Stumped

roosh

FullOf..IT wrote: »

In a nushell, this is the bit I dont get. Explain the force/power/ behind evolution, Does evolution not prove a unknown power in itself?

On the explanation of how Evolution works, I think a few people have posted vids; this series of high school lectures, might also be helpful - I found them to be.

Correct me if I am wrong Full.Of..IT, but I think the point that he is trying to get at is: why does evolution happen at all; What is the force that drives it; How is there descent with modification at all?

Ultimately I think the question comes down to, what is the energy/force (whatever the correct scientific term might be) that started the whole universe in motion; that lead to abiogenesis; that means that species "descend and modify" at all?

I think what he is trying to say is that, the fact that there is evolution, should be an indication that there is some energy/force (again, whatever the correct term might be) driving the change - otherwise there would be no evolution or no cosmos.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong Full.Of..IT.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

I think what he is trying to say is that, the fact that there is evolution, should be an indication that there is some energy/force (again, whatever the correct term might be) driving the change - otherwise there would be no evolution or no cosmos.

Well, obviously, but to jump from that to "god did it" or "a designer did it" is wrong. You can say the fact there is lightning should be an indication of an underlying force, but we dont say its Thor anymore because we examined and tested and learned how lightning naturally arises. Saying evolution implies designer or god is an argument from ignorance, no less ridiculous than Bill O'Reilly saying we dont know where the moon comes from, therefore god.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, obviously, but to jump from that to "god did it" or "a designer did it" is wrong. You can say the fact there is lightning should be an indication of an underlying force, but we dont say its Thor anymore because we examined and tested and learned how lightning naturally arises. Saying evolution implies designer or god is an argument from ignorance, no less ridiculous than Bill O'Reilly saying we dont know where the moon comes from, therefore god.

It just looked like it needed some clarification, because a lot of the replies were concerned with explaining what evolution is.

As for the validity of "jumping to 'God did it'": that would probably be contingent on what a person thinks "God" is.

El_Duderino 09

mangaroosh wrote: »

On the explanation of how Evolution works, I think a few people have posted vids; this series of high school lectures, might also be helpful - I found them to be.

Correct me if I am wrong Full.Of..IT, but I think the point that he is trying to get at is: why does evolution happen at all; What is the force that drives it; How is there descent with modification at all?

Ultimately I think the question comes down to, what is the energy/force (whatever the correct scientific term might be) that started the whole universe in motion; that lead to abiogenesis; that means that species "descend and modify" at all?

I think what he is trying to say is that, the fact that there is evolution, should be an indication that there is some energy/force (again, whatever the correct term might be) driving the change - otherwise there would be no evolution or no cosmos.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong Full.Of..IT.

Fair play for trying to engage this character but I'm fairly sure he ment it in the spirit of the classic old syllogism:

There is an effect (in this case evolution)

I personally don't understand how it works.

Ergo, God.

(tide comes in, tide goes out, no miscommunication. It takes more faith not to believe)

murphthesmurf

King Mob wrote: »

Well the main problem with your question is that "improvement" is entirely subjective.

Personally I can't see how this:

Is improved by turning into this:

Its an improvement in that, frying a dinosaur egg would need a hammer to crack it, a huge frying pan, and 2 giant peices of bread. :rolleyes:

Improbable

In the broadest strokes, evolution happens due to natural selection, i.e. those better able to pass on their genes to the next generation survive, passing on whatever mutations in their DNA that enabled them to be better able to pass on their genes. Obviously it's a lot more complex than that with endless details and minutiae but generally speaking, that's how it works.

roosh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair play for trying to engage this character but I'm fairly sure he ment it in the spirit of the classic old syllogism:

There is an effect (in this case evolution)

I personally don't understand how it works.

Ergo, God.

(tide comes in, tide goes out, no miscommunication. It takes more faith not to believe)

The engagement is more out of a shared frustration at trying to communicate a point, that I have found difficult to articulate.

I would say your assessment is accurate to a degree, but I'd say - just going on the OP - that there is probably a couple of interim steps in that.

I'd see it more as:
- There is an effect i.e. evolution
- This implies some kind of a force/energy (scientific term not kown)
- God is generally associated with the underlying force of the universe
- Evolution implies an underlying, or rather, driving force/energy
- That implies evidence for what I [Full.Of..IT] understand God to be

yammycat

thebhoy wrote: »

Wisdom Teeth - when God thinks you've done enough talking in your life He sends down these bad boys, which **** your teeth up as the majority of human jaws cannot cope with a third set of molars, modern medicine has also thwarted God on this by inventing dentists.

Ah wisdom teeth, my dentist told me it would be best to remove them for a 'small' fee to prevent future complications, told him where he could go, never had the slightest problem with them.

If it was up to dentists they would pull every tooth out of your head for a 'small' fee to prevent future complications.

Dentures for everybody.

CerebralCortex

On the topic of design, which is settled, how come everyone ignores the elephant in the room which is aging which causes immense suffering and death?

yammycat

CerebralCortex wrote: »

On the topic of design, which is settled, how come everyone ignores the elephant in the room which is aging which causes immense suffering and death?

that would be the fall

roosh

CerebralCortex wrote: »

On the topic of design, which is settled, how come everyone ignores the elephant in the room which is aging which causes immense suffering and death?

everyone knows: any manufacturer worth their salt designs their product to expire within a certain time-frame; it helps to maintain demand and protects from going out of business.

El_Duderino 09

mangaroosh wrote: »

The engagement is more out of a shared frustration at trying to communicate a point, that I have found difficult to articulate.

I would say your assessment is accurate to a degree, but I'd say - just going on the OP - that there is probably a couple of interim steps in that.

I'd see it more as:
- There is an effect i.e. evolution
- This implies some kind of a force/energy (scientific term not kown)
- God is generally associated with the underlying force of the universe
- Evolution implies an underlying, or rather, driving force/energy
- That implies evidence for what I [Full.Of..IT] understand God to be

I disagree from point 2. The use of the term force or energy is where I disagree. It implies neither force or energy, just a process. Force is an application of energy and both subtly slip in the idea of evolution having a driver or a destination of sorts. Like as if we are evolving into a 'better' form, smarter or whatever. There is no actual evidence for the driver other than that it is implied because it was defined by you as having a force/energy.

On the other hand I view it simply as a process. Things which survive their environment are more likely to pass on their genes etc etc. We don't know everything about it so we should say 'i don't know about that' when it is true. I don't see any reason to shoehorn in a God just because we don't know. When we don't know, we don't know. It might be hackneyed to say, once we didn't understand lightening so we decided there must be a force or energy behind it. Same with the sun traveling across the sky. We learn more about the processes and the evidence never demonstrates a God.

God is generally associated with the underlying force of the universe

Sure it is, but not through any positive evidence for the god, just lack of understand of how it actually works. Spiderman is associated with New York. New York is not evidence for Spiderman.

Evolution implies an underlying, or rather, driving force/energy
That implies evidence for what I [Full.Of..IT] understand God to be

How strong do you think the evidence for these statements are? Would it be more honest to just say 'i don't know'?

I would say its presupposition, coupled with variables we don't understand maybe pointing to what you could call an implication of a God.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

As for the validity of "jumping to 'God did it'": that would probably be contingent on what a person thinks "God" is.

No, the word "god" has already been defined, much like the word "elephant" has been already been defined. These words cannot be redefined at will, especially not to hide the fact that someone is wrong because they made something up.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

The engagement is more out of a shared frustration at trying to communicate a point, that I have found difficult to articulate.

I would say your assessment is accurate to a degree, but I'd say - just going on the OP - that there is probably a couple of interim steps in that.

I'd see it more as:
- There is an effect i.e. evolution
- This implies some kind of a force/energy (scientific term not kown)
- God is generally associated with the underlying force of the universe
- Evolution implies an underlying, or rather, driving force/energy
- That implies evidence for what I [Full.Of..IT] understand God to be

Except you still have an argument from ignorance, so its invalid. Everything in the universe is under some kind of force, its just that some are better understood than others. Full.Of.It has centred on evolution, because humanity doesn't fully understand the driving force of evolution*. He could as much point to gravity and claim we dont fully understand the force of gravity, therefore gravity is god. His argument is nonsense either way.

* not that this is necessarily true. evolution is the result of other forces and conditions (reproduction, mutation etc), it is not a force in of itself.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, the word "god" has already been defined, much like the word "elephant" has been already been defined. These words cannot be redefined at will, especially not to hide the fact that someone is wrong because they made something up.

What is "God" defined as?

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

What is "God" defined as?

God.

El_Duderino 09

mangaroosh wrote: »

What is "God" defined as?

I don't see it as my job to define your God. When it comes to it, I think there are as many definitions of God as there are theists.

How do you define your God?

magicbastarder

CerebralCortex wrote: »

On the topic of design, which is settled, how come everyone ignores the elephant in the room which is aging which causes immense suffering and death?

evolution cannot act on phenomena which occur after procreation has taken place, except where those phenomena affect the survivability of the offspring.

so if an organism's chance of survival increases if its parent dies, the genes which allow that to happen will be more likely to be passed on.

also, it would not make 'sense' for organisms to live forever; those organisms would eventually be outcompeted by 'newer', better adapted organisms and would die anyway.

CerebralCortex

magicbastarder wrote: »

evolution cannot act on phenomena which occur after procreation has taken place, except where those phenomena affect the survivability of the offspring.

I'm well aware of that.

magicbastarder wrote: »

so if an organism's chance of survival increases if its parent dies, the genes which allow that to happen will be more likely to be passed on.

also, it would not make 'sense' for organisms to live forever; those organisms would eventually be outcompeted by 'newer', better adapted organisms and would die anyway.

Kind of missed my point. It seems from my understanding of molecular biology there is a pathological breakdown of molecular and cellular machinery because all we've evolved to be able to do is to reproduce. After that point the organism is on it's own. In fact it seems we're aging from the moment we're born. We're not designed we're evolved.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

God.

I don't think that would be classed as a definition

roosh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't see it as my job to define your God. When it comes to it, I think there are as many definitions of God as there are theists.

How do you define your God?

There are - without doubt - as many personal understandings of what is meant by "God", as there are people who have any familiarity with the concept.

I don't think any reasonable person would ever expect you to define their God; clarifying what you mean by God when you use the term is a different matter; demonstrating where you draw your particular definition of "God" from, is a different matter still.

roosh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I disagree from point 2. The use of the term force or energy is where I disagree. It implies neither force or energy, just a process. Force is an application of energy and both subtly slip in the idea of evolution having a driver or a destination of sorts. Like as if we are evolving into a 'better' form, smarter or whatever. There is no actual evidence for the driver other than that it is implied because it was defined by you as having a force/energy.

On the other hand I view it simply as a process. Things which survive their environment are more likely to pass on their genes etc etc. We don't know everything about it so we should say 'i don't know about that' when it is true. I don't see any reason to shoehorn in a God just because we don't know. When we don't know, we don't know. It might be hackneyed to say, once we didn't understand lightening so we decided there must be a force or energy behind it. Same with the sun traveling across the sky. We learn more about the processes and the evidence never demonstrates a God.

God is generally associated with the underlying force of the universe

Sure it is, but not through any positive evidence for the god, just lack of understand of how it actually works. Spiderman is associated with New York. New York is not evidence for Spiderman.

Evolution implies an underlying, or rather, driving force/energy
That implies evidence for what I [Full.Of..IT] understand God to be

How strong do you think the evidence for these statements are? Would it be more honest to just say 'i don't know'?

I would say its presupposition, coupled with variables we don't understand maybe pointing to what you could call an implication of a God.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except you still have an argument from ignorance, so its invalid. Everything in the universe is under some kind of force, its just that some are better understood than others. Full.Of.It has centred on evolution, because humanity doesn't fully understand the driving force of evolution*. He could as much point to gravity and claim we dont fully understand the force of gravity, therefore gravity is god. His argument is nonsense either way.

* not that this is necessarily true. evolution is the result of other forces and conditions (reproduction, mutation etc), it is not a force in of itself.

If my attempted clarification of Full.Of..IT's point was accurate, I'll allow him to argue his own point.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

I don't think that would be classed as a definition

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

Looks like a definition to me.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

Looks like a definition to me.

It's not a definition of the being though.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

There are - without doubt - as many personal understandings of what is meant by "God", as there are people who have any familiarity with the concept.

I don't think any reasonable person would ever expect you to define their God; clarifying what you mean by God when you use the term is a different matter; demonstrating where you draw your particular definition of "God" from, is a different matter still.

Meh, waffley nonsense to distract from the fact that people make stuff up. People have individual ideas of god, but seeing as people learn about the idea of god from each other, there are some fairly glaring and distinct mutual ideas - people believe that god is (or that the word "god" applies to) an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being. If someone wants to say thats not what they mean by god, then tough sh*t, the word is taken, use something else if you want to talk about an underlying natural force (and not just are looking for vindication in believing in god in the first place:
Guy A: I believe lightining is caused by god
Guy B; What? Lightning is electrical charge in the atmosphere, we can replicate it
Guy A: Eh, by god I mean an underlying force
Guy B: So you believe lighting is caused by an underlying force? Well obviously
Guy A: Yep, lightning is proof that god exists
Guy B: WTF?....
etc).

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

It's not a definition of the being though.

What are talking about? Whats a definition of the being? Why doesn't the wikipedia definition count?

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Meh, waffley nonsense to distract from the fact that people make stuff up. People have individual ideas of god, but seeing as people learn about the idea of god from each other, there are some fairly glaring and distinct mutual ideas - people believe that god is (or that the word "god" applies to) an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being. If someone wants to say thats not what they mean by god, then tough sh*t, the word is taken, use something else if you want to talk about an underlying natural force (and not just are looking for vindication in believing in god in the first place:
Guy A: I believe lightining is caused by god
Guy B; What? Lightning is electrical charge in the atmosphere, we can replicate it
Guy A: Eh, by god I mean an underlying force
Guy B: So you believe lighting is caused by an underlying force? Well obviously
Guy A: Yep, lightning is proof that god exists
Guy B: WTF?....
etc).

You say that "the word is taken", and that "people believe that god is (or that the word "god" applies to) an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being".

While "people" might believe this, is their [expressed] belief an accurate representation of what is said about God?

When you say that "the word is taken", what exactly is it taken by; can you justify that that is an accurate representation of what the word is actually taken by?

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are talking about? Whats a definition of the being? Why doesn't the wikipedia definition count?

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

It says that God is the name given to a being, but it doesn't define the being.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

You say that "the word is taken", and that "people believe that god is (or that the word "god" applies to) an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being".

While "people" might believe this, is their [expressed] belief an accurate representation of what is said about God?

When you say that "the word is taken", what exactly is it taken by; can you justify that that is an accurate representation of what the word is actually taken by?

Its not about it being an accurate representation of the truth, its about the word having a preconceived definition. If the preconceived definition is wrong then get a new word, as the old word is incorrect. If someone called one of these:

an elephant, you would correct them and tell them thats the wrong word, as elephant means something else and calling these an elephant is silly when there is an appropriate word for them.
If someone believes that god is some underlying force behind life, then they dont believe in god, they believe in something else and are using the label god because of a lack of imagination.It only causes problems in discussions and it doesn't add validity either to what they believe in or what god is supposed to be.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

It says that God is the name given to a being, but it doesn't define the being.

Look, quit trolling. Read the link I gave, the whole damn thing.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not about it being an accurate representation of the truth, its about the word having a preconceived definition. If the preconceived definition is wrong then get a new word, as the old word is incorrect. If someone called one of these:
<snip>
an elephant, you would correct them and tell them thats the wrong word, as elephant means something else and calling these an elephant is silly when there is an appropriate word for them.
If someone believes that god is some underlying force behind life, then they dont believe in god, they believe in something else and are using the label god because of a lack of imagination.It only causes problems in discussions and it doesn't add validity either to what they believe in or what god is supposed to be.

It's not about being an accurate representation of truth per se, with respect to the existence of God; it is about an accurate representation of what is said about God in the relevant sources.

Indeed, it comes down to "what god is supposed to be". As you highlight, what some people think God is supposed to be, is not necessarily "what god is supposed to be"; and just as with most areas of investigation, it requires more than just a page on wikipedia to fully understand.

The question is: what do you think "god is supposed to be", and what do you base that on?

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Look, quit trolling. Read the link I gave, the whole damn thing.

I'm not trolling, I'm simply challenging your understanding of what is meant by "God" and trying to determine how you came to your conclusion about what it means.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

It's not about being an accurate representation of truth per se, with respect to the existence of God; it is about an accurate representation of what is said about God in the relevant sources.

Indeed, it comes down to "what god is supposed to be". As you highlight, what some people think God is supposed to be, is not necessarily "what god is supposed to be"; and just as with most areas of investigation, it requires more than just a page on wikipedia to fully understand.

The question is: what do you think "god is supposed to be", and what do you base that on?

Nice try at a side step, but unfortunately its full of it. Its not about what god actually is, its about what the word means. There are no dragons, so there is nothing that dragons actually are in reality, but the word dragon has meaning anyway. God may or not exist, the word god has meaning regardless, you cant just apply the word to anything and try to hide your inaccuracies behind some notion that you can play with words meanings.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

I'm not trolling, I'm simply challenging your understanding of what is meant by "God" and trying to determine how you came to your conclusion about what it means.

Your not challenging anything. I gave you the definition, one which goes into quite a bit of detail but that doesn't sit with whatever nonsense point you are trying to make, so you claim inadequacies. I'm not interested in this kind of BS posting, add something constructive or dont bother responding to me because I wont respond to you.

Dades

Don't get personal, folks.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nice try at a side step, but unfortunately its full of it. Its not about what god actually is, its about what the word means. There are no dragons, so there is nothing that dragons actually are in reality, but the word dragon has meaning anyway. God may or not exist, the word god has meaning regardless, you cant just apply the word to anything and try to hide your inaccuracies behind some notion that you can play with words meanings.

It wasn't a side step; it wasn't an issue of the existence of what "God" refers to, it was a question of what does the term actually refer to - existent or not. While dragons do not exist, the term refers to a fictional character, with specific, identifiable characteristics. I'm sure you'll agree that the concept of God is a little less straight forward.

The word does indeed have a meaning; in the context of the overall debate, it is what the concept refers to which is of importance; that is not necessarily derived from the dictionary or wikipedia - as these are not the primary sources of information pertaining to the concept. Indeed, just as there is more to quantum mechanics - or any scientific concept - than the content of a wikipedia page, or it's dictionary definition, so too is there more to the concept of God.

Again, the question is, what is your understanding of the concept of "God", and what do you base it on?

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your not challenging anything. I gave you the definition, one which goes into quite a bit of detail but that doesn't sit with whatever nonsense point you are trying to make, so you claim inadequacies. I'm not interested in this kind of BS posting, add something constructive or dont bother responding to me because I wont respond to you.

You provided a wikipedia page, which I said did not really qualify as a definition. You then posted the following quote [as the definition]

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

It was then pointed out that the quote simply identified the name that was given to the "singular being", without actually defining what the being is.

If you don't know much about the concept, then feel free to admit it. I personally don't know that much about it either.

Mark Hamill

Mangaroosh, your not interested in reading the links I give, or the posts I wrote, so I'm not interested in reading whatever trolling you wrote. I'm outta here.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Mangaroosh, your not interested in reading the links I give, or the posts I wrote, so I'm not interested in reading whatever trolling you wrote. I'm outta here.

I've read the link you posted, and have read your posts. The link you posted was supposed to be a definition of God, but it was so broad ranging that it wasn't actually a definition.

Then the subsequent "definition" that you quoted simply said that God was a name applied to a being; it didn't actually define the being itself.

The link you posted covered pantheism, which posits that the universe is God and God is the universe; there is ample evidence to support the existence of the universe.

You accused me of side-stepping the issues, but it appears that is you that is doing the side-stepping.

It appears that there is a widespread, unquestioned assumption among people that the concept of God is understood; this is possibly due to the fact that people are raised in a certian religion, are exposed to the idea of God, and therefore think they understand it. Personally, I was raised in the catholic faith but am no longer a catholic; I have realised that that doesn't mean I understand the concept of God; I have also realised, from very basic investigation, that the concept of God is not that straight forward, and takes more than a wikipage to understand the concept alone - not to mind whether or not it exists.

Personally, I don't understand the whole thing all that well, I'm just wondering do you; and can you demonstrate it if you do?

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Personally, I don't understand the whole thing all that well, I'm just wondering do you; and can you demonstrate it if you do?

One of the main problems in any discussion with a believer is that they all think they understand the concept of god but everyone's concept is different and no one can demonstrate that their concept is the correct one or if there even is a correct one. As atheists we can only ever deal with the multitude of different concepts of god that are presented to us. In fact acknowledging that there is a "correct" concept of god to be understood would be tantamount to acknowledging the existence of a god, which would mean we wouldn't be atheists.

So I'm going to go ahead and say that he can't demonstrate that he understands the concept of god because if he could he wouldn't be an atheist. He might be able to say that he understands the particular concept of god that you think is the correct one though

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One of the main problems in any discussion with a believer is that they all think they understand the concept of god but everyone's concept is different and no one can demonstrate that their concept is the correct one or if there even is a correct one. As atheists we can only ever deal with the multitude of different concepts of god that are presented to us. In fact acknowledging that there is a "correct" concept of god to be understood would be tantamount to acknowledging the existence of a god, which would mean we wouldn't be atheists.

So I'm going to go ahead and say that he can't demonstrate that he understands the concept of god because if he could he wouldn't be an atheist. He might be able to say that he understands the particular concept of god that you think is the correct one though

I take your point about the singular concept of God. Just to flesh out the issue though, as it applies equally to "believers" as "non-believers"; when people present a concept of God, it is usually based on pre-existing religious literature, folklore, etc.; that is, in many cases they haven't simply invented an entirely new concept, they are presenting their understanding of an existing concept.

The issue is how well are those existing concepts of God understood, and can the understanding be demonstrated?


EDIT: what is the understanding of Pantheism; what is the "atheist position" on it?

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

EDIT: what is the understanding of Pantheism; what is the "atheist position" on it?

I don't know a whole lot about it and I wouldn't say there it a single "atheist position" on it but iirc Dawkins described it as "sexed up atheism" and the pantheists themselves seemed quite happy with that description

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One of the main problems in any discussion with a believer is that they all think they understand the concept of god but everyone's concept is different and no one can demonstrate that their concept is the correct one or if there even is a correct one.

That's one of the useful consequences of having an abstract, unnamed deity with vague attributes, in place of the previous concrete, named deities -- far more difficult to pin down to any kind of fixed image, fully free of personal inclination.

I think it was Scott Atran's excellent In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion which quoted some research in which religious believers from a bunch of churches were asked to name, then define, a few one-word religious concepts that were considered central to their religious beliefs. The definitions were then passed to other members of their congregations who were asked to figure out what the name of the concept was.

The results were basically pretty random.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know a whole lot about it and I wouldn't say there it a single "atheist position" on it but iirc Dawkins described it as "sexed up atheism" and the pantheists themselves seemed quite happy with that description

He did indeed. Personally, I think that spirituality is at the heart of all religion; I think religion is a bastardisation of spiritual principles and practices, with critical thinking and practice being replaced by Dogma and ritual; at the heart of spiriutality then I believe is, essentially, pantheism.

strobe

What is your concept of God (god) mangaroosh (how did you pick the username btw?)? Do you have one?

roosh

strobe wrote: »

What is your concept of God (god) mangaroosh (how did you pick the username btw?)? Do you have one?

Username is just a nickname.

I wouldn't so much say that I have a concept of God, rather am trying to develop and understanding of the existing conceptualisations pertaining to God.

It's difficult to even start to outline my own understanding - even as limited as it is; it would probably best be described as pantheistic; I would see the universe as essentially one single being/entity, of which we are an inextricable part; I think that the universe is arguably "Omnient"*, the characteristics usually ascribed to God.

A consequence of that, is the idea (or reality I would say) that we are part of what God is; God is everything. It is the realisation of this, and the consequent liberation, which spiritual (as opposed to religious) teachings point - in my limited understanding at least.


*just coining a phrase so I don't have to write Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc. etc. the whole time.

barfizz

FullOf..IT wrote: »

So evolution is just a convegence of chance where by 'luck' determines a species chance of survival?

you're opinion is Just as bad as the zealots imo

It is not luck, A species chance of survival are based on a number of factors, not limited to, food availability, suitability to their environment, suitable breeding conditions (weather), available mates, predators, competing species, specialisation, etc...

If i dropped you into a desert with no food or water (i'm guessing your Irish and have no special training), the chances of you surviving are quite poor, however if i dropped a camel into the desert i think that they would have a better chance of finding water, food and even a mate.

where evolution can be witnessed for example in humans is with Tibetans who appear to have developed more efficient metabolisms. They show higher levels of nitric oxide in their blood, this seems to allow them to get more oxygen to the tissues without producing lots more red cells. this small change was not by chance but was more likely passed on by people who were able to produce offspring more easily at higher altitudes, a small step barely noticeable in human evolution.

Take a snap shot of a typical Irish and a typical Tibetan now, come back in a million years and compare a typical Irish and typical Tibetan then (if you can find such a thing) and see what additional differences can be compared.

oldrnwisr

barfizz wrote: »

It is not luck, A species chance of survival are based on a number of factors, not limited to, food availability, suitability to their environment, suitable breeding conditions (weather), available mates, predators, competing species, specialisation, etc...

If i dropped you into a desert with no food or water (i'm guessing your Irish and have no special training), the chances of you surviving are quite poor, however if i dropped a camel into the desert i think that they would have a better chance of finding water, food and even a mate.

where evolution can be witnessed for example in humans is with Tibetans who appear to have developed more efficient metabolisms. They show higher levels of nitric oxide in their blood, this seems to allow them to get more oxygen to the tissues without producing lots more red cells. this small change was not by chance but was more likely passed on by people who were able to produce offspring more easily at higher altitudes, a small step barely noticeable in human evolution.

Take a snap shot of a typical Irish and a typical Tibetan now, come back in a million years and compare a typical Irish and typical Tibetan then (if you can find such a thing) and see what additional differences can be compared.

But the differences in a million years time are only likely to be between the Irishman then and the Irishman now, not between the Irish and Tibetan. Variation within a population is much greater than that between populations, about 12 times in fact. John Tooby and Leda Cosmides outlined this in a paper back in 1990.


On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation.

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/jpersonality.pdf

Undergod

mangaroosh wrote: »

EDIT: what is the understanding of Pantheism; what is the "atheist position" on it?

Richard Dawkins digs pantheism.

barfizz

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But the differences in a million years time are only likely to be between the Irishman then and the Irishman now, not between the Irish and Tibetan. Variation within a population is much greater than that between populations, about 12 times in fact. John Tooby and Leda Cosmides outlined this in a paper back in 1990.


On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation.

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/jpersonality.pdf

Hi Oldernwisr,
That is a very interesting paper but I do not agree that it is applicable to my scenario (with greatest respect) in relationship to the changes between a species living in differing environments.
I am referring to Speciation, or the evolution of reproductive isolation, occurs as a by-product of genetic changes that accumulate between two previously interbreeding populations of the same species.