Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: hydeman11

I didn't attack Hawking or Hitchens. I just said a generalized statement. Are you uncomfortable that these two men who hold much influence in the general consensus are pointed to? All you have to do is read other forums and comments sections, even within ATS itself, there is a vehemency among the followers of these men.

The only video from my side I presented was David Berlinski who wrote a book called The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and its Scientific Prentensions

I don't say you have popes of atheism, but there are quite of few people out there who will definitely become very vehement if you even address arguments by Dawkins, Harris or others.

But we could go on and on about the fact there is a mentality among the general population to attack anyone who doesn't accept evolution or atheism. Why do you think some posters took a lot of time waiting for me to certain words or phrases just to have something to attack?

David Berlinski, from his book

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

In fact, throughout this thread I have been accused of the very things that Atheism.About.com

Your side has done this one...on this very thread,

Another popular tactic of creationists is to misstate or misapply scientific principles.

, please trace the number of posts saying this, and yet over and over I have presented links from your side, not mine.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a favorite — creationists often claim that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution can't happen.

This one I have not presented at all.

So, creationists will use a lot of "dirty" tactics in a debate.

Is this not a leading statement, designed to cause people to believe we use "dirty" tricks? How is this not ad hominim against the very thing you are gently rebuking me for? Don't attack the whole group, right? This is how people in your side are being taught. It's ok for your side to say this, but we can't address it?

But you said

As for Hitchens, again, can we argue with logic instead of ad hominems? You are broadly generalizing large groups of people here. If you want to complain about being generalized as a "creatard," why are you continuing this generalization of "shouting" atheists? Why are you attacking characters and not ideas? Do you not understand how illogical or contradictory you are being by doing this?

I'm sorry, but your point of argument has to be taken in the light of this above statement about how evolutionists and atheists must perceive and generalize another group. This is on a well-respected, often read and cited source, and the writer of the article stoops to the point of encouraging people on your side that we use dirty tricks, and that is leading them into this mindset, one that has been displayed on this very forum.

When you have reduced our side to that, it's no wonder that the youth of the world can't use reason and logic of their own accord, just attack the stupid Creationists because they use dirty tricks. Nothing going on with your side? I think there is and on your side are those who are encouraging. There needs to be an accountability, unfortunately there is not. The atheistic scientific community is not addressing this at all.

Thank you for saying I am not trolling, because I am not. Let's remain civil, but my goodness, let's not hide our heads in the sand about what is going on.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Allow me to rephrase... Please do not criticize people, criticize their ideas. You criticize Dawkins for a comment he made on rape, not for the content or ideas held within, but merely to discredit his character and the character of anyone associated with him. I've never read his books, I've seen one of his series. His explanations of natural phenomena were good, in my opinion (although my opinion means little). You can criticize him all you want, to be honest, but that has nothing to do with the science he supports and adds to. To be clear, scientific principles (ideas) are independent of their creators (discoverers) and ought to be judged solely on their own merit, should they not?

If you disagree with this, I find my time wasted, as we will never agree if not on this.

As for the video, thanks for providing some extra information. I merely meant to point out that you accused me of parroting when you in fact were throwing a source at me blind.

I think you are right, on the point of evolution deniers. The science is the same science that allows for germ theory, cellular theory, gravitational theory, really any other theories of science... This is indeed a threat to all science, and to call it otherwise would be unwise. What is observed is observed, the facts are the facts, and the evidence clearly supports one theory. The moon was most likely created from the collision of a planetoid early in Earth's formation (isotopic ratios), the dinosaurs were likely (mostly) killed by a bolide (iridium anomaly), and species have changed over time (the law of faunal succession, or in other words, the fossil record). People who deny what can be observed are wrong, and are indeed a threat to our national education. Could scientists be wrong about these interpretations? The likelihood is smaller than you might think, but you don't accept statistics (math) so I can't help you any further than that.

As for hatred for non-atheists? No, I disagree. I have nothing but respect and admiration for my Christian professors. You know why? They're honest, intellectually as well as openly. They are Christians, but not biblical literalists, and I can understand and respect that. They accept evolution and geology and paleontology and biology and chemistry and physics... These people are religious, but they are certainly not the threat of the deniers of scientific thought. Do you see the difference?

As for faith in science, that's nonsense. Any area of interpretation in science is backed up by some degree of evidence. There may be more, currently unseen and unknown evidence which might contradict the current evidence (or change its significance), but evidence is king in science, and we work with what we have. That said, if you wish to call these interpretations "faith," then you should be aware that not all "faith" should then be considered equal. Some faith is blind, having no repeatable, testable, or observable evidence to support it. Some faith is reasonable, being built upon observation and critical thinking. Science is really a tool, a methodology, not a belief system. (Would you call humor a belief system?)

As for these "attacks" on you, I cannot speak on them. I do remember you being shown a paper (source material) which you supposedly took a small piece of and claimed it represented the whole, to which others pointed out that it did not actually validate your claim. This is consistent with quote mining, but truth be told, I didn't read the source and I can't actually suggest this is the truth of the scenario. What I can say is that if it is true, then it is indeed quote mining.

As for the atheist site, did I miss where Mr. Austin Cline posted on here, or are you creating a strawman? If I missed it, my apologies.

All I am saying is that if you want to not be criticized then you need to not criticize others. Set the example, as Jesus would have done. You can address whatever criticisms of people you want, but I find it unjust to judge all of a group for the mistakes of one person. Don't you think it wrong to judge all Creationists by the mistakes of one or two people, like Ken Ham, or more especially Ray Comfort? These two are hardly good examples of Creationist intellect, don't you agree? And Ray Comfort with his banana (which was hybridized) comment would certainly be a sorry position from which to judge another Creationist...

Now, I can see that you are indeed generalizing broadly by your comments...
"When you have reduced our side to that, it's no wonder..." (emphasis mine)
I have done no such thing... I try to not generalize, except were generalizations might be true... (For example, all biblical literalists deny some portion of scientific theory. This must be true.)

I have agreed that all groups contain bad elements, and that is the truth (I think) of human societies. All I asked was that you not generalize and that you not attack/criticize the characters of people but rather their ideas (and that isn't so much that I care about these figures' characters, I just see no point in asking whether or not X was a good or bad man). The ideas, the observations, the data is what must be fought against if you are to make any headway. I ask you now, is this an unfair thing to be asking?

I try to maintain civility, and I try to maintain rationality, and I know that to do so is not always easy. I know you are no troll, but I do think you are going about this all the wrong way, and I certainly don't know what the right way is, but what you are currently doing (regardless of motivation) is detrimental to your cause, whatever it may be.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

We can remain civil and it is the end of the day, so we can walk away disagreeing, yet still with respect.

No one has really attacked me, I think people were quick to jump on that, but I am used to it. My point was just that if we want civil discourse about this and have respectful debates, then we must start on equal footing with each side's points considered.

Unfortunately that is not possible because many on your side has already determined that we don't have any footing at all. While you might be willing to listen, others aren't. We can go back to my questions in the OP, I didn't try to make them difficult for some people, but these are questions that need answered, but if there is no answer, no one should be made to believe that even if there are no answers, they must accept the non-evidence. It is ok to say "I don't know". We don't want to descend to a Fascist system, that's why we have separation of church and state, because no one single church may have that influence, but no other ideological system should have that authority either.

In the history of the United States since the Scope's Monkey Trial, the attempts to forcibly keep it separate has caused more problems than it has solved. Christianity is a religion, but it is also an ideological system with a world view, the same as any other religion. Atheism is an ideology with a world view, and certainly we wouldn't want to descend to horrors that have arisen from Communist states based on atheism.

I think most atheists today don't think it could ever get that bad here, that's why they have trouble with being reminded of Stalin and Mao-Tze Tung. As it is an ideological system, it should be limited as well as any other. We wouldn't also want another man like Jim Jones to become an authority. Jim Jones not only left Christianity but took his church to a "Communist paradise" in which he claimed he was god.

I once read what a person on ATS wrote that as an atheist they don't have a world view. I don't think they understand what world view means. That was a sad statement from someone who just derided a Christian and said they had more rational powers and logic than the religious people.

This is no longer a debate over the origins of life, but a clash of ideologies. And that is happening right now all over this world. When I was in high school and college, we were still taught that I have the right to freedom of thought and expression. Now we have children in middle school attacking others over an urban legend like Slenderman, because in the separation of church and states, there has been a lowering of moral standards and kids are told that their morality arises intrinsically in them. When they have no moral compass, they can't evolve with one.

The knockout game, mass shootings, death and destruction all around us and all over the world because we have not evolved a moral compass, but the ideologies that teach "do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" has taken over. Anton LeVay said that man is just an animal and as an animal must and will be vicious and greedy and violent.

If atheists believe that morality arises intrinsically within people, there is no evidence in this world that it is true. More people died in the 20th Century than any other century preceding it. And it isn't getting better. Right now, Indianapolis has a higher murder rate than Chicago. The town I live in, every week someone is killed in a violent manner. Obviously we are not evolving the moral compass.

You might not be violent, but I am sure there are parts of your city or state that you cannot go to because of fear of violence toward you. Man cannot evolve morality, otherwise it would be evident in the world. But see, this is where Christianity addresses that problem, since the fall of man, all descendants have inherited the trait of non-morality. If evolution is true, then man is violent and greedy by nature. That is the inherited trait the Bible tells us.

Ideologies without restraint should never be authority.

I hope you didn't think that was an attack toward you, but it has to be considered for our society to answer, because right now the world is hurting because they were told they were just animals and just be the animal they are.

a reply to: WarminIndy

people are not naturally violent i believe they just react with necessary actions against it.

when somone wants what you have and is prepared to take it, be it land, possessions, other people you care for, you defend your self appropriately. sadly that does mean deadly force some times.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Howdy,

I do respect civil discourse and I do value it above mere mockery, and that I think is common ground enough between us. If we should succeed in understanding one another, then we must both be honest and play by the same rhetorical rules. In that sense, it must be clarified that science never proves, it only provides evidence for theories or against them. Science, more generally, is a method of understanding the world.

Let us look at your position that atheism is a worldview. To me, it is surely not. Atheism is one non-belief, one idea, the rejection of deities/higher powers based on insufficient evidence of a positive claim made (that god exists). One idea is not a worldview for me (or atheists) because one idea cannot pervade all manner of looking at the world...

Unless your worldview is that which states a god is responsible for everything. I think this is our disconnect. God being responsible for everything is penetrative to how you view the world, god explains (is the answer to) every question (ultimately). Atheism does not have this, a lack of belief in god does not cause the world to be, it does not make the tides or cause human distress.

In this way, there is no one worldview of atheism as there is a worldview of Christianity (of which I will also state there is not merely one, but there are shared stories and traditions and moral values between Christian sects, yes?). Not all atheists are atheists for the same reason. Some use history and say there is insufficient historical evidence (no written records by Jesus himself), others logic (saying that this god acts illogically or consistently with human imagined ideals), and some, like me, use the natural sciences (no global flood layer in geologic column, so no literal interpretation of Old Testament...). These are evidences against the claims made by the Old Testament, and evidence does not lie. I make the positive claim that I don't see evidence, I provide this evidence of a lack of global flood deposit as evidence of my claim. (This is the burden of proof.)

But you make the claim that a god does exist, and for the sake of my argument (this is not necessarily true, I know), say you would claim the Christian God is the true god. Say that you further believe the bible inerrant and interpret everything literally (not necessarily true again). Where is your evidence that birds predate land reptiles, as per Genesis (or some readings thereof...)? See, this is why one has the burden of proof, a positive claim. This is what I mean by playing by the same rhetorical rules.

I see no inherent reason why an atheist would be more logical than a religious person. It may be the case, but I see no inherent reason for it to be so. For this reason, I will again point you towards those who are always more arrogant than thoughtful, and such people exist in every population of human thought.

This clash of ideologies may be true, but I remind you that one lack of belief does not constitute an ideology. Aunicornism is not an ideology. Ideology is defined as a "set" of something... One cannot make a set.
en.wikipedia.org...

As for intrinsic morality, I'd like to see examples of that taught in a school, unless mentioned as a historical theory of human nature? I've always heard environment (nurture) is more important than nature... As this is again a positive claim, I ask you to fulfill the burden of proof.

As for "evolving a moral compass," that might be arguable. I'm not an expert in evolutionary psychology, but I do think evolutionary psychologists believe that morals have "evolved" so to speak (not in the biologic sense, but actually similar to and potentially using natural selection as pressures). In that sense, I can tell you that the theory that morality has evolved with humans as a result of natural selection (morality is beneficial to survival) is in fact a theory out there for perusal. It's a messy place for a natural scientist (or a student seeking to be such), so forgive me for not dipping my feet into that pool.

I should clarify, morality is defined (I believe, not factually) by society at large, and is advanced by rhetoric so that it might encompass more than just the minority that originally believe those morals. It is not an animal, and thus does not evolve biologically, but it does change over time with changes in social attitudes. The fact that morality exists in humans and not in other species suggests that something unique about our social dependence (an evolutionary adaptation) might have favored the development of morality for survival (in groups). In essence, it could have happened naturally, and thus I think the simplest (fewest unnecessary assumptions) answer is that it did develop naturally. This is my philosophy, in essence, and it is not dependent upon my being an atheist, but by being an atheist may have stemmed from this "reductionist" view.

My city is quite peaceful, it's got the "college bubble," where our (relatively rural) community (close to campus) is close-knit enough to be safe (relatively... Never absolutely, right?). I don't actually fear for my life... I haven't for some time (and then it was for good reason...). At the state level, I'd probably fear somewhere...

Your assumption that the bible is true is an asserted assumption in my eyes, and thus the claims of biblical morality and the fall are more assumptions and assertions. One cannot analyze the word logically with superfluous assumptions. One must find the most reduced world possible and only add to it those theories which evidence supports. Because you are making a positive claim (inherited non-morality) you need to provide evidence of this, yes?

If evolution is true, why must man be greedy? Do you define self-interest as greed? Should we not be interested in preserving our own lives? What makes you think it is our nature to be violent? Is it competition? What percentage of the human population (this is hard if you don't like statistics...) is actually committed of violent crimes? Is it really fair to say humans are violent by nature, or is it a matter of environment?

I certainly am not under the impression of being attacked, and I return the hope that you understand I am not attacking you. I am, however, attempting to discuss the logic we both use, and in some cases, I must be critical of it (and surely I make mistakes in logic, as well) when I see something inconsistent with what I believe to be logical.

The world is indeed hurting, and I think the hurting stems more from a communication break down between the general populace and the scientific elite. Of course we are animals, we eat, breathe, reproduce, and die just like any other animals, don't we? I've heard very few advocating a regression towards animalistic behavior, though (although I admit the sentiment exists). Are humans not capable of rational thoughts, and is that not enough to persuade one not to regress toward animal nature? Evolutionary process is not the end-all be-all in the world, there are other methods of selection than just "natural selection" (artificial selection, for example) out there...

Perhaps it is a world view that states humans are incapable of causing global damage and changing God's works that is causing some problems? Perhaps, just perhaps, being an animal more in tune with natural balance would be better?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I think you qualify under the Asch Conformity Experiement, in which you must go along with the group so you don't make waves among your peers that you find control your thoughts through conformity. Evolution groupthink denies freedom of thought and those who do not conform lose their jobs and face much persecution. Is that how science should be?

The post you responded to here merely explained the popular notion of god, even if it exists (which we don't know), offers no viable explanation for anything. As it's based entirely on belief. Seems true enough. What would make it untrue would be the experiments to first directly detect god/creator, then show how and why it did it's thing. Just adding the "god" at the end of things, or worse, crediting it for what isn't yet understood, doesn't really do that.

Using the Asch conformity experiments as a put down? There is later neuroscience regarding these experiments, as well as sociological observations that could change the way these are viewed re simple "conformity" anyway and could help explain cognitive "perception".

Though when put forward from the pov that a being/designer that has never been directly detected, measured or observed in any tangible way... basically invisible and undetectable in a way completely consistent with something that doesn't exist...also (presumably) from within a population where the overwhelmingly majority and "conformist" view holds such a belief...where to not believe is decidedly the minority "non conformist" view...

It seems very ironic to use such a thing, from this pov, in this way...

Carl Sagan's dragon and god still seem to have a lot in common at this stage.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The literature on proposed "non random" mutations was interesting.

Assuming certain things (as expressed in your literature) could affect mutation, or mutation rates, does that entirely rule out random mutations occurring?

No doubt there is a lot left to learn about this and scientific understanding in this area will change accordingly (seems very likely).

For a non biologist who might have misunderstood it, could you explain where any of this directly infers, or requires an "intelligent designer" explanation as a necessity, or even why it would be likely..?

Is there really a way to do this, that isn't an appeal to ignorance or a "designer of the gaps"? Haven't seen any yet.

Or did you just want to make a point, that for some observations mutations (or mutation rates) could possibly be influenced (if authors are correct), or have some degree of predictability (thus not strictly totally random) in some instances?

Here's a good article from a biochemist, regarding non/random mutations.

Creationists also like to argue that mutations are not truly random. They point out that there are mutational hotspots in the genome and there's a bias in favor of some mutations over other (e.g. transitions are more common than transversions). In most genomes, mutations are more common at sites where C is methylated.

All this is true and the results were discovered by scientists, not creationists. It's why scientists try to avoid saying that mutations are random; instead they say that mutations are random with respect to their ultimate usefulness.Sometimes we slip up for simplicity as when I said in my previous posting that mutations are "essentially random," although I added "Let's not get into quibbling about the meaning of "random."

sandwalk.blogspot.com.au...

some interesting discussion below the article also.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
No one has really attacked me, I think people were quick to jump on that, but I am used to it.

Used to what exactly? you're not starting off by flashing your victim card are you?

*quelle surprise*

My point was just that if we want civil discourse about this and have respectful debates, then we must start on equal footing with each side's points considered.

Sure, lets not make sweeping and ignorant generalizations right?

Unfortunately that is not possible because many on your side has already determined that we don't have any footing at all.

I.D. has absolutely no 'footing', unless of course you can point to something the I.D. proponents have produced to further their cause? It's the very definition of pseudoscience.

While you might be willing to listen, others aren't. We can go back to my questions in the OP, I didn't try to make them difficult for some people, but these are questions that need answered, but if there is no answer, no one should be made to believe that even if there are no answers, they must accept the non-evidence.

Your nonsensical questions were answered in the very first few posts.

It is ok to say "I don't know".

Funny.....as opposed to 'god dun did it'......

Christianity is a religion, but it is also an ideological system with a world view, the same as any other religion.

There's no such thing as 'christianity' in that context......there's over 35,000 different denominations all with different ideologies (otherwise they wouldn't be separate and individual denominations).

Atheism is an ideology with a world view, and certainly we wouldn't want to descend to horrors that have arisen from Communist states based on atheism. I think most atheists today don't think it could ever get that bad here, that's why they have trouble with being reminded of Stalin and Mao-Tze Tung. As it is an ideological system, it should be limited as well as any other.

And there you go.....your irrational hatred for people that don't believe your superstitions leads you to accuse them of such heinous crimes as genocide. I have no idea why anyone in this thread gives you any respect whatsoever.

We wouldn't also want another man like Jim Jones to become an authority. Jim Jones not only left Christianity but took his church to a "Communist paradise" in which he claimed he was god.

lol.....he left christianity.....which version? because he didn't leave his own individual version....he died just as much a christian as you are now.

I once read what a person on ATS wrote that as an atheist they don't have a world view. I don't think they understand what world view means. That was a sad statement from someone who just derided a Christian and said they had more rational powers and logic than the religious people.

Well you're not showing your rationality with that statement. Youve been shown why the above is incorrect many times here on ATS....yet you continue to ignore the reasons as to why you're wrong just so you can spew your ignorant vitriol at those that do not share your superstitions.

This is no longer a debate over the origins of life

If never was.....have you forgotten you own OP?...or is it that you don't know the first thing about the that which you're attempting to discredit?

but a clash of ideologies. And that is happening right now all over this world. When I was in high school and college, we were still taught that I have the right to freedom of thought and expression. Now we have children in middle school attacking others over an urban legend like Slenderman, because in the separation of church and states, there has been a lowering of moral standards and kids are told that their morality arises intrinsically in them. When they have no moral compass, they can't evolve with one.

Everyone has rose-tinted goggles, what you have to do is remember the bad times as well as the good. I can guarantee you 100% that horrendous murders and the like were carried out when you were a child too. The world was also much more racist and homophobic and a lot more people were dying of disease and starvation.

The knockout game, mass shootings, death and destruction all around us and all over the world because we have not evolved a moral compass, but the ideologies that teach "do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" has taken over. Anton LeVay said that man is just an animal and as an animal must and will be vicious and greedy and violent.

Yes quote the founder of the Church of Satan as well as the author of The Satanic Bible to make a fair and level-headed point.....lol

If atheists believe that morality arises intrinsically within people, there is no evidence in this world that it is true. More people died in the 20th Century than any other century preceding it. And it isn't getting better.

Do you really think we would've gotten as far as Mount Sinai if we weren't able to live together without murdering one another? Morals stem from living as pack animals, if an individual acts in a way that is detrimental to the group he/she will be ostracised from the group. We see this in many animals from meerkats to monkeys. No Jesus required.

Right now, Indianapolis has a higher murder rate than Chicago. The town I live in, every week someone is killed in a violent manner. Obviously we are not evolving the moral compass.

Oh well if the area in which you live is experiencing such events then surely that's reflective of the entire world!.......reminds me of similar folk that think that climate change is a hoax because its cold/warm where they live.

You might not be violent, but I am sure there are parts of your city or state that you cannot go to because of fear of violence toward you. Man cannot evolve morality, otherwise it would be evident in the world. But see, this is where Christianity addresses that problem, since the fall of man, all descendants have inherited the trait of non-morality. If evolution is true, then man is violent and greedy by nature. That is the inherited trait the Bible tells us.

Why should anyone pay attention to what the bible says?

I hope you didn't think that was an attack toward you, but it has to be considered for our society to answer, because right now the world is hurting because they were told they were just animals and just be the animal they are.

Is that what you think has happened? people discovered the reason for the diversity of life on earth (ToE) and came to the realisation that without a god figure to send us to hell (or w/e) we have no reason to not murder and steal at every opportunity?

Such hatred and contempt for you fellow man, for no other reason than they don't share your superstitions, warrant all the mockery and ridicule you may or may not receive.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If evolution is true, then man is violent and greedy by nature. That is the inherited trait the Bible tells us.

if the bible is true, we are all subjects to a monarchy that we never signed up for and will be punished for not accepting. I'd rather live in a competitive democracy than a quiet and orderly dictatorship.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Um, why do you keep expecting me to flash the card unless you were willing to prove me wrong?

Who attacked me? Certainly not Hydeman or Cogito, not even Tangerine or others. The point I am making is that it has become such a course of dialogue that sometimes it is not viewed as such by the ones who are doing it, that's all. I wanted to make it known that it is an issue in the entire spectrum of discussion and needs to be moved out of the way if there is to be meaningful dialogue. That's all.

I.D. has absolutely no 'footing', unless of course you can point to something the I.D. proponents have produced to further their cause? It's the very definition of pseudoscience.

Yep, no problem right there in the dialogue. So to you, scientists with very prestigious degrees who are professors of the sciences at very elite universities are just pseudoscientists? I think Hydeman just shared about his own professors. Therefore, Hydeman is someone who is interested in real dialogue and not falling onto the accusation of pseudoscience.

I thought I would make a list of ID scientists, but I don't want to have to do the work for you.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And hence limiting the dragon to your definition of dragon, with the parameters for dragon that you accept. This is called Zohner Effect.

What if I told you that you could visibly observe and predict the behaviors in two groups of people, one that believes in God and the other that doesn't? Would you say to me that those are mere natural causes for the people to act like they do? OK, we shall see.

If you say that there the atheists actions are the same as believers, then that should be predictable and observed, but you then would have to prove it is natural and therefore not environment. Nature takes precedence over nurture in that instance. So if actions are based solely on nature and natural processes, then the actions are predictable and observed.



predictable and observed.

Dr. Andrew Newberg

Now you could say that it doesn't prove God exists, but it certainly is predictable and observed by a scientist in the field in which he is an expert. So how did the brain become hardwired? Was it through a mutative process in the species? If it were a mutation in the species, then all members of the species should be evolved to believe in God. So what happened here?

Belief in God actually changes your brain. Tell me, is the guy a pseudoscientist?

About Andrew Newberg

Dr. Andrew Newberg is Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Medical College. He is also Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Nuclear Medicine. He is considered a pioneer in the neuroscientific study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field frequently referred to as – neurotheology.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Prezbo369

Um, why do you keep expecting me to flash the card unless you were willing to prove me wrong?

You continually flash your card, so yes I have come to expect it.

Who attacked me? Certainly not Hydeman or Cogito, not even Tangerine or others. The point I am making is that it has become such a course of dialogue that sometimes it is not viewed as such by the ones who are doing it, that's all. I wanted to make it known that it is an issue in the entire spectrum of discussion and needs to be moved out of the way if there is to be meaningful dialogue. That's all.

Then you should begin by looking closer to home as you regularly attempt to demonise anyone that doesn't share your superstitions. You seem to be a walking irony basket.

Yep, no problem right there in the dialogue. So to you, scientists with very prestigious degrees who are professors of the sciences at very elite universities are just pseudoscientists?

Appeal to authority? shocking! Unless those scientists with their prestigious wall plaques at the very elite universities can actually produce some kind of verifiable and workable discovery instead of doing what you're attempting to do here (discredit ToE) then all they have is a nice set of trinkets and wall decorations.

I think Hydeman just shared about his own professors. Therefore, Hydeman is someone who is interested in real dialogue and not falling onto the accusation of pseudoscience.

You could demonstrate here and now that they're not 'pseudoscientists' by linking some of their work that has lead to some real tangible discoveries.....instead of just attacking evolution.

I thought I would make a list of ID scientists, but I don't want to have to do the work for you.

What difference would a list of names make? does that kind of thing impress you?

a reply to: Prezbo369

For the person who said atheism is not a worldview, definition of worldview...

world·view
ˈwərldˌvyo͞o/Submit
noun
a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Atheism is a worldview because it is a particular philosophy of life and conception of the world. You don't believe in God, but the world exists in some conception to you, therefore your life is structured around your philosophy.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Prezbo369

For the person who said atheism is not a worldview, definition of worldview...

world·view
ˈwərldˌvyo͞o/Submit
noun
a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Atheism is a worldview because it is a particular philosophy of life and conception of the world. You don't believe in God, but the world exists in some conception to you, therefore your life is structured around your philosophy.

If this were true, all atheists would have the same conception of the world.....but they don't....all they have in common is they they don't accept the clams made for gods by theists......how many times does this have to be typed out to you before it sinks in?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Please, you know what you are trying to do.

Are you getting frustrated with me now?

The word superstitious was just used by you, not Hydeman, not Cogito, not Tangerine, you. You are the one who said there was no footing...not Hydeman, not Cogito, not Tangerine. So it is now up to you to prove that it is superstitious as you made the claim, and no, name calling does not qualify.

Let's talk about the questions in the OP. I have already proven by your side that random mutations are not evidence, it's just an assumption. The following course of logic is that if there is no evidence then it should not be taught as true. Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Prezbo369

For the person who said atheism is not a worldview, definition of worldview...

world·view
ˈwərldˌvyo͞o/Submit
noun
a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Atheism is a worldview because it is a particular philosophy of life and conception of the world. You don't believe in God, but the world exists in some conception to you, therefore your life is structured around your philosophy.

If this were true, all atheists would have the same conception of the world.....but they don't....all they have in common is they they don't accept the clams made for gods by theists......how many times does this have to be typed out to you before it sinks in?

Let's go through the definition of worldview once again....

world·view
ˈwərldˌvyo͞o/Submit
noun
a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

I don't care if you all like Heineken better than Stella Artois, I don't care if you all think you have to wear pocket protectors...those things are merely facets of a worldview.

YOUR worldview is YOUR philosophy about life and how you live your life. Atheism is a worldview because it is a philosophy.

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/Submit
noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a particular system of philosophical thought.
plural noun: philosophies
"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
"the philosophy of science"

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God, but a system of thought in which you perceive the world around you and what guide your actions in the world. Atheism is a worldview because it sets to perceive and study the world and guide the actions of those who are atheists.

How hard is this to understand?

Psychology of worldviews

Do you listen to types of music that have framed the way you see the world and incorporated it into your belief system? Yes, you have beliefs in something. When you listen to the music does it enhance your experience in interaction with the world around you? Do you dress a particular way? Why? Because it expresses your worldview.

Have you never taken psychology, sociology or athropology?

a reply to: WarminIndy

There is a difference between being an atheist and having an atheistic world view. One is just what someone believes about god and the other shapes their entire life. But just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they have an atheistic world view.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Atheism is not a world view, Atheism is just the disbelief of gods, period.

You can have atheists who are for communism and those against it. Just like you can have blondes who are for communism and against it.

Theism just deals with the belief in god

Theist - belief in god

Atheist - disbelief in god

Period.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

There is a difference between being an atheist and having an atheistic world view. One is just what someone believes about god and the other shapes their entire life. But just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they have an atheistic world view.

Yes, the same goes for all systems of thought.

However, atheism is still a worldview. Maybe you don't think like all other atheists do, but you still have a worldview and atheism is a more broader worldview.

Certainly no one would accuse you of having the same individual worldview as Mao-Tze Tung, but there are certain aspects of his atheism that you do agree with. So atheism is a broad worldview in that it is indeed a philosophy about the nature of the world.

Christianity is a broad worldview, and yet many Christians hold different individual worldviews. The same goes with Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and other systems.

Even though I am not Buddhist, here is a quote by Sidharta Buddha

We are what we think.All that we are arises with our thoughts.With our thoughts we make the world.

You are what you think you are and you will behave according to how you think. This is from my above post link about worldviews...

The term worldview comes from the German Weltanschauung, meaning a view or perspective on the world or the universe “used to describe one’s total outlook on life, society and its institutions”
(Wolman, 1973, p. 406)

By saying you have a lack of belief or an agnostic belief, those are simply part of your worldview.