Proof of evolution that you can find on your body

[Brownshoe]

(03-22-2016, 05:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why?

Why do people who reject that there is a God organize and associate over that rejection?

[Benton]

(03-22-2016, 05:10 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You're the one who is making the claim, so you have to show evidence of your claim that atheism has "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"

The rejection of any idea would only exist if someone brought up that specific idea. Just like the rejection of the idea that there is no unicorns or faeries only exists if someone suggests that there is.

... but only if people are suggesting unicorns or faeries are real.

People suggesting that a higher intelligence is real is based off of real things.

[Brownshoe]

(03-22-2016, 05:27 PM)Benton Wrote: ... but only if people are suggesting unicorns or faeries are real.

People suggesting that a higher intelligence is real is based off of real things.

real things like what? a lack of understanding?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-22-2016, 05:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Why do people who reject that there is a God organize and associate over that rejection?

I have no idea. I've never organized because I didn't think something exists.

[Benton]

(03-22-2016, 05:29 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: real things like what? a lack of understanding?

10390 to 1040 odds, if I'm remembering right.

[Brownshoe]

(03-22-2016, 05:45 PM)Benton Wrote: 10390 to 1040 odds, if I'm remembering right.

The odds to what?

[GMDino]

(03-22-2016, 05:45 PM)Benton Wrote: 10390 to 1040 odds, if I'm remembering right.

Fascinating!

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2016, 05:10 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You're the one who is making the claim, so you have to show evidence of your claim that atheism has "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"

The rejection of any idea would only exist if someone brought up that specific idea. Just like the rejection of the idea that there is no unicorns or faeries only exists if someone suggests that there is.

It is not a claim when it is based on facts, and the facts are obvious. And, frankly, I don't have to show you or anyone else evidence when you "reject" to consider any evidence previously shown to you. But I will graphically show the error in your thinking for other readers.

Read the website for Atheist Alliance International:

https://www.atheistalliance.org/

That is more than "just a rejection of the claim that there is a God". That is what is known what is known as 'an agenda', sport. The headlines belie a "systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture" (yes, there is an underlying theme in the topics and presentation that supports the "just a rejection of the claim that there is a God" line). Topics are presented in a such a way as to indicate a "manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture". And, the content definitely shows "integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program" ("Nonreligious Scouts offered badge to protest Boy Scout bigotry"
 seriously dude, are you even going to try and argue that that does not represent a sociopolitical program!")

I could go to the American Atheists site, but I won't even waste my time.

The fact that you choose not to accept obvious facts is superfluous (and there is a certain irony in someone arguing against other peoples beliefs because they ignore certain facts, while they themselves are ignoring facts).

But a person can "play semantics" all they like ("We aren't a belief! We aren't an ideology! We are just what everyone is supposed to think!"). Atheists are only a reactionary group to other peoples' beliefs. Atheism is reliant upon believers.

[Brownshoe]

(03-22-2016, 06:09 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It is not a claim when it is based on facts, and the facts are obvious. And, frankly, I don't have to show you or anyone else evidence when you "reject" to consider any evidence previously shown to you. But I will graphically show the error in your thinking for other readers.

Read the website for Atheist Alliance International:

https://www.atheistalliance.org/

That is more than "just a rejection of the claim that there is a God". That is what is known what is known as 'an agenda', sport. The headlines belie a "systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture" (yes, there is an underlying theme in the topics and presentation that supports the "just a rejection of the claim that there is a God" line). Topics are presented in a such a way as to indicate a "manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture". And, the content definitely shows "integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program" ("Nonreligious Scouts offered badge to protest Boy Scout bigotry"
 seriously dude, are you even going to try and argue that that does not represent a sociopolitical program!")

I could go to the American Atheists site, but I won't even waste my time.

The fact that you choose not to accept obvious facts is superfluous (and there is a certain irony in someone arguing against other peoples beliefs because they ignore certain facts, while they themselves are ignoring facts).

But a person can "play semantics" all they like ("We aren't a belief! We aren't an ideology! We are just what everyone is supposed to think!"). Atheists are only a reactionary group to other peoples' beliefs. Atheism is reliant upon believers.

You can still make claims even if they're based on facts. To say it's not a claim, because it's based on "facts" just means you don't know what the word claim means. You have not shown any evidence that atheism is an ideology, so how have I rejected any evidence that you have provided?

There can be groups of atheists (like the atheist alliance) who have agenda's, but that doesn't mean atheism itself is an ideology or has an agenda. The rejection of the idea that there is a God/Gods is the only thing that makes people atheists. There is nothing else that goes with it. You could be an atheist and be left leaning, or a atheist and be right leaning, or an atheist and believe the world is flat, and believe that evolution isn't real. It doesn't matter. There is no culture of atheism, or political alignment with atheism.

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2016, 06:46 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You can still make claims even if they're based on facts. To say it's not a claim, because it's based on "facts" just means you don't know what the word claim means.

Except that continually asking for proof is asserting the a claim is an unsupported claim.

Quote:You have not shown any evidence that atheism is an ideology, so how have I rejected any evidence that you have provided?

I have provided you with a definition, which you appear to accept, and examples of an atheist organization which acts as if atheism is an ideology.

And the fact that atheism is an ideology is inherent in your own definition, "the rejection of the notion that there is a God". It is a rejection of someone else's belief. A rejection of someone else's belief is an opinion (or in this case multiple opinions) about human life and culture, since the counter, religion, is a also an opinion of human life and culture.

Quote:There can be groups of atheists (like the atheist alliance) who have agenda's, but that doesn't mean atheism itself is an ideology or has an agenda. The rejection of the idea that there is a God/Gods is the only thing that makes people atheists. There is nothing else that goes with it. You could be an atheist and be left leaning, or a atheist and be right leaning, or an atheist and believe the world is flat, and believe that evolution isn't real. It doesn't matter. There is no culture of atheism, or political alignment with atheism.

You mean 'groups within the atheist heading', since you have already defined atheists as those who "the reject the notion that there is a God" and you just reiterated it above. And just because their ideology sometimes aligns with other ideologies such as the Left, the Right, flat-world believers, evolutionists, etc., but does not consistently means that they have their own, stand-alone ideology.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-22-2016, 05:45 PM)Benton Wrote: 10390 to 1040 odds, if I'm remembering right.

(03-22-2016, 05:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Fascinating!

Wow.  Thanks gents, great read.

[Brownshoe]

So you believe that rejecting the notion that there are unicorns is an ideology? Or that anything that you refuse to believe is an ideology (like if you refuse to believe 2+2=7)? You're not taught atheism, but you are taught theism. Ideologies are from an idea not from the refusal of one.

[Benton]

That's nit where I read it originally, but looks about the same. And it's all above my puny brain, but it makes some connections on likelihoods that parallel my personal beliefs that it's just too unlikely there hasn't been some.kind of direction over the last several billion years.

[Beaker]

(03-22-2016, 03:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't bring the term up; someone else did. I merely pointed to the fact that they did and desribed it in its simpliest forms. I just erroneously used the term rock to describe an non-living object.

How can one discuss evolution without considering what we evolved from?

You can discuss where we evolved from....once life was already in place....otherwise its not an evolution discussion, its an origin of life discussion. Evolution is how life has proceeded once it existed, not where life came from. Two separate issues.

[Beaker]

Lets get back on track with the evidence presented supporting evolution. If you dont think the evidence supports evolution then discuss why. And "because evolution is not real" or something to that effect is not why. If you wish to go down that road, then present evidence that supports the creation myth.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2016, 09:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: You can discuss where we evolved from....once life was already in place....otherwise its not an evolution discussion, its an origin of life discussion. Evolution is how life has proceeded once it existed, not where life came from. Two separate issues.

So you are suggesting you can discuss the human life cycle without discussing the begining?



As to proof in the OP I did provide it. I stated that that the is not "gain" in losing directional hearing. I have heard as answers:

We don't need it.

We never had it.

The hearing we have now is better.

Our brains cannot handle it and math.

ect.... 

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 09:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are suggesting you can discuss the human life cycle without discussing the begining?



As to proof in the OP I did provide it. I stated that that the is not "gain" in losing directional hearing. I have heard as answers:

We don't need it.

We never had it.

The hearing we have now is better.

Our brains cannot handle it and math.

ect.... 

And you have not shown why.

However every answer you list there was in response to the latest twisting of the original story that was presented.

Throughout the evolutionary process we as humans developed different ears that are best for us.  It does not make it worse than another mammal, or better, it makes it different and it makes it for us.  The video showed how the vestiges of those early ears are still in our DNA.  That is all.  

Someone ELSE (  ) decided that evolution MUST make things better or it is proof of no evolution and god created everything out of whole cloth.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-22-2016, 05:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Fascinating!

Who pissed him off? If man ever can create self-replicating enzymes it doesn't disprove God. It just Means He knew how to do it billions of years earlier, and where did he get the idea that all theists deny evolution? That's as far as I got.

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2016, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Someone ELSE (  ) decided that evolution MUST make things better or it is proof of no evolution and god created everything out of whole cloth.

I think his name was Charles Darwin.

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think his name was Charles Darwin.

I think I was referring to the twisting of *this* thread.

Otherwise if you could provide a citation for Darwin saying that if an evolutionary trait isn't better than evolution isn't true and god made man out of whole cloth.  

Please.