Are you guys insane?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2012, 08:54 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
It all started with photosensitive receptors. Step by step, bit by bit... like building a bridge. Starts from the banks, and eventually forming the complete structure. Eventually, only the essential parts are left behind. The temporary supports? All removed.

It may be hard to understand or even believe at first, like the concept of length contraction in special relativity. Seems absurd at first, but once you are able to understand and appreciate the mechanisms, a whole new world of knowledge opens up to you.


A lie is a lie even if everyone believes in it.
The truth is the truth even if nobody believes in it.

By the way, very nice credentials you have there Smile Are you currently working as a nurse or a pharmacist? Also, I'm jelly that you have your own laboratories Bowing

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 09:15 AM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 05:11 AM)darcie Wrote:  Is Egor for reals??
Also, Egor, I am also a RN and took every class you listed...and don't recall one mention of evolution in any of them. Did they teach evolution in pharmacology? A&P? micro? where did you go to college?? And cardiac nursing has an evolution aspect??

No, I'm just giving my background in the biological sciences. And if you didn't get evolution in high school biology, something was missing.


(26-04-2012 06:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As has been stated above by Bucky Ball very well, a brain is not a requirement for life nor is it a requirement for photosynsetive cells. I mean plants have photosynsetive cells for goodness sake. Grasses and all other plants can open and close their stomata depending on the time of day (ie based on the amount of sunlight at any given time).

Clams don't have a brain, and yet even they can detect danger and shut their shell. They are capable of burrowing and some can swim. This means that even without a brain, they can process information about the world around them.

You have got to be kidding. Did you even read what I wrote, or do you simply have no comeback? Photosenstitive cells or not, there would be no advantage to them if they were not working at the time they popped into existence through genetic mutation. If there is no advantage, then there would be no selection pressure. You're bordering on magical thinking now to escape the obviousness of design.

Quote:I can't accept that the Giants beat my 49ers. My desire to believe or not believe something has no bearing on whether it is true or not. If you can't accept the possibility that evolution is in fact not guided by an "intelligent being" then you've no point in debating it.

Back at'cha: if you can't see the necessity for design in evolution, you are relying on magical thinking to make it happen.

Quote:You do realize that you even ended your post realizing your first argument would not hold up and then your second point was the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I can't hear you."

No I don't. Humor me with specifics.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 09:28 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 09:15 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(26-04-2012 05:11 AM)darcie Wrote:  Is Egor for reals??
Also, Egor, I am also a RN and took every class you listed...and don't recall one mention of evolution in any of them. Did they teach evolution in pharmacology? A&P? micro? where did you go to college?? And cardiac nursing has an evolution aspect??

No, I'm just giving my background in the biological sciences. And if you didn't get evolution in high school biology, something was missing.
I did not get it in my high school biology because I went to High School in Tennessee. A good ol' fashioned evolution-denying state that would rather its citizens live in the squalor of ignorance than learn about the possibility that humans are animals, the same as any other animal. Because the bible says we have dominion over them and holds us to some higher esteem than just the title "animal". The bible: securing the ignorance of the masses since its conception. A fictional book that people are told is either literal or figurative but either way has more knowledge in it than any science book, thanks to the desert dwelling nomads who wrote it, despite thinking that the world was flat. And that the sun went around the earth. And that the entire known world was the middle east. And that above the clouds was a place called "heaven." And that below their feet was a place called "hell." And...well you get the point, but despite the vast ignorance of the natural world, they somehow wrote literal truths and/or figurative truths.

I'm not bitter or anything.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
26-04-2012, 09:41 AM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 08:54 AM)robotworld Wrote:  It all started with photosensitive receptors. Step by step, bit by bit... like building a bridge. Starts from the banks, and eventually forming the complete structure. Eventually, only the essential parts are left behind. The temporary supports? All removed.

It may be hard to understand or even believe at first, like the concept of length contraction in special relativity. Seems absurd at first, but once you are able to understand and appreciate the mechanisms, a whole new world of knowledge opens up to you.

So, your saying that at some stage of development back in our common descent there was a big mutation that had all the brain, nerves, cells, etc., that were completely non-functional until other mutations chissled away at the setup leaving a vision system? Maybe. But as I said, I cannot rationally accept that.


Quote:A lie is a lie even if everyone believes in it.
The truth is the truth even if nobody believes in it.

We agree here. But let me add this bit: We believe what we want to believe.

The fact is there may be no design at all in nature. Design may simply be an illusion caused by gradual chance mutation meeting natural selection, or natural selection favoring one mutation over another and reproduction solidifying the change in a species. But the complexity of life available today does not "rationally" seem possible given the time life has been forming on the earth. I find it more likely that alien lifeforms seeded the planet than Darwinian evolution creating what we see, and I don't believe in aliens being able to travel in deep space anymore than we can.

On the other hand, I have had probably a hundred precognitive episodes in my life and three major ones (possibly five, but three for sure). I see that one-celled creatures act with will and purpose, though they have no nervous system whatsoever. I see the contingency of our universe and I believe that the evidence for the big bang is true. I contemplate the idea of God and see that it is like no other in it's ontological uniqueness. I take all these things together, and it's not only easy for me to postulate the existence of a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness (God), but pretty much impossible for me to deny it--rationally.

Now, if I didn't want to believe in God. Let's say I wanted to be the only god in my life, or I had some sin I couldn't face, or I was just lazy and didn't want to do the intellectual work needed to contemplate and form ideas about God, well then, I could deny God's existence. I could be like an atheist and just say, "I don't know, but I don't believe." If I needed to do that for psychological reasons, I could, but I can't do that rationally. I would have to deny my reasons for believing in God, and that would take too much mental energy.

Quote:By the way, very nice credentials you have there Smile Are you currently working as a nurse or a pharmacist? Also, I'm jelly that you have your own laboratories Bowing

Currently working as a nurse, but these days I'm in psychiatry, not ICU. And as for the laboratories, you can firm back up. I had them; I don't now. The simple chemistry lab and bio lab I had as a preteen. Hurricane Katrina took care of the microbiology set up I had after nursing school, and I never rebuilt because I really didn't have any need to. All I was doing was watching protozoa and that can be had on YouTube these days.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 09:45 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
Bacteria do not have a nervous system but they still respond to external stimuli. No thinking, just involuntary reaction. That is what these cells did, they allowed for a reaction (like a reflex).

I explained already that there was selection pressure for it, but you apparently missed it.

Heterotrophs acquire nutrition and energy by consuming other organisms (herbivores eat plants, carnivores eat meat and omnivores eat both). If an organism is a heterotroph, then it must seek out and acquire food. There are many ways in which an organism can detect its food source, and eyes are one of them (or photosensitive cells as they start out as). Organisms like arthropods developed eyes separately from their chordate counterparts, and organisms like Anomalocarius were some of the first predators. The selection pressure here was that those with better developed light sensing organs, could detect prey more easily. I.E. there was an advantage (see previous post).

As for the chordate ancestor, there was an advantage for having the photosensitive cells. If a shadow were detected moving across them, the organism would react (a knee-jerk reaction, not a conscious thought). This reaction enabled it to avoid predation, and those with better light-sensing organs had an advantage (see previous post).

Who said I was never a creationist? Who said I was not at one point in time an "intelligently guided" evolutionist? I went through both phases and came out the other end an atheist. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is any intelligence guiding anything in nature. If intelligence were guiding evolution, then why is it that >99% of all species that have ever existed went extinct? Why are there structures and organs that serve no purpose? Why do other structures like the nerve that controls the voice box routed in such stupid ways? (It need only go from brain to voice-box and yet it goes brain, around the heart, voice-box. Even in giraffes. In fish, the same nerve does the same thing, but the anchor point at the heart is on its way to the gills, so our fish ancestors began to elongate their head, forming the neck, and the nerve went for the ride rather than rerouting.)

You assert without any actual proof that it must be designed. Your only attempt at proof is to try and disprove the possibility that random chance is involved in evolution. As I have already discussed, no scientist says that anyways. And in my previous post I also indicate that something not being random, does not mean there is some guiding intelligence behind it. I can plot up a distribution of elevations of land above sea level and it will be a goddamn bell-curve. It isn't random and it certainly isn't designed (see: Plate Tectonics).

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-04-2012, 09:47 AM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 09:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-04-2012 09:15 AM)Egor Wrote:  No, I'm just giving my background in the biological sciences. And if you didn't get evolution in high school biology, something was missing.
I did not get it in my high school biology because I went to High School in Tennessee. A good ol' fashioned evolution-denying state that would rather its citizens live in the squalor of ignorance than learn about the possibility that humans are animals, the same as any other animal. Because the bible says we have dominion over them and holds us to some higher esteem than just the title "animal". The bible: securing the ignorance of the masses since its conception. A fictional book that people are told is either literal or figurative but either way has more knowledge in it than any science book, thanks to the desert dwelling nomads who wrote it, despite thinking that the world was flat. And that the sun went around the earth. And that the entire known world was the middle east. And that above the clouds was a place called "heaven." And that below their feet was a place called "hell." And...well you get the point, but despite the vast ignorance of the natural world, they somehow wrote literal truths and/or figurative truths.

I'm not bitter or anything.

Sounds like you have some issues to deal with. It sounds to me like you have way more psychological reasons for your stance on evolution than you have factual reasons for it. There's no overcoming that.

See, for me, I could grant you every notion you have about evolution, and it wouldn't change the argument for God. When all is said and done, one would still have to ponder how a universe that operates on evolution could form in the first place. But the atheist, if they lose one foothold at all, their entire house of cards crumbles.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 09:47 AM)Egor Wrote:  When all is said and done, one would still have to ponder how a universe that operates on evolution could form in the first place.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know yet but we're working on it". It seems to me like a much more honest answer than "Goddidit" without any evidence to back it up. And some things may just remain unanswered for a long time, and I'm OK with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like zihuatanejo's post
26-04-2012, 10:09 AM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 09:45 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Bacteria do not have a nervous system but they still respond to external stimuli. No thinking, just involuntary reaction. That is what these cells did, they allowed for a reaction (like a reflex).

I explained already that there was selection pressure for it, but you apparently missed it.

Heterotrophs acquire nutrition and energy by consuming other organisms (herbivores eat plants, carnivores eat meat and omnivores eat both). If an organism is a heterotroph, then it must seek out and acquire food. There are many ways in which an organism can detect its food source, and eyes are one of them (or photosensitive cells as they start out as). Organisms like arthropods developed eyes separately from their chordate counterparts, and organisms like Anomalocarius were some of the first predators. The selection pressure here was that those with better developed light sensing organs, could detect prey more easily. I.E. there was an advantage (see previous post).

As for the chordate ancestor, there was an advantage for having the photosensitive cells. If a shadow were detected moving across them, the organism would react (a knee-jerk reaction, not a conscious thought). This reaction enabled it to avoid predation, and those with better light-sensing organs had an advantage (see previous post).

You can throw around all the biological classification Latin you want, you still aren't adressing the one question I asked you. All you are saying is that it "might have" happened this or that way. And all I'm saying is there is no rational reason it would--without an intent driving it. In other words, you don't a human being on this planet unless you give it eyes, ears, nose, and a completely oversized brain. You don't get a being that can contemplate the ideals that Jesus Christ illustrated in his life and teachings. You don't get an animal that can choose to be one with God by giving up its free will to do the will of God.

Quote:Who said I was never a creationist? Who said I was not at one point in time an "intelligently guided" evolutionist?

Not me. Your issues are showing again.

Quote:I went through both phases and came out the other end an atheist. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is any intelligence guiding anything in nature. If intelligence were guiding evolution, then why is it that >99% of all species that have ever existed went extinct? Why are there structures and organs that serve no purpose? Why do other structures like the nerve that controls the voice box routed in such stupid ways? (It need only go from brain to voice-box and yet it goes brain, around the heart, voice-box. Even in giraffes. In fish, the same nerve does the same thing, but the anchor point at the heart is on its way to the gills, so our fish ancestors began to elongate their head, forming the neck, and the nerve went for the ride rather than rerouting.)

I don't know why I have to tell you this: Evolution. Everything you say about evolution is true, except that some of the genetic mutations occured by the same creative force that formed the universe to begin with. When you think about it, what I'm saying really has nothing to do with evolution. What I'm saying comes before evolution. Why there are imperfections in physical creatures is a matter of opinion. Some would say we don't need two kidneys. And that's true. We only need about 20% of the kidney function we have. But I'm not giving up a kidney. We only have one eye, but I'm not giving up an eye. And the nerve for the voicebox goes down by the heart, but if you said, "Here, let me fix that." I'd rather you just left it alone. I would have liked to have kept my appendix as a child, too, and my tonsils. But I got sick. You may think there's no reason for certain biological structures. But I wouldn't start messing with them if I were you. That's just my opinion as a medical professional.

Quote:You assert without any actual proof that it must be designed.

I don't have proof, but I do have observations. So, based on those observations, I am led to believe a certain way. If I didn't believe in God, I suppose I'd have to see it your way, just as you do. Don't forget, you don't want to believe in God, so you have to believe the process of evolution occurs ultimately for no reason.

Quote:Your only attempt at proof is to try and disprove the possibility that random chance is involved in evolution. As I have already discussed, no scientist says that anyways. And in my previous post I also indicate that something not being random, does not mean there is some guiding intelligence behind it. I can plot up a distribution of elevations of land above sea level and it will be a goddamn bell-curve. It isn't random and it certainly isn't designed (see: Plate Tectonics).

You're playing with words now, and you know it. The issue at hand are the mutations that occur at the genetic molecular level. Something caused the mutations to occur; that something was either the product of will or a product of randomness. That is what our discussion is about--when you think about it, it's not really about evolution at all. We agree about evolution.


(26-04-2012 10:00 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote:  I don't think that there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know yet but we're working on it". It seems to me like a much more honest answer than "Goddidit" without any evidence to back it up. And some things may just remain unanswered for a long time, and I'm OK with that.

Of course you're okay with that. That's one of the hallmarks of atheism is the willingness to simply not answer the question at hand, and to be okay with that. Because what you're really saying is that when all the contingency inevitably leads back to a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness (God), you will simply stop short and say, "I don't know, and I'm okay with that." If you couldn't do that, you couldn't be an atheist.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
Quote: [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]You have got to be kidding. Did you even read what I wrote, or do you simply have no comeback? Photosenstitive cells or not, there would be no advantage to them if they were not working at the time they popped into existence through genetic mutation. If there is no advantage, then there would be no selection pressure. You're bordering on magical thinking now to escape the obviousness of design.[/font]
Actually, it's the other way round. Without selection pressure, there will be no advantage. Whether a trait is advantageous or not is ultimately determined by the environment the organism is placed in. A trait that allows an organism to survive in harsh, dry conditions is advantageous in arid deserts, but may be disadvantageous in humid rainforests. An example would be the peppered moths, with their respective wing colours (white and black) being advantageous and disadvantageous depending on the colour of the tree barks.

Quote: So, your saying that at some stage of development back in our common descent there was a big mutation that had all the brain, nerves, cells, etc., that were completely non-functional until other mutations chissled away at the setup leaving a vision system? Maybe. But as I said, I cannot rationally accept that.
It does not start with a big mutation, but it starts small. What I meant is that the evolution of such mechanisms and structures involve the adding on of components, step by step. There can be intermediate components on the way, but they are either refined or removed at the end.

[Image: 350px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png]

Quote:The fact is there may be no design at all in nature. Design may simply be an illusion caused by gradual chance mutation meeting natural selection, or natural selection favoring one mutation over another and reproduction solidifying the change in a species. But the complexity of life available today does not "rationally" seem possible given the time life has been forming on the earth. I find it more likely that alien lifeforms seeded the planet than Darwinian evolution creating what we see, and I don't believe in aliens being able to travel in deep space anymore than we can.
Quote:On the other hand, I have had probably a hundred precognitive episodes in my life and three major ones (possibly five, but three for sure). I see that one-celled creatures act with will and purpose, though they have no nervous system whatsoever. I see the contingency of our universe and I believe that the evidence for the big bang is true. I contemplate the idea of God and see that it is like no other in it's ontological uniqueness. I take all these things together, and it's not only easy for me to postulate the existence of a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness (God), but pretty much impossible for me to deny it--rationally.
Quote:Now, if I didn't want to believe in God. Let's say I wanted to be the only god in my life, or I had some sin I couldn't face, or I was just lazy and didn't want to do the intellectual work needed to contemplate and form ideas about God, well then, I could deny God's existence. I could be like an atheist and just say, "I don't know, but I don't believe." If I needed to do that for psychological reasons, I could, but I can't do that rationally. I would have to deny my reasons for believing in God, and that would take too much mental energy.
Given the time? 4.54 billion years is a pretty long time. Simple micro-evolution can take place within days, or even hours. Also, about Panspermia (the theory of aliens seeding lifeforms), that's more of abiogenesis, how life first started. Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection explains the diversity of species on our planet.

Precognitive episodes? I remember that I was once called the weatherman, for being able to correctly predict the weather 9 out of 10 times. I thought my dreams were visions of the future, as I see one dream coming true at a time. I thought I had psychic powers (possibly as a side-effect from playing too much Pokemon). That is, until I started recording any precognitive thoughts I have, no matter how fleeting. Turns out I'm playing the probability game. Nearly half of my thoughts are right, the others plain wrong. I realised I had committed the fallacy of confirmation bias. But, I would like to hear of your precognitive experiences. It should be interesting Smile

I'm not sure what you mean by one-cell creatures acting with will and purpose, can you elaborate further? Usually the aim of any organism is to survive and reproduce.

God, to me is like a giant, fluffy teddy bear, a companion for all ages, and for the imaginative, a decent friend who is willing to hear your joys and sorrows. Teddy God is comforting when you speak to him. Teddy god listens to you without a single word of complaint. The ideal companion. To me, all such is just a facade, an escape from the harshness of life. God is comforting, Santa is comforting, Fluffy the Dinosaur is comforting. We do not believe for various reasons. Some feel that there is no need to invoke a deity to explain life and nature, for science easily does that. Some do not want to associate themselves with any religion, but prefer to be freethinkers. A myriad of reasons for why we do not believe in a God.

But to really understand, consider why do you reject the notion of the existence of other Gods such as Vishnu, Thor, Shiva or creatures such as fairies, pixies, The Loch Ness Monster, that shadowy creature in your basement with red eyes and makes a funny whooshing noise...


All in all, thank you for taking your time to reply Big Grin

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 10:23 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(26-04-2012 10:09 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(26-04-2012 09:45 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Bacteria do not have a nervous system but they still respond to external stimuli. No thinking, just involuntary reaction. That is what these cells did, they allowed for a reaction (like a reflex).

I explained already that there was selection pressure for it, but you apparently missed it.

Heterotrophs acquire nutrition and energy by consuming other organisms (herbivores eat plants, carnivores eat meat and omnivores eat both). If an organism is a heterotroph, then it must seek out and acquire food. There are many ways in which an organism can detect its food source, and eyes are one of them (or photosensitive cells as they start out as). Organisms like arthropods developed eyes separately from their chordate counterparts, and organisms like Anomalocarius were some of the first predators. The selection pressure here was that those with better developed light sensing organs, could detect prey more easily. I.E. there was an advantage (see previous post).

As for the chordate ancestor, there was an advantage for having the photosensitive cells. If a shadow were detected moving across them, the organism would react (a knee-jerk reaction, not a conscious thought). This reaction enabled it to avoid predation, and those with better light-sensing organs had an advantage (see previous post).

You can throw around all the biological classification Latin you want, you still aren't adressing the one question I asked you. All you are saying is that it "might have" happened this or that way. And all I'm saying is there is no rational reason it would--without an intent driving it. In other words, you don't a human being on this planet unless you give it eyes, ears, nose, and a completely oversized brain. You don't get a being that can contemplate the ideals that Jesus Christ illustrated in his life and teachings. You don't get an animal that can choose to be one with God by giving up its free will to do the will of God.

Quote:Who said I was never a creationist? Who said I was not at one point in time an "intelligently guided" evolutionist?

Not me. Your issues are showing again.

Quote:I went through both phases and came out the other end an atheist. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is any intelligence guiding anything in nature. If intelligence were guiding evolution, then why is it that >99% of all species that have ever existed went extinct? Why are there structures and organs that serve no purpose? Why do other structures like the nerve that controls the voice box routed in such stupid ways? (It need only go from brain to voice-box and yet it goes brain, around the heart, voice-box. Even in giraffes. In fish, the same nerve does the same thing, but the anchor point at the heart is on its way to the gills, so our fish ancestors began to elongate their head, forming the neck, and the nerve went for the ride rather than rerouting.)

I don't know why I have to tell you this: Evolution. Everything you say about evolution is true, except that some of the genetic mutations occured by the same creative force that formed the universe to begin with. When you think about it, what I'm saying really has nothing to do with evolution. What I'm saying comes before evolution. Why there are imperfections in physical creatures is a matter of opinion. Some would say we don't need two kidneys. And that's true. We only need about 20% of the kidney function we have. But I'm not giving up a kidney. We only have one eye, but I'm not giving up an eye. And the nerve for the voicebox goes down by the heart, but if you said, "Here, let me fix that." I'd rather you just left it alone. I would have liked to have kept my appendix as a child, too, and my tonsils. But I got sick. You may think there's no reason for certain biological structures. But I wouldn't start messing with them if I were you. That's just my opinion as a medical professional.

Quote:You assert without any actual proof that it must be designed.

I don't have proof, but I do have observations. So, based on those observations, I am led to believe a certain way. If I didn't believe in God, I suppose I'd have to see it your way, just as you do. Don't forget, you don't want to believe in God, so you have to believe the process of evolution occurs ultimately for no reason.

Quote:Your only attempt at proof is to try and disprove the possibility that random chance is involved in evolution. As I have already discussed, no scientist says that anyways. And in my previous post I also indicate that something not being random, does not mean there is some guiding intelligence behind it. I can plot up a distribution of elevations of land above sea level and it will be a goddamn bell-curve. It isn't random and it certainly isn't designed (see: Plate Tectonics).

You're playing with words now, and you know it. The issue at hand are the mutations that occur at the genetic molecular level. Something caused the mutations to occur; that something was either the product of will or a product of randomness. That is what our discussion is about--when you think about it, it's not really about evolution at all. We agree about evolution.


(26-04-2012 10:00 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote:  I don't think that there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know yet but we're working on it". It seems to me like a much more honest answer than "Goddidit" without any evidence to back it up. And some things may just remain unanswered for a long time, and I'm OK with that.

Of course you're okay with that. That's one of the hallmarks of atheism is the willingness to simply not answer the question at hand, and to be okay with that. Because what you're really saying is that when all the contingency inevitably leads back to a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness (God), you will simply stop short and say, "I don't know, and I'm okay with that." If you couldn't do that, you couldn't be an atheist.
But you're saying that it's best to have a false answer, than no answer. And that being honest enough to admit that one doesn't know is in fact a moral fault. You have your sense of right and wrong flipped. If, as you say, all the contingency inevitably leads back to a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness (God), I'd have no problem accepting that; you're mistaken in your assumption that I'm stupid or dishonest with myself. I've been wrong many, many times in my life, but I can accept my mistakes and change my mind based on new evidence. This doesn't seem to be the case with you; you've been proven wrong many times and still cling to the god belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: