Well first I would say to you that love is an abstract concept, and if very easily explained (in evolutionary theory) in that that it makes perfect sense to form very strong bonds with your social group. When humans were still hunter gatherers in dangerous environments, groups which had reciprocal altruism would do better than a group whose members couldn't care less about each other. This also ties in to parental/offspring relationships- in a species where the birthed young are few, it makes more sense for the parents to invest a significant amount of time in their few offpring (compared to a species with 100 eggs, for example).

But in actual fact, i'm not disagreeing with you- I'm saying that you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think you can prove or disprove god, what is frustrating to me about Psalm's posts is his absolute certainty ("I've proven God exists. The creation of human life is enough evidence an intelligent creator existed prior to the creation of life.") that he's right, and only his way is true way. It's silly to me to think we can be so certain about anything. Of course, if you press me, I'll say I don't believe in God, and I'll mean it in exactly the same way I'll tell you I don't believe in ghosts or wizards. But am I certain? No, I could be wrong and I admit it.

Psalm I hate to burst your bubble but,God does not exist.God is the product of the imagination of man that has gone too far and his myth has been blown out of proportion.I agree with Dawkins and Einstein in stating that the belief in God is a delusion,since it is a product of the mind and only exists in the mind.Nature and all the wonders of the world do not prove that he exists,all it proves is that there are things we do not yet understand.

Encartas online dictionary defines a delusion as:
a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition.

In my mind the strongest evidence against the belief in God is that it is simply yet another one of mans creations.Faith as I have stated on this web site on several forums is nothing more than voluntary ignorance.All religion is myth based on oral traditions and folktales that to this day continue to grow and propagate due to the lack of research on the part of those that choose to believe in them.There is a term ironically that I have heard other evangelists use regarding a christians non commital to his belief system.Because his parents brought him/her up in a certain religion or belief he feels obligated to continue in that belief although he does not fully accept it.Evangelists like to call this Ma and Pa's religion.

That last part about belief due to a psychiatric condition does have some merit in some instances.Religion for many of the so called faithful serves as a coping system.It is comforting to know that no matter how bad things may seem there is some invisible force in heaven that is by your side for comfort and guidance.Many fundamentalist Pentecostals such as myself in the past came to rely on that force almost completely.God gives his servants a sense of pupose in life that if they were to be stripped of their God those people would be a shell of their former selves.

(December 4, 2008 at 11:41 pm)lukec Wrote: Well first I would say to you that love is an abstract concept, and if very easily explained (in evolutionary theory) in that that it makes perfect sense to form very strong bonds with your social group. When humans were still hunter gatherers in dangerous environments, groups which had reciprocal altruism would do better than a group whose members couldn't care less about each other. This also ties in to parental/offspring relationships- in a species where the birthed young are few, it makes more sense for the parents to invest a significant amount of time in their few offpring (compared to a species with 100 eggs, for example).

You see, this is the type of evolutionary thinking that drives me to maddness. You explain something you can't understand or . . . well, actually explain . . . by assuming it works an observable way when in fact you are just randomly organizing peices of a puzzle which fits in your mind and yet doesn't necessarily give the accurate picture.

You see this sort of propaganda on nature shows on the tele. The picture is of a fish waiting beneath a nut or fruit tree for the fruit to drop and then the fish eats it. The narrator says, most confident, that these fish evolved teeth to eat the fruit.

How do you test something like that? A time machine? If a creationist made the show he would say the fish was created with teeth and so could eat the fruit.

Evolutionist must have at least a better idea of how it went down because God is a myth.

(December 4, 2008 at 11:41 pm)lukec Wrote: But in actual fact, i'm not disagreeing with you- I'm saying that you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think you can prove or disprove god, what is frustrating to me about Psalm's posts is his absolute certainty ("I've proven God exists. The creation of human life is enough evidence an intelligent creator existed prior to the creation of life.") that he's right, and only his way is true way. It's silly to me to think we can be so certain about anything. Of course, if you press me, I'll say I don't believe in God, and I'll mean it in exactly the same way I'll tell you I don't believe in ghosts or wizards. But am I certain? No, I could be wrong and I admit it.

Yeah, but what frustrates me, and probably Psalm, is that you demonstrate the same absolute certainty even though you admit you could be wrong. How is Psalm's certainty any less valid than your own? Because Psalm won't admit to his uncertainty? There is almost a sense that you wont admit your certainty the way we won't admit our uncertainty.

Now, the conundrum then, is possibly that faith is as explainable as love to science. I have heard similar explanations regarding the invention of gods by men. But like the sharp toothed fish, they don't necessarily add up.

One of my big concernes in trying to educate skeptics on the importance of the Bible is the removal of the influence of myth in religion's misrepresentation of the Bible.

I agree that science - at least at this point in time - should not be mixed with or confused with the Bible. They are not the same, but when contemplating the fish, and love etc. are possible alternatives considered and do you see any such observations in the future as being in some way scientifically speculated upon?

Can we test the possible reality of God?

Also, how in the world did this conversation spring from a thread on a young man's suicide being linked to Dawkin's stupid book?

---

(December 5, 2008 at 12:02 am)chatpilot Wrote: Psalm I hate to burst your bubble but,God does not exist.God is the product of the imagination of man that has gone too far and his myth has been blown out of proportion.I agree with Dawkins and Einstein in stating that the belief in God is a delusion,since it is a product of the mind and only exists in the mind.Nature and all the wonders of the world do not prove that he exists,all it proves is that there are things we do not yet understand.

Things we do not yet understand. And yet know? The more you think you know the less you think. Think about that, Chatpilot.

(December 5, 2008 at 12:02 am)chatpilot Wrote: Encartas online dictionary defines a delusion as:
a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition.

In my mind the strongest evidence against the belief in God is that it is simply yet another one of mans creations.Faith as I have stated on this web site on several forums is nothing more than voluntary ignorance.All religion is myth based on oral traditions and folktales that to this day continue to grow and propagate due to the lack of research on the part of those that choose to believe in them.There is a term ironically that I have heard other evangelists use regarding a christians non commital to his belief system.Because his parents brought him/her up in a certain religion or belief he feels obligated to continue in that belief although he does not fully accept it.Evangelists like to call this Ma and Pa's religion.

Interesting. I have observed this in my personal experience as an atheist with the few religious kids I grew up with. I didn't realize they had a name for it.

What you describe directly above, though, is the myth of religion. You earlier had some comments upon a post I wrote on the myth of the phallic pagan cross. Have you ever studied any of the other pagan influenced myths of Christendom? The immortal soul, trinity, hell, rapture, Easter and Christmas?

(December 5, 2008 at 12:02 am)chatpilot Wrote: That last part about belief due to a psychiatric condition does have some merit in some instances.Religion for many of the so called faithful serves as a coping system.It is comforting to know that no matter how bad things may seem there is some invisible force in heaven that is by your side for comfort and guidance.Many fundamentalist Pentecostals such as myself in the past came to rely on that force almost completely.God gives his servants a sense of pupose in life that if they were to be stripped of their God those people would be a shell of their former selves.

But alas, that turned out not to be the case with you? I have noticed that often former believers use God in a negative but more dramatic and eventually dogmatic way of coping than they did in a positive way as believers. You seem like one of those, if I may be so bold, sir.

(December 5, 2008 at 12:30 am)Daystar Wrote: How do you test something like that? A time machine?

No, something better than that ... geology, palaeontology and taxonomy (IOW validatable evidence and a rational interpretation of the same)

Kyu

(December 5, 2008 at 12:30 am)Daystar Wrote: You see, this is the type of evolutionary thinking that drives me to maddness. You explain something you can't understand or . . . well, actually explain . . . by assuming it works an observable way when in fact you are just randomly organizing peices of a puzzle which fits in your mind and yet doesn't necessarily give the accurate picture.

You see this sort of propaganda on nature shows on the tele. The picture is of a fish waiting beneath a nut or fruit tree for the fruit to drop and then the fish eats it. The narrator says, most confident, that these fish evolved teeth to eat the fruit.

Hmm. Well you're definitely right in that no one was there. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The reason I said that it's explained quite well by evolutionary theory is that IF you're thinking in terms of evolution, and in that case, human evolution, my explanation is perfectly rational. To expound, a hypothetical: two hunter-gatherer groups have exactly the same living conditions, same population, etc. The only difference is that one group has a tendency to form strong bonds with other members of that group and the second group does not. Now, if to start off food was plentiful and easy to find, the groups might do exactly the same. But suddenly if you decrease the food, and make it so, for instance, only those talented hunters could get food, which group is more likely to have members starve? In the "love" group, you could expect those who are able to get food share with others in the group- and this tendency would be selected for. This is not, obviously, a very natural example and I just made it up, I'm only trying to show that there are ways to explain how human behaviors can actually evolve. I'm not saying it happened like this, but if that "unlove" group were decimated, then "love" would be considered an adaptive trait, which bettered an organism's (and in this case, social group's) ability to survive and propagate. I know what you're saying- this is speculation. However, this is supported by looking at related animals such as chimps or even who form social bonds. Grazing animals who surroung their young in a defensive ring. If you view "love" as a trait, then a parent "loving" their young is an incredibly powerful adaptive tool which gives the parent some added security that their genes are passing on. And obviously, I don't mean that the parents actually care. But the genes which lend to "love" certainly would become prevalent in the gene pool.

To summarize that heap of words, obviously you will disagree with what I have to say if you are thinking of what I am saying as evidence for evolution- but that's not what I meant it as. If you think in TERMS of evolutionary theory though, it's a very plausible reason that we have "love" now.

(December 5, 2008 at 12:30 am)Daystar Wrote: You see this sort of propaganda on nature shows on the tele. The picture is of a fish waiting beneath a nut or fruit tree for the fruit to drop and then the fish eats it. The narrator says, most confident, that these fish evolved teeth to eat the fruit.

Okay, I don't know about these fish you are talking about, but I will give an example involving the same Galapagos finches which Darwin saw.

This is all taken from Prothero, 2007 (paraphrased)


However, imagine if you will that this drought continued. That there was a global warming. Can you see how the trend would continue? Those birds best able to eat the most food would be more likely to survive- so, if stronger beaked birds get the most food, they are most likely to get their genes into the next generation, where the process repeats. Over a sufficient amount of time, there would be a population of finches with "superbeaks" but otherwise normal. Could they mate with the original finches? I have no doubt that they could... if there were no other selection pressures. Perhaps all of a sudden now, after the development of these superbeaked birds, a new pressure arises. Perhaps there is a colonization of the island by a dangerous diurnal predator. Now, the finches are being selected not only for strong beaks, but perhaps superior night vision, for foraging when the predators are all asleep. Perhaps another pressure selects for powerful legs, and another for green tints which aid in camoflauge, etc etc etc. Now, add up all these changes? A population which would not be able to breed with the original species.

I got off track completely here, and what I was actually trying to say is, yeah, you can evolve teeth which are effective for a certain purpose, as the beaks are for finches. Perhaps these fish you are speaking of live in a place where there is little other food to eat other than these fruit. Now, could a normal fish eat fruit very easily? Not with the jaws of a typical telost fish, which are not used for much chewing or tearing, since those fish often eat by "sucking" in prey with an influx of water.

Ugh, it's late, sorry for writing so much.

Daystar,
http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=258CAE2F4546AA95
http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=019F146277A3EDFD
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_01
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolu...tents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Either educate yourself about evolution, or just shut up about it altogether. Nobody will take you seriously if you continue to deny the fact of evolution, and if you refuse to learn then why should we put up with your nonsense?

(December 5, 2008 at 4:03 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(December 5, 2008 at 12:30 am)Daystar Wrote: How do you test something like that? A time machine?

No, something better than that ... geology, palaeontology and taxonomy (IOW validatable evidence and a rational interpretation of the same)

Kyu

Uh-huh ... make it up as you go?

(December 5, 2008 at 12:14 pm)Daystar Wrote:

(December 5, 2008 at 4:03 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(December 5, 2008 at 12:30 am)Daystar Wrote: How do you test something like that? A time machine?

No, something better than that ... geology, palaeontology and taxonomy (IOW validatable evidence and a rational interpretation of the same)

Kyu

Uh-huh ... make it up as you go?

Scientists are turning in their graves right now...

(December 5, 2008 at 4:03 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(December 5, 2008 at 12:30 am)Daystar Wrote: How do you test something like that? A time machine?

No, something better than that ... geology, palaeontology and taxonomy (IOW validatable evidence and a rational interpretation of the same)

Kyu

Give a brief example of this in action. Palaeontology for example. Lets see those fossils! No fakes now! I'm not talking about no pigs tooth and monkey skull fragment this, no!

---

(December 5, 2008 at 11:54 am)LukeMC Wrote: Daystar,
http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=258CAE2F4546AA95
http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=019F146277A3EDFD
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_01
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolu...tents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Either educate yourself about evolution, or just shut up about it altogether. Nobody will take you seriously if you continue to deny the fact of evolution, and if you refuse to learn then why should we put up with your nonsense?

This idiot who dismisses the Bible based upon some bullshit he was brainwashed with is going to spoonfeed me a bunch of links because he can't defend his own beliefs?

Piss off.

Well... you're dismissing good evidence, and a chance to increase your knowledge on a subject based on the fact that you don't like who's showing you the links? Naughty!