Question to Atheists

[fluffy]

Perhaps he knows it's folly to try and understand the time/space??? prior to the big bang.

Exactly. There's a lot of pretty crucial "evidence" missing from the picture. To quote Mr. Spock, "The data does not support any conclusions at this time."

[Hmmm]

I posted the links to many museums that have actual real fossil records on display. The Smithsonian has the fossil remains of more than 6,000 individuals. How much more proof do you need for crying out loud ?

Sure, there are complete remains of species as the bible explains...because according to the bible....they are not millions of years old. The bible describes cattle, sheep, birds, humans.....not so much of a stretch to see fully intact skeletons of modern day species, is it ?
I see no mention in the bible though of the wooly mammoth, sabre tooth tiger, t-rex , pterodactyl, etc.

Just an FYI - head to the museum in Drumheller where you can learn why none of the reconstructed skeletons on display are real bones.....because the fossils are too heavy and too fragile. They are all casts of the original fossils....that does not make them fakes.

Do they have these fossils on display? I'm looking for the proof that this is true, or is it not true anymore?

[1nick]

Hmmm,at least put your pants on when posting.

image.jpg

[janalta]

Does that mean I can't be an atheist anymore?

Sorry Nick...if you're not genius level like the rest of us....you're out of the club.

[janalta]

Do they have these fossils on display? I'm looking for the proof that this is true, or is it not true anymore?

I would suggest going to one of the links posted, click on it, read the info and find out.
Failing that, email or call them and ask.
I've never been to any of them.

[1nick]

Does that mean I can't be an atheist anymore?

Sorry Nick...if you're not genius level like the rest of us....you're out of the club.

Well sheit....baptist it is then.
Do suppose hmmm is a baptist?
Perhaps he could put a good word in for me.

[Hmmm]

Well sheit....baptist it is then.
Do suppose hmmm is a baptist?
Perhaps he could put a good word in for me.

im not, but you would fit in nicely. They don't have much to add but sarcasm too.

[janalta]

Well sheit....baptist it is then.
Do suppose hmmm is a baptist?
Perhaps he could put a good word in for me.

You could be a Mormon too...only have to be a wee bit more intelligent than a Baptist for that.

Actually...seems from the graph that you could become any religion who believes in the New Testament and the whole Jesus thing.

[Glacier]

Well sheit....baptist it is then.
Do suppose hmmm is a baptist?
Perhaps he could put a good word in for me.

You're too hard on yourself. You're more likely a Scientologist.

[cliffy1]

[Geckonidae]

I think that when Fluffy says that a hard-line (AKA right-wing) atheist is akin to a hard-line theist, he means they are both confident that their interpretation of reality is true.

Fluffy along with liberal theists, agnostics, and new agers, holds the opinion that truth is relative to your own experience, whereas absolutists hold that there is only one answer even when all the facts are not known. ie. given the known facts, there is usually a clear answer to the question.

This is why right-wing atheists like Aayan Hirsi Ali, Penn Jillette, and John Stossel have more in common with right-wing fundamentalist Christians like Glen Beck than they do with liberally minded folks (whether atheist or theist). The same commonality exists on both sides, of course.

I don't know if you legitimately know what Fluffy meant by "hard-line atheist" or if you are just making your own assumptions. In any case, I can't speak for right wing people on either side of the theological fence, but I can tell you that being confident and opinionated isn't limited to being conservative.

Honestly I can't even tell what your point was other than slotting various people into categories.

[Geckonidae]

So there's no museums that showcase actual bones of all these human ancestors? I already knew there's tons of theory's and speculation that many feel is deeply rooted in facts, but I still am looking for the actual fossils?

And as for the comment that I'm not willing to accept the facts because of my beliefs, that is just wrong. As far as I can see there's a tremendous amount of speculation and theory's out there, and these change faster than Indy cars...

That's a pretty common fallacy. You make it sound like scientists put some goofy ideas into a hat, reach in a couple of times each year, and whatever they pull out becomes the new theory. (Don't worry, that's how I imagine some committee decided which books to include in the bible.)

For over 200 years scientists have been making predictions based on the theory of evolution and then years later those predictions have proven to be accurate. Here is a list for you: http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html If evolution was just the product of an overactive imagination, this list would not exist.

Here is what I don't understand. If Christians and Catholics have been able to accept evolution for a long time, why do we have this resurgence of Christians now who reject it? It seems less "pro-Christian" and more "anti-knowledge". Is it impossible for you to reconcile the existence of your god with the knowledge we have gained over the past 2000 years?

[Geckonidae]

The fundamental problem with this argument is that a deity might have created the universe but provides no evidence of itself, making inherent reasonable doubt of its existence. Of course, this is no argument that there exists a deity, but critically puts the atheist in a position of faith - the same position as the theist.

A potential second problem might be rooted in your notion of evidence. What is evidence to you?

Go back and read my previous posts discussing this notion of faith and why it doesn't apply to being an atheist. I'm not saying an individual atheist cannot have faith of some kind in some things, but atheism itself does not require faith. I may have faith in mankind, but that is not the same as religious faith.

Saying that an atheist and a Christian both have faith is like saying a guy who ate chili and a car both have gas.

To me, being an atheist simply means that I do not see any reason to think that a magic sky wizard created anything. I don't need to have faith in anything science related to not believe something else unrelated. If you tell me that you can read my mind, it doesn't require faith to not believe you. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that I knew for a fact, with 100% certainty, that you could not read my mind. That doesn't mean I have to accept that your claim is true, or even that it is remotely likely to be true. I just happen to be a skeptical atheist though. There are atheists who believe in souls, reincarnation, afterlife, ghosts, yetis, etc. Some of those atheists may actually have faith in something the way that you understand faith, but you would have to ask them...we're not all the same.

[Geckonidae]

If we're talking about "God" in the traditional sense, a conscious intelligence of some description with his/her/its fingers on the buttons of the universe then it would be safe to count me among non-believers. However I'm of the mind that that particular God concept is fast becoming just another out-dated used-to-believe that is soon to take its place on some dusty shelf with the flat earth. A more metaphorical God, one that loosely personifies all that we have yet to discover is fast taking it place among spiritualists who are open to the thought there is something deeper, wider and more pervasive than our current understanding has shown. Something a little more Obiwan-Kenobi-ish if you will. So for starters I'd like to challenge the self-proclaimed atheists here to describe just what God it is that they choose not to believe in. For that matter, the "believers" could chime in on the same subject. Put a face on your God/no God for all to see. For me it's not as much about believing or not believing as it is about being open to possibilities and admitting that we have a lot to learn.

This is how much sense your challenge makes to me:

I may or may not have just farted a magic blue cloud. Either you believe that I did in fact fart the magic cloud, or you are an afartist who sees no evidence that I farted the magic cloud.

I'd like to challenge the self-proclaimed afartists here to describe the Fart they choose not to believe in. For that matter, the "believers" could chime in on the same subject. Put a scent on your Fart/no Fart for all to smell.

Yes, the universe is amazing, there are infinite questions to be asked, and some of the answers are more wonderful than anything we have possibly imagined. A skeptical atheist can still look up at the stars and be filled with a sense of wonder. But what does it really mean to be "open-minded"? Once again we have this problem with definitions. If you tell me that it's possible that magic unicorns seeded life throughout the universe, am I not open-minded for thinking it's a stupid idea?

One additional point: I do not "choose" to not believe in a deity any more than I choose to not believe that my dog is a cat.

[Sneaksuit]

To me, being an atheist simply means that I do not see any reason to think that a magic sky wizard created anything. I don't need to have faith in anything science related to not believe something else unrelated. If you tell me that you can read my mind, it doesn't require faith to not believe you. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that I knew for a fact, with 100% certainty, that you could not read my mind. That doesn't mean I have to accept that your claim is true, or even that it is remotely likely to be true. I just happen to be a skeptical atheist though. There are atheists who believe in souls, reincarnation, afterlife, ghosts, yetis, etc. Some of those atheists may actually have faith in something the way that you understand faith, but you would have to ask them...we're not all the same.

I agree with much of what you say but your argument is faulty for the fact that the rejection of a belief in deities is also the belief that no deities exist, otherwise you are agnostic. That certainly requires faith. Read William James if you haven't before you argue against that. I also suspect that your arbitrary division between christianity and atheism with respect to faith is due to your faith in the human capacity to reason and that reason can access all knowledge.