Human Clone

[emprworm]

I will not confuse you anymore.

Thank goodness.

[Acriku]

Do try to read things in context, as you normally pick things out of context and exploit them to be rediculed at...

[Anathema]

Since atheists do not believe in a supernatural being, the evolution theory would be the best alternative. But that does not mean every atheist believes in the evolution theory. People sometimes believe stupid things- Elvis was abducted by aliens right ::).

I don't know any atheists that do not believe in evolution, but don't say there aren't any.

Besides, you said that because I was an atheist I have to believe that animals are mere contraptions. False.

[gryphon]

You gu'y believe there is a pure anthiest out there, some one who stays striktly to his vieuws, unconditionally ?

All views are subjected to change. No one believes in absolutes, not for long that is. So the entire equation is wrong.

[Anathema]

True- but I don't think religious people are tended to become agnostic or atheist. Though an ahteist can easily become an agnostic and vice versa. I'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic, as I do not dismiss the existence of God, but am inclined to say it is unlikely.

[emprworm]

plenty of atheists have converted into religion and vice versa at various times in there lives.

heres a guy right here, was a hardcore atheist chemist turned christian

www.ex-atheist.com

[Anathema]

ex- atheist

Exatreides

hey pretty close ;D

[DjCiD]

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).

man i thought i was the only one that saw invisible pink unicorns... they usally follow the lil pink elephants that walk on the ceiling ;D

was anyone one else under the effect of mind altering agents when they saw them? ;D

[DjCiD]

ok i may be wrong in this help me wheere im worng

but i thought atheist denied an existance of God because they saw themselves as the owners of their fate... like they were each god like themselves, which in turn made me really confused... if they didnt believe in gods how could they believe they were one?

is this just some misguided information from living in the bible belt?

[emprworm]

it depends, DJ. Atheists / agnostics become that way for various reasons, one of which could be what you suggest. The majority of atheists would probably just tell you "i see no evidence of any god or any reason to believe in one particular god over another"

[Anathema]

Of course there is no proof- believing in God is not based on any convincing evidence.

The reason I am an atheist/agnostic is that I am raised that way- plain and simple.

[nemafakei]

Emprworm...

I'm not currently trying to dispute your claim. I'm trying to dispute the way you had put your claim.

I thank you for finally defining your term atheist as lit. professing atheist or agnostic. That was the point of my postwith the dictionary quote, not some useless effort solely to try to prove you wrong - it was useless debating a subject you have set without first knowing where the goalposts are.

Note also the 'examples and empirical knowledge' thing...

No, it is not unreasonable to assume that most-in-experience implies all, provided 2 things:

- You have had a sensible sample, in size, and variation.

- There is no tool available to you that is less cruel.

By the second, I mean that if we can use logic, we are better off...

- eg assuming I've met enough people to satisfy condition one, yet am not aware that people live in Lapland, I would not (as per empirical) conclude that no-one lives there, but (assuming I know where it is and what sort of conditions it must have) using the more refined tool of logic, I can estimate that there are people in lapland without ever having been told of their existence.

Note also that no matter how many examples proved Fermat's last theorem, IMPLYING that it was correct, such 'proof' is dubious until proven by logic (here in the form of equations) a few years ago.

[emprworm]

i am going to disagree with you on that one Nema on 2 grounds: 1) my claim is extremely falsifiable. Many claims are nonfalsifiable, in which case using pure logic combined with evidence is the only route you can take. A claim that is easily falsifiable, yet at the same time is true at every place you look, then you should consider your logic has nothing to say regarding reality, and is completely meaningless (such as logic tells me its POSSIBLE that the all the human race except me could be my imagination, yet this is rediculous to postulate without at least one iota of supportive evidence, in light of the myriad of counter evidence)

And 2) Logic alone does nothing if what you are countering is a theory that is supported by a mountain of counterevidence. You cannot dismiss counterevidence without replacing it with evidence of your own, (or show how all the evidence itself is invalid)

The claim is that evolution is implicated by atheism. By atheism I mean that the person professes to be an atheist with at least this one common definition "lack of belief in anything supernatural". Obviously someone could profess atheism yet be a Hindu (he subjectively re-defines atheism to mean "the worship of Brahma"). There has to be some common understanding of the term, lest language become impossible. Yet by acknowledging the root meaning of the word (lack of belief in anything supernatural at minimum), it allows each person to subjectively modify the meaning as it pertains to them so long as the root meaning is still in place. So at minimum when I say professing atheist, it is someone who at minimum ascribes to "lack of belief in anything supernatural". That person may be much more adamant and HIS definition may be "there is absolutely NOTHING supernatural and IM SURE OF IT" or another guy's defintion may be "well all this supernatural stuff is irrational. until i see evidence, i wont even consider it" yet both of these individuals share the basic minimum definition of the term.

I am by no means claiming evolution is a peceding requirement of atheism, which is what I think you have been confusing me with. Atheism has a very simple definition, to which i do not add. Yet someone who embraces that simple definition will also embrace natural implications (such evolution), to which if you want to dispute, will require evidence. Logic may tell you things, but you cannot use it to state a fact in all cases. Logic tells SETI that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, this logic is so strong to them, that donors from around the world dump millions of dollars into the program. Yet no scientist at SETI would dare say such a thing must be true on account of logic alone. Evidence is required. And ESPECIALLY in my case, since I have at least a million pieces of evidence to support my claim, and you have nothing to counter it.

[Dude_Doc]

Is there anyone here who belive God created the Big Bang? I mean, he created the whole universe, and by that, I mean that he first created the univere, then the stars then earth and started the evolution (all the way back where we have "prooved" it). Wouldn't it be logical to see the messages in the Bible this way:

1. First, everything was dark. The Universe is dark without stars.

2. God said light, and there were light. The creations of the suns.

3. God created the land, earth, water, our seas, and life, evolution etc.

Something like this. Correct me if I am wrong or something. I do not dismiss the possibility of this type of creation. Also, recenlty in a science magazine, scientists have laid ground for a new theory about the universe, and maybe you've heard it: There are actually 2 universes, tied together by a feather. When the feather has come to its final position, it ties together, resulting the two tied-together universes to "crash" into each other. The result? Judgement day, and rebirth of two new universes. How? Well, in the "crash", the two releases a massive amount of energy, which is needed to recreate two new universes. And so it goes on in eternity. So I was thinking, What if God created the first one? Maybe this "tied-together-universes" are the first? Maybe the one-billionth? I do believe in God, that He does exist outside this "madness" or whatever you would call it, but what if He created more "creations"? What if what I do now, I did in my "before this TTUs in the last TTU"? What if i have done this a billion times? Exactly all that I do in my life, I maybe have done a billion times before? Or maybe, I'm doing this the first time ever? I do not dismiss science, or God, I believe in both science and religion together, even if you're not "supposed" to believe so.

[Acriku]

DjCid, there may be people like that, but surely that is not the case for the majority. Athiests simply refute the idea (idea! wow what a word) of a God. Since empr has been so kind as to explain his definition of athiest, we can now discuss the matter. Athiests (majority) do not believe themselves to be "above" or "Godly" because that's purely theist-integrated. I can assure you a thiest thinks that, because a lot of thiests (or the ones that I know of personally) believe athiests to be hell-bound aids-of-the-devyeel no-good pitiful creatures. That is definitely wrong, but because my experience is with only these people, I cannot think otherwise (10 of them in one class agreed to it when I asked).

And empr, just because you grew up with an athiest community doesn't mean you have proper experience to conclude anything. You simply apply the fact that you grew up with athiests with the hypothesis that you know how/what athiests are. I am growing around a primarily Christian community, and they are very deep in their beliefs of athiests - am I able to conclude that the majority of thiests believe this way? No.

The claim is that evolution is implicated by atheism

Prove to me this. Not logic, but with evidence! Not one person, but the majority of athiests! You say we cannot base anything off of logic, yet you find logic in your reasoning and a few athiests who agree and you do not refute. You see, we are all hypocritical bastards :) Some just don't want to admit it (not implying you). You deny our case because we have no evidence, I deny your case because you have not shown me any evidence except logic which you in fact denied to be conclusive.

Dude_doc, finally someone who is thinking in here. The best thing to do is to question everything, and come with a conclusion for yourself and only for yourself. I respect you now more than ever Doc :)

[DjCiD]

Is there anyone here who belive God created the Big Bang?

Thats the way I see it. God spoke *BANG* It happened.

[emprworm]

The claim is that evolution is implicated by atheism

Prove to me this. Not logic, but with evidence!

You. And every atheist here. You all ascribe that life evolved in the universe.

And my best proof of all: you are unable to show 1 instance of an atheist who rejects that life evolved in the universe, let alone postulate even a single alternate theory. Sorry, I am right till proven wrong. And you are my proof. nyak, nyak, nyak :D

[gryphon]

you are getting way off subject now aikiru.

It was just to funny no to mention. It's the second time now you make that same error.

Together with the statement you'r trying to make, I think it's al least kind of funny.

But that's for you all to judge for yourselfs.

;)

[emprworm]

the thing actually that i think is too funny not to mention is that whenever you post, you use the ! mark to designate your posts. It reminds me when I was in the military. Whenever a commander entered the room everyone had to stop what they were doing and stand to attention. When gryphon enters the room, all must stop and heed his words! ;D

[gryphon]

You where in the military :O

Anyway, can't you just stick to the topic ?

My reply was on one of your posts in this [ and other topics ]. Yours just seem to be a personall comment to me. Make a new topic or IM it to me.

But then, I still have one of you saying you don't talk to people who make simple logical flaws. Probably those like misspelling poeples names ...

[DjCiD]

You where in the military :O

I was in the National Guard, I am still on inactvie status till my birthday Sept 2003, I hope Bush doesnt get froggy anytime soon. ;D

[emprworm]

well to be honest with you gryphon, the topic is now so far out of whack, what does it matter? i understand you poking fun of me for bad spelling. and i know its all in good fun. so i, too, want to jump in on the fun. All work and no play makes emprworm a dull boy.

It was just to funny no to mention. It's the second time now you make that same error.

Together with the statement you'r trying to make, I think it's al least kind of funny.

But that's for you all to judge for yourselfs.

i counted 4 spelling errors in those simple sentences. not bad. lets see who can get more.

[DjCiD]

should be made not make ;D ok i'll stay out of it ;D

[gryphon]

Just to correct you. I'm not poking fun of you for bad spelling. I'm saying you'r unable to read a persones name who you'r having a discussion with.

[ Not ones but twice. The first time was in the religion thread. ]

But if this topic is out of whack. . .shouldn't it be closed ?

And I'm somehow supprised. It might not seem that way but my comments where serious. Shurely you should have noticed that. The fact that you'r changing a debate [ or what ever you can like to call it ] into a more social and funny kind of discussion . .. .well I think that'll say enough about how you'r dealing with critasism.

[ Oh, and could you be kind enough and count the amount of misspelled word and badly used grammar rules in this one to ? But wait, you are sick of having to learn another language for even staying 2 years in a foreign country. ... You see the irony in your reply now ? ]

[emprworm]

Sure, Gryphon, I'd be happy to.

I counted 9 spelling mistakes. It was a superficial glance so there could have been more. I do not count grammatical errors.