Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[OfficerVajardian]

Really? Like what?

Eh... I dunno... maybe all of it for being ignorant? Can that be posted on the AF Wall of Shame?

[Tonus]

A wall of text on the wall of shame? Kind of appropriate, I suppose.

[OfficerVajardian]

How to see whether a creationist argument is worth looking at 101:

<?php

if ( $quotes > $restoftext )
echo "[Insert Creationist Name Here] is an idiot and is probably quote-mining.";

if ( $quotes =< $restoftext )
echo "Hm... Might take a look...";

?>

P.S. I haven't done PHP in a while so don't blame me if I have got it wrong.

[bennyboy]

How to see whether a creationist argument is worth looking at 101:

<?php

if ( $quotes > $restoftext )
echo "[Insert Creationist Name Here] is an idiot and is probably quote-mining.";

if ( $quotes =< $restoftext )
echo "Hm... Might take a look...";

?>

P.S. I haven't done PHP in a while so don't blame me if I have got it wrong.

Dude, you're just killing me these days. Good stuff. + rep

[OfficerVajardian]

How to see whether a creationist argument is worth looking at 101:

<?php

if ( $quotes > $restoftext )
echo "[Insert Creationist Name Here] is an idiot and is probably quote-mining.";

if ( $quotes =< $restoftext )
echo "Hm... Might take a look...";

?>

P.S. I haven't done PHP in a while so don't blame me if I have got it wrong.

Dude, you're just killing me these days. Good stuff. + rep

Yay! Thanks!

[OfficerVajardian]

Oh, also, to Harris.

[Cyberman]

Eh... I dunno... maybe all of it for being ignorant? Can that be posted on the AF Wall of Shame?

Feel free to nominate a few examples of the breed. Probably not everything, though - just a few choice nuggets.

[Harris]

Really ? Your reply to my post was LOL? how long did it take to come up with that?

I am sorry that I dealt with your response little imperiously. However, the metaphor of painting by Van Gough to random mutation was an absolute mismatch logically.

Although the dabs in the painting appeared to be random if someone closely analyse them however they are not. In the painting, behind every single dab is the hand of an intelligent mind. Mind of a person. That mind exactly knew beforehand the overall image of the picture and planned accurately the position and quality of each dab. The painter put all those dots with his intention.

Above reasoning is a very good example of an intelligent design. The entire nature around us is made atom-by-atom and cell by cell. Each cell and each atom has a specific quality and specific position and although they all seem to spread randomly but they are not. Consequently, the entire nature from the level of subatomic particle to the level of Galaxies is a piece of a very intelligent art work. The only thing that lacks is our ability to approach the agency through our primal senses.

Now let us consider evolution. The blind, the unguided, and the mindless entity. No one can describe what in fact it is and no one knows its source. Evolution in this case is worse than the concept of magic as in magic at least we know the source.

To grasp the idea of evolution let us compare it with an ape. Give ape the brush, paints, and canvas. Ape is the unguided process; however, ape is not blind and not mindless, as does the evolution. Do you think that unguided process can produce art of the calibre what Leonardo da Vinci had produced?

What does "before the origin of the universe" mean, if (according to your question) there is no space and, by necessity since Relativity is correct, also no time?
Let me ask it in different terms: what does behind mean, if you have no space?
What channel is on the tv, if the set is turned off?

On the other hand, if there was some sort of space-time before our Universe formed, we have no way of interacting with it, nor measuring, nor even knowing about it.
The big bang is also a big barrier of information... we cannot say anything about what happened prior to it. So we say nothing. Did I forget to mention I was a physicist? Not an astrophysicist, so it's not my field of expertise, but still.... I know a couple of things.

Your "friends" then take this void of information and twist what physicists say into a "there was nothing before and, suddenly, there was something, everything". But that is not what physicists say. That is what theists say: there was nothing, except god, and then, by holy magic, everything came into being.

Physicists also say we can only know about the physical laws at work within our Universe.... what lies beyond, if anything, we cannot tell. No one can tell.
Meaning that anyone claiming to know what lies beyond is lying.

I agree that physicists can predict up to a point extremely close to the big bang but at the big bang and beyond, no one knows what occurred. The laws of nature can take us back to an initial break down completely and become inapplicable. The zero space-time and infinite energy of the initial singularity indicate methodological failure as well as a cosmological beginning. Science cannot transcend its own limitations.

Cosmologists think that Planck space-time is the ultimate minimal unit for anything physical to be at all. If they are right, no mass/energy, and no space or time can exist, that is smaller or time can exist that is smaller or earlier than Planck dimensions. No laws of physics could apply antecedently since nothing could exist to which physical laws apply.

However, the problem is “absolutely nothing caused the Big Bang” presupposes that “Absolutely nothing once existed,” but no conceivable experience could ever directly verify this affirmation. Any confirming or disconfirming experience would exist and would thus falsify the claim. No examples of absolute non-existence, or of causation by non-existence, could ever be given directly in any conceivable experience. Also, we cannot reason inductively about such things since we have no instances with which to start.

So we are left with the immaterial world. The immaterial world, then, is everything that is in some way related to our physical bodies. This reality is outside the realm of material things. Our body lives in the physical world, but our inner-self (our mind) is part of the immaterial world. Mind being immaterial looks inwards, past the physical body, and studies the immaterial world. We are unable to contemplate over the world beyond matter by the use of science, as logically science is not appropriate to measure immaterial concepts. Those immaterial concepts are unavoidable as they are part of our physical bodies. Mind and logic are the only means through which one can judge those immaterial concepts. In short, physical world, its harmony, its discipline, its cause and effect provide much evidence for the immaterial world that is factually controlling and running the material world.

You name that immaterial world as evolution and I call that an Intelligent God. I think, logically, the idea of Intelligent God is far superior to “unguided” evolution.

I'm going to guess that you are trying to say that some claim that evolution is blind while others see some sort of direction in evolution... right?

No! Throughout my discussion, I am consistent with the idea of Dawkins that evolution has no direction. It is random.

Evolution does turn one species into another, but in an unguided way.

Harmony and order cannot be the outcome of an unguided process. It is against the rules of science.

It just so happens that the new species (or more than one species) is(are) the one(s) that has(have) progressively become better adapted to the ever changing environment, while the old one has steadily become worse adapted. It is a very slow, multi-generational mechanism. Many potential changes within a population fail the Darwinian test, while a few succeed and make into the next generation and the next, and the next... and, in time, you can tell the life-form is quite different from the original. The original will have become extinct, while the new is alive and well.

You do not have scientific proof for what you believe in. In fact, scientific facts and scientific data are talking on the contrary to your ideas.

In some occasions, no amount of change can adapt to the environment and you get an extinction of the whole "branch" of the tree of life.

Yes, that is called the GAPS and that is a real pain for scientists who want to prove evolution as inexorable source for the variety of life on planet earth.

So you don't ascribe to the typical creationist mantra of the 6000 year old Earth. Good for you!

Whether scientific or religious, I do not favour any claim about the age of the earth. I do not feel self-assured in any scientific method which scientists use to evaluate the age of the earth as well as I do not have any confidence in any religious proclamation.

Lately, I've watched a shitload of videos on evolution of eyes, skin, poison, flight, etc.
Sounds very convincing! Even the religious sponsored docos can be made to "sound “logical" if you have a reason to ignore the scientifically reviewed stuff.

I just want to know who will the govt go to for advice on travelling to mars!
The religious "Intelligent Designers" or the hard working high tech companies?

If so why?
Apparently and evidently, the “Intelligent Designers" are only good at "Intelligent" Deception of the highest order.

Ask yourself, what real world benefits has ID been responsible for?
I mean "in this life". Not tomorrow's! Tomorrow never comes!

I think you need a little tour on the history of science so you are not left with the mistaken belief that Atheism has played any significant role in the development of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_con...val_Europe

I don't think that's true, and I'm certainly not willing to take your word for it after your performance thus far, especially not with regards to quotes, because you have quote mined shamelessly and dishonestly whenever it suits you so far, and then never retracted those outright lies even when asked. Citations please, or this claim will be summarily rejected.

Let me know what you think about those people whose statements I have quoted in my main article. Do you think their conclusions about evolution based on their scientific studies are correct or not.

What's really funny, Harris, is that it took me all of five seconds to find the Paleontoloical Society's statement on evolution. This is an organization that has been around for over a century, has member paleontologists from over forty countries, and their first sentence response is "Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory." They were willing to say that in the opening line: why should I believe you, a known liar, on what paleontologists believe, over actual palaeontologists?

The statement that you have found in five seconds is analogous to saying, “Simply have your belief that Evolution is science and you don’t need any evidence.” I had quoted statements from many eminent palaeontologists who with the help of scientific data had shown that fossil record cannot be an evidence for evolution. Scientific data cannot be considered as scientific until it has gaps and loopholes. I discredit the statement of palaeontologists from the Paleontological Society because that statement is not supported by proper scientific evidence.

Following are only few excerpts from reliable sources that shows Fossil record cannot be the evidence of transitional animals.

One:

“Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.”

The above citation I took from the Introductory passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Two:

“The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.”

The above citation I took from under the heading “Transitional versus ancestral”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Three:

Please have a look to this document as well:
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
Four:

“This is an INCOMPLETE LIST which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with entries that are RELIABLY SOURCED…”

“… As noted already by Darwin, THE FOSSIL RECORD IS INCOMPLETE…”

“… This is a TENTATIVE list of transitional fossils ...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

"I'm not telling you what you think... but here's what you think!" Harris, I'm not even going to indulge this drivel with a response. You don't get to climb into my head and tell me that I worship this or that, it's not your place and it makes you look like more of an arrogant imbecile than you already seem to be. I accept evolution is true because I have literally seen it happen, right in front of my eyes, multiple times. There's no need to worship, no idols, just a simple acceptance of a scientific fact, the same way you accept that the sky is blue. Don't be an idiot.

This exactly what your problem is. You are living in the world of hallucinations and dreams. You think you have literally seen evolution happen, right in front of your eyes, multiple times! You are no less that those people who claim that Jesus came to them.

However, the staunchest of all, Dawkins (as being a scientist) do not agree with you as well as the father of evolution, Darwin do not have same opinion as you do. Look what they are saying:
“We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that is too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution GOING ON”
Richard Dawkins
http://vialogue.wordpress.com/2012/02/26...-response/
“We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages”
Page 169
Chapter 4: Natural Selection
The Origin of Species: A Variorum Text
By Charles Darwin
Edited by Morse Peckham

Evolution is not OBSERVABLE and consequently NOT TESTABLE.

Not over one generation, though. Do you actually believe that it would happen over a single generation?

It's actually really suspicious how reluctant you are to tell us what you think evolution is. I think you know you're being dishonest here.

I do not believe that evolution may happen in one generation or in trillion generations. Science has not recognized it as a scientific fact it is still a postulate. Cambrian explosion is totally against theory of evolution.

What are you talking about? We can show you love on a CAT scan: it's a physiological process with distinct neurochemical signatures, easily definable by science. Your ignorance of the subject you purport to know everything about really is stunning.

CAT scan or MRI can only exhibit through what physical changes your body goes when you are feeling love or going through some emotional experience. These tools have no competency to look inside your emotions and feelings that cause those physical changes in your body.

I am assuming that you are under an impression that it is the natural selection, which is causing changes in your body first and then those changes invoke feelings of love and emotions in you. If it is true then this kind of extreme reductionism that reduces thought simply to the firing of the neurons in the brain and so on, well this kind of belief is suicidal because that reduces the intellectual mind to the level of mere microchip.

In anyway, feelings, thoughts, and emotions are not material entities and science do not have any mean to proof them through physical measures.

Harris, I've mentioned this before, but god could have created life, and it would still be evolving.

Abiogenesis is its own theory, and while if it turns out to be correct then evolution would be connected to it, it need not be for evolution to happen. Regardless of how life got here, it is still evolving. What you're saying makes no sense (unsurprisingly, by now).

All right, let us not argue on the differences between abiogenesis and evolution. I will concentrate only on evolution without mixing abiogenesis to its base level. I hope this way you will have some comfort.

As for evolution, whether it is science, I am not convinced due to immense number of scientific evidence that manifest only contradiction to the concept of evolution. You may praise evolution with eloquent words (or write some beautiful poetry) but science needs scientific data that would be able to predominate the minds in scientific community. Science does not look for praiseworthy words it appreciate data based on facts. If you think the examples that you had presented up until now are sufficient then you are wrong. Not even a single example is able to satisfy all scientific norms and if they were competent enough then theory of evolution would be considered as an established science like Theory of relativity. Despite all those facts and proofs that you have given, Theory of evolution is still no more than a postulate.

And the Piraha tribe shows the exact opposite. Hell, I myself am evidence of the exact opposite: I never was a believer, my entire life. If your only response is to tell me that I really do believe and am just hiding it, then my response back will be nothing more than a hearty fuck you.

I know very well that atheism lacks morals and you do not need to exhibit your immoral character to prove it to me.

You are bringing evidence of only 420 individuals over billions and billions of believers in God/Deity. What an adamant behavior you have!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piraha_tribe

No, that's not what I'm saying. Thank you for the strawman. Very honest.

Ok, then why are you defending Evolution.

Evolution is built in: our replication processes inherently make mistakes during the replication itself, genetic transcription errors called mutations that are the driving force of evolution. It's not an intelligent process, but natural selection- the simple fact that organisms that mutate exist in physical space- kills off those with harmful mutations and promote the genetic spread of beneficial ones.

You would know this, if you'd bothered to learn about what you were talking about before you disagreed with it.

I disagree because there is no evidence for beneficial mutation. Not you and not any scientist can give a single example of beneficial mutation. Not even Dawkins. See it yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Evolution, however, is based on a large number of differing lines of evidence and predictions that come together to form a level of evidentiary support that is more well grounded than most any other theory in science.

If there were no alternate theory that explains, how life spread on earth, would that be an enough evidence to justify evolution, which is no more than a postulate?

Could you link to it? Because I just looked through the thread, and you haven't responded to it there.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-26037-page-12.html

For me evolution is your FAITH

But what do you actually think it is?

Conjecture!

Yes but Dawkins later spoke out on his blog and said that he didn't believe what you said he did, and that Stein manipulatively edited his response to make him look foolish. Do you therefore admit that you were wrong when you claimed Dawkins believes aliens created life, given that you have words from the man himself that indicate otherwise?

It is because Dawkins is a hypocrite. He say one thing in one place and after realizing what he said he manipulate his words and twist the truth.

But that's not what the majority of the atheists you've been talking to here believe. You could just ask us, rather than constructing dishonest strawmen and assuming you know what's in our heads better than we do.

By no mean, I am trying to prove I am better than any one of you. If you have that impression then I whole-heartedly apology for that.

I am only putting facts on the table and nothing else. You may use your words in any way, you like, but the fact is that Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God.

Nope - it's not that I have the belief that "God" does not exist - I do not have the belief that "God" does exist. It's the difference between saying I don't believe the coin came down head and saying I believe it came down tails. Please stop telling me and others what we believe. It's astonishingly arrogant.

“I do not have the belief…” in itself contain a belief.

For the sake of argument, if I grant that you never said that ATHEISM IS NOT A FAITH. Can I then take it that you are saying ATHEISM IS IN FACT A FAITH?

Of course, you can... if you don't mind me reporting you for deliberate misquoting.

Is Atheism a Faith?

I request you to answer as “yes” or “no” only.

And BTW fresh water and salt water do mix, if that were false we would see a halocline in the ocean.

Halocline is an observable phenomenon. It not only observable in the caves but this phenomenon is observable in the ocean as well.

https://plus.google.com/1062239653832902...EkSkizRhQc

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/93942342200431155/

Halocline requires special conditions to happen.
Nothing in the qur'an mentions those conditions... it just mentions that such a thing happens... but in a very imprecise way which reminds me of Aristotle's projectiles:

The subject of Quran is Human Being and his deeds. It gives a direct threat to those who transgress the moral limits and good tidings to those who control their wild desires in good faith. Quran is not the book of science; it is a book of signs.

The sign of Halocline as presented in Quran, do occur accurately the way Quran mentioned. You correctly noticed, Halocline requires special conditions to happen which is not something common. Perhaps for this reason even in today’s world many people are unaware about this phenomenon. Keep in mind the time and culture when and where Quran revealed and then consider what Quran said about the phenomenon of Halocline, which is true.

Aristotle’s projectile compared to Newton’s projectile is irreconcilable. You cannot compare the true phenomenon of Halocline with the false phenomenon of Aristotle’s projectile.

pocaracas Wrote: Halocline requires special conditions to happen. Nothing in the qur'an mentions those conditions... it just mentions that such a thing happens... but in a very imprecise way which reminds me of Aristotle's projectiles:

Like in underwater caves for example, I saw it on a documentary a few days ago.

https://plus.google.com/1062239653832902...EkSkizRhQc
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/93942342200431155/

Yes, evolution is atheistic, in the same sense that plumbing is atheistic. It's only a problem for religion if religion denies it. A religion that denies plumbing is compatible with their beliefs would face similar 'corrosion' of their faith. Some religions used to have a problem with the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. They either learned to accept it or aren't around anymore. Any religion that requires you to disbelieve plain evidence is in trouble.

I put that quote simply in response to your claim:

“No one here justifies their lack of belief in God with evolution, so what are you even on about?”

Dawkins is talking specifically for lack of belief in God with evolution.

“If I was a person who would be interested in preserving religious faith then I would be very afraid of the positive power of the evolutionary science, any science generally but evolution in particular to inspire and enthral precisely because it is ATHEISTIC.”

Richard Dawkins

There never was absolute nothingness. It can't exist. Physics has led us to quantum foam, which seems to have the interesting property of being unable to not exist. It's as close to nothing as it's possible to get, but it's not really nothing. And you've heard this before, so your assertion that I 'have no alternate to make a substitution for nothingness' reflects poorly on either your intelligence or your honesty.

Ah! Again quantum foam. So you think that big bang happened in the quantum foam and it was quantum foam that cause that big bang. Am I correct?

Quantum foam is theorized to be the 'fabric' of the Universe, but cannot be observed yet because it is too small.

With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what space-time would look like at these small scales, because existing theories of gravity do not give accurate predictions in that realm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Harris Wrote: On the other side, you have an intelligible Universe because everything in the universe is running according to fixed laws where every part of it is intelligently designed.

More mere assertions. They're worthless.

1. Universe is contingent
2. Universe is complex
3. Universe Displays an independently specified pattern
Science give precise explanation to the orderly processes and systems and agree that those properties prove intelligent design.

One can build a logic tree. The universe visible/patent to us is sensible. Its motions are orderly and predictable. From what we can see of it, its oddities or aberrations are themselves universal. Its overall composition is known and appears ever present. It therefore would seem to be the product of an abiding wit.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence, which is highly, specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that,

“After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer like.”

Page 17
River Out of Eden
Richard Dawkins
What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules? I do not think a scientist is unjustified in reasoning that in our experience, machine codes and computers only derive from intelligence.

In determining whether biological organisms exhibit specified complexity, design theorists focus on identifiable systems-such as individual enzymes, metabolic pathways, molecular machines, and the like. These systems are specified by their independent functional requirements and they exhibit a high degree of complexity. Of course, once an essential part of an organism exhibits specified complexity, then any design attributable to that part carries over to the organism as a whole.

The concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

Harris Wrote: As a replacement for “BE,” can you offer any scientific explanation how life began?

Several, but if there were no plausible scientifica explanations for how life might have begun, it doesn't add even a fraction of a percent to the probability that YOUR explanation is correct. Using an argument from ignorance (you don't know, therefore I'm right) means you're failing before you even get started.

It does not add even a fraction of a percent to the probability that God does not exist, Either.

That's because it's irrelevant to the question. Why did you bring it up?

Because if you do not have scientific or philosophical substitute to “Be” then how comes you are so sure that God does not exist.

Guess what? Islam is not theism. It is a religion that is theistic. Theism doesn't have a moral code. Aztecs who sacrificed innocents in the name of their religion were also theists. Do you share a moral code with them, just because you're both theists?

Theism is the belief that God exists, Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism is a belief that we cannot know whether or not God exists. None of these is religions. Religion is a systematic set of rules and rituals by which a person acknowledges his belief.

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion


“Islam is a MONOTHEISTIC and ABRAHAMIC RELIGION articulated by the Qur'an, a book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
To learn about The Moral System of Islam, please have look at this article.
http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/intro...lcodes.htm

Just because atheism and theism doesn't have a moral code doesn't mean atheists and theists don't have moral codes.

It seems you are under a wrong impression about theism and religion.

On your side, in Atheism there is no systematic set of rules and rituals, by which a person acknowledges his belief therefore Atheism is no more than a belief.

Islam is not only theism but it is religion and Faith as well. Followers of Islam are obliged to pray five times a day, pay charity in the month of Ramadan, perform pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in life, fast in the month of Ramadan and so on. All these are the act of Faith in Allah. If a Muslims follow all these rituals by having fear and respect of Allah in their hearts then all these rituals only bring respect and nobleness to the social structure.

http://www.ediscoverislam.com/islamic-la...m-of-islam

For sure, Atheism has no moral code. Almost all religions of the world had given comprehensive details on moral codes to their followers except Atheism.

Theism is not a religion.

Correct. It’s a belief in the existence of God. It lacks religious laws and rituals.

Most religions are theistic. A few religions are agnostic or atheistic.

I do not know about any religion, which is atheistic or agnostic. Buddhism can be taken as an example because according to Buddhism, Buddha is not a supernatural being; he is simply a person who has reached understanding of the reality of life and the universe. Buddha is not a God, but a teacher who is not even supported by any supernatural powers.

Religion demand belief in supernatural being and practice that comply with divine laws. Buddhism do have a moral code but it lacks a divine being. Consequently, if you consider Buddhism an atheistic religion then you may do so up to an extent that Buddhist has his faith in the teachings of Buddha instead in a supernatural being. And, Buddhism has Buddhist Sacred Texts that are equivalent to sacred scripture in theistic religions.

Logically, there cannot be atheistic or agnostic religions as both agnosticism and atheism reject the existence of God and therefore they reject any divine laws and scriptural practices.

Atheism abandons moral rules, which religion enforced on human actions. Consequently, atheism literally lacks code of moral conducts. This leads atheist to the vagueness of moral rules where he tends to interpret them in ways convenient to himself.

Theists (and religious atheists) get their moral code from specific religions, not from theism.
Most atheists get their moral code from their moral philosophy, not atheism. Most Western atheists are humanists when it comes to their moral code.

True, because atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct. Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance.

I believe that whole structure of secularism is based on the religious teachings because only it is religion that has the insight to look deep in the moral issues of human beings. There is no academy in the secular world that study the moral issues in scientific way. In Islam, we have Madrasa (a collage of Islamic instructions) where pupil get all moral instructions in the supervision of Quran and traditions of Prophet Mohammad.

Please to listen to this inspiring talk by Alain De Botton (an atheist) on how religion is important for Atheism.

http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0

Harris Wrote: One essential condition for being a moral person is that the agent must have the relevant understanding (or capacity for understanding) of what the external requirements of morality are. Exactly how much understanding is required is not easy to specify if you do not have a moral code.

We have moral codes, just as much as theists have, and we're often better at following them.

As I mentioned above that Theism is the belief that God exists, Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. None of these is religion because along with the belief one has to have Faith and Faith only comes when there are systematic set of rules and rituals by which a person acknowledges his belief. Religion provides those moral rules and demand for their implementation in the society. Only belief is not sufficient to be a good moral person. In atheism, every individual follow his desire as there is no moral code of conduct therefore, personal desires are the moral code of conduct for every individual atheist. There is no standard of morals in atheism and that is a disturbing point for every atheists who is looking into a moral life.

No doubt that an atheist can live superior moral life than a theist who even after having all the wealth of moral code may live no more than an animal life. However, if a person do not have a proper moral code then he is at a risk to follow all his wild desires blindly as he lacks the proper instructions on how to control his desires. Moral code in fact give the knowledge on human values and teach how to respect each other. Moral is a big topic.

Atheists have moral codes. They don't get them from atheism, and theists don't get them from theism.

You are avoiding one fact that religion is theism as well as rituals based on rules and regulations. Religion develop Faith in its followers through five times daily prayers, pilgrimage, etc.

Atheism and theism are opinions on the topic of the existence of God, they contain no morality. There is vast literature on moral philosophy that does not reference God.

I agree with you that both theism and atheism have nothing to do with the moral code. Atheism and theism are only conceptual beliefs which are based on certain observations. Evolution is an intangible belief, which is purely based upon observations. Theism only provide foundation for the moral code whereas religion set its rules and regulations. Because, atheism has removed that foundation of moral code by the rejection of God, it automatically eliminate the scripture and with the rejection of the scripture atheist is left without moral code as scripture only deals with the morals.

You can develop any philosophy on morals but believe or not in one-way or other, all roots of moral philosophy are connected with the religion because throughout human history religious rule was the dominant factor over all human activities.

Harris Wrote: Atheist can live a good moral life because conscience is one of the innate properties of human beings. We are also intellectual beings by nature. Like we need academy to increase and polish our intellect same way we also need proper moral code to refine our human values for our healthy and peaceful social life. We are moral beings and moral education is inevitable for us.

Perhaps you shouldn't neglect your moral education and study some John Stuart Mill or John Rawls. Being moral is rational. We don't need supernatural revelations to figure out that it's better to be kind than cruel.

Until you will not stop looking at the scripture with hate, you would not be able to see what good it contains. Have a look at Quran and try to figure out any inconsistency, errors, disagreements, contradictions, and discrepancies within its text in logical, philosophical, or scientific sense.

Harris Wrote: We are intellectual beings and our intellect not only depends on our physical experiences but also on our non-physical experiences. For example, we experience the feeling of love, which no material science can define. You cannot reject the concept of love no matter how materialistic your mind is. These immaterial feelings have a very profound impact on your personality where they actually structure your behaviour.
Love is not immaterial, just subtle. An MRI can tell you if someone is feeling love. That doesn't make it less real.

Again MRI!

MRI allows you to see which parts of your brain are active when you perform different tasks or feel certain emotions and sensations. By using MRI, scientists can start to understand how it might be possible to reduce or increase experiences of pain, Love, Fear, Joy, envy, etc. but MRI is not the tool that can reveal the essence of immaterial experience that cause physical changes in the brain and body.

Harris Wrote: In the race of materialism, people simply forgot that they have very powerful mind that can reach transcendent world only by the use of correct logic.
Correct logic is compelling to everyone, not just to people who already believe the conclusions reached.

When you blame religious people for their conclusive attitude, you should look at your own being as well because you are also conclusive in your mind.

Harris Wrote: It is a wrong idea because Quran is not a book of science, philosophy, etc.

We're not the ones treating it that way. You are.

Wrong!

You are the one who has decided you cannot reconcile the theory of evolution with the Qur’an, not us.

First, Quran teaches creationism somewhat similar to Biblical teachings, second, evolution is not an established science. Therefore, you cannot put blame on me (Muslim) for not bringing Quran and evolution together. Science is compatible with the morphological concepts of Quran and on the other side science do not acknowledge evolution as praiseworthy. That is the reason, evolution is not yet considered as an established scientific theory by all scientists indisputably. It is not my fault!

If people would stick to that view of the Qur’an and not bring it up in discussions about evolution, we'd all be better off.

Atheist always struggle to justify his belief “God does not exist” by means of logical and scientific reasoning. In this discourse, he usually bring evolution to support his thought and to condemn any spiritual concept.

Quran gives logical and rational reasoning for thinking minds as well. It literally ask people to ponder over it’s the examples and use their logic.

“He, it is Who has created you (Adam) from dust, then from a Nutfah (mixed semen drops of male and female discharge (i.e. Adams offspring)) then from a clot (a piece of coagulated blood), then brings you forth as children, then (makes you grow) to reach the age of full strength, and afterwards to be old (men and women), though some among you die before, and that you reach an appointed term, in order that you may understand”

Al Mu'min (40)
-Verse 67-

Although God is not available to our primal senses but at least if you compare evolution with intelligent design then the concept of guided, intentional, and planned mechanisms which is created and controlled by Intelligent God is much closer to the human logic and rationale than the unguided, unplanned, and random process which if occur will only cause a turmoil or else it is nothing more than a hoax.

Harris Wrote: You can never produce scientific evidence for your love to someone.

There's plenty of scientific research into love. We know what chemicals are produced, we know what patterns of activities in the brain occur. If someone doubts that you're in love, have those things measured and if you're really in love, there's your scientific evidence for it.

Mind is not a silicon chip. You may observe physical changes in your body caused by your emotions but no scientific method and tool is able to give you access to the essence of sensory experiences which is the main cause behind those changes in your body.

Harris Wrote: If Natural Selection is blind, unconscious, unguided process (which is in fact the case) then it is nothing more but a DELUSION.

Mere assertion, and thus, worthless.

Science hates blind, unconscious, unguided process that have no mechanics. That is why evolution is a faith because evolutionists simply close their eyes over the blunders in the theory of evolution. In fact, “process” is not an appropriate word to posit evolution; I think better word for “process” under the hood of evolution should be “anarchy.”

Harris Wrote: Nagel don’t believe in Intelligent Design neither in Creationism.

Then of what worth is he to dissuade me from accepting evolution? Does he believe in something besides ID, creationism, or evolution? Because his Wikipedia article has him being a proponent of ID, which you've just said he's not.

I am strongly oppose to Dawkins ideology yet I have read all of his books. Nagel simply is saying evolution is wrong and he is giving proper reasoning for his conclusion. I think before you say something cheeky at his address; you should look at his arguments first.

Other point, I prefer Wikipedia’s opinion to yours.

Not very choosy about where you get your support are you? It's almost like you don't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, like we keep telling you.

Thinking minds whether atheist or not cannot take absurd as fact. At least Nagel is an honest atheist.

Yes, what makes an atheist honest in your eyes is agreeing with you on this topic.

Nagel is not persevering in conceding the truth no matter how contradictory it is to his desires. He has accepted what is true and rejected what is wrong and like Dawkins, he never tried to be an atheistic rebel.

I've noted that it is rarely honest people who consider the people they are having a discussion with dishonest for not being convinced by their arguments.

If you are an adamant person then you will easily reject mountain of evidences no matter how obvious they are. Adamant person deny from the truth only because of his abomination.

Harris Wrote: If you have evolved a new type of virus from some existing virus then this is not even close to what theory of evolution is claiming.

That is all that evolution claims: that new species develop from previous species. Abiogenesis is a separate subject.

Evolution is only capable of claiming nothing else. Unfortunately.

But it does not matter how you arrive at a first cell, evolution applies thereafter, regardless. Evolution explains how species diversify and it is based on the evidence. The mere fact that you cannot see how to disentangle abiogenesis and evolution shows that you do not understand it well enough to critique it intelligently. Which is a shame, because I don't think this failure is due to lack of intelligence on your part (which would be no fault of yours), but willful blindness.

Sometimes I feel I can teach evolution to Dawkins (joke). Let us say the cell was there and evolution married that cell to spread incredible variety of life on earth. Theory of evolution mostly explain how life spread on the planet. However, no one knows what evolution is. Is it a force, mechanism, energy, God, angle, spirit, or what else? You may argue that we do not know what Gravity is and you would be correct. In case of gravity, at least we know what its source however, is that the same case with the evolution. We do not know what evolution is, what is its mechanism, and we do not have any idea about its source. Even magic has a source in from of magician. Is evolution worse than the magic? How comes your mind agreed to accept utter absurd as science. I am astounded.

Harris Wrote: There is no scientific proof for your kind of evolution. Nagel said people would use this concept to make jokes only after two or three generations.

If there WAS proof of a bacterium appearing out of nowhere that would better evidence for at least Intelligent Design than has ever before been presented.

First life form whether it was a cell or something more complex and the Universe that seems to pop out from nowhere are extremely sophisticated mechanisms. Such mechanism cannot be the consequence of chance. This fact is as obvious as sun in the midday sky.

Nagel is not an authority on biology or evolution. He is already a laughingstock among scientists in the relevant fields.

Nagel is the authority or not that is irrelevant here. He is a philosopher; he looks at evolution from the perspective of philosophy. I only admire his logic and rationalism. I recommend you to have a look at some of his work.

Harris Wrote: Its not a matter of likeness or not, I repeatedly said that the evolution in which you have faith is not science at all.

The number of times you've said it is completely irrlevant to whether it's true.

Well I have presented many eye-opening facts against evolution but unfortunately, you have turned your back and put fingers in your ears.

You are only able to say that because you are willfully blind to examples that indicate otherwise. You can believe anything you want if you throw out any evidence that doesn't support your position. That's pretty much how believing what you want despite the evidence is done. You have mastered this skill.

There is a saying “honesty is the best policy,” you do not need to be master if you want to speak truth. On the contrary, you have to be master if you want to twist some truth. Truth is a difficult objective to adopt for those who are the followers of their own desires because truth usually goes against the desires and wishful thinking. Go back and see how many facts I had given against beneficial mutation. Here is another evidence in form you a specialist of genetics who is saying truth about genetics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db_do4ECvZA

Evolution is not science its FAITH. This is my argument.

That's not an argument, merely an assertion...and, as such, worthless.

I had given many arguments, quotes, and proofs showing evolution is not science but a Faith. I feel no reason to repeat all of them again.

Harris Wrote: New and better species evolve from old and inferior species is absurd not science.

That's not the claim of the theory of evolution. As I've noted before, you refuse to understand it well enough to be able to criticize it intelligently.

I refuse to understand! What are you talking? See below!

“All you have to do is move your mental time machine back to a ludicrously long time ago: say, to three hundred fifty million years ago, when our ancestors were lobe-finned fishes with lungs, emerging from the water and becoming amphibians. If a particular fish is my ancestor, it is inconceivable that he is not your ancestor too. If he were not, this would imply that the lineage leading to you and the lineage leading to me had independently, without cross-reference, evolved from fish through amphibian, reptile, mammal, primate, ape and hominid, ending up so similar that we can talk to each other and, if we are of opposite sex, mate with each other.”

Pages 37-38
River of Eden
Richard Dawkins

I am stunned, how one can applause on such an absurd and believe it to be science.

Harris Wrote: I presume you have read 100s of hard books. However, for some unknown reason, it seems you are not willing to give few hard quotes from those hard books to support your case.

As a rule, we don't quote books to support our case. Quotations are usually (though not necessarily) a fallacioius appeal to authority and a demonstration that one doesn't understand what one is arguing well enough to be able to put it in one's own words.

I don’t understand your idea here. If Dawkins and I share same idea but Dawkins expressed that idea in a much eloquent manner then why should I not quote him directly to make my point?

That's fine, for parrots.

You directly quote or write that quote in your own words, the meaning remains same.

That's a problem for people trying to explain the roots, not people trying to explain the branches. A gap in our knowledge about the roots doesn't mean the roots don't exist, it just means we don't understand them yet. The 'theory of branching' isn't invalidated no matter what we find out about the roots.

You do not know about the root as well as you do not have proper information about the branches. Why you are so sure that this tree is the true story when it has so many gaps everywhere?

Mister Agenda Wrote: I'll bet you Stimbo had not adopted the concept that God does not exist. I know I haven't. That's how badly you misunderstand atheism.

Harris Wrote: “There is no God,” it is a BELIEF.

Mister Agenda Wrote: Have you heard Stimbo or myself say 'there is no God'? The argument is not about whether that would constitutie a belief, the argument is about whether that's an accurate description of my position. It is not.

Harris Wrote: You like it or not but this is the truth. You can’t run away by saying it is a lack of Belief. You believe in the non-existence of God without any doubt.

Mister Agenda Wrote: That you're an arrogant, mealy-mouthed little weasel who likes putting words in other people's mouths is what there isn't any doubt about.

All right, do not get cross on me. I agree I misrepresent your position by putting my words in your mouth by saying that “you believe there is no God.” If that is not your position conversely, to what conclusion it bring us together. What are Stimbo and your correct positions? I feel little bit in a state of wandering here.

And I do not use the words the way Alan Wilson does, I use them the way an English dictionary does. How am I supposed to know what British-born philosopher's idiosyncratic terminology you're parroting in advance of you saying so? Russian-born philosopher Ayn Rand defines selfishness as a virtue and altruism as a vice. So what? Why don't we stick to plain English, you're having enough trouble as it is.

Faith and belief are not synonyms and Frank Turek demonstrate that difference in a plain English.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syr0c5ne9H0

Harris Wrote: So, you mean to say that atheist is living without having a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Isn’t it a pitiful situation, if so?

You know, Harris, you're clearly smart enough that I can tell you don't HAVE to be a moron, it's a choice you're making.

No, it does not follow that since atheism is not a philosophy of life or conception of the world that atheists are living without having a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. It just means their philosophy and worldview isn't atheism.

Very interesting!

I hope that means you understand that atheists don't derive their morals from atheism and theists don't derive their morals from theism.

Yes, I do agree with you because both theism and atheism are only beliefs and they both lack laws and rituals.

I am a theist but I am religious as well because I follow the rituals and religious rules that I got from my religion (Islam). By practicing religious rituals and following religious laws, I am showing my Faith in God. You are an atheist that means you do not have moral rules, as Atheism is only a belief in the non-existence of God.

If you want to live a proper moral life then you have no other option than to peek into religion to get your proper moral guidance.

Harris Wrote: Hmmm! You have put a Muslim who prays five times a day in parallel with someone who cuts people’s heart to feed the gods on holidays. Not a fair parallel.

A reasonable person would have seen I was making a contrast, not trying to draw similarities.

I have had some tough time to read your intensions behind that contrast you have made.

You KNOW that you have to know more about someone than that they are some kind of theist to guess at what else they believe, and you've been repeatedly informed that atheists are diverse (though maybe not as diverse as theists, of which there are easily 50,000 flavors), so only willful ignorance can explain your statement.

Harris Wrote: If you think I am not trying to understand the individuals then you are correct. My main concern is the ideology and its overall affects over population.

Then it should be important to you to understand that atheists don't have a common ideology any more than theists have a common religion.

There is a big difference between not having same ideology and not having same religion. In a particular religion, all of its followers have common ideological rules but in atheism that is a big trouble because lacking the common ideology create gaps between all individuals and lead them to the ambiguity of moral rules where every person have a tendency to infer moral in ways suitable to himself.

Harris Wrote: Refusal from the existence of God has a direct impact (in a negative sense) over the innate morals. That is what I have learned so far through my studies of atheistic psychology.

You've shown no capacity for taking on new information, so I doubt you've learned anything or that learning anything forms any part of your agenda.

I am not in need to show my capacities because I am not looking for any appreciations especially in this forum. Secondly, if I see that something is wrong then I cannot say it correct only to gratify someone.

Making no attempt to truly understand why my 'beloved person' disagrees with me and rejecting every explanation they give out of hand as mendacious...THAT means I'm not showing sincere love.

Parents sometimes punish their beloved children; do you think they punish them because they hate their children? Have you ever seen any father who allows his son to jump from the 10th floor because son desire for such and father is showing his compassionate love to his son?

Harris Wrote: It is because even after I have demonstrated that theory of evolution has deep flaws by showing scientific facts, logic, and comments of other scientists and philosophers (including atheists); you have closed your eyes on all that stuff. This is the pure sign of your FAITH and BELIEF in the theory of evolution.

Even if that were true...I know it is in your own head...it doesn't imply we're trying to put evolution in place of God.

You are not putting evolution in place of God but you are using evolution to disprove God. The difference between God and evolution is you cannot disprove God you can only negate His existence whereas Evolution has all the qualities to be disproved.

It's just a natural process. If it turned out to be completely false, it doesn't make God any more or less likely. It's irrelevant to the question, unless you define God as a being that can't exist if the theory of evolution is correct.

All right, let us say theory of evolution is correct and all the diversified life on earth is due to evolution. Here arises few logical questions, such as what is evolution in itself. What is the cause of evolution? Is it the product of nothingness or is it something supernatural? What is the mechanism of evolution? What is the source of evolution? Unfortunately, no one has satisfactory answers to these logical questions and perhaps that is the reason why evolution is not considered as an established science.

I think most people who try to undermine the theory of evolution in the name of their God do more damage to the credibility of the idea of God than evolution ever could.

No! I am not undermining evolution for my God but it is Science and Philosophy, which are undermining evolution to keep them clean from absurd.

And you're doing such a bad job of it and intermingling it so much with religious issues, that it makes your whole position look absurd to someone who actually understands the theory. Pro tip: don't quote the Qu'ran in scientific questions if you're not arguing in the name of Allah.

Yes, I have quoted many verses from Quran, but the purpose of those verses was never to disprove evolution. Those verses I quoted against false accusations or for the purpose to invoke your logical thinking. Quran invites people to the logical thinking by giving examples from the natural world. Interestingly whole modern science is based on logic without a glitch. Quran is the universal scripture that intelligible for the people who had no idea about science as well as there is no one in today’s world of modern science who can disprove its scientific examples.

Thank you. Without people like you, the number of people who choose rational skepticism would likely not be rising so quickly. There's nothing like people illustrating the poverty of one side to help those on the fence realize the other side is the one where the less stupid people are.

I think “stupid and ignorant,” are the habitual words in atheism. This is because you have personal desires to follow in place of morals. When your mind envisage the outside world not in compliance to your personal desires, it invokes rebellious attitude within in order to bring the world in accord with your desires. Therefore, how seriously you follow your desires that much incompliance you see in people who disagree with your desired ideas and so you see them as stupid, ignorant, arrogant, and unkind.

So now you're claiming that a chimp's DNA being 98% similar to human compared to a cat's DNA being 90% similar and therefore chimps being more closely related to humans genetically than cats is just too mathematically complex for you to grasp?

Harris Wrote: Read my main article “Is Evolution a science or a Faith” for the answer.

Math too hard for you, got it.

There is no need of any math here. No matter what DNA resemblance all living beings may have yet every living being is a unique creature and there exist nothing such as Evolved Descendant Beings.

In the growth of living beings, there is not only a need of information to build genes and proteins but also a higher order of information requires for advanced assembly instructions to build body plans. DNA codes are for the building of proteins but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types, cell types have to be arranged into tissues, tissues have to be arranged into organs, organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new body plans (distinctive arrangement of those body parts).

DNA alone is not responsible for those higher order of organisations. DNA codes for proteins, by itself, it does not ensure that proteins, cell types, tissues, and organs will all be arranged in the body plans. What that means is that the body plan morph a genesis as a whole, depends upon information that is not encoded in the DNA. This means you can mutate DNA indefinitely because in the best case you are just going to find new protein some place out there in that combinatorial sequence space. By mutating DNA alone, it will not generate the higher order structures that are necessary to building the body plan. Therefore, what we can conclude from this that Neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information to build new genes and proteins and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origin of novel biological forms which is to say that only mutation for the evolution is not acceptable.

Harris Wrote: If there is no God or anything supernatural (a creator) then there is nothing.

Is someone paying you money to say increasingly stupid things? If there is no God or anything supernatural, all that's left is everything that exists.

Wow! Even so, from where everything (Universe) came?

I don't even believe there ever was actual nothingness, and I've never met an atheist who does. That's how badly you misunderstand us.

I am not assuming that you have nothingness in your mind. So, if there is “no nothingness” then what is the logical substitute.

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='723784' dateline='1407180376']
Harris Wrote: It seems you are supporting the following statement:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Page 227
The Grand Design
By Stephen W. Hawking

I don't understand the physics involved well enough to know whether I would agree with Hawking, but I have enough discernment t

[The Grand Nudger]

Although the dabs in the painting appeared to be random if someone closely analyse them however they are not. In the painting, behind every single dab is the hand of an intelligent mind.

Oh, lol? I think that's definitely the sort of self serving thing that the random flinger of paint might -want- us to buy....especially if he's selling us something. Seems like an even more apt analogy now...lol. Is Allah an incompetent flinger of paint positively tickled that some rube such as yourself has "discovered" intelligence where he employed none? I'd love to be the broker on that deal, what are you offering, submission perhaps?

Sold (please refer your friends and family).

Leonardi Da Vinci was an ape, btw, and so are you. A "Great" Ape, but an ape nonetheless. So yes, hand an ape a brush, and he'll paint you a picture.

[Bad Wolf]

So much fail.