Creationism Vs. Evolution & Big Bang

[NavajoEverclear]

Mish- I could see it as you see it, i too often make choices out of mere habit. So at times life is just as it is--- but i believe we constantly have choice to change how it is. It is possible to make decisions that will positively impact the future. I have a hard time expressing the concept because i am not near a perfect example of it.

 

I don't mean diss your way of life, i don't know you, maybe its whats best for you. But i do know there are other perspectives the precise one you harbor.

 

I think you should try to see life as people having control over it--- and you way of seeing this does not have to be like others. Don't try to see it like everyone else sees, because it won't work exactly for you.

 

ML- i see what your saying but i still think its 50/50, because it either is or isn't. I guess i cant really elaborate, so maybe i do believe in that just because it makes me feel creative or something. It's a dumb point anyway, i'm wasting my time.

 

But another way it is 50/50 as far as is scientific, is we do not know all the factors involved---- one---- we may be dreaming life. In the case of the dream, we can prove nothing---- that way it either is or isn't---- theres no way to proove which is more likely.

 

I understand you may admit that science is always changing, science admits it may know nothing, but we work with what appears to be the most probable, well in the case that we do not know what we know (as far as can be universally verifiable) i say science is as worthy a choice as any, including religion. Which is what i think is the fault with science: you claim to be very distinctly different from religion. You may base your choices on different scales, but you are not differen't from religion. You think so because most religions are so similar--- there is little alternatives (yet popularized or even created) that either blend that line, or exist on entirely different dimensions or styles of thought.

 

I see everything is about faith, and i think it is ignorance to close your mind to science. I know we aren't near as hard on religion, though there exists there so much more bigotry in many instances---- just because your ignorance is in much lesser degree than many of those, does not justify the degree i see you still hold.

[Sayonara]

I'm not confused.

 

If you think that you can just pigeon-hole people and condemn them to a singular, linear philosophy - based on your interpretation of a single one of their beliefs - then you may want to reconsider your own position quite carefully.

 

Example:

 

"believing that there is no god:

try to convert theists into athiests"

 

Aggressive conversion is the act of extremists, not your average person. If I were to believe that no god existed, I would be unlikely to attempt to force you to believe the same thing because it would not matter to me what you believed about god.

 

 

However I can see the distinction you are trying to draw between two very general schools of thought. But these are not two types of atheist you are describing -- you are basically describing open-minded agnostics and hard-line atheists.

[Sayonara]

NavajoEverclear said in post #26 :

ML- i see what your saying but i still think its 50/50, because it either is or isn't. I guess i cant really elaborate, so maybe i do believe in that just because it makes me feel creative or something. It's a dumb point anyway, i'm wasting my time.

 

But another way it is 50/50 as far as is scientific, is we do not know all the factors involved---- one---- we may be dreaming life. In the case of the dream, we can prove nothing---- that way it either is or isn't---- theres no way to proove which is more likely.

The point MrL was trying to make is that the fact that there are two outcomes does not mean that the probability for each outcome is 50/50, regardless of whether or not we know the factors involved.

 

If the probability of the outcome being A is the same as the probability of the outcome being B, and A & B are the only possible outcomes, then the overall odds are 50/50. But by your own admission you basically said there is no way to calculate the possibilities, so you can't calculate the odds.

 

That isn't license to just "guess" at 50/50. Nothing ever works out that way

[greg1917]

I take it no one read any of Robert Collins' papers I posted this afternoon? A respected theist who regularly lectures on this topic about exactly this subject?

[Skye]

I read over the first quickly. I don't find it remarkable that we a capable of living in the universe we live in.

 

Or...(sarcasm) it's a good thing my feet were designed so well to fit into my shoes. (/sarcasm)

 

(sorry Dawkins)

[iglak]

Sayonara³ said in post #27 :

I'm not confused.

 

If you think that you can just pigeon-hole people and condemn them to a singular, linear philosophy - based on your interpretation of a single one of their beliefs - then you may want to reconsider your own position quite carefully.

 

Aggressive conversion is the act of extremists, not your average person.

 

But these are not two types of atheist you are describing -- you are basically describing open-minded agnostics and hard-line atheists.

responding by paragraph:

1) am i doing that? i hope not. if so, then how am i doing that?

2) that's exactly what i was trying to say

3) they aren't two types of athiests? how are extreme, hardcore athiests, and open-minded athiests (the average athiest) not two different types of athiests?

 

also, i was not talking about agnostics. at least i don't think i was. i thought agnostics believed that there is some godlike force, they just don't know what it is. am i wrong about that? are agnostics unsure whether there is a god(s) at all?

[fafalone]

Agnostics believe there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion on the existence of God, and that if God existed, it could not be defined within our comprehension.

[MishMish]

Weighing in with my own thoughts

 

Have decided agnosticism is a useless term. None of us "knows," end of question

 

I also disagree with Iglak's assumptions about "soft" or probability based atheists and "hard" atheists or those who positively assert the gods do not or can not exist. I don't hink you can assume how they weill respond to others on that basis alone.

 

Navajo, not all assumptions are created equal, and that is an important point to keep in mind in evaluating different systems.

 

You can not put religion and science on the same page simply because one can not explain all unanswered questions or the other (referring specifically to gods here) can not be disproven

 

The assumptions involved in a materialist/empiricist approach are of a different order than the assumptions involved in positing some undemonstrable entity.

 

That does not mean such an entity does not exist, but if so it would be trivial

[MishMish]

Forgot about the purpose/value question, and perhaps for the best, but none-the-less:

 

Seems to me most of my distress has been caused by trying to reconcile the irreconcileable.

 

Having no "purpose" in life can only cause distress if one feels or is told that there "should" be one.

 

It is the assumption that life "should" or one's life does have such a purpose I think needs questioned. I am only half joking when I say I would like to force others to see it as I do, what I would like is to get others to question the underlying assumption of the concept

[iglak]

MishMish said in post #33 :

I also disagree with Iglak's assumptions about "soft" or probability based atheists and "hard" atheists or those who positively assert the gods do not or can not exist. I don't hink you can assume how they weill respond to others on that basis alone.

all i said was that atheism had been misunderstood before for people that positively and aggresively assert that god doesn't exist. i never assumed anything, and i certainly don't think you can assume how they will react to others.

 

i pointed out that every religion, atheism included, has a "soft" and "hard" side, with many levels inbetween. and that atheism, along with other religions is often mistaken for the "hard" side.

 

so what? i mentioned the characteristics of the extreems. is that wrong?

 

P.S. i don't mean to sound aggressive if i do. and this is directed at everyone who misunderstood/misread me, not just you.

 

P.P.S. i never said the "soft" athiests were probability based, and i actually never used the words "soft" and "hard" (until this post)

[iglak]

fafalone said in post #32 :

Agnostics believe there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion on the existence of God, and that if God existed, it could not be defined within our comprehension.

i found this on dictionary.com

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

 

so, i was somewhat wrong, but my point remains valid, and my definition of atheism remains unchanged. though i hope you guys can understand my meaning better now...

[Skye]

"Have decided agnosticism is a useless term. None of us "knows," end of question"

 

Theists believe, athiests deny, agnostics do neither.

[MishMish]

Lord what a mess

 

Okay, Iglak, yes you did make assumptions in how the hard or soft atheist might act in your "willing to listen to other beliefs" etc comments

 

And I'm the one who introduced the probability part. Didn't mean to imply you had (actually someone else also mentioned it, but at any rate hadn't meant to be putting words in your mouth or suggesting they were)

 

Skye, theists believe, atheists do not believe. Only

 

Gnostics, using the root not the sense of "Gnosticism" here, claim to know, agnostics acknowledge they do not.

 

Theist/atheist deals with belief

 

Gnostic/agnostic deals with knowledge

 

All I say is as as none of us can "know," in the same sense as we cannot prove reality, I see no need for the agnostic label.

 

That's all there is, or should be, to it

 

It is the misconception that atheists actively assert there is no god, and which you perpetuate in saying atheists 'deny," which Iglak was trying to correct

 

I agree with Iglak in that, he's right after all, I just think he was a bit careless in how he tried to explain it

[Skye]

I was more noting why agnosticism exists. Whilst I agree there are atheists who simply don't believe, there are others who actively deny. Agnosticism came about partly in reaction to that stream of atheism (strong atheism).

[JaKiri]

MishMish said in post #33 :

Have decided agnosticism is a useless term. None of us knows, end of question

 

I'm pretty sure religious people will.

 

Ask a Chrisian Fundamentalist if there is a god, the reply will be 'Yes', or some variant. The same goes for other variations of faith.

 

Similarly, the belief in the lack of god is another hardline certainty.

 

Edit: (with reference to iglak's post)

 

(A)theism is a gnostic set.

[Sayonara]

Well, most of this has already been answered. But anyhoo:

 

iglak said in post #31 :

responding by paragraph:

1) am i doing that? i hope not. if so, then how am i doing that?

By saying "someone with belief N will invariably and strictly also hold random beliefs X, Y, and Z".

This may be a general trend you have observed, but presenting it as concrete and immutable fact is clearly unfounded nonsense.

It sounds to me like you are simply trying to separate yourself - as a 'literal' atheist - from the hardline, extremist "you vill renounce God"-type atheists because you find their approach distasteful. Fair enough, be unimpressed with them - but like MrL said, whatever else they say or do they're still atheists.

 

2) that's exactly what i was trying to say

This goes back to my "Unless you can specify a non-semantic, functional reason why this is not so, not believing in god is the same as believing there is no god" comment. We know there are different degrees to which atheists will profess their beliefs, but this doesn't mean that failing to believe in something is functionally any different to believing it does not exist.

 

Let me put it another way. You might believe that there is a god, and I may belive that it's impossible for there to be no god. That doesn't make us different kinds of believers because the end result is the same. How someone chooses to pursue or rationalise their belief does not change the nature or validity of the belief.

 

3) they aren't two types of athiests? how are extreme, hardcore athiests, and open-minded athiests (the average athiest) not two different types of athiests?

Again, going back to the difference between semantics and functionality. They're both atheists. For whatever reason, neither believes there is a god. That does not preclude them from reviewing new evidence, or modifying or changing their beliefs. To suggest otherwise is naive - humans are very, very fickle.

 

also, i was not talking about agnostics. at least i don't think i was.

I brought the term into the conversation because you were describing them but had not realised it ;-)

 

I probably sound like I'm ranting, come to think of it. But I'm just trying to highlight that there are people who would call you things like 'extremist' and 'hard-liner' because of the inflexible definitions you provided. Tarring groups of people with the same brush rarely ends well.

[Sayonara]

I thought of a better way of putting it:

 

Nobody is disputing that there is a range of atheist viewpoints. What I am saying is that one can't just lump two particular viewpoints into separate polar extremes and claim that all members of each group will have exactly the same additional beliefs as each other, and the two groups will have opposing views.

 

Things are never that simple. Especially when we don't define the factors, such as "what is this god thing we're discussing?".

 

Take me for instance. In general terms I would fall into your hardline atheist group because I absolutely and categorically believe that there is no such thing as the 'flowing white beard' omniscient Judeao-Christian god.

 

However in absolute terms I immediately break the mould you cast for that group because I am willing to listen to others' beliefs in god, I am able to understand why many people believe in god, I do not try to convert anybody to anything (and I am not so insecure in my own beliefs as to try. Do not mistake encouragement of a healthy debate for recruitment efforts ), if I had any new evidence for god I certainly would present it, I would never present pseudoscience as evidence of anything, and I will listen to evidence for god.

 

So by your definition I ought to fall into the first group. But I am not simply failing to believe in "god", I am actively believing he does not exist after a great deal of consideration of all the evidence.

 

Some degree of crossover between the two "types" of atheist is therefore directly implied. They can't be wedged apart and exist as separate entities because few people base their entire life, 'self rules' and philosophy around a single belief - not even the extremely religious.

 

You should also consider that while I actively believe there is no Judaeo-Christian god, I accept that a similar entity may exist. I disagree with the concept of "god" as a philosophy, not as an entity.

I am sufficiently intelligent to realise that the universe has certainly existed for long enough for an entity fitting the general description of "god" to have evolved. There are additional possibilities, some of them dealing with perception of reality, others with the pre-dawn universe.

However I will wait to see evidence before I just assume that whatever I believe is correct.

 

Ultimately this makes me an agnostic (there is more to my set of beliefs as you may have gathered, but I am short on time), and if that little lot doesn't adequately illustrate that things aren't ever as simple as lumping people into categories based on one's own assumptions, I don't know what will

 

[edit] I sure can rant like a loony.

[JaKiri]

Sayonara³ said in post #42 :

I sure can rant like a loony.

 

You are a loony.

[Sayonara]

[atinymonkey]

An atheist is not apathetic or ignorant simply because they don't agree with the idea of a supreme being.

 

I don't preach to people about why they are wrong, but I do discuss my views with religious types if they instigate an assault on my belief. That makes me neither apathetic or ignorant, just re results of what I perceive to be a well researched decision as to my faith.

 

It's like saying there are two types of Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist.

 

Actually there are a few different types of those faiths! Buy they all share the same core belief which defines their faith. Atheism is no different.

[Sayonara]

greg1917 said in post #29 :

I take it no one read any of Robert Collins' papers I posted this afternoon? A respected theist who regularly lectures on this topic about exactly this subject?

I read the first one. My interpretation I suppose is similar to Skye's.

 

The universe is vast. Everything about it comes down to numbers too big or tiny for us to truly conceive of their meaning. By comparison, the tiny fact that we evolved is hardly so surprising to me that I have to make up reasons why things turned out that way.

 

Cumulative arguments aren't the best way to win me over though - I like to dance around singing "house of cards, la la la".

 

I'll have a read of the other ones when I get home from work

[iglak]

MishMish said in post #38 :

Lord what a mess

 

Okay, Iglak, yes you did make assumptions in how the hard or soft atheist might act in your "willing to listen to other beliefs" etc comments

 

Theist/atheist deals with belief

Gnostic/agnostic deals with knowledge

 

It is the misconception that atheists actively assert there is no god, and which you perpetuate in saying atheists 'deny," which Iglak was trying to correct

 

I agree with Iglak in that, he's right after all, I just think he was a bit careless in how he tried to explain it

by order of paragraph

1) and then lord came down from the heavens and blessed upon us what a mess lol

2) yeah, i guess i did, though i thought i was talking about the general consensus on what extreem hard and extreem soft meant. i wasn't really assuming reactions... nevermind, close enough.

3)wow, i did not know that gnostic was a word, cool. now that whole gnostic/theist thing makes more sense to me

4) yes, thank you

5)maybe, if there was such a big misunderstanding, then it must be partly my fault. in the hops of avoiding future misconceptions, do you know in what ways i was careless?

 

P.S. and such a stupid thing it was to have misconceptions about, since 1: it was :offtopic:, and 2: it wasn't even close to my major point. in fact, it had almost nothing to do with my first post. :rant:

anyway...:-(i'm sorry...

whew , glad that's over

[iglak]

Sayonara³ said in post #42 :

Nobody is disputing that there is a range of atheist viewpoints. What I am saying is that one can't just lump two particular viewpoints into separate polar extremes and claim that all members of each group will have exactly the same additional beliefs as each other, and the two groups will have opposing views.

that is exactly where the misunderstanding is. i never said that there were only two sides, and that all members of any side always had the same views all the other members of that side had. i would never come close to saying that there are only two sides to something (though if you misunderstood me so badly, then i must have)

 

all i said was that there are extreems, and that i didn't want anyone confusing me with the extremes thate aggressively assert god is not real.

 

i thought you asked for a definition of what i was talking about, so i gave one, i never tried to imply that everyone either went on the right or the left.

 

Sayonara³ said in post #42 :

But I am not simply failing to believe in "god", I am actively believing he does not exist after a great deal of consideration of all the evidence.

that's a good point, but it doesn't make much of a difference, my point remains the same (and such a tiny point it was).

 

P.S. sorry to bring this back up, but if there are still misunderstandings about me, it is necessary

 

P.P.S. i was not talking about agnostics, i was in fact talking about atheists.

 

P.P.P.S. i just thought of another way of putting it too: i agree completely with what you just said, it was just a minor misunderstanding that made us think we were debating.

 

P.P.P.P.S. i hope this is over now... :zzz:

[MishMish]

iglak said in post #47 :

3)wow, i did not know that gnostic was a word, cool. now that whole gnostic/theist thing makes more sense to me

 

I stole that, of course, from an atheism/agnosticism board I visited for a spell. Have no idea how current the word is in the sense I used it.

 

Just an aside, part of why the agnostic position gets me is that the level of proof demanded does not seem to be applied equally.

 

And I think Sayanora already clarified what I thought was careless and why.

 

Iglak: "P.S. and such a stupid thing it was to have misconceptions about, since 1: it was [off topic], and 2: it wasn't even close to my major point. in fact, it had almost nothing to do with my first post."

 

Not the first time I've been told I missed the point or picked up on some irrelevant detail...

[Radical Edward]

NavajoEverclear said in post #1 :

On the subject of modern scientific 'advance' i resent fafalones comment i recently read somewhere, that he doesn't understand how anyone still believes in creationism. That is the foundation for oppression, in the opposite direction that religious zealots once rejected athiesm and similar rebellion. Anyway it is not a supporter of freedom. Kind of like the way that it is justified now for many black people to hate white people because we previously repressed (and currently continue to in mostly less obvious ways). Its not right, it does not aid progression for either party.

 

I agree with him though. Creationism, and specifically young earth creationism have been falsified countless times by countless different discoplines, from taxonomy, to paleantology, geology, and cosmology. Numerous examples have been carried out to show that the formation of cells is completely possible naturally (you can do it in the kirchen using simple household items) and these cells have many of the characteristics of normal cells. (granted there is no DNA in them)

It is mathematically demonstrable that if there is death, there is an increase in information. ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) and HERVs in the genomes of numerous animals show common ancestry. Ana analysis of human and chimp chromosomes shows common ancestry, the list goes on and on. It is difficult to believe that, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, that people would still believe in creationism. Furthermore creationism causes a huge theological problem as well: it makes God out to be a liar.