Support NeoGAF

[kunu]

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

I watch many space and universe videos and I have never seen one where they outright claim the theory they are talking about is fact. I doubt they even use the word fact in these videos, but if you can show me a few videos I'll be glad to see them.

 

[Noirulus]

The science that says that says we blew from nothing and came into existence. It's a pretty poor excuse to disregard any religious belief. I will take those kind's of science more seriously if the sentence doesn't say "In the beginning there was nothing and then BANG". It takes faith to believe in such a thing.

Right, so we have evidence for everything except for how matter came into an existence. Just because we're missing one piece of a HUGE puzzle doesn't mean a god exists. You need to educate yourself about science before posting a tirade of misinformation as i've seen in your other posts (in this thread)

 

[Orayn]

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from. it will take faith on my part to believe the whole thing because their is absolutely no prove.

Who are you to say what should be explained by which scientific theories? The theory of evolution doesn't explain the inverse square law, but that doesn't make it wrong, just pertinent to a different topic. Similarly, a theory is not necessarily wrong just because it's incomplete. Our understanding of how gravity works is very incomplete, but we shouldn't stop asking questions.

Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

Now you're just pulling stuff out of thin air. This is going nowhere.

 

[Pixel Pete]

What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?

It's important to remember that not knowing things is ok
I would rather say "I don't know" than make something up.

I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists...

What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world?
For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.

Thoughts? Comments?

Personal eye witness testimony is nearly the worst kind of evidence there is.

This is agnosticism, one who claims neither faith, nor disbelief - the only rational view, IMO. Atheists definitely believe there God does not exist.

it really can't be said enough. That isn't what the definition of atheism is. Atheism is a rejection of belief, or a disbelief. Not a belief in a negative value. they are different meanings

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive
why is this constantly being forgotten?

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive

 

[Stellares]

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

You realize that scientific theories are much different than what most people use theory to mean? The evidence supports the theory. Scientific theories are ways to describe laws.

 

[Ri'Orius]

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from. it will take faith on my part to believe the whole thing because their is absolutely no prove. Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

The point of that statement is that we can keep going on and on and on and on and we will not come to a conclusion because WE DON'T KNOW. Many religious people will tell you that they know but the simple truth is that we don't know. Science tries hard to come up with an answer but fall's flat on it's face. In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against, that's why 80% of science is filled with theories. The things mentioned above leaves us with Faith, we do not know (for sure)but we have strong faith that there is a creator.

So, scientists need to explain everything, God doesn't?

Look dude, there's a lot that scientists don't know. There's a lot they do. If you had a PhD in astrophysics, maybe you'd know enough to tell the difference, but your understanding of major scientific theories is woefully inadequate for you to be spouting some of the bullshit you're throwing around.

 

[D'ultimate]

Long, well thought out, rational response.

I see where you are coming from. But I submit to you that your anecdotes are the exceptions and not the norm. From my perspective, perhaps because of societal and cultural effects, most atheist are not militant like the ones that posted on your friends FB page.

The internet does provide anonymity though and is a breeding ground for assholes who love to espouse their opinions, sometimes unsolicited. But, that is true about every subject, not just atheism.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

But... it doesn't. It covers what there's actually evidence for. That's how science works.


You just showed earlier in that same sentence that that's exactly what they do. Learning and improving our understanding of the world and the universe is sort of the entire point of science. (as a side note, the existence of other galaxies as we understand them today was proven nearly a hundred years ago)


P.S. You said earlier:

Since it doesn't say that, you'll take the Big Bang theory more seriously now, right?

 

[Noirulus]

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

I think this is where you are confused, most people when thinking about a "theory" they think that it is just some random scientist's guess. A theory is based on actual evidence we have found through scientific experiments. It's not just some idea that scientists bring to the table based on guesses.

 

[Anerythristic]

Excellent idea for a thread loooong over do. Threads talking about the price of fried chicken and mashed po'taters were getting derailed into atheist vs. theist threads.

"God! I love fried chicken."
"You would say that, like priests like little boys,amirite"

 

[FleckSplat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

 

[Stellares]

You sure showed him!

 

[Orayn]

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg

For the love of your god, you can't even use image macros right.
Scientific theories are based on the information we have currently gathered. They are always tentative. What is so "HAHA OH WOW" about that?

 

[Monocle]

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg

Some pictures are worth a thousand words. In this case, your picture has caused a deficit of meaning that this entire thread can hardly hope to fill.

 

[DarthWoo]

I think you're using that image incorrectly. It probably would have been far better used in response to your assertion that scientists believed there were no other galaxies outside of our own 30 years ago.

 

[Xdrive05]

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

Scientific "theories" are not opposed to "facts." Theories in this sense combine facts into a framework. It doesn't mean hypothesis or guess when used in the scientific sense.

Also television is not how science is done. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

 

[Haly]

My point is that you can't possibly justify your claim to know what most, much less all, atheists think. You can't even know for certain what your closest family members think, since the unmediated contents of their minds are not available to you in the same way your own thoughts are.

Isn't this exactly what some of the atheists in this thread are doing?

Most of them are not explicit atheists who claim definitively that no gods exist. Rather, they are implicit atheists, who conclude that a universe with gods is not perceptibly different from a universe without them.

You'd have to practically live under a rock to not realize that most people describing themselves as atheists are "agnostic" by your definition.

Most atheists have the tools available to argue strongly for gnostic atheism of subsets of gods.

EDIT: The first half is unrelated to the second half.

For the record I'm not religious. But I am annoyed when I see self proclaimed atheists vehemently defending their views with shoddy statements and arguments. In my mind I label them asshole atheists (after getting into a debate over the semantics of "militant atheists"). These are the ones that shit up nearly every science thread by making a jab at ReligiousGAF and provoking some pointless/circular argument.

 

[Atramental]

*Image Macro* Therefore your argument is invalid.

 

[Cyan]

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
So... this basically invalidates your crying earlier in the thread about mean old atheists being rude to you, no?

*shrug*

 

[CornBurrito]

What the fuck... OP creates topic to foster debate between people of differing beliefs.

OP then posts in image macro that argues absolutely nothing, effectively making debate with him impossible?

 

[Kalnos]

*Image Macro* Therefore your argument is invalid.

You should recommend him to Bob Jones. *trollface*

 

[Orayn]

*Image Macro* Therefore your argument is invalid.

Welcome to the world of /b/-level argumentation.

 

[Ri'Orius]

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg

So, is it time to call troll yet?

Fucking Poe's law...

 

[Atramental]

For the record I'm not religious. But I am annoyed when I see self proclaimed atheists vehemently defending their views with shoddy statements and arguments. In my mind I label them asshole atheists (after getting into a debate over the semantics of "militant atheists"). These are the ones that shit up nearly every science thread by making a jab at ReligiousGAF and provoking some pointless/circular argument.

Some people are just joking around. You know, for the "lulz".

 

[Xdrive05]

What the fuck... OP creates topic to foster debate between people of differing beliefs.

OP then posts in image macro that argues absolutely nothing, effectively making debate with him impossible?

You're right. He probably wasn't interested in a real discussion.

I revoke my endorsement of your thread, OP. :-/

 

[TaeOH]

Just dropping in to add my $0.02. I know I'm probably on the "home team" here on GAF, but I am genuinely interested in the reasons theists give for believing (other than personal experiences or personal revelation please). So I support this thread and I hope we get more light than heat from the discussion.

I'm an atheist. I do not accept the claims that deities exists - any and all deities. No theists have presented me with evidence that convinces me that any deity exists.

The "best" reason for believing that I've heard from theists is personal revelation. And personal revelation is necessarily 1st person, which means it cannot count as evidence - for me.

So lacking a good reason to believe (evidence), and lacking a credible experience of personal revelation, I will continue being an Atheist.

I believe in God because I believe there is a reason we exist and that we are not random chance. I believe humanity is uniquely different than the animal world and has a dignity that cannot be explained by just the natural world. I believe that we have an a morality that cannot be explained without a deity.

I believe in God because it is just as reasonable to do so as it is to believe that life just popped into being randomly and without cause. I believe in God because I believe in the good that comes from those who have faith and purpose to help their fellow man. I believe in the good works that come from those who hold themselves to a higher moral standard.

I believe in God because I believe in good. Without God, good is whatever survives and I certainly cannot believe it that.

What I am trying to figure out now is since I believe that God must exist, who is he? The best answer I have so far is the God of Abraham and that is because of the historical resurrection of the man from Galilee. This is harder to come to grips with, but mainly because I do not understand why God has chosen to reveal Himself this way.

 

[Korey]

What the fuck... OP creates topic to foster debate between people of differing beliefs.

OP then posts in image macro that argues absolutely nothing, effectively making debate with him impossible?

I'm pretty sure he's trolling. The title of the thread is like PERFECT.

I'mma make a thread called "Tipping vs Not Tipping |OT|" or "Circumcision vs No Circumcision |OT|" brb

 

[Sutton Dagger]

@ Halycon

"Does this exclude paradoxes like: "This sentence is false"

Yes, there are some caveats to The excluded middle logical absolute. The statement 'This sentence is false' can be dealt with by its self refuting nature that breaks the law of non-contradiction . Or if you want to take the position that it is indeed a paradox, then the statement 'This sentence is false' is the one exception.

I'm actually going to take issue with your law of non-contradiction, as Godel proved this to be false in certain logical systems. So my question to you is, are you using a system sufficiently powerful to define the natural numbers (or, in layman's terms, are you going to reference anything infinite)? If yes, I do not except your premises. If no, I accept them.

The law of non-contradiction will not be used in terms of the concept of infinity. Are you happy to accept the first premise with these caveats in mind?

It seems like I only have a couple of takers, I thought my fellow Atheist GAF would be into something like this?

 

[Haly]

Some people are just joking around. You know, for the "lulz".

Considering how much vitriol they put into their posts when ReligiousGAF says something even remotely in self defense, I find it very difficult to find any "lulz".

I'm all for a little friendly poking and prodding and fun with image macros but there's a point where it becomes blatant trolling.

It seems like I only have a couple of takers, I thought my fellow Atheist GAF would be into something like this?

I'm definitely interested in the argument but I don't see how it's possible using plain English. You'd have to resort to symbolic logic for a watertight argument wouldn't you? This is the main reason I brought up the "This sentence is false" paradox, to show that English is woefully inadequate for a proof of logic.

 

[Zaptruder]

Isn't this exactly what some of the atheists in this thread are doing?



For the record I'm not religious. But I am annoyed when I see self proclaimed atheists vehemently defending their views with shoddy statements and arguments. In my mind I label them asshole atheists (after getting into a debate over the semantics of "militant atheists"). These are the ones that shit up nearly every science thread by making a jab at ReligiousGAF and provoking some pointless/circular argument.

I'm an asshole because I want to draw a distinction between the general idea of religion/god and specific instantiations of religions/gods?

Also; reading between the lines of what you quote - most atheists have (the cognitive and logical) tools needed to rule out specific ideas of gods (even if they don't exercise them).

The post is about making a distinction that - been an agnostic atheist doesn't mean you're not making specific claims about specific gods, and that more atheists should realize that fact - not just stop at a point that seems concillatory (i.e. we don't have information on that, but neither do you).

 

[Air]

Some people are just joking around. You know, for the "lulz".

I never understood this. If people want to be dumb in a thread, there are dedicated threads for it. Not everything should turn into some religion thread because someone wanted to do it for the lulz. Not saying that every thread should be serious business, but so many threads devolve into some awful circle jerk. Is it really that necessary to joke in all those threads?

I'm an asshole because I want to draw a distinction between the general idea of religion/god and specific instantiations of religions/gods?

Well, whatever.

I wouldn't say your an asshole for asking a legitimate question, or to satisfy some curious urges. But one can do that without being a prick. (note, I'm not saying you're a prick, just those that do it for the lulz)

 

[Noirulus]

I believe in God because I believe there is a reason we exist and that we are not random chance. I believe humanity is uniquely different than the animal world and has a dignity that cannot be explained by just the natural world. I believe that we have an a morality that cannot be explained without a deity.

I believe in God because it is just as reasonable to do so as it is to believe that life just popped into being randomly and without cause. I believe in God because I believe in the good that comes from those who have faith and purpose to help their fellow man. I believe in the good works that come from those who hold themselves to a higher moral standard.

I believe in God because I believe in good. Without God, good is whatever survives and I certainly cannot believe it that.

What I am trying to figure out now is since I believe that God must exist, who is he? The best answer I have so far is the God of Abraham and that is because of the historical resurrection of the man from Galilee. This is harder to come to grips with, but mainly because I do not understand why God has chosen to reveal Himself this way.

I don't want to disrespect your faith, but what makes you think humanity is so special, when evolution accurately describes how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

Also, I'm confused what you mean by "I believe in god because i believe in good" Why do hundreds of thousands of people die every decade due to natural disasters then?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

These are two definition's of theory that i could find:

1) A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".

2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

The picture was posted because science (especially science that explains whats out there) are mostly not based on Facts (Our solar system excluded) it's based on assumptions and "Theories". We know very little of whats out their (In fact we don't know 0.00011111111% of whats out their and the fact that we would not know for some thousands of years means that the so-called theories that exist will not be Fully disproved for a very long time.

 

[Atramental]

You should recommend him to Bob Jones. *trollface*

GTP_Daverytimes's dislike for Catholics would be acceptable behavior there but his swearing would get him kicked out.

 

[Kalnos]

What I am trying to figure out now is since I believe that God must exist, who is he? The best answer I have so far is the God of Abraham and that is because of the historical resurrection of the man from Galilee. This is harder to come to grips with, but mainly because I do not understand why God has chosen to reveal Himself this way.

Since someone else questioned your other statements, allow me to question this one. Why the God of Abraham? What makes that more credible than say, deism?

 

[Haly]

I'm an asshole because I want to draw a distinction between the general idea of religion/god and specific instantiations of religions/gods?

Well, whatever.

No, the first half of my post was just to point out the irony of Monocle's post.

The second half was to clarify my views on this matter because whenever I take this stance (one that doesn't readily side with Glorious Atheist Master Race GAF) in a thread like this people are quick to label me as "Religious nut". Which doesn't really score points for the side that supposedly values calm and rational debate.

 

[Stellares]

These are two definition's of theory that i could find:

1) A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".

2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

The picture was posted because science (especially science that explains whats out there) are mostly not based on Facts (Our solar system excluded) it's based on assumptions and "Theories". We know very little of whats out their (In fact we don't know 0.00011111111% of whats out their and the fact that we would not know for some thousands of years means that the so-called theories that exist will not be Fully disproved for a very long time.

Have you ever taken a fricken science class? Scientific theories are based on evidence or they wouldn't be scientific theories! Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Not that hard.
There are no "assumptions" made in science, thats just bull.

 

[Orayn]

The picture was posted because science (especially science that explains whats out there) are mostly not based on Facts (Our solar system excluded) it's based on assumptions and "Theories". We know very little of whats out their (In fact we don't know 0.00011111111% of whats out their and the fact that we would not know for some thousands of years means that the so-called theories that exist will not be Fully disproved for a very long time.

What are you even trying to say? Our knowledge is limited, therefore it's all wrong? Science does not deal in absolutes, therefore it's useless? We're doing the best we can, man.

 

[TaeOH]

I don't want to disrespect your faith, but what makes you think humanity is so special, when evolution accurately describes how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

Also, I'm confused what you mean by "I believe in god because i believe in good" Why do hundreds of thousands of people die every decade due to natural disasters then?

How does evolution accurately describe how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

Because good is a concept that cannot truly exist without morality. And morality cannot exist without a God.

 

[Schmattakopf]

Oh my goodness, *Sighs*. It's incredible how much you ignored the DON'T in my post.

As I quoted in my post, "Many religious people will tell you that they know but the simple truth is that we don't know." Perhaps you meant to phrase that differently, or perhaps you mean to say that such religious people are wrong and different from you. In any case, religious people and institutions often do claim to know. It's more than a theory to them, yet without the evidence that we expect from a theory.

 

[Noirulus]

These are two definition's of theory that i could find:

1) A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".

2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

The picture was posted because science (especially science that explains whats out there) are mostly not based on Facts (Our solar system excluded) it's based on assumptions and "Theories". We know very little of whats out their (In fact we don't know 0.00011111111% of whats out their and the fact that we would not know for some thousands of years means that the so-called theories that exist will not be Fully disproved for a very long time.

You fool, this is what we've been trying to explain to you. 3 or 4 people have already explained this. "Theories" are not assumptions or just worded explanations in science.

A theory is based on FACTS that we've observed and experimented on. For example, you know how the universe is expanding? We know this because we can measure the speed at which other galaxies are moving away from us!

 

[Zaptruder]

No, the first half of my post was just to point out the irony of Monocle's post.

The second half was to clarify my views on this matter because whenever I take this stance (one that doesn't readily side with Glorious Atheist Master Race GAF) in a thread like this people are quick to label me as "Religious nut". Which doesn't really score points for the side that supposedly values calm and rational debate.

Dammit. I edited after this post

Rest of the post you probably missed:

Also; reading between the lines of what you quote - most atheists have (the cognitive and logical) tools needed to rule out specific ideas of gods (even if they don't exercise them).

The post is about making a distinction that - been an agnostic atheist doesn't mean you're not making specific claims about specific gods, and that more atheists should realize that fact - not just stop at a point that seems concillatory (i.e. we don't have information on that, but neither do you).

 

[Anerythristic]

Love this site for info on Big Ban Theory. There is a ton of info.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#atheistic

1) What is the Big Bang theory?

a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space

b) What does the theory really say?

Giving an accurate description of BBT in common terms is extremely difficult. Like many modern scientific topics, every such attempt will be necessarily vague and unsatisfying as certain details are emphasized and others swept under the rug. To really understand any such theory, one needs to look at the equations that fully describe the theory, and this can be quite challenging. That said, the quotes by Peebles and Kippenhahn should give one an idea of what the theory actually says. In the following few paragraphs, we will elaborate on their basic description.

The simplest description of the theory would be something like: "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler."

c) Atheistic theory

As with evolution, BBT is often tagged by Young Earth Creationists as yet another theory invented out of thin air by atheists looking to deny that God created the universe and everything in it. Obviously, this is not a scientific argument by any stretch of the imagination, and, like the similar charge leveled at evolution, the claim is false on its face.

BBT is not only accepted by most mainstream Christian (and other religious) denominations, but also even by Old Earth Creationists like Hugh Ross. Some Christian philosophers even try to use the BBT as evidence for the existence of a creator - they point out, e.g., that this scientific theory agrees with the Bible on the point that the universe had a beginning, that light came first (although this is a crude misrepresentation of what the BBT actually says), etc. For articles containing discussions of this type of arguments, see, e.g., the page Physics and Religion.

Finally, it should be pointed out that Lemaitre, one of the originators of the BBT (the central equations of the BBT are often called the "Friedman-Lemaitre equations"), was actually a Jesuit priest!

 

[Orayn]

How does evolution accurately describe how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

An exhaustive amount of research has gone into the evolution of morality, and a lot of behaviors that we consider moral have parallels in other animals. Elephants mourn their dead. Birds put themselves in dangerous positions to keep the rest of their social group safe. Apes have disagreements and grudges that they eventually settle. These behaviors all have useful, biological purposes, usually related to keeping the group safe, healthy, and cohesive.

 

[CornBurrito]

How does evolution accurately describe how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

Because good is a concept that cannot truly exist without morality. And morality cannot exist without a God.

The same way it accurately describes how we have certain physical features. Other animals are self-aware, and thus have a conscience.

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/

Good, and concepts of morality can exist without god. They are socially constructed concepts. Just because they don't have an ultimate authority backing them doesn't mean they can't exist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

 

[Monocle]

Isn't this exactly what some of the atheists in this thread are doing?

Are they? I haven't read the whole thing.

Our daily lives depend on induction, of course, but some inferences can be better justified than others. When we're talking about a group that's defined solely by its disbelief in a god or gods, it's possible to make fair and roughly accurate statements about its members the same way we talk about any other group: by inferring their characteristics from the initial definition of that group, by appeal to common knowledge, or by generalizing from personal experience. None of these methods is foolproof (in fact, we know they can be quite unreliable), but that's our lot in this world and we seem to be stuck with it.

If one wants to make responsible arguments, a good policy is to qualify generalizations where appropriate.

 

[Stellares]

How does evolution accurately describe how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

Because good is a concept that cannot truly exist without morality. And morality cannot exist without a God.

Natural selection and mutations arise to species better suited for their environment. Intellect is a huge advantage for survival. At a certain intelligence, self-reflection occurs as well as thought.
By the way, humans aren't the only ones with that ability.

Morality is quite possible without god. Due to a.) we have evolved natural instincts to avoid murdering and harming others of our own kind because of the advantages that communities bring and b.) our intelligence and reason can bring us to the golden rule of not causing others harm. Its what makes societies function. Without the understanding that hurting others is in many ways harmful to the species as a whole, the human race would likely not exist at this point.

 

[Noirulus]

How does evolution accurately describe how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

Because good is a concept that cannot truly exist without morality. And morality cannot exist without a God.

What? Why can't morality exist without a god?

And we are intelligent because we have big heads. If you didn't know, all apes are quite intelligent creatures, but what differentiates them from humans is that we have smaller jaws. This is because we eat cooked food, which does not require huge jaws like the primates have (who feed on tough, raw food). This allowed our brains to grow bigger and become more complex.

 

[Haly]

How does evolution accurately describe how we have become intelligent and gained conscience?

This comes from the idea that sentience is something mystical. Sentience is just a side effect of having brains capable of reasoning. Some animals have varying degrees of sentience. It's just another attribute like wings or claws, but less physical in its application. One mentality you have to discard when talking about evolution is that humans are somehow removed from the animal kingdom. We are animals. Reasoning is just another survival trait that has a lot of side effects (like the development of civilization).

Because good is a concept that cannot truly exist without morality. And morality cannot exist without a God.

This is way too vague. First of all, merely defining the concept of "good" will probably take you a dozen philosophers and countless more armchair philosophers arguing about this and that for centuries.

Also; reading between the lines of what you quote - most atheists have (the cognitive and logical) tools needed to rule out specific ideas of gods (even if they don't exercise them).

The post is about making a distinction that - being an agnostic atheist doesn't mean you're not making specific claims about specific gods, and that more atheists should realize that fact - not just stop at a point that seems concillatory (i.e. we don't have information on that, but neither do you).

Oh I agree with this, I was just mentioning your post just to prove a point.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

It's funny how everybody jumped up and down on the picture i posted while most of you have been silently trolling, Science might be based on what we perceive but that doesn't make it's teachings a fact. An example: Scientist are still unable to explain the tilt axis of the earth or how perfectly placed we are in the solar system, their simple answer is that it just happened. Basically they are saying that everything was cluttered but managed to arrange itself and then life formed.