Must all be proven?

[zoso]

In our western world today we choose atheism as the logical path to live and believe
Atheism is based on science lack of believe in relgion and evoluten.
My question isnt defining what an athiest believe (so please dont reply with arguments directing towards the belief of atheism) but my question is must all be proven.

Do we need evidence to believe in something.
For proving the super natural no longer makes it super natural.
Have any of you walked on the moon? No? Then how do you know you can do that.

And my question for evolution is...

If evolution is the foundation for lifes existance can anyone give me an example or show me how any species has naturally developed new information on its DNA.

If evolution is true why is there no ape/man in existance today.

We see neat patterns and believe thats what happened but does it always work like that?

evolution holds no great proof. Its still a theory as religion is.

If evolution was proven there would no longer be religion

[Violet]

When you see the red and green squiggles, please right click on them Anyway, on to the topic:

Let us say that I have a disease in my foot... and I am awaiting amputation of said foot. The doctor's assistant brings me into the operating room. When I open the door, the doctor greets me with a chainsaw in hand. I require evidence that it works before I am letting him saw my foot off (It doesn't work btw...).

So yes, we do require a justification before we believe anything. A justification could be anything from "Why would you lie to me?" to "Because I want to." The justification I would need for a doctor to saw off my foot with a chainsaw... is hard scientific evidence. I want to know how it works, what he is doing, why it is safe, and some scientific facts regarding the use of chainsaws in operations. That is why we need evidence to believe in gods: because we would essentially be sawing our feet off with crude and barbaric devices... with no sound justifications to back it.


Evolution I leave to another You look like good exercise material

[zoso]

When you see the red and green squiggles, please right click on them Anyway, on to the topic:

Let us say that I have a disease in my foot... and I am awaiting amputation of said foot. The doctor's assistant brings me into the operating room. When I open the door, the doctor greets me with a chainsaw in hand. I require evidence that it works before I am letting him saw my foot off (It doesn't work btw...).

So yes, we do require a justification before we believe anything. A justification could be anything from "Why would you lie to me?" to "Because I want to." The justification I would need for a doctor to saw off my foot with a chainsaw... is hard scientific evidence. I want to know how it works, what he is doing, why it is safe, and some scientific facts regarding the use of chainsaws in operations. That is why we need evidence to believe in gods: because we would essentially be sawing our feet off with crude and barbaric devices... with no sound justifications to back it.


Evolution I leave to another You look like good exercise material

but if we had proof of god we would worship out of fear of him not of good.
scientific evidence is liable in religion. Afterall God is the greatest of scientists

in science we can always discover how it works, but not why it does

and that is something no one will ever know

[theVOID]

In our western world today we choose atheism as the logical path to live and believe

Sorry, what western world are you talking about? I'm not aware of any where the general choice of beliefs is atheism.

Atheism is based on science lack of believe in relgion and evoluten.

Atheism is a rejection of the idea that God exists, to be defined as an atheist it is not required that you believe evolution or any science, just that you reject the idea that God exists.

My question isnt defining what an athiest believe (so please dont reply with arguments directing towards the belief of atheism) but my question is must all be proven.

No, everything does not have to be proven, but when you are making statements regarding the nature of something doing so without having proof for your claim is rather stupid.

Do we need evidence to believe in something.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

For proving the super natural no longer makes it super natural.

(1) Not true, you could test the effectiveness of psychics or the presence of ghosts without rendering the cause part of the natural world (2) what makes you think there is such thing as the super natural to begin with?

Have any of you walked on the moon? No? Then how do you know you can do that.

We know we can walk on the moon for various reasons (1) it's a solid object (2) it has gravity suitable for walking (3) people have walked on the moon.

And my question for evolution is...

If evolution is the foundation for lifes existance can anyone give me an example or show me how any species has naturally developed new information on its DNA.

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

If evolution is true why is there no ape/man in existance today.

We are apes, but i assume you were talking about an example of evolution from the time our lineage diverged from the ancestor we shared with chimps, in which case there are none around today because they are extinct, just like 99% of all species that ever lived. There are still hundreds of pre-human fossils showing in great detail the gradual change from our tree-dwelling ancestor to modern man.

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

We see neat patterns and believe thats what happened but does it always work like that?

we don't have neat patterns, we have millions of pieces of evidence across multiple fields of science, from genetic evidence to fossils to embryology and many more.

evolution holds no great proof. Its still a theory as religion is.

Evolution is a fact with an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it, the fact that you used the world theory in the context of English conversation rather than scientific terminology shows how limited your understanding of science is.

If evolution was proven there would no longer be religion

Hundreds of millions of people around the world who are religious believe in Evolution, it is not incompatible with Religion, only creationism.

---

When you see the red and green squiggles, please right click on them Anyway, on to the topic:

Let us say that I have a disease in my foot... and I am awaiting amputation of said foot. The doctor's assistant brings me into the operating room. When I open the door, the doctor greets me with a chainsaw in hand. I require evidence that it works before I am letting him saw my foot off (It doesn't work btw...).

So yes, we do require a justification before we believe anything. A justification could be anything from "Why would you lie to me?" to "Because I want to." The justification I would need for a doctor to saw off my foot with a chainsaw... is hard scientific evidence. I want to know how it works, what he is doing, why it is safe, and some scientific facts regarding the use of chainsaws in operations. That is why we need evidence to believe in gods: because we would essentially be sawing our feet off with crude and barbaric devices... with no sound justifications to back it.


Evolution I leave to another You look like good exercise material

but if we had proof of god we would worship out of fear of him not of good.
scientific evidence is liable in religion. Afterall God is the greatest of scientists

in science we can always discover how it works, but not why it does

and that is something no one will ever know

Your lack of understanding of science is quite funny, you should consider actually getting a real understanding of it before you start arguing against it.

You believe God exists, so are you saying that you only believe in him for good reasons because he hasn't been proven to exist? And if he was proven to exist you would worship him only out of fear??? What does the proof of his existence have to do with the reason why you worship him?

[Violet]

??? If I had proof of him... I would not worship him. I do not bow out of fear... but out of respect. Of the Christian gods: I've no respect for a single one of them.

Scientific evidence is non-present in Christianity. It was written from <insert date BCE> to about 200 CE. There is a gap of about 1500 years between when the bible was written... and modern science. Modern science begins at about the time of the renaissance, and has continued to this date. The bible presents itself as science... but it is not.

Of course... and 'why' is the realm of philosophy.

Existentialism: Truly knowing is not possible. That does not mean we can't get a sound fact right, however (Edit: well said theVOID.)

[lilphil1989]

Zoso, you do know that there are plenty of theists who accept the validity of the theory of evolution?

We're even lucky enough to have one here (I'm sure a few members would choose other words, lol).
So painting theism and evolution as polar opposites the way you're doing is a mistake on your part.


I think an interesting exercise would be for you to describe what you understand evolution to mean, if you're willing to take the time (but please do it honestly, don't go looking around internet sources, I'd like to know what YOU think).

[leo-rcc]

Atheism is based on science lack of believe in relgion and evoluten.

Atheism has nothing to do with science, or "lack of believe in religion", or evolution.

Do we need evidence to believe in something.

No, but it is the most reliable method of finding out that whatever one believes is true or not.

For proving the super natural no longer makes it super natural.

And what is wrong with that?

Have any of you walked on the moon? No? Then how do you know you can do that.

You dont. Either you go there and find out or you take someones word for it. The thing is though, if you are determined enough, you can find out for sure whether you can walk on the moon or not. I have yet to see some testing method for your supernatural deity. Even more so, it is the one thing you count on to keep your mythology going.

And my question for evolution is...

If evolution is the foundation for lifes existance

It isn't.

can anyone give me an example or show me how any species has naturally developed new information on its DNA.

What do you mean with "new information"?

If evolution is true why is there no ape/man in existance today.

There are, they are called humans and other apes.

We see neat patterns and believe thats what happened but does it always work like that?

evolution holds no great proof. Its still a theory as religion is.

Look up the definition of scientific theory before you write such nonsense.

If evolution was proven there would no longer be religion

Evolution is not a religion, it contains no dogma. If evolution is proved wrong tomorrow no scientist will hold on to it. But until now all the evidence mounts up in favour of evolution. If you can provide some evidence of an alternative hypothesis please let me know, I am all ears.

[theblindferrengi]

Hmm, As has been said before in this thread, Athiesm = not believing in a religion. Athiests can only be grouped as those who don't believe in a religion. Personal beliefs of athiests vary greatly, and there is no common belief shared by athiests. Religion is not a theory, as there is no supporting evidence, Religion is just hypothesis.

As for evolution, it is theory, meaning there IS much supporting evidence. I don't have the patience to properly explain evolution, but you assume that the end product is predetermined with it, and it is not, so the question, "how could evolution have did all the right combinations to make humans?" assumes that humans were the predetermined end result. Humans are just another type of ape, that is more advanced. Humans are just an arbitratry result. If the dinosaurs (you aren't going to try to deny the existence of them are you?) has not died out, we (the dominant species of the planet) would be reptillians. Religion is not related to evolution, religion just hates evolution and attacks it because it contradicts the lies of religion, and it actually makes sense.

[theVOID]

Religion isn't just a hypothesis, it's worshiping a hypothesis!

[theblindferrengi]

Religion isn't just a hypothesis, it's worshiping a hypothesis!

Zoso said religion was a theory just like evolution, and for that to be true there would have to be some supporting evidence for religion. Since there is not, it makes religion just a hypophesis, regardless of how many people follow the self anointed leaders of it.