Exploring Atheism

[Trey of Diamonds]

In the past religions answer to questions has been death, thats no longer acceptable so how will they take challenges to their belief systems?
I don't directly mean that 'religion' will fall, i mean the current religions may fall, Christianity, Islam etc. Sorry for not being clear.

I see what you mean. Since I believe that all religions are simply different versions of the same thing it doesn't really matter to me if one or more falls to the wayside. Religions evolve just like man does, ever changing to meet the needs of the day. But religion itself has always been around and will always remain. Possibly long after humanity is no longer in the picture.

 

[little_monkey]

But religion itself has always been around and will always remain. Possibly long after humanity is no longer in the picture.

Sorry but that is a misperception. I don't see dogs going to church, or cats attending a temple, or a pig praying in a mosque. Religion has been around as long as human beings have been around. And most likely, it will be gone after humanity is no longer in the picture.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Sorry but that is a misperception. I don't see dogs going to church, or cats attending a temple, or a pig praying in a mosque. Religion has been around as long as human beings have been around. And most likely, it will be gone after humanity is no longer in the picture.

Go back one page and read my posts, it will explain my statement. If Neanderthal's had religion then the concept of religion pre-dates modern man. If modern man's concept of religion was influenced by the religion of the Neanderthal then how hard is it to believe our religion will influence the next step in evolution. Whatever replaces mankind will have a religion of some sort. Your comment about dogs, cats and pigs may sound silly and even condescending but in reality, how do we know it wont be one of these animals that evolves past us and into a more intelligent being. Especially with the tinkering around man is doing with genetics. (Oh, and I hope you weren't being intentionally offensive by placing a pig in the mosque.)

 

[little_monkey]

Go back one page and read my posts, it will explain my statement. If Neanderthal's had religion then the concept of religion pre-dates modern man. If modern man's concept of religion was influenced by the religion of the Neanderthal then how hard is it to believe our religion will influence the next step in evolution. Whatever replaces mankind will have a religion of some sort. Your comment about dogs, cats and pigs may sound silly and even condescending but in reality, how do we know it wont be one of these animals that evolves past us and into a more intelligent being. Especially with the tinkering around man is doing with genetics. (Oh, and I hope you weren't being intentionally offensive by placing a pig in the mosque.)

Evolution has no purpose, so when and if humans go extinct, there is no reason to believe that there will be beings of higher intelligence. My statement was more in line with the idea that religion was designed by humans for humans. If Neanderthal man did have some religious notions, so be it, but humans would have developed them with or without them.

And no, I wasn't trying to be offensive with pigs in mosques, nor with cats in temple, just my weird sense of humour...:sarcastic

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

And no, I wasn't trying to be offensive with pigs in mosques, nor with cats in temple, just my weird sense of humour...:sarcastic

Just remember, to Muslims a pig is an unclean animal so to suggest that pig could one day be in Mosques would be considered very offensive and a major insult. I know that wasn't your intent but many folks jump on any perceived insult no matter what the original intention was.

 

[little_monkey]

Just remember, to Muslims a pig is an unclean animal so to suggest that pig could one day be in Mosques would be considered very offensive and a major insult. I know that wasn't your intent but many folks jump on any perceived insult no matter what the original intention was.

Well, you can also point out that to many Christians, saying Jesus was just a man is also offensive, or to an Hindu, eating hamburgers is delicious, can be very offensive. Where do we draw the line?

I find that those who scream, "I'm insulted" are either cry-babies, or have a political agenda. In either case, I refuse to bow to such ploys.

 

[brainuser]

I don’t understand how atheists think that when man discovers the mechanisms that things happen with, that this leads to that there’s no creator! I mean evolution theory simply says species has evolved from simpler shapes (chemical compounds in the beginning), and it suggest how this happened (Through mutation and natural selection). The superficial look suggests: “Oh, we have just discovered that new species appear naturally, we don’t need God!”.
But a thorough look, suggests the complete contradictory conclusion! Which is more clever? God every time breaks the usual system he created in order to inject a new species, or to make a wonderful system and mechanism that follow the rules he put for the system? Who put the evolution mechanism? Actually this evolution to happen, it needs some a source of what we call random changes which comes from the uncertain nature of quantum mechanism, and some physical laws that put limitations so selection can work, and material that can store information and a raw material for the bodies of species! did these things came on its own? . And in the evolution case, it doesn’t say that a wolf should appear or an elephant with a long trunk should appear. Evolution brings many possibilities, but only some paths evolution have come through. So there’s selectivity here. And to select it means u have a free will, and power. Who did that selection? Who selected that earth should be in this place on this distance from the sun? Isn’t there a selection here? Why physical laws are as they are now? Who put these laws? And the most compelling question who selected that you have your body not someone else’s body? and live in your country?! All these are selections that one didn’t chose! But God chose that! “Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases” (28:68)
In Islamic belief, nothing happens on its own, everything is done by God! Even rain, we know the mechanism that rain falls with, but if you believe that wind is the thing that makes rain falls, u are not a good believer of God! Wind doesn’t do anything on its own. It’s God who made wind to blow. And wind is just a cause that works according to the rules of God in the system God created.
Please guys, try to understand the whole picture, and see the wisdom behind things, not just to read the superficial shape of nature!
"They know but the outer (Things) in the life of this world: but of the end of things they are heedless." (30:7)

 

[darkendless]

I don’t understand how atheists think that when man discovers the mechanisms that things happen with, that this leads to that there’s no creator! I mean evolution theory simply says species has evolved from simpler shapes (chemical compounds in the beginning), and it suggest how this happened (Through mutation and natural selection). The superficial look suggests: “Oh, we have just discovered that new species appear naturally, we don’t need God!”.
But a thorough look, suggests the complete contradictory conclusion! Which is more clever? God every time breaks the usual system he created in order to inject a new species, or to make a wonderful system and mechanism that follow the rules he put for the system? Who put the evolution mechanism? Actually this evolution to happen, it needs some a source of what we call random changes which comes from the uncertain nature of quantum mechanism, and some physical laws that put limitations so selection can work, and material that can store information and a raw material for the bodies of species! did these things came on its own? . And in the evolution case, it doesn’t say that a wolf should appear or an elephant with a long trunk should appear. Evolution brings many possibilities, but only some paths evolution have come through. So there’s selectivity here. And to select it means u have a free will, and power. Who did that selection? Who selected that earth should be in this place on this distance from the sun? Isn’t there a selection here? Why physical laws are as they are now? Who put these laws? And the most compelling question who selected that you have your body not someone else’s body? and live in your country?! All these are selections that one didn’t chose! But God chose that! “Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases” (28:68)
In Islamic belief, nothing happens on its own, everything is done by God! Even rain, we know the mechanism that rain falls with, but if you believe that wind is the thing that makes rain falls, u are not a good believer of God! Wind doesn’t do anything on its own. It’s God who made wind to blow. And wind is just a cause that works according to the rules of God in the system God created.
Please guys, try to understand the whole picture, and see the wisdom behind things, not just to read the superficial shape of nature!
"They know but the outer (Things) in the life of this world: but of the end of things they are heedless." (30:7)

Using God to debunk evolution is about the same as using evolution to debunk God, you've just attacked evolution instead.
There is no free will, no choices, no selection, this creator you speak of is nothing more than a gap in the understanding of our evolution. We are beginning to see links in the chain, but so far the puzzle is incomplete. If evolution is proved and substantially accepted by most, that will knock out the whole "created the world in 7 days" theory put up by Abrahamic religions, thus making the bible look a lot more suspect.
God should not be substituted for lack of understanding!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I refuse to bow to such ploys.

Not asking you to. Just thought you would like to know that your comment could be considered an insult when I didn't think you meant it as one. However, it seems you don't think it's important to consider the feelings of others and it's your right to insult whoever you please whether you are aware of the insult or not. Too bad common courtesy is so hard to find these days.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you saying you wouldn't choose the most attractive of two mates, all else being equal?

Outstanding. "All else being equal" people are most attracted to those to whom they are most attracted. I bow to your superior grasp of the issue ... :bow:

 

[camanintx]

Outstanding. "All else being equal" people are most attracted to those to whom they are most attracted. I bow to your superior grasp of the issue ... :bow:

They why did you claim I was arguing from a position of ignorance? You still haven't explained that. If people will choose those they find most beautiful to be their mate, then how does evolution not select for beauty?

 

[Magic Man]

Circulus in demonstrando - you're begging the question at best. Please show me any statistic that correlates mating frequency and family size with the physical beauty.

I don't need statistics. It's common sense. It is also something that's studied in nature. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to see that, just as in animals like birds, a female chooses a male at least partly based on attractiveness. It's really a simple concept, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. Animals choose mates based on certain traits, one very important such trait is physical attractiveness. In some animals, like many birds, this attractiveness is determined by the brightness of their colors. In other animals there are other, different determinants for this attractiveness. Regardless of the determinants, though, the attractiveness is a major factor in whether or not an animal (including humans) is able to mate. If this doesn't help you grasp the concept, then I don't think I can help you understand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't need statistics. It's common sense.

Got it ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Circulus in demonstrando - you're begging the question at best. Please show me any statistic that correlates mating frequency and family size with the physical beauty.

It's not a statistic, but you might want to read Gould's essay about the Irish Elk in Dinosaur in a Haystack; in it, he talks about attractiveness as a part of natural selection and uses the Irish Elk as an example. He puts forward the claim (and IMO does a good job of supporting it) that the main pressure that caused the size of the Irish Elk antlers to get as large as they did was mating selection, i.e. females' preference for larger and larger antlers on their mates... even to the point that the antlers became unwieldy and a severe detriment in other areas of the elks' lives.

Personally, I don't find the Irish Elk's antlers to be more beautiful as they get larger (awesome and impressive, certainly, but no more beautiful than the antlers on smaller deer species), but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and the beholder in this case would have been a female Irish Elk.

 

[Magic Man]

Got it ...

Somehow, I doubt that you do, but, if that last explanation doesn't get through to you, I'm afraid nothing will. Although, hopefully 9/10ths explanation and example will help, but I doubt it. Thank you for that, though, Jeff.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not a statistic, but you might want to read Gould's essay about the Irish Elk in Dinosaur in a Haystack; in it, he talks about attractiveness as a part of natural selection and uses the Irish Elk as an example.

Read it (and understood it) some time ago. The problem, of course, is the semantic slight of hand being (no doubt inadvertently) employed in the thread. At issue was whether or not evolution progresses in the direction of ever greater beauty. Once you replace "beauty" with "sexual attraction" you reduce the discussion to a childish tautology, i.e., people tend to be sexually attracted to those to whom they are sexually attracted.

Again, I encourage you to produce objective criteria for 'beauty' and search for relevant supporting statistics while addressing how your position explains (and survives) the cultural votility of beauty criteria. I believe you'll discover that the only sustained preference beyond waste-hip-ratio involves, interestingly enough, koinophilia.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Somehow, I doubt that you do, but, if that last explanation doesn't get through to you, I'm afraid nothing will.

Poor suffering servant ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read it (and understood it) some time ago.

Cool. I think Gould's a good writer.

The problem, of course, is the semantic slight of hand being (no doubt inadvertently) employed in the thread. At issue was whether or not evolution progresses in the direction of ever greater beauty. Once you replace "beauty" with "sexual attraction" you reduce the discussion to a childish tautology, i.e., people tend to be sexually attracted to those to whom they are sexually attracted.

Not really: I think the conversation here has split off along two different paths:

- maro's claim that evolution proceeds in a direction of increasing beauty in some sort of objective "the world is now a prettier place" sense.

- the claim started by mball (I think) and supported by others, including me, that physical appearance (i.e. subjective "beauty" or lack thereof, IMO) is an important element of sexual attractiveness, which in turn is an important factor in natural selection.

I've already stated that the first one of these is false, and the second one is not a tautology if you replace the terms sexual attractiveness and beauty with each other. If beauty is some sort of objective, overarching characteristic, then, yes, this replacement would be incorrect, but defining beauty in this way would need some support of its own. I for one believe that beauty is only subjective, and that objective beauty is a meaningless term. Certainly, much of humanity shares certain ideas about what is beautiful, but even so, beauty really only does have meaning in the eye of the beholder.

Again, I encourage you to produce objective criteria for 'beauty' and search for relevant supporting statistics while addressing how your position explains (and survives) the cultural votility of beauty criteria.

Well, I won't be doing that, since I don't think that any objective criteria for beauty exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... physical appearance ... is an important element of sexual attractiveness, which in turn is an important factor in natural selection.

Yep: physical attractiveness is an important element of physical attractiveness. No argument there, no could there be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep: physical attractiveness is an important element of physical attractiveness. No argument there, no could there be.

The non-tautological bit was at the end, which I'll put in bold, since you apparently missed it the first time: physical attractiveness is an important factor in natural selection. This is important to remember when we ask ourselves why it would be advantageous for the Irish Elk to carry around an insanely large set of antlers, or why a peacock's tail (which would presumably make him easier prey for predators, and would take energy to grow that he could use in other ways to survive and thrive) wouldn't necessarily be a negative trait that would be selected against.