When atheists go too far

10-06-2011 11:49pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

1. Evolution is a fact. How so?

A fact is, basically, in a scientific context, an observed phenomenon. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, therefore it is a fact. Try not to confuse the theory of evolution with evolution itself.

I wish people would understand the meaning of the words fact and theory in a scientific context. A theory is actually higher up the pecking order than a fact: a theory attempts to explain a fact.

2. The essence of the BBT is that everything did, indeed, come from nothing.

From NASA:

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across".

Where do NASA say it came from nothing? A few millimetres across is not nothing.

The theory starts with the early stages of the universe, not what came before, i.e. where it came from. It doesn't say that the universe came from nothing.

MagicMarker · 10-06-2011 11:50pm

Haelium wrote: »

I have to correct you on that, it's a strong theory, but in biology there are no facts(Well... very few facts that we take for granted, otherwise we would be stuck in philosophy). The only science that has facts is maths.

Biology has no facts? Well that's a new one....

Haelium · 10-06-2011 11:50pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Evolution is a 100% proven fact.

Again, that's not correct, even Dawkins(The supposed zealot of evolution) says this. It's a strong theory, but not a fact. Not even germ theory is fact.

AhSureTisGrand · 10-06-2011 11:51pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

Depends on your point of view.;):D

Really no. Unless your point of view is "so far away I can see nothing"

10-06-2011 11:51pm

Haelium wrote: »

Again, that's not correct, even Dawkins(The supposed zealot of evolution) says this. It's a strong theory, but not a fact. Not even germ theory is fact.

You should look up the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory" when used in a scientific context.

MagicMarker · 10-06-2011 11:52pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

Again, how so? 100%? Irrefutable?

Yes, 100% irrefutable, we can see it, we can test it. I recommend you read a book on the subject as it's clear you haven't.

MagicMarker · 11-06-2011 12:03am

Haelium wrote: »

Again, that's not correct, even Dawkins(The supposed zealot of evolution) says this. It's a strong theory, but not a fact. Not even germ theory is fact.

50 seconds in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

Haelium · 11-06-2011 12:05am

gvn wrote: »

You should look up the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory" when used in a scientific context.

To clarify: If we are talking about the existence of Evolution then it's fact, but if we are talking about the current understanding of it that we have(As I assumed we were), it is a theory.

11-06-2011 12:10am

Haelium wrote: »

To clarify: If we are talking about the existence of Evolution then it's fact, but if we are talking about the current understanding of it that we have(As I assumed we were), it is a theory.

Well, yeah, in essence we're talking about the theory.

But, when somebody states (as Nabber and Freddie did) that "evolution is just a theory!", they're not usually arguing against the finer points of the theory of evolution (i.e. against modern evolutionary synthesis or even natural selection), they're usually arguing against the "claim" that humans have descended from an ape-like mammal, or something of the sort, or even against the fact of evolution. Not only is their argument typically backed up with a misunderstanding of the words theory and fact (hence my calling evolution a fact), but it's usually built on a foundation of ignorance.

Mark200 · 11-06-2011 12:22am

Freddie59 wrote: »

1. Evolution is a fact. How so?

2. The essence of the BBT is that everything did, indeed, come from nothing.

From NASA:

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across".

That is, without doubt, a most ludicrous assumption which at best appears to be tenuous, and at worst, impossible to prove.

It's up there with 'salt/butter/pencil in as required is good/bad for you'.

There are two sides, both claiming to be experts. Which is right?

Evolution is a theory, just like gravity. Do you wish to argue against gravity too? Do you wish to complain about gravity being taught in schools?

Also, the big bang theory doesn't necessarily explain the beginning of everything. It would explain the beginning of our universe. Our universe is not necessarily 'everything'. The universe itself could have come from something.

And please don't attempt to say that something can't be true just because you're not able to comprehend it.

There are many things that are impossible to prove in an absolute sense. That doesn't make them unverifiable. Another example would be Pluto's orbit. Pluto takes over 200 years to orbit the Sun, but we have known about Pluto for far less than 200 years. We've never seen it orbit the Sun, but yet we know without a doubt that it in fact does orbit the Sun and we know exactly how long it will take.

And on the idea of something coming from nothing .... inventing a god with no beginning does not get around this problem. And once you say that there can be exceptions to the rule that "something can't come from nothing", then you negate the necessity for a god in the first place.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not always. Global 'warming'?

Oh. You put a word in inverted commas. The whole theory has therefore fallen apart. Good work.

You seem to be arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

l3LoWnA · 11-06-2011 12:26am

I sometimes think peoples beliefs in "GOD" are kind of cute, in a way a childs belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny / Tooth Fairy is cute. I do my best not to comment or not to sound condenscending about my own beliefs when talking to friends or family who do have a belief that God exists or follow a religion

I think Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent man, and I thoroughly enjoy listening to him. He can put beautifully into words much of what I have been thinking and saying since I was a small child.

He is not, however, plastered on every tv channel during prime time hours, so if you don't like what he is saying, don't seek him out, don't bother listening to him.

I do find it incredibly sad however, that a lot of Irish people feel they "owe" something to someone who I personally don't believe ever existed. I have a close friend who has gone through a very nasty separation. This person is now wracked with guilt and thinking about going back to an incredibly nasty, volatile, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive spouse "because of the vows she took at marriage" and because of the guilt she feels towards "God" (after havin long discussions with a friend who is a "Christian")

This sort of attitude really does make me feel passionate about the fact that, in my mind, there never has been and never will be a "God".... God has never ever been proven to exist, yet good people suffer throughout their lives in different ways because of what they have been taught to believe!

mickgotsick · 11-06-2011 12:52am

l3LoWnA wrote: »

I sometimes think peoples beliefs in "GOD" are kind of cute, in a way a childs belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny / Tooth Fairy is cute. I do my best not to comment or not to sound condenscending about my own beliefs when talking to friends or family who do have a belief that God exists or follow a religion

I think Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent man, and I thoroughly enjoy listening to him. He can put beautifully into words much of what I have been thinking and saying since I was a small child.

He is not, however, plastered on every tv channel during prime time hours, so if you don't like what he is saying, don't seek him out, don't bother listening to him.

I do find it incredibly sad however, that a lot of Irish people feel they "owe" something to someone who I personally don't believe ever existed. I have a close friend who has gone through a very nasty separation. This person is now wracked with guilt and thinking about going back to an incredibly nasty, volatile, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive spouse "because of the vows she took at marriage" and because of the guilt she feels towards "God" (after havin long discussions with a friend who is a "Christian")

This sort of attitude really does make me feel passionate about the fact that, in my mind, there never has been and never will be a "God".... God has never ever been proven to exist, yet good people suffer throughout their lives in different ways because of what they have been taught to believe!

That's the thing, beliefs, atheism is just another. At the end of the day no one knows. I classify myself as agnostic or a new term I recently heard, a naturalist, who believes in exactly what science can prove. Here's an interview from a legendary punk rocker, Greg Graffin (from punk band Bad Religion), turned professor in UCLA. You can jump to about 2.06 in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwqJ7X6yOaw

Chuck Stone · 11-06-2011 1:00am

l3LoWnA wrote: »

. I have a close friend who has gone through a very nasty separation. This person is now wracked with guilt and thinking about going back to an incredibly nasty, volatile, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive spouse "because of the vows she took at marriage" and because of the guilt she feels towards "God" (after havin long discussions with a friend who is a "Christian")

Good example of a 'Chirstian' ****ing over a friend because of their 'belief' (or perhaps she secretly enjoys her friends misery because it makes her own dull life seem good and is using Christianity as a weapon).

I hope you are talking sense to her seeing as you're her close friend.

squod · 11-06-2011 1:03am

l3LoWnA wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent man, and I thoroughly enjoy listening to him.

The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

How many big monkeys do you know that can appreciate beauty, art or have an interest in logic, science, ethics? Where did our morality come from? Might all be good fun reading books from this snake oil salesman but ultimately he's deriding you. If someone telling you you're just a big monkey it's because they're trying to make a monkey out of you.

Chuck Stone · 11-06-2011 1:08am

mickgotsick wrote: »

That's the thing, beliefs, atheism is just another

Nope. This ^^ is used by believers in superstition to drag atheists down to thier level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwqJ7X6yOaw

Bleh.

If he's saying we can't rule out the existence of Gods because we might detect them in the future then he's not making much sense.

If we were able to detect Gods then they wouldn't be gods anymore - they'd have to conform to scientific parameters and would then be 'those things that we just detected' not gods.

11-06-2011 1:11am

squod wrote: »

The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

How many big monkeys do you know that can appreciate beauty, art or have an interest in logic, science, ethics? Where did our morality come from? Might all be good fun reading books from this snake oil salesman but ultimately he's deriding you. If someone telling you you're just a big monkey it's because they're trying to make a monkey out of you.

So the idea that you're an ape (not a monkey; ape =/= monkey) is completely ridiculous, yet the idea of a god creating you, purposely and lovingly, with an aim and intention, out of some clay or mud, is more credible?

Matthew23 · 11-06-2011 1:11am

this is anoying me

god is real , if u dont beleive in him then dont talk about him. why is it such a big problem for people? i dont like some music , but i dont tell every one else to not like it!! :eek:

i think maybe these people are unhappy in life

dvpower · 11-06-2011 1:14am

squod wrote: »

The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

Are you saying for humans to have evolved is highly improbable, or that any evolution is highly improbable?

l3LoWnA · 11-06-2011 1:14am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Good example of a 'Chirstian' ****ing over a friend because of their 'belief' (or perhaps she secretly enjoys her friends misery because it makes her own dull life seem good and is using Christianity as a weapon).

I hope you are talking sense to her seeing as you're her close friend.

She has seen sense again herself ... "thank god"

She's actually a close relative and it took her a long time and alot of strength and courage to leave him in the end...only for this "Christian" to strike at her very most vulnerable time and try and poison her mind with TRIPE and destroy the rest of her and her childrens lives. I have absolutely no time whatsoever for that "Christian" girl any more and "god forgive me", if she ever walks through my door again I'll have a thing or two to say!

squod · 11-06-2011 1:21am

gvn wrote: »

So the idea that you're an ape (not a monkey; ape =/= monkey) is completely ridiculous, yet the idea of a god creating you, purposely and lovingly, with an aim and intention, out of some clay or mud, is more credible?

And more probable. Lookat mathematicians are only starting to get to grips with multiple universes, scientists have spent decades underground investigating dark matter and still have turned up with zilch. What you're asking people to do is to take a leap of faith. To place the absolute value of their lives on a fairly shonkey premise. As I said earlier, I'm cool with sceptics and credible arguments but what we have here are Darwinian fanboys. There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.

dvpower · 11-06-2011 1:23am

Matthew23 wrote: »

this is anoying me god is real , if u dont beleive in him then dont talk about him. why is it such a big problem for people? i dont like some music , but i dont tell every one else to not like it!! :eek:

Is the music you don't like a compulsory subject in school and do the people who do like that music sometimes insist that you must spend an eternity in hell for rejecting their music?

mickgotsick · 11-06-2011 1:23am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nope.

Bleh.

If he's saying we can't rule out the existence of Gods because we might detect them in the future then he's not making much sense.

If we were able to detect Gods then they wouldn't be gods anymore - they'd have to conform to objective reality and would then be 'those things that we just detected' not gods.

He's the lead singer in BAD RELIGION. He's not making a case for anything, he's simply saying that we can only say what we can prove. We can prove that evolution is a fact but what then?

Science changes very quickly, with each new discovery we learn something more. Before the human genome was sequenced, it was thought we would have 100,000 genes based on the fact that a fruit fly had 20,000. It turns out we have about 30,000. Then science discovers others things that leads to our complexity.

By the way, I never mentioned anything about GODs in my post, you completely took that wrong and Greg Graffin's interview wrong. That's why I have his band in caps.

dvpower · 11-06-2011 1:25am

squod wrote: »

There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.

In what respect? Do you accept any evolution?

Son Of A Vidic · 11-06-2011 1:25am

It's amazing how people who hold a particular belief, always seem to think they are totally and always in the right.

"Those who think they know it all have no way of finding out they don't.."
— Leo Buscaglia

"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, pride and arrogance."
- Samuel Butler

squod · 11-06-2011 1:26am

dvpower wrote: »

In what respect? Do you accept any evolution?

Evolution in an environment absent of God? Think you know the answer.

11-06-2011 1:27am

squod wrote: »

And more probable. Lookat mathematicians are only starting to get to grips with multiple universes, scientists have spent decades underground investigating dark matter and still have turned up with zilch. What you're asking people to do is to take a leap of faith. To place the absolute value of their lives on a fairly shonkey premise. As I said earlier, I'm cool with sceptics and credible arguments but what we have here are Darwinian fanboys. There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.

Multiple universes and dark matter are hypotheses (well, the former is only an idea, really). What have they to do with evolution? They bear no relevance to the conversation.

Let me ask you: do you believe that evolution is an observable fact? I'm not talking about the theory of evolution; I'm asking if you believe that, even at a small scale, evolution happens?

P.S. Scientists aren't out to "prove" Darwinian evolution. Proof lies solely in mathematics, not in science.

dvpower · 11-06-2011 1:29am

squod wrote: »

Evolution in an environment absent of God? Think you know the answer.

I'm not quite sure I understand. Many believers fully accept evolution.
I'm just simply asking if you accept evolution (in any respect)?

partyatmygaff · 11-06-2011 1:34am

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

It's amazing how people who hold a particular belief, always seem to think they are totally and always in the right.

"Those who think they know it all have no way of finding out they don't.."
— Leo Buscaglia

"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, pride and arrogance."
- Samuel Butler

This is a generalisation. Whilst holders of religious beliefs naturally believe that their beliefs are correct (As if otherwise, they would not hold said beliefs) that does not mean that all religious people are obstinate and think they "know it all". Thinking and questioning is not exclusive to the atheist side of the fence.

Matthew23 · 11-06-2011 1:34am

dvpower wrote: »

Is the music you don't like a compulsory subject in school and do the people who do like that music sometimes insist that you must spend an eternity in hell for rejecting their music?

i have to listen to music i dont like all the time like in school when a teacher plays a bad song and people who like that music get angrey if i say it sucks so yes :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

squod · 11-06-2011 1:37am

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not quite sure I understand. Many believers fully accept evolution.
I'm just simply asking if you accept evolution (in any respect)?

It's the best answer I can give. Can I ask you then, how sure are you of your beliefs?

Edit ; Watched a docu on RTE recently (last year?). Twelve people were randomly chosen from a list of volunteers to attend religious retreats. Different denominations of priests took different volunteers off to explore their faith (or lack of). After two weeks of lonely reflection some of them discovered a bond with or an awakening to God. Nothing scientific involved. But does open the possibility that people who have a definite atheist leaning can change their minds about the subject.

I'll be considering this from the comforts of my bed from now on. G'night.

When atheists go too far

Comments