If you believe in Atheism, you're an idiot...

[Uberom]

You also believe that:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/9899/idiotq.jpg

[Rogean]

Isn't aetheism just the belief that there isn't a higher power.. and that life naturally evolved?

[Hoggen]

Isn't aetheism just the belief that there isn't a higher power.. and that life naturally evolved?

Atheism etymologically breaks down to meaning "without god." It can be a simple as "I don't care if there is a god," or as complex as "I believe there is no god because..." Anyone that has no belief in god/gods would fit the classification of atheist. Why they are an atheist is another matter.

[ukaking]

Cazic Thule DOES EXIST DAMMIT!!

[Odeseus]

most of the time, it is "I don't believe in God or gods because...." and try to use reason, evidence (or lack there of) and logic to back them up. If you're a "i don't give a shit" person, that is more agnostic. Although I will be honest, the lines separating the two categories are blurry as all fuck.

[Hoggen]

I think you have to give a shit to fall into the "agnostic" camp, as they are all about reason and methodical thinking. If you just don't ever think about it, and don't care, you're an atheist.

[Kassel]

I camped inny for 4 fucking hours ...he does not exist my friends.

[Hoggen]

Poopsocking is not an atheistic behavior. It is however, anti-social and sign of deeper psychological defect.

[guineapig]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

How do you feel about agnostics?

[AexDestroy]

"I don't care if there is a god," or as complex as "I believe there is no god because..."

No thats the difference between Agnostic and Atheist

[Chanus]

Being Agnostic and being apathetic are two different things which may overlap à la some Venn diagram of belief systems, but simply defining "Agnostic" as "I don't care if there is a god" is quite incorrect and insufficient.

It's a bit of a pet peeve as so many morons claim they are "agnostic" simply because they think it's "better" or "smarter" than saying they're atheist.

[nalkin]

Yeah, difference of agnostic and atheist is a really blurry line and most people are confused by it. Most people think atheist = believes god does not exist, which can be true for a specific atheist but is not necessarily true for all atheist. Atheism is actually quite a large category that can encompass many different things (including agnosticism).

This video should help people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

There is so much confusion about the terms "atheism" and "God" that it makes it almost impossible to debate with one another. You need to have well defined definitions in order to make any sort of logical argument, and if people are using different definitions than one another it makes the argument worthless.

[aggresor223]

Isn't aetheism just the belief that there isn't a higher power.. and that life naturally evolved?

^^ Yep, evolution the cryptonite of the "good book"

[boboo]

God is santa claus for adults

[RocketMoose]

^^ Yep, evolution the cryptonite of the "good book"

Except if evolution were true, people would be half monkeys today, because regardless of how long that time takes, there would be primates evolving even now. Gotta love how it's a 'theory' and people are all crazed for it.

[quellren]

Except if evolution were true, people would be half monkeys today, because regardless of how long that time takes, there would be primates evolving even now. Gotta love how it's a 'theory' and people are all crazed for it.

That's not how evolution works.

[RocketMoose]

Except if evolution were true, people would be half monkeys today, because regardless of how long that time takes, there would be primates evolving even now. Gotta love how it's a 'theory' and people are all crazed for it.

Bleh no edit, typos ftw. "regardless how much time that it takes" is how that should have read. Grammar ftw!

[RocketMoose]

That's not how evolution works.

So monkeys didn't evolve to humans via evolution?

[nilbog]

Microevolution > Macroevolution

[boboo]

Anyone who looks at a human being and doesnt see how close we are with monkeys and apes needs to remove their ideological blinders.

[quellren]

So monkeys didn't evolve to humans via evolution?

I made the mistake of engaging in this idiocy. Your sweeping statement shows you need to go read a biology book.

[boboo]

If god exists, which i dont beleive he does in a biblical/human religion sense, then hes a fucking asshole.

[Azazel]

Awesome video Nalkin.

Uberom please watch and provide a critical response.

[RocketMoose]

If god exists, which i dont beleive he does in a biblical/human religion sense, then hes a fucking asshole.

How so? Cause you wanted a Pony as a kid and never got it?

[Henini]

Except if evolution were true, people would be half monkeys today, because regardless of how long that time takes, there would be primates evolving even now. Gotta love how it's a 'theory' and people are all crazed for it.

loll

[boboo]

How so? Cause you wanted a Pony as a kid and never got it?

Thats right, i demand a poney

[chtulu]

How so? Cause you wanted a Pony as a kid and never got it?

You sir need to leave sunday school and actually learn something outside of your bible.

On another note, I like how people forget all about the old testament, like it never existed. The bible is the book of god and he's perfect! But wait, he had to completely write a new one for the modern age...

[Airdefier]

Microevolution > Macroevolution

this.

But!

I'm Christian. but I still like playing with you guys no matter what your views are. :D

[Airdefier]

also, being that I like to stay away from topics like this, because even a "healthy debate" can divide a tight community. My degree required me to take most sciences in college (insert young doctor joke), but I believe God and science go hand in hand.

"We are more alike then we are unalike, captain."
- Data

Either way I can't put myself in a position to judge. Because honestly debating and arguing in my opinion can often close a gap more than widen it. You just have to find with the bridge lies.

[Chanus]

On another note, I like how people forget all about the old testament, like it never existed. The bible is the book of god and he's perfect! But wait, he had to completely write a new one for the modern age...

Your lack of understanding of how religion works is astounding.

Your criticism of (apparently) Christianity is exactly the point of the New Testament, genius.

[Airdefier]

where*


...dammit

[chtulu]

Your lack of understanding of how religion works is astounding.

Your criticism of (apparently) Christianity is exactly the point of the New Testament, genius.

Your right, we have king james to thank for the new testament.

Some people just so blind when they listen to whatever pastor or religious figure and throw away all other evidence.

[Chanus]

King James translated the New Testament (and more accurately, he had others translate it). He didn't write it.

[chtulu]

King James translated the New Testament (and more accurately, he had others translate it). He didn't write it.


Kinda like how Joesph smith translated them gold discs that no one else saw, and became instant religion.

[Chanus]

Except we've seen the writings that comprise the New Testament.

They exist.

[nalkin]

Another thing is if someone says "Atheism is wrong! prove that you are right." Logically that sentence doesn't make sense because there is nothing to prove for an Atheist (unless you are the type of atheist that asserts no God or Gods exist). For a regular healthy atheist there is simply a lack of belief in a God or God, meaning you aren't claiming any propositions. Here is a scenario that could happen:

Christian says, "I believe in a single God"
Atheist_01 says, "Thats false! I disagree because you have no verifiable proof."
Atheist_02 says, "I agree with Atheist_01."
Atheist_01 says, "I believe that no Gods exist."
Christian says, "Thats false! I disagree because you have no verifiable proof."
Atheist_02 says, "I agree with Christian."

[Autotune]

God created man in his image.

there are more ignorants and imbeciles than intelligent people on Earth.

God (if there is one) must be an idiot.

therefore, i believe there is no god/s.

Unless we are all ants in his little sandbox of lulz.

then I can believe that there is a God, but only if i imagine he did this it the lulz.

[Kassel]

I am agnostic becouse i like to hedge my bets

[guineapig]

Believe in atheism?
What does this even mean?
Belief that atheism exists?
Belief that atheists exist?

I know this thread is just a troll but try harder next time.

[nalkin]

Also, lol, the only reason I am make such a big deal about semantics is because I was curious about the difference of agnosticism and atheism so I was looking this stuff up the other day. It just feels so good to me to share my knowledge of definitions with everyone.

[Uberom]

I made the mistake of engaging in this idiocy. Your sweeping statement shows you need to go read a biology book.

Actually the correct science is Anthropology. Although "monkey" is a very general term, the answer to that question is yes. Modern day humans evolved from x which evolved from y which evolved from z which evolved from a primate you would consider a mix between a monkey and a shrew if you observed it.

[boboo]

Actually the correct science is Anthropology. Although "monkey" is a very general term, the answer to that question is yes. Modern day humans evolved from x which evolved from y which evolved from z which evolved from a primate you would consider a mix between a monkey and a shrew if you observed it.

The infamous Monkey rat, purgatorius, as seen in the movie brain dead!

http://planete.simiesque.free.fr/planeteSimiesque/primates/photos/purgatoriusUnio.gif

[quellren]

My reply was in response to his original post, about why we don't still see Homo Habilis and australopithecus afarensis in existence today. The fact that he even asked this question tell me he either is:
1)trolling
2) unaware of the principles of the Theory of Evolution.

Likely both.

[john_savage1982]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Chimpanzee-Head.jpg

Why didn't I evolve?

[AexDestroy]

If you actually are a christian, and read the bible, its hard to get away from one simple passage....

"Man cannot fathom god."
I don't attempt to fathom god.
Why the fuck would you?

[Uberom]

My reply was in response to his original post, about why we don't still see Homo Habilis and australopithecus afarensis in existence today. The fact that he even asked this question tell me he either is:
1)trolling
2) unaware of the principles of the Theory of Evolution.

Likely both.

With a 90% emphasis on the second point.

[boboo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Chimpanzee-Head.jpg

Why didn't I evolve?

He did evolve

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/evolutionist65/reptiles1a.jpg

[Gibcarver]

atheism isn't a belief it is a statement of non belief. being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything, it just means you don't believe in god.

[korrowan]

Why won't this clown who says he is quitting leave... I don't understand why these socially inept bottom dwellers feel the need to stick around after they rage... get banned...get unbanned...insult the community... claim they are leaving..but yet still post here....

[Uberom]

Korrowan. Stop following me. No, I will not cyber with you. I will post PM screenshots if I have to.

[jilena]

Jesus loves you. Pay your taxes and die. Also. Hi!

[boboo]

Jesus loves you. Pay your taxes and die. Also. Hi!

THATS RICH, coming from someone who still owes me 100pp for a port. BITCH.

thats how i sounded like when i realized i was banned and i could never, ever get that 100pp back:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Opl77bP7vbY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Opl77bP7vbY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[zenoo]

You guys really think that atheists don't need to justify their belief? How about the theist who says, I don't state a belief in God, I just believe that the universe wasn't created through a purely physical process which can be explained by Newtonian science (Implies nonphysical cause).

I'm also not sure why some people want to soften their definition of atheism. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist, if you believe in God you are a theist, if you are unsure but think there is an answer, but it may not be knowable by man at this point then you are agnostic. It is that simple. If you "just don't care" or "don't want to think about it" then you really don't get any of the terms you are just an apathetic moron. That would be like asking if my pet turtle was an atheist or an agnostic.

[Rayun]

Hog Wash........Reply curtesy of your pal asinine cowboy

[nalkin]

You guys really think that atheists don't need to justify their belief? How about the theist who says, I don't state a belief in God, I just believe that the universe wasn't created through a purely physical process which can be explained by Newtonian science (Implies nonphysical cause).

I'm also not sure why some people want to soften their definition of atheism. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist, if you believe in God you are a theist, if you are unsure but think there is an answer, but it may not be knowable by man at this point then you are agnostic. It is that simple. If you "just don't care" or "don't want to think about it" then you really don't get any of the terms you are just an apathetic moron. That would be like asking if my pet turtle was an atheist or an agnostic.

lol someone is upset about semantics... Head over to the other god thread, I posted a reply. Hit me back

[nalkin]

You guys really think that atheists don't need to justify their belief? How about the theist who says, I don't state a belief in God, I just believe that the universe wasn't created through a purely physical process which can be explained by Newtonian science (Implies nonphysical cause).

I'm also not sure why some people want to soften their definition of atheism. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist, if you believe in God you are a theist, if you are unsure but think there is an answer, but it may not be knowable by man at this point then you are agnostic. It is that simple. If you "just don't care" or "don't want to think about it" then you really don't get any of the terms you are just an apathetic moron. That would be like asking if my pet turtle was an atheist or an agnostic.

Also QQ at finding out your an atheist lol

[Noser]

Big Bang = something from nothing. How does that make anymore sense than religion?

[Beauregard]

Big Bang = something from nothing. How does that make anymore sense than religion?

Yeah some provable theory crackpot scientists cooked up is just as credible as the primitive idea that the invisible sky man made our species from mud.

[Harrison]

Yeah some provable theory crackpot scientists cooked up is just as credible as the primitive idea that the invisible sky man made our species from mud.

L
O
L

[Noser]

I'm saying that neither creationism or the big bang theory make any sense .Either way you are taking a ginormous leap in logic.

[Saskrotch]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9_-NfKakS6A" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

OWNED!

[zenoo]

Oh nos someone who is bad at semantics found a video on youtube and turned me into an atheist, nooooooooo

[Toehammer]

Lots of people misunderstand evolution, creationism, and the big bang.

Actually the correct science is Anthropology. Although "monkey" is a very general term, the answer to that question is yes. Modern day humans evolved from x which evolved from y which evolved from z which evolved from a primate you would consider a mix between a monkey and a shrew if you observed it.

This is sort of the basic idea of evolution. Think of it as a tree... some common root... but it branches out exponentially... those branches can cross with each other (interbreeding). I understand what you are getting at, however the statement that we came from monkeys is much more clear (read: correct) if you say, "humans/monkeys have a common ancestor" just like branches have common roots. People need to stop linearizing evolution.

Yeah some provable theory crackpot scientists cooked up is just as credible as the primitive idea that the invisible sky man made our species from mud.

All theories are cooked up... that is the point.

I'm saying that neither creationism or the big bang theory make any sense .Either way you are taking a ginormous leap in logic.

Although I agree with your statement, in general it is sort of odd to put these two theories next to each other. I personally have no problem with either idea; both equally cool/fascinating. However big bang does not really discuss creation... it discusses what happens after the universe is created.

People confuse what the big bang actually is, and the theory is fairly well accepted among the general populace because it is somewhat logical to say, "huge explosion of matter(/antimatter), matter attracts other matter (yo gravity!), and complexity emerges". However nothing was actually created. It is generally accepted among physicists that you cannot really create or destroy matter... or energy... same thing.

As a physicist, it is interesting to observe these arguments from both sides. Neither side has very firm ground to stand on. Both are huge leaps of faith. Evolution has actually been observed... creation/big bang are impossible to observe. Although evolution/creation/big bang are somewhat related, it is comparing apples to oranges to bananas.

This is what I believe... everything evolves, short and long term. Think about it... we are all dead stars, and hydrogen has evolved to the point where it can think about itself. Now that is impressive.

[maegi]

wallaker willjams > ottertodd's jackalware

[Humerox]

LOTSA GOOD STUFF

Yup. Couldn't agree with you more.

Thinking outside the box.

:D

[bled12345]

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

proof the big bang happened, Science is just the darndest thing.



I'm a through and through atheist.... Is this thread for real? lolz

[soup]

You guys really think that atheists don't need to justify their belief? How about the theist who says, I don't state a belief in God, I just believe that the universe wasn't created through a purely physical process which can be explained by Newtonian science (Implies nonphysical cause).

I'm also not sure why some people want to soften their definition of atheism. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist, if you believe in God you are a theist, if you are unsure but think there is an answer, but it may not be knowable by man at this point then you are agnostic. It is that simple. If you "just don't care" or "don't want to think about it" then you really don't get any of the terms you are just an apathetic moron. That would be like asking if my pet turtle was an atheist or an agnostic.

This isn't entirely correct. "Atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in god(s), it does not necessarily imply an active disbelief in the lack of existence of god(s). Most people struggle with understanding that subtle, but very important difference. Just because you lack a belief in something does not mean you possess a belief that it does not exist.

[Harrison]

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

proof the big bang happened, Science is just the darndest thing.



I'm a through and through atheist.... Is this thread for real? lolz

There used to be "proof" that the Earth was flat, too. What about a Geocentric solar system? lawl

[soup]

It's also worth noting everyone is an atheist to some extent. For example, if you're a Christian, that means you're an atheist in regard to hundreds of other gods that have been worshiped throughout human history (this is being pretty loose with the semantics, but that doesn't change anything in regard to the truth of the premise.)

[soup]

There used to be "proof" that the Earth was flat, too. What about a Geocentric solar system? lawl

Too bad it was society that accepted the flat earth, not science.

Or are you going to try and tell me that society at that time was focused on science? rofl

[Alawen Everywhere]

Toehammer, is the phrase "we are all dead stars" original? It's seriously brilliant.

[Toehammer]

Toehammer, is the phrase "we are all dead stars" original? It's seriously brilliant.

That phrasing is original, but in grad school one of my fellow graduate students was an astronomer, and I asked him if it sounded logical that we (elements) all come from stars/nucleosynthesis, and he seemed to agree when I said that we must therefore be composed of dead stars.

unfortunately it seems I cannot claim "original" since I just did a google search and some song "we are all made of stars" comes up...

However, I think the idea that hydrogen has evolved to the point where it can think about itself is cooler :)

One way I get people interested in physics is tell them this (totally original):
There are 4 forces in the universe, 2 nuclear, gravity, and electrodynamic. We do not feel nuclear forces, we never really feel gravity. When you are standing on the ground you "feel" gravity because of the force imparted on your feet by the electromagnetic force. Now what is happening between your feet and the ground? Electrons in the outer shells of the "ground" atoms are coming in close proximity to the electrons in your feet. In the ultramicroscopic boundary between the two, virtual photons are passed back and forth constantly. When you stand on the ground, you are standing on light. Everything in the universe that we experience as humans: chemical reactions, water careening down our esophagus, warmth of the sun, are all really just super intense and localized light fields.

Hehe, in this way, nobody is really blind

[bled12345]

There used to be "proof" that the Earth was flat, too. What about a Geocentric solar system? lawl



did you even read any of it....

Its not talking about atlas carrying the world on his back, or egyptian gods carrying the sun across the sky in a canoe. /facepalm, it's actually talking about *science*

the 2 guys who discovered this most compelling proof yet that the big bang actually happened won a nobel (sp?) prize for their works. Please ACTUALLY read it before using mystical claims from the 6th century to shoot down my post. kk thx bye.

[Toehammer]

did you even read any of it....

Its not talking about atlas carrying the world on his back, or egyptian gods carrying the sun across the sky in a canoe. /facepalm, it's actually talking about *science*

the 2 guys who discovered this most compelling proof yet that the big bang actually happened won a nobel (sp?) prize for their works. Please ACTUALLY read it before using mystical claims from the 6th century to shoot down my post. kk thx bye.

actually, THE guy who theoretically predicted the cosmic microwave background got SCREWED out of a Nobel when the two who saw the experimental evidence won it... pretty big controversy in the physics community

[Harrison]

did you even read any of it....

Its not talking about atlas carrying the world on his back, or egyptian gods carrying the sun across the sky in a canoe. /facepalm, it's actually talking about *science*

the 2 guys who discovered this most compelling proof yet that the big bang actually happened won a nobel (sp?) prize for their works. Please ACTUALLY read it before using mystical claims from the 6th century to shoot down my post. kk thx bye.

Science is just as accurate as are those claims made back then.

We are constantly in a state of trying to figure things out we had once taken for granted as absolute truth, or near to it.

Shit, if even as little a time ago as 100 years someone told you we're going to go to the moon, they'd fucking laugh at you.

[chtulu]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_bGx3UB-Slg" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

New studies are now being worked on that are suggesting that there was no big bang. Some of them sound legit, but there are a couple (one that theorizes that the universe expands, collapses and the re-expands like a cycle) that are far out there.

[Toehammer]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_bGx3UB-Slg" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

New studies are now being worked on that are suggesting that there was no big bang. Some of them sound legit, but there are a couple (one that theorizes that the universe expands, collapses and the re-expands like a cycle) that are far out there.

The announcer/show organizer didn't really capture what the scientists think. The whole big bang idea doesn't propose that collapse and subsequent secondary expansion cannot happen. In fact it is a quite logical extension of the theory. The big bang merely says that there was a maximum explosive mass divergence at some point in time, not that something comes from nothing. That's a common misconception. I think a cool theory that some people have suggested is multiple big bangs happening. However a single big bang?

I just thought of this... if we ever see the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation change significantly... like go up/down and then equilibrate... that might be definite proof that there are multiple universes/big bangs and we have "met up" and the CMB from our universes are mixing like particles in a box (basic stat mech!).

I once sat through a colloquium about the first 10^-34 seconds of the universe (inflation theory)... that is sorta new.

I like the direction this thread is turning.

[chtulu]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YsueF1Joi-U" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>


THIS is the guy I was talking about. He uses quantum mechanics to explain retraction of the universe at a certain threshold (but never gives the formula for the threshold). I find it highly unlikely that this would be the answer simply because of the fact that we have Dark matter and Energy. Dark Energy is quickly expanding the universe, and it is unlikely we can ever reach critical mass, therefore debunking this hypothesis.

[bled12345]

lol at cricket nut shot

[Harrison]

ITT: Chtulu posts youtube videos about concepts he can't understand, much less spell properly.

[Toehammer]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YsueF1Joi-U" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>


THIS is the guy I was talking about. He uses quantum mechanics to explain retraction of the universe at a certain threshold (but never gives the formula for the threshold). I find it highly unlikely that this would be the answer simply because of the fact that we have Dark matter and Energy. Dark Energy is quickly expanding the universe, and it is unlikely we can ever reach critical mass, therefore debunking this hypothesis.

Dark matter and energy still (if they are ANYTHING like real energy and mass) should warp spacetime in a negative divergent fashion. Sorry, that was too nerdy, that should read: gravity, due to (dark)matter/energy, should be attractive, thus a contraction is not contradicted by darkmatter but expedited! Dark energy is also not responsible for the expansion of the universe... my cosmology is getting a bit out of date (not billions of years out of date, maybe back to 2008 or so hehehehe). It could be due to dark matter/energy effects but we know so little about them now it is difficult to pin down.

lol at cricket nut shot

Indeed! :) Nothing like getting hit in the groin to humble a physicist talking like a know-it-all.

ITT: Chtulu posts youtube videos about concepts he can't understand, much less spell properly.

Ehh, cut him a break, you know that whole Eintstein quote about imagination>knowledge... cliche but true.

Although I myself am quite a spelling nazi, Especially on a forum with spelchek.

[Harrison]

I would if I didn't read enough of his posts to deduce how close-minded he is, incapable of objective thought.

[zenoo]

Atheism simply means a lack of belief in god(s), it does not necessarily imply an active disbelief in the lack of existence of god(s). Quoted from Soup.


How can lack of belief in god be any different from an active disbelief in the lack of existence of god? Not believing asserts non-existence, either you assert that something exists or you assert that something doesn't exist.
E standing for God exists.
You can believe:
E
~E
~~E still = E
~(~~E) = ~E
It isn't that I don't understand this subtly you are speaking of, I simply don't think the distinction makes any sense.

[Harrison]

I just chuckled.

Did you intend Zenoo to be the phonetic spelling of Xenu?

[Abysis]

I don't think atheist is a belief, its a lack of belief, and i doubt many atheist would still be atheist if they were shown proof of god and i think thats the point.
Everything in science is fact until disproved.

There are a few psychological benefits to atheism if you can handle it.

1.) No inherit point to life means freedom to make up your own.

2.) personal responsibility, no deity to put blame on.

3.) no fixed morality based on ancient texts and pseudo Representatives, meaning logic and emotion and experience to find your own true morality.

[andrewhicks86]

What really fucking bothers me is that it seems 99% of people do not know what family Humans belong to or the difference between monkey and ape.

Hey everyone, this is common knowledge here, monkeys and apes are two totally different things! Stop posting a picture of a Chimpanzee and saying it's a monkey. IT'S NOT A FUCKING MONKEY! Neither is a fucking gorilla, bonobo or orangutan. FUCKING APES PEOPLE NOT MONKEY. MONKEY= SMALL WITH TAIL. APE= BIG WITH NO TAIL (basically).

And for fucks sake, wake up. HUMANS ARE APES TOO. Humans belong to the great ape family. We are as much ape as a Chimp, Gorilla or Orangutan. Just because we have thinner hair (atleast in some places) and are smarter does not exclude us from the ape family. Shit, a Chimpanzee is more closely related to a Human than pretty much any other animal, except bonobo but those are basically lithe chimps. If we're not apes, their not either.

[YendorLootmonkey]

^^ really, dude? You clicked down to page 12 in the R & F forum to specifically add your two cents 2 months later? Seriously?

[andrewhicks86]

^^ really, dude? You clicked down to page 12 in the R & F forum to specifically add your two cents 2 months later? Seriously?

Woah, I honestly didn't realize this thread was this old. I kind of lost track browsing through the forums. I'm kind of embarrassed now... My apologies for the necro.

[Sephrana]

Gotta love how it's a 'theory' and people are all crazed for it.

Not going to bother reading this entire thread :) but just wanted to comment on this...

In science....if something can be proven and reproduced then it can be called a LAW if it can NOT be proven and hasn't really been tested or maybe it's been slightly tested but they don't have a lot of evidence it's a HYPOTHESIS. If it is something that they have done extensive research on and are positive that their statements are fact BUT It can not be reproduced or proven in a lab then it is called a THEORY.

So just because evolution is a theory does NOT mean that the scientific community considers it to be something that didn't really happen.

Speaking as someone is both a Christian AND a scientist (But NOT a Christian Scientist ;) ) I don't feel that "believing in" evolution and believing in God are mutually exclusive.....

The bible says it took 7 days for God to create the earth and yadda bladda...it does NOT state that it took 7 revolutions of our planet. it does not indicate if it was 7 of His days or 7 of our days. I'm betting that it was a more extensive period of time than 24 hours. ;)

[nilbog]

macroevolution != microevolution

[soup]

Atheism simply means a lack of belief in god(s), it does not necessarily imply an active disbelief in the lack of existence of god(s). Quoted from Soup.


How can lack of belief in god be any different from an active disbelief in the lack of existence of god? Not believing asserts non-existence, either you assert that something exists or you assert that something doesn't exist.
E standing for God exists.
You can believe:
E
~E
~~E still = E
~(~~E) = ~E
It isn't that I don't understand this subtly you are speaking of, I simply don't think the distinction makes any sense.

I don't have any belief that I will get in a car accident today. That does not mean I actively believe it wont happen. A lack of belief is not the same as an active disbelief.

[soup]

macroevolution != microevolution

So what happens if micro-evolution happens 100,000 times through 100,000 generations? You don't think those small changes will add up so you wind up with the end result being significantly different than the original?