Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (4 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Exactly, I am supporting your point...:uhhuh:

I meant for what I said for mirakon to read

 

[Kwayera]

Yes, there is a possibility of evolution being a fact. I admit this. However the burden of proof is with you. Is it Definitely a fact?

Also, next post I'll post my argument, then I must go for lunch. I'll catch up later.

As far as anything in biological science can be a fact? Yes. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, which is as close to a fact as you can physically get in this context.

 

[khorne]

Yes, there is a possibility of evolution being a fact. I admit this. However the burden of proof is with you. Is it Definitely a fact?

Also, next post I'll post my argument, then I must go for lunch. I'll catch up later.

Actually, the burden of proof is for you to prove creationism...We have left supporting evidence for evolution, now you must counter.

Ever seen equilibrium? Instead of emotions being banned, replace it with religion, and that would create a perfect world =D

 

[mirakon]

From my understanding, evolution is based purely on physical changes over time, the development in behaviour being due to development of the brain and neurology in the organism. Morality is a social construct, a concept and is not a result of something physical and hence can't be a product of evolution.

Values, morality are defined by the society we live in, we can't be 'born' with them. For example different societies place different values on different things (e.g someone earlier claimed that many religious values conflict with their own values).

If we were born with values and morals as you claim as a result of evolution everyone would have the same morals and values to start with and these conflicts wouldn't be so widespread.
'That is utterly incorrect, actually - in dogs and wolves, and in apes like chimpanzees, being a leader of the pack involves much more than being big and strong. It requires social intelligence'

In addition you fail to realise the difference between social intelligence and morality. Social intelligence requires you to defy morality in many instances. Politicians are high in social intelligence, but they aren't all necessarily moral people for example.

Explain to me the biological processes by which people are born to know the difference between right and wrong. People are taught what's right and wrong by the society they grow up in, they don't automatically know it out of the womb. Evolutionary processes are changes over a long period of time, the morals of society whereas change rapidly from year to year, decade to decade, place to place.

Morality is ever changing. The values of society are ever-changing. Such topics are completely subjective there is no such thing as definitive 'right' or 'wrong' behavioru and therefore cannot be explained objectively in reference to the physical changes that are results of evolution.

Also, how do you define sophistication? Is morality really sophistication? Just because humans have it does it make it a quality of sophistication? How do you know it's not one of the traits we haven't evolved in? How do you know evolution is a fact in the first place?
Also, please provide a post with all the evidence you can that supports evolution, so I can attempt to deconstruct it.
I have to go now, so I look forward to continuing the debate later.
Bye!

 

[katie tully]

Explain to me the biological processes by which people are born to know the difference between right and wrong. People are taught what's right and wrong by the society they grow up in, they don't automatically know it out of the womb. Evolutionary processes are changes over a long period of time, the morals of society whereas change rapidly from year to year, decade to decade, place to place.

Doesn't the Bible say that humans are born inherently evil?

 

[khorne]

From my understanding, evolution is based purely on physical changes over time, the development in behaviour being due to development of the brain and neurology in the organism. Morality is a social construct, a concept and is not a result of something physical and hence can't be a product of evolution.

Values, morality are defined by the society we live in, we can't be 'born' with them. For example different societies place different values on different things (e.g someone earlier claimed that many religious values conflict with their own values).

If we were born with values and morals as you claim as a result of evolution everyone would have the same morals and values to start with and these conflicts wouldn't be so widespread.
'That is utterly incorrect, actually - in dogs and wolves, and in apes like chimpanzees, being a leader of the pack involves much more than being big and strong. It requires social intelligence'

In addition you fail to realise the difference between social intelligence and morality. Social intelligence requires you to defy morality in many instances. Politicians are high in social intelligence, but they aren't all necessarily moral people for example.

Explain to me the biological processes by which people are born to know the difference between right and wrong. People are taught what's right and wrong by the society they grow up in, they don't automatically know it out of the womb. Evolutionary processes are changes over a long period of time, the morals of society whereas change rapidly from year to year, decade to decade, place to place.

Morality is ever changing. The values of society are ever-changing. Such topics are completely subjective there is no such thing as definitive 'right' or 'wrong' behavioru and therefore cannot be explained objectively in reference to the physical changes that are results of evolution.

Also, how do you define sophistication? Is morality really sophistication? Just because humans have it does it make it a quality of sophistication? How do you know it's not one of the traits we haven't evolved in? How do you know evolution is a fact in the first place?
Also, please provide a post with all the evidence you can that supports evolution, so I can attempt to deconstruct it.
I have to go now, so I look forward to continuing the debate later.
Bye!

I think a suitable play would be the "tl:dr" card, followed closely by the, "stfu you year 10 fag" (Of which I am one too ), but the premise of your argument is that physical changes do not lead to morality. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but I would consider the evolution of the brain, from a small, single celled organism, to a power house computer a major physical stride towards free thought and "morality".

But again, morality is subjective. Is it right to kill a man to save thousands? God says thou shalt not kill, but both options contravene this.

 

[ConquerDiscover]

You can't prove evolution mathematically, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.

Evolution isn't a fact.

It's simply the best explanation for the available scientific evidence.

 

[ConquerDiscover]

I think some people are a bit confused about what is fact and what isn't in terms of science.

Evolution is not a fact in terms of science because the mechanism which explains evolution is not a law.

This is why the current explanation for evolution is "the theory of natural selection" not the "law of natural selection".

I hope this clears some things up for you Kwayera. The fact that natural selection is still a theory makes it a non-scientifical fact. And I'am pretty sure most scientist in the world will say that that evolution is not a fact.

 

[Kwayera]

From my understanding, evolution is based purely on physical changes over time, the development in behaviour being due to development of the brain and neurology in the organism. Morality is a social construct, a concept and is not a result of something physical and hence can't be a product of evolution.

And society is not a product of evolution? It is. Societal constructs are therefore evolutionary, as they evolved to help deal with increasingly complex societal situations.

Values, morality are defined by the society we live in, we can't be 'born' with them. For example different societies place different values on different things (e.g someone earlier claimed that many religious values conflict with their own values).

If we were born with values and morals as you claim as a result of evolution everyone would have the same morals and values to start with and these conflicts wouldn't be so widespread.

In addition you fail to realise the difference between social intelligence and morality. Social intelligence requires you to defy morality in many instances. Politicians are high in social intelligence, but they aren't all necessarily moral people for example.

It depends on what values and morality you're talking about, I guess. When I refer to morality, I refer to something much less sanitised than, I guess, Biblical morality or whatever, though these are evolved concepts of evolved morality. What I'm talking about is more fundamental aspects of morality - fairness and justice, altruism, empathy and other more basic fundamentals of morality. I'm not talking about "sexual promscuity is bad!!!" kind of morality, but even that has an evolutionary basis.

Social intelligence is often against what I think you're referring to with regards to morality, yes. Social intelligence that violates this kind of morality is itself subject to game theory (i.e. tit-for-tat/Prisoner's Dilemma - see Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ), but social intelligence does not necessarily disprove evolutionary morality. It complements it.

Explain to me the biological processes by which people are born to know the difference between right and wrong. People are taught what's right and wrong by the society they grow up in, they don't automatically know it out of the womb.

Sure about that? I would say the fundamental social functions of, say, fairness and altriusm are "innate" because it has a significant benefit:cost ratio (see the link above) the genes that drive it are more likely to become dominant.

Watch children at play.

Evolutionary processes are changes over a long period of time, the morals of society whereas change rapidly from year to year, decade to decade, place to place.

Do they really?

Morality is ever changing. The values of society are ever-changing. Such topics are completely subjective there is no such thing as definitive 'right' or 'wrong' behavioru and therefore cannot be explained objectively in reference to the physical changes that are results of evolution.

Sure, when you're talking about derived morality such as the sexual promiscuity example above, morality and values are "ever-changing". Fundamental morality (which drives it), however, is not.

Also, how do you define sophistication? Is morality really sophistication? Just because humans have it does it make it a quality of sophistication? How do you know it's not one of the traits we haven't evolved in? How do you know evolution is a fact in the first place?

Morality isn't sophistication. Morality is a product of sophisticated social groupings, a reflection of the increasing social intelligence required to function within those social groupings.

Also, please provide a post with all the evidence you can that supports evolution, so I can attempt to deconstruct it.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = a very brief summary.

 

[Kwayera]

I think some people are a bit confused about what is fact and what isn't in terms of science.

Evolution is not a fact in terms of science because the mechanism which explains evolution is not a law.

This is why the current explanation for evolution is "the theory of natural selection" not the "law of natural selection".

I hope this clears some things up for you Kwayera. The fact that natural selection is still a theory makes it a non-scientifical fact. And I'am pretty sure most scientist in the world will say that that evolution is not a fact.

Incorrect. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

 

[ConquerDiscover]

Incorrect. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Sorry but your source is highly unreliable since it was just one person's opinion and did not come from any renowned scientific organisation.

If evolution is a scientific fact, then the world congress of scientists would have declared natural selection as a law.

But since that hasn't happened yet, evolution will remain a theory not a fact. The world organisation of science / scientists has not recognised the mechanism of natural selection as a scientific fact, and as long as they don't recognise it as a scientific fact, it will always remain a theory.

Why do you think universities all around the world refer to it as 'the theory of natural selection' when they are teaching evolution?

Evolution is not a fact regardless of the huge amounts of evidence. As I said before, evolution is the best explanation for the available scientific evidence.

Now I have to do something else, but i'll come back later tonight.

 

[Kwayera]

You still don't understand the difference between a theory and a law, do you?

 

[khorne]

Now I have to do something else, but i'll come back later tonight.

I purportedly have something better to do...

 

[katie tully]

smash smash smash thats the sound of my forehead against the keyboard

a theory, you dolt, is merely a way of explaining a set of observations. a principle to explain a set of phenomena, ok? these observations are proven. there is empirical data to support these observations. so thus, the theory of evolution is a way of explaining these observations that are fact.

a law is a principle that you derive from a certain set of observations. so you consider newtons law of gravity - a set of observations that can be measured and repeated and replicated etc. keeping in mind that a law can surpassed by a theory as the law of gravitation was superseded by einteins theory of special relativity.

a set of observation that make up a theory must be able to be verified scientifically. evolution will never become a law. the atomic theory will probably never become a law. it doesn't mean that they're not factual or valid. ffs.

 

[Riet]

The theory of special relativity is only a theory as well you fucking tard

 

[katie tully]

didnt i say that

 

[Planck]

Germ theory is only a fucking theory guys

EDIT: Toxins did evolution

 

[Riet]

That was directed at ConquerDiscover sorry kt.

Funfact: Scandinavia has some of the least religious populations in the world and the highest standards of living.

 

[stF-vampyre]

belonging to neither of those belief systems i think i can safely say that people get frustrated with the methodologies christianity exemplifies, of religion and politics.

plainly put, people are fucking sick of things like the bible, commandments, [the 'new' commandments] and the completely false claim that christianity "is the first and only way" being shoved down their throats.

I think its unfortunate that, honed in just on atheism [although many others do it too] they also take to these methods, but its not uncalled for. People take things to extremes, and a spirituality or religion is such a personal thing its unfortunate that politics have overtaken an [essentially] pure belief and ideas to the point people feel the need to actually attack it.

At the same time, just to be frustrating and bundle everyone up into this massive cliche which probably only applies to most; many are just purely rebelling in frustration for the above reasons, and therefore feel the need to take a public, arrogant and abusive stance on the matter and "attack christians" as you've said.

I think its ridiculous, and we all know religion is within and comes from the heart, and its a personal thing no one needs to know about, but you cant really blame them some times.

 

[Iron]

i agree with stF-vampyre that the core of Christianity is a personal relationship with your creat0r