Atheism

[Circle V]

True, but that's circular logic if your goal is to prove that evolution is plausible.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Circle V

True, but that's circular logic if your goal is to prove that evolution is plausible.

How so? Please explain, I don't understand.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

There is evidence of genetic mutations that have increased information:
The "lower" (primitive) life forms have fewer chromosomes than humans, and humans are more complex than lower life forms, ergo an increase in "information" took place sometime in our human past.

Not true. Well, depends on what is lower than you are.
The human has 46 chromosomes.
The potato has 48 chromosomes. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0812134.html
The king crab has 208.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6740.Ge.r.html

So...are you lower than a king crab? What about a potato?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Not true. Well, depends on what is lower than you are.
The human has 46 chromosomes.
The potato has 48 chromosomes. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0812134.html
The king crab has 208.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6740.Ge.r.html

So...are you lower than a king crab? What about a potato?

Ergo my use of "lower" in quotes (signifying relative definition of the word).

"Different" would have been a better word to use. Here is a link to a webpage listing chromosome counts in various phylums and selected organisms:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...%20Comparisons

So various plants and fungi have fewer chromosomes. And yes, some have 60 or more.

My original point to Godslayer was that the change in the "information" (DNA instructions for building the organism) are derived from the change in the DNA sequences or "mutation".

A side comment: the absolute count of chromosomes should be evaluated with the fact in mind that a significant percentage of the chromosomes in any creature are "blank", or have no effect on the building of the organism, or at least to date, have not been determined to have any effect on the blueprint of the organism.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Ergo my use of "lower" in quotes (signifying relative definition of the word).

"Different" would have been a better word to use. Here is a link to a webpage listing chromosome counts in various phylums and selected organisms:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...%20Comparisons

So various plants and fungi have fewer chromosomes. And yes, some have 60 or more.

My original point to Godslayer was that the change in the "information" (DNA instructions for building the organism) are derived from the change in the DNA sequences or "mutation".

A side comment: the absolute count of chromosomes should be evaluated with the fact in mind that a significant percentage of the chromosomes in any creature are "blank", or have no effect on the building of the organism, or at least to date, have not been determined to have any effect on the blueprint of the organism.

Ok...I understand what you're saying, it just seems like it contradicts your previous statement, so, eh.

[Circle V]

You're using the fact that less evolved organisms generally have fewer chromosomes than the organisms they evolve into to prove that mutations can cause new genetic material to be added.

The question was originally posed by creationists hoping to poke holes in evolution. You've used evolution as a theory to prove a smaller detail of evolution. It makes sense, but it doesn't validate evolution at all because it uses evolution as evidence.

[biohazard]

In the country where I live, there are many christians, mainly catholics. Both my parents are catholic, although one day we had a discussion regarding atheism. I belive that religion was created in order to prevent humans from doing wrong things, such as killing others, feeling greedy, envy, etc. But if one is strong enough to not do those things by own free will (not by fear of punishment by someone with a higher power) then you are a much stronger person.

Jillian also has a good point, of how improbable the existance of a higher power is. Although this may be true, it never hurts to belive that to an extent. If there is really a higher power, then it is up to your own choice to decide weather to belive or not to believe.

[Circle V]

...Just as much as it is up to you whether to believe that your furniture comes alive at night. I does hurt to believe things that aren't true -- at the very least, it encourages a hazy view of truth. Unwavering and unchangeable belief in something that may be true-- even something that probably is true-- is unhealthy.

[Rae Ven Rae]

I am agnostic, -- I have no proof either of God's existence or his non existence -- all I can say for sure is I don't know...

[Circle V]

I don't have any absolute proof, either, but I can certainly say that the evidence is stacked much higher on one side than the other. I don't know whether God exists any more than I know whether whale vomit is the elixir of life-- but I'm not going to dive down any whale throats, and I'm certainly not going to pray to God. Both are exceptionally improbable (one more than the other).

It seems to be human tendency to not believe something until it is proven or demonstrated-- I don't understand why religion must be the exception.

[thedoll]

Isn't almost interesting in saying you believe in nothing is just a great leap of faith? I feel athiests are strong people to not conform to societies that are prodominately religious based (not only in the US but other places around the world) and to be so sure that there is no higher power.

It also goes into what does religion even provide us? A strict code of morals, and a purpose for life. People who can live without either impress me.

[Circle V]

A code of morals is worthless if it isn't followed, and the final purpose of believers lies beyond the grave. I have morals, and the remorse I feel when I go against them doesn't stem from fear of punishment by God but from disappointment in myself and compassion for others. I don't have a purpose in life-- it may sound trite, but life is my purpose.

Not every code of morals is a good thing.

Religion is one of the very few things that most people consider true until proven otherwise-- but only if it's one's own religion, or the vague "god question."

Out of curiosity, what do you believe?

[thedoll]

I understand completely what youre saying, and I think its a strong quality not to resort to the fear of punishment in the afterlife. My ex-boyfriend was a strict mormon and we used to argue this often. That its so much easier to think "I am here because God loves me and no matter what, if I am sorry he will forgive me"

I believe we create our own heaven or hell. Because you believe nobody will judge you, you wont have an afterlife. Because my ex believed in his church and if he follows his beliefs, he will go to his idea of heaven. Inversely, if you attend church and believe you need to repent, but dont, you will burn.

[Circle V]

Why would that be true? It seems like wishful thinking to me.

[KontanKarite]

Oh man...

I'm not going to say God isn't real. What I will say is that humans can't know the will of the divine.

I believe that there are some things that are out there, but it's my beliefs. I don't really need others to agree with me that they are true or untrue. I'm not that self conscious about it.

I have questions that are simple, yet I haven't seen anything really capable of answering them.

[Rae Ven Rae]

My thing is -- would a biblical God create like -- a devil, set man up to be tempted and fall then burn him in hell for not knowing any better? Or create whole nations of people who were not "chosen" and punish them for being Bhuddists, Hindu or whatever, simply becasue they were'nt raised in the middle East? And what about a retarded person who lies or steals cause they don't know any better. Would a kind god send a baby to hell because thy didn't get water sprinkled on their forheads ?

What about children born into a society where they starve to death at the age of three??? Hundred of them -- daily...?

I dunno -- sounds like a bully, not a loving God.

I believe that if God exists, he has created several paths to him and all religions have a grain of truth --put the ideals together and you may get one whole truth...I think God has appeared in a recognizable identifiable form in all religions and that no one person has the real "answer"

I also think he/she/it wouldn't condemn man his own personal torture chamber for guessing wrong in this life -- that would be tantamount to beating a baby to death for writing on the wall with crayons, when simple correction and a new paint job would do --

This is a theory mind you -- remember -- I can't claim to know anything...

[KontanKarite]

Rae, we're both of the same school almost. I've asked those questions many many many times and what I've come to understand is that God/dess must love free will SO MUCH that it would not want to interfere with even the very nature of the chaos of the universe.

What miffs me is that a perfect being had to change it's approach to man twice, old and new testament.

After countless souls had missed out on the glory of Heaven, this thing decides it would then be a good idea to send a savior so that we can all go to Heaven.

I would imagine that even ONE soul is too heavy a price to have to change your mind half way in the game and change the rules.

But what do I know? God/dess does what it wants probably.

In a world of different shades of COLOR, I find it odd we fall victim to a black and white judge and jury.

[Circle V]

If God was a person-- not infallible-- he would make much more sense. I would feel sorry for him.

He allows Satan to exist because he's lonely.

[KontanKarite]

What I do like is the ideas brought forth from Gnostic Christianity. In it, you can strive to find enlightenment and Jesus, though divine, was sent to be an example, to my understandings of it.

[Circle V]

Through example, Jesus presented a cohesive philosophy that was corrupted by his disciples after his death. I don't agree with his philosophy, but I can at least respect it.

[honeythorn]

Originally Posted by Rae Ven Rae

I believe that if God exists, he has created several paths to him and all religions have a grain of truth --put the ideals together and you may get one whole truth...I think God has appeared in a recognizable identifiable form in all religions and that no one person has the real "answer"

Aaaaah someone who thinks along the same lines as I do!

I agree. I believe that deity ( I don't call it god, too singular for my mind ) has manifested itself, shown itself, or been discovered by various races, nations, individuals ect, and interpreted by them as they know how. They/we have given deity various forms, numbers, names and attributes. Performed rites and prayers, dedications and atrocities in the name/s of deity, and also done great things.

I just think it is all one "source". As Rae said, I think all religions and faiths are paths to it. None are right and none are wrong .

I also don't believe in the concept of " sin ". only human nature and personal responsibility.

Neither do I believe that Jesus was the son of a god, any god. I believe he existed certainly, and I think he was an extraordinary man, with a good knack of presenting old ideas in a new way, and interpreting/altering them to fit his own beliefs. I do think he was a healer and a prophet ( of sorts ) , and a rebel perhaps, but I don't believe he was the son of a god/deity. Nor do I agree with all the tenets and ideals of christianity.

I don't believe the " devil " exists as christianity describes it. I think any "evil" comes mostly from within, and if it does come from somewhere else, then it can only affect you if you allow it to do so.

[Saddiction]

I don't believe in the existance of god. We live, we die, and that's the end of the road.

[thedoll]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Why would that be true? It seems like wishful thinking to me.

Because every belief is wishful thinking, this is my hope for humanity. That the higher power just wants his sheep to get what they want. I also have a lot of influence through the catholic church as I was raised strict catholic for most of my life, then thrown into a wiccan household, and this is what I chose to believe.

There is no way to prove or disprove any of our theories, thats what spawned this thread. If you just want to point out the flaws in my beliefs, go for it but it is just a pointless argument. I just thought I would throw in my two cents without having my beliefs attacked.

[Circle V]

If I were to say "everyone on g.net is an idiot," I would be flamed and potentially banned. Am I supposed to expect that, were I to say "I believe everyone on g.net is an idiot," my beliefs would be respected and accepted?

Wishes and beliefs are completely different. Wishful thinking involves thinking something must be true because it should be true. A belief is something you think is true now, for whatever reason.

I believe that I'm wearing a watch on my left wrist. As far as I know, I'm correct, but there is a small chance that I'm wrong. If someone were to tell me otherwise, I'd argue that I was right. I wouldn't claim that my beliefs are off limits to attack, and I certainly wouldn't call the perceived location of my watch "wishful thinking."

There's no way to prove or disprove anything. You can present evidence in favor or in contest to my belief that my watch is on my left wrist, but at no point will the question ever switch all the way from "undecided" to "proven" or "disproved." I can see my watch on my left wrist, I can feel it on my left wrist, I can hold my right arm behind my back and hide every clock in the house and still be able to read the time by looking at my left wrist, I can hear it ticking-- but at no point does the probability that my watch is on my left wrist hit 100%.

It's the same with God. But if I want to know the time, I'm sure as hell going to look at my left wrist.

[Onetwothree]

Wasn't this topic about atheism?