Evolution Vs. Creation, why are threads so popular?

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=Mr_Spinkles]First of all: martha, your thread is neither naive nor childish. You bring up some very good points.[PART QUOTE=Mr_Spinkles]


Yes! - I agree completely

I think these threads are so popular because scientist are happy with the idea of evolution - that is something tangible, that they can measure, and see in microcosm; therefore it satisfies their need of 'proof positive'

Creation is a different matter completely; the scientists don't like creation, because however far back you go there is still an 'unknown quantity'- and scientists don't much like unknowns - that's why they use lovelly words like infinity, absolute zero (abstracts that can only be imagined - never witnessed - even if they have reached - 272.8888 degrees - -273 cannot be reached and they therefore cannot KNOW)

God is unmeasurable, undefinable and therefore an 'emotional abstract' to the scientist.

Since we are all, to some extent curious, one of the questions that we often think of is :- "what are we, where & how did we start?"

And that is when the rot sets in; the Religious is O.K with creation, and most (a guess) accept evolution - so they are happy.

The scientist can only accept the evolution bit - and becomes frustrated and angry with the Religious person for he is (In the scientific mind ) committing the worst sin in science - accepting an unknown quantity. Foul! Horror!
Unless i am wrong, and things haven't changed since I did science, catalysts are an enigma - they have to be present for certain chemicals to combine (without them, there would be no reaction) - and yet, at the end ogf the experiment, the catalyst remains, unchanged......... Now, science accepts that - because it happens in a lab - right in front of their eyes - they cannot deny it. But they can Deny God, because he doesnt want to be seen in Labs.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

If I need to list books written against atheism, oh goodness... They have been written for hundreds--probably thousands--of years.

A book that I haven't read but is supposed to be great is "Gods of Atheism". A simpler shorter book is "Mere Christianity", which although it doesn't even intend to, deals with debunking atheism quite a bit.

 

[s2a]

If I need to list books written against atheism, oh goodness... They have been written for hundreds--probably thousands--of years.

A book that I haven't read but is supposed to be great is "Gods of Atheism". A simpler shorter book is "Mere Christianity", which although it doesn't even intend to, deals with debunking atheism quite a bit.

Interesting.

How does one "debunk" the *absence*, or non-acceptance of a claim?

Last time I looked (being a self-professed atheist and all):

"atheism"; n. -

"1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods."
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

"1:the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
- WordNet ® 2.0

Now I'll grant that there are certain religions/superstitions/myths that claim/worship of no god(s) - Buddhism springs to mind first - but Buddhism (as example) does claim belief(s) in supernatural cause/effect outcomes/relationships (albeit absent a specified or named "divine being", "entity", or "god"). Buddhists are unquestionably "religious", yet are by definition, "atheist".

[Note: FWIW, the God of the Bible is also an "atheist", in that He doesn't "believe in", or otherwise accept - the notion/possibility/claims of other gods. He simply IS (to the exclusion of all other potentialities/possibilities)...and that seems to be enough for Him].

If we narrow the realm of "debunkability" to non-religious atheists, I truly do wonder in what matter or form one "debunks" an utter and complete *absence* of claims. In theory, "debunking" is best done utilizing critical thinking, reason, logic, and objective evaluation of presented evidence.

"The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries."
- Madalyn Murray O’Hair, "American Rationalist", Volume 17, Number 3, September/October 1962.
The rest: [ http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html ]

How indeed, does anyone "debunk" the *absence* of any claim?

The only impotent, facile, and puerile "arguments" I've ever encountered regarding "debunking" of an atheist's non-acceptance of claims of attributed supernatural cause/effect, are the poorly manifested and readily deconstructed Strawmen that religionists/spiritualists/mythologists build and knock over (even before any atheist has been introduced into the debate).

Despite every repetitively shouted (as if repetition and volume alone established fact)) attempt to "label" atheism (or "science", or "rationalism") as a "religion", not one logical "parallel drawn" has ever passed critical muster. Why theists insist on continually offering an unsupported, meritless, and baseless premise ("Atheism is religion too!") is beyond me. BY VERY DEFINITION (if words have any meaning at all) atheism is not comparable in any way, form or measure to "religion".

Atheism makes no claims beyond those that can be supported by available (natural) evidence, and what that evidence *may* infer or suggest as a matter of possible/probable fact. No claims of absolute (or "ultimate") certitude are EVER offered. No claims of supernatural cause/effect are EVER offered.

How does one "debunk" someone who says "I don't believe in Santa Claus"? Is that statement a "claim", or rejection of a claim made?

I'll readily concede that atheists operate from a particularly non-committal, or "safe" ideological/philosophical perspective. If one makes no claims, then no claims can be "debunked". Atheists are quite comfortable with saying "I don't know" when pressed for statements of absolutes beyond equivocation.

Atheists (at best) are most intellectually comfortable (when espousing a personalized perspective) in saying, "This is what I accept as (most likely/probably true) the (currently) best available natural explanation of phenomena "X".

Some claim that "UFO's" are evidence/proof of alien specie visitations on Earth. While I, as a self-professed atheist, find no proffered contemporary available evidence in support of such claim(s) as conclusive (or even especially persuasive or compelling) "beyond a reasonable doubt" as veritable, likely, and/or "probably true", I would at least concede their "probability" (however statistically improbable) are MORE likely than any claims made regarding an invisible, all-powerful, benevolent supernatural being/entity/god.

Do I "believe" that space-faring alien species are possible?
Sure.
Is that possibility a matter of "faith"?
No.
Do I "believe" that space-faring aliens are visiting our planet today?
Well...it's "possible", but I've yet to see any evidence that would lead me to conclude that such a claim is probable "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And...there's more "evidence" of UFO's...then has EVER been presented to support the notion of a "god".

s2a,
Atheist in residence

[PS. If you have ready access to the book(s) you mention, I would be pleased to engage any singular (one-at-a-time) "debunking of atheism" that such works offer.]

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Actually, atheism generally means--and I mean when I say it--not that you do not know, but that you DO NOT ACCEPT the possibility of a God. If that is not what you believe I would not consider you an atheist. An atheist is not one who doesn't know if there is a God or who doesn't care, but who is A-theistic, thus actively against believing in God. Maybe you work by a different definition but then our problems are semantic.

 

[michel]

Actually, atheism generally means--and I mean when I say it--not that you do not know, but that you DO NOT ACCEPT the possibility of a God. If that is not what you believe I would not consider you an atheist. An atheist is not one who doesn't know if there is a God or who doesn't care, but who is A-theistic, thus actively against believing in God. Maybe you work by a different definition but then our problems are semantic.

I agree with you UncertainDrummer;Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity . As usual, S2a is using his own definitions, moulded to his purpose.

 

[Pah]

Actually, atheism generally means--and I mean when I say it--not that you do not know, but that you DO NOT ACCEPT the possibility of a God. If that is not what you believe I would not consider you an atheist. An atheist is not one who doesn't know if there is a God or who doesn't care, but who is A-theistic, thus actively against believing in God. Maybe you work by a different definition but then our problems are semantic.

I happen to know!! I know based on more credible evidence than is presented for a belief in God. What I do not accept is a faith that incorporates other than what is believable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*MOD POST*

Just a quick reminder: the topic of this thead is "Evolution Vs. Creation, why are threads so popular?" If anyone wants to discuss the definition of atheism, they should start a new thread, or post in an already existing thread. (I believe there are threads about defining atheism in both the religious debates forum and the Atheism subforum of the Discuss Individual Religions forum.)

Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

 

[Stormygale]

Everyone wants to know the truth about who, what, and why we are. Evolution is easy to see. There is scientific study going on everyday in the study of paleontology. It is simple to have calculated equations and 'somewhat' proof of how old things are, and adding tables that show us the 'start to finish' genres of human evolution, it makes it even more believeable. Not only is there proof of humans evolving, but, other animals evolving as well. Many of those animals can be traced, through much work in the paleon. field, to have reached a certain level of existence, and faded out.
Proof of God and 'creation' is a whole new ballgame. We have no facts to back it up. We have no scientific tables or theories or anything else that can tell us 'yea, that is probably how it went' like the paleo field has given us. It is easier to believe or lean toward something that has even a little proof, than something that can be believed in only through the pages of an ancient text written by people who could have been anyone.
I believe in God. However, I believe it must co-exist with some sort of evolution....

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

I happen to know!! I know based on more credible evidence than is presented for a belief in God. What I do not accept is a faith that incorporates other than what is believable.

There is no evidence that can disprove God exists and to say there is is extremely ignorant.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

....There is no 'zero-sum game'...

I really han't intended to come back to this thread, but it's a good thing I did. Your response shows that you do not understand the term zero-sum game.

zero-sum game

n. A situation in which a gain by one person or side must be matched by a loss by another person or side:

My point, which you missed, was that the reason these arguments are so popular is that extremists on either side see it as a zero-sum game. They believe the only way they can convince people they are right is by utterly debunking and humiliating the other side.

I see it from Creationists who don't understand 'survival of the fittest' and from evolutionists who fail to explain exactly what caused the 'Big Bang'.

I hope you now realize that your statement '...it's either science or it isn't. Things that are not science should not be taught in public school science classes...' 100% supports my statement that the argument is a zero-sum game. If not, maybe you'll figure it out one day...this discussion isn't worth anymore of my time.

 

[s2a]

Hello Uncertaindrummer,
[With apologies to *Mod* Mr. Spinkles for my follow-up topically tangential reply - I promise that any *further* "atheist definitions" will be engaged - at least on my part - in the proper topical forum. OK? ;-)]

You said:

>"Actually, atheism generally means--and I mean when I say it--not that you do not know, but that you DO NOT ACCEPT the possibility of a God."<

Actually...;-), the definitions I provided from the referenced authoritative sources in my previous post removes any semantical "generalities".
To wit (as previously provided):
>>"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."; and, "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."<<

It would be fair to say (as I often acknowledge for myself) that I "do not accept" the "evidence" (as provided by adherents/texts in asserting claims of supernatural cause/effect, deities, or god), as being compelling, convincing, or even remotely extraordinary "beyond a reasonable doubt".

>"If that is not what you believe I would not consider you an atheist. An atheist is not one who doesn't know if there is a God or who doesn't care, but who is A-theistic, thus actively against believing in God. Maybe you work by a different definition but then our problems are semantic."<

You'll forgive me if I quibble with your definition of what *you* think an atheist *should* be. Most atheists I know (and yes, I know quite a few), are not - as you suggest in definition - "actively against believing in God".

From a personal perspective, I engage no "active" (as in proactively "anti", or "negative" towards concepts or claims of god) "DISbelief" of (or "against") any particular religion/mythology/spiritualism as some sort of "anti-crusade", or outspoken/uninvited declarations of abject denial (though some atheists do). Questioning "why" people believe "what" they believe is not the equivalent of being "against" belief itself.

I retain a "lack of belief" (or requisite religious "faith") in deity claims; ie., I "disbelieve" in any claimed god. Perhaps you'd agree that such a stance *actually* meets the referenced definitions I provided beforehand.

"Do you believe in the existence of [a] god?"
An agnostic will say, "I don't know"; "I'm not sure"; or, "Maybe...maybe not".
An atheist will say, "No".
My answer is also "No".

[Note: To lend some statistical clarity/qualification to my own accountable burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" re: the "possibility" of the existence of god, it is important to both acknowledge and illustrate that such a burden may entail varying degrees of "certitude" and expected probability when exacted upon other concepts or potentialities.

For example, when discussing theoretical concepts of the "Big Bang", I am assured "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the mainstream theory is the best contemporary scientific explanation of cosmological origins.
Would I assert that "Big Bang" theory is definitive, or "beyond any and all doubt"?
No.
Why?
Because BBT seems to be the "best", but perhaps not the "only" possible/potential explanation. Simply stated, I would say that BBT is "most probably accurate, than not accurate". To pick an arbitrary number, I would say it's probably/likely 90-95% accurate (or veritably "true"). Does 5-10% "doubt" constitute a grave or disconcerting doubt? Not for me, but your mileage (and definitions) may vary.

On the other hand, I can state with a high degree of confidence (around 99.9999% certitude, if you like) "beyond a reasonable doubt", that our sun will not supernovae any time soon - lending my breakfast plans a "reasonable" expectation of seeing fruition (barring some other unforeseen or untimely circumstance).
Some might call this perspective a "matter of faith" (that the sun will rise again tomorrow). I call it "understanding how a star works". Such confidence is not rooted in wishful thinking, hope (against adverse consequence), or "faith" in some controlling and benevolent deity - NOR is is premised upon (most pointedly) "actively believing against" our sun exploding tonight.

In comparable fashion (and stated confidence), I am assured to the same 99.9999% degree of certainty that god are non-existent (except in the hearts and minds of those that choose to believe). "Actively believing against" the concept of god does not even factor in this confident conclusion.

If you wish to construe a 0.0001% degree of "uncertainty" as a wavering or unsure position of (relative) certitude, and therefore invalidating of a self-professed claim of "atheist", then perhaps you should consider a more tempered application/implication of "doubt" in attempting to define another's perspective.

I believe you should...but I doubt you will. ;-)]

 

[s2a]

Michel said:

>>"As usual, S2a is using his own definitions, moulded to his purpose."<<

You lend me too much credit.

The definitions I provided in my post were sourced from "The American Heritage Dictionary" and Princeton University's "WordNet".

As much as I might be flattered to be attributed with ownership of such fine and authoritative reference works, I believe that credit is due where it belongs.

 

[martha]

Forgive me beloved, for I have been away for a time. All I can say is " Astounding, absolutely astounding! All of your responses are truly thought provoking.

S2a, your first response was particularly interesting to me. You almost converted me! As to the question, " What if it IS ALL HAPPENSTANCE"? Well then I would have to give cudos to the imagination, or wonder of man down through the ages! For it allows us to grasp onto something that rings true to our individual soul, or being, that helps to sustain us through very difficult times. I do not believe that it would change my relationship with my fellow beings one iota! I would still want to be helpful and useful to them throughout our existance here, for the good of all in the long run.

I wonder what you would say to someone such as myself who has experienced a tangible proof in my mind and experience, that there is a GOD? There is no doubt that there are millions of people who, down through time, have felt the same thing. Another question is, " Why do you believe that there is more proof of aliens than proof of God?" I was a little confused by that thought. Is it because the media had reported it more than siteings of God? I am not trying to be a smart aleck, I really want to know.

What if there really is a God? How would that change your way of acting or relating to others?

Thank you all for your great input to this thread. You all have opened my mind, albiet not changed it, just yet.:clap

Joyfully,
Martha

 

[s2a]

Hello Martha,

You said:

"s2a, your first response was particularly interesting to me. You almost converted me!"

And yet, no Frubals? ;-)

[PS. I neither seek nor recruit "converts". As I have suggested in other posts, "atheism" has little to "buy" or "sell", beyond the liberation that is afforded to exercize free thought for oneself. Atheists retain the absolute audacity (with commensurate accountability and responsibility) to ascertain and pursue their own sense of "purpose" and "reason for existence" beyond any ascribed, proscribed, or imposed "rules" or "commandments". It's a heavy burden of self-imposition. No deity (or force/spirit) to thank and praise, nor to blame...in the face of personal circumstance.

Sometimes...the ca-ca interacts with the rotary oscillating air-exchanger, and you just have to deal with the ensuing unfortunate and random displacement of deflected defecation astutely and accordingly. You're permitted to claim attained goals as your own...but you must also 'fess up to your failures in the process...

"As to the question, " What if it IS ALL HAPPENSTANCE"? Well then I would have to give cudos to the imagination, or wonder of man down through the ages! For it allows us to grasp onto something that rings true to our individual soul, or being, that helps to sustain us through very difficult times. I do not believe that it would change my relationship with my fellow beings one iota! I would still want to be helpful and useful to them throughout our existance here, for the good of all in the long run."

Good for you. You see? One can have "values", ethics, and personal morals absent any concepts of deity, spirituality, or otherwise supernaturally imposed concepts od reward/punishment.

"I wonder what you would say to someone such as myself who has experienced a tangible proof in my mind and experience, that there is a GOD? There is no doubt that there are millions of people who, down through time, have felt the same thing."

Whoa. There are reasons upon explanations upon premises why God concepts do not bear rational scrutiny and acceptance. Anecdotal experience/testimony hardly (if ever) constitutes compelling evidence, much less conclusive proof of anything. "Son of Sam" (aka David Berkowitz) believed that he was following God's orders (channeled through a dog) to murder people. Did anyone question his faith, or his sincere belief in a God? Could anyone disprove that God wasn't speaking to him? Would "proof" of his piety been "proof" of his claims?

Or...is "evidence" (in support) of belief merely "evidence of belief" itself? How many believers (however earnest and sincere) is required to "prove" that their god is the God? 100? 1,000,000? One Billion? Christianity claims approximately two billion self-professed adherents, yet even such a large number represents an overall minority religious belief amongst the differing religious and non-religious remaining people of this planet. Do such numbers definitively prove or disprove the veritable and real existence of a Biblical God?
Source: [ http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm ]

"Another question is, " Why do you believe that there is more proof of aliens than proof of God?" I was a little confused by that thought. Is it because the media had reported it more than siteings of God? I am not trying to be a smart aleck, I really want to know."

As "God sightings" are extremely rare (if not totally unprecedented) in you local six-o'clock news segments, UFO claims/sightings do manage their way in from time to time. I mean, let's face it - "true believers" wouldn't accept any photograph of their God as legitimate or real. However, "miraculous manifestations" (Mother Mary's visage on a potato chip) are often reported and claimed as "proof" of God, or of His manifested intent/interaction/influence/intervention amongst adherent believers.

If a somewhat recent poll of young Britons is of any interest or merit:
"Some 67% of 15 to 24-year-olds had some belief in ghosts and 61%
in aliens, but only 39% felt the same way about Christianity."
- The Guardian/The Observer - Sun, 19 Dec 1999

You can blame it on "the media", or whatever other source of evil intent you please...

"What if there really is a God? How would that change your way of acting or relating to others?"

I have answered that question here:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16588 ]