[interinfinity]

I am fine with most of what you have said, interinfinity, but I do want to say that all self respecting biologists would say that evolution is true. It is not controversial among scientists. I agree that Darwin was not a father of atheism at all. He mostly avoided the subject because his wife was Christian and it pained her deeply to think that they would not be together in heaven. Darwin felt bad about hurting her because he loved her. But, still, he was not a believer either. His lost his faith as a young man.

I mispoke, what I meant to say was no one accepts it as a law, they do see it as the best theory. Micro evlolution has been proven true, but macro evolution does have some holes in it. Not trying to debunk it, but if it is univerally accepted its called a law. If its just the best that can be thought up at our present state of understanding, it's a theory. Newtons laws of motion cannot be disproven, therefor it is a law. Evloution has some arguments against it, even from the scientific community, therefore it is a theory. However every good theory has holes in it. Even relativity is a theory, not a law. Doesn't mean its not true, just means that its not perfect

[asking]

i mispoke, what i meant to say was no one accepts it as a law, they do see it as the best theory. micro evlolution has been proven true, but macro evolution does have some holes in it. not trying to debunk it, but if it is univerally accepted its called a law. if its just the best that can be thought up at our present state of understanding, its a theory. Newtons laws of motion cannot be disproven, therefor it is a law. evloution has some arguments against it, even from the scientific community, therefore it is a theory. however every good theory has holes in it. even relativity is a theory, not a law. doesnt mean its not true, just means that its not perfect

I understand why you might think that macro evolution remains in doubt or has "holes" in it, but that is a myth put out by people who would like to keep people in doubt. Remember how the tobacco industry kept saying that we couldn't be CERTAIN that nicotine was addictive or that cigarette smoking caused cancer? They managed to persuade ordinary people that scientists were still in doubt about it for decades after doctors knew that tobacco causes cancer and that nicotine was highly addictive.

The same think is happening with evolution, both macro and micro. Macro evolution just means the formation of new species from earlier ones, and it is totally accepted by all practicing biologists. There is no controversy about whether maco evolution occurs. There ARE disagreements about things like whether Species A evolved from Species B or Species C, minutia that would bore most people to death.

I agree with you that scientists quibble about the details of some aspects of subatomic physics or how the immune system works. In the same way, there are squabbles about the classification of species or when a particular lineage first evolved. But no one believes that animals don't have immune systems. And no one believes that species didn't evolve from older species. Among biologists, macro evolution is completely accepted.

It is not true that in science a "law" has more status than a "theory." Some people will tell you that, but it isn't so. Mostly, physicists use words like "law," while other scientists tend to use "Theory." (This has to do with how physicists view their own work! :) ) None of this really matters. Those are just words. In fact, if you want to quibble, relativity "disproves" Newton's laws of motion. But for practical purposes here on Earth, Newton's "laws" are still true. But a physicist would tell you that's technically incorrect. Evolution by natural selection is a stronger theory than Newton's.

I mean that. If you go talk to practicing biologists, you will find that they do not question the idea that evolution--by natural selection and other mechanisms -- explains why the Earth is populated by 10 to 30 million different species. It explains the fossil record, it explains the distribution of plants and animals on different continents and islands; it explains why birds have wings that are different from the wings of bats and a thousand other indisputable facts. Macro evolution is totally accepted. There is no controversy. The idea has no holes and in 150 years (this year!), no one has been able to provide any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection. Instead, we just have more and more evidence that bolsters it. Evolution is one of the most robust theories that science has ever produced.

[ordinaryguy]

Asking--Thanks for a great exposition of the "law and theory" terminology in scientific usage. A whole lot of the ink spilled and breath wasted on this and related subjects is very little more than people having completely different meanings of words in their heads, so they come away from the discussion even more convinced that the other side MUST be objecting out of evil motives.

My layman's impression is that even among physicists, the term "law" is losing favor. In EVERY field of science, the fundamental urge, the driving motive, is for a "better" explanation, i.e. one that works over an ever-wider range of conditions and scales of operation. As that range and scale is increased, old explanations often fail. Very few physicists wanted it beforehand (Einstein hated it), but quantum mechanics HAD to be invented because Newtonian "laws", which seemed to work perfectly at the scale of marbles and planets, failed miserably to predict and explain what happens at the sub-atomic scale of matter/energy relations. Similarly, relativity HAD to be invented because Newtonian physics failed to explain what happens at space and time/speed scales that are very far from our daily experience. But the key point is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity "disproved" Newtonian physics, they just delineated and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied.

Evolution by natural selection is a stronger theory than Newton's.

Yes, in the sense that it works over the entire range of observation available to us.

This might be a topic for another thread (having nothing to do with either atheists or organizations), but I would like to hear your take on how the rapid increase in understanding of genetics and developmental biology is influencing evolutionary theory.

[fancyT]

One does not need to prove a negative.
Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See alos: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do need to prove it if you want the statement to hold true. Its just like if I said there is no Gold in Australia. I can't just say that without any proof. I have to prove there is no gold in Autralia to that statement to hold.

[fancyT]

Ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Technically there is no such thing as an atheist.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as ourselves.

If any of you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually an Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in the existence of a god without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

[tomder55]

Yup ;but they have that aspect covered . Ask about the distinction between soft and hard or strong and weak atheism . Then when they do explain it to me because I don't get it.

[NeedKarma]

Ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Technically there is no such thing as an athiest.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as ourselves.

If any of you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually an Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in the existance of a god without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

Ok, if that makes you happy.

[excon]

Hello again fancy:

Your argument makes no sense to me. There are things I know to be so. I know the world is round, therefore I know it's not flat. I really DO KNOW it's not flat, because it's round, and I don't know everything. I know there's no tooth fairy and I know there's no Santa Clause. I really DO know it, even though you don't think I do.

In that same vein, I really don't have to know everything in order to proclaim there's no God. I know it, just like I know there's no tooth fairy, or the world isn't flat.

I've heard your argument before. Is that what they're telling you in church these days?

Besides, I don't see what difference it makes. I don't care whether you call me an agnostic or an atheist, nor do I care what you think I think.

You know, it's like if you were to run across a naked guy wandering around the street. You wouldn't want to know what HE thinks about foreign affairs, would you?

I do wonder, though. Does me being an atheist somehow threaten your religion?

excon

[NeedKarma]

I do wonder, though. Does me being an atheist somehow threaten your religion?

Even the pope seems to threaten his/her religion. It's a big scary "why-is-everyone-not-like-me" world out there.

[bushg]

excon, needkarma... do you feel threatened by people that are religious or by religion in general?

[NeedKarma]

Not. Why do you think that? Do what you want, just be a good person.

[bushg]

I was just asking if you feel threatened, not stating that you do.

[NeedKarma]

Oh OK. Carry on. :)

[excon]

Hello again, bushg:

No, and my posts don't indicate that I do. My posts don't challenge what other people believe. I don't tell anybody they're wrong for what they believe. I don't try to get them to believe like me. And I don't tell them they're going to a bad place because they don't believe like me.

All I say what is I believe to be true. I couldn't care less what others believe – unless they mean to do me harm because of MY beliefs. I can't believe that saying what I believe threatens what anybody else believes. In fact, it would only threaten them, if they had some sort of stake in that belief beyond it just being true.

I don't have stakes in my beliefs. So what someone else thinks, doesn't threaten me. But, if someone can offer a better argument than mine, I'll switch. I switch all the time. I don't have a “stake” in my beliefs, and my world doesn't crumble when I change one.

I do I recognize, though, that religion has caused more death and mayhem than most any other cause ever. But history doesn't threaten me. Being ignorant of history does. I ain't ignorant.

excon

[jillianleab]

Technically there is no such thing as an atheist.

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:

yup ;but they have that aspect covered . Ask about the distinction between soft and hard or strong and weak atheism . Then when they do explain it to me because I don't get it.

Ugh, I hate those terms. They make no freekin sense.

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence. Definitions of the term "Atheism"

Maybe I fail at reading comprehension, but I think those are the same thing...

Here's the best definition of "atheist" I've found so far:

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots: "A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"

This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].
A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others. Definitions of the term "Atheism"

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith. The debates and battles over if someone can actually be an atheist comes in when we start to debate semantics and the definition of the word "belief". Then people throw in the word "faith" and there are, of course, different definitions of that word as well (perhaps I should say connotations dependent on context... ). Either way, it's an old argument that's been had on this very site several times...

[interinfinity]

Religion is just a sort of collective schitzophrenia in my opinion

[asking]

My layman's impression is that even among physicists, the term "law" is losing favor. In EVERY field of science, the fundamental urge, the driving motive, is for a "better" explanation, i.e. one that works over an ever-wider range of conditions and scales of operation. As that range and scale is increased, old explanations often fail.. . Relativity HAD to be invented because Newtonian physics failed to explain what happens at space and time/speed scales that are very far from our daily experience. But the key point is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity "disproved" Newtonian physics, they just delineated and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied.

And thanks to you, ordinaryguy, as well! Of course, I agree with what you have said--and you said it much better than I could have. I was oversimplifying in saying "disprove," using it in the sense I thought was being used here--not infalllible. Yes, "delineate and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied" is good.

Yes,[evolution is robust] in the sense that it works over the entire range of observation available to us.

Yes. I agree.

I would like to hear your take on how the rapid increase in understanding of genetics and developmental biology is influencing evolutionary theory

What fun! :D I'll post briefly in biology... I agree that I/we have already wandered far from the topic thread.

[parttime]

[QUOTE=Galveston1]To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history.

Hey #1, I'm really intersested in this statement, maybe you could start a new thread and post something from history that show this, I can't find much in the way of writings by the founders that even mention God or religion. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

[asking]

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:

Hahaha!

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith.

Exactly. I get the feeling sometimes that many theists are convinced that all atheists don't merely disbelieve, but actively reject something they "really" believe exists--as if I said I hatefully rejected my own child or parent ("you're dead to me"); or that atheists "hate" or want to "destroy" someone else's God, again, comparable to killing a real person. But what I really feel is simply that I have never been able to believe that a copper teapot is orbiting Saturn or that a tooth fairy or a sandman comes into my house at night. I've never seen the tooth fair or any evidence of her existense. No one asks me why I don't believe in those or asks me to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Phew! What a job that would be!

The belief just isn't there. I seriously doubt any God exists (and you can call me an agnostic if it makes you feel better); I live entirely without reference to any sort of god, not 20 of them, not 2 of them, not 1. I can't imagine even BOTHERING to try to prove that no gods exist. Why would I want to do that? I don't care and if I succeeded, somebody would probably try to kill me.

I consider my total failure to believe in other people's imaginary deities harmless to others and no one's business buy my own. This web site is the only place I've ever written about it or spoken at length. Yet, all my life, I've been repeatedly astonished by others' feeling that I have to account for or defend my failure to believe in their almost-certainly-imaginary deities. I don't tell them not to believe, but they ask me, "Why don't you believe in my god?" For some reason it's not considered impolite for them to demand an answer or to tell me that I must be an evil person, that I am going to hell, that I have no soul, that I have no morals, or that I must be willing to commit a host of shocking and disgusting acts, all because I don't believe in their particular god. The things that believers have said to me.. . Often simply for answering more doorbell.

I have been told all these things by people who supposed "love" me, even some of them close friends. I try to remind myself that churches do good things-- they provide safe harbor to people in trouble and give food and clothing to the poor. But then someone of faith tells me they wish I was dead because my thoughts are different from theirs, and it's hard to remember to think "Christian" thoughts myself. Why are some people of faith so hateful to non believers like me? Why not leave me alone?

[asking]

religion is just a sort of collective schitzophrenia imho

That's an interesting thing to say because people with schizophrenia apparently are more interested in talking about religion than average. Also, I've heard it said that schizophrenia is not a real disease but just a collection of symptoms of mental dysfunction, probably caused by many different things. It's like a cough or a headache. It's just a description of how someone feels or acts, not a description of what they have. Supposedly, schizophrenia is not recognized in Europe or most other countries. Someone told me that this week, but I haven't checked to see if that's true.