Thoughts on Atheism

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We understand you perfectly. And we 'disapprove' because the people you describe project intellectual cowardice.

No, you don't understand what atheism is. You demonstrate that repeatedly.

If you looked at this post, you've seen my description of intellectual cowardice. It varies from yours.

Yeah, I suggest we change that from 'strong and weak atheists' to 'atheists, and atheists pretending to be undecided so they don't have to defend their atheism'.

Atheists have no need to defend atheism. We simply don't believe in gods and have no need for religious rituals, nor priests, nor holy books.

 

[james bond]

@james bond

The simplest way to think about dialectical materialism is that it is the self-motion of nature. physical nature (materialism) moves as the result of internal contradictions in natural and social evolution (dialectics) and so does not need a creator or supernatural realm to explain how the universe works due to a "first cause". The combination of materialism and dialectics basically repeats the process of eliminating the need for a first cause in virtually every subject area by asserting all causes come from within nature and the universe itself rather than outside of it.

Dialectical Materialism however is not representative of Atheism as a whole which is a number of competing philosophies. There is occasional overlap, but it shouldn't be taken that the atheism of communist/Marxist-Leninist states is representative of "Western Atheism" which has its roots in traditions of free thought, scepticism and philosophical agnosticism. The Soviets would look at the "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris with a great deal of contempt, because while (for example) they criticise Islam, they continue to defend the existence of Islam and freedom of religion rather than argue for its systematic extermination in a process of forced secularisation:

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.(1929, Yemelyn Yarosalvsky, chair of the league of militant atheists).

The differences are pretty significant in that Marxist-Leninist Atheism is overtly political, whereas Western Atheism usually isn't. Even Fredrich Nietzsche who proclaimed "God is dead" and the necessity of an "over-man" who would overcome a post-christian morality, would not have gone as far as the Soviets. Even if Dialectical Materialism can be very interesting to imagine what a wholly "atheist" worldview may look like, it is not the only way to be an atheist and certianly not the most numerous since the collapse of the USSR.

Yes, looking for the first cause or the cause is the intelligent way to learn about how the universe or world works. I would not separate US or western atheism from Marxism or Lenin-Marxism though. Both start out with the abstract and we have evidence of dialectical materialism leading to communism. See my link below. The US will find out soon enough of where the "liberalism" is leading. Obama lead us to a more socialist state by eliminating borders in trade and immigration and providing free medicine and health care. Canada is even more socialist with single payer. I think many liberals want us to go that way leaving open the communist state promoted by Antifa. Liberals support Islam for no reason and think conservatives who oppose Islamic terrorism as racists. The terrorists have invaded the US in the past two or three years. There is more fear talk about the Soviets and how they have influenced the US. It's the start of another Cold War. Many people are dissatisfied with the high costs of US health care, the insurance industry that sets the rules, doctors and hospitals withholding care in lieu of profits and the big fear of having no health care whatsoever. Thus, radical change is forthcoming and it provides a breeding ground for political warfare or civil war. I wonder if cooler heads will prevail.

Materialism dialectics and atheism

 

[corynski]

Thoughts on atheism?

Hmm... I believe in Romans 1:20 so I think it's obvious that God created. To me atheism is abnormal thinking. That's about it, I guess. I just don't get it.

David, I do have a few questions if I may....... It's not obvious to me that 'God created', and for one reason. Why, and how, would or could an omniscient, omnipotent 'God' create such imperfection? The poster child for imperfection is the pair of children born united at the head..... How can one believe that a 'god' willingly and knowingly created this world two thousand years ago when we know humans lived and made tools millions of years ago? To me you evidence total submission to the unknown, and you're suggesting atheism is abnormal? And normal is believing that perfection willingly creates pain and misery for millions of people every day for this eternity we live in. How can religion possibly help anyone perceive reality? Or is that not important? How could a god knowingly create a world such as this, and be considered a 'good' god?
Religion raises more questions than it answers is my problem.

 

[james bond]

I think you're correct. I also think that that is reasonable when describing or defining atheists and atheism.



Communism may lead to atheism, but not the other way around. There is nothing about unbelief in gods that makes one opt for communism. You need to like the communist philosophy. I happen not to, so there is no risk of somebody like me, which is most atheists I encounter in cyberspace and meat space, choosing communism.



No, you don't need to convince of us anything.

I also won't try to convince you to give up Christianity. I'm content to explain why it's not for me.



I'm both. That's what weak atheism means - I don't believe because I have no reason to, but I also don't claim that gods don't exist. I realize that I cannot answer that question for lack of an experiment, observation, argument, or algorithm that rules logically possible gods out.



I have no reason to believe that and plenty of reason to believe the opposite.



Man is an ape. You probably meant quadripedal (brachiating) and extinct apes.



The fossil evidence alone is quite robust, but there is more than just fossil evidence. The genetic evidence is quite compelling as well. Together, they make a stronger case than either alone. Human chromosome 2 by itself is smoking gun evidence of common descent among .



Atheism is based on rational skepticism and the lack of sufficient reason to conclude that god exist.



Atheism is a failure to accept creationism, which is slightly different. If anybody ever falsifies the theory of naturalistic evolution, creationism will become the de facto best hypothesis for the world we find around us. In fact, it seems to me that it would be the only possibility remaining. Notice that this does not need to mean by a god. A race of sufficiently advanced extraterrestrials would be a logical possibility.

Whoever the creators were, natural or supernatural, we would have to agree that they went to great trouble to deceive us. Are you aware of any god that would do that? Perhaps Loki or some other malicious or mischievous god.

Christians would probably blame Satan, but it would mean that Satan created man and the earth, wouldn't it?

Your post has furcated into too many of your opinions. Just because you opine does not make it so. I'll pick a few of interest on atheism.

>>IANS: Atheism is based on rational skepticism and the lack of sufficient reason to conclude that god exist.<<

There is nothing rational about it. It's based on faith in no God. The lack of sufficient reason is not true. It's more faith in that this reason does not exist. There is no disproof of God which is what one would need to support atheism using the same logic as atheists give Christians or other believers.

>>Atheism is a failure to accept creationism, which is slightly different. If anybody ever falsifies the theory of naturalistic evolution, creationism will become the de facto best hypothesis for the world we find around us. In fact, it seems to me that it would be the only possibility remaining. Notice that this does not need to mean by a god. A race of sufficiently advanced extraterrestrials would be a logical possibility.<<

Many of Darwin's theories have been falsified. Most of it is based on scientific racism of the time. Even the professor selected to put Lucy together does not believe in the fossil as evidence of ape-man. The only part that has held up for evolution is natural selection which was founded by a creation scientist. Evolution only exists because atheist scientists have the money and power today. There is no evidence of extraterrestrials, so there is no logical possibility of such an event happening. It's sci-fi that you believe as the truth.

>>Christians would probably blame Satan, but it would mean that Satan created man and the earth, wouldn't it?<<

Satan may have influence, but it is man with his original sin that has caused the downfall. We will never be as perfect or good as Adam or Eve in this life because we are all flawed. One of the first steps is to accept our flaws and do something about it. Atheism is probably the extreme part of the imperfectness.

 

[Laika]

Yes, looking for the first cause or the cause is the intelligent way to learn about how the universe or world works. I would not separate US or western atheism from Marxism or Lenin-Marxism though. Both start out with the abstract and we have evidence of dialectical materialism leading to communism. See my link below. The US will find out soon enough of where the "liberalism" is leading. Obama lead us to a more socialist state by eliminating borders in trade and immigration and providing free medicine and health care. Canada is even more socialist with single payer. I think many liberals want us to go that way leaving open the communist state promoted by Antifa. Liberals support Islam for no reason and think conservatives who oppose Islamic terrorism as racists. The terrorists have invaded the US in the past two or three years. There is more fear talk about the Soviets and how they have influenced the US. It's the start of another Cold War. Many people are dissatisfied with the high costs of US health care, the insurance industry that sets the rules, doctors and hospitals withholding care in lieu of profits and the big fear of having no health care whatsoever. Thus, radical change is forthcoming and it provides a breeding ground for political warfare or civil war. I wonder if cooler heads will prevail.

Materialism dialectics and atheism

I certainly hope that cooler heads will prevail. We can't afford either a world war or an american civil war fought with nuclear weapons. victory would come at too high a price regardless of the cause and motivations of those who fight in such a war. It is impossible to see how there could be a just war fought to decide the future of humanity if it is also what brings humanity to an end.

I don't agree that liberalism or western atheism is communist, but I know where your coming from as both are connected with secularising ideas of "progress" leading to technological utopianism. They take different routes to get there, but the destination is often very similar.

 

[Laika]

Pay no heed to the imperialists' lapdog.

That's how you finish a 5 year plan in 4 years.

Well, Logic and reason are merely bourgeois inventions to create obstacles to the glorious revolution. We must not listen to them. Forward Comrades! Utopia is just around the corner if you believe it is true!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would not separate US or western atheism from Marxism or Lenin-Marxism though.

That's sort of the way I feel about theism. I wouldn't separate Western Christianity from the Aztec practice of ripping the beating hearts out of the chests of their victims to appease their gods. After all, theism is theism.

In exactly the same way that you say that atheism is conducive to or inevitably leads to communism, I am very concerned about theism eventually leading to barbaric, ritualistic, human sacrifices.

The lack of sufficient reason [to believe in gods] is not true.

Yeah it is. That is the reason why the more educated and skilled in critically evaluating evidence people become, the higher the rate of atheism.

Many of Darwin's theories have been falsified.

Darwin had only one theory, and it has never been falsified.

Most of it is based on scientific racism of the time.

All of it is based in observing nature. Racism characterizes American conservative Christianity these days. It has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, which makes no value judgments on the worth of a person.

Even the professor selected to put Lucy together does not believe in the fossil as evidence of ape-man.

You're aware that skeptics read your words, are you not? That means that unsupported claims are treated as somebody's opinion and given no more credence than that. And even were you're claim correct, and I'm not sure exactly what it is - somebody was selected to put Lucy together? - why would that matter? Lucy is clearly a transitional form between quadrupedal apes and man.

I can see that myself, and so can you. She had the dimensions of a chimp-like hominin (the word hominan may be replacing hominin to refer to the branch that separated from the last chimp-man common ancestor and led to man) - short, smallish cranial capacity - but stood upright. We know that by the placement of her foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which spinal cord tracts pass between the head and torso. It's on the inferior aspect of the skull like that of man, which is typical of a creature that stands upright and has its spinal cord running vertically relative to the ground. Quadrupedal animals have the foramen magnum located at the posterior aspect of the skull to best accommodate an animal whose spine is parallel to the ground.

The issue is settled science. Man evolved from other apes, or somebody went to a lot of trouble to make the world appear as if that happened. Not only would they have had to seed the earth with the fossils of creatures that are not living among us (extinct) in a morphologic series from more chimplike to more manlike and also arrange the radiodating elements in them to make them appear to range from older to more recent, but they also would have had to get into the DNA of all existing apes and make it what evolution would predict - nested hierarchies of similarities and differences.

Unless you find that reasonable and more likely, Darwin's idea about man evolving from non-human species is all we have, which is why it is considered settled science in the scientific community. Creationists may not agree, the scientific community doesn't care. The scientists only really care about what other experts in their fields think.

It's not just the creationists that they disregard. It's us as well - lay people who happen to agree with them. They're probably pleased about that, but otherwise don't care. We also have no impact on what they consider settled science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution only exists because atheist scientists have the money and power today.

Evolution exists because biological organisms in a species vary from one another and from their offspring, and some compete in the reproductive race better than others.

If your hypothesis were correct - that money and politics are what matter here - creationism would be the in dominant position. Christians have greater numbers than atheists, and so, have more money. They have the Discovery Institute and its underwriters. They control Congress and have an advocate in the White House.

Science and evolutionary theory hold the dominant position over creationism based on the relative merits of each.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for the available fossil, biological, and biogeographical evidence, includes a mechanism that accounts for the diversity and commonality of all life on earth, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition.

Creationism can do none of that.

And evolutionary theory is yet another child of the scientific method. Why would the method that elucidated and made available electric power, accurately predicts eclipses, generates vaccines against polio and smallpox, sent men to the moon and back, and gave us the Internet and global communications - why would that method suddenly break down at the point it contradict religious ideas, and only there?

It wouldn't and didn't. What broke down was religious dogma. It's not a conspiracy among atheists and scientists.

There is no evidence of extraterrestrials, so there is no logical possibility of such an event happening.

There's no evidence for angels, yet I doubt that you consider them logically impossible. To be logically impossible, something has to violate one of the fundamental laws of thought such as the principle of (non)contradiction: A thing can't have each of two mutually exclusive traits at the same time, like a married bachelor. Such things are logically impossible.

Extraterrestrials are not. In fact,most people consider their existence likely.

In the post above, you managed to get in associating atheists with communists, Darwin with racism. In this one, you tried to associate the scientific community with a conspiracy to promote evolution politically. Don't you think you'd have a better argument if at least a bit of it was promoting your beliefs rather than attacking the secular alternatives?

This approach is accomplishing nothing. Like the scientific community discusses above, what people with a religious agenda who demonstrate little interest or expertise in science think about science is irrelevant to those who have been become educated in it.

Isn't that how it should be?

 

[PureX]

If an entity exists that cannot be defined or perceived, and is beyond human comprehension, then we cannot profitably consider or discuss such an entity.

God can be both defined and perceived ... as a mystery. As the 'ultimate mystery'. The one that cannot be "solved" by humans.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You're referring to exploring that which cannot be defined, perceived, or understood, remember? How do you expect to grasp such a thing?

It's called "paradox". The closer we get to "the truth", the more paradox we tend to experience. Because the truth is a holistic singularity, and the human mind works through duality (comparing and contrasting information sets). The closer we get to that holistic singularity, the more paradoxical it appears to the human mind.

Incidentally, one doesn't need to inject gods into a discussion of the universe's mysteries.

"God" is the term most people use to refer to that existential mystery (and all others). All you atheists are really complaining about is the use of that traditional word, and it's inference that the mystery involves an intelligent agency.

What do you think that you know about gods for your efforts that you wouldn't know without having walked "straight into it"? How has your ignorance been mitigated?

Faith in God isn't about "learning about God", really. God remains the ultimate mystery. It's about learning about ourselves. Learning what really matters to us, and learning how to move through life more in accordance with those concerns.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, looking for the first cause or the cause is the intelligent way to learn about how the universe or world works.

This seems a flawed way to understand the natural world.
The goal of seeking "first cause" presumes there is one.
It follows that everything one sees & imagines will serve that possibly false goal.
A better way...
Observe the world.
Form theories about how things relate, & test them.
Recognize that all theories stand ready to be replaced by better understandings.

I would not separate US or western atheism from Marxism or Lenin-Marxism though. Both start out with the abstract and we have evidence of dialectical materialism leading to communism.

This is absurd.
Using jargon & the opinions of others does not prove atheism leads to communism.
Criticizing "the abstract" is meaningless.

Suggestion....
Present your own formal argument that atheism leads to communism.
We shall see how your premises & logic hold up.

The US will find out soon enough of where the "liberalism" is leading. Obama lead us to a more socialist state by eliminating borders in trade and immigration and providing free medicine and health care.

There's no connection between atheism & "liberalism".
Note also that the politicians pushing liberalism are overwhelmingly Xian.

Canada is even more socialist with single payer.

Canuckistan is actually more capitalistic than Americastan.
Many years ago, it passed the US in the Heritage Foundation's index of economic liberty.
And note that socialism is characterized by the people controlling the means of production,
while health care there is merely a social safety net. Definitions matter....so use them.

 

[DavidFirth]

David, I do have a few questions if I may....... It's not obvious to me that 'God created', and for one reason. Why, and how, would or could an omniscient, omnipotent 'God' create such imperfection? The poster child for imperfection is the pair of children born united at the head..... How can one believe that a 'god' willingly and knowingly created this world two thousand years ago when we know humans lived and made tools millions of years ago? To me you evidence total submission to the unknown, and you're suggesting atheism is abnormal? And normal is believing that perfection willingly creates pain and misery for millions of people every day for this eternity we live in. How can religion possibly help anyone perceive reality? Or is that not important? How could a god knowingly create a world such as this, and be considered a 'good' god?
Religion raises more questions than it answers is my problem.

Job 40

 

[corynski]

Job 40

DavidFirth....... Where is there any reality to Job 40? It's all fiction.........

 

[DavidFirth]

DavidFirth....... Where is there any reality to Job 40? It's all fiction.........

Opinion noted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God can be both defined and perceived ... as a mystery. As the 'ultimate mystery'. The one that cannot be "solved" by humans.

God can be defined however you like. I can't use that definition. I define gods as either sentient universe creators (Jehovah, the deist god) or members of assorted pantheons (Apollo, Thor). If you shrink or expand the definition beyond these, the word begins to be less useful.

Also, I don't God as the ultimate mystery. Even more mysterious is what allows there to be a god, what keeps the god intact rather than dissipating into unconscious gas or whatever.

The closer we get to "the truth", the more paradox we tend to experience.

Not my experience. The closer I get to truth, the more I understand and the more clear things become. Of course, what you're calling truth probably doesn't meet my criteria. Truth for me is the quality that facts possess, facts being linguistic strings that accurately map some aspect of reality. Metaphysical speculations can never rise to that level since they aren't connected to discernible reality

All you atheists are really complaining about is the use of that traditional word, and it's inference that the mystery involves an intelligent agency.

This atheist doesn't care how you use words. If I disagree with you, I'll tell you so and in what way, but I have no interest in changing your mind if you don't. How would that help me?

 

[idav]

I'm going to share some thoughts on atheism in this thread. I expect it will throw up some unexpected responses because my views on atheism are NOT representative of many atheists on the forum. It may be useful nonetheless to share and see how things go.

Firstly, Atheism is (for me) the explicit rejection of the existence of god. the reason for this is that god is something that is not and cannot be observed, but is instead inferred by an intellectual error. I realise that is not a view widely held on RF, with most atheists professing a "lack of belief" and I respect many differences arise from that.

Second, this particular variety of Atheism is, in a sense, dogmatic and a "faith". There isn't absolute categorical proof for the validity of this view and many would dispute that as a basis for legitimate belief. If all belief is the product of man and is therefore as finite as man's experience, both within their individual lifetime and the historical accumulation of experience. There is no god and no omniscience. There is no absolute standard of truth or knowledge. Much of the problem of scepticism is that is seeks for absolute where there cannot be one. It continues to inherit a belief in absolute conviction from religion, when in fact none is possible. knowledge is finite and imperfect, as a product and a reflection of its human creators.

Third, Atheism entails a worldview and is in a sense a "religion", in that rejecting god means rejecting the idea of creation. If God traditionally performed the role of "creator" of nature, society and morality, these things have to be re-evaluated until we reach an atheistic worldview. Atheism is therefore not a singular isolated statement about whether god exists or not, but is a broader philosophical conception about how man, nature and society exist without a deity.

Fourth, Atheism therefore has the risk of nihilism. If there is no god, because god is a creator, it brings into question the very source of creation. It brings about questions of the nature of meaning and purpose of existence, of our own sense of importance and our role in the universe. This is not an inevitable result of such atheism, but is certainly a factor when realising the necessity for man creating his own values.

Fourth, there is no "a-historical" atheism. one of the things that comes up a great deal when people try to define atheism is they reach for the dictionary. This however fails to take into account that how we define words, logic, standards of truth and knowledge, are all ultimately products of history and are historically relative to the times they live in. There is therefore no "eternal" atheism. atheism has evolved though history and will continue to evolve. people who believe that "logic" validates atheism fail to take into account that logic is also the product of men's minds and of historical evolution. logic is at least in part relative and subjective even if it may have an objective content for understanding the relationship between things and properties.

Finally, atheism means the possibility of self-deification. If man created god, he projected his own humanity into the divine. There is no absolute separation between the "human" and the "divine". In a sense therefore, man can live in the pursuit of an absolute but can never attain it. Man can aspire to be gods, increasing human powers of creation (and destruction) as a source of meaning and purpose. However human being will never become gods in an absolute sense, but the pursuit of a "purer" or "fuller" expression of the meaning of humanity is what is meaningful in life. In creating ourselves, we possess and exercise the divine power of creation.

As any thread on atheism is by definition controversial, I will make a disclaimer that these are my views on atheism and are NOT meant to tell other atheists what they are or believe. Atheism is not a single monolithic idea, but is a conclusion that can be reached by several paths. Most Atheists on RF will do so by a "lack of belief" based on a "lack of evidence" for god and therefore withhold belief. That is not how I understand or experience my own atheism however.

Any Thoughts or Suggestions? Anything you'd want me to clarify?

I meant to get tot his thread eventually. I think we are pretty much on the same page with a lot of this stuff. For me it's that atheism can be a much more meaningful answer than simply "not theist". Everyone can look at reality in wonder and awe without going to the next step of believing said reality is divine. As a natural pantheistic I do tend to agree with atheists a lot of times but that is more non-consequential to the actual question, is there are there god(s).

 

[james bond]

That's sort of the way I feel about theism. I wouldn't separate Western Christianity from the Aztec practice of ripping the beating hearts out of the chests of their victims to appease their gods. After all, theism is theism.

In exactly the same way that you say that atheism is conducive to or inevitably leads to communism, I am very concerned about theism eventually leading to barbaric, ritualistic, human sacrifices.



Yeah it is. That is the reason why the more educated and skilled in critically evaluating evidence people become, the higher the rate of atheism.



Darwin had only one theory, and it has never been falsified.



All of it is based in observing nature. Racism characterizes American conservative Christianity these days. It has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, which makes no value judgments on the worth of a person.



You're aware that skeptics read your words, are you not? That means that unsupported claims are treated as somebody's opinion and given no more credence than that. And even were you're claim correct, and I'm not sure exactly what it is - somebody was selected to put Lucy together? - why would that matter? Lucy is clearly a transitional form between quadrupedal apes and man.

I can see that myself, and so can you. She had the dimensions of a chimp-like hominin (the word hominan may be replacing hominin to refer to the branch that separated from the last chimp-man common ancestor and led to man) - short, smallish cranial capacity - but stood upright. We know that by the placement of her foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which spinal cord tracts pass between the head and torso. It's on the inferior aspect of the skull like that of man, which is typical of a creature that stands upright and has its spinal cord running vertically relative to the ground. Quadrupedal animals have the foramen magnum located at the posterior aspect of the skull to best accommodate an animal whose spine is parallel to the ground.

The issue is settled science. Man evolved from other apes, or somebody went to a lot of trouble to make the world appear as if that happened. Not only would they have had to seed the earth with the fossils of creatures that are not living among us (extinct) in a morphologic series from more chimplike to more manlike and also arrange the radiodating elements in them to make them appear to range from older to more recent, but they also would have had to get into the DNA of all existing apes and make it what evolution would predict - nested hierarchies of similarities and differences.

Unless you find that reasonable and more likely, Darwin's idea about man evolving from non-human species is all we have, which is why it is considered settled science in the scientific community. Creationists may not agree, the scientific community doesn't care. The scientists only really care about what other experts in their fields think.

It's not just the creationists that they disregard. It's us as well - lay people who happen to agree with them. They're probably pleased about that, but otherwise don't care. We also have no impact on what they consider settled science.

>>IANS:That's sort of the way I feel about theism. I wouldn't separate Western Christianity from the Aztec practice of ripping the beating hearts out of the chests of their victims to appease their gods. After all, theism is theism.

In exactly the same way that you say that atheism is conducive to or inevitably leads to communism, I am very concerned about theism eventually leading to barbaric, ritualistic, human sacrifices.<<

Not the same. Atheism still leads to Communism today. What you stated was all in the ancient past for theists and yet you can't get past it.

>>Yeah it is. That is the reason why the more educated and skilled in critically evaluating evidence people become, the higher the rate of atheism.<<

More educated and skilled in critically evaluating evidence should lead more people to God. It's the lack of or being tricked into think that you are "critically evaluating evidence" is what leads people to atheism. Atheism is part of fake news and fake science.

>>You're aware that skeptics read your words, are you not? That means that unsupported claims are treated as somebody's opinion and given no more credence than that. And even were you're claim correct, and I'm not sure exactly what it is - somebody was selected to put Lucy together? - why would that matter? Lucy is clearly a transitional form between quadrupedal apes and man.

I can see that myself, and so can you. She had the dimensions of a chimp-like hominin (the word hominan may be replacing hominin to refer to the branch that separated from the last chimp-man common ancestor and led to man) - short, smallish cranial capacity - but stood upright. We know that by the placement of her foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which spinal cord tracts pass between the head and torso. It's on the inferior aspect of the skull like that of man, which is typical of a creature that stands upright and has its spinal cord running vertically relative to the ground. Quadrupedal animals have the foramen magnum located at the posterior aspect of the skull to best accommodate an animal whose spine is parallel to the ground.

The issue is settled science. Man evolved from other apes, or somebody went to a lot of trouble to make the world appear as if that happened. Not only would they have had to seed the earth with the fossils of creatures that are not living among us (extinct) in a morphologic series from more chimplike to more manlike and also arrange the radiodating elements in them to make them appear to range from older to more recent, but they also would have had to get into the DNA of all existing apes and make it what evolution would predict - nested hierarchies of similarities and differences.<<

I aware of what you said here, but you thinking that it's settled science is baffling. Bill Nye uses the same terms. If one thinks critically, we all know that science is never settled. It's the best theory and in the case of Lucy and ape-men as our common ancestor is a misleading theory. Shouldn't apes be extinct if this was the case? I'll buy having a few ape-men still around like on this forum ha ha. It's like the steady state universe (eternal) which was not true. You'll get your common ancestor answer as correct on a test today, but it's just not true.

 

[james bond]

This seems a flawed way to understand the natural world.
The goal of seeking "first cause" presumes there is one.
It follows that everything one sees & imagines will serve that possibly false goal.
A better way...
Observe the world.
Form theories about how things relate, & test them.
Recognize that all theories stand ready to be replaced by better understandings.

You seem to equate cause or first cause with Christianity. It's part of critical thinking just like the scientific method. Look for the cause and what you find will lead the investigation.

Observation is just a part of it. You see, the first witness of Genesis was the man himself -- God. He had people write a book about it...

This is absurd.
Using jargon & the opinions of others does not prove atheism leads to communism.
Criticizing "the abstract" is meaningless.

Suggestion....
Present your own formal argument that atheism leads to communism.
We shall see how your premises & logic hold up.

This is abstraction. Marx used it to convince the masses of Communism. Part of it is to get people to not believe in the truth and God.

There's no connection between atheism & "liberalism".
Note also that the politicians pushing liberalism are overwhelmingly Xian.

Canuckistan is actually more capitalistic than Americastan.
Many years ago, it passed the US in the Heritage Foundation's index of economic liberty.
And note that socialism is characterized by the people controlling the means of production,
while health care there is merely a social safety net. Definitions matter....so use them.

Sure there is. Atheism is part of liberalism today and socialism and communism will be a part tomorrow. Maybe Sir Isaac Newton and I hypothesizing the end of the world coming in 2060 isn't so far off.

Liberals have their biased wikipedia, dictionary.com, fake news and fake science today that it's no wonder you're not as well grounded as Christians.

We don't want people to have control of production. We want other people to have it, as well. We want competition and free markets. We want God... not deaf ears.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to equate cause or first cause with Christianity.

No.
While Xians bring it up here often, it's far from limited to them.

It's part of critical thinking just like the scientific method. Look for the cause and what you find will lead the investigation.

Observation is just a part of it. You see, the first witness of Genesis was the man himself -- God. He had people write a book about it...

Which Bible?
Which Translation?
Why not books & myths from other religions?

The Bible is utterly useless as a science text.

This is abstraction.

What does this mean?

Marx used it to convince the masses of Communism. Part of it is to get people to not believe in the truth and God.

Marx was a power hungry fool, who appealed to the desperately
poor, parasites, & effete intellectual fools. This is just as evil Xian
clergy who use the church to molest children & line their own pockets.
Anything can be misused.
But this doesn't automatically mean that the misused thing is itself wrong.
Science, religion, law, & even tasty cured meats can be exploited for ill.

Atheism is part of liberalism today and socialism and communism will be a part tomorrow.

I find the Pope to be far to socialistic for my taste.
Yet his Xianity fuels this authoritarian bent.
The atheists I know IRL are overwhelmingly fans of capitalism, & loathe modern liberalism.
Note also that the worst of liberals are Xian, eg, Obama, Trump.

Liberals have their biased wikipedia, dictionary.com, fake news and fake science today that it's no wonder you're not as well grounded as Christians.

I'll take Wikipedia over your Conservapedia any day.

We don't want people to have control of production. We want other people to have it, as well. We want competition and free markets. We want God... not deaf ears.

There is no link between God & capitalism.
Your Jesus even opposed money changers & merchants.
He sounds like one of those Antifa thugs.

Atheism & capitalism go together like bacon & eggs.
Both are about having no centralized authority dictating everyone's actions.
We all interact voluntarily, forging our own relationships with each other.

But Xianity....you have a powerful singular dictator who micro-manages your
lives, & threatens eternal torture of the most cruel & unusual variety. No one
elected him....he appointed himself your total ruler & punisher. He sounds a
lot like Lenin & Hitler. Why on Earth would you want an enslaved life like that?
Oh, yes....the promise of paradise in the afterlife.
But even this promise of reward can't rein in the likes of Roy Moore.
So much for Xian morals, eh.

 

[james bond]

No.
While Xians bring it up here often, it's far from limited to them.

Which Bible?
Which Translation?
Why not books & myths from other religions?

The Bible is utterly useless as a science text.

What does this mean?

Marx was a power hungry fool, who appealed to the desperately
poor, parasites, & effete intellectual fools. This is just as evil Xian
clergy who use the church to molest children & line their own pockets.
Anything can be misused.
But this doesn't automatically mean that the misused thing is itself wrong.
Science, religion, law, & even tasty cured meats can be exploited for ill.

I find the Pope to be far to socialistic for my taste.
Yet his Xianity fuels this authoritarian bent.
The atheists I know IRL are overwhelmingly fans of capitalism, & loathe modern liberalism.
Note also that the worst of liberals are Xian, eg, Obama, Trump.

I'll take Wikipedia over your Conservapedia any day.

There is no link between God & capitalism.
Your Jesus even opposed money changers & merchants.
He sounds like one of those Antifa thugs.

Atheism & capitalism go together like bacon & eggs.
Both are about having no centralized authority dictating everyone's actions.
We all interact voluntarily, forging our own relationships with each other.

But Xianity....you have a powerful singular dictator who micro-manages your
lives, & threatens eternal torture of the most cruel & unusual variety. No one
elected him....he appointed himself your total ruler & punisher. He sounds a
lot like Lenin & Hitler. Why on Earth would you want an enslaved life like that?
Oh, yes....the promise of paradise in the afterlife.
But even this promise of reward can't rein in the likes of Roy Moore.
So much for Xian morals, eh.

Which Bible?
Which Translation?
Why not books & myths from other religions?

Any of the valid ones. Pick one and I'll let you know. The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible. That's why Genesis is so important.

What does this mean?

It means he discusses what seems irrelevant to Communism, but it's a key part.

Atheism & capitalism go together like bacon & eggs.
Both are about having no centralized authority dictating everyone's actions.
We all interact voluntarily, forging our own relationships with each other.

Nyet, comrade. Not atheism and capitalism, but atheism leading to communism. Once there, then you have your bacon, eggs and Communist state. What will become important is the state such as worker state or socialist state before the communist state. Already, we have Antifa in the US, Bernie Sanders running for POTUS and the history of Communism in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam and other small countries. We have socialist countries like Portugal, Sri Lanka, India, Guinea-Bissau, and Tanzania.

Eh, you've been brainwashed by the libs on Christianity. No use going there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any of the valid ones. Pick one and I'll let you know. The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible. That's why Genesis is so important.

Everyone thinks their book is the valid one....Mormons, Xians, Muslims, etc, etc.
How would an ignorant non-believer be convinced that one beats all the others?

Nyet, comrade. Not atheism and capitalism, but atheism leading to communism. Once there, then you have your bacon, eggs and Communist state. What will become important is the state such as worker state or socialist state before the communist state. Already, we have Antifa in the US, Bernie Sanders running for POTUS and the history of Communism in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam and other small countries. We have socialist countries like Portugal, Sri Lanka, India, Guinea-Bissau, and Tanzania.

Eh, you've been brainwashed by the libs on Christianity. No use going there.

If atheism led to communism, then the atheists I know would go there.
But they're almost all capitalists...& even the 2 Marxist atheists I know,
practice capitalism with a vengeance (perhaps cuz they're Jewish).

You might be able to make a case that it's useful for communists to
exploit atheism in order to stomp out a perceived threat of religion.
You should start there.