Are you an atheist?

[Rich]

Why not ask "which came first, the chicken or the egg"?

 

[Mike375]

Why not ask "which came first, the chicken or the egg"?

I suppose evolution would suggest the egg. Compress the time scale and a lizard style animal laid an egg and a chicken popped out

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
OK, so try and imagine, think of, draw it if you like how you can progress a lizard skull through to snake and it must be done so it can survie eons of time.

*imagines*

ok, i can imagine, what next?

So what did you imagine. That's what is next.

 

[Rich]

I suppose evolution would suggest the egg.

Mmmmmm. case closed

 

[Rabbie]

Quote:
OK, so try and imagine, think of, draw it if you like how you can progress a lizard skull through to snake and it must be done so it can survie eons of time.

*imagines*

ok, i can imagine, what next?

So what did you imagine. That's what is next.

I find it interesting that google searches for this lizard --> snake dilemma seem to produce very few relevant hits. possibly I am using the wrong search criteria. I feel that if this is such a major problem for the evolutionists the creationists would have made much more of it than they appear to do.

I would agree that the intermediate stages have to be improvements in order to be carried forward. Perhaps we are using the wrong starting point. Clearly snakes did not evolve from modern lizards and the fossil record is at best patchy so we cannot be sure either of the starting point or the actual evolutionary journey.

 

[Mike375]

I find it interesting that google searches for this lizard --> snake dilemma seem to produce very few relevant hits. possibly I am using the wrong search criteria. I feel that if this is such a major problem for the evolutionists the creationists would have made much more of it than they appear to do.

The Bombardier beetle is the favourite.

I would agree that the intermediate stages have to be improvements in order to be carried forward. Perhaps we are using the wrong starting point. Clearly snakes did not evolve from modern lizards and the fossil record is at best patchy so we cannot be sure either of the starting point or the actual evolutionary journey.

But the change of jaw structure would also be required even if we start from archosaur.

Also, the move from archosaur or lizard to snake jaws is not necessarily an imporovement. In either case they are very suitable for completely different styles of hunting and eating.

Moving from archosaur/lizard to feline, dog, ferret and any other mammal predator is easy to see.

 

[KenHigg]

archosaur ?!? - Either you have odd an odd past time or you're a googleholic -

 

[Mike375]

archosaur ?!? - Either you have odd an odd past time or you're a googleholic -

Been interested in reptiles and dinosaurs all my life. Use to keep both snakes (venomous) and lizards.

 

[KenHigg]

You should be more interested in Rich then, he has a motorcycle that's a dinosaur -

 

[dan-cat]

When defining atheism/theism I feel you must take into account the difference between belief and knowledge.

Most theists will admit that they do not know that God exists in the strict sense of the word. If they did why would faith be required? However this does not disqualify them from being theist. I believe atheists deserve the same degree of latitude.

However saying this, atheism must be defined as a belief system for this to follow. The gap left by knowledge must be replaced by something. [EDIT: Otherwise they fall into agnosticism]

 

[Darth Vodka]

I believe atheists deserve the same degree of latitude.

huh? on what map?

 

[Alc]

However saying this, atheism must be defined as a belief system for this to follow. The gap left by knowledge must be replaced by something.

I see what you mean, but strictly speaking, couldn't it be argued that all knowledge is based on belief? Something has been proven to repeatedly happen under certain circumstances (e.g. water turns to steam if I heat it enough), so I believe it will happen again. I'd class this as taking a scientific approach to the event, but it all comes down to my believing that the science will always work.

If I've seen no evidence for the existence of something - in this case, God - logically, I believe that it doesn't exist. Again, I'd class that as taking a scientific approach, but ultimately it comes down to belief.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I suppose evolution would suggest the egg. Compress the time scale and a lizard style animal laid an egg and a chicken popped out

agreed, it was definitely the egg

it all depends on your definition of chicken. whatever you define chicken as, at some point, some other thing (by your own definition) gave birth to one

 

[dan-cat]

If I've seen no evidence for the existence of something - in this case, God - logically, I believe that it doesn't exist. Again, I'd class that as taking a scientific approach, but ultimately it comes down to belief.

Yes, precisely. However by taking this sceptical approach as the grounding on how to define atheism/theism, nobody could possibly be defined as such. That's why I was willing to offer the latitude that I did.

 

[Alc]

Yes, precisely. However by taking this sceptical approach as the grounding on how to define atheism/theism, nobody could possibly be defined as such. That's why I was willing to offer the latitude that I did.

Well, please stop it.
The discussion of this thread has remained fairly reasonable so far and if there's any hope of degenerating it into a series of national insults your contributions won't help.

 

[Alisa]

When defining atheism/theism I feel you must take into account the difference between belief and knowledge.

Most theists will admit that they do not know that God exists in the strict sense of the word. If they did why would faith be required? However this does not disqualify them from being theist. I believe atheists deserve the same degree of latitude.

However saying this, atheism must be defined as a belief system for this to follow. The gap left by knowledge must be replaced by something. [EDIT: Otherwise they fall into agnosticism]

I agreed with you up until the last part. You seem to be saying that non-belief is equivalent to belief because atheists don't know for sure just like believers don't know for sure. But I don't think it is a correct comparison. You don't need a belief system to not be a theist. Absence of belief cannot be fairly compared to a religious belief system.

This is how atheist "belief" is presented by believers: You have a scale. On one side is atheism, and on the other side you have belief. When the scale is balanced, you have agnosticism, and you need belief to tilt the scale one way or the other because we can't know whether there is a god or not. But the balanced scales are a false starting point. When you don't know something, when you have no evidence of something, the correct starting point is that it doesn't exist, not that it has an equal probability of existing and not existing.

To use the flying teapot example, if someone came up to you today and told you there was a flying teapot orbiting the universe, and it is impossible to know for sure whether they are right (too small to be detected by radar, etc.), would it be natural to assume that there is an equal probablity that the teapot really exists and that it doesn't? Would you say, well, I have a gap in knowledge here, and if I choose not to believe you, then I have to fill my gap in knowledge with belief. No, you would say what the heck are you talking about, there is no flying teapot out there, and I won't believe you unless you prove it to me.

Now to return to god. I feel the same way about god that I feel about the teapot. I don't need "belief" not to believe in god.

 

[dan-cat]

Well, please stop it.
The discussion of this thread has remained fairly reasonable so far and if there's any hope of degenerating it into a series of national insults your contributions won't help.

LMAO

My finger has been hovering over the 'launch missile' button a couple of times this thread but my conviction has held firm.

 

[Pauldohert]

To use the flying teapot example, if someone came up to you today and told you there was a flying teapot orbiting the universe, and it is impossible to know for sure whether they are right (too small to be detected by radar, etc.), would it be natural to assume that there is an equal probablity that the teapot really exists and that it doesn't? Would you say, well, I have a gap in knowledge here, and if I choose not to believe you, then I have to fill my gap in knowledge with belief. No, you would say what the heck are you talking about, there is no flying teapot out there, and I won't believe you unless you prove it to me.

Now to return to god. I feel the same way about god that I feel about the teapot. I don't need "belief" not to believe in god.

Is there a such a teapot? Surely science can answer this question?

 

[KenHigg]

...if someone came up to you today and told you there was a flying teapot orbiting the universe

a. I don't think you had to have it orbiting the universe to make your point, you could have made it simply orbiting the earth.

b. If an object is orbiting the universe, technically it is not 'flying'.

c. The best thing to do if someone does say there is a flying teapot is to duck real fast, as there is probably a real mad british female about because an american dame would probably throw a coffe pot.

 

[Alisa]

Is there a such a teapot? Surely science can answer this question?

In the example, the teapot is so small that humans are unable to detect it, i.e., doesn't show up on a radar. So no, science cannot answer the question as to whether the teapot exists or not. The point of the example is to create a situation analogous to the situation with god: Science can't prove whether god does or doesn't exist, but since the existence of god is just about as likely as the existence of a flying teapot, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that god doesn't exist, just as it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the flying teapot doesn't exist, no belief required.