666!
- Thread starter OpethNZ
- Start date
Dreadful
When Man& Machine Collide
I doubt there is a human on this planet with comprehensive knowledge of everything, proving scientifically that there is no ample evidence of god anywhere anyhow. Atheists don't exist, thank you.
Powers
Good Morning USA!
I don't think I'm ignorant toward Christianity, I've made a point of reading up on it, and like I say I find it a fascinating story.
Prognostic
Jiggachu
el_shreddo
Op37h!!!!1one
Moonstruck
The Twilight Is My Robe
- Jan 13, 2004
- 306
- 0
- 16
Heh. Some people just don't get the concept of science. Oh well, if you're happy with a god-of-the-gaps, so be it.
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Natural selection is clearly visible through fossil evidence, idiots. Also, why do you have an appendix? People find it hard to believe that we crawled ot of a pond as little froggy creatures BUT WE DID. You cannot "disprove" atheism, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a positive belief that you can prove there is no god. Buddhists are atheists for example.
Dreadful
When Man& Machine Collide
dictionary.com:
Athiest - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god
Athiest - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god
Moonstruck
The Twilight Is My Robe
- Jan 13, 2004
- 306
- 0
- 16
The Poona of Peshwa said:
God put those here to test our faith!
"We will see who believes in me now, haha. I'm God, I'm a prankster, I'm killing me! Hahohaoeh."
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
I deny the existence of god. Doesn't mean that I can prove anything, just means I have seen no evidence to suggest god exists, and think that such belief is detrimental to humankind.
You can't say I don't disbelieve in unicorns because I can't prove they don't exist.
You can't say I don't disbelieve in unicorns because I can't prove they don't exist.
the_3_toed_sloth
Massive member
The funny thing about Evolution is that the moronic do not believe it. Then you have the high school students who do. Then you have the intelligent who actually know enough to realise the validity of either side, to a certain point. Because discounting God you rely on an awful lot of spontaneity for incredibly complex systems. We can observe and prove evolution given a certain degree of starting complexity. And starting with the Miller experiment, we can prove that the right materials existed for life. But we are a long way from proving that this is how life came to be - we've got some pretty cool hypothesies, but if you think biology disproves God, then you know very very little.
To believe something does not necessitate that you rule out ever changing your mind. You have not disproved Atheism at all.
Dreadful said:
To believe something does not necessitate that you rule out ever changing your mind. You have not disproved Atheism at all.
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Well if there is a god, and I do not believe there is, I don't think he/she/it gives a shit about or knows about humanity. We're a tiny little blip on the radar of time and space. Also WHERE DID GOD COME FROM? Oh, right he's eternal, and that requires no evidence whatsoever.
Also to extend your point, something like 90% of top scientists are atheist. 7% of the members of the national academy of sciences believe in god.
Also to extend your point, something like 90% of top scientists are atheist. 7% of the members of the national academy of sciences believe in god.
Powers
Good Morning USA!
the_3_toed_sloth said:
"an awful lot of spontinaity" - ?
Evolution isn't sponteneous at all, it about different attributes suceeding over millions or sometimes billions of years, whilst some don't. Evolution opposes creationism, just as science opposes religion and vice versa.
Though there are ways in which the two can co exist.
the_3_toed_sloth
Massive member
Powers said:
Evolution is the process, mutation is the mechanism. And mutation is spontaneous. It is easy to say that x organism survives because it has thicker fur or keener eyesight or whatever, because you can compare it to something previously. It is difficult to say that y cells thrived because they spliced out introns, or they developed the electron transport chain, because it is very difficult to say what came before.
Powers
Good Morning USA!
the_3_toed_sloth said:
You clearly know more about Biology than me, but surely if any number of possible mutations are possible, then in time, the most effective attributes would result, no?
Natural selection for laymans.
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Basically if I white animal gives birth to a creature with spots and the spots act as camouflage it will have a higher chance of survival and passing on its traits. If it comes out hot pink it will probably die. All you need is sex plus time, not the invisible hand of a perfect god that is all powerful and yet waits millennia to create rediculously imperfect creatures.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Now if only that applied to humans.... damned... pink.. shirts.
the_3_toed_sloth
Massive member
Powers said:
Given enough time anything possible will happen? Not necessarily, and that is the problem - we hypothesize possible paths life might have taken, but the further back we go the harder it becomes. Theres some evidence that RNA could abiotically lead to heredity, long before DNA existed, in combination with another theory (molecular cooperation theory), wherein if it came to be enclosed in a membrane it would replicate much faster than anything else. But the evidence only points towards RNA strands of length 14 as of yet...we just don't know enough yet to say that this is how it happened. It doesn't yet disprove the work of the divine at all.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
But I've always considered that belief in the Divine created its own questions. Obviously, being the inquisitive beings we are, we'd try to trace even the creator back to its roots... now wouldn't that be self-defeating excercise.
So whether or not our comparatively small knowledge of our genetic history really proves or disproves anything, doesn't really matter?
Just because we can't necessarily prove something, doesn't validate the concept of God. It's still such a blatantly human idea, filling a void of uncertainty with a concept that's relevant/beneficial to us. ie. 'Yes, there are WMDs in Iraq, we are sure of it'. I wonder if it's that same conviction that drives nations to believe in a creator.
So whether or not our comparatively small knowledge of our genetic history really proves or disproves anything, doesn't really matter?
Just because we can't necessarily prove something, doesn't validate the concept of God. It's still such a blatantly human idea, filling a void of uncertainty with a concept that's relevant/beneficial to us. ie. 'Yes, there are WMDs in Iraq, we are sure of it'. I wonder if it's that same conviction that drives nations to believe in a creator.
Liquid Diamonds
Member
I tend to feel that the insistance of the human race to believe in a creator of sorts stems from our sheer inability to truly grasp the concept of infinity within things. I don't buy into the Teleological argument at all, VERY flawed. I think Bertrand Russell had many a good point in criticising that theory.
Sorry to jump in half way through, but this is interesting
Sorry to jump in half way through, but this is interesting
Similar threads
