SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) That is not my intent. My sole point is that atheists need to practice what THEY preach. My observation is that they do A LOT of what they claim to despise. Quite true. The trouble is, when it comes to religion, people essentially have their minds made up. So debate leads to argumentation, which leads to proselytizing, which leads to douchebaggery. EDIT: And in regards to the Christmas thing, there is no war on Christmas. Christmas absolutely monopolizes late November through early January in this country. Edited June 4, 2012 by SageAgainstTheMachine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 So your answer to my question of why many (not all) atheists practice the hate and intolerance they say they are against religious people doing is "well, they started it"? Weak. my answer is we are no different then anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Well...Sage and jboys admit it.....good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Allow me to say a big "BOO EFFING HOO" to all the Christians that think their religion is somehow under attack in this country, just because they arent getting their way and special treatment on every topic and holiday they want. If you want to practice your religion, great. Do it from your house and church. Keep it out of PUBLIC schools and keep it out of the Government. If you want the schools and government to include your myths and imaginary friends in their daily operations, then churches should start paying taxes first. Otherwise, they should STFU and be happy they've been so successful at brainwashing people that they aren't being run out of existence for creating such hate and harboring child molesters. This also goes for any other religion that thinks they should get special treatment because they "believe" something. You have the right to believe what you want, and to practice whatever rituals you want. But you do NOT have the right to force it on anyone else. Keep it to yourself. Keep it out of my way. Thank You. Quite true. The trouble is, when it comes to religion, people essentially have their minds made up. So debate leads to argumentation, which leads to proselytizing, which leads to douchebaggery. EDIT: And in regards to the Christmas thing, there is no war on Christmas. Christmas absolutely monopolizes late November through early January in this country. You know the old saying: "Arguing with a religious person is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around like it's victorious." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 As stated earlier, there is evidence for species evolving into other species. You really can't believe that natural selection exists without believing evolution does. natural selection drives evolution. My view on evolution is whatever the current accepted and agreed upon factual scientific evidence of evolution is. The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't require me to "believe" or disbelieve anything - either a relationship exists or it doesn't. As I agreed with earlier, I don't view evolution as an invalidation of God or my faith and I'm completely fascinated by the concept. What I've said is that I've seen and studied what was pretty clear evidence that species evolve and that the concept of natural selection was valid. But last I knew, other aspects of evolutionary theory are still highly debated and, while logical, fall short of being factual. Hence, if there is also conclusive evidence of how distinct species (not referring to sub-species that stop mating) evolve into other distinct species, then I apparently have just not seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My view on evolution is whatever the current accepted and agreed upon factual scientific evidence of evolution is. The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't require me to "believe" or disbelieve anything - either a relationship exists or it doesn't. As I agreed with earlier, I don't view evolution as an invalidation of God or my faith and I'm completely fascinated by the concept. What I've said is that I've seen and studied what was pretty clear evidence that species evolve and that the concept of natural selection was valid. But last I knew, other aspects of evolutionary theory are still highly debated and, while logical, fall short of being factual. Hence, if there is also conclusive evidence of how distinct species (not referring to sub-species that stop mating) evolve into other distinct species, then I apparently have just not seen it. If you haven't read it,I think you would like the Richard Dawkins book "the ancestor's tale". He writes it a little differently then others on evolution, going from the present backward's in time to show at what point we shared a ancestor with different groups of life- all the way back to the first multicellular creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 If you haven't read it,I think you would like the Richard Dawkins book "the ancestor's tale". He writes it a little differently then others on evolution, going from the present backward's in time to show at what point we shared a ancestor with different groups of life- all the way back to the first multicellular creatures. Very cool, thanks man...I'm not much for fiction, so always happy to check out a title like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 What if someone "Brown" stick's their religion in my face? You seem to admire them, so is that different? I seem to admire them? And different from what? Your post makes me laugh but it makes little sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My view on evolution is whatever the current accepted and agreed upon factual scientific evidence of evolution is. The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't require me to "believe" or disbelieve anything - either a relationship exists or it doesn't. As I agreed with earlier, I don't view evolution as an invalidation of God or my faith and I'm completely fascinated by the concept. What I've said is that I've seen and studied what was pretty clear evidence that species evolve and that the concept of natural selection was valid. But last I knew, other aspects of evolutionary theory are still highly debated and, while logical, fall short of being factual. Hence, if there is also conclusive evidence of how distinct species (not referring to sub-species that stop mating) evolve into other distinct species, then I apparently have just not seen it. My point was that distinct species don't evolve directly into another distinct species. That's not how evolution works. One organism, through external pressures and natural selection over the course of time, can and does evolve into a variety of organisms based on the specific forces it has encountered. They are different from the ancestor and different from each other. Many of the noobs die out. Some don't and continue on. At some point they become too different to inter-breed. You're hung up on terminology and an antiquated belief on what "evolution" constitutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My view on evolution is whatever the current accepted and agreed upon factual scientific evidence of evolution is. The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't require me to "believe" or disbelieve anything - either a relationship exists or it doesn't. As I agreed with earlier, I don't view evolution as an invalidation of God or my faith and I'm completely fascinated by the concept. What I've said is that I've seen and studied what was pretty clear evidence that species evolve and that the concept of natural selection was valid. But last I knew, other aspects of evolutionary theory are still highly debated and, while logical, fall short of being factual. Hence, if there is also conclusive evidence of how distinct species (not referring to sub-species that stop mating) evolve into other distinct species, then I apparently have just not seen it. My point was that distinct species don't evolve directly into another distinct species. That's not how evolution works. One organism, through external pressures and natural selection over the course of time, can and does evolve into a variety of organisms based on the specific forces it has encountered. They are different from the ancestor and different from each other. Many of the noobs die out. Some don't and continue on. At some point they become too different to inter-breed. You're hung up on terminology and an antiquated belief on what "evolution" constitutes. Great post. I think the simple confusion of terminology is one of the biggest reasons people don't accept evolution. For my main man AJ, I found this info-graphic which breaks it down nicely... http://i.minus.com/ifGJKcXOso8h4.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Because, by and large, they're brown. You seem to have no problem with Hindu's. You're "enlightenment" is transparent. It has nothing to do with religion. It's all about taking a phony high ground and mocking Western civilization to give yourself a "above it all" image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 You seem to have no problem with Hindu's. You're "enlightenment" is transparent. It has nothing to do with religion. It's all about taking a phony high ground and mocking Western civilization to give yourself a "above it all" image. Apostrophe Police, pull over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 You seem to have no problem with Hindu's. You're "enlightenment" is transparent. It has nothing to do with religion. It's all about taking a phony high ground and mocking Western civilization to give yourself a "above it all" image. Let's take this one at a time, shall we? You seem to have no problem with Hindu's. Indeed. I have no problem with Hindus. Am I supposed to? Why should I have a problem with Hindus? Is there some sort of meeting I missed? Do I need to get on a mailer list or something? You're "enlightenment" is transparent. By "enlightenment" do you mean educated? I forgot, education is bad and anyone who dares to attempt to expand their horizions does so at the expense of their patriotism or their religion. Probably missed another meeting about that. It's all about taking a phony high ground and mocking Western civilization to give yourself a "above it all" image. I mocked western civilization? I know my humor can trend towards the subtle side but I was unaware I was mocking western civilization. Explain to me how I mocked it. Was it because I pointed out that Hindus by and large tend to have brown skin? That's not mocking, that's just a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My point was that distinct species don't evolve directly into another distinct species. That's not how evolution works. One organism, through external pressures and natural selection over the course of time, can and does evolve into a variety of organisms based on the specific forces it has encountered. They are different from the ancestor and different from each other. Many of the noobs die out. Some don't and continue on. At some point they become too different to inter-breed. You're hung up on terminology and an antiquated belief on what "evolution" constitutes. I'm not hung up on anything lol...to whatever degree the science is proven, I'm there. I'm not attempting to debate evolution. For my main man AJ, I found this info-graphic which breaks it down nicely... http://i.minus.com/ifGJKcXOso8h4.png I'm glad you posted that...here's a question: Is the fossil record consistent with that diagram, and are there fossils that represent the transitional species that link humans all the way back to a common ancestor? This is where my interest lies. I understand the process isn't linear....what I'm curious about is to what degree the FACTUAL evidence supports the theory. Feel me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Well...Sage and jboys admit it.....good stuff. Of course I admit it. I also admit anything is possible any yet not everything is understood. That does not mean anyone should forego scientific data to have a believe based on faith and a lack of education - which it often boils down to becoming. As DrD points out the church wants to be everywhere. From Tebowing to billboards it is just for revenue. And I believe all Christians will never practice what they preach; history has shown they wont. No one group will ever be perfect, though. But I don't get offended every time someone say "god bless you" when they sneeze, someone wants to have a prayer, someone says Merry Christmas, or have a blessed day. Should they be offended I say G-D? Or if I say there is no god? What about simply not bowing my head to pray? I have done all of that and more to Christians, sometimes to counter their propaganda, and never is it received as the whole turn the other cheek. But, again, we are only flesh bags that are endless forms of energy derived from billions year old carbon that will never be perfect. Edited June 4, 2012 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I'm not hung up on anything lol...to whatever degree the science is proven, I'm there. I'm not attempting to debate evolution. I'm glad you posted that...here's a question: Is the fossil record consistent with that diagram, and are there fossils that represent the transitional species that link humans all the way back to a common ancestor? This is where my interest lies. I understand the process isn't linear....what I'm curious about is to what degree the FACTUAL evidence supports the theory. Feel me? Ah! Here is where/how the "faithful" typically turn into the aforementioned pigeons. Yes, we have discovered numerous missing links that make a pretty good record of evolution. The problem is, whenever science finds a missing link, religion jumps in and says "But what about the link between the first two?!". And then science finds a link, and then religion says "But what about a link between THOSE TWO?" It's like splitting an inch into a half-inch, and then a quarter-inch, and then an eighth, and sixteenth. How precise do you need to drill down before it makes sense? No matter how many links are provided, creationsists jump in and demand another link. But they are never going to find a fossil of a creature that is in the middle of morphing between 2 species. So creationists can then strut around victorious. Nawmean? Edited June 4, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Ah! Here is where/how the "faithful" typically turn into the aforementioned pigeons. Yes, we have discovered numerous missing links that make a pretty good record of evolution. The problem is, whenever science finds a missing link, religion jumps in and says "But what about the link between the first two?!". And then science finds a link, and then religion says "But what about a link between THOSE TWO?" It's like splitting an inch into a half-inch, and then a quarter-inch, and then an eighth, and sixteenth. How precise do you need to drill down before it makes sense? No matter how many links are provided, creationsists jump in and demand another link. But they are never going to find a fossil of a creature that is in the middle of morphing between 2 species. So creationists can then strut around victorious. Nawmean? Funny, though... that shroud they found has to be real. Jesus on a grilled cheese...real. stop looking for what life has next, enjoy this life...that's all they need to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Ah! Here is where/how the "faithful" typically turn into the aforementioned pigeons. Yes, we have discovered numerous missing links that make a pretty good record of evolution. The problem is, whenever science finds a missing link, religion jumps in and says "But what about the link between the first two?!". And then science finds a link, and then religion says "But what about a link between THOSE TWO?" It's like splitting an inch into a half-inch, and then a quarter-inch, and then an eighth, and sixteenth. How precise do you need to drill down before it makes sense? No matter how many links are provided, creationsists jump in and demand another link. But they are never going to find a fossil of a creature that is in the middle of morphing between 2 species. So creationists can then strut around victorious. Nawmean? "But the Theory of Evolution is just a theory! It's flawed!" - Person who believes man rode on dinosaurs like horses 6,000 years ago. (seriously, check out the Creation Museum) Edited June 4, 2012 by SageAgainstTheMachine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I'm not hung up on anything lol...to whatever degree the science is proven, I'm there. I'm not attempting to debate evolution. I'm glad you posted that...here's a question: Is the fossil record consistent with that diagram, and are there fossils that represent the transitional species that link humans all the way back to a common ancestor? This is where my interest lies. I understand the process isn't linear....what I'm curious about is to what degree the FACTUAL evidence supports the theory. Feel me? Yes there is fossil and DNA evidence. You can track morphological changes in things such as skull shape and size as hominids evolved. The early hominids were your so-called "transitional species". Homo sapiens split off from them, but at the same times, they continued to exist. Eventually, all of the other "homo" genus organisms died out, and homo sapiens are the only ones left. I know i'll get fried for saying this, but check out wikipedia's page on human evolution. It does a good job of summarizing current beliefs, and backs them up with facts from numerous published papers on the topic. EDIT: i also add in that its impossible to find records of an organism transitioning into a new organism. Frankly, organisms of a single species are the same until the new evolved organism is all of a sudden in existence, via the process over thousands of years and longer. Edited June 4, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 "But the Theory of Evolution is just a theory! It's flawed!" - Person who believes man rode on dinosaurs like horses 6,000 years ago. (seriously, check out the Creation Museum) The reply to that should be "Gravity is just a theory too. Why dont you believe real hard that you can fly, and try jumping out of that 10th floor window?" And dinosaur fossils are just to test our faith. Much like killing your own children. Silly Abraham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts