<p>If there was no supernatural there would be no choice. This doesn’t neccesarily require a God, but it runs against the claims of most atheists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you? The theory given by atheistic science is that it is a very complex set of electrochemical reactions. If this is true, then there is no choice. Your actions are controlled by the cause and effect of the reactions in your brain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no proof. But virtually all people, including atheists, believe that humans do posess the ability to reason.</p>
<p>This is impossible by the laws of nature. It requires some supernatural ability to act independently of cause and effect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well, I will grant that “very young children, the psychotic and mentally disabled” are not inconsistent if they believe that nothing supernatural exists.</p>
<p>But anyone who believes in morals must is contradicting himself if he says that nothing supernatural exists.</p>
<p>If I used advanced technology to make a blob of goo that, when an electrical charge was passed through, released another electrical charge of a slightly different type, would that blob of goo be able to think?</p>
<p>If I put a bunch of them together, so that a number of different combinations of charges could be recieved and a number of different responses would be returned, would that be capable of thought?</p>
<p>Even if I put billions upon billions of them together, the result would simply be a system that takes sets of signals and returns different sets of signals. The signals returned would be completely determined by the signals received, and the blob would have no choice whatsoever in the matter.</p>
<p>I already addressed the examples in that link. These are not examples of evolution that could be expected to produce a new kind of creature. Mutations can allow existing mechanisms to work in different ways. They don’t produce new ones, as far as I have seen.</p>
<p>Do you realize what it would take to, say, produce scales? Sometimes humans suffer from a mutation that damages the control mechanism that produces keratin in the skin. This causes the skin to go out of control and produce hard scales. Without the design to move efficiently in these scales, or the code to ensure that they mesh and keep dirst out of the body, or a way to controlling body heat and water with a scaled skin, the result is devastating. Before modern medicine, this mutation would usually be fatal.</p>
<p>To make evolution plausible, there has to be a situation where this kind of freak thing is not only nonlethal but also very useful. Not only that, but this situation has to have actually occured in the past, along with various other situations for innumerable other mutations.</p>
<p>For humans to develop useful scales, first there must be a situation where this freakish, debiliating disease is so useful that it grows a large population over many generations without being displaced by the heathy members of the species.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what your definition of science is. Mine is “Any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome.” (courtesy of wikipedia). You could also use the more narrow sense “A systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.”</p>
<p>What is your definition?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Faith is not “belief without evidence”. It is “belief without proof”.</p>
<p>If you’re using the first definition then virtually no viewpoints are faith-based. Everything is based on at least SOME evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it does. The academic field into which you put something determines the standards by which its validity is judged.</p>
<p>The existence of God can be deduced from the world He made. I don’t claim to know the mind of God, but I would certainly think that if a person led a blameless life, he would not be punished simply because he was not given the information he needed to learn the truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If all religions were the same, then that would seem impossible. But all religions are NOT the same, and it is possible to find the true one by examining them closely.</p>
<p>Atheists often describe this as some kind of giant shell game, where they all look the same and you have to guess randomly. I believe that it’s more like a treasure that is buried under a clearly marked tree, but that someone has come and put counterfeit marks on all the other trees.</p>
<p>Just saw this thread for the first time and didn’t know that there were people who actually didn’t believe in evolution! wow good times. And as far as the “choice” thing, ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?</p>
<p>^ Yes, but that only helps us with the question of choice if we accept that the reason things cannot be measured exactly is because at the lowest level they act not in accordance with natural laws, but according to some supernatural entity’s “choice”.</p>
<p>^hmmm, but if some supernatural entity chose everything for us, why do we choose to murder and hurt others? Though I guess I’m assuming that this entity is benevolent…</p>
<p>yes, I was just responding to MosbyMarion. Free will (or lack thereof) can’t be used as a proof for God either (which, I realize, you didn’t say. It has been suggested though)</p>
<p>^^^ Actually, I was implying that the human soul was the supernatural entity that controls these choices in the human brain.</p>
<p>If this is the case, then there is nothing inconsistent with there being another, greater supernatural entity that can have the same kind of control over all matter, allowing it to do such things as, say, make people walk on water.</p>
<p>You don’t agree with those because you have this weird idea that absolute truths don’t exist. Yeah, I wouldn’t say “obligated” because if people want to remain ignorant on something or refuse to learn about certain things then there’s not much anyone can do about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You find it offensive for me to point out a basic fact? So you don’t think people don’t like having their religious beliefs challenged? You’d be wrong. Even if it’s a gentle and totally valid argument its almost always considered offensive. Its hard to give up beliefs that you’ve been ingrained into since you were an infant and most will dream up any argument -no matter how idiotic- to protect their holy book, gods and other parts of their religion. People that believe that a god or gods made everything all of a sudden don’t have any evidence or proof for that. Its just a conclusion they dreamt up beforehand and they are willing to invent arguments to support that no matter how illogical they turn out. But logic and clear thinking doesn’t matter -its all about protecting what they’ve grown up believing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If someone ignores something its ignored no matter who’s perspective it is. Contradicting or blatantly denying scientific findings is just what it is. If I say that there is fossil evidence showing a progression from chimpanzees to homo sapiens (show you the evidence, etc.) and you say that there isn’t any showing that humans have chimps as a common ancestor, you’d be wrong. It isnt rational to deny something when the evidence is put right under your nose. Since you don’t get the point on evolution, I will use the Holocaust since you, like nearly everyone else, treats that more seriously. If I showed someone the evidence for the Holocaust and they denied it, didnt look at it or didnt want to believe it because their faith or culture said it didn’t happen is that being “rational”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t agree that it would be rational to accept creationism on the possible argument that they might go with (avoiding nihilism). My point is that accepting evolution doesn’t mean that a person is nihilistic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And just because a culture invents an explanation for something, writes it down and claim that it came from some powerful guy in the atmosphere doesn’t automatically make the tale true either. Calling something an absolute fact (ex. god created the world and all living things) with no actual proof to back it up is foolish. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Claiming “god did it” is not a theory in the scientific meaning. You could call it a hypothesis but its not a scientific hypothesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And which system do you think is better? One that challenges ideas is clearly better than the opposite. If the world was full of people that believe that ideas can’t be challenged we would still have slavery, people believing the earth is the center of the universe, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lying about science wouldn’t be “true” and trying to deprive students’ learning about actual science in science class isn’t all good and dandy either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that logic and recognition of scientific findings should be respected. That doesn’t mean that people who admire that are religious if thats what you’re about to go off about again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats totally wrong. Learn something about how the brain works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A whole lot better than you do apparently. Again, you are completely ignorant about how the brain works. You don’t have a basic understanding of how neurons function, how neurons function together. how brain absorb stimuli, use memory, etc. and it looks like you don’t want to learn either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, there is no proof about “god gave people the ability to reason.” </p>
<p>It isn’t “impossible by the laws of nature.” Its impossible to you because you dont understand it and refuse to learn. It doesn’t “require some supernatural ability.” Thats just some deceit you invented or picked up from some other religious person. How about backing up your statements with some sort of proof?</p>
<p>Your take on evolution is tenacious denial despite the mountains of evidence proving you wrong. That pretty dang anti-. I’m challenging beliefs that have no evidence of proof of being true. Theres a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you mindlessly adhere to religious dogma in favor of scientific evidence no matter what evidence people show to you. You believe in creationism but you have no real evidence to support it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you made a blob of goo it wouldn’t work. If that blob of goo was a brain of any animal that has one and assuming it was healthy, it would be able to think. Thinking of it as just “a blob of goo with electricity passed through it” is just cheating with words to make it sound as if it must have some grand significance. Did you even bother to read the links I posted on how the brain works? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s wrong. You don’t understand gradual accumulation. Mutations aren’t the only things that cause evolution either.</p>
<p>Scales aren’t useful for humans. They are for fish and reptiles though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The second one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No religion -yours included- has no credible evidence about the existence of the supernatural. Where’s the proof that your bible was inspired by a god? Muslims think the Koran was inspired by Allah but you dont think so and neither does anyone else besides Muslims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not believing in purple pixies isn’t a part of any academic field. It doesnt need to be. Its stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it can’t. Theres no real evidence that a god exists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theres contradiction between religions and contradictions within religions. Most can’t be right which you’ll probably agree with (although you would never think of your own religion as being wrong nor would many people from religions that you think are wrong). And since religions don’t have any objective basis (science is objective, religion isn’t) theres no reason to believe that any of them are right.</p>
<p>Baelor - don’t most people who believe in a god believe in free will? I know this is true of most of the Christians that I know, at least (excluding those of a calvinist strain). On the other hand, I am an atheist and do not believe in free will, at least to any great extent.</p>
<p>^ I believe in free will. I see no reason to believe otherwise, since the very act of considering the choices requires you to assume you have free will to choose!</p>
Hmm? Where did you get that idea from? Absolute truths belong to the mathematicians and logicians in any case. Just because I question the categorizing of things as absolute truths in a scientific sense doesn’t mean I don’t think absolute truths exist. I don’t agree with your categories because they are very simplistic and constraining.</p>
<p>
Offensive? Hardly. I am pointing out that rejecting a person’s philosophy by psychologizing them is, quite frankly, stupid. If we are going to do that, I can say something like “The only reason you place so much importance in science and believe that it reveals absolute truths is because religion has harmed you and you are on a campaign of revenge, trying to use the ‘truths’ of science to uncover the ‘lies’ of religion.” Don’t you think that is a flawed viewpoint? The rest of your paragraph is mostly more psychologizing. No, I would not necessarily be wrong if I thought that some people might like having their religious beliefs challenged.</p>
<p>
It could be if it was in your best interest to ignore the evidence, deny the theory of what the evidence implies, etc. To infer that being rational is simply to “accept evidenced ideas and reject unevidenced ideas” is overly simplisitic, if not completely wrong.</p>
<p>
If said person’s faith and culture were a significant part of their lives, then yes, it could very well be “rational.” Whether it is morally “right” or acceptable for them to do so depends on your ethics. Also, I resent the implication that I am not taking evolutionary theory or your arguments seriously. Maybe I actually accept the modern evolutionary synthesis. That doesn’t mean that I can’t point out flaws in your world view, your arguments against religion, etc.</p>
<p>
Wonderful, I never said that it was.</p>
<p>
Speak for yourself, since you are the one claiming that science provides actual “proof” of “absolute facts” where it is actually concerned with neither “proof” nor “absolute facts.”</p>
<p>
Actually, I would posit that it could be. Perhaps a very rejectable theory in the scientific sense but a theory nonetheless. Call it a “hypothesis” if you like. My point was that “god did it” is obviously not evidence.</p>
<p>
How is which system I think is “better” relevant? Nothing is “clearly” better than something else. It is certainly an ethical theory to even say that an ethical system which values the challenging of ideas is better than a system which does not.</p>
<p>
You cannot possibly know that. No one said that one ethical system had to prevail over the entire world and all people either. In any case, you are trying to use ethical assumptions to support other ethical assumptions.</p>