Is this the Atheist Fanatics Forums Off-Topic?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Squack! Gypsies! Muslims! Gypsies! Squack!

I for one am willing to believe in Winner's invisible parrot

 

[Winner]

Squack! Gypsies! Muslims! Gypsies! Squack!

I for one am willing to believe in Winner's invisible parrot

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

I forget them every morning!

 

[Winner]

I forget them every morning!

That explains a lot

 

[El_Machinae]

So we agree on something then.

We agree on lots!


Anyway, the website itself is rather interesting. It looks like an honest forum for religious debates. I was a bit confused when a Scientology advertisement popped up in the video, though.

 

[Danielos]

I don´t see ecosystems as particularly difficult to explain by evolution and natural selection. Every ecosystem has specific niches like photosynthetic organisms, grazers, predators, top predators and decomposers. If any of these niches would be vacant it would be a large selective advantage for any organism to fill up that empty niche, so evolution will automatically "work" to fill up all the empty spots. This would create a grand illusion of intelligent design.

And ecosystems are really not that stable. If conditions change, like if a new species is introduced or by climate changes, the ecosystem might temporarily fall apart and slowly be filled up with new species creating a new ecosystem. This has happened many times in the history of the Earth. There are many extinct ecosystems as well as extinct species.

New Zealand is a good example how an unique ecosystem is created. The island was isolated enough that only a few birds and insects could reach it. But since the niches were vacant, those organisms evolved and radiated to create a complete ecosystem. Giant Moas were grazers, and were hunted by Haast´s Eagle, the largest eagle that has ever lived. And still today, the Weta-insect has occupied the terrestrial niche that small rodents have on the comtinents.

 

[cardgame]

I don´t see ecosystems as particularly difficult to explain by evolution and natural selection. Every ecosystem has specific niches like photosynthetic organisms, grazers, predators, top predators and decomposers. If any of these niches would be vacant it would be a large selective advantage for any organism to fill up that empty niche, so evolution will automatically "work" to fill up all the empty spots. This would create a grand illusion of intelligent design.

And ecosystems are really not that stable. If conditions change, like if a new species is introduced or by climate changes, the ecosystem might temporarily fall apart and slowly be filled up with new species creating a new ecosystem. This has happened many times in the history of the Earth. There are many extinct ecosystems as well as extinct species.

New Zealand is a good example how an unique ecosystem is created. The island was isolated enough that only a few birds and insects could reach it. But since the niches were vacant, those organisms evolved and radiated to create a complete ecosystem. Giant Moas were grazers, and were hunted by Haast´s Eagle, the largest eagle that has ever lived. And still today, the Weta-insect has occupied the terrestrial niche that small rodents have on the comtinents.

Umm, wrong thread?

 

[Danielos]

Umm, wrong thread?

No, Death Machine proposed earlier that ecosystems were a proof of intelligent design.

 

[cardgame]

Oh. Well then, maybe you'd like to edit in a quote of him sayin' that, seeing as it's not on this page, so more people will know what you're talking about.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No.

You can't disprove God and trillions of other things you can possibly make up. I say there's an invisible parrot on my shoulder - disprove it.

Russell's teapot goes both ways: you can't disprove definitively that the teapot isn't out there orbiting the Sun, you can only extrapolate to a reasonable doubt that its not there. That's a respectable, logical conclusion, and it is the equivalent of agnosticism. Since agnosticism is the admittance that we don't know and can't know, it is not a position that really requires any evidence to hold. Atheism, on the other hand, the definitive claim that God does not exist, is as lacking in empirical evidence as the claim that God does exist. So you, by claiming to know that which can only be assumed, are committing the same fallacy as theists.

That way, every one would have to be an agnostic on trillions of ridiculous things, because they can't be disproved. Such an attitude is useless and it goes against rational sceptical way of thinking.

Or you can just shut up and ignore them. No one's forcing you to embark on the anti-religious crusade you have gone on.

A sceptic asks - why do you think there's an invisible parrot on your shoulder? Do you have any evidence? How is your invisible parrot theory better than the no parrot theory?

An a prudent person knows that unless he has definitive evidence of something, then it cannot be proven. There is no definitive evidence of God NOT existing, so you can't say "he doesn't exist" as if it were an objective fact.

Therefore, it is a sign of rational mind to doubt. Being a sceptic is a good thing. Being an agnostic means that you're not prepared to think rationally to the very end. That is hypoctitical as most agnostics believe that their position is the most rational one.

You contradict yourself in this statement. I'll let you figure out how.

Is it prudent to admit the possibility of an invisible parrot without a strong evidence supporting such a crazy thing? No. Quite on the contrary: until a strong evidence is presented, it is prudent to not believe in such a claim.

It goes both ways. Be agnostic all you want, or hell, even be athiest, but if you choose to believe that God does not exist, know that the grounding for your belief is as unstable as a theist's, and that you are doing so on faith, not on fact.

If you say things like "I cannot know if the parrot exists or not", you're making a baseless claim - just like the religious people when they claim there is God. So, there is a similarity.

See my above comments to [potentially] understand why this statement is false.

 

[cardgame]

but if you choose to believe that God does not exist, know that the grounding for your belief is as unstable as a theist's, and that you are doing so on faith, not on fact.

No, not exactly...

I have respect for Deists. Those who believe there was simply a creator, and he made us. It's the add-ons that have me skeptical...

There's a difference in saying 'there's a teapot in space' and saying 'there's a teapot in space who made us all, and if we don't believe in it we shall all go to hell. Oh, not to mention it apparanelty wrote a book, which we have to take as truth and follow everything it says, including hating homosexuals for no reason, and not eating pork or certain seafood' you see where I'm going with this, ya?

 

[warpus]

Russell's teapot goes both ways: you can't disprove definitively that the teapot isn't out there orbiting the Sun, you can only extrapolate to a reasonable doubt that its not there. That's a respectable, logical conclusion, and it is the equivalent of agnosticism. Since agnosticism is the admittance that we don't know and can't know, it is not a position that really requires any evidence to hold. Atheism, on the other hand, the definitive claim that God does not exist, is as lacking in empirical evidence as the claim that God does exist.

That is a slightly incorrect description of what agnosticism is, and a fully incorrect one of atheism. (ie. your definition of atheism only covers the strong kind)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, not exactly...

I have respect for Deists. Those who believe there was simply a creator, and he made us. It's the add-ons that have me skeptical...

There's a difference in saying 'there's a teapot in space' and saying 'there's a teapot in space who made us all, and if we don't believe in it we shall all go to hell. Oh, not to mention it apparanelty wrote a book, which we have to take as truth and follow everything it says, including hating homosexuals for no reason, and not eating pork or certain seafood' you see where I'm going with this, ya?

This refutes nothing I've said...

That is a slightly incorrect description of what agnosticism is, and a fully incorrect one of atheism. (ie. your definition of atheism only covers the strong kind)

"Soft" atheism is basically agnosticism. There's no point to the separate categories.

 

[cardgame]

delete this post please.

 

[Danielos]

No, you can´t disprove that God exists, but if you think it is very, very unlikely that he does exist, is calling yourself an Agnostic really a good thing? I might say I am 0,01% agnostic about Jahve and 0,001% about the Pink Unicorn, but is there really much point?

What I considers a real Agnostic would be a person that doesn´t believe in God, but consider him a somewhat plausible possibility!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Soft" atheism is basically agnosticism. There's no point to the separate categories.

Yes there is.

I have no way of knowing whether a god exists, but I have faith god does exist even without scientific evidence.
I have no way of knowing whether a god exists, so without any evidence I decide not believe god does exist.

Both agnostic statements.

 

[Grey Fox]

I'm not sure what to call my beliefs. They are probably closest to Atheist, because I do not believe in a god, or deity, or creator, or such. I don't believe there is "something" spiritual or strange force out there. I don't believe in the soul or similar.

I do believe that because of the way life evolves, you can mistake that for design. And that "something must have created that" feeling. I think about these things almost daily, and I understand that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It's not complete, and the scientists don't know everything. Some of Darwin's theory is getting questioned, other parts get confirmed, etc.

Sometimes I wonder if there can be some sort of drive in the DNA, the cells. To want to evolve towards some goal, because of the experiences of the individual, instead of only survival of the fittest. Like in the case of the Giraffe. Sure they have a long neck now, maybe because the long-necked individuals got sexual preference. And maybe they got to eat more food and live longer, breed more. But what if there is also some trigger in the DNA passed on to the next generation that, from experience, try to tell this new body to grow a longer neck?


I also find it fascinating how the immune system works, and how we, as complex individuals live in harmony and symbiosis with other lifeforms, mostly bacteria, that help us stay alive.

I find it miraculous how life has evolved from single cell organisms to multi-billion cell organisms!
Think about it. All our cells, working together as a single lifeforms. All with their tasks. Some die quick, other stay with us for our entire life. And the molecules that make up our body is changed up now and then, making us a totally new person every 9 years or so, molecule-wise.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes there is.

I have no way of knowing whether a god exists, but I have faith god does exist even without scientific evidence.
I have no way of knowing whether a god exists, so without any evidence I decide not believe god does exist.

Both agnostic statements.

So are we agreeing, then, that atheism is the belief that one "knows" God does not exist?

 

[Danielos]

I'm not sure what to call my beliefs. They are probably closest to Atheist, because I do not believe in a god, or deity, or creator, or such. I don't believe there is "something" spiritual or strange force out there. I don't believe in the soul or similar.

I do believe that because of the way life evolves, you can mistake that for design. And that "something must have created that" feeling. I think about these things almost daily, and I understand that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It's not complete, and the scientists don't know everything. Some of Darwin's theory is getting questioned, other parts get confirmed, etc.

Sometimes I wonder if there can be some sort of drive in the DNA, the cells. To want to evolve towards some goal, because of the experiences of the individual, instead of only survival of the fittest. Like in the case of the Giraffe. Sure they have a long neck now, maybe because the long-necked individuals got sexual preference. And maybe they got to eat more food and live longer, breed more. But what if there is also some trigger in the DNA passed on to the next generation that, from experience, try to tell this new body to grow a longer neck?


I also find it fascinating how the immune system works, and how we, as complex individuals live in harmony and symbiosis with other lifeforms, mostly bacteria, that help us stay alive.

I find it miraculous how life has evolved from single cell organisms to multi-billion cell organisms!
Think about it. All our cells, working together as a single lifeforms. All with their tasks. Some die quick, other stay with us for our entire life. And the molecules that make up our body is changed up now and then, making us a totally new person every 9 years or so, molecule-wise.

I think evolution is easier to grasp when you do as Dawkins, you see it from the point of views of the genes, rather than the bodies that carry them. The genes we carry with us today are the ones that can trace an unbroken strings of succesful new generations all the way back to the most primitive ancestors possible. We are mere mortal shells for these "selfish genes"...

I might be an evolutionary mismatch though, since I have no desire to have any children, so my genes are really screwed, moahahaha...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So are we agreeing, then, that atheism is the belief that one "knows" God does not exist?

I find it hard to agree when you put it in such ambiguous terms ("knows").

I don't think we do agree. all an atheist has to do is lack the believe in a god. Full stop. That's it. You can be doubtful whether a god exists, you can think the probability is too low to take into account and you can be sure. Even not caring whether a god exists or not qualifies. That's not important to the denomination: Atheist.

edit: By the way, those two statements earlier. The first was theistic, the second atheistic. Both were agnostic.