Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

What religion are you talking about, Jan?

You tell me... Atheism, humanism, evolutionism, naturalism, bullshitism, nastyism...

The belief in gods has been going on for centuries, it is only recently through education and the accessibility of knowledge and information that mankind is shedding religious beliefs.

Religion isn't just about belief, and it isn't just about belief in gods, or God, and it's been around as long as humans, and it won't go away either. Your idea of ''religion'' is false.

Atheism is on the rise and will be the dominant group of folks in the world, while folks like yourself will go the way of the dodo.

We all go in the end dumb-ass.

We don't know for sure that they were insane in regards to having seen psychiatrists, but they certainly behaved as if they were insane.

Why?

Because, that would go against the very definition of miracle.

Why would it?
If your child came back to life after a couple of days of being classified death, are you telling me you wouldn't regard that as a miracle, even if it was explained naturally?

That is because you have no understanding of science and how it works, you have only your religious beliefs.

Of course, your bullshit religion requires an acceptance of darwinian evolution to be accepted as a scientist or a person who knows some science. Kind of like the institutional Christian dogma which requires one to be a Christian to know God.

Your religion is no different other than it's objective.
The bs is the same.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

How does one override an evolutionary driver? With another evolutionary driver. Has thus an evolutionary driver been overriden?

Is there anything else but evolutionary drivers? Is there anything that is not provided by evolution?

I used the term "evolutionary driver" in its context to differentiate between those drivers that we have at our non-conscious biological level, and those we have at the level of consciousness, of intelligence etc.
We are able, on an individual level, to override those basest of drivers, as they no longer may be applicable in the society we find ourselves.
Consider it a version of Maslow's hierarchy, if you will.

But whether you consider them all evolutionary drivers or not (and I can understand the argument for doing so) the underlying point is the same, that contradicting drivers is not a contradiction of nature itself.

 

[Balerion]

Of course, your bullshit religion requires an acceptance of darwinian evolution to be accepted as a scientist or a person who knows some science. Kind of like the institutional Christian dogma which requires one to be a Christian to know God.

jan.

Please explain even one flaw in Darwinian evolution.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Of course, your bullshit religion requires an acceptance of darwinian evolution to be accepted as a scientist or a person who knows some science.

What it requires in order to be a scientist (or merely a science fan) is understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method specifies that a hypothesis can only be elevated to the level of a theory after it has been tested exhaustively and proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evolution has been supported by myriad evidence from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. Anyone who doubts evolution is, therefore, expressing an unreasonable doubt and cannot be accepted as a scientist.

Your religion is no different other than it's objective. The bs is the same.

As I have explained before, the faith of a scientist is a rational faith, based on evidence; whereas the faith of a religionist is an irrational faith, based only on hopes, dreams, and words written in the Bronze Age before anybody knew anything about the natural universe.

That's quite a difference.

We cross paths frequently so I'm sure you've read that explanation several times. To contradict it without offering evidence to support your contradiction, nor to respond to my rebuttal, pretending that you've never even seen a rebuttal to your own assertion and hoping that your readers haven't either, is intellectual dishonesty. On this website, a place of science, that is one of the most egregious forms of trolling, which is a violation of the rules.

I would advise you to clean up your act.

You're welcome to proselytize for your favorite religion on the "Religion" board. But you are not welcome to proselytize against science anywhere on SciForums.

(Well, I suppose that's what the Crackpottery section is for, so take it over there or leave it at home.)

 

[spidergoat]

Of course, your bullshit religion requires an acceptance of darwinian evolution to be accepted as a scientist or a person who knows some science. Kind of like the institutional Christian dogma which requires one to be a Christian to know God.

Your religion is no different other than it's objective.
The bs is the same.

jan.

Objectivity makes all the difference. If it's objectively true, it's not a religion. Besides, Darwinian evolution is anachronistic, no one believes the Darwin discovered the entire mechanism of evolution. Since then we have discovered quite a bit that supports the basis of his theory, and now we just call it Evolution.

 

[Balerion]

Besides, Darwinian evolution is anachronistic, no one believes the Darwin discovered the entire mechanism of evolution. Since then we have discovered quite a bit that supports the basis of his theory, and now we just call it Evolution.

He wouldn't know that. He subscribes to (I say subscribes; "he regurgitates" is more accurate) the false distinction between macro and micro evolution, because all he "knows" about evolution is derived from crank websites.

 

[Billy T]

... Evolution has been supported by myriad evidence from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. Anyone who doubts evolution is, therefore, expressing an unreasonable doubt and cannot be accepted as a scientist.

As I have told you before, not just huge amounts of data two disciplines, but more than a dozen controlled and / natural accident experiments. One of the latter is the well know transformation of a white English moth into black one when coal began to be used to heat homes and run looms etc. - that was a change environment with very strong "selective pressure" that quickly eliminated the genes for light coloration. (The birds easily ate the white ones on soot blacked bushes, trees, etc. ) White genes did have advantage vs genes for black - why the moths were white before coal was used, and why the moths became white again about 100 year after London make heating home with coal illegal.

Also by their actions, all theists (except possibly Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in evolution. They know to keep taking their anti-biotic drug the full 10 days, even though well after four because the few germs not yet killed are more resistant to it and will evolve a new gene pool of anti-biotic resistant germs. Actions speak louder than words.

Earth made an amazingly strong selective pressure on about 30 guinea pigs who happened to be trapped on a foot ball field sized island off the coast of Brazil where grass for them to eat only covered about 10% of the isand and there were no preditors there. 10,000 years ago the ice of the last ice-age began melting - that converted the peninsula they were on into an island. With their high breading (About 10 live births per female, the least fit nine starved each generation) and no preditors, natural selection strongly favored the "runts" who needed less food. In only 10K years and entirely new species, called Preá in Portuguese developed. Less than half the size, of the guinea pigs they developed from and cannot inter breed with that one (truly a new species) with other different physical characerist that gave benefit. For example smaller but much stronger hind legs, were a benefit when needing to jump over a rock to look for grass to eat on the other side.

Then there were well controlled experiments. My favorite was done in Brazil. Grad students moved some tiny fish, which laid only a few eggs when less than a year old, (Because they were eaten by bigger fish who also live below a water fall). Moved to above the water fall. In less than 10 years, those "tiny fish" delayed egg laying a couple of years and laid many hundreds as above the falls they were not eaten.

I. e. The genes that said :"Lay four eggs quick" were not well represented in the next generation. - They lost out in the struggle for the limited food supply. The genes that said: "Wait a couple of years and lay 500 eggs." became the gene pool norm - just as evolution had predicted - and several other predictions were confirmed too.

That "ability" to use a theory to predict, do a testing experiment, and find the predictions confirmed is POWERFUL support for the theory much more so than thousand so observations that are consistent with the theory. Theory of evolution has done this more than a dozen times. - String Theory of physic, has not one confirmed prediction, AFAIK.
Evolution is quite possibly one of the best tested theory man has ever made; not far behind the new theory that Earth goes around the sun instead sun around the Earth* as was accepted!

PS- While trying to find picture via Google, I learned that Preá refers to all types of guinea pigs in Portuguese. Probably the new species has a new scientific name and may be called, non-scientifically the "Stanta Catlina Island" Preá , but that is the name of the larger island their Island was part of 10,000 years ago. I have posted photos and more date some years ago when the discovery of the existence of this new species of Preá was discovered.

*If one only considers observations, the old sun goes around the earth wins - 365 observations each year for more than 10,000 year is more than one observation per year for at most 3000 years. Thus with observations only it may be a little early to give up on modern computer adjusted epi-cycle predictions of where the planets seem to be. After all as god knows, circles are the most perfect geometric form! It just doesn't and to reason that god would give the planets imperfect elliptical orbits!

 

[(Q)]

(Q),
You tell me... Atheism, humanism, evolutionism, naturalism, bullshitism, nastyism...

Are you serious? :roflmao:

Religion isn't just about belief, and it isn't just about belief in gods, or God, and it's been around as long as humans, and it won't go away either. Your idea of ''religion'' is false.

Sorry Jan, it isn't my idea about religion, that is how it is defined. No, religion has not been around as long as humans, that is pure bs and only shows an incredible lack of understanding on your part.

We all go in the end dumb-ass.

We aren't talking about people, ass-hat, we're talking about religions.

Why?

Are you that dense not to know or understand what they did?

Why would it?
If your child came back to life after a couple of days of being classified death, are you telling me you wouldn't regard that as a miracle, even if it was explained naturally?

Of course not, that would be stupid to call it a miracle.

Of course, your bullshit religion requires an acceptance of darwinian evolution to be accepted as a scientist or a person who knows some science. Kind of like the institutional Christian dogma which requires one to be a Christian to know God.

Since we already know you are scientifically illiterate and don't understand anything about evolution, your disagreements are based entirely on faith based dogma. You are already in a very small minority of people.

Your religion is no different other than it's objective.

It is pure childishness to say such things, Jan, when I have no religion. Pure kindergarten playground tactics.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Fraggle Rocker,

Evolution has been supported by myriad evidence from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. Anyone who doubts evolution is, therefore, expressing an unreasonable doubt and cannot be accepted as a scientist.

No “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.

As I have explained before, the faith of a scientist is a rational faith, based on evidence; whereas the faith of a religionist is an irrational faith, based only on hopes, dreams, and words written in the Bronze Age before anybody knew anything about the natural universe.

That's quite a difference.

Great!
I don't see it like that.

Your religion is no different other than it's objective. The bs is the same.

We cross paths frequently so I'm sure you've read that explanation several times.

And you've no doubt read my explanation of faith, one which I prefer to yours.

Oh and by the way, the quote you respond to is entirely, and specifically aimed at (Q), nothing or no-one else.

To contradict it without offering evidence to support your contradiction, nor to respond to my rebuttal, pretending that you've never even seen a rebuttal to your own assertion and hoping that your readers haven't either, is intellectual dishonesty. On this website, a place of science, that is one of the most egregious forms of trolling, which is a violation of the rules.

Unless you are my master, or an authority on ''faith'' (evidenced by practical examples), I'm not under any obligation to accept your ideas as truth.

I would advise you to clean up your act.

Tell (Q) to clean up his act.

You're welcome to proselytize for your favorite religion on the "Religion" board. But you are not welcome to proselytize against science anywhere on SciForums.

I've said nothing against science. I don't agree with your circular view that scientists who do not accept DE are not scientists. If you want to ban me for having own mind, then go ahead. But please don't make stuff up.

jan.

 

[(Q)]

No “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.

That is true not only for scientists, but is true for anyone who actually understands evolution, which doesn't include you.

 

[wegs]

Irrational faith vs. rational faith.

I've never thought of "faith" in "categories" such as these. I've always viewed faith, as being attached to spirituality or religion.

 

[Balerion]

No “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.

No. No real scientist rejects evolution because the facts say evolution is true.

Seriously, I want to hear from you what problems there are with evolution, and what you base the above comment on.

 

[Robittybob1]

No. No real scientist rejects evolution because the facts say evolution is true.

Seriously, I want to hear from you what problems there are with evolution, and what you base the above comment on.

The problem with accepting evolution is that you need to rewrite the Bible. It makes the whole of the story different.

 

[(Q)]

The problem with accepting evolution is that you need to rewrite the Bible.

No need to rewrite the Bible, just dump it in the trash where it belongs.

 

[Robittybob1]

No need to rewrite the Bible, just dump it in the trash where it belongs.

Well there are a few of us planning to give the re-write a go. But it is a big job for we need the story , the new plot. I've never written a play before.

 

[paddoboy]

(
Of course, your bullshit religion requires an acceptance of darwinian evolution to be accepted as a scientist or a person who knows some science. Kind of like the institutional Christian dogma which requires one to be a Christian to know God.


.

You should talk to the Catholic church....They also see the evidence for evolution as overwhelming and accept it.
Along with the BB/Inflationary model of the Universe.

 

[Billy T]

... I don't see it like that. ...

Because you are "regurgitating," not thinking.

To encourage some thinking, I asked you twice a direct question. (Second time in post 2317.) I was quite sure, none of your learned replies, if regurgitated, would serve as a answer. I was trying to force you to think, but you either can't or don't like where thinking leads you. I'll try one third time:

Please directly answer my direct question, even just a simple "yes or no" but I prefer you explain why as then I can see a sample of your thinking instead of your regurgitating.

For your convenience, as 2317 is a page back, here is direct link to it: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3121902&viewfull=1#post3121902

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because you are "regurgitating," not thinking.

To encourage some thinking, I asked you twice a direct question. (Second time in post 2317.) I was quite sure, none of your learned replies, if regurgitated, would serve as a answer. I was trying to force you to think, but you either can't or don't like where thinking leads you. I'll try one third tnPlease directly answer my direct question, even just a simple "yes or no" but I prefer you explain why as then I can see a sample ofstead of your regurgitating.

For your convenience, as 2317 is a page back, here is direct link to it: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3121902&viewfull=1#post3121902

If "Ode to Joy" does not have a non-material public existence, how do I recognize the difference / tell which I am
hearing (between "Ode to Joy" & "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer")?*Please take that as a second DIRECT question.

Explain the point ur trying to make.

Jan.

 

[Billy T]

Explain the point ur trying to make. Jan.

Not so much a Point, but more a refutation, or when you reply, if you ever do, an attempt to understand what you really meant to say in this exchange:

I had said: "Mankind and even most social animals do violate the morality they have created. That is NO violation of nature. Nature did not create morality." You replied:

Billy T, By ''pure'' I mean ''matter is absolute''. ... Nature is ''absolute''. There is nothing but nature, and everything is born out of nature (from your perspective). Morality is found within human nature, and humans are nothing but expressions of nature, therefore morality is borne out of (created by) nature. ... jan.

You clearly believe there is a spiritual realm beyond matter, but seem to think there cannot be (except for God) non-material things on/in Earth as derivations from evolution of intelligence in social animals. Why I mentioned "Ode to Joy" and explained the many different forms or "embodiments" it took (or lacked) as it went from the web site, thru internet, digital computer, its D to A converter to be first a non-material voltage then a material current in loud speaker' coil, then rarefaction waves (not material even though the air is) to vibrate your ear drum, drive oscillation flows in the cochlea's liquid, wiggle the cilia on the walls, causing the attached nerve to rhythmically discharge (but never faster than 2,000 hertz) to make the listener hear /experience non-materially even 20,000 hertz notes or tones. - Nothing material in the brain is happening at 20K hertz as that is not physically possible, so the heard 20K hertz (or even 4K hertz) tone is a NON-MATERIAL experience, qualia, or thought, stimulated by sets of neural impulses 10 or more times slower.,

I. e. I was trying and asking if you did believe, as I do, that some non-material things do exist and are not "God based" / would exist even if God did not and our universe still did.

You have yet to answer. I believe that there are two types of non-material things existing, despite your: ''matter is absolute'. ... Nature is ''absolute'' There is nothing but nature, ..." namely private and public non-material realities do exist. All thoughts, ideas, qualia are examples of the first type and "Ode to Joy," moral codes of behavior, languages, society itself, etc. are examples of the second or public things that exist non-materially. They were "man-made" and do not owe their existence to God. As public realities they can, and often do, exist in physical form too.

It is hard to know what you believe when you don't answer direct questions, directly and so frequently insert things like the above "(from your perspective)" or "according to atheists, materialists, etc." into statements you make. It would be helpful if instead when making long statement you either prefixed them with: I believe that..." or ended them with: "That is what I believe." Or at least answered direct question designed to clarify what your own position is.

If you did that then I would not be forced to say things like: you "seem to think there cannot be (except for God) non-material things on/in Earth ..."

I do get the impression that you want to argue that violations of moral codes, if they only come from nature, are violations of nature, but nature violating its self is not possible from the atheist's POV, thus all morals (what is right and what is wrong) must come from God. If that is your POV, please clearly state it. My main problem with you is your lack of candor about the things on Earth you believe and complete certainty your POV (and not that of the Hindu, Moslem, Buddhists, etc. or the atheist) is the only truth. I can't see anything clearly support one of these mutually contradictive POVs, so am agnostic - admitting I don't know what is true and what is false.

 

[wegs]

Please explain even one flaw in Darwinian evolution.

From a theistic view, one could see a flaw being that Darwinian evolution leaves God out of the equation entirely, and is strictly a naturalist view. IOW, when people find flaws in theories, it is due to their own subjective reasoning.

Likewise, a Darwinist finds flaws with Creationism.