It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by unconditionalsurrender
reply to post by AutomaticSlim
You are absolutely correct AutomaticSlim. I am a professional biologist(MD/PhD), won't go into details here about my background. My opinion; there is no empiric evidence for the formation of a bird heart-lung from that of a reptile, nothing in the fossil record. If you know of it, let's see it, hear it.
I am not a "believer" in terms of "religious belief", but as a life long student of living systems, I can honestly that say I have been forever pelted with one weak argument after another and never bought into the neoDarwinian approach to explaining our being here. How can one? The model as presented is weak.
As I am fond of saying, as are some of my friends that study this sort of thing, because bacteria develop resistance to penicillin, or HIV to various anti-retrovirals, this does not mean a fish became a man based on the evolutionary mechanism as currently presented to college students. There is no empiric evidence, molecular, fossil or otherwise.
Atheist means no belief in a god but those claiming to be atheist have a belief. A true atheist would have to have no knowledge of the concept of a God
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scrounger
How many times has science been forced to change its "facts" when other facts come to light.
Forced?
That change is integral to what science is to begin with.
Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
This makes me laugh.
Atheism is nothing like religion which controls people's lives. It is an opinion and a reaction, not a way of life and only comes to light when others discuss religion.
Therefore, if Atheists behaved as if they were a religious group, that would be enough in my book to classify them as one
So while off topic of athiesm the OP first stated i think it shows that ANY SYSTEM can be considered a "religion" by the very basic definition of the word and not limited to belief in alah, god, old man in the clouds, the great spagetti monster, or something in that thread
Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
You have your morals because you grew up in a society that gained its ethics through religious morals.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scrounger
So while off topic of athiesm the OP first stated i think it shows that ANY SYSTEM can be considered a "religion" by the very basic definition of the word and not limited to belief in alah, god, old man in the clouds, the great spagetti monster, or something in that thread
Never-minding science for the moment.
Where do you draw the line then. It seems to follow based on what you just said that any belief system would be considered a religion. That would be a very loose definition.
How can someone lack a belief in something they are unaware of? Really?
Before reading the end of this sentence, you do not have the knowledge, and therefor the belief, of the monster known as kjg'apofa'sf'agkla.
There you go, you had no belief of kjg'apofa'sf'agkla because you did not have the concept of its existence - now that you do, you can form a belief of whether or not you think he exists.
I'm not trying to start a religion-based flame war here, I really am curious. I just find it interesting that an Atheist can say that they have no religion or faith, but they cling almost fanatically to evolutionary science