Harris:

I challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one.

Oh hello kprasad welcome to the discussion :)

My first contention with your post is that you have not read my post which you replied to ... I am indeed not conflating science and religion ... Rather I have been asked to conflate the two by queer ... I have indeed made it very clear that it is my scientific conclusion that a), b) is the case in fact and c) is a valid conclusion that I draw from the evidence.

Furthermore it is a fallacy if you hold that 'belief' does not require evidence ... Yes it does ... That evidence is called textual/scriptural reference. That evidence is by authority of transmission and character profiling of the one who is passing on the message. I am also scientific in my approach to most things in life and when it comes to evolution I make no reservations but to be perfectly fair and honest regarding the subject. Evolution fails at the stage of experimentation for a surety. Next you first say that evolution is a fact then you piece up the puzzle, but the contention is on the claim of it being a fact ... For something to be a fact - it has to be seen to occur ... Observed - otherwise it is only a theory.

For example a scientific community look at a wreckage ... As you say ... The assumption being made here is the part where you say wreckage .... Just because it looks like a wreckage can you establish that it was a wreckage and not anything else? The way to do that is to eliminate the possibility that someone may be playing a prank by scattering the parts of plane across the floor.

So to claim evolution to be fact you need to disprove that creation occurs .... This is the sort of science I am looking for from the pro-evolutionists.

Lastly ... The question posed by Sam Haris ... The question I can think of is this:

"How did life evolve?" ... Answer "Darwinian evolution" .... This has now been replaced by the religious answer ... "Neo-Darwinian evolution" personally I feel "Deity" as the answer is better than than both of these attempts ...

The reality of Sam's 'fantastic quote' is that it is a logical fallacy ... Because it begs the question ... The nature of science is that in its modern form it has split away from religious dogma ... Before there was no distinction ... So the time order is all wrong ... Secondly ... Science can be used to support religious ideas ... So the question assumes that science always creates a conflict with religious beliefs.

If Sam can provide a question that had a scientific answer before a religious opinion had been formed regarding it then we may continue to the next part ... of his challenge ... Besides the end result will be a battle of whims ... I always see the purest answer as the cause of all things as Deity ... There is nothing that is better than that response on many levels.

[kprasad]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

Oh hello kprasad welcome to the discussion

My first contention with your post is that you have not read my post which you replied to … I am indeed not conflating science and religion … Rather I have been asked to conflate the two by queer … I have indeed made it very clear that it is my scientific conclusion that a), b) is the case in fact and c) is a valid conclusion that I draw from the evidence.

Howdy psyah! Thanks for taking the time to humor me!
To our discussion:

The entire point of the scientific process is that a conclusion isn’t simply one’s own, and therefore irrefutable! A *scientific *conclusion must be just that, scientific. It must pass the rigors of the evidence, data, and peer review. Otherwise, it is simply your belief or at best an opinion. So, you simply cannot have your own scientific conclusion.

@psyah

Furthermore it is a fallacy if you hold that ‘belief’ does not require evidence … Yes it does … That evidence is called textual/scriptural reference. That evidence is by authority of transmission and character profiling of the one who is passing on the message. I am also scientific in my approach to most things in life and when it comes to evolution I make no reservations but to be perfectly fair and honest regarding the subject. Evolution fails at the stage of experimentation for a surety. Next you first say that evolution is a fact then you piece up the puzzle, but the contention is on the claim of it being a fact … For something to be a fact - it has to be seen to occur … Observed - otherwise it is only a theory.

References aren’t evidence. Harry Potter books make references to real places and events, but no one claims that Hogwarts really exists. Religion simply has no place in science. In science you must show evidence, unrepeatable and unsubstantiated references have no place in science, no matter how distinguished the character of transmitter of the message.

Again, this is another misunderstanding of science and evolution.

I’ll paraphrase Mark Isaak here!
*Evolution is defined as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. An example is insects developing immunity or resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What people without the understanding of evolution don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

*The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. I suggest reading reading this: Observed Instances of Speciation

Isaak again:

• Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

• What hasn’t been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn’t propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. *

@psyah

For example a scientific community look at a wreckage … As you say … The assumption being made here is the part where you say wreckage … Just because it looks like a wreckage can you establish that it was a wreckage and not anything else? The way to do that is to eliminate the possibility that someone may be playing a prank by scattering the parts of plane across the floor.

You’re talking about intelligent design here, it’s creationism, and you’re proving my point exactly! The scientific process takes this into account! If there was a creator, what’s the evidence? Science allows one to say, I don’t know. Dogma does not! That’s the distinction. What’s the proof, the evidence, the empirical data for a creator? I

@psyah

So to claim evolution to be fact you need to disprove that creation occurs … This is the sort of science I am looking for from the pro-evolutionists.

This is a circular argument! You cannot prove a negative. The burden lies with the believers to show existence.

@psyah

Lastly … The question posed by Sam Haris … The question I can think of is this:

“How did life evolve?” … Answer “Darwinian evolution” … This has now been replaced by the religious answer … “Neo-Darwinian evolution” personally I feel “Deity” as the answer is better than than both of these attempts …

The reality of Sam’s ‘fantastic quote’ is that it is a logical fallacy … Because it begs the question … The nature of science is that in its modern form it has split away from religious dogma … Before there was no distinction … So the time order is all wrong … Secondly … Science can be used to support religious ideas … So the question assumes that science always creates a conflict with religious beliefs.

If Sam can provide a question that had a scientific answer before a religious opinion had been formed regarding it then we may continue to the next part … of his challenge … Besides the end result will be a battle of whims … I always see the purest answer as the cause of all things as Deity … There is nothing that is better than that response on many levels.

I’m not sure you understand what Harris is saying. And how, and when for that matter, was “Darwinian evolution” replaced by “Neo-Darwinian evolution”?

Scientific answer…and religious opinion…That’s the point, religion is opinion…

Your last answer is exactly why religion and science cannot mix!