What do we replace religion with?[W:675]

[Divine_Wind]

Yes it was all over the news a couple of days ago. I will do my best to provide you with links as soon as I can.

Thanks. I'm sure the details will be illuminating.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Yes it was all over the news a couple of days ago. I will do my best to provide you with links as soon as I can.

Ahh, found it. It's not like "Adam and Eve".

https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

 

[vesper]

Ahh, found it. It's not like "Adam and Eve".

https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

Here you go Rising Sun


Study claims the modern humans, all come from same parents

https://www.hightux.net/technology/humans-parents-man-woman-spawned-single-20624604

 

[Divine_Wind]

Here you go Rising Sun


Study claims the modern humans, all come from same parents

https://www.hightux.net/technology/humans-parents-man-woman-spawned-single-20624604

Thanks.

From the first link "Stoeckle and Thaler, the scientists who headed the study, concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution....The study has been misunderstood by some religious parties who thought it meant that we all came into being in some seminal Big Bang-typed event 100,000 ago, but this isn't what the findings actually suggest."

 

[vesper]

Thanks.

From the first link "Stoeckle and Thaler, the scientists who headed the study, concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution....The study has been misunderstood by some religious parties who thought it meant that we all came into being in some seminal Big Bang-typed event 100,000 ago, but this isn't what the findings actually suggest."

I never said it did reflect that we all came from Adam and Eve did I? But what it does do is throw a kink in the evolution aspect. If all humans and most species of animals came from the same set of mates 200,000 years ago then what does that tell you?

 

[Divine_Wind]

I never said it did reflect that we all came from Adam and Eve did I? But what it does do is throw a kink in the evolution aspect. If all humans and most species of animals came from the same set of mates 200,000 years ago then what does that tell you?

How does it throw a kink? What it does is give a firmer timeline. It tells me that one line survived, but you are mistaken to think it means only two existed....unless you think they were all incestuous.

 

[soylentgreen]

Did you miss my points? That's just as well. Points spell trouble for faux atheism, as for all bubbles.

You are among this crowd of theists who are dishonest in that they make up their own version of a definition for atheism and other words. I do not follow your fake definitions.

 

[soylentgreen]

Freudian slip? That’s the same as saying you do care what I am (or more precisely, what you think I am).



Now you’re projecting, for it is not I who brought up the irrelevance of whether or not I am a theist. Hint: It was you.



Atheism = certainty. A belief that there is no God.



I’ve pretty much been consistent with that description, and haven’t avoided it whatsoever. Now, can we dispense with the straw arguments?


OM

No, you care about what you are i could not care less what label you use. And saying i could not care less does not mean i could care. Not a freudian slip just you not understanding words.

And once again you bring up a point that the only relevance it has is that you can use it to avoid the topic.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is english a foreign language for you. I am not arguing that you lack consistency just that you appear to lack the intelligence to understand that you are consistently wrong in how you define atheism..

Can i make this any more clearer or will you continue to create dishonest loops to jump through. I do not care what you call yourself. I do not care how consistently you make a wrong statement. I would however once again point out that your definition of atheism is that of a theists view and starts from an position that is questionable. Your interpretation is not what atheist actually have to say.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Interesting....so what do you think of the latest finding of scientists that we all originated from the same male and female?

It's not a latest finding. MtDNA Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are just the last common ancestors,and they lived at different times

 

[soylentgreen]

Obviously there is no compelling evidence for or against atheism and/or theism. While I do stand with those against having religion pushed upon them, I also think that applies to militant atheists.

Except that there is no requirement for atheists to have compelling evidence. The onus is always upon the theist to give reason or evidence. The view you have here is based ipon a possibility that a god might exist and yet you produce nothing that would support such a possibility.

 

[Logician Man]

Except that there is no requirement for atheists to have compelling evidence. The onus is always upon the theist to give reason or evidence. The view you have here is based ipon a possibility that a god might exist and yet you produce nothing that would support such a possibility.

//// atheism is a religion //// //// dictionaries don't define words ///// :lamo :screwy

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm Catholic,although hardly an "orthodox"one. As for the 10 Commandments, there are actually two different sets of them,one in Exodus, one in Deuteronomy,and they're not identical.

I don't think there is any sect that is "true"to the scriptures in every way, and there can never be such a sect --because the scriptures themselves lack a unified theology.The theology of John is different than say Matthew. The theology of Deuteronomy is different than Exodus and Leviticus. Even Genesis had at least two different authors (usually referred to by scholars as J and E).

The Bible was written, edited, redacted,copied, translated and compiled by humans. I hold it is the "Word of God", but it is just as much the "Word of Humans"

It all depends on what you think the 'Word of God' refers to. It is common Jewish viewpoint is that the Holy Scriptures are Words ABOUT God, rather than Words FROM God.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Except that there is no requirement for atheists to have compelling evidence. The onus is always upon the theist to give reason or evidence. The view you have here is based ipon a possibility that a god might exist and yet you produce nothing that would support such a possibility.

That's a common atheist argument, but it's high school level. The reality is that it's up to the person seeking to convince the other to provide persuasive evidence. Sure, usually it's the proselytizing Christian, but it also applies to the militant atheist.

If you disagree, then please cite the rule that requires only theists to provide evidence.

 

[Angel]

You are among this crowd of theists who are dishonest in that they make up their own version of a definition for atheism and other words. I do not follow your fake definitions.

This is rich. Dishonesty calling honesty dishonest!
Your brand of cowardly atheism -- atheism that lacks the courage of its convictions, that lacks the spine to own its defining godlessness -- is self-delusional to boot.
Get real, man!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Correct, on both ends of the spectrum. Remember how the certain atheists ridiculed my comment that the only logical position was agnosticism?

Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the belief that (1) God, if it exists, is by nature unknowable and will always be unknowable ("strong agnosticism"), or, (2) that the individual being asked cannot conclude if god exists or not for lack of good evidence one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
Agreed. Hence why atheism and theism are beliefs, not facts or certainty.

You just don't get clear thinking at all do you?

My belief is that God does not exist. Thus atheist.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

It all depends on what you think the 'Word of God' refers to. It is common Jewish viewpoint is that the Holy Scriptures are Words ABOUT God, rather than Words FROM God.

I would agree with that

 

[Tim the plumber]

That's a common atheist argument, but it's high school level. The reality is that it's up to the person seeking to convince the other to provide persuasive evidence. Sure, usually it's the proselytizing Christian, but it also applies to the militant atheist.

If you disagree, then please cite the rule that requires only theists to provide evidence.

Evidence for the positive claim that athiesim is the most sensable position;

Lack of any evidence for any supernatural anything.

 

[Angel]

You are among this crowd of theists who are dishonest in that they make up their own version of a definition for atheism and other words. I do not follow your fake definitions.

This is rich. Dishonesty calling honesty dishonest!
Your brand of cowardly atheism -- atheism that lacks the courage of its convictions, that lacks the spine to own its defining godlessness -- is self-delusional to boot.
Get real, man!

Lest you miss the point, it is you who are being dishonest -- dishonest with yourself.
You want to call yourself an atheist, but you don't want to be an atheist. Because to be an atheist is to be in denial of God.
Whereas you deny the denial.
You want to be an atheist without being an atheist.
Ergo, you're just being dishonest with yourself.
Q.E.D.

 

[DDD]

That would seem reasonable except for the fact the theists are treated the same way.

In reality, what we have are atheists and theists IRL, most of whom mind their own business, and militant (read "loud-mouthed and dickish") atheists and theists (usually called "Bible-thumpers") who we usually see online.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[DDD]

Which has been acknowledged by Angel...

Also, you have no idea where Angel has gathered his data from, nor anything about his observations which led up to that data... I'm sure he has made observations beyond DP... I know I surely have...

Nah, in a later post he specifically calls Tim the Plumber, some other guy, and others here in DP alone to support his general claim. So, wrong here again.

 

[DDD]

Angel has acknowledged his "overgeneralization" (your word) in his reply post to you right after you brought this up, and gfm7175 has noted Angel's acknowledgment.

I agree.

However, a flaming friend keeps on trying to defend over the overgeneralisation fallacy committed earlier regarding "atheists are in denial about their denial", which it further drags the issue needlessly.

Now go after the "overgeneralizations" about Christians which can be found in almost all posts about Christians in this thread and every other thread in this forum. Your hobbyhorse has splintered.

Yes, I do tend to go after those too. Care to join?

 

[DDD]

How do theists define themselves in this thread I wonder.

 

[Angel]

Evidence for the positive claim that athiesim is the most sensable position;

Lack of any evidence for any supernatural anything.

So let's get this straight, shall we?
The absence of evidence for theism, you say, is the evidence of absence for atheism -- right?
Therefore, the evidence for atheism is the absence of evidence for theism -- right?
Therefore, absence of evidence is, for atheism, evidence of absence -- right?

The evidence for atheism is, therefore, the absence of evidence.
Therefore, the absence of evidence is, for atheism, the evidence for atheism.
Therefore, the evidence for atheism is the absence of evidence for atheism.
Therefore, atheism is incoherent.
Q.E.D.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You just don't get clear thinking at all do you?

My belief is that God does not exist. Thus atheist.

While you've made clear what you believe, I fail to see why you feel compelled to lace your posts with insults and personal attacks. In my experience, angry, hateful and/or bitter people are usually in some sort of personal pain. After all, happy people aren't continually lashing out at everyone.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Evidence for the positive claim that athiesim is the most sensable position;

Lack of any evidence for any supernatural anything.

Sorry, but that's either a deliberate obfuscation or an error in logic: An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

By your logic, there is no other life in the universe since no evidence of it exists.