Human Clone

[Anathema]

The commonly accepted definition of an atheist is a person who doens't believe there is a God. I don't believe there is a God but I do not believe that any form of life is a mere contraption of atoms.

Human beings are superior to animals.

Then you cannot hide behind the excuse of "the fittest survive". According to you we should know better.

Animals kill other animals to live, it is a matter of life or death. There is absolutely no significant nutrient in turtle soup, and we have other sources of meat, so we have no excuse to extinguish animals for food. Nor should anybody extinguish a species for sports or because they have a nice fur.

[Acriku]

Well that's a start at replying to mine lol, but I do have posts before this :)

And a true athiest denies the existence of a superior being. One does not necessarily believe in evolution, and even some Christians believe in evolution and fit it into their beliefs, like a deist (God made the universe and stepped back while we discover the laws of nature that he has created). I am agnostic rather, as I do not deny the existence, I just decide not to believe in one but I do not deny it's existence. I also believe I know nothing and anything is possible. There isn't really a true athiest, just a strong/weak one, IMO.

[Anathema]

We cannot prove the existanse of God or prove he doesn't exist, so I suppose it would only be reasonable to stand open for the possiblity.

But let's not talk about religion- that's a pointless discussion, because nobody can win.

[Acriku]

We weren't talking about whether or not God existed, we (rather I) were talking about what I believed in. And discussing religion isn't a race or competition, not where whoever can't argue against something loses, it's a discussion nothing more nothing less. And...a mind can find enough proof of one side and be able to convince itself corresponding with the proof.

[nemafakei]

Hang on, hang on... For death or life of animals, morality simply does not apply here. Any moral argument has to be put fairly close to a fundamental assumption - such an assumption is not shared, therefore it is infeasible to decide based on this

We must not wipe out too many species for our own sakes, at least (destroying ecosystems means we cannot take anything from them - knowledge or resources), and, if in doubt, err on the side of caution, since we cannot eliminate the possibility of later usefulness or damage to us caused by a malfunctioning habitat.

[emprworm]

ahhh but you guys are so misguided about atheism. The dictionary definition of atheism which is simply "lack of belief in a god(s), carries with it implications such as evolution. All atheists accept evolutionary theory (the theory of panspermia does not negate evolution, it only backs it up to another planet, to which atheists still accept happened there). Until you name me one single atheist that does not believe in evolution, I will stand by my empirical objective fact: that all atheists on this planet believe in evolution.

I am willing to listen to someone who wishes to dispute this fact. And if you are going to dispute it, you must do two things:

1) Demonstrate to me someone who is a professing atheist and does not believe life in the universe evolved and,

2) Explain then, how life could have come about if there is no evolution and no supernatural cause to its existence.

[nemafakei]

Just to check you don't set infeasibly high standards...

"I am willing to listen to someone who wishes to dispute this fact"

Impossible. You may be willing to dispute whether or not this is fact.

Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism n. belief that there is no God [Gk. a-, not, theos, god.]

agnosticism n. belief that the existence of god is not provable. [Gk. agnoeo, I do not know].

The difference here is, in effect, that the atheist believes that there is no god, the agnostic is not sure whether there is a god or not.

"1) Demonstrate to me someone who is a professing atheist and does not believe life in the universe evolved"

Er... how would you go about proving this to you (I think my sister qualifies, but that's not really much proof...)? Be a little open... one may imply the other, but it is only implication - it is likely that this applies to no more than 95% of all cases of atheism. Your empirical knowledge is by no means a certain guide (no more than my assertion that there can, logically be atheists who disbelieve evolution, is).

"2) Explain then, how life could have come about if there is no evolution and no supernatural cause to its existence"

That is for the atheist concerned to explain in any detail, not anyone here, unless they claim to be one. A brief explanation is possible. Moreover, you must accept that any logical flaws in this agrument may be irrelevant - atheists may disbelieve evolution, whether or not it satisfies your stadards of thinking... the fact will still remain tha the atheist is not an evolutionist.

[emprworm]

Impossible. You may be willing to dispute whether or not this is fact.

there is no such thing as a 'fact' in the objective sense that is provable by science. Things we call 'facts' are not empirically proven yet we call them facts anyway. For example, scientists presuppose that gravity exists in the Andromeda galaxy. We see astronomical bodies in motion (observable effects) in the Andromeda galaxy according to what we would normally predict as gravametric causation, yet there is no objective proof that these observable effects are being caused by gravity, let alone no objective reason to assume that causation itself is universal. For the word "fact" to have any meaning at all in science, we must be willing to accept things as factual even though they are not empirically provable, but instead are universally observable.

In general science operates as follows:

If, at every place you look in the universe, you see X having properties of Y, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that all X has properities Y until shown otherwise. In this context, it is rational and acceptable scientifically to say that X having properties of Y is a fact.

This principle is fully applied to things like gravity, causation, knetic energy, heisenbergs principle, the speed of light, etc.

Until you SHOW OTHERWISE, any reasonable person will accept these things as facts.

Which brings us full circle.

(if you go to alt.atheism newsgroup, you will see that in the atheist community, agnostic and atheist are used interchangably, even though semantically they are different).

Until shown otherwise, it is rational to conclude that evolution is a mandatory implication of atheism. It is not a REQUIREMENT for atheism, because a requirement is a preceding necessitation for the existence of the thing in question. The requirement of atheism is simply lack of belief in god(s). However, it is a natural IMPLICATION that such a postulate will naturally derive.

Therefore it is a fact with as much veracity as the fact that gravity exists in the andromeda galaxy to say that all atheists believe that life evolved in the universe.

This is very easily falsifiable. All you must do is one simple thing....

show otherwise.

[emprworm]

Er... how would you go about proving this to you (I think my sister qualifies, but that's not really much proof...)?

Simple. Show me an atheist that honestly believes life did not evolve in the universe, and tell me what that atheist thinks happened instead.

Be a little open... one may imply the other, but it is only implication - it is likely that this applies to no more than 95% of all cases of atheism.

95%? Again, where did you get this number? If 5 out of every 100 atheists reject the postulation that life in the universe evolved, where are they? That has to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. SURELY some of them have written books! SURELY some of them have postulated a scientific theory to take its place. WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Your empirical knowledge is by no means a certain guide (no more than my assertion that there can, logically be atheists who disbelieve evolution, is).

I guess my empirical knowledge that gravity exists in the Andromeda galaxy is not reliable either.

"2) Explain then, how life could have come about if there is no evolution and no supernatural cause to its existence"

That is for the atheist concerned to explain in any detail, not anyone here, unless they claim to be one.

Actually, you have to live in Russia to tell me about Russia. You dont have to be a Muslim to learn about Islam.

A brief explanation is possible.

Ok. I'm listening.

Moreover, you must accept that any logical flaws in this agrument may be irrelevant

well, if the person is an atheist and is not going to be very logical, even though thats a bit bizzarre, its still fine, so long as the atheist actually believes in such an illogical theory. I'm not asking for you to make up some wild crazy theory that no one believes. The fact as stated was that no atheist actually believes in any other theory than evolution.

- atheists may disbelieve evolution,

And we may all be living in the Matrix. But such wild, flamboyant speculation has no credence until one can demonstrate such a creature actually exists.

[gryphon]

You know I always love it when persone quotes a phrase like "natural IMPLICATION" on order to make a point.

How did this change to a second religion topic anyway ?

Besides that, I recon you assume to much. And assumptions based upon our science will never be more then that. Not capable at this point to presume anything more then that.

[emprworm]

actually, Gryphon is the assumptions are being made by those debating against me. They are assuming that there are atheists who reject that life evolved in the universe. that is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require at least one iota of evidence.

Maybe one of you should put forth a professing atheists that rejects the idea that life in the universe evolved.

[Acriku]

Empr, go here for more information on Athiesm since you seem to have a tainted view on Athiests:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_atheismdef.htm

I do not know any athiest in real life, so I can't answer that question (my social world is bombarded with religious folk). Anyways, go there for fun stuff.

[emprworm]

No need Aikuru. I have spent years dealing with and being invovled in the atheist community. I know atheism only too well, including Jeffrey Jay Lowder, the founder of infidels.org, the largest atheistic site on the internet. Lowder grew up in my home town and him and my pastor (who has a PhD in philosophy) used to have many public, yet friendly debates in schools and various places regarding naturalism vs. theism. I know all about atheism, more than even many atheists. I can and often do quote famous atheists that atheists themselves dont even know about. For example, why did Robert Ingersoll become an atheist? What was his self-proclaimed single motivating factor for becoming an atheist? The answer is something that ironically most atheists today would call irrational.

now, regarding my claim:

Atheists will dispute this claim to the end of the earth, yet the problem is they cannot come up with one thing that falsifies it, despite it being so easily falsifiable. ALL atheists believe that life in the universe evolved. This is not a requirement for atheism. It is an implication of it. And any atheist that tells you otherwise will also be someone who believes that life evolved in the universe, to which you can respond with : "LOL"

[Acriku]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- Stephen Roberts

One of my fave quotes. Anyways, I can believe in Thor, and still be considered an athiest. Because the God in your view is the Christian God. So anyone who believes in Jove, or Juno, or Thor, etc, is an answer to your question. :P

[gryphon]

Sorry, the "you" of assumption in my previous post wasn't stricktly for you Emprworm but to most of the poster in this topic. :)

Placing people in those strick categories as done now can only lead to missunderstandings. People can not just be qualified in classes. They are to unique in states of mind for that.

[emprworm]

you are getting way off subject now aikiru. although that quote is full of some wide, gaping holes. but not to get off the discussion, lets get back to you showing me one single atheist that denies life evolved in the universe.

[Acriku]

Dude it's just a quote, not some theory to be criticized to the very last point. It was posted to get you thinking.

And I don't have to show you a single real life Atheist if I can hypothesize one. Don't tell me there isn't a single person on this earth who believes in a different God than your Christian God. That is your God isn't it? That God is what you mean by Denying the existence of God right?

[gryphon]

"lets get back to you showing me one single atheist that denies life evolved in the universe."

That's what I ment with my previous reply. It would depend on your defenition and interpretation of an atheist. And you'r both not shure about that. Let alone the possible answer if there should be a pure atheist somewhere on this rock.

So proving it right ot wrong might not be possible at all.

[emprworm]

Dude it's just a quote, not some theory to be criticized to the very last point. It was posted to get you thinking.

well, thanks for that word of encouragement. However, that quote is one that I have heard many times. It has been reworded into many forms and is another version of the IPU argument that atheists have been using for the last few decades (invisible pink unicorn). I have written three papers refuting that argument, so it is old news to me. But the notion is appreciated nonetheless.

And I don't have to show you a single real life Atheist if I can hypothesize one.

you do for it to be true. I can hypothesize anything, its just not going to be true unless I can bring some evidence for it. I can hypothesize Gobalopper being a green alien from Neptune who is posing as a YaBB board admin while he secretly plots with Maudi, who is from the Vega system, how to take over the world. Is it true?

Don't tell me there isn't a single person on this earth who believes in a different God than your Christian God.

lol, now why would i say such a stupid thing like that? is there anyone that dumb who would say such a thing?

[Acriku]

Empr, my hypothesis that there is someone on this earth that believes in a God different from your christian God is realistic and true, so why should I have to bring real evidence to you if you and I already accept it?

[emprworm]

lets get back to you showing me one single atheist that denies life evolved in the universe."

That's what I ment with my previous reply. It would depend on your defenition and interpretation of an atheist. And you'r both not shure about that. Let alone the possible answer if there should be a pure atheist somewhere on this rock.

So proving it right ot wrong might not be possible at all.

if semantics are going to relieve people of the burden to demonstrate a single atheist that rejects that life evolved in the universe, then I will remove that semantical ploy here and now:

"lets get back to you showing me one single atheist that denies life evolved in the universe."

is now reworded to

"lets get back to you showing me one single homosapien who professes to be either an agnostic or an atheist and also denies that life in the universe evolved."

[Acriku]

Again Empr, agnostic/athiest is very broad. Please allow us your definition of an athiest is, your definition of the Christian God, or whatever God you declare as athiests lack belief in, and I think we got the idea you meant HSSapiens when you said athiest.

[emprworm]

Akriku, if you want to have a reasonable mature discussion with me, I will do it. But if this turns into a degrading emotional free for all like me and Edric had, then I will cease.

Empr, my hypothesis that there is someone on this earth that believes in a God different from your christian God is realistic and true, so why should I have to bring real evidence to you if you and I already accept it?

I do not know what you are trying to do here. Either you completely misread what I said (since I said absolutely NOTHING about asking for evidence that there are different religions on the planet), or you are using some kind of bizzare sarcastic ploy that really makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say here, Akriku? I never once made any kind of claim that no one exists that doesn't believe in my God. I gave you the intellectual curtosey to answer your question, which was extremely out of place and off topic, and now you respond with more unrelated jargon. If you are trying to "lead" me into some kind of trap, I will not go. Your statements are not adding up. Either make some kind of connection here, or dont bother continuing along this line of argument. It is compeltely irrelevant to what I have been saying.

[emprworm]

Lets get back to you showing me one single homosapien who professes to be either an agnostic or an atheist and also denies that life in the universe evolved."

Again Empr, agnostic/athiest is very broad. Please allow us your definition of an athiest is, your definition of the Christian God, or whatever God you declare as athiests lack belief in, and I think we got the idea you meant HSSapiens when you said athiest

last try, Aikriku. I enjoy reasonable discussion, but not this. Read very closely what I said, I'll say it much more slowly this time so you can catch the key words:

Lets get back to you showing me one single homosapien who PROFESSES to be either an agnostic or an atheist and also denies that life in the universe evolved."

MY definition of atheist or agnostic is IRRELEVANT! There are millions of people on this earth that profess to be atheist/agnostic according to their own conclusions. Of THOSE PEOPLE, show me one of them that rejects the idea the life evolved in the universe. Quit asking me to define atheism for my claim when it has nothing to do with my definition, and everything to do with *professing* atheists.

[Acriku]

Ok, I apologize for not being precise. You have not yet defined your definition of athiesm and which God you are pertaining to in that definition. So until you do, I will not confuse you anymore.