NoGodBlog.com

Yes, you guys looked good! But I wanted to pop John Stossel one upside the head when he asked Nicole, "Why are you an atheist?" In his usually snarky tone it came off like "What is wrong with you?" Would he ask a Jew "So, why ARE you a Jew?"

Brave girl. I wanted so much to give her a hug.

Didn't see the show... but yeah, John Stossel can be very hit-or-miss. He has a very libertarian attitude sometimes that I like, but sometimes he can be so dense and arrogant.

Damn I forgot about it.

But I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher just now and he had Chris Hitchens on, touting his book, God Is Not Great. Maher mentioned that he had been saying that for 15 years on TV and has a documentary coming out relative to it at the end of the year. Something to watch for.

Karen,
Atheists are definetly enboldened now like never before and I would expect that the next year will bring us many more books and programmes on the topic.

Alex:

You were born in Britain but came to the US as a child, right? I get a kick out of how you still use British spellings, like "programme" etc. :-)

the world should start a college scholarship for Nicole Smalkowski and other Atheist young adults who may miss out on the great pleasures of life simply for their beliefs. I hope a great institution recruits Nicole to play basketball or another sport of her choice.

ooo. good, here's a scholarhship: http://www.atheists.org/family/html/scholarship.html

college clubs: http://www.campusfreethought.org/affiliates.htm

AC,
I may have lost the accent since arriving here at age ten but I still have my funny little ways of holding onto my heritage. I fly the Union flag and the Welsh flag from my house too. :-)

I can't get the video to work so I can't see the interview. Can someone please fill me in?

shannon4peace,
FFRF has many essay contests for high school youth to enter and get college funds. I am very impressed by the letters of our freethinking youth.

Maher has a documentary coming out, yeah!

Dave,
I'm sure it will pop up on you tube. If not, I can put up just the piece that had you and Ellen. I DVRed the show. I watched most of it but the Smalkowski family was right at the 9 pm (cst) mark so there is about 3 seconds missing where my tivo shut off at 8:59:59 and came back on at 9 pm (cst).

They had John Stossel of all people to do this. They might as well hired Phreedm to interview you.

Here you go Dave. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1MlBIYaah4

Nicole Smalkowski is a brave young woman. She is, however, paying the price for expressing her right to believe what she believes in a close-minded small community. It was painful to hear what the good xians have done to her. I would be happy to donate to a scholarship fund. How do we help her?

I see that others missed 20/20 last night. Don't know if this will help anybody else, but after the notice on this site I emailed myself a reminder and managed to remember I wanted to watch. My suggestion is email yourself with a header saying something like "ABC 20/20 Fri 8:00". This way you don't even have to open the email, but it catches your eye everytime you check your mail.

Despite the amount of shit this little girl went through, the Christians in the video STILL tried to come off as the victims, by proclaiming that they are just "Standing up for their faith". Did anyone hear that old man say that?

Standing up for your faith in a town and school filled to the brim with Christians... Ooh, what rebels..

And maybe I'm a little too sensitive, but every word out of Stossel's mouth infuriated me. Especially when he pretty much implied that she should have just become a little sheep and just joined in.

Stossel is a definite skeptic and I thought atheist as well. Have you ever wtached his "Gimme a Break?" series? He comes down really hard on religion and new age beleiefs in several segments.

Hmmm...filmed at the "National Atheist" convention...and only 86 people...?

http://www.restaurantreport.com/qa/86d.html

Dave...IMO you've got to work up a new line..."closet atheits"?

I guess having the "belief" (faith) that their are a greater number with the similar lack of "beliefs" is comforting....

And who says atheists don't faith in the "unknown"?

I found Dawkins comments remarkable...

"We are priviledged to live in a beautiful universe..."

beautiful...? All from evolution?
I'm wondering if any of my farm animals understand the concept of beauty...

And here's the kicker..."Priviledged".

Who granted us this "privilege?
Who placed us in a "superior position"?

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=privileged

I'm always amazed at how non-believers inadvertently point to a higher power...

Yeah, yeah...I know..."bang"...it just happened....

Phreedm said:

I'm wondering if any of my farm animals understand the concept of beauty...

They're probably too traumatized to understand the concept of beauty, due to you stickin' it their poopers every other hour of the day. And the real unfortunate ones get you consecutively.

Which leads me to one question: Where do you find the time for church?

phreedm

I'm wondering if any of my farm animals understand the concept of beauty...

Why don't you try praying to your god for the ability to communicate with them and then simply ask them?

Get back to us and let us know how it goes.

Naw, strike that. We already know.

just a general question here
How can you not beleive in something that does not exist? is it not also a blind faith that there is no god vs. a blind faith that he does exist?

imac79

How can you not beleive in something that does not exist?

Just apply that to leprechauns or fairys. You'll get the idea. I hope.

imac79

You ask; "is it not also a blind faith that there is no god vs. a blind faith that he does exist?"

To unequivocally claim that there is no god is like blind faith...but it is not so blind. It is faith built on repeatable, experimental deduction.

You can't proof God doesn't exist. But the overwhelming scientific evidence is so great against his existence, it is the wise person who lives his life accordingly.

There's no such thing as having "blind faith" when bombarded with extraordinary claims. Plain and simple.

Vishnu lives in my soap dish and only reveals himself to me when I take a shower. PROVE HE DOESN'T! Until you prove he doesn't, you have to have "blind faith" that he doesn't.

Selective logic is a bitch.

phreedm: Give the farm animals a chance. It very well might be your last and best shot at satisfaction.

so why fight sooooo damn hard to eraticate anything tied to something thats not there? seems like all that effort to remove someones beleifs because what they beleive in does not exist. are you trying to save people from them selves? seems like a wasted effort.

phreedm 5 black men in tenn. carjacked a white couple they raped the man cut off his penis while alive then killed him.they gang raped the woman for 4 days cut off her breast while alive sprayed cleaning fluid in her mouth while alive then killed her.WHERE THE HELL WAS YOUR GOD.

btw the crime happened in knoxville tenn.the couple were uni.of tenn. students and didn't make the big media news because the victims where white and the perps were black.we can't upset the liberals you know.

Reason,
I'm glad someone else saw this crime and isnt afraid to say exactly why it was kept out of the mass media. But let's stay on topic here...

Phreedm a.k.a. Dumbass said:[I guess having the "belief" (faith) that their are a greater number with the similar lack of "beliefs" is comforting....]

I have the "belief" (faith) that you are a worthless sack of stool.

alex it is hard to stay on topic when people blather about how good god is.well if he is so good why let such a brutal crime take place or all the other brutal crimes that have happened.
i also am feed up with the media ignoring nonwhite crime against white
look at doj stats.civil rights has resulted in a epidemic of nonwhite crime against white and everyone but the extreme right is too goddamn scared to speak up.

i'm speaking from a neutral position just so you get a perspective of where i come from.
anger towards a god just shows you believe he/she exists? seems the only way I can explain that statement. and for the crimes thats just bad people being bad or in a more root form animals being animals, one of our closest relationships in nature is the chimp and they murder other chimps so i guess there just being animals. why be angry? why is it even wrong? who is to say it's wrong? I personaly feel myself it's horible beyond beleif but i'm just one animal with one point of view.

imac79
i can't be neutral anymore we spend billions fighting to keep iraqis safe but our own citizens must live in terror of local thugs.and yes i feel for nonwhite victims of crime as well.if this is democracy then to hell with it.everyone not just the rich should be safe and while i'm ranting i despise the talking heads who say the fifty something factory worker can just learn a new skill when his job is outsourced to the third world.

now assume god does exist,humor the idea for a minute. why would a loving god let this happen?maybe he hates us? maybe he doesn't care? it would be proof that what god say's is true that satan/the devil/evil exists and is as deceptive as we are warned in gods bible/word. think if god made people to be robots and everything was good and nothing bad happend, baby's didn't die, kids in 3rd world countrys didn't starve, because of corrupt governments, cancer didn't exist .what would the point of life be if we had no choices? to chose a god or not? to be good or bad? the only point that is sure in life is that we will die, no one knows how or when, maybe getting your dick chopped of by some psycho or maybe in an old folks home at 103. if god exists he says just be prepared for when that day comes.not that it will be a walk on the beach at sunset.

i also think it is stupid for people to take the law into their own hands but we clearly need to make clear to the democrats and republicans that the present state of affairs can not continue.or you will have the hotheads taking the law into their own hands.

what does any of what you said have to do with god? you seem to just want a utopia comunist society where all is free and equal. sorry buddy that aint goona happen no mater what you fight for.but it would be cool....segway's for everyone!!!weeeee!!

well lets just find a universal set of laws? hmmmm where could i find 8-12 basic laws that could conform all humanity to live in harmony? i'm just drawing a blank.....

what purpose would be served by allowing massive suffering.a deist god that creates the universe then washes his hands is bullshit why create then ignore your creation.and a just god would not ignore the misery in this world.blameing a evil god is a copout for humans.no there is simply no evidence that a god exists.

also sorry to say that what you saw on the news happens daily in the middle east because no one has ever had the balls to stand up and say "give Everyone equal rights to everyone in your society" finaly someone does and all you can do is bitch about it. oh yeah and if you just want to do it peacefully and see how long it takes before your head gets chopped off!

2000 years of attempts to destroy the bible and it's currently a best seller. must be random chance?

anger towards bad things has no bearing on gods existance

imac79
what do you want, to live in a third world shithole of a country.take a good look around drugs ,crime etc are eating at our society like a cancer it won't stop by praying to a god that doesn't exist.

and it's not blaming an evil god(from my previous statment you will see) it's showing every peron(in a god exists world) has the choice to basicaly follow god(accept sin is wrong and strive for better through god) or follow sin(do bad stuff like cut dicks off) so it's our personal choice to follow good or evil....or maybe it's realy the Matrix and i need to follow the white rabbit.

so why focus on the god removal and work on an anti drug campane?

if your think we into iraq to spread democracy you are crazy.

well it's not to sell mcdonalds franchises

you seem realy angry still about God, for someone who has no beleif in him you sure are angry at him

imac79 i am not trying to remove god
but i don't think we should just throw our hands up and say this is gods will everytime something bad happens.we can't prevent natural disasters but we can certainly take rapists,pedophiles,murderers out in the street and execute them.

imac79 i am not angry at something i don't believe in.in fact i'm not angry at all.i am disgusted here we are trying to tell the world how to live, we don't even have our own act together and you know we could do alot better.

i agree and i beleive they should be punished harshly and if draging them into the street and blowing off there heads is it then good they deserve it. and as i was saying it is the peoples own choice to do what they do, not gods direct will. again in a god exists world god may know whats going to happen but does not interfear because that would be removing the very free coice to choose our own destiny he gave us and not have it made up for us automaticaly thus removing our purpose for existance, to choose gods love or not.

2000 years of attempts to destroy the bible and it's currently a best seller. must be random chance?

Ahem. When did this happen?
Closest I can recall was the French Revolution.
Certainly, no European country since then has tried. Nor American.

imac there is no god to hate but I do hate the god idea and what it makes otherwise reasonable people do.

hi omar here from nyc...i saw the episode on youtube...we need more families like the smalkowskis!! chuck, sir, i wanna shake your hand and give nicole a big hug. nicole dont fret, come to nyc where you will find more of us in larger numbers! may science and thought triumph over illogical dogma. we applaud your courage and conviction.

Krystalline Apostate do you live under a rock? what about hitlers bible burings? the roman empire ? were you sleeping in history class

what if the existance of god could be proved for or against mathmaticaly.you know with science? what would you do if it was proved %100 that there was no god you would have actual valid points here but also what if he was proved real?

alexatheist what do you blame non religious peoples actions on? are there not as many bad things going on in the world from non religius dictators/communists all over the world? it's easy to point fingers at peoples actions and blame god, what is the actual percentage of muslims in the world that blow themselves up? less that on percent? it seems like everyone here makes broad generalization of a whole based upon a few and say it's god fault because some crazy person said it was gods will. what if an abortion doctor was killed by someone in the name of Santa clause? to say santa is to be taken off tv, out of schools, out of our country, and never mention it again by law?

imac79,

If the existence of gods were proved 100% either way, then there's simply no longer be room for debate.

However in the real world this is not the case, and nor is it ever likely to be so. Hence the on-going debate.

imac79,

alexatheist what do you blame non religious peoples actions on? are there not as many bad things going on in the world from non religius dictators/communists all over the world?

Noone is claiming the religion is all bad, nor that religion is the only bad thing in the world. Just that each religion unfounded in its adherance to supernatural deities

it's easy to point fingers at peoples actions and blame god

noone here is blaming any gods. We don't hold in the existence of gods remember? Rather we'd be more inclined to blame people for their own actions and hold culpable the institutions to which they subscribe that peddle the fairly tales that end up inciting ill-founded and unreasonable acts.

, what is the actual percentage of muslims in the world that blow themselves up? less that on[e] percent? it seems like everyone here makes broad generalization of a whole based upon a few and say it's god fault because some crazy person said it was gods will.

The problem with this accusation (besides you making your own generalization) is that you have no basis for deciding who is crazy and who is 'genuinely' doing God's will. This is one of the problems with believing in fairy tales - there's is no rational basis for determining who is, and who is not genuine.

what if an abortion doctor was killed by someone in the name of Santa clause? to say santa is to be taken off tv, out of schools, out of our country, and never mention it again by law?

personally I am against lying to children about the reality of Santa Claus, but that is beside the point. I think you'd agree that almost all adult realize that Santa is not real, and therefore reject any justification for murder in Santa's name. Unfortunately this is not the case with gods. For any 'god sanctioned' killing there are likely to be a significant group of people that will condone the action as justified. When and if this group becomes a majority, we will all be in dire straights (and not to play a guitar).

If a kid kills in the name of Santa, then I'd say that is an indication that society should stop lying to their young about the reality of such mythical creatures. I wouldn't advocate legal enforcement like banning. Just be truthful and honest. It's amazing how well it works.

imac79:

Krystalline Apostate do you live under a rock? what about hitlers bible burings? the roman empire ? were you sleeping in history class

Funny.
Hitler burned bibles? The Roman Empire couldn't have, since there wasn't a cohesive bible till the 9th CE.
AH was a good Catholic boy, so I have trouble swallowing that.

what would you do if it was proved %100 that there was no god you would have actual valid points here but also what if he was proved real?

Hell, I'd say 50% would be a good start. That at least would put me on the road to agnosticism.

yes hitler!

imac79
I did find one reference at a site about persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses by Hitler during the Nazi occupation.

This woman said:
"Our preaching was banned and our Bibles were publicly burned."
www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10006186

Is this what you are referring to? i cannot find any other historical references to Hitler burning Bibles.

imac79:
Yeah, let's see some sources on this.

i'll get back to you on that.
another question about atheism, are we then as humans just another animal like say a cow or a bird. just a little smarter?

"The Roman Empire couldn't have, since there wasn't a cohesive bible till the 9th CE. "
I was talking more on the whole christians as lion food (the were the bible basicaly )

imac79:

I was talking more on the whole christians as lion food (the were the bible basicaly )

A. That's not 2000 years' worth, &
B. The martyrdom thing was way overblown.

i'll get back to you on that.

Better do it toot sweet, or you lose street creds.

another question about atheism, are we then as humans just another animal like say a cow or a bird. just a little smarter?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Krystalline Apostate ,i wasn't saying good or bad i was just trying to get an atheist view of why were here. you know what is the purpose of people. I have an honest curiosity about the whole god/no god argument.

http://www.allaboutfollowingjesus.org/christian-persecution.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Victory/lesson-4.html (part b 4th paragrph)

here are a couple sources

imac79,

Why do you think there should be an intrinsic purpose to life?

Does not the reality of unfettered consciousness enable one to define (or not) one's own purpose? Any imposed institutionally sanctioned life-purpose surely only cheapens the human spirit and unnecessarily reduces our potential to reach for the stars.

well if you compare humans to the rest of the animal kingdom it seems like there are more than a few not so sutle differences.yes we are all carbon life forms with same basic make up of organs, breath the same air, feel pain and ultimatly die, but you have to agree that there is a huge difference in our actions. animals live to maintain there lives while humans have always tried to live and improve life through invention and innovation. sure a monkey can use a stick to get bugs out of a hole but does it ever try to make the stick more efficient. animals have homes like dens and nests but do they strive to make safer more effecient homes? a birds nest 5000 years ago probably hasn't changed much to today. animals dont activly try to help other animals from themselves. they have a basic law of survival of the fittest. but they have no concience. the fact that no other animal makes churches temples or shrines, and that the majority of our planet agrees that there is something more to life than just living. maybe it's god , maybe it's the matrix? i mean we are so different that just through pure logic of comparison we are extensivly different and there is some reason for that.

imac79
Perhaps the 'lesser' animals are smarter than we are. Afterall, they are not engineering and inventing and overpopulating themselves out of a planet. They're not destroying the ozone layer. They don't kill each other for no reason.
As you point out, they don't make temples or shrines. :)

Just because we have the ability to recognize our existence and ponder it, doesn't mean there is more to it than the circle of life. We're still animals, mammals to be specific.

Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because some dumbass humans insisted on making a road where the chicken was used to walking.

imac79

well if you compare humans to the rest of the animal kingdom it seems like there are more than a few not so sutle differences.

I think you'll find the same argument can be made for the uniqueness of any species.

yes we are all carbon life forms with same basic make up of organs, breath the same air, feel pain and ultimatly die,

Even more significant is that all species of life have the same basic building blocks - DNA.

but you have to agree that there is a huge difference in our actions. animals live to maintain there lives while humans have always tried to live and improve life through invention and innovation.

This is not so huge. The instinctual object is essentially the same, the method is novel in as much as humans have taken it to an extreme.

sure a monkey can use a stick to get bugs out of a hole but does it ever try to make the stick more efficient.

Given him time to evolve he may well do so.

animals have homes like dens and nests but do they strive to make safer more effecient homes?

If it aint broke - don't fix it.

a birds nest 5000 years ago probably hasn't changed much to today.

Because it has worked successfully for 5,000+ years.

animals dont activly try to help other animals from themselves.

There are many examples of interspecial symbiotic relationships. You statement doesn't meet its prima facia obligations.

they have a basic law of survival of the fittest.

They do? Please explain what you mean by this. I fear it is just a misapplication of evolution through natural selection.

but they have no concience.

Really? evidence would tend to disagree with that thought.

the fact that no other animal makes churches temples or shrines, and that the majority of our planet agrees that there is something more to life than just living. maybe it's god , maybe it's the matrix? i mean we are so different that just through pure logic of comparison we are extensivly different and there is some reason for that.

Well, that's an incredibly weak argument. By your logic every species could argue the same conclusion. Your idea of 'pure logic' seems to be neither pure nor logical. Essentially you are saying that because humans are different to other life forms (who are also different from each other) then there must be a reason for human life and that reason might well be god.

You'll excuse me if I don't treat the proposition seriously.

HeatheNZ-
you answers dont make any logical sense,
"Given him time to evolve he may well do so."
if we evolved from monkeys why are ther still monkeys?
this is just a staight avoidance of a real issue.
"If it aint broke - don't fix it."
"Because it has worked successfully for 5,000+ years. "
my point is mud huts worked for us 5000 years ago but our desire to improve has us in safer more stable dwelings now. mud huts would still work now the same as the birds nest but there is a significant with humans because of that.
your whole response is diverting real points of human differances, that fact were discussing this on a blog and not by drum beats or smoke signals proves it.


"Really? evidence would tend to disagree with that thought"

please send a credible resource, realy i'm on the edge of my seat right now.

"They do? Please explain what you mean by this. I fear it is just a misapplication of evolution through natural selection. "
natural selection is survival of the fittest. and animals do survive by it, the weak and the old, the hadicaped and the young are all likly to die alot quicker in any species other than our own. we treat all of our weak with specialized care through special schools, prosthetic limbs, medications, homes for the elderly.
"There are many examples of interspecial symbiotic relationships. You statement doesn't meet its prima facia obligations. "
monkeys picking lice of of each other or fish picking parisites of of a shark is not even in the same ballpark.

were very different

"Perhaps the 'lesser' animals are smarter than we are"
if there is any truth to this why dont animals try to find ways to be less likly to be eaten or freeze to death? the point is they dont, not one except our own species. you can "whatif/ maybe if /perhaps" all you want, your speculating and i'm talking about things that are known.
maybe by admitting there are signifigant differences you might find a few holes in what you believe.
the more i talk to you guys the more i'm swaying in the god exists catagory from the neutral.

"Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because some dumbass humans insisted on making a road where the chicken was used to walking. "
Do you live in the wilderness? bury your poo and leave little sign your even there? since your on the internet i'm guessing not. dont contradict what you live, thats just ignorant.

imac79

if there is any truth to this why dont animals try to find ways to be less likly to be eaten or freeze to death? the point is they dont, not one except our own species.

What do you call camouflage and fur coats? Species from all over the world have developed ways to evade and avoid being eaten. As for freezing to death, animals in those climates adapt to the conditions also, lunkhead. Man is more likely to freeze to death than an animal indigenous to a cold climate.

Do you live in the wilderness? bury your poo and leave little sign your even there? since your on the internet i'm guessing not. dont contradict what you live, thats just ignorant.

Obviously you didn't get the intent of my non-joke. Go ahead, sway toward god. There's no need for non-thinkers on this side of the fence.

Hi yer imac79,

Glad 't see you be question n all that lern'n you bean gettn at sunny schol.
Thats were I learnt two!

thare be one and 2 quizns that I bean wandern ifn ya cold ansir fir me?

Da frst quizn bean, is yu an Fairywill havn de saem god idea? Mean'n does ya both b hav'n da saem god master as ya boat be tinkn dare bee one god idea rite?

N da secnd quizn (that ther be 2), daed yor god idea tell ya daed mistr Fairwell go to the down n undr sews ya can bray at Him at nite aftr yourn god idea is a slept?

Tankx a head a time fer ansearn ma quizns as i learnt n sunni schol just lik uy did. Butt uy mustr had more betr teachair what i nevr had.

Ohpus i maya done a spell missn b caus i aint checkd if andy spells as missd.

sawree

imac79:
1st, I was talking about the alleged 'book burning'.
2nd, an argument from martyrdom is hardly a cogent argument.

if we evolved from monkeys why are ther still monkeys?

Not only is this perhaps the most illogical statement posted, it shows a complete lack of knowledge as to how evolution works.
It doesn't always go in a straight line: it goes backwards sometimes, & there are occasions where it plateaus.

you can "what/if maybe if /perhaps" all you want, your speculating and i'm talking about things that are known.

Ahem. I think that an encyclopedia could be filled w/the things you don't know.
None of this is 'speculation', it's been proven scientifically.

maybe by admitting there are signifigant differences you might find a few holes in what you believe.

Significant differences in what, exactly?

imac79

you answers dont make any logical sense,

It'd be nice if yours at least made grammatical sense. I reject your accusation and note that you offer nothing, nada, in its support.

in
"Given him time to evolve he may well do so."
if we evolved from monkeys why are ther still monkeys?

Common ancestor. Surely your not that ill informed?

this is just a staight avoidance of a real issue.

On the contrary, it's a valid rejoiner to your assertion of treating human speciality as something uniquelt special. Are you incapable of addressing a criticism?

my point is mud huts worked for us 5000 years ago but our desire to improve has us in safer more stable dwelings now. mud huts would still work now the same as the birds nest but there is a significant with humans because of that.

Many people still live in mud huts where it's appropriate. Where its inappropriate we have adapted to the local climes and resources - as do numerous animal species.

your whole response is diverting real points of human differances, that fact were discussing this on a blog and not by drum beats or smoke signals proves it.

I never claim humans were not different, just that ALL species have the differences. Every species is uniquely different from all others. There's nothing special about our specialness.

please send a credible resource, realy i'm on the edge of my seat right now.

Please don't fall on your sarcastic arse. Think about how a pet dog acts when it's stolen some table food. It knows it's done wrong.

"They do? Please explain what you mean by this. I fear it is just a misapplication of evolution through natural selection. "
natural selection is survival of the fittest. and animals do survive by it, the weak and the old, the hadicaped and the young are all likly to die alot quicker in any species other than our own.

You need to read a little more. You are describing social darwinism. What worries me is that you probably don't know the differentiation between social darwinism and evolution by natural selection.

we treat all of our weak with specialized care through special schools, prosthetic limbs, medications, homes for the elderly.

Some societies advocate euthanasia for the old and infirmed - but I digress.

"There are many examples of interspecial symbiotic relationships. Your statement doesn't meet its prima facia obligations. "
monkeys picking lice of of each other or fish picking parisites of of a shark is not even in the same ballpark.

Again, your bias and lack of knowledge is showing. As an example, try researching the relationship between the fig and the fig wasps - it'll blow you mind.

" Not only is this perhaps the most illogical statement posted, it shows a complete lack of knowledge as to how evolution works.
It doesn't always go in a straight line: it goes backwards sometimes, & there are occasions where it plateaus. "
I know the THEORY of evolution and it is a very logical statement because there are no "missing links" walking around today. there is no living evidence of evolution, sure there is adaptation and alot of fosils that scientists can speculate on but where is the living proof. If it happend the way it's taught why so many gaps in the theory.

"Please don't fall on your sarcastic arse. Think about how a pet dog acts when it's stolen some table food. It knows it's done wrong."
Thats strictly learned behaviour! you yell at the dog when he does it, so the next time he thinks he's getting away with the action and gets caught the response is only from the expectation of be yelled at.

"You need to read a little more. You are describing social darwinism. What worries me is that you probably don't know the differentiation between social darwinism and evolution by natural selection. "
What ever theory you prescibe to has no bearing on the fact that we nurture and activly protect our weak and nature does not in the same active capacity.

"Again, your bias and lack of knowledge is showing. As an example, try researching the relationship between the fig and the fig wasps - it'll blow you mind."
Very interesting! Nature is amazing.


"What do you call camouflage and fur coats? Species from all over the world have developed ways to evade and avoid being eaten. As for freezing to death, animals in those climates adapt to the conditions also, lunkhead. Man is more likely to freeze to death than an animal indigenous to a cold climate."

nothing more has happend to change or improve these things, yes animals will adapt to situations but they dont invent fire to stay warm. yes a stupid naked man would freeze to death preety damn quick, but i would wear the latest winter gear, build an iglo start a fire and i would be fine.
I dont think you see that the whole argument here is showing the "significant" differences in our species. yes i know animals adapt and have relationships with figs but why does our lone species get the concience? why do most people in the world search for a god( about %90)? can 5 billion plus be that stupid? why do poeple activly try to get ahead in the world through technology,money,invention..ect?

your picking insignificant animal trates and trying to compare them with these real significant differences that we have. insted of telling me about wasps and making fun of my spelling try discussing my real points here. or continue skirting around by making off the cuff smartass remarks with no valid point or direction.

imac79

" Not only is this perhaps the most illogical statement posted, it shows a complete lack of knowledge as to how evolution works.
It doesn't always go in a straight line: it goes backwards sometimes, & there are occasions where it plateaus. "

Actually I'd like to make the point (that imac79 missed) that evolution does not go 'backwards' in the sense of working in reverse. It can go 'forward' in the direction it has come from, but that's a different story.

I know the THEORY of evolution ...

It would seem from your use of upper case that you don't even know what a scientific theory is, let alone the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Please don't fall on your sarcastic arse. Think about how a pet dog acts when it's stolen some table food. It knows it's done wrong."
Thats strictly learned behaviour! you yell at the dog when he does it, so the next time he thinks he's getting away with the action and gets caught the response is only from the expectation of be yelled at.

Exactly. From where do you think a human's ability to know what is wrong comes? It's learned from their social group. Or perhaps you think it's something we possess innately at birth?

"You need to read a little more. You are describing social darwinism. What worries me is that you probably don't know the differentiation between social darwinism and evolution by natural selection. "
What ever theory you prescibe to has no bearing on the fact that we nurture and activly protect our weak and nature does not in the same active capacity.

Are you kidding? Many life forms nurture and protect their kin be they weak, injured, young or sick. Admittedly, many do not do so also, but the point is that this is by no means unique to humans.

"Again, your bias and lack of knowledge is showing. As an example, try researching the relationship between the fig and the fig wasps - it'll blow you mind."
Very interesting! Nature is amazing.

Do I take it that you actually did some research? If so I am extremely impressed! Well done! I wonder if you now see that truly symbiotic relationships exist in nature.

nothing more has happend to change or improve these things, yes animals will adapt to situations but they dont invent fire to stay warm.

Well many animals do not need to stay warm. Maintaining a constant body heat is crazily expensive. how much better to take the reptilian approach and eat once a month without really caring about how cold it gets (to a point). Or even better take a whale's approach and live in a nice temperate ocean? And we think we're the smart ones!

yes a stupid naked man would freeze to death preety damn quick, but i would wear the latest winter gear, build an iglo start a fire and i would be fine.

What are you going to burn genius? If you have the materials to build an igloo there are likely to be no trees around for fuel. And how do you start a fire if you happen to be caught out without matches?

I dont think you see that the whole argument here is showing the "significant" differences in our species. yes i know animals adapt and have relationships with figs but why does our lone species get the concience?

I don't think you have made the case that we alone have a conscience. Perhaps you mean sentience or self-awareness?

why do most people in the world search for a god( about %90)? can 5 billion plus be that stupid?

That facts would indicate a definate yes to that question

why do poeple activly try to get ahead in the world through technology,money,invention..ect?

Craving for advancement, a better life, quest for knowledge, power, etc. What's your point?

your picking insignificant animal trates and trying to compare them with these real significant differences that we have. insted of telling me about wasps and making fun of my spelling try discussing my real points here.

You made some bold claims. I have tried to show that they are not accurate by pointing out counter examples. I only need one valid example to disprove your claim whether or not you think my examples are trivial, they still show that your assertions are at best short sighted.

or continue skirting around by making off the cuff smartass remarks with no valid point or direction.

Well in my defense your typographical errors do distract from you arguments (in you previous posts). If you are trying to make a case it helps if your reader can parse your grammar effectively. As for making smartass remarks, I make no apologies. Sometimes a claim with no prima facia backing is so ludicrous that ridicule is the only worthy rejoinder. If you want a serious conversation make a serious case for your argument. You'll get no respect for making unsubstantiated assertions. Welcome to the real world.

"Exactly. From where do you think a human's ability to know what is wrong comes? It's learned from their social group. Or perhaps you think it's something we possess innately at birth? "
humans are not a dogs social group, and dogs dont teach other dogs it's wrong to steal. yet without other animals to influence our actions we somehow find a set of moral of right and wrong that is different from any other animal group.

"don't think you have made the case that we alone have a conscience. Perhaps you mean sentience or self-awareness? "
there is no evidance to show i'm wrong on the conscience issue but finaly you can slightly admit we are self-aware. were the only species that has this and thus the question not are we different but why are we different?

and the serious question of if evolution actualy happens why is there lack of concrete evidience and there seems to be more questions for evolution than answers.
"It would seem from your use of upper case that you don't even know what a scientific theory is, let alone the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection."
I do understand them evolution/darwinism and all there branches and i also agree there only theory and not fact so to base an argument on theory is a solid jello. I am honestly trying to get the the bare roots of atheism,which seems to bewe are no different than any other living animal and if were just animals to live and die why are we different (self aware god seekers).

HZ:

Actually I'd like to make the point (that imac79 missed) that evolution does not go 'backwards' in the sense of working in reverse. It can go 'forward' in the direction it has come from, but that's a different story.

Actually, I was simplifying. Recessive genes, for 1 example. Atavisms for another. Excessive inbreeding can result in degeneration of genes.
My point was that humans tend to see evolution as a linear progression (resulting in our existence as the apex).

imac79:

I know the THEORY of evolution and it is a very logical statement because there are no "missing links" walking around today.

1st, look up the word theory. Multiple meanings. 2nd, no, still terribly illogical.

there is no living evidence of evolution, sure there is adaptation and alot of fosils that scientists can speculate on but where is the living proof. If it happend the way it's taught why so many gaps in the theory.

A. Few scientific theories are 'written in stone',
B. There's mountains of living evidence for evolution (talkorigins.org - go give it a look-see), &
C. Said gaps are closing rapidly (if you have the inclination, do some research & see what's changed since the publishing of the theory since 1859).
As for why people have a sense of identity & why they go looking for a higher power, that's easily, rationally explained.
Both those traits evolved.
"Creationists make it sound like a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Asimov.

imac79 Okay - I am going to insert some apostrophes in you text... it really makes a huge difference in readability. You should try it.

humans are not a dog[']s social group, and dogs don[']t teach other dogs it's wrong to steal. [Y]et without other animals to influence our actions we somehow find a set of moral of right and wrong that is different from any other animal group.

That is just plain silly. We learn our sense of what is wrong from our social group. Incidentally so do most pack (social) animals. It's just that their rules are different ours. A pack of wild dogs for example has very definite pack rule as to what constitutes unacceptable behavior.

[T]here is no evidance to show i'm wrong on the conscience issue

It's your assertion, therefore your responsibility to make a prima facie case.

but finaly you can slightly admit we are self-aware.

Pardon me. You were claiming a conscience is unique to humans. Neither of us mentioned self-aware until this point. Want to put words in my mouth? You'll need to try harder.

we[']re the only species that has this[,] and thus the question [is] not are we different but why are we different?

No it's not. I'd happily concede that humans are the most self-aware species, but it's not an on-off issue. There are degrees of self-awareness exhibited by many animals (dolphins, chimps, etc). I agree that we humans are different to other life forms, but point out again that all life forms are different from each other, so 'difference' is not a special quality.

and [as to]the serious question of if evolution actualy happens[,] why is there [a] lack of concrete evidience[?]

There is screeds of evidence. If you choose to ignore or discount it, that is merely ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

[A]nd there seems to be more questions for evolution than answers.

Ain't the quest for knowledge great? The more one learns, the more there is left to learn. That's the fundamental difference between a search for knowledge and a search for a god. The former is a rich journey with an unfilled end, the latter an unfilled end with no rich journey.

I do understand them[.] [E]volution/darwinism and all the[i]r branches and i also agree the[']re only theory and not fact[,] so to base an argument on theory is a solid jello.

Which simply supports that case that you have no idea of what constitutes a scientific theory.

I am honestly trying to get t[o] the bare roots of atheism, which seems to be we are no different than any other living animal.

Let me spell out atheism for you: :A lack of belief in supernatural gods". That's it. Period.

[A]nd if we[']re just animals to live and die why are we different (self aware god seekers).

Are we animals? Yes.
Do we live and die? Yes.
Are humans different? Yes.
Why are we different? All animals are different.

Our differences are only special if viewed with an anthropormophical bias. I hope it's obvious that this is a bias inherent to our views.

KA

Actually, I was simplifying. Recessive genes, for 1 example. Atavisms for another. Excessive inbreeding can result in degeneration of genes.
My point was that humans tend to see evolution as a linear progression (resulting in our existence as the apex).

I see where you're going and agree. evolution is certainly not linear. I was merely pointing out that evolution has no reverse gear, no memory if you will, and no direction. A species can't 'unevolve', it can only evolve in discrete steps with no reference to previous steps. Take for a simplistic example the beak length of Darwin's finches. While it grows and shrinks according to conditions, each change is a new adaptation even if that adaptation takes the length back to where it was in a previous time. Evolution has no memory.

I guess through all this i was hoping to find some solid answers. yes all animals are different but humans are more different than science can explain , lots of theories and guesses but no solid truth, and i was hoping to get some real answers from your side but realy you havn't done much for me other than fix my spelling and punctuation errors and brush me up on my grade 10 science. at least i got somethimg out of it.

here is a link to one of my many angles in a search for truth in our difference,
http://www.ramsforchrist.net/library/apologetics/05.pdf

imac79,

Happy to be of service. Science can the differences between humans and other life forms. The mechanisms are well known and well documented. What science cannot do is give an answer to the question "What is the purpose?"

Questions such as these assume that there is a higher purpose, which has yet to be shown. This is where people turn to god beliefs.

If you feel you need such questions to be answered then you are stuck with "God did it" or "It's a blessed mystery". If these do not satisfy you (and I fail to see how they could) then you will need to consider the possibility that the question is invalid and there is no higher purpose to which to aspire Or at the very least that the question is unanswerable at this time.

HeatheNZ,

Rudiments. There is documented evidence of a type of stick fly that has lost and regrown its wings several times from the rudiments.

Sorry I can't find the name of the particular species. If anyone ever finds reference to the species I would like to know because it is a nice example of evolution.

imac79
If you are indeed worried about the question of what is our purpose, consider, what is the purpose of a chimp, or a whale, or a butterfly?

Why not be happy with the fact that you're here and live the one life you have to its fullest, while you have the chance?

imac79

here is a link to one of my many angles in a search for truth in our difference,
http://www.ramsforchrist.net/library/apologetics/05.pdf

I took a look at your link. In my opinion it's a mix of standard xian apologetics, wishful thinking, liberal interpretation, and confirmation bias. A few examples:

If God wrote a book we would expect that he would tell us that he wrote it.

An example of circular logic. You'd need some independent attestation to support this claim.

If God wrote a book we would expect that it would be a very popular book.

An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. It does not support the claim. Moreover why would one expect it to be popular? It could equally be argued that if god wrote a book we'd expect him to restrict it's readership to only the most holy.

If God wrote a book we would expect it to be timeless.

And yet it is constantly updated, retranslated, and expounded in an attempt to make it relevant, or at least not laughable, to the current generation.

If God wrote a book we would expect that it would be understood by everyone.

And yet at a minimum the Catholics understand it differently than the protestants, who in turn disagree with the baptists, who disagree with the atheists, etc, etc.

If God wrote a book it would be perfectly unified and harmonious.

And yet it is manifestly internally inconsistent, ambiguous, amphibolous and repleat with absurdity. Check out http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ for a feast of examples.

rna2dna

Rudiments. There is documented evidence of a type of stick fly that has lost and regrown its wings several times from the rudiments.

r2d, I'm not sure what your point is here. Evolution does not preclude this happening in response to changing environments. My point is, as KA stated, evolution should not be viewed as a progression. It is simply directionless change in response to stimuli.

i guess it's the same as %90 percent of the world in that there is a feeling in most people that there is an actual purpose to this life and planet. why even live? to simply keep life going? i mean look up on a clear night and tell me you dont feel a little small next to a universe thats has no end. is it realy just a santa clause fantasy that in all that is exists there is somthing god like thats better than we are? seems a little closed minded to shut that part of ourselves off and say were here cause were here, now dont ask any more questions about it.
i also ask my self what are the mathmatical odds of this planet being exactly this distance from the sun of this size and type( a little off and were baked or frozen) with a moon that controls the ocean tides and just happens to have a single living organism on it. now increase that number of living things from bacteria to blue whales and include the odds of every living animal living in a cohesive ecosytem. seems like the odds are beyond what can even be measured. and yet still out of all this people exist among this, aspecies that sticks out from the rest like a sore thumb through our actions. out of all this to say it's a random occurace in an infinate universe?maybe, maybe not.

also is it not stated in physics that destruction will not create function eg. exploding a grenade will never make a wrist watch no matter how many times it happens
so i guess i question science that teaches a big bang theory in schools and then teach a physics class that contridicts it's own teaching. and why if science explanes all then why do text books from 30 years ago look like a fiction novel to today's texts?
man am i digging myself out of a hole! hehe

imac79:

i guess it's the same as %90 percent of the world in that there is a feeling in most people that there is an actual purpose to this life and planet. why even live? to simply keep life going? i mean look up on a clear night and tell me you dont feel a little small next to a universe thats has no end. is it realy just a santa clause fantasy that in all that is exists there is somthing god like thats better than we are? seems a little closed minded to shut that part of ourselves off and say were here cause were here, now dont ask any more questions about it.

Well, the universe being infinite is just a theory, per se. Yes, I do feel small in comparison to the splendor of it all.
Non-belief, BTW, doesn't equal a shutdown of curiosity. Prior to becoming an atheist, I knew next to nothing about evolution, for example.
We live on a marvelous world, no doubt. However, again, onus is on the believer to put a human face on the processes that underly the world & the universe.
I might point out, that a HUGE % of the universe is inimical to human life - even here on earth.
Rather than go on at length, here's a nice little synopsis:
http://www.youtube.com/v/FgSaTYLYRGI
DeGrasse is a foremost astrophysicist, I might add, & not an atheist.
If we were meant to be stewards of this earth, why don't we have gills?

"If God wrote a book we would expect it to be timeless.
And yet it is constantly updated, retranslated, and expounded in an attempt to make it relevant, or at least not laughable, to the current generation"
have you read a king james bible and the a newer version? the messages and teachings dont change just the language so it's easier to understand, that king james version is a tough read! i can barley understand shakspear, if put into modern language i would get more out of it.

"An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. It does not support the claim. Moreover why would one expect it to be popular? It could equally be argued that if god wrote a book we'd expect him to restrict it's readership to only the most holy."
i guess it could be considerd fallacy if any thing ever compared, throught this exclusive popularity it proves it's more than a good story. and the bible does not say its for the exclusivly holy so it's not treated that way.

"And yet at a minimum the Catholics understand it differently than the protestants, who in turn disagree with the baptists, who disagree with the atheists, etc, etc."

this is where christianity looses out through selfish actions of following the parts of the bible they like best. if people truly followed the bible there would be no denominations. no catholisism, baptist, pentacostle or what ever. just christians. but the book is understood in that all ages and cultures can grasp what it teaches.

this is where christianity looses out through selfish actions of following the parts of the bible they like best. if people truly followed the bible there would be no denominations. no catholisism, baptist, pentacostle or what ever.

Whateverrrrr.
Is this making anyone an antitheist yet?

imac79

is it realy just a santa clause fantasy that in all that is exists there is somthing god like thats better than we are? seems a little closed minded to shut that part of ourselves off and say were here cause were here, now dont ask any more questions about it.

Yes, to the first question, it is a Santa Claus type fantasy. Except most people haven't outgrown it.

We have not shut our minds off; we are continually seeking answers. But we are seeking fact-based answers, not fantasy-based ones. When you answer a question with "god", you have not answered it at all, you have merely placated yourself for the time being.

How does the god answer satisfy our curiosity? Don't you want to know where that god came from? How and why he makes his decisions to act or not to act?

As an aside, I would like to join HZ in pleading with you to use correct grammar and punctuation in your posts. They are very difficult to read as they are. Misspellings are common, and we all do that frm time to time, but please try to type as if you have some experience and knowledge of the common usages.

i guess it's the same as %90 percent of the world in that there is a feeling in most people that there is an actual purpose to this life and planet.

That doesn't mean the feeling is correct. In fact since there is no credible evidence to support it despite millenia of trying it's seems more likely to be a misplaced feeling.

why even live? to simply keep life going?

For most life forms, yes. For sentient beings, we are capable of defining our own purpose in life if we so feel the need.

i mean look up on a clear night and tell me you dont feel a little small next to a universe thats has no end.

I agree it's a humbling experience. An indication of just how insigificant is our existence.

is it realy just a santa clause fantasy that in all that is exists there is somthing god like thats better than we are?

Careful. it sound like you are equivocating on the concept of gods. It's certainly possible - even likely that there are, were or will be life forms far more complex, intelligent, or complicated than we, but such speculation as very far removed from the concept of traditional gods such as yahweh, thor, allah, woden, etc.

seems a little closed minded to shut that part of ourselves off and say were here cause were here, now dont ask any more questions about it.

I agree, and I certainly would not advocate doing so. But I also caution not making up answers because there are none readily available. To look up and think GOD is the answer is to cut off your intellectual curiosity at the knees.

i also ask my self what are the mathmatical odds of this planet being exactly this distance from the sun of this size and type( a little off and were baked or frozen)

Did you know that the Earth's orbit varies from its distance to the Sun by a considerable amount during each revolution?

with a moon that controls the ocean tides

Most planets have at least one moon. What's unusual about the Earth is the size of the moon in comparison to the planet. Although I have to caution my use of the term unusual. Remember we only have a sample of nine planets out of the billions in the universe.

and just happens to have a single living organism on it. now increase that number of l