Why are you an Atheist? - Page 2

krnjason · 07-10-2008, 11:15 PM

why am I an atheist?

Living in Orange County, i encounter lot of crazy jesus followers ((no offense to those who are christian, just an outlook on how i see christians around where i live)) Mostly korean-christians. They claim to be christian but there actions speak otherwise AKA HYPOCRITES.

Not only that but worshipping jesus/god has become some kind of fashion statement/ social status to them. they throw away money into build GINORMOUS church with cafes and lounges in them. I mean its for convenience , but i know LOTS of people tht just go there to "chill" and not for real religious purposes. Koreans tend to be very cliquey even as you grow older (20's,30's,40's....etc) and the offering for churches are like paying rent to it. If people dont cough up XX amount of $ for their weekly offering, others gossip about them..now is that really christian like? who said we had to pay inorder to go into heaven? Not only that but it just seems the pastors/people in charge, are taking advantage of citizens for their hard earned money.

Also, my main reason is, there are so many religions that how can one be better than the other?

If there is some mighty being, ill deal with it at the end... nothing big. Just live a good life with good morals

**Ristaron** · 07-11-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazielRedel

I completely agree. I was merely stating the fact that I find it funny that people think that A-biogenisis is so much more plausible than an intelligent design.

I'd like to take this point up, if you don't mind. My personal opinion of Intelligent Design happens to be shared by the majority of the atheist (and scientific) community.
Over the course of the past two hundred years, enormous advances have been made in understanding the universe in terms of empirical data and scientific means. As scientific knowledge has increased, we've had many inventions such as the light bulb, the microwave, the motor vehicle, etc. Also with the increase of scientific knowledge we see a drastic decrease in the volume of "fundamentalist Christians". Looking back, it's clear the phases that science has pushed religion back, and it's also clear how religion has pretty much desperately clawed at the ground as it was being forced into recession. Where once we believed that the Sun orbited the Earth (Geocentricism), we have established that we are not the center of the solar system (Heliocentricism), let alone the galaxy or universe. Where once we fathomed tornadoes and hurricanes as divine vengeance or displeasure, we now understand that they are complex weather systems that occur frequently in nature by plainly natural forces. Where once we believed that we were the only form of homo sapien, we now see evidence of prior forms of our species, even going back into proto-human ancestors; not to mention dinosaurs.

With every new scientific discovery, a hole is plugged and "God" shrinks a little bit more. This "God of the Gaps" has long been recognized by those of us in the scientific community who are moderately far-sighted as condemned to one day be reduced to nothing. That's why we don't believe in Intelligent Design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazielRedel

I was mainly refering to the holes in the idea of macro-evolution. The theory that every living organism has a common ancestor. There are simply quite a few examples within the animal world that evolution has no explanation for. Mostly examples of symbiosis like the Boxer Crab which uses Anemones as weapons. I'm not claiming that evolution has by any means been disproved, I just find it odd that so many people are completely unwilling and actually aggressive about not listening to theories that come from a different perspective. I may be incorrect about that and it may entirely come from my own slanted experience, but it has none the less been my experience that scientist are just as unwilling to question evolution as you say that religious people are to question what their preacher says.

There are two major flaws in your understanding of evolution that I easily point out in this paragraph. The first is the notion of "macro-evolution" occurring naturally. Simply put, macro-evolution is nothing more than the missing pieces in the fossil record. These missing pieces are bound to happen; consider it. Five thousand years from now, do you think the bones in the local cemetery will still be there? How about ten thousand years from now? Twenty? Do you know that anatomically modern humans, according to carbon-dating, have been around for one hundred thousand years? Apply this knowledge to considering how many fossils of previous forms of hominoids have been recovered. A handfull. These are fossils that are up to a million years old, sometimes over!
It's not that we disregard theories, we consider them for their validity, certainly, but most of the time it's all the same Intelligent Design stuff that's been scientifically disproven.
The second is the incorrect notion that evolution always makes the evolved form better fit for the environment. Every gene has two parts that code for different things. Occasionally you'll find that one trait that makes the species better fit overall, but it also introduces a rather useless feature that tagged along because it was on the same gene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazielRedel

That may be true. But my experience with every other religion has been that you have to pick yourself up and do it. That it takes work to reach it and if you aren't good enough you won't make it and no one will shed a tear. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

I assume that you're talking about Buddhism, where you must succeed at one level to pass to the next on the ladder to enlightenment? If I'm right, you certainly do have it wrong -- they are supportive of each other in their quest for enlightenment.

I just thought that I would clear up those things.

RazielRedel · 07-11-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

With every new scientific discovery, a hole is plugged and "God" shrinks a little bit more. This "God of the Gaps" has long been recognized by those of us in the scientific community who are moderately far-sighted as condemned to one day be reduced to nothing. That's why we don't believe in Intelligent Design.

I understand what you mean by the God of the Gaps but the thing is that I've never prescribed to the "Oh, I don't understand that. God must have done it." type of religion. Frankly that sort of reasoning should never have existed in the first place. Yes we are making massive leaps in bound in understanding the natural world around us, but that does not prove in any way that it isn't God that's behind it. It just lets us understand how those various natural processes work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

There are two major flaws in your understanding of evolution that I easily point out in this paragraph. The first is the notion of "macro-evolution" occurring naturally. Simply put, macro-evolution is nothing more than the missing pieces in the fossil record. These missing pieces are bound to happen; consider it. Five thousand years from now, do you think the bones in the local cemetery will still be there? How about ten thousand years from now? Twenty? Do you know that anatomically modern humans, according to carbon-dating, have been around for one hundred thousand years? Apply this knowledge to considering how many fossils of previous forms of hominoids have been recovered. A handfull. These are fossils that are up to a million years old, sometimes over!
It's not that we disregard theories, we consider them for their validity, certainly, but most of the time it's all the same Intelligent Design stuff that's been scientifically disproven.
The second is the incorrect notion that evolution always makes the evolved form better fit for the environment. Every gene has two parts that code for different things. Occasionally you'll find that one trait that makes the species better fit overall, but it also introduces a rather useless feature that tagged along because it was on the same gene.

I don't quite understand what you mean by macro evolution not occurring naturally. And to be perfectly honest, I am in fairly over my head in this area. That being said, from what I understand about carbon dating (I'm assuming you mean carbon-14) it's only real effective range is between 500 and 25000 years. That being said, I agree that yours is a perfectly acceptable theory for why there are so many missing links.

I'm not particularly sure what the second part has to do with what I said. Are you saying that the accumulation of useless features just happened to occur in such a way that they became useful?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

I assume that you're talking about Buddhism, where you must succeed at one level to pass to the next on the ladder to enlightenment? If I'm right, you certainly do have it wrong -- they are supportive of each other in their quest for enlightenment.

No, that's not what I meant. I can see where you would get that though. I wasn't terribly clear. I meant that within all other religions that I've encountered the idea that comes that you have to do all the work yourself. I'm not saying that others on the same path won't be supportive or even helpful, but it's still you that has to achieve whatever end the religion is trying to bring you to. It would be both ridiculous and stupid to assume that other's wouldn't be willing or able to help you further along.

I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part.

**Ristaron** · 07-12-2008, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazielRedel

I understand what you mean by the God of the Gaps but the thing is that I've never prescribed to the "Oh, I don't understand that. God must have done it." type of religion. Frankly that sort of reasoning should never have existed in the first place. Yes we are making massive leaps in bound in understanding the natural world around us, but that does not prove in any way that it isn't God that's behind it. It just lets us understand how those various natural processes work.

No, but attributing the big "why" to God is no different than attributing the big "why" to the Flying Spaghetti Monster... I'm curious: are you equally certain that he is behind this? Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazielRedel

I don't quite understand what you mean by macro evolution not occurring naturally. And to be perfectly honest, I am in fairly over my head in this area. That being said, from what I understand about carbon dating (I'm assuming you mean carbon-14) it's only real effective range is between 500 and 25000 years. That being said, I agree that yours is a perfectly acceptable theory for why there are so many missing links.

I'm not particularly sure what the second part has to do with what I said. Are you saying that the accumulation of useless features just happened to occur in such a way that they became useful?

In regards to macro-evolution not occurring naturally, I was speaking as a prelude to how macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution seen over a long period of time with lots of missing links in the fossil record (see my explanation on why this is not at all unexpected considering how old some of the fossils are). Macro-evolution is a myth, it occurs when we draw a direct line between two different fossils and disregard the possibility of there being something in between.

In regards to the second part of my post, I was referring to why you see things that have evolved with no practical function. People say that if evolution is all about better fit to the environment and you have useless pieces evolving in, that it would logically disprove evolution. As I said, this is a hasty conclusion because many traits that are very VERY useful can also have useless traits coded along with them. Due to this, when a very useful trait gets expressed, the other trait (which is impractical, but does not off-set the increased fit the creature has) would also be expressed.

Furthermore, in regards to the Carbon-14 dating "problem" you brought up. I have explained this many times in many places in the forums, but I'll explain it, again, for you right now. There is a technique called "spiking". This involves adding more carbon to the sample, and then removing it from the results. This effectively increases the age of the oldest you can measure an indefinite amount (from 5,730 years), though it has a larger margin of error the more you "spike" it past the 40,000 year mark.
For samples that are too old for the Carbon-14 dating, there are a number of other absolute dating methods. My favourite one to bring up for rocks is the Potassium-Argon test. It accurately measures samples older than 100,000 years, and can be extended with minimal margin of error up to over 1 billion years. The only thing with K-AR dating is that it can't be used on organic substances, only geological (rocks).
The one that is used to measure some of the oldest samples is the Uranium-Lead dating method. This method has its best results within the 1 million to 4.5 billion year old sample range.

I'd also like to make mention that dating methods are always double (sometimes triple) checked using more than one dating method. So long as there is either exponential decay or half-life, it can be measured for absolute dating purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazielRedel

No, that's not what I meant. I can see where you would get that though. I wasn't terribly clear. I meant that within all other religions that I've encountered the idea that comes that you have to do all the work yourself. I'm not saying that others on the same path won't be supportive or even helpful, but it's still you that has to achieve whatever end the religion is trying to bring you to. It would be both ridiculous and stupid to assume that other's wouldn't be willing or able to help you further along.

I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part.

I'd have to agree with that assertion. Christianity is the only "free-ride" religion. All you have to do is believe in Jesus... and not commit the unforgivable sin (see below).

The Unforgivable Sin:
"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12:30-32"
Link.

RazielRedel · 07-12-2008, 08:22 AM

Behind existence? Yes, I believe that. I think his existence is the big "why". Plus I'm not a big fan of spagetti. Perhaps a pizza monster though. Or better yet, a pizza kaiju. That would be fantastic.

As to macro evolution and carbon dating, I really don't have any way to debate you. It's not something I know a lot about, so I'll think I'll have to bow out on that one here.

For the no practical function, I'm not very sure where I brought that up. It makes perfect sense for things to have useless traits in with the good. I got my moms good looks, but I'm only 5'6'' so it's not nearly as useful as it could be

.

And as for the unforgivable sin, that's right.