Ask an atheist

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Why? It turned out it worked well for us, so it continued to develop even further. It's like asking "why the neck is strongly developed by only giraffes". Additionally, intelligence is no on/off switch. There are different species with wildly varying degrees of intelligence. Crows, dolphins and apes are only the most widely known examples for this.

Today morning have found a spider in my room. I do not think he knows more math then me yet he is able to make mathematicaly perfect web. Also he can make the web which I cant so there my have been some time in the past where making webs didnt turn out so well for humans?
I have learned that humans have actualy nonactive genom in DNA for bat-like wings but for some reason "they didnt see it necessery" to activate it...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That's such a deliberate misunderstanding that I know any further discussion with you will be worthless.

Yes you would be right if I wasnt saying that by the way of joke...

 

[Leoreth]

Today morning have found a spider in my room. I do not think he knows more math then me yet he is able to make mathematicaly perfect web. Also he can make the web which I cant so there my have been some time in the past where making webs didnt turn out so well for humans?

The spider does that the same way you catch a ball without doing Newtonian equations and second derivatives first.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So atheism means to have no feelings? Thats an interesting piece of information...

I could be edgy and wonder whether theism requires having no reading comprehension, but that would mean including a couple of very intelligent theists I know.

I have clearly said that at times certain emotions can have more value than reasoning I do not look down upon intellect or scientific information.

At times.

But using yoga or some sort of feeling to try to understand Evolution, something I'm sorry to say you lack the basic understanding of, is pointless. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, is it too much to ask that you either first gain an understanding of the subject, or allow yourself to be informed by others. Just walking in here going: "This is how I feel, and there aint nothing you can show me to change that" is the complete reverse of what a discussion tries to do.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The spider does that the same way you catch a ball without doing Newtonian equations and second derivatives first.

O.K. I am not giong to pretend I know the formulas. The ball movement and especialy the spiders making a web for his life survival are actually signs of inteligent design/higher inteligence than they represent themselfs (ball being incoscient of itself and spider subconscient creature (webing the the net instictively)

 

[Flying Pig]

Today morning have found a spider in my room. I do not think he knows more math then me yet he is able to make mathematicaly perfect web. Also he can make the web which I cant so there my have been some time in the past where making webs didnt turn out so well for humans?

Have you ever considered that you have an organ in your body which detects light, and just by noticing the frequency and wavelength of that light you can build up a picture of the world around you? If you told that to a bat, he would think you were incredibly intelligent to be able to do all of those calculations in a split-second, but of course we never think of them. It's the same for a spider making a web.

O.K. I am not giong to pretend I know the formulas. The ball movement and especialy the spiders making a web for his life survival are actually signs of inteligent design/higher inteligence than they represent themselfs (ball being incoscient of itself and spider subconscient creature (webing the the net instictively)

If anything, they're signs of evolution; an intelligent designer probably wouldn't have made a spider need to do something so complicated to find food.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I could be edgy and wonder whether theism requires having no reading comprehension, but that would mean including a couple of very intelligent theists I know.
At times.

But using yoga or some sort of feeling to try to understand Evolution, something I'm sorry to say you lack the basic understanding of, is pointless. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, is it too much to ask that you either first gain an understanding of the subject, or allow yourself to be informed by others. Just walking in here going: "This is how I feel, and there aint nothing you can show me to change that" is the complete reverse of what a discussion tries to do.

I am aware that misreading and at times poor comprehension are a problem (and not just mine).
I am definitely into learning something new. Even though I am clearly trying to discuss the topics here from a rare angle it feel legitimate to me. In fact the only point in doing so is the fact that once a while somebody finds it worthy to replay. I could definitely set on scientificaly studying things but its not necessery as it usally doesnt interest me that deep and there seems to be quite lot of people with that capacity.
I do hope that different point of wiew can rather enrich the discussion or make poeple consider other options. Thats pretty much all.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

1.Have you ever considered that you have an organ in your body which detects light, and just by noticing the frequency and wavelength of that light you can build up a picture of the world around you? If you told that to a bat, he would think you were incredibly intelligent to be able to do all of those calculations in a split-second, but of course we never think of them. It's the same for a spider making a web.



2.If anything, they're signs of evolution; an intelligent designer probably wouldn't have made a spider need to do something so complicated to find food.

1.That prety much proves my point that there is a higher inteligence behind the design of evolution. There is so many inteligent actions going on inside my body which I am not aware of quite separeted from my own inteligence and which I have no influence over. Yet it perfectly works in spite of my incapacity of even being aware of these.

2.to find a food/support live is complicated. it is a struggle.

 

[Flying Pig]

1.That prety much proves my point that there is a higher inteligence behind the design of evolution. There is so many inteligent actions going on inside my body which I am not aware of quite separeted from my own inteligence and which I have no influence over. Yet it perfectly works in spite of my incapacity of even being aware of these.

That really doesn't follow.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That really doesn't follow.

You would really do me a favor by elaborating on this.

 

[Flying Pig]

You would realy do me a favor by elaborating on this.

Just because your body is well-put-together doesn't mean that it was put together in that exact form by someone intelligent. The evolutionary model of trial and error over millions of generations explains it far better, in fact, since it also accounts for the bits that could work better. Not to mention that the sheer amount of micro-management that God would have to do to intelligently design everything would be huge, and frankly I think he's got better things to do with his time than mess with Mendel.

 

[brennan]

Again with your absolutely dreadful analogies, which I have to explain back to you.
In this case the "pea" would be evidence of gods plan which was "dinner"

...as I recall the plate analogy was made regarding one of your own arguments and had nothing to do with modelling my own philosophical position; you are arguing total irrelevancies and being quite rude at the same time. If you can do nothing better than make pointless comments about how pretty (or not) the night sky would be in a hastily constructed alternative reality put together to illustrate a simple point then there seems little point in responding further. I stated my position and I see no reason to keep justifying it to more and more irrelevant standards invented (increasingly hysterically) by yourself.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Have you ever considered that you have an organ in your body which detects light, and just by noticing the frequency and wavelength of that light you can build up a picture of the world around you? If you told that to a bat, he would think you were incredibly intelligent to be able to do all of those calculations in a split-second, but of course we never think of them. It's the same for a spider making a web.

Bats actually have pretty good eyesight

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Just because your body is well-put-together doesn't mean that it was put together in that exact form by someone intelligent. The evolutionary model of trial and error over millions of generations explains it far better, in fact, since it also accounts for the bits that could work better. Not to mention that the sheer amount of micro-management that God would have to do to intelligently design everything would be huge, and frankly I think he's got better things to do with his time than mess with Mendel.

Just becouse there exist evolutionary model of trial and error it does not exclude the possibility of a Creator, in my opinion. Also I think you underestimate possible capacity of God. If I imagine someone with absolute power it would include capacity of doing countless operations in the same time with an effort of someone drinking glass of watter.
Besides theory of evolution there is a theory of involution as well. The Spirit is trying to manifest through the matter. That is what I have pointed out before. In a course of time we are getting creatures who are more consciouss of themselves rather than just who are fittest for some particular material enviroment. I realy dont understand what will be the point of evolution otherwise...
More so it seems that if we are getting more conscious during proces of evolution it would seem that that consciousness was already present at the start of creation just like our bodies are composed from the dust of stars who colapsed billions of years ago.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't actually go in the "Ask a (insert religion of choice)ist" threads, but are they just full of arguments as well, or do they actually manage to do what the thread title suggests? This one just seems to be a "defend atheism" thread in all but name.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Bats actually have pretty good eyesight

God knows, they may even be some atheist among them

 

[Kyriakos]

Interesting that the idea that a god must be omnipotent and benevolent still persists. To me benevolence cannot exist without malice, and they both are human traits, all humans have them to varying degrees. I do not see why a god would have any such trait though, surely a god should be something entirely different from humans (and not have humans made "in his image" as the bible claims).

Maybe some entity that has no form at all, is the energy of a billion exploding stars, to paint some image of inhuman importance, and is eternally linked to the ongoing phenomenon that is named by humans as "the universe". Personally i find the idea that a god is mostly a human with supernatural powers to be not only boring but rather dumb too. Descartes once tried to defend the christian god precisely by claiming that he is not like the greek/roman gods of old, that is he is not something that has human traits. But even merely replacing human imperfection with supposedly divine lack of imperfection is again just an all-too human idea, and not fit in my view to be anything that a real deity (if such a thing exists) should be.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, that's unfortunate, but what are you going to do when the "questions" here are nothing but thinly veiled accusations of wrongness? Better to correct false statements at least for the benefit of other readers than letting them stand unchallenged.

For the "Ask a [religion]" threads: the rare times I visit them are rather similar in the level of discussion to this one, only with the different confessions fighting about who gets the bible right / committed more atrocities etc.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Interesting that the idea that a god must be omnipotent and benevolent still persists. To me benevolence cannot exist without malice, and they both are human traits, all humans have them to varying degrees. I do not see why a god would have any such trait though, surely a god should be something entirely different from humans (and not have humans made "in his image" as the bible claims).

Maybe some entity that has no form at all, is the energy of a billion exploding stars, to paint some image of inhuman importance, and is eternally linked to the ongoing phenomenon that is named by humans as "the universe". Personally i find the idea that a god is mostly a human with supernatural powers to be not only boring but rather dumb too. Descartes once tried to defend the christian god precisely by claiming that he is not like the greek/roman gods of old, that is he is not something that has human traits. But even merely replacing human imperfection with supposedly divine lack of imperfection is again just an all-too human idea, and not fit in my view to be anything that a real deity (if such a thing exists) should be.

I agree a lot. I think when different religions describe different atributes of deity its definitely simplified for practical reasons so that people mortal and finite can possibly identify with something infinite which seem quite unnatural. If there is diety with absolute power that power is as natural just like ours lack of it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't actually go in the "Ask a (insert religion of choice)ist" threads, but are they just full of arguments as well, or do they actually manage to do what the thread title suggests? This one just seems to be a "defend atheism" thread in all but name.

Well, it's the easiest thing in the world to defend, so not that bothered.