2 Tenets of Atheism

[Overaged]

The final comment I'm not even going to dignify with a response.

No one is asking for "dignification." The article you linked to provides a brief outline, not an evidence-based study for us to examine. It is anecdotal and emotional, and cannot be taken seriously. It is based on the religion of Atheism.

Are you saying that the "evidence" you have pointed to "proves" that this creature pictured below is my Dad, somewhere down the slippery slope of "evolution?"

[SivartM]

Atheism is not a religion, and not a single atheist thinks that you are in any way descended from a gorilla.

[Overaged]

Atheism is not a religion, and not a single atheist thinks that you are in any way descended from a gorilla.

Atheism most certainly is a religion; and evolutionists think that I am descended from a Gorilla...

[Bravus]

You understand that polonium halos have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, right? Other than, I guess, showing whether or not there has been time for it to take place.

We're trying to have a sensible, thoughtful, adult conversation about important issues. Bringing in issues that are (a) extraneous and irrelevant to the topic under discussion and ( intended to be arguments by ridicule rather than by evidence and © demonstrate fundamental ignorance of the thing you're attempting to ridicule is unhelpful.

Let me be specific: what is your response to Thomas Baillieul's point, which is based on citations from a number of published research papers in the relevant field, that there is no strong evidence that the halos Gentry examined were caused by short-half-life polonium rather than some other long-half-life radioactive element?

Let's see if we can focus on the evidence.

[John317]

not a single atheist thinks that you are in any way descended from a gorilla.

Evolutionists do believe, however, that you and I are descended from an ape-like animal, the same animal that gorillas and other monkeys are descended from. I remember when I was in the second or third grade, my class went to a zoo, and the zoo keeper brought out a chimpanzee, gave it a cigarette and talked to us about how we were related to this monkey. (Darwin himself writes about the fact that he's observed monkeys who "smoke tobacco with pleasure.") What is the difference between being descended from an ape-like animal and being descended from an ape? I don't believe the difference is very significant.

Have you studied Darwin's two major works, Origin of Species and The Descent of Man? The latter work is particularly clear, especially the first four chapters. Darwin constantly compares humans to the various kinds of apes, and in part III, Darwin speaks of "our ape-like progenitors." And in this view, modern evolutionists completely agree with Darwin.

[Bravus]

Yes, I guess it's a fine distinction, in a way. I'm not descended from my brother, but we both descended from my father. Humans are not descended from gorillas but both are descended from a common ancestor.

The point is, though, that the discussion was about halos in granite. That's a physics/geology discussion about the age of the earth. Introducing a random photo of a gorilla and a guffaw about being descended from one is irrelevant.

To me, it smacks of someone knowing his argument is impossibly weak in the topic at hand.

[John317]

This is why atheists hate the concept of god because Christians make statements like this.

It basically states that an atheist can't figure out that murder is bad without believing in god. Or that people need a Bible to tell them that murder is a bad idea.

Without God, however, murder is OK if I can get away with it. Who is to say it is not OK in that case?

Without God, I am the judge of whether it is OK for me to commit murder. On this view, neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me what is right or wrong. You can tell me what the law of the land is, and what the conseqjuences are for violating the laws of society; but that is different from moral right and wrong. Apart from God, all right and wrong is relative, and it is a completely subjective opinion. Nietsche, the father of modern atheism, completely agrees with this.

Darwin himself wrote about the idea of God as being "ennobling" and "grand." "The highest form of religion-- the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness-- was unknown during privaeval times." Descent of Man, part I, chapter 5.

"The ennobling belief in God is not universal in man..." Ibid., chaper 4.

Darwin says that "the social instincts... naturally lead to the golden rule, 'As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise'; and this lies at the foundation of morality." Ibid.

[John317]

...Humans are not descended from gorillas but both are descended from a common ancestor....

Yet what is this common ancestor but an ape-like creature?

What, then, is the essential difference between being descended from an ape and being descended from an ape-like animal?

If humans are descended from an ape-like animal, why should I view my fellow man as of great value and dignity?

The Bible tells me that all humans have infinite value and dignity because we are all created in God's image and because of the value that God places on us. But if that is not true, and if instead all humans are descended by pure chance from an ape-like creature, we can't expect to keep the same morality that arises from the biblical picture of mankind as being in the image of God.

It seems to me that many people want to keep the moral values of religion but they want to throw out the foundation of those moral values. Nietzsche's writings might be summarized as being the discovery of the values of modern man, who lives in an absolutely godless universe where the only real values are those which are determined by the individual himself.

[John317]

A friend of mine who believes in evolution told me the other day that it appears the Cro-Magnons killed off the Neanderthals. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this is true-- or at least largely or partly true--can we say that it was wrong for them to kill each other in that way? Were Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons of infinite value and were they in the image of God? If it was not "wrong" or "immoral" for them to kill one another, why is it necessarily wrong for us to kill one another if we find it in our self-interest to do it and can do it without being punished for it?

[Bravus]

Sentience (again): it's not murder to kill cattle for beef.

But, of course, the actual interactions of the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon is very much a matter of academic debate: there's certainly no fixed consensus that the latter killed the former by violence. There's some evidence of inter-breeding, and it's quite possible they replaced them relatively peacefully by competing better for resources. It's even possible a virus arose among the Cro-Magnon that just made them sick but killed the Neanderthal. It's all speculation at this point.

[Bravus]

So we've slid from radiohalos to primate evolution to morality? There are good answers on all those topics, but it's *incredibly* frustrating to never get to conclude a discussion because people keep sliding off into a new topic when their arguments are shown to be flawed.

[John317]

... there's certainly no fixed consensus that the latter killed the former by violence.

But if they did, would it have been morally wrong?

[John317]

....it's *incredibly* frustrating to never get to conclude a discussion because people keep sliding off into a new topic when their arguments are shown to be flawed.

I don't know if you are referring to me here, but my questions are not the result of any arguments shown to be flawed.

[phkrause]

So we've slid from radiohalos to primate evolution to morality? There are good answers on all those topics, but it's *incredibly* frustrating to never get to conclude a discussion because people keep sliding off into a new topic when their arguments are shown to be flawed.

I agree with your point, but as I've notice in all discussions, as they progress, they shoot down into many paths. I for one have no problem with the discussion going in many directions. Especially this one, because it touches many areas, does it not?

[LifeHiscost]

Yes, I guess it's a fine distinction, in a way. I'm not descended from my brother, but we both descended from my father. Humans are not descended from gorillas but both are descended from a common ancestor.

The point is, though, that the discussion was about halos in granite. That's a physics/geology discussion about the age of the earth. Introducing a random photo of a gorilla and a guffaw about being descended from one is irrelevant.

To me, it smacks of someone knowing his argument is impossibly weak in the topic at hand.

Geneticists have concluded that we humans have all descended from one family.

Creationists knew that was the case all the time.

The only difference of reality would be the end result if one or the other is actually believing the truth. If the geneticist is correct and it is true his/her belief remains the same about not believing in a Supreme Being, then we all end up in oblivion, creationist and geneticist.

If the creationist is correct, and puts his/her entire trust in the Supreme Benefactor, then he/she gets to go to a multiplied

billions of years gift of eternal bliss, joy and happiness. The unbelieving geneticist will still go to oblivion.

Hmmmmm. Let's see a roll of the dice, if I as an unbelieving geneticist am 100% sure I'm correct, but in the end find out I'm wrong, I don't get any worse end result, zero, nada, zilch, nothing.

And if I'm a creationist, and have a 50/50 chance of being right, if I were wrong, then I've lost nothing in the end I wouldn't have lost anyway.

Let's see, 8o some years of perhaps some happiness, but a lot of pain also.

Really tough decision.

""For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

John 3:16-18 NASB

God blesses!

[Overaged]

Yes, I guess it's a fine distinction, in a way. I'm not descended from my brother, but we both descended from my father. Humans are not descended from gorillas but both are descended from a common ancestor.

The point is, though, that the discussion was about halos in granite. That's a physics/geology discussion about the age of the earth. Introducing a random photo of a gorilla and a guffaw about being descended from one is irrelevant.

To me, it smacks of someone knowing his argument is impossibly weak in the topic at hand.

Well; if you try to reduce this to a "physics/geology discussion," then it is my suggestion that you are the one who knows their argument is impossibly weak. Why else would you want to avoid and censor the CLEAR IMPLICATIONS of your lofty "science?" The photo I enclosed was far from "random."

I might add that (IMHO) large bodies of "physics" is really just philosophy, and is not infact science. I believe this is particularly true when it comes to this subject. Many unproven facts are referred to as "evidence" on that point. Sometimes, "education" gets in the way of the scientific facts (and their implications) in favor of the personal philosophy and that is why I have been summarily dismissed as someone who knows "their argument is impossibly weak."

[Gary K]

Originally Posted By: Gary K

Oh, and what I specifically said there was overwhelming evidence for was the suppression of ideas that refute evolution and make the argument for creation stronger. I love how you create straw man arguments by twisting what I say completely out of context.

I really did expect better of you.

I WAS saying there isn't overwhelming evidence for suppression. What he is calling suppression is nonsense. His position is presented so incompletely that it is a waste of time to even consider it further. Until he has further evidence there is no point.

The link that Bravus gave so completely negates his position that any further discussion is not necessary. That is not suppression. It's lack of evidence.

Really.... Either you didn't actually read all the evidence, or you're dissembling.

Gentry had been posting for 2 years under the same credentials and suddenly, 2 weeks after he posts papers promoting creation, his credentials are suddenly bad.

The lawyer for the Los Alamos National Laboratory lied about the published rules for being able to publish papers there. There was nothing in the published policies that she said there was. And, Gentry had sufficient credentials from his body of previous work. He'd been involved at a high level in some very prestigious scientific organizations.

It was suppression pure and simple. No doubt about it. The stalling, the lying, and the transfer of the publishing of scientific papers to a private institution that can deny anyone the right to publish for no reason at all is the proof.

It was suppression of evidence just as surely as Hubble's suppression of evidence was because the conclusion his evidence led to was "intolerable" to him. Gentry's work was suppressed for the same reasons. Creationism is a conclusion "intolerable" to many, including you.

[Gary K]

You understand that polonium halos have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, right? Other than, I guess, showing whether or not there has been time for it to take place.

We're trying to have a sensible, thoughtful, adult conversation about important issues. Bringing in issues that are (a) extraneous and irrelevant to the topic under discussion and ( intended to be arguments by ridicule rather than by evidence and © demonstrate fundamental ignorance of the thing you're attempting to ridicule is unhelpful.

Let me be specific: what is your response to Thomas Baillieul's point, which is based on citations from a number of published research papers in the relevant field, that there is no strong evidence that the halos Gentry examined were caused by short-half-life polonium rather than some other long-half-life radioactive element?

Let's see if we can focus on the evidence.

Yeah, lets focus on the evidence. If uranium had been the cause of the halos there has to have been evidence of its activity, and there is none. If you had bothered to watch the videos you would know that Gentry has already dealt with this assertion and disproved it.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

... there's certainly no fixed consensus that the latter killed the former by violence.

But if they did, would it have been morally wrong?

This is a non argument because it is obvious that having a belief in god does not stop people from killing each other. In fact having a belief in god often encourages people to kill each other.

It is actually less mature to need a rule to govern one's behavior instead of being self governed.

[cardw]

Really.... Either you didn't actually read all the evidence, or you're dissembling.

Gentry had been posting for 2 years under the same credentials and suddenly, 2 weeks after he posts papers promoting creation, his credentials are suddenly bad.

The lawyer for the Los Alamos National Laboratory lied about the published rules for being able to publish papers there. There was nothing in the published policies that she said there was. And, Gentry had sufficient credentials from his body of previous work. He'd been involved at a high level in some very prestigious scientific organizations.

It was suppression pure and simple. No doubt about it. The stalling, the lying, and the transfer of the publishing of scientific papers to a private institution that can deny anyone the right to publish for no reason at all is the proof.

It was suppression of evidence just as surely as Hubble's suppression of evidence was because the conclusion his evidence led to was "intolerable" to him. Gentry's work was suppressed for the same reasons. Creationism is a conclusion "intolerable" to many, including you.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is why atheists hate the concept of god because Christians make statements like this.

It basically states that an atheist can't figure out that murder is bad without believing in god. Or that people need a Bible to tell them that murder is a bad idea.

Without God, however, murder is OK if I can get away with it. Who is to say it is not OK in that case?

[LifeHiscost]

It is the social instinct, not the 10 commandments that inform us that it is wrong to murder.

Remember the golden rule is SELF referenced not BIBLE or GOD referenced.

Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU.

I guess that's the reason that the former Soviet Union did so well in the murder of over 40,000,000 of their own citizens.And the Kymer Rouge was so successful in filling the killing fields with bodies. Those were both societies where the state prohibited the God of heaven from ministering to His people. Many other societies can be given as examples also.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."James 1:17 NKJV

"“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."John 15:5 NKJV

God blesses!

[John317]

... there's certainly no fixed consensus that the latter killed the former by violence.

Originally Posted By: John317

But if they did, would it have been morally wrong?

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is a non argument because it is obvious that having a belief in god does not stop people from killing each other.

Yes, it is true that having a god (or God) does not stop people from killing.

But when they do it, it is wrong because God's law says it is wrong.

If you remove that law, then killing is not wrong.

Then it becomes an opinion that killing is wrong. If someone denies that opinion and decides to kill, all he is doing is violating an opinion. Millions of people have committed murder without ever being convinced they did wrong, nor were they ever punished for their crimes.

It can be shown that in the struggle for survival, the strong animals (including people) often kill the weak and defenseless. That is an essential part of the survival of the fittest. Darwin says, "Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence..." Nietszche says it not only follows from the struggle for existence but also from the will to power. We all exist by the principle of the struggle for life, or, as Darwin called it, "the battle for life" (Origin of Species, chapter 6).

In chapter 5 of The Descent of Man, Darwin shows how from an evolutionary viewpoint, the moral qualities developed because of the struggle for survival.

For instance, Darwin wrote, "When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other."

In this view, the moral sense is not given to us by God, but it evolves over a long period of time due to war and violence.

[Gary K]

Bravus and cardw,

The following link is to a small online book by the author of the videos. It's the story of how Mr. Gentry made his discoveries, exactly what they are, and how he changed beliefs from an evolutionist to a creationist through his study. The link will be to the toc of the book. It answers many of the supposed refutations that you have pointed to, and since he knows his subject much better than I do, I'm pointing you to the author himself.

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm

[John317]

It is the social instinct, not the 10 commandments that inform us that it is wrong to murder.

Remember the golden rule is SELF referenced not BIBLE or GOD referenced.

Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU.

But there are millions who never shared that social instinct you speak of. The Japanese who went into China in the 1930s and raped the city of Shanghai never believed they were doing wrong. They recorded and photographed what they did and were proud of it.

According to evolutionary theory, if and when people lack this "social instinct," they are not doing wrong in any objective sense. And those whose crimes are never discovered and are never punished in this life have no reason to believe that they did any wrong.