Questions for Atheists (Refresher Thread)
- Thread starter Ekimklaw
- Start date
Originally posted by wesmorris
Can you say "Jonestown"? No wait, I meant Heaven's gate. Not nearly as gruesome, sure.. but a testament to "followers".
Your argument is invalid.
My argument isn't valid because a bunch of misled individuals killed themselves? They were misled, not in their understanding that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior, but in their mistaken understanding of God's word. Nowhere in the Bible does God command a person to commit suicide.
So would you die at the hand of another person for something you knew to be a lie?
So Wes, who is Jesus to you? Legend, Liar, Lunatic or Lord?
They followed someone and it resulted in their death. I'd say that's powerful. I don't see any relevance in what the bible does or does not say.
I am curious as to how you find your question relevant, but no, not unless the lie was irrelavent and something important enough for ME (like the lives of my family or myself or someone I care about) was at stake and my actions would save them regardless of the lie. Besides, how can you tell what is a lie? For instance, why is the bible true? Why does it have any relevance whatsoever regarding anything but entertainment and some historical value? How do you KNOW it isn't a lie? MANY MANY people would die for it. I would not except under duress.
I personally think all knowledge is tentative.
IF he actually existed (see Cris for more info) then he was probably a well-meaning lunatic. Try the line "I am the light, the way." on your girlfriend. Maybe she'll buy it! Hehe, seriously, that kind of egomaniacal crap can only come from a lunatic.
Actually, I think he was wise and moral. He worked for change within his society and effected massive change toward a more humane interpretation of its laws. But this does not validate all of the extraordinary stories that have been told about him. As I pointed out earlier, myths tend to build around historical figures. Without extremely convincing arguments or evidence, I must assume they are simply myths.
People die for causes all of the time. History is filled with people dying for ideologies and beliefs, following charismatic leaders into battle, etc. How many people have fought and died for the false belief that their country or ideology was superior to or endangered by another?
How do you reconcile your position with the willingness of people to martyr themselves for other religions?
I might point out the most infamous group of all, the Assassins, for instance.
No, the willingness to martyr ones self for a cause only demonstrates the strength of one's belief in that cause, not its veracity.
~Raithere
Re: Saying
I didn't even hear what you said. Come again?
(this is an attempt to make a joke like, ha ha, I'm funny, I didn't even hear anything to know if I should believe it or not, oh.. stop me. I'm cracking up the whole thread
)
Originally posted by MacM
Wesmorris,
There is a saying:
Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence.
Knowing which half to believe is a sign of genius.
(By this I am not saying which half I believe
I didn't even hear what you said. Come again?
(this is an attempt to make a joke like, ha ha, I'm funny, I didn't even hear anything to know if I should believe it or not, oh.. stop me. I'm cracking up the whole thread
)Omnidimensional. He's everywhere all the time. Of course we cannot see Him, just like one cannot see air/wind/gravity all the time but have faith thru uncertainty that it is there.
I don't get into Evolution/Creation debates too much for lack of knowlege in that dept! But... here is a thought I have wondered about. Most modern humans are unhealthily overweight or obese. If humans have evolved physically, why haven't we adapted to properly digesting unhealty, fattening food?
After death Christians believe our soul (the immaterial part of man) leaves the flesh and advances to either heaven or hell.
Our bodies remain mortal, but not for long. Satan is the father of sin. Sin causes mortality. Sin is forbidden in heaven. Sin = death. The Bible says after God defeats Satan, sin is no longer a curse. Thus the bodies of those forgiven will be transformed into what they should've been before Adam and Eve commited the first sin and are united with the soul once more.
I am not sure what you mean by comfort barrier. Christians face persecution, threats, intimidation, or disrespect by people who simply don't agree.
Even if what I've typed turns out to be tosh, there is more reason for me to believe than not in God or at least higher power. There are questions I have that have remained unchallenged by hoi pollios and famous skeptics respectively. Maybe one day? Tho I doubt it.
havalina:
<i>Most modern humans are unhealthily overweight or obese. If humans have evolved physically, why haven't we adapted to properly digesting unhealty, fattening food?</i>
We simply haven't had enough time.
For most of human history (and prehistory), we lived as hunter-gatherers. We did not eat unhealthy, fattening foods. It is only very recently (at least since the quite recent development of farming) that such foods have become readily available.
When we were hunter-gatherers, storing up fat against lean times was a good survival strategy. We still do that today, but our diet has changed significantly.
Evolution takes time.
<i>Most modern humans are unhealthily overweight or obese. If humans have evolved physically, why haven't we adapted to properly digesting unhealty, fattening food?</i>
We simply haven't had enough time.
For most of human history (and prehistory), we lived as hunter-gatherers. We did not eat unhealthy, fattening foods. It is only very recently (at least since the quite recent development of farming) that such foods have become readily available.
When we were hunter-gatherers, storing up fat against lean times was a good survival strategy. We still do that today, but our diet has changed significantly.
Evolution takes time.
You're right but I think you missed an important point. "unhealthy" or "obese" is a judgment that YOU (havalina) are placing on the situation. Who is to say that obese people are bad? Evolution has taken a strange turn you see, as natural selection is out the window with the new human. Sure, when we were hunter gatherers, obesity may have been bad. Now, are you selected out if you're fat? In order for evolution to work, all fat people would have to die off and only people with the right metabolisms would be around. Medicine keeps those people from dying, and money lets them reproduce (cuz chicks dig cash). There are a major bunch of factors than have taken evolution out of the "hands of nature" and into the "hand of man". A relavent question might be.. is that still nature? Does evolution accellerate because of technology? That whole line of questions is interesting to me.
Hi, this really wasn't my point but I'll begrudgingly agree it's an important one
.I assumed characteristics that shorten a life expectancy tend to be bad.
I didn't have the entire human in mind but rather the digestive system. I don't know enough about evolution to really continue with this (apparently since I didn't know entire groups of people would die off as opposed to certain parts of everyone adapting
) . Survival of the fittest and how humans evolve is perplexing to me.Q:1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.
A:1. I don't really know. For the same reason you can't explain to me how God could have alwyas existed. You do you KNOW that?
Q:2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).
A:2. I don't know, but where did god come from?
Q:3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.
A:3. Why don't you believe Socrates existed?
Q:4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?
A:4. Human evolution began long before monkeys and creatures. It (to my best understanding) started with single celled organisms. As they became more complex, they adapted and created what they needed to survive. Slowing creating the intredependcy of organs.
Q:5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?
A:5 Not sure what entropy is, but from the question they way the matter got out of the water could have been a number of ways. From washing up on shore, to being carried by a storm, a natural event like a cyclone, there's a lot ofp ossibilities.
Q:6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.
A:6. We didn't really observe it obviously. The same way you all didn't observe God.
Q:7. Did insects evolve? Explain...
A:7. Why wouldn't they have?
Q:8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
A:8. What would be the fun of being A-sexual? But really, sexual reproduction could have been the result of the organ interdependency.
Q:9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?
A:9. Que? It probably all evolved from more simplified versions of eachother. Just like most everything else.
Q:10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.
A:10. ... ... ... That's a tough one. I guess I wouldn't lay down any laws. I would let man take it's course on it's own. But if people were worshiping me, I'd atleast let them see me.
A:1. I don't really know. For the same reason you can't explain to me how God could have alwyas existed. You do you KNOW that?
Q:2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).
A:2. I don't know, but where did god come from?
Q:3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.
A:3. Why don't you believe Socrates existed?
Q:4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?
A:4. Human evolution began long before monkeys and creatures. It (to my best understanding) started with single celled organisms. As they became more complex, they adapted and created what they needed to survive. Slowing creating the intredependcy of organs.
Q:5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?
A:5 Not sure what entropy is, but from the question they way the matter got out of the water could have been a number of ways. From washing up on shore, to being carried by a storm, a natural event like a cyclone, there's a lot ofp ossibilities.
Q:6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.
A:6. We didn't really observe it obviously. The same way you all didn't observe God.
Q:7. Did insects evolve? Explain...
A:7. Why wouldn't they have?
Q:8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
A:8. What would be the fun of being A-sexual?
But really, sexual reproduction could have been the result of the organ interdependency.Q:9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?
A:9. Que? It probably all evolved from more simplified versions of eachother. Just like most everything else.
Q:10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.
A:10. ... ... ... That's a tough one. I guess I wouldn't lay down any laws. I would let man take it's course on it's own. But if people were worshiping me, I'd atleast let them see me.
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
havalina-
In our ancestral past we lived in conditions of feast or famine. It was beneficial in times of feast to be able to store fat efficienctly. The fat storage would help one survive times of famine.
Since technology and innovation progress more rapildly than evolutionary change, we have different enviornmental circumstances to face with essentially the same "machinery" in present time.
So obesity served its evolutionary purpose in the past, but now, with the technological advancements food is in abundance. Our body will tell us to prepare for famine but that is not necessary in our society. It is now maladapted, but the point is- Obesity was important in our past, now it is not needed due to advancement.
In our ancestral past we lived in conditions of feast or famine. It was beneficial in times of feast to be able to store fat efficienctly. The fat storage would help one survive times of famine.
Since technology and innovation progress more rapildly than evolutionary change, we have different enviornmental circumstances to face with essentially the same "machinery" in present time.
So obesity served its evolutionary purpose in the past, but now, with the technological advancements food is in abundance. Our body will tell us to prepare for famine but that is not necessary in our society. It is now maladapted, but the point is- Obesity was important in our past, now it is not needed due to advancement.
I would say yes. If the universe had a cause, what caused that? It seems there can be no first cause. Also, the question of 'what happened before the first instant in time?' has no meaning. There can be no time before time. We can know whether the universe always existed or not the same way we can know anything: via logical proofs.
Matter is created from nothing. It happens all the time. It's how Hawking radiation works. Particle pairs are created in the vacuum of space by borrowing energy from nothing. They then collide and annihilate each other, releasing the energy back into the void.
One theory is that the universe was created from a quantum fluctuation, borrowing energy from nothing. Observations seem to agree with this theory. All the matter and energy, & gravity could very well add up to a grand total of zero.
What's the point of this question? It's not like disproving a universal negative (which is possible, contrary to a [strangely popular] belief).
We evolved as single celled organisms, organs evolved via symbiotic relationships with multiple cells, creating multicellular organisms. Organs are the natural evolution of this process. I'm not sure what may have been first. Does it really matter? I think not.
Not sure I get the meaning of this, but here's a good link for info on macroevolution:
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
There's really no difference between the processes of micro and macroevolution.
There are numerous instances where evolution has been observed, both in labs, and in nature. I don't have time to cite them though, they can be looked up by anyone who wants to verify it for themselves.
Huh? Of course they did. They're biological entities aren't they?
What's with all the evolution questions? Why not just go learn how evolution works? Read these:
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Every life form tries to reproduce. What better way for cells to reproduce in mass quantities, than via sexual reproduction of the who organism? They do it on a cellular level, and evolved a way to do it on a macroscopic scale.
I would imagine the retina would have evolved first. Probably started with light sensitive skin cells that could detect light, and it's intensity, then eventually color, etc.
God is a paradoxical concept. I find myself hard pressed to imagine myself as a paradoxical concept.#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are...
But if I WAS god... I wouldn't impose any laws. I'd see what they come up with on their own.
Faith is defined as believing without cause or evidence. This is illogical. The term is omnipresent, by the way. One can prove the existance of air and gravity. One cannot prove the existance of god. Air and gravity have noticeable effects. They can be felt with the senses!
Hi Alpha,
Faith is relatively defined. I do not subscribe to that definition in this instance.
True! I think it is to weak of an adjective for me to use when describing God.
Air yes... we know it's compounds etc. If we have proof of gravity, why is it referred to as "the gravitational theory"? There's no scientific proof of grativity, it's a theory.
If this is how we prove things, than God exists! For believe I have felt His effects, and I believe I've felt him with my senses.
Hmm, this is probably a loaded question, but uh... how do you know "GOD" is what you felt? The brain is a powerfull organ, it can create some INTENSE sensations... it seems rather random to me to attach "god" to some sensational experience.