Big Ol' Hairy Religion vs. Athiest Debate

[anonemouse 1]

Bypassing everything that happend while I was MIA and addressing OP:Generally speaking, atheism is a not believed in dieties, or being nontheistic, hence a (without) theism (belief in the existince of god(s)). Atheists do not believe in theism.

An agnostic, long story short, is someone who cannot state that god(s) exist or do not exist because of some reason, e.g. they have investigated and find that there is no proof, or they do not believe that humans are capable of comprehending the truth, etc. The agnostic will often say I don't think there's a god out there, but there has to be something... we'll just never know what.

Of course, then you get into agnostic atheism, agnostic theism, etc.

There are also different degrees of atheism, not all "atheists" believe the same thing. When referring to the atheist population there are two (generally accetped) types of atheists: a weak atheist (implicit atheism/agnostic atheism/passive atheism/etc.) would be someone who lacks belief in any gods, period. Then there's the strong atheists (gnostic atheism/active atheism/etc.), who is someone who denies would be someone who denies the existence of god(s).

There's actually very important difference here. Saying

'I do not believe in god(s)" and saying "God(s) do not exist" imply entire different abilities and competencies. All atheists are weak atheists because all, on some fundamental level, will say that they do not believe in god(s), but do not try to prove that god(s) do not exist - for them it is enough that they do not believe. Some atheists go the extra mile, so to speak, and believe/state that god(s) cannot exist, which would imply they might have some means of proving it.

And in some cases, most weak atheists are also strong atheists with some gods. As one commonly used example, I don't know single atheist who would not say "Zeus did not exist."

Ok so umm yeah, not all atheists believe the same thing.

I will use my husband for example. He does not believe in the traditional god image. He is more a weak atheist than strong, but definitely not a theist. As for UFOs - I'm going to broaden that to general "other intelligent life in the universe". He absolutely believes there is other intelligent life. He does not see it as any deity's doing. He sees it as something inevitable given the expanse of space, the abundance of raw materials out there, etc. For him, it's a matter of statistics, time, and change in the form of cosmic radiation causing mutations. Maybe some people call that "god" - but in his eyes they're totally separate.

Let's take ghosts as another example. He does not believe in the traditional idea of a "ghost" -- as in, a lost soul or whatever you want to call it. He does think that sometimes iunexplainable things occur. To him, it makes a lot more sense that there might be residual energy (maybe this is a "soul" to theists, but it is not to atheists, e.g. the energy that allows for consciousness is converted into energy that does not). He also believes in the multiverse model - that we could have parallel universes leaking into each other or that perahps we're even receiving leaks from the four dimensions (that we're aware of - maybe more - some scientists are theorizing as many as 11 in recent times).

To show the contrast of theories, a different atheist - having never experienced anything they would classify as a ghost, or having seen reasonable evidence - would simply believe that anyone who sees "ghosts" is having mental disturbances.

Most atheists do not believe in karma in the traditional sense (and let's face it, probably 99% of the people who use the word karma, and have not studied Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/Sikh teachings, don't really know what the word means. Instead we've adopted a sort of colloquial meaning of it to state "you reap what you sow" in a shadily vengeful sort of way.)

One way an atheist might explain (colloquail) karma is that mean people who do mean things can only do them for so long before they're going to put into effect some action or behavior that will reciprocate their actions.

Atheists (none that I've met or spoken with, anyway - though it would be interesting to hear one's explanations/descriptions) do not believe in reincarnation. Reincaration is something that cannot be adequately proven (remember - the typical atheist has a heckuva head on their shoulders, and is not opposed to believing in anything that can be sufficnetly proven). Lots of things have been done to try and prove the idea of reincanation (e.g. MacDougall's work in the early 1900s and the ensuing documentaries) - none of them sufficient - e.g. had MacDougall's work been accurate/irrefutable, it would not necessarily imply anything with religious implications.

To an atheist, when you die, you die. You completely an utterly cease to exist, at least in any "real" way. (E.g. maybe there are still electrical impulses within your body, because it has not yet dissipated out... you can "live on" in the memories of those who loved you, etc). There is no afterlife, you are not reunited with loved ones, etc. To an atheist, these are ideas concocted to make people feel better about death. As I've said before, I think having a belief in the afterlife lessens the sting of loss. If you truly believe you will be reacquainted in a better place, then loss will only hurt so much, whereas if you believe that's it, nice knowing you - differetn scenario.

Hope this has helped to shed some light.

Ditto all of that. Great post, Wheetsin!

[anonemouse 1]

Darwin himself was extremely concerned with the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record, but felt confident that once more fossils were discovered, transitional forms would arise. Where are they?

From TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. 
   
2. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
   
3. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
   
4. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
   
5. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
   
6. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
   
7. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
   
8. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
   
9. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
   
10. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
    
11. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
    
12. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. 
   
2. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
   
3. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
   
4. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
   
5. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
   
6. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
   
7. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
   
8. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
   
9. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
   
10. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. 
   
2. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
   
3. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
   
4. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

Science considers those to be transitional forms. Whether creationists do or not is irrelevant.

[Chelle B 0]

From TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Science considers those to be transitional forms. Whether creationists do or not is irrelevant.

"Irrelevant"???

[anonemouse 1]

"Irrelevant"???

Essentially, yes. Think about it: Do believers in God let Atheists define words in their scriptures? Do engineers let chefs define words in common engineering usage? Do computer programmers let beauticians define their language? No, they don't.

[gadgetlady 4]

I disagree that those are transitional forms -- and I doubt we will ever agree on it. I know there's something we will agree on, though: science has NEVER been able to replicate in a lab any transition -- only mutation or degradation of an existing form.

[anonemouse 1]

I disagree that those are transitional forms -- and I doubt we will ever agree on it. I know there's something we will agree on, though: science has NEVER been able to replicate in a lab any transition -- only mutation or degradation of an existing form.

Well, science says that those are transitional forms. And really, when it comes to science, who's better qualified to to say whether or not something fits a scientific definition, scientists or people that have a vested interest in not believing it?

Of course they haven't shown transition in a laboratory. Transition takes thousands, millions of years. It doesn't happen overnight.

[gadgetlady 4]

Isn't the test of science that it's repeatable under controlled conditions?

[Chelle B 0]

Essentially, yes. Think about it: Do believers in God let Atheists define words in their scriptures? Do engineers let chefs define words in common engineering usage? Do computer programmers let beauticians define their language? No, they don't.

Good thing we have no laws governing our beliefs and views on life, love, religion, and politics.

Just giving you a hard time in a friendly way. I have a particular dislike for the word irrelevant, for other reasons.

[anonemouse 1]

Isn't the test of science that it's repeatable under controlled conditions?

Yes, it is. But you can't expect scientists to repeat a million-year process in a month or even a year, can you? I'm sure if we could do a million-year experiment, we could repeat it. The fact is, we don't have the time. Fund a million-year experiment, and I'm sure it would be proven.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, it is. But you can't expect scientists to repeat a million-year process in a month or even a year, can you? I'm sure if we could do a million-year experiment, we could repeat it. The fact is, we don't have the time. Fund a million-year experiment, and I'm sure it would be proven.

In other words, it is a theory which can never be proven, but which you also believe can never be dis-proven?

[anonemouse 1]

Good thing we have no laws governing our beliefs and views on life, love, religion, and politics.

Just giving you a hard time in a friendly way. I have a particular dislike for the word irrelevant, for other reasons.

Oh yeah, I'm not meaning that in a hateful way or trying to make you think someone's beliefs aren't important. But the fact is, scientists should be the only people defining scientific theories and words, not lay-people, just like in other fields. For example, when you are talking about a fishery, a lake and a reservoir are very similar concepts, but have very different definitions. A lay-person may call both a "lake" and may define them the same way if asked, but that doesn't mean that a "lake" and a "reservoir" are the same thing, when you get right down to it.

[anonemouse 1]

In other words, it is a theory which can never be proven, but which you also believe can never be dis-proven?

Hey, fund a million-year study and we'll see the results in a million years. The fact is, current evidence points to the accuracy of the theory. If at some time, a million-year study takes place, and the theory is proven wrong, it's no skin off my back. That's science. But right now, the evidence that we have indicates that the theory is correct. I'm all for someone attempting to disprove it, but shouldn't that be done to the standards of science, not the standards of creationism? And in science, you need to follow science's interpretations and definitions used by that science, not the interpretations and definitions used by creationists.

[gadgetlady 4]

What about Creation Scientists who are PhD's and the like? Should we not listen to them simply because we disagree with their premise? What about scientists who used to believe in evolution and don't any more?

[anonemouse 1]

In other words, it is a theory which can never be proven, but which you also believe can never be dis-proven?

All scientific experiments can, in theory, be disproven. But again, get that million-year experiment funded, and our descendents will be able to make the determination. Right now, from the evidence that we have, it's a very valid scientific theory. It's not like we, as scientists, are holding up a single organism and saying, "HERE, HERE is the evidence for evolution!" There's LOTS of fossil evidence out there, if people are willing to open their eyes and look and use scientific definitions for scientific terms.

[Chelle B 0]

Oh yeah, I'm not meaning that in a hateful way or trying to make you think someone's beliefs aren't important. But the fact is, scientists should be the only people defining scientific theories and words, not lay-people, just like in other fields. For example, when you are talking about a fishery, a lake and a reservoir are very similar concepts, but have very different definitions. A lay-person may call both a "lake" and may define them the same way if asked, but that doesn't mean that a "lake" and a "reservoir" are the same thing, when you get right down to it.

One of the reasons Bill Gates was so successful with Microsoft was that he chose not to staff his company with techies. For example, Nathan Myrvold, former Microsoft CTO, was a Master Chef. Gates looked for incredible thinkers - and the interview process often lasted 8 hours. Anyone who displayed a closed mind about anything was not considered for a job. I worked there in the mid 90's and loved it. Arguments happened all the time, but you rarely saw anyone try to cut people off. If you couldn't see the other side of an argument, then how could you make yours airtight? We often had to take the opposing view in a discussion to move on - great tactic. A good book to read is "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?: Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle -- How the World's Smartest Companies Select the Most Creative Thinkers".

It would make for a really interesting discussion if we each took the other viewpoint and really went to bat on it. Over margaritas of course (can you tell it's been months since I had one?).

And nothing in life is really irrelevant, IMHO. Amazing ideas come from the most unexpected sources.