Why does evolution select against atheists?

[S.A.M.]

To create an apple pie from scratch you have to start with the universe. - some dude, maybe Carl Sagan

 

[leopold]

I see from your answers that your not a believer in any of the versions laid forth thus far of how we came to be but in the possiblity of a god or supernatural power.

how can anyone be a firm believer in something when it can't be proven or at least logically arrived at?
what logic tells you life comes from non life?
what is the property of matter that endows consciousness?

What were the natural conditions when life first came to be ?

are you now suggesting that the origins of life is unprovable?

It sounds like the target keeps getting moved.

the target has always remained the same.
it's the answers that are getting harder to come up with.

If we do create life from nothing that was living are we then called GODS.
If so then we already are.

there hasn't been any evidence presented that says life comes from non life naturally.

 

[scorpius]

It would seem that atheistic societies are self limiting, they shrink, do not replace their populations, then are overwhelmed by theistic societies.

so the China's population is shrinking? when did that happen

 

[S.A.M.]

By about 50 million under Mao.

 

[scorpius]

over the past 50 years the following two facts have had no contenders:
life has always been observed coming from life.
there is no instance where life has been observed coming from non life.

50 years is nothing in this case,
you'd have to go back millions of years to observe begining of life ...

 

[scorpius]

By about 50 million under Mao.

didnt know Mao was still in power?

 

[scorpius]

And they are very rigid in their beliefs and incapable of being inclusive.

hey,..whenever you present some solid evidence for God,
atheists will no doubt change their minds.

got any??

 

[scorpius]

what i like about atheists:
they acknowledge that the riddle of life hasn't been solved

it wasnt?
been sleeping in skool,have you?

then proceed to exclude any other possibility except for the one they believe in.

FYI knowledge is not belief.

 

[quadraphonics]

so the China's population is shrinking? when did that happen

It's still growing slowly, but is expected to peak and then decline in a couple of decades. This is the result of the one-child policy, which has ensured that Chinese couples reproduce at a rate below that required to sustain the population. The reason this hasn't already resulted in a population decline is that you have to wait for the previous generations to die off before the effect becomes apparent, and China has made big improvements in health care recently, so that's not happening as soon as it would have otherwise.

China's population grew dramatically under Mao, despite the disasterous consequences of some of his policies.

 

[leopold]

been sleeping in skool,have you?

this thread's been civil until you showed up, and no, it wasn't.

 

[jpappl]

Leo,

what logic tells you life comes from non life?
what is the property of matter that endows consciousness?
are you now suggesting that the origins of life is unprovable?

If you believe as I do that life is flourishing throught the universe in many different ways than it must start from nothing that can be perceived as life. We find living microbes in places we once thought could not sustain life but they are there. When we find life on other planets we will know that we are not unique to the status of alive.

The microbes to create new living worlds could be floating in space raining down on planets and create life wherever they land, spreading over time as far as the planets system will take it.

What started the process of life is unknown. But I don't believe is unproveable. We just may never see the answer in our lifetimes.

there hasn't been any evidence presented that says life comes from non life naturally

Of course. But as I described above if it is a natural never ending occurrence throughout the universe the starting point may have been natural, just way beyond our ability to capture the moment of when, where and how at this time.

 

[iceaura]

It's not just the pointing out of flaws. The Dawkins discussion lacks any sense of understanding what religion is about. If we purport that religion is problematic, we must understand what religion is and its relationship to people before we can measure the dimensions of the problem. This is where most atheistic evangelists fall short.

If you want to bash the bad manners of the self-appointed atheists here, that's one thing. And a serious thing. But criticising the atheistic faction for persistant failure to advance the discussion is not realistic. My own probably unskilled attempts to get past the Dawkins level hangup, and advance a discussion of (say) the relationship of religion to humanity, with any of the resident theists around here, have met boggled incomprehension - does not compute levels of response - from our resident theistic discursives. It's not an easy job, getting even the basics established. For example:

And they are very rigid in their beliefs and incapable of being inclusive.
- - -
Of course it is! Atheism is basically a rejection of the beliefs of theists.

Those were consecutive assertions.

Meanwhile:

You can't reject a belief that does not exist or a god you do not know of

Hence the absurdity of pointing to rejection of one kind of deity or another as the defining characteristic of an atheistic person, religion, society, etc.

Atheism is merely a reaction to an existing and comprehensive social institution.

Months I've spent trying to establish the notion that your deity is a social creation, coextensive with a culture and partaking of no other reality - and will you remember this moment in the morning? Nope.

Meanwhile, you are omitting a large fraction of the atheistic people of the planet, most of whom are not reacting to the Abrahamic God in any of its institutional manifestations.

This is the situation, Tiassa.

secular = without religion
- - -
"Secular doesn't mean without religion in the sense that religion is not allowed".
- - - -
I know that. I'm Indian.
- - -
"Well then why would you claim it was in the first place."

It saves time. Most atheists here consider that being secular humanist means being intolerant of religion. I would hate to impose my foreign values on them

That is the high side of the theistic prominence around here. You are objecting to incivility and its discontents, and with good reason IMHO - but you can't expect a discussion of religion to get anywhere around here if it involves the local theists, who all - and I mean AFAIK all - "discuss" like that.
- - -

By about 50 million under Mao.

And a similar - somewhat larger, apparently - number in India under the theistic governance of the same general era. There was a bad drought, and some other factors - some claim these two massive die-offs were the opening act of the global warming play.

You once linked to the Nobel Prize winning Indian economist who studied the two, Amartya Sen , but only in documentation of the Chinese deaths.

 

[leopold]

Leo,
If you believe as I do that life is flourishing throught the universe in many different ways than it must start from nothing that can be perceived as life.

it seems like that would be the case.
even if we do create life we are still faced with things like a collective consciousness.
also, when i say "supernatural" i don't mean to imply a god, more like something along the lines of outside of nature.

What started the process of life is unknown.

and that my friend is the crux of the problem.

But as I described above if it is a natural never ending occurrence throughout the universe the starting point may have been natural, just way beyond our ability to capture the moment of when, where and how at this time.

which brings up yet another possibility, and that is there was no starting point. life has always existed.

 

[swarm]

Observation?

There are more atheists now than there ever have been. How would that be selected against?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Atheism is merely a reaction to an existing and comprehensive social institution. It offers nothing. How can you save anyone when you have nothing to offer? All you do is break up what exists and replace it with...nothing. Like breaking up a ship because you don't like the direction its going in and telling everyone to find their own way.

No. It's like trying to get people off a sinking ship.

Not really, pick up any book by an atheist on atheism or on theists. They don't attack the belief as much as they attack the institution.

Whats honest about rejecting something you know nothing about? Every ideology that atheists have replaced for religion has been a horror story from start to finish.

Not if it meant everyone would drown. And especially if I was clueless about direction.

I've picked up books by atheists. They're about belief, whether there's evidence or any sensible reason for the belief, what people do with the belief, results of the belief on society, etc.
Nearly all books by theists on religion attack all who don't follow that religion & condemn them simply for being unable to accept something for which there is no evidence.

There is nothing honest about accepting something you know nothing about. There is nothing honest about fooling yourself beyond the point of no return, attempting to fool others into accepting absurd cruel lies & condemning those who can't accept such.

Theists are clueless & can't accept it thus they fabricate clues, build houses of cards on them, dare anyone to try to knock them down then pretend they haven't been knocked down.
Theists are drowning & they're desperately trying to pull everyone else down with them.

 

[Enmos]

yes, there is. a "supernatural" one but you don't want to see that as a possibility do you?

Are you dense ?
How should I know if that's a possibility ? Do you know ? If so, how ?

 

[Enmos]

why? has anybody bothered to "prove" life arose naturally?
has anybody offered any natural explanation for consciousness?
but yet i'm asked to prove my side.

over the past 50 years the following two facts have had no contenders:
life has always been observed coming from life.
there is no instance where life has been observed coming from non life.

Do you know what natural and supernatural actually mean ? Seems like you don't..

 

[Tyler]

life has always been observed coming from life.
there is no instance where life has been observed coming from non life.

Atoms have never properly been 'seen' and never will. Do you doubt their existence? Or do you understand how science works?

 

[leopold]

Atoms have never properly been 'seen' and never will.

never is a long time.

Do you doubt their existence?

no, i don't doubt the existence of things called atoms.

Or do you understand how science works?

dunno, you tell me:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Scientific_method

 

[leopold]

Are you dense ?
How should I know if that's a possibility ? Do you know ? If so, how ?

a little defensive are we?
i didn't mean to tread onto your firmly held beliefs.