The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?

1. Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

Science

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?

Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to consider new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded.

Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief – pending further evidence – does not automatically make someone close-minded.

Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity. They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it.

 

[sealybobo]

Why can’t atheists just leave theists alone?


See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.

§ For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.

§ Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions.

§ Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

§ Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.

§ Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history.

 

[sealybobo]

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?

I think that's why guys like Neil Degrass Tyson don't spend any time debating or discussing god. Your god is pointless. It does nothing for anyone other than in your head. Delusional.

 

[HUGGY]

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Those who cannot imagine life without a diety creator have a difficult time working an atheist into their image of what life as a human being is. Since everything they know must pass through their filter the idea of someone rejecting the very premise they live by is unacceptable. This breeds visions of devils and anti-christs as the only possible reason that an atheist can exist.

When one lives in a fairy tale reality is not a necessary component.

 

[HUGGY]

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

 

[sealybobo]

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

 

[HUGGY]

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

Atheists must be careful exposing too much agreement. LOL. Before you know it these points of observation can be called a church and a dogma.

The religions have long believed in an "us vs them" world. It isn't easy believing in nonsense. Defending "faith" must be nerve racking. At every turn there are explanations that shoot down fairies, timelines and the oh so fragile wishful thoughts and assumptions.

 

[sealybobo]

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

Atheists must be careful exposing too much agreement. LOL. Before you know it these points of observation can be called a church and a dogma.

The religions have long believed in an "us vs them" world. It isn't easy believing in nonsense. Defending "faith" must be nerve racking. At every turn there are explanations that shoot down fairies, timelines and the oh so fragile wishful thoughts and assumptions.

It is very frustrating to me that they can be presented with so much "evidence" and knowledge and explanations regarding exactly when how and why we came up with the god hypothesis, and even still we are such a young new uneducated and un evolved species in the very beginning of our enlightenment that we are still clinging to this god hypothesis.

I can totally understand how and why we were clueless about this before the internet but anyone with a brain and a keyboard can now go figure out that all religions and GOD himself are made up.

At this point they don't care if it "might" be made up. Hell, Boss even knows that Moses Mohammad Mary and Joseph Smith lied. He KNOWS the stories are lies. Yet still he believes the main premise of the story. The main character isn't real Boss! Wake the fuck up. Stop being stupid.

They don't care. It makes them feel better to go along with the lie rather than challenge it.

 

[sealybobo]

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

Atheists must be careful exposing too much agreement. LOL. Before you know it these points of observation can be called a church and a dogma.

The religions have long believed in an "us vs them" world. It isn't easy believing in nonsense. Defending "faith" must be nerve racking. At every turn there are explanations that shoot down fairies, timelines and the oh so fragile wishful thoughts and assumptions.

Apologists frequently assert that atheism is a religion. Whether this is true or not depends greatly on what definitions of atheism and religion are being used. The argument is most effectively made against strong atheism, in which positive assertions are made that no gods exist, but even in that case there are real problems with applying the label of religion to something that is explicitly denying a central belief of almost all religions. Further muddying the issue is the purely legal notion that, for the purposes of the First Amendment's free exercise clause, atheism should be considered a form of religion worthy of protection.

 

[sealybobo]

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

 

[Boss]

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something...
Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

I love to see you admit your voluntary ignorance like that... saves me the trouble of having to point it out... I know that can be embarrassing for you, so it's really best this way.

 

[Boss]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing.

Exactly... so it's curious as to how you geniuses can assume that's why we "invented" it?

 

[Boss]

Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being...

Wait... that is YOUR theory! YOU are the ones who have no physical explanation that conforms to physical nature. At some point, matter which was inorganic decided to become organic.... some magical power of something supernatural happened and *poof* ...life was born. You say it might have been a chemical reaction but you can't repeat such a reaction in a lab... so again, it's apparently some supernatural kind of chemical reaction from magical powers. And once it managed to magically *poof* life into existence, it defied all of biological understanding and magically started creating trillions of different but interconnected life forms. Your physics can't seem to explain how this happened so it must have been some supernatural powers.

I believe in spiritual nature which is as natural to humans as anything.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

Yup, you are trying to convert believers into your religion of Atheism...


No thanks, Jesus died for my sins and a born again Christian.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

Newberg and his late partner Eugene D'Aquili mapped various parts of the brain showing activation in specific areas when people were undergoing certain religious rituals or experiences, such as a shaman being in a trance or a Buddhist entering a mystical state. Regardless of the religion, the brain function was the same. Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford's suit in The Electric Horseman.

This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that "we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn't. Your brain is doing its best to understand the world and construct beliefs to understand it, and from an epistemological perspective there is no fundamental difference."

So, whether you make sense of the world as an atheist and don't require the God postulate to complete your understanding, or you are a theist and your feelings and experiences tell you something greater is there, biologically speaking, that big blob of gray Jell-O in our skulls is like a giant arrow pointing us in the same direction. I believe that is delicious. And religious.

Where Newberg and I differ is whether or not you call that universal leaning a religion when it is expressed as atheism. Newberg holds that if by religion you mean a system centered around a belief in a supernatural God, then atheism does not qualify. I contend that if your system is about God—or about the non-existence of God—God is still at the center of the argument's "aboutness." In the spirit of that "off is a TV channel" comment above: God is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he's dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there's a TV.

This also helps explain why the argument that libertarianism or the devout love of hockey are also religions fails. Libertarianism is about liberty and hockey is about mullets and pucks. Atheism, on the other hand, is about God and proving such an overpostulated supernatural being does not exist, Atheism is a religion.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Is Atheism a religion? - CMI Mobile

Athheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.


.