Why does evolution select against atheists?

[jpappl]

Leo,

the ONLY difference between man and ape as far as the law is concerned is that humans have a soul placed there by a god.

What god ?

So your saying that apes don't have a soul ?

where did i say we were created in "the creators image"?

Here

as a christain

 

[leopold]

Leo,

“
the ONLY difference between man and ape as far as the law is concerned is that humans have a soul placed there by a god.
”
What god ?

i was speaking from a legal viewpoint.

So your saying that apes don't have a soul ?

as far as the law is concerned no.

where did i say we were created in "the creators image"?
”
Here

“
as a christain

how you made that connection is anyones guess.
give me a post number for reference.

 

[jpappl]

Leo, Post # 401

as a christain i've never been taught anyone was inferior, evil, or downright inhuman because they didn't believe. these people were labeled as lost sheep.

atheism will indeed, without a doubt, bring us down to the level of the ape.
as a matter of fact atheism will make humanity EQUAL to the ape.

So I didn't see it as a legal viewpoint. But here.

the ONLY difference between man and ape as far as the law is concerned is that humans have a soul placed there by a god.
now, if you remove that, what does that make humans?

So I am not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe you can clarify it for me. Are you saying that Atheism removes the pretense that we are above the apes and that religion is saying that only humans have a soul. Or, are you saying that Atheism will reduce us to apes or no better than apes. Or something else ?

 

[swarm]

What kind of images are these? What is the method used?

They are individual atoms pictured and moved about via STM - Scanning tunneling microscopy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah, so I was right

The STM is based on the concept of quantum tunnelling. When a conducting tip is brought very near to a metallic or semiconducting surface, a bias between the two can allow electrons to tunnel through the vacuum between them. For low voltages, this tunneling current is a function of the local density of states (LDOS) at the Fermi level, Ef, of the sample[4]. Variations in current as the probe passes over the surface are translated into an image. STM can be a challenging technique, as it requires extremely clean surfaces and sharp tips.

 

[James R]

Ah, so I was right

About what?

 

[S.A.M.]

Its the blind men and the elephant.

 

[James R]

Not sure what you're talking about, SAM.

Are you claiming that scanning, tunnelling microscopes do not really image atoms?

 

[iceaura]

What Atheists forget is that religions, just as atheism (i.e. Russia, China, etc.), are used by ruling parties or governments to weaken political opponents.

Trust me, atheists in the US are the last people on the planet who would forget that.

Its the blind men and the elephant.

Scientific types are all such obvious fools, aren't they.

No the only difference between the two is that human beings are considered to be and held responsible for their actions. Animals we just shoot if they do something wrong.

Not always. There are records of court trials for animals in Western tradition, and often arguments over relative guilt in the case of dog attacks and the like.

 

[S.A.M.]

”
Scientific types are all such obvious fools, aren't they.

I've worked with imaging techniques. When they say sensitive, they mean it. Most of these techniques are good to ensure publication.

There are records of court trials for animals in Western tradition, and often arguments over relative guilt in the case of dog attacks and the like.

Thats probably because dogs have become a substitute for family in the western tradition. Do they have court cases for any other animals? What is the result of these cases?

 

[jpappl]

Leo,

Check out this if you haven't already. Along the line of discussion.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93073

 

[DiamondHearts]

Trust me, atheists in the US are the last people on the planet who would forget that.

What I meant was that religions, like atheism, can become tools and resources to allow regimes and parties to gain power.

Therefore it is improper to say that religions inspire men to oppress other, but rather some men will use all means available to control other men regardless, if religion can be manipulated for this purpose, it will be.

 

[leopold]

So I am not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe you can clarify it for me. Are you saying that Atheism removes the pretense that we are above the apes and that religion is saying that only humans have a soul. Or, are you saying that Atheism will reduce us to apes or no better than apes. Or something else ?

i was speaking from a legal viewpoint, and that is ll i can say about this matter.
you will have to ask the people who made that law what they were thinking.

Scientific types are all such obvious fools, aren't they.

if i were you i would ask myself what was it that knocked biogenesis from its lofty perches of a scientific law.

Leo,
Check out this if you haven't already. Along the line of discussion.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93073

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92057
as you can see thew RNA world depends on selection between the two types of a racemic mixture.
i don't thinkthis has been accomplished.

 

[Tyler]

Therefore it is improper to say that religions inspire men to oppress other, but rather some men will use all means available to control other men regardless, if religion can be manipulated for this purpose, it will be.

Bingo.

 

[(Q)]

supernatural means lacking an explanation by natural means

No, it does not. It means not subject to explanation according to natural laws. Big difference.

 

[S.A.M.]

not subject to explanation according to natural laws.

So if you heard of something supernatural, you'd not subject it to explanation by natural laws?

That would be a dead end.

 

[leopold]

No shit !
Not really though..

i think i see what your problem with all of this is.
first off i'm not going by any textbook definition of "supernatural".
i use this word simply because i have no other word to use instead.
second i think you are assuming some kind of spirit or ghost.

i'm sure you've heard of the uncertainty principle.
part of this principle states a tests outcome is dependent on if an observer (life) is present or not.
this might just be a glimpse into this "supernatural" state.

 

[(Q)]

So if you heard of something supernatural, you'd not subject it to explanation by natural laws?

That would be a dead end.

Your "I'm playing stupid in order to push my propaganda agenda" is in full swing, I see.

 

[Enmos]

i think i see what your problem with all of this is.
first off i'm not going by any textbook definition of "supernatural".
i use this word simply because i have no other word to use instead.

Ok, fair enough. Can you try to describe what you mean by supernatural ?

second i think you are assuming some kind of spirit or ghost.

You mean regarding what I thought you meant by 'supernatural' ?
If so, no I didn't. I thought you were using the dictionary definition:
"c.1450 (implied in supernaturally), "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature)."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=supernatural

i'm sure you've heard of the uncertainty principle.
part of this principle states a tests outcome is dependent on if an observer (life) is present or not.
this might just be a glimpse into this "supernatural" state.

I think quantum mechanics is jumping the gun on that. I believe a conventional explanation will be found someday.

Anyhow, am I correct in assuming that your version of 'supernatural' is "something not yet explained, or known, by science" ?

 

[S.A.M.]

The idea that anything supernatural is not subject to explanation by natural laws is a pointless one to me. Unless you mean its only supernatural if one cannot find a natural explanation. But if one does it ceases to be? If you hear voices, it could be magic, mushrooms or schizophrenia. You'd at least attempt to find a natural explanation before deciding its supernatural.