341 replies to this topic

[dasheenster]

Well, it's just a guess. There's no proof that nanotech exists, and no proof that eugenics works. Now you're talking about fiber optics replacing neurons? This all makes for fine talk, but it says nothing about the actual technologies which the future will bear out. I'm optimistic too, but we don't know if or when this will happen. I also don't know how the transition will take place, and I doubt many humans would find a mass extermination from superhumans to be a compassionate fate. Who's to say they would guide homo sapiens? Why wouldn't they just ignore them, or kill them, or leave Earth behind?

Edited by dasheenster, 26 April 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[hooter]

Sociological data and fMRI analysis shows that religion is a mental disorder. So really, pointless discussion.

[hooter]

Quote

Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (Apr. 26, 2012)

— A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers

http://www.scienceda...20426143856.htm

[DukeNukem]

>>> Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists?

Since there's zero evidence for gods, atheists have no burden of proof of their beliefs, because everything supports the view that gods are not real.

The ultimate irony is that belief in higher powers imparts a group advantage, and it appears we've evolved the circuitry to encourage belief in gods (the so-called God gene, as Time magazine once called it).  Belief in gods is instinctual.  And most people can't rise above this genetic coding.

[Link]

When i was at work last night someone was talking about about how people always get bad lower backs and knees.

I mentioned just in passing that our spines and joints are not particularly well evolved for carrying our weight in an upright stance. I was then asked if i believed in evolution to which i replied "of course".

What happened next was very strange. Nearly every person in the room started berating me, calling me ignorant and using some of the most ridiculous arguments against evolution like "Well then why are there still monkeys?"

I tried to discuss it using logic and explain that we didn't evolve from monkeys but share a common ancestor however it quickly became a circus. One of the guys said "Well then where is the evidence of monkeys turning into humans?"

I said "homo habilis".

All this got was more ridicule, "A homo? hahaha"

The argument went on for a bit, but in the end i got pissed off and told them to read a book, but i was still annoyed as felt like i had somehow just lost an argument with some of the most scientifically illiterate people i have ever met.

This left me scratching my head and  wondering what the hell just happened. One of these theists even had the gall to say "You know man, you shouldn't believe everything you read".

I think that part of the problem is because some of the best arguments for evolution, and also some of the best arguments about the illogical nature of God, are fairly complex. And whilst i understand most of them, they are often very difficult to explain in lamens terms, especially when the listener is already biased against your view, thus you just get blank stares.

Whilst on the other hand a self convinced theist is armed with an endless list of "trump cards" like "free will" and "evolution is just a theory" and "you believe that all this just came from nothing" and my personal favourite from last night "all fossils prove is that animals died, it doesn't prove anything about evolution". All these are perfectly reasonable rebuttals in their own minds.

What i realised in the end was that arguing science and religion with a theist who knows nothing about science, is actually a lot harder than debating a theist who is well read on evolutionary theory. In fact its basically impossible.

Last night was an eye opener for me because some of these people are very intelligent about other subjects and i am often seeking their advice.

So, as passionate as i am about science, and evolutionary biology in particular - and as much as i despise religion, i think i will leave the debating to the professionals from now on. Not because i don't believe that religion needs to be put in it's place, but simply because i don't believe you can change someones religious views with logic - as ridiculous as that sounds.

[hooter]

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1070575

[mikeinnaples]

Link, on 03 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

One of these theists even had the gall to say "You know man, you shouldn't believe everything you read".

I've heard this one myself from a religious nut. Not only wrought in irony, but a fine fine example of typical religious hypocrisy. Don't believe everything you read UNLESS IT'S THE BIBLE.

[steampoweredgod]

Link, on 03 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

When i was at work last night someone was talking about about how people always get bad lower backs and knees.

I mentioned just in passing that our spines and joints are not particularly well evolved for carrying our weight in an upright stance. I was then asked if i believed in evolution to which i replied "of course".

What happened next was very strange. Nearly every person in the room started berating me, calling me ignorant and using some of the most ridiculous arguments against evolution like "Well then why are there still monkeys?"

I tried to discuss it using logic and explain that we didn't evolve from monkeys but share a common ancestor however it quickly became a circus. One of the guys said "Well then where is the evidence of monkeys turning into humans?"

I said "homo habilis".

All this got was more ridicule, "A homo? hahaha"

The argument went on for a bit, but in the end i got pissed off and told them to read a book, but i was still annoyed as felt like i had somehow just lost an argument with some of the most scientifically illiterate people i have ever met.

This left me scratching my head and  wondering what the hell just happened. One of these theists even had the gall to say "You know man, you shouldn't believe everything you read".

I think that part of the problem is because some of the best arguments for evolution, and also some of the best arguments about the illogical nature of God, are fairly complex. And whilst i understand most of them, they are often very difficult to explain in lamens terms, especially when the listener is already biased against your view, thus you just get blank stares.

Whilst on the other hand a self convinced theist is armed with an endless list of "trump cards" like "free will" and "evolution is just a theory" and "you believe that all this just came from nothing" and my personal favourite from last night "all fossils prove is that animals died, it doesn't prove anything about evolution". All these are perfectly reasonable rebuttals in their own minds.

What i realised in the end was that arguing science and religion with a theist who knows nothing about science, is actually a lot harder than debating a theist who is well read on evolutionary theory. In fact its basically impossible.

Last night was an eye opener for me because some of these people are very intelligent about other subjects and i am often seeking their advice.

So, as passionate as i am about science, and evolutionary biology in particular - and as much as i despise religion, i think i will leave the debating to the professionals from now on. Not because i don't believe that religion needs to be put in it's place, but simply because i don't believe you can change someones religious views with logic - as ridiculous as that sounds.

There's always the dna trump card, as predicted by evolution man's 9X~% close to monkey and apes, 6X~ or 7X~ or maybe 8X~ % close to mice, something like 5X or 6X% close to maize, etc.  The clsoer the relation between species the closer their sequence is in similarity.  The genetic sequence closeness is as predicted by evolution, and once genome sequencing becomes more widely and openly used in the medical community, it will digest most of the arguments against evolution.   Almost everyone believes in DNA and sequencing.

[dasheenster]

There is a very clever modern theology, according to which God is not omnipotent, but He is trying His best in spite of great, insuperable difficulties, and therefore the world is full of goods and also evils which come and go under a temporal flux. I do not think we can refute the assumptions of this system. All we can say is that there are no reasons to favor it over other, competing systems.

This cleverness, however, renders all arguments about the origins of man irrelevant, because the Devil is permitted to introduce deceit or evil where God is powerless, and in our world that translates into an obscure origin and a waning vitality. So even if humanity decides to destroy itself, a new postmodern religion could still explain away all the evils and misdeeds as part of the Devil's action.

I'm not an advocate of this modernist form of theism, but it is certainly causing a fuss in some circles.

[Link]

steampoweredgod, on 04 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

There's always the dna trump card, as predicted by evolution man's 9X~% close to monkey and apes, 6X~ or 7X~ or maybe 8X~ % close to mice, something like 5X or 6X% close to maize, etc.  The clsoer the relation between species the closer their sequence is in similarity.  The genetic sequence closeness is as predicted by evolution, and once genome sequencing becomes more widely and openly used in the medical community, it will digest most of the arguments against evolution.   Almost everyone believes in DNA and sequencing.

Yes but as i was saying, these people are completely ignorant of the most basic principles of evolutionary science. So even though the DNA evidence is an excellent argument for it, it would have been falling on deaf ears.

If someone refuses to acknowledge the relevance of the fossil record, do you really think talking about DNA is going to convince them?

Since this happened things at work have become.. less enjoyable. A lot of "half-jokes" about me going to hell and that God will smite me down - typical sort of stuff - "Well if we're wrong it doesn't matter but if you're wrong you're gonna burn in hell" followed by a smug grin.

I just told them that if heaven was full of people like them then I'd rather go to hell.

Edited by Link, 05 May 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[N.T.M.]

To the OP: You're asking somebody to prove a negative. You have the burden of proof in reverse my friend.

hooter, on 27 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Sociological data and fMRI analysis shows that religion is a mental disorder. So really, pointless discussion.

Religious experiences are centered in the limbic system, an emotional center in the brain which is discrete from regions more directly involved in logical function.

[shadowhawk]

The last several posts demonstrate there is little evidence for Atheism.  The best that can be done is to try to change the subject by attacking Theism.  I am surprised on how poorly atheists have done.  I tried to anticipate some Atheist responses by posting a series of objections but no one has dealt with them but just continue to repeat the same old reasons why Atheism needs no reasons or evidence.  Try again.  Focus on 3 and 3 because they are what seems to come up again and again.


1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3.  You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504306

6.  Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

7.  Summary of some of my arguments for lack of evidence of atheism..
http://www.longecity...post__p__504785