Atheism doubts?

Whispered

lostexpectation wrote: »

okay so your a bit of hippie we get it, thats fine

LOL was that directed at me? Coz if it was then :D:D I'm not a hippy or anything like it. And for some reason I feel very spoken down to by that comment. Firstly to label me a hippy (or anything for that matter) because I don't believe the same thing as you do just stinks of arrogance in my opinion. Secondly "we get it, thats fine" what do you mean - you get what and whats fine exactly?

Carrigart Exile

Myksyk wrote: »

It's difficult Helena to imagine that scenario. I'm generalising here but most atheists arrive at their position through being convinced by a wide variety of ideas in science which nudge, and sometimes shove, God/gods out of the picture.

The decision is rarely an emotional one (although it may have emotional consequences).

Being convinced for example of the evidence for evolution by natural selection has dramatic, unarguable implications for our idea of place in the universe and the nature of any relationship with a potential creator - for me it definitely rules out the idea of an interventionist, personal God. It doesn't naturally lead to ruling out a Deistic position (the idea of an initial starter) but that has far less implications for daily life.

following evolution to its natural conclusion one wonders why would any species chose not to be top of the food chain? Little things like that cause me doubts

redfacedbear

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

following evolution to its natural conclusion one wonders why would any species chose not to be top of the food chain? Little things like that cause me doubts

Being top of a food chain is not necessary to guarantee the propagation of a species' genes. For example cattle probably have larger population numbers and therefore better odds of their genes surviving through multiple generations because of their being a step down the food chain from humans. In such a case being lower on the food chain actually gives them an advantage in the Natural Selection game.

robindch

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

following evolution to its natural conclusion one wonders why would any species chose not to be top of the food chain? Little things like that cause me doubts

Food goes in a circle, not a straight line. Biology 101. You must have been out sick when this came up in college. Quoting the Master, we see:

Ambrose Bierce wrote:

EDIBLE, adj. Good to eat, and wholesome to digest, as a worm to a toad, a toad to a snake, a snake to a pig, a pig to a man, and a man to a worm.

Zombrex

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

following evolution to its natural conclusion one wonders why would any species chose not to be top of the food chain?

There is so much wrong with that sentence it is hard to know where to start.

redfacedbear

Wicknight wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that sentence it is hard to know where to start.

I was wondering why it had gone unchallenged for nearly 8 hours before I happened across it

Carrigart Exile

Wicknight wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that sentence it is hard to know where to start.

well why don't you start at the beginning

Zillah

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

well why don't you start at the beginning

Nothing chooses anything in evolution. Genes change a little bit everytime a new organism in conceived. Some times the change does nothing relevant, sometimes the change does something fairly neutral or advantageous, but most of the time it does something bad. Especially if its a big change. Sometimes the beneficial changes make an organism run away better, or more scared so they avoid more predators etc.

For example, if an omnivorous species gained a mutation that made their teeth even better at stripping leaves than before then they're on the road to becoming herbivores. They might make really good herbivores. But most importantly, they DON'T CHOOSE anything. They're as much a slave to their genes as you are. You couldn't choose to make it so that you or any of your descendents could fly with back-sprouting wings, could you?

Secondly top level predators are no more likely to survive than the species they're eating. In fact, if anything, it has been my experience from reading/watching biology material that carnivores are far more vulnerable to extinction than than other animals. The humble cochroach would probably be the last species to die out were the planet to suffer a catastrophe. The ancestors of all living mammals were tiny little shrew like things that lived underground after the fall of the mighty dinosaurs.

Always remember, the Sabre Tooth Tiger was a top level predator.

lostexpectation

for somebody who believes in reiki..why how could I call you a bit of a hippy, you keep talking down to us with your open mindedness, you made two threads on it now, openmindedness, what a meaningless phrase, we atheist are open minded we just base ourselves with what we know to be true for the moment.

Myksyk

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

following evolution to its natural conclusion one wonders why would any species chose not to be top of the food chain? Little things like that cause me doubts

The only way the above sentence could have any ounce of sense never mind truth, would be if we insert the qualifier "as I grossly misunderstand it" after the first two words!

Seriously, there is a depth of ignorance (or naivete) in that statement which I'm almost impressed you managed to convey in such a short sentence.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote: »

Secondly top level predators are no more likely to survive than the species they're eating. In fact, if anything, it has been my experience from reading/watching biology material that carnivores are far more vulnerable to extinction than than other animals. The humble cochroach would probably be the last species to die out were the planet to suffer a catastrophe. The ancestors of all living mammals were tiny little shrew like things that lived underground after the fall of the mighty dinosaurs.

Always remember, the Sabre Tooth Tiger was a top level predator.

One of the classic texts of population ecology is a book called "Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare". The top predator in any ecosystem is balanced on top of a huge pyramid, and is, as you correctly point out, probably one of the more vulnerable species - small numbers, large territories, obligate carnivore.

I think people often confuse the picture of evolution as a "struggle for survival" with some kind of fight - where the animal doing the eating and not being eaten is obviously the winner.

The only real way to measure the success of any organism is species longevity and ubiquity - how long has that particular adaptation survived, and in how environments. By those standards, the cockroach (since the Cretaceous, 145 MYa, with similar ancestors from 350-295 MYa, available almost everywhere) is indeed one of the great evolutionary successes. The creatures that most closely combine the true measure with the false are the sharks, which have been around in various forms for 450 million years (since the late Ordovician, the era that followed the great Cambrian explosion of life).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

well why don't you start at the beginning

I was going to but Zillah and Scofflaw did a pretty good job.

To sum up, there is no natural conclusion of evolution, and there is also no automatic benefit to being on the top of the food chain, or trying to get yourself on the top of the food chain. Often the animals on the top of the food chain have the hardest lives and face extinction that most often, where as animal species on the bottom of the food chain are numerous.

mardybumbum

Ive never had any doubts concerning the existence of yahweh, zeus, thor, or any other deities, and I fully subscribe to the theory of evolution. But whenever I think about the universe, its sheer size and complexity my head begins to hurt. :eek: I suppose i am religious in the Einsteinian sense!

Zillah

Hello February, good to see you again.

all the stars

helena.ryan wrote: »

Hi, I was just wondering if any of the hardened athiests here have ever been in a situation which caused them to wonder - "what if I'm wrong", have you ever witnessed anything which caused you to question your stance on the whole life after death, existance of God etc.

Well, i've been wring about lots of things in my life... and im ok with that
I've never witnessed anything miraculous (in that sense) seen plenty of miraculous thigs that the church has refuted and says is not possible... so, im happy where i am.
Also, was pretty sure re-incarnation wasn't on their table? unless you mean heaven? well, im heading some-where nice anyway! It only gets better from here where we are...

all the stars

helena.ryan wrote: »

I'm not a hippy or anything like it. And for some reason I feel very spoken down to by that comment.

i consider myself a bit of a hippy and not liking that you look down on it

Dades

Methinks it was the tone of the post not the comparison to a hippie that prompted the response.

Not to mention the fact that this thread is bloody ancient.

ChocolateSauce

I've never, ever for a second thought that...about the gods of organised religion. I have contemplated Einstein's "god", but ultimately decided on an atheisticly-leaning agnosticism regarding his version. I've had some crazy Acid and Mushroom trips, during which I stopped being an atheist and became...well, something else, but I know better than to trust those.

anti-venom

theozster wrote: »

I've never, ever for a second thought that...about the gods of organised religion. I have contemplated Einstein's "god", but ultimately decided on an atheisticly-leaning agnosticism regarding his version. I've had some crazy Acid and Mushroom trips, during which I stopped being an atheist and became...well, something else, but I know better than to trust those.

I know exactly what you mean about those trips. I've had the craziest experiences after drinking ayahuasca in Peru and Brazil. Ayahuasca is known as the 'vine of the dead' and is believed by the indignenous of those countries to be a gateway to communicating with the dead. Apparently it can be up to fourty times stronger than lsd, depending on the recepie of the particular shaman who brews it. No doubt at all it's effects are far more mind bending than any mushrooms or lsd. It's hallucinogenic effects are so overwhelming as to lead people to believe they are communicating directly with dead ancestors. This drug will literally leave you susceptible to believe in practically anything while you are under it's effects.

The chimeric creatures painted on cave walls thousands of years ago are believed by some researchers to be the result of visions induced after ingesting hallucinogenic drugs. Others even go so far as to say these drugs are responsible for birth of supernatural beliefs in humankind. Who knows, they may be right?