Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here we go again.......


NM


GG

halonachos wrote:Well even darwin said that humans did not evolve from apes.

So, are you saying that evolution follows only certain paths? That these paths depend on the species of animal?

You are correct, we did not evolve from apes. Apologies for the slightly incorrect statement. Apes are simply another evolution from our common ancestors. You'll note that in terms of mental capacity, we are superior, yet in terms of physical capacity, an orang-utan or gorilla is far superior to me. They are successful within their niche and environment.

And yes, evolution, to an extent, does only follow certain paths. For example, lizards aren't likely to evolve antigravity powers any time soon. Humans aren't going to evolve a third eye. Evolution is keyed to the needs of the environment in which the species finds itself.

On a personal note, I don't really 'believe' in evolution, but as far as explanations go, I think makes far more sense then the God of classical theism.

To get away from evolution for a second I feel as though I should bring this up.

I am catholic although I'm not really practicing it. The truth is their may or may not be a god that created this world. But I would sooner believe in god as the creation theorem then a giant explosion that formed the universe from nothing.

I will violently defend the fact that I will never believe that their was a point in time that the universe did not exist, that makes no sense. Whether a catholic or a big bang idealist is telling me otherwise.

Well, if the evoultion relies on a path, then who or what sets the path. Sure there are environmental conditions, but wouldn't humans then deveope the ability to breath highly polluted air in some cities? I mean if you look at it, in smog rich cities there should be humans who have adapted to the smog and would have difficulty breathing in pure air. The bodies would slowly adapt to a lower level of oxygen and if they should go into an area that has fresher air then their bodies should have difficulties with the surplus of oxygen. Now, we have had factories pumping out fumes for over 200 years now and coal for a bit longer. I know that evolution takes time, but one would think that some signs may have appeared in that time.

I believe that god has made set evolutionary paths. He knows what the world would be like and gave animals certain traits that they could evolve with. God has placed the traits in the animals and when the traits become necessary then they begin to show. Kind of like a swiss army knife, the traits represent the tools and when the time comes for a certain tool, it's there and ready.


Natural selection can be random as well. How many conditions of the past are still the same today as they were back then? Look at the famous pepper moth example. Two types of moths existed, the plain white ones were camoflauged and the peppered ones were dotted and easy to see. All of a sudden, humans make factories and pollute the trees, making the peppered moth all of a sudden more viable. If conditions are ever-changing, then what determines a successful species is also ever-changing. This is because the universe as a whole is random.

I don't get your post. It's contradictory. You talk about paths and a God that set those paths then you talk about how it's all random. And you throw in there some bit about smog-breathing humans. Wut.

Yes, god set paths for evolution. However he also made the universe random so that the evolutionary traits would come into play at some time in the span of history. The smog breathing humans is for the comparison of how animals adapt to their environment.

The universe is random though and god made it that way. If nothing was random, then life may come to an end as we know it.

halonachos wrote:Well, if the evoultion relies on a path, then who or what sets the path. Sure there are environmental conditions, but wouldn't humans then deveope the ability to breath highly polluted air in some cities?

I think they do. Few people have trouble breathing in cities, even in the developing world. Altitude is usually a bigger difference, but lungs expand pretty quickly to adapt to high elevations. You don't need evolution when the body can simply adapt.

I mean if you look at it, in smog rich cities there should be humans who have adapted to the smog and would have difficulty breathing in pure air. The bodies would slowly adapt to a lower level of oxygen and if they should go into an area that has fresher air then their bodies should have difficulties with the surplus of oxygen. Now, we have had factories pumping out fumes for over 200 years now and coal for a bit longer. I know that evolution takes time, but one would think that some signs may have appeared in that time.

Well, the reason there aren't smog breathers is because it's not a trait that make it more likely to reproduce. Sure, those genes that produce very limited lung capacity might die off, but there's no reason to naturally select for smog breathing when any person can adapt in one lifespan to it.

Also, why would a surplus of oxygen ever be a problem?

I believe that god has made set evolutionary paths. He knows what the world would be like and gave animals certain traits that they could evolve with. God has placed the traits in the animals and when the traits become necessary then they begin to show. Kind of like a swiss army knife, the traits represent the tools and when the time comes for a certain tool, it's there and ready.

that's actually what biologists think to, just replace god with "lots of time and lots of mutations." Even old traits that aren't used anymore can come back, like the dorsal fin of dolphins.

I'm not sure about the paths, although at this point there are certain things that are locked in, for example vertebrates are all four limbed.

Natural selection can be random as well. How many conditions of the past are still the same today as they were back then? Look at the famous pepper moth example. Two types of moths existed, the plain white ones were camoflauged and the peppered ones were dotted and easy to see. All of a sudden, humans make factories and pollute the trees, making the peppered moth all of a sudden more viable. If conditions are ever-changing, then what determines a successful species is also ever-changing. This is because the universe as a whole is random.

Yes, the universe is random, and the conditions are random, but the outcome is still the same: whatever is best, thrives. Whatever is worst, dies. It's a random event if a volcano explodes and an island loses half it's sunlight. It's not random that the plants best adapted to minimal sunlight will survive, that's just the law.

halonachos wrote:Yes, god set paths for evolution. However he also made the universe random so that the evolutionary traits would come into play at some time in the span of history. The smog breathing humans is for the comparison of how animals adapt to their environment.

The universe is random though and god made it that way. If nothing was random, then life may come to an end as we know it.

So do you think that the traditional God of classical theism does not exist? I'm just curious as to exactly what you believe God to be, and whether you think humans were placed on this earth 6000 years ago by the god of classical theism, or whether you simply use God to refer to some super-powerful entity. Depending on where exactly you stand, I can tailor our discussion to suit that. It's just that it's difficult to reconcile us being created 6000 years ago, with God controlling evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.

You see, whilst I do not believe that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of classical theism can exist, due to numerous paradoxes and problems, I can accept a theory of a supremely powerful multi-dimensional entity existing. He just doesn't have to of necessarily created the universe or be all kind and forgiving, or anything like that.
I have encountered several things in my life to persuade me that there is something more to religion, ghosts, occult, psychics, etc than meets the eye. But I have precious little to convince me of the standardised religous viewpoint, so I have had to build my own framework of what I think of these things. But I base that framework on logic and reason, more than faith and belief.

Firstly, god is not omnibenevolent and has never been omnibenevolent. Just ask the city of sodom.

Secondly I do belive in the traditional god, I just belive that science is a way of explaining some of god's actions. So the two are not as different as most believe and may be more tightly connected than others believe. Most think that science and god are opposites, but it is possible that science as we know it is influenced by god.

So I have a traditional view of god, but I do believe that science is related to god instead of trying to remove belief in god.


@Polonius

Too much oxygen can be just as bad as too little oxygen, that's why some people get light headed from breathing in pure oxygen. I can see your point about adapting vs evolution.

The overall outcome may be the same, but what works at one point doesn't work at another point. That's like me saying "No matter what, something will happen." then anything that does happen was predicted and not random at all. So natural selection may always end with one thing surviving more than another, but what survives is determined by chance events.

This thread is bad and you should all feel bad

Lol, wut?

Apparently Dr. Zoidberg felt the need to contribute. I prefer his line, "why always the fighting....."

What if we're the product of like, some book or something? Like, God's just an author trying to get his big break? And whatever we write or draw or something, that becomes a reality itself?

Sounds like a Twilight Zone episode. The key difference seems to be that books and movies in the sense that we understand them are always more limited in scope and detail than the real world is. That doesn't bar us having been written in some other type of media or something though.


Ah, right, I was going to respond to dogma's comments here, since the abortion thread is closed and, to be honest, it never fir there anyways. So:

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:According to your logic, vegetarianism has killed lots of people as well; after all, most political ideologies don't involve the eating of meat. It would be different if you defined vegetarianism as "abstaining from eating meat", and atheism as "consciously choosing to follow no gods".

That definition of Atheism doesn't make sense. In order to abstain from following a god you would have to admit that such a god existed; making the choice to abstain from worship seem foolish if said god is an omnipotent one. A better definition would be 'the belief in the lack of God or god/s'. However, such a definition is inconsistent with the fact that the word Atheism is the literal negation of the word Theism; making it inappropriate to consider it as a positive belief.

Vegetarianism isn't the negation of anything, so your point is moot.

I only used "abstain" to refer to vegetarianism, actually. I'll admit that was a rather poor analogy, though.

However, atheism has a definition in the modern context that is not it's linguistically literal meaning:

a⋅the⋅ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

Or, from Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

As far as I know, atheism has always been that active doctrine, not a passive trait present in anything that doesn't explictly involve religion; still, if atheism being a passive trait is a valid definition it's nonetheless clear that Gwar!'s definition of it was in the active sense and thus not inapproriate in the slightest.

You're using one definition of the word to try and prove something about a different definition of the word.

No, I'm not. I'm using the minimal definition of Atheism to make a comment about the ridiculousness of attributing massive amounts of human suffering to a broad category of human behavior.

I still don't see where you're going with this; you're using a definition of a word that isn't commonly used to refute a statement made with the more commonly used definition of the word. Correct?

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I only used "abstain" to refer to vegetarianism, actually. I'll admit that was a rather poor analogy, though.

Abstain means 'consciously choose to avoid'. Your definitions were conceptually similar, you just phrased one of them in a more complicated fashion.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
However, atheism has a definition in the modern context that is not it's linguistically literal meaning:

a⋅the⋅ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

Yeah, 1 references what most philosophers call strong atheism, while 2 references what would be called weak atheism. 2 is the minimal definition of the word (disbelief is the same as a lack of belief) because in order to believe that there is no God you must first lack a belief in God, while you do not need to believe that God does not exist in order to lack a belief in him/it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
As far as I know, atheism has always been that active doctrine, not a passive trait present in anything that doesn't explictly involve religion; still, if atheism being a passive trait is a valid definition it's nonetheless clear that Gwar!'s definition of it was in the active sense and thus not inapproriate in the slightest.

Atheism, in the modern sense, is always a passive doctrine. Even strong Atheism only makes sense in situations which feature God as a counterpoint. Otherwise you're simply saying 'this thing which I have conceived of called God does not exist'. Which is fine, but its also a metaphysical belief. One featured in several religions. So if your intent in describing yourself as an Atheist is to avoid religion, the use of the positive definition doesn't make sense.

Still, you're right that Atheism isn't present in everything which is not explicitly related to God.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I still don't see where you're going with this; you're using a definition of a word that isn't commonly used to refute a statement made with the more commonly used definition of the word. Correct?

The point I was trying to make was that there are many forces which have compelled people to mass violence, and to implicate religion as the primary one is wholly arbitrary. Kind of like saying the lack of an explicit connection to God is what made Fascism so horrible. Basically I set up the punch line without ever explaining the 'joke'. I should have been more clear.

dogma wrote:Yeah, 1 references what most philosophers call strong atheism, while 2 references what would be called weak atheism. 2 is the minimal definition of the word (disbelief is the same as a lack of belief) because in order to believe that there is no God you must first lack a belief in God, while you do not need to believe that God does not exist in order to lack a belief in him/it.

Disbelief usually has a different context than simply lacking in belief; very few people would say that a rock has a disbelief in God, even though they're incapable of believing in anything.

I get the distinction between weak and strong atheism, but I don't see the relevance of "weak atheism" in regards to an ideology; an ideology that makes no mention of religious concepts is not one that doesn't believe in the existence of God, it's one that makes no mention of the existence of God. To say that it's atheistic is still an unfounded assumption, in that case.

Atheism, in the modern sense, is always a passive doctrine. Even strong Atheism only makes sense in situations which feature God as a counterpoint. Otherwise you're simply saying 'this thing which I have conceived of called God does not exist'. Which is fine, but its also a metaphysical belief. One featured in several religions. So if your intent in describing yourself as an Atheist is to avoid religion, the use of the positive definition doesn't make sense.

Still, you're right that Atheism isn't present in everything which is not explicitly related to God.

I'm not sure what you mean by passive; when I used it meant to say that atheism (or strong atheism, at least) was not something that is present by default. It requires a choice to be made regarding the existence of God, in the same way that religion does.

However, it seems to me like you're saying it's a passive doctrine because it's nonsensical outside of a context in which there is belief in God; religion being active, atheism being passive. Am I on the right track here?

(I guess you could say that atheism is "reactive" instead, in that context.)

The point I was trying to make was that there are many forces which have compelled people to mass violence, and to implicate religion as the primary one is wholly arbitrary. Kind of like saying the lack of an explicit connection to God is what made Fascism so horrible. Basically I set up the punch line without ever explaining the 'joke'. I should have been more clear.

Ah. I do think there's more than enough evidence for religion not having been the cause of most of humanity's murders.

I still think religion has more capacity to drive people to do good or evil than atheism does, though.

I'm atheist and here's what I believe: nothing.

IMO, there are no supernatural, all powerful, divine beings/being.

humans are just a coincidence, one that is common across the galaxy, universe, multiverse.

Nothing exists after death. One simply ceases to exist.

would that fall under strong atheism or weak atheism?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Disbelief usually has a different context than simply lacking in belief; very few people would say that a rock has a disbelief in God, even though they're incapable of believing in anything.

Very few people would say that a rock lacks a belief in God. They would simply say, as you did, that a rock is incapable of belief. In a human context, which is the only context we can speak of when considering belief, disbelief and a lack of belief are equivalent.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I get the distinction between weak and strong atheism, but I don't see the relevance of "weak atheism" in regards to an ideology; an ideology that makes no mention of religious concepts is not one that doesn't believe in the existence of God, it's one that makes no mention of the existence of God. To say that it's atheistic is still an unfounded assumption, in that case.

It isn't unfounded, simply irrelevant, and a natural consequence of the fact that weak atheism is the default position on the metaphysical question.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by passive; when I used it meant to say that atheism (or strong atheism, at least) was not something that is present by default. It requires a choice to be made regarding the existence of God, in the same way that religion does.

However, it seems to me like you're saying it's a passive doctrine because it's nonsensical outside of a context in which there is belief in God; religion being active, atheism being passive. Am I on the right track here?

(I guess you could say that atheism is "reactive" instead, in that context.)

Yeah, you've got it. It looks like we actually have pretty much the same opinion on this.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Ah. I do think there's more than enough evidence for religion not having been the cause of most of humanity's murders.

I still think religion has more capacity to drive people to do good or evil than atheism does, though.

Keep in mind atheism doesn't preclude devotion to a religion. As I said earlier, there are several atheistic faiths.

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm atheist and here's what I believe: nothing.

IMO, there are no supernatural, all powerful, divine beings/being.

humans are just a coincidence, one that is common across the galaxy, universe, multiverse.

Nothing exists after death. One simply ceases to exist.

would that fall under strong atheism or weak atheism?

Strong atheism, though you might also be a logical positivist. You also have a determinist bend with your emphasis on chance in the third line. Also, you do have beliefs. Every sentence you wrote would be classified as a statement of belief.

Oh, that's interesting. I never looked at atheism as actually being a belief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a question that is somewhat related.

We know that the universe is expanding, but what I'm wondering is what is it expanding into?
I have talked about this to some other people and here are some of their Ideas.

1. That we are expanding into another universe.
2. We are expanding into absolute nothingness. (what is nothingness then?)
3. What lies beyond the boundaries of the universe is "heaven".

dogma wrote:Very few people would say that a rock lacks a belief in God. They would simply say, as you did, that a rock is incapable of belief. In a human context, which is the only context we can speak of when considering belief, disbelief and a lack of belief are equivalent.

I disagree; I still think the they have different connotations.

I would not consider someone who was unfamiliar with the concept of God to have disbelief in him, only a lack of belief. I guess we differ in that regard, though.

It isn't unfounded, simply irrelevant, and a natural consequence of the fact that weak atheism is the default position on the metaphysical question.

Once again, I guess we don't see eye to eye on this then; I don't consider weak atheism to be the default position of an ideology that doesn't concern itself with religious matters.

Whether or not that ideology is one of belief in god is simply not applicable in that scenario; that belief is not a part of the ideology, it doesn't interact with it in any fashion. It's an invalid variable.

Keep in mind atheism doesn't preclude devotion to a religion. As I said earlier, there are several atheistic faiths.

I'm guessing you define religion differently from the way I do.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm guessing you define religion differently from the way I do.

I define it as 'a set of beliefs about the metaphysical'. Not all beliefs about the metaphysical pertain to God, and atheism relates only to God. Buddhism is the classic example of an atheistic faith, but some others include Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Sufism, and heterodox Hinduism.

Ah, that's actually a good point.

I retract my statement.

This definition of religion usually works for me:

beliefs about stuff.

Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity an atheistic faith in general, or are there just some sects of it that are?

Hordini wrote:Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity an atheistic faith in general, or are there just some sects of it that are?

Its vaguely Atheistic in the sense that it does not attribute existence to God. Much of the religion is built around paradox, so you get statements like 'God lies in the divide between existence, and non-existence', or 'I believe in God, but do not believe that He exists'. Since paradox is by definition impossible any paradoxical belief can be said to be an impossible belief. If the belief is impossible, it does not really exist. If it doesn't exist, then it is lacked; lining up with weak atheism. Of course, you could also reach the opposite conclusion based on the initial usage of the word God. Not surprising since we're talking about paradox. Personally, if I were making a case for the existence of pure agnosticism I would probably use the Eastern Orthodox Church as my primary example. Unfortunately, the case for pure agnosticism is pretty difficult to make.

Thanks dogma. I ought to do some research...

Being an atheist does not preclude one from ethical thinking.

Kilkrazy wrote:Being an atheist does not preclude one from ethical thinking.

YES YES YES it does! ;D j/k

Religion sucks. Here's why: whether you agree with the underlying beliefs, all religion (as a goal) pushes people toward a better version of oneself. But ideology kinda ruins the whole better version thing for a lot of people. In my personal experience, I went to a church where they weren't into drinking. That's fine. I was underage, so it was a non-issue for me (although I disagreed with their reasoning for it). After I moved, I went to another church that didn't care whether you drank or not. I turn 21 and bam, I love beer. Now, there are members of my first church who won't spend much time with me because I drink. The original thought was to take alcohol out of the equation (limiting the chance for alcoholism, which many of the members had dealt with), but in doing so it demonized something that was fine to begin with and then even association with the demonized subject was wrong. So ideology can ruin great intentions. Beware ideologies.

youngblood wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Being an atheist does not preclude one from ethical thinking.

YES YES YES it does! ;D j/k

Religion sucks. Here's why: whether you agree with the underlying beliefs, all religion (as a goal) pushes people toward a better version of oneself. But ideology kinda ruins the whole better version thing for a lot of people. In my personal experience, I went to a church where they weren't into drinking. That's fine. I was underage, so it was a non-issue for me (although I disagreed with their reasoning for it). After I moved, I went to another church that didn't care whether you drank or not. I turn 21 and bam, I love beer. Now, there are members of my first church who won't spend much time with me because I drink. The original thought was to take alcohol out of the equation (limiting the chance for alcoholism, which many of the members had dealt with), but in doing so it demonized something that was fine to begin with and then even association with the demonized subject was wrong. So ideology can ruin great intentions. Beware ideologies.

Youngblood I agree with you totally. When it comes to the issue of alchohol, I believe it is up to the individual believer and their relationship with God to determine what is appropriate. Jesus turned water into wine, and it was not nonalcoholic grape juice. The whole point is, a Christian has to ask oneself when it comes to alcohol, is what are the consequences of drinking? Will my action of drinking cause my brother, who may be a recovering alcoholic, to stumble? Then you probably would want to refrain in that instance. Also to drink enough to get drunk is a whole different matter. The Bible is full of warnings against drunkeness. But to make a rule to prohibit a Church member from even drinking a beer could be interpreted as legalism. Same way as the prohibition of caffeinated drinks, like coffee, tea, and colas that some religions institute.

By the way, I personally don't drink anymore, but that is a personal decision for me. I try to abstain from caffeine for health reasons(I get headaches).

GG

Well, if you do get drunk you can always try and pass it off as the Pentecost.