William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins (HQ) 4b/11

[Meltezz]

I expected to hear some good arguments from Mr Atkins conteracting Mr Craig allegations that the Universe has a purpose and was created by God, but all I heard was just completely empty words.

[philosophizer149]

@Onesideofyams If I'm not mistaken you are saying that because we can explain how the belief in God originates in society, then belief in God is irrational. This commits what is known as the genetic fallacy, which states that if you explain how something originates you therefore show that belief to be false. But that doesn't logically follow.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

Society could be based on evolution, the spreading of genes in traits in culture and varying traits among humans. The spread of genes and rising and falling of new cultures is dependent on human survival and genetic traits that are in all of us. In fact evolution is a part of anthropology, and has it's own field of evolutionary anthropology.

[Willtur]

how smug are we to be so blind to the fact that there are creatures on this earth that have many of the same traits as us. Do all dogs go to heaven? What should be analyzed is the ideas of what after life means and what objective point does it have in the universe? A cell in your body acts the same way everything else in the universe works, everything is goes with the flow and not so we get the hang out with christians when we die. Morality came with us and it will be gone when we go.

[lederereddy]

@Willtur "Morality came with us and will be gone when we leave"

If truth is truly subjective, as in, what's legal to one man is punishable to another. For instance if offering a mans preteen daughter, sexually, as a jesture of honoring a host was expected in one culture and not in another that wouldn't be the end of it. It's not a matter of what men decide otherwise there'd be now way to justify the damage done to the family, especially the daughter, trust would disintegrate etc.....

[koolio669]

I am baffled at the dogmatic comments made by pretty much every Atheist/Anti-Creationist or any pro-evolution selfproclaimed college graduate. 'Imaginary friend' 'Unicorns' 'Leperchaun' 'Fairy Tale' any nonsense of that sort is completely irrelevent to Christianity. To reiterate what I have said to other Atheists, your foundation on universal design and the design of humans cannot hold any ground when compared to Craigs explaination of the accountability of science and its ground on specifics

[octobrick81]

why should we care about respecting the human spirit? according to you mr. atkins we have no purpose. Why should I care about anything if I do not matter. That which does not have a purpose does not really matter.

Also, did Atkins ever consider a chair? How did the chair come into being? Well we created it. What is the chair's purpose? For us to sit on it. So we can create things that have a purpose but we have no purpose? 

[acday5694]

"I have talked long enough".... *keeps talking

[jahchild1904]

"Discard prejudices" = drop your theistic prejudices and adopt atheistic prejudices. There is no such thing as a person without prejudices. Believe in God or don't, but either way, you have a prejudice.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@jahchild1904

"drop your theistic prejudices and adopt atheistic prejudices"

You mean, the atheistic prejudice to not to believe anybody who claims there is a god, if that person can't provide any evidence for it? THAT prejudice? Oh my, how dare atheists demand evidence! If you don't watch it, these godless heathens will even demand evidence for gravity!

[jahchild1904]

@MomoTheBellyDancer The atheistic prejudice I mention is the one that automatically assumes God doesn't exist without any proof. Even Dr. Atkins admits that it is impossible to disprove God. Without omniscience and omnitranscience (two qualities attributed to God), it is impossible to know He doesn't exist. Yet atheists claim exactly that, making themselves gods, and refuse to consider the possibility of the Deity with any attitude besides derision. By the way, some physicists question gravity.

[TheVVanderingStar]

@jahchild1904

You can't disprove god the same way that you can't disprove Santa Claus or unicorns, but I don't take those into consideration.

[nocturanas]

@jahchild1904 How is this logical?

[Gilbertus1986]

He just said he cannot prove it...lol...

[dinkolino2]

thank God, one atheist that makes sense :)

[TheMaggsy1]

Is it me or is this guy talking rubbish?

[sek3009]

@TheMaggsy1  complete rubbish. His argument is garbage....

[TheMaggsy1]

@sek3009

Yes I agree Atkins argument is rubbish.

[XinBiDe]

I guess that means that the universe simply started to exist because... nothing. There was no reason. Nonexistence was simply no longer feasible, for whatever reason (which would be no reason at all, actually). It's simpler than it sounds.

If we assume every effect needs a cause, then God is impossible as the creator. If the universe is so complex that it must have a creator, what created said creator? Why is God free from scrutiny when the random universe isn't?

[ExZeOhBeEmVee]

@XinBiDe If a law like Cause and Effect applies to the universe, and if that universe was created by something or someone else, it would be quite illogical to assume, or even ask the question, ''If the universe has a creator, who created the creator?''. This assumes that a supernatural, indeed meta ''universal'' entity or force is subject to the rules of a thing (the universe) it created. ''If God created everything, who created God'' is one of the least thought out questions I've ever heard.

[XinBiDe]

@ExZeOhBeEmVee

Just saying that doesn't mean it makes any sense. Did you even read what you typed? Or for that matter, what I typed?

My whole point was that if we accept that the creation of our universe happened OUTSIDE of our universe, therefore outside the realm of cause and effect, then there needn't be a reason for creation, or a creator. It just is because it is.

Then again, if Christians still need cause and effect, then in my opinion God also needs a cause. Now explain why you disagree.

[XinBiDe]

My friend also wants me to refer you to Russell's Teapot.

On the question of creation: We understand things in the terms of the physics of our universe... For example, cause and effect are necessary components exclusive to our universe, but the events that caused our universe to exist were outside of the continuity of this system, therefore the creation of the universe having a "cause" is not only unnecessary but impossible.

[XinBiDe]

No matter how much Christians try, their arguments still are based on the idea that we can't disprove something unprovable, therefore we should believe.

A personal God, who created a trillion universes, really really hates butt sex? Sure.

[LingEntityNoobi]

that's not what Christianity is based on......it's based on the teachings of Jesus. And yes Craig and thousands of critical scholars found that Jesus must have existed and Craig shows you the evidence for the resurrection, which, unless you have Jesus' bones, can't disprove but thousands of people at the time were willing to die for it. Die for a lie?

[NickPolovino]

@XinBiDe

Don't forget, that the only argument that you have is that we can't prove the existence of a God as well.

All evidence that is for or against a God is theoretical.

[XinBiDe]

@NickPolovino Then, in reality, this isn't even worth debating. Can you prove that I'm not God? If you say "Yes, I could kill you", then how do you know I haven't merely ascended? Can I prove that I'm God? Absolutely not. No matter what issue of "bullshit" we debate, it's just that: bullshit. This issue is entirely not worth debating, since it has absolutely no consequence whatsoever and cannot be proven or disproven.

[XinBiDe]

@NickPolovino Furthermore, the reason we only have that argument is because the question of God's existence is outside the realms of logic and science. What I mean by this is that God cannot be observed, measured, tested, etc. for purposes of a study, therefore, we cannot make any argument except for variations of calling bullshit to your ridiculous claims, as well as defending our own.

Also, it's one thing to suggest there is/was a God. It's another thing to suggest God is YOUR God. Prove it

[NickPolovino]

@XinBiDe

So let's see here...You called my beliefs ridiculous and bullshit. That seems to be the basis of your whole message, just trying to call myself and all Christians(or all religions that believe in a God) stupid.

And furthermore, you say that because you cannot conduct the scientific method towards a God, that he doesn't exist.

The funny thing about it is, that if you repent for your sins and truly accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you can observe the working of our God.

[XinBiDe]

@NicKPolovino

"You called my beliefs ridiculous and bullshit." Straw men arguments aren't arguments at all.

You used that illegitimate attack on my position to launch yourself into an assertion with no evidence to support your claim. The only possible claim you could make would be "My position is right because lots of people agree with me", which is Ad Populum; just because lots of people say it doesn't make it true (e.g. Communist China, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Medieval Christians).

[XinBiDe]

@NickPolovino

Please retort to the following points if you wish to be taken seriously. They have been abbreviated for your benefit.

1. Russell's Teapot

2. Cause-Effect Physics in preexistence is impossible

3. Perpetual regression - What created God and why is God exempt from needing a creator if the universe is so complex that it needs one?

4. What about any argument you could make actually supports the evidence of your God over others? Are you denying the validity of other religions' evidence?

[robtul12]

@jrsbarker Not as sad as talking snakes, resurrections and sex-obsessed sky Gods.

[knmleaguecity]

Atkins is nonsense.

[peacewalker7]

he can't argue for naturalism. All he can argue for is weak agnosticism- personal uncertainty about God's existence

This is the best all atheists seem to be able to come up with. yet they are so assertive and certain. No, I don't believe in teacup or some caricature- but there are things to be explained and God is a good explanation. why is there something rather than nothing? Atkins has no evidence against God, relying solely on occam's razor, occam, who himself was a theist.

[kadene2]

Magnificent!

Argument masterfully expounded.

[lyonellelion]

gloriously gloriously alone.

[noodles321321]

Isn't the whole objective morality argument circular? You are assuming that there is objective morality.

[Redfingers]

Well, of course it is! It comes from God!

lol

[ptica11]

yes yes. i and only ture god wonko

[philosophizer149]

@noodles321321 in a sense thats true but its the same issue with free will, we have no choice but to believe it exists. You cannot live your life under the belief that the morals you hold are subjective and illusory, just as you can't live your life under the belief that free will is illusory.

[urcorrect]

@philosophizer149 I don't believe morality is objective (in the strictest philosophical sense), nor do I necessarily believe in free will (depending upon what it truly means). And I doubt very much that I'm the first or only person to survive without such beliefs.

[esizzle2005]

If morality is the product of evolution and intellect, as Atkins claims, then it's not really wrong to rape a child. It just kind of goes against what evolution and intellect would have us do. But why should we obey evolution and intellect? No reason.

Atkins, in order to be consistent, would have to say that raping kids is merely a violation of evolution's suggestions, it's not objectively wrong. That's a problem, and I bet Atkins doesn't really feel that way. Atkin's argument fails.

[SeaTurtle00]

Errr, yes, it is "really" wrong, since as a human society we condemn it as being wrong - which is where morality really counts, in this world. When was the last time you saw God (or Jesus) appear in a courtroom to roundly condemn a rapist, or, even better, magically appear and stop the rape itself? If such a thing as objective morality did exist, why does God do nothing about it until (supposedly) later? Why sit back and act as if he doesn't exist? Oh, and why create evil in the first place?

[esizzle2005]

Raping kids is wrong because humans condemn it? What if they didn't? Then raping kids would be fine, right? That's relativism and if you've ever studied ethics, you know it's an impossible position to defend.

Suppose me and a baby are the only humans who exist, and I torture that baby because I think it's fun. There's no society there to condemn my actions. No moral problem, right? Of course there's a problem. Objective morality exists, apart from anyone's opinion about it.

[simplic10]

I sort of agree with you. That is, I think morality is evolved, but I think it is also objective and discoverable. Given certain basic assumptions like "suffering is bad," there *are* right and wrong actions. This is a wholly separate question from the origin of morality.

I think you'd have a problem saying objective morality *exists* in the same way a table exists, though. It exists in the same sense that geometry exists; not apart from humans, but not merely as one human's opinion either.

[lamplighteyes]

This is the slippery slope fallacy, "Fuzzy borders = No borders". If I look at a colour chart of continuous gradation, I might not be able to pinpoint an exact point as to where green ends and blue begins, but no one would then go "therefore why not suggest that green ends where yellow is?! or blue?! why not say that pink is a type of green?"

Likewise, without absolute moraility, there are fuzzy boundaries, but that doesn't mean there are no boundaries. I can say that raping kids is wrong

[lamplighteyes]

purely because rape in general is an abuse of trust, violently unpleasant and psychologically scarring to the victim, and an abominable thing to accept in any society. Morality exists because of the consequences of moral actions, not because of some "moral spirit" within the actions themselves. If things were good just because God says so, then that means logically that morality is arbitrary, and therefore ultimately relativistic as you accused atheistic morality of being.

[irishmauddib]

"Suppose me and a baby" Your fantasies are a little worrying and Id get them checked if I were you. If there were 2 of you only then whos to say its wrong? Wheres this notion of right and wrong if theres no one to think it? Can you find it? Does it exist? Apparently not.

However there isnt 2 of you, theres more, and democratically weve concluded this to be immoral from our base presumptions of a desire for freedom

[ND066]

Pardon me for interjecting, but it is easy to shoot down the child rape argument because it is so universally rejected. But consider slavery. It was once accepted by human society - still is in much of the world. Does this make slavery morally right? Was the "Dread Scott" decision morally sound? No. We know this because morality doesn't change while what human society condemns does change. This may not prove, without doubt, that God is real. But it does beg the question.

[SeaTurtle00]

I agree for the most part, but am interested to know on what basis you say "morality doesn't change while what human society condemns does change". Do you have evidence for this immutability? What is your source? It's clear God commands enslavement of conquered cities (Deut. 20:11-14), and gives detailed laws for their (and other slaves') treatment (consistent with the ethos of the day but not our own). If moral objectivity does exist, the Biblical God would seem a poor choice as to its source.

[cfdp529]

Have you read the full context of the bible? It's a poor and quite silly thing to just pick a book, chapter, and verse without knowing the full background of the story. Silly argument.

[SeaTurtle00]

Not sure how four verses and "detailed laws" can be misconstrued as "a book, chapter, and verse"; perhaps you're unfamiliar with Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In any case, in scholarly circles evidence-based arguments generally trump story-telling, so I encourage you to study the various books of the Bible and their contexts in greater depth, along with ancient and eccles. history, archaeology, anthropology and mythology. An understanding of languages and human psychology is of benefit too.

[cfdp529]

archaeology agrees and confirms the bible. anthropology is a joke---in my opinion after taking a class in college. and mythology is just that....myths about false gods. i think you're the one that needs to study more my friend. God destroyed cities in the old testament....yes. cities like sodom and gomora. full of heathens and sinners---whose acts were terrible. after that the people STILL didn't want to acknowledge him. ultimately he chose salvation for us in Jesus. peace

[irishmauddib]

"archaeology agrees and confirms the bible."

What do you mean by this, because as far as I can see archaeology will also confirm the Bourne Identity when it is performed in 2000 years. Why? Because quite simply FICTION is often based in real places, with real people, and real events. This does not stop it from being fiction.

So I am agog to hear what you mean by this comment.

[cfdp529]

it means what it states. what's so confusing about that? Your analogy and logic are piss poor. Comparing ancient scriptures to a movie...that was video taped is stupid and childish. Get a bible, look at the back with the maps and you'll see where everything is and archeaology will confirm it. peace

[irishmauddib]

Im afraid an argument doesnt become poor merely because you call it so. You have to say why. If you cant explain yourself and all you offer is "I mean what I mean" or some such then the weakness of your argument is clear. I, at least, can talk about and explain all MY positions. You should try too.

I was talking about the book, not the movie. As I said, much FICTION is presented in real world, real place, real people environments. So saying your fiction is too is hardly proof it is not fiction.

[irishmauddib]

However I think its comical that you think a book is real merely because theres maps in the back. Do you think putting a map in the back of a work of fiction suddenly stops it being fiction? Is that really your positions? If I were you I would not start reading any books on political fiction as more often than not they all have maps in them too. Theres 1000s and 1000s of written fiction set in real places, with real people, with real events but are still fiction. So why is the bible different?

[cfdp529]

wow...your name should be "jumptoconclusions." No I don't think that just because there are maps that it's real. It's real b/c Jesus walked this earth. It's real b/c 100% of the prophecies in the old testament became true. It's real because of the evidence for a creator. It's real b/c there are over 25,000 texts that confirm it. The iliad comes in a close second with a little over 600. There are undeniable truths in the bible that some, ahem--like you, just refuse to accept....peace

[irishmauddib]

If you want to engage in name calling then so be it, but insults demean only the insulter, not the target. You would do well to learn that.

You sit there and tell me about "evidence for a creator" but you dont present any. Very telling that.

Then you say I "refuse to accept" it. How can I refuse to accept evidence that you havent even presented. Thats just a contradiction in your terms. Try again.

[SeaTurtle00]

Anthropology is such a vast and diverse field it would be precipitate to dismiss it out of hand, although for that same reason the quality of research/teaching can vary greatly, especially when hijacked by ideologues. As for archaeology, it confirms the Iliad, Kojiki, Epic of Gilgamesh, Icelandic sagas and many other cultures' treasured literature as much as it does the Bible. This may give a clue as to why Yahweh restricted his activities to such a small region of the globe... Peace.

[cfdp529]

Right then. Explain every prophecy in the old testament coming true. EVERY SINGLE ONE. All even proven by secular historians. And once again.....The Bible has so much more historic backing and validity than these tales that you mention. Anthropology is a joke and so is evolution. --->Those are for the closed minded and closed hearted. Every single society based on evolution has failed. Miserably. Peace

[SeaTurtle00]

I know of no secular historian who finds the alleged prophecies even remotely convincing. Take Matthew's claim for Micah: The passage "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah..." continues with "He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders." Doesn't really gel with the ministry of Jesus, does it? A large dose of imagination and a mix-and-match mindset is essential for thinking any of the OT statements "came true".

[cfdp529]

Then you need to keep searching for unbiased secular historians and by the way......that was quick research. Well the prophecy about the people of Israel getting their land back didn't really gel with the ministry of Jesus but it sure did happen.......and nothing like that has ever happened before in the history of man kind.

[SeaTurtle00]

"that was quick research". Sorry, no prizes there. Anyway, the verses interpreted to mean Israel would be restored are either extremely vague, contradictory or referencing other events (eg, the Babylonian exile). Again, pick-and-mix. Israel's restoration in modern times was actively supported and funded by Christian Zionists desperate for their dreams to be made real - completely self-fulfilling. It's no wonder rational-thinking people don't take it seriously.

[SeaTurtle00]

How can a society be "based on evolution"? This is a bizarre statement in the extreme. Evolution is a scientific theory used throughout the world, not something you base a society on. It's intimately entwined with molecular and biological theory, and used in the development of many modern medicines (like flu vaccines), as well as in the Human Genome Project and forensic science. How does understanding chemistry and statistical analysis require you to be "closed minded and closed hearted"?

[cfdp529]

I disagree. It's not intimately entwined with any sort of science that does good. Evolutionary theory is garbage. It can't explain jack. Science on the other hand I have no problem with even though science itself can't even be proven by the scientific method. Evolution is for the closed minded. Science isn't part of evolution. That's part of the lie. Your logic fails here b/c you tie evolution with statistical anaylsis. What a laugh. Do you know the statistical improbability of evolution?

[SeaTurtle00]

"Your logic fails here b/c you tie evolution with statistical anaylsis." Perhaps you should peruse these then:

w w w (dot) bionews(dot) org(dot) uk /page_48273.asp

jhered(dot)oxfordjournals(dot)­org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/­85

w w w (dot) ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov /pubmed/15588485

or some of the thousands of other articles on evolution, genetics and molecular biology that use statistical analysis, in leading science journals such as Nature and Science.

[cfdp529]

perhaps you should statistically analyze the statistical improbability of evolution and then get back to me. ill take the math on this one.

[GuerrillaSauce]

If you have imperfectly self-replicating organisms (which we do) and competition (which we do).... evolution is inevitable.

The only way in which one could imagine evolution to be in any way improbable is if one assumes that the earth is much younger than it has been proven to be... only then does the complexity and diversity of life we see today make the evolutionary theory improbable.

So the real question is; Do you know how long life has existed on this planet? I'd wager you don't.

[cfdp529]

negatory ghost rider. have you any idea the complexity of a protein? evolution can't account for the process.....AT ALL. what evolution is asking us is to throw everything the body is made up of and give it billions of years to evolve. what a load. evolution can neither account how these proteins know what to do......it's like they are programmed to do their specific job. it's incredible and proof of God. if you can't see that......then im sorry for you. evolution is the greatest lie ever sold.

[GuerrillaSauce]

I fear there must be a miscommunication somewhere along the the line... I don't see anything in what you say that makes evolution so improbable as to be practically impossible. The only argument I see to that effect is "proteins/genetics are complicated; therefore evolution is improbable to a degree that it should be regarded as impossible".

I doubt that is what you are saying, but that's what I'm hearing. Help a brother out.

[cfdp529]

The only way in which one could imagine evolution to be in any way probably is if one assumes........everything. Evolution assumes too much. A bold faced lie built on assumption and a fairy tale.

[SeaTurtle00]

That'd be unwise, since it's a scientific problem at issue. All "statistical improbability" arguments fall down under even the slightest scrutiny. Scientists trained in probability theory easily recognize that the assumptions are spurious or at best vague; for one they typically fail to take into account the basic chemical processes involved, underestimate mutation rates, and neglect the accumulative nature of modification through descent. Math needs to be grounded in reality to be of use here.

[irishmauddib]

Indeed. It is completely impossible to even work out the probability of getting an ace out of a deck of cards if you do not first know there is 52 cards in a deck. It just could not be done without this data.

There is so much we do not understand about the biological world, much more than not knowing the number of cards in a deck, and yet people like this sit and pretend to be able to make statistical judgments on the probability of it having scoured. Wanton dishonesty is all that is.

[irishmauddib]

Well if you are aware of some data I have missed, feel free to present it.

[irishmauddib]

What cfdp529 is falling for is an example of the "2 card deal fallacy". In other words he is overwhelmed by statistical probability viewed in retrospect

If you deal 52 mixed cards the result is not amazing. However if you pretend it is and work out the probability of ever getting the same combination again, you find that you and several generations of your children can try for entire lives and never get the 52 cards in the same order again

The same fallacy is being committed by cfdp here

[cfdp529]

Man you guys are blind. Hopefully you'll keep diggin'.

[anonimoculto]

@SeaTurtle00 Association, and so, society, is an evolutionary event, and stands in accordance with all rules of the theory of evolution. A powerful weapon evolution, let me say. Based in the advantages of association in fighting for survival single-celled organisms came to form multicellular tissues, organs, and systems. Try to live alone with the same conditions our society gives you today. Society is a evolution process, and so is moral, conventioned laws wich arises in ALL society.

[thejokerslastlaugh]

@SeaTurtle00 Great. Yet another pseudo-intellectual pretending to enlighten us with an incisive diagnostic remark of a statement he doesn't even understand (nor is willing to make the effort towards said goal, for that matter). Yes, Dr. Atkins must have mispoken, or gone into a flowery remark that makes no sense. That fact that you can't grasp the concept plays no part. Read anonimoculto's comment to you, and MAYBE you'll be enlightened as to the intentions of this statement.

[SeaTurtle00]

@thejokerslastlaugh Sorry, you seem to have gotten your wires crossed here. My comments were in response to cfdp529's claims that statistical improbability disproves evolution and that "every single society based on evolution has failed". In other words, I wrote in support of Prof. Atkins' arguments. Anonimoculto gives a very good summary of how morals develop according to evolutionary principles, in which I am in full agreement.

[thejokerslastlaugh]

@SeaTurtle00 Then I deeply apologize. With things placed into context your argument takes on a whole different meaning. It is no excuse, but I think the new format Youtube has undertaken makes misinterpretation a common mistake. I do apologize, and thank you for correcting me.

[SeaTurtle00]

@thejokerslastlaugh No problem. I agree that the new Youtube format has made it harder to follow the thread of each discussion - and the limited space has also always meant that arguments are necessarily compressed, compounding the confusion. Having said that, I should probably learn to express myself less opaquely, though, too.

[jahchild1904]

@SeaTurtle00 It is simple. Before evolution, most people around the world were theistic, and the Judeo-Christian worldview (not necessarily the faith) dominated the Western world. This includes the belief that humans are separate from animals and are higher creatures, and has a basis for morality because morals aren't up to the individual, but they were rooted in a belief in an all-powerful God. 150 years after evolution, and human life has no value (euthenasia and abortion) and morals are vauge

[SeaTurtle00]

@jahchild1904 Fables & propaganda are simple; reality is complex. Falling mortality rates, women's suffrage, antidiscrimination laws, declaration of human rights, less capital punishment, all point to life being of more value today, not less. If you think euthanasia or abortion equals life having no value, I'm interested to know your metric; all my acquaintances, whether Buddhist, monotheist, Taoist, Hindu or atheist, hold life to be of great value. BTW the Hippocratic oath predates Christianity

[BrunoBrotto]

@SeaTurtle00

"Omg", I can believe you can't really understand the relation between society and evolution.

At first, society isn't summarized only on human being. We have a complex society because of the abstract capabilities of ours brains, but you can see society behaviour in other especies that live in this planet as well. The point is, our brain, as an organ, became for what it's nowadays, like any other organ in our organism (take the eyes, for an example, science have... (continue)

[SeaTurtle00]

@BrunoBrotto Unfortunately you've misconstrued what I wrote and taken it completely out of context. I was explaining to a Creationist that humans don't use the theory of evolution to build their societies (presumably he/she was confusing it with misguided attempts at eugenics); we use it to explain and understand the natural world, which, yes, includes humans and human society. I am well aware of this, but thanks for spelling it out for others to read.

[BrunoBrotto]

@SeaTurtle00

studied, based on facts, racional explanations on how this organ could evolve in something like our human eyes, or even better ones, that exist in a hawk, for example: Try searching this in wikipedia "the evolution of the eye" and enlight yourself) evolved too, based on the conditions of the enviroment. And a social behaviour, which can exist through the existence of at least a simple nervous system, is crucial to the continue of a especie, even more being the human kind (continue)

[BrunoBrotto]

@SeaTurtle00

which is not donated of good individual competive capabilities, like other predators, and therefore must depends on social behaviour, together with inteligent (even this being more of a consequential evolution of our on social life). So, yes... you can be sure that social behaviour is something that depends on evolution, once that the organ which is responsible for consciouness and social behaviour (the brain) suffered evolution too.

[twoface4]

@SeaTurtle00 ....he never said that society was based on evolution...he said that ethics arose because it was evolutionarily advantageous.....closed minded is not looking for natural solutions to problems and just saying god did it.

[philosophizer149]

@twoface4 I disagree, I don't think that by saying God did it, that we must simply leave it at that. Instead I think that saying God did it, should encourage us to find out more about this God, to test the theory, to seek more information, because if God does exist, it brings thousands of new questions into science. So this God of the gaps idea seems to be a bit narrow minded to me.

[matthewdoucette]

@SeaTurtle00 I think you read into it wrongly. Your confusing the fact of evolution, something that exists and happens naturally, with the scientific theory of evolution which is what explains how evolution happened. Whatever you were shooting for, neither of them is something we base societies on. I don't think he was getting at that. Rather, societies emerged with rules (morality being one of them) because of evolution, or rather what worked continued on, which guided our "evolution".

[irishmauddib]

"Explain every prophecy in the old testament coming true"

The same happens in the Lord of the Rings. Part 2 of a piece of fictions USUALLY conforms to part 1 of a piece of fiction. Thats how its written.

[goodnoah]

the freewill.

[ptica11]

free what? shit?

[daveshawkaz]

It is seen as devient behaviour in our society. Certain things take on a natural quality if it is a belief held over a lifetime.

Are you saying there could never have been a tribe who considered the rape and murder of an enimies children fair enough? I don't but that is through social discourse and my personal sense of right and wrong.

[irishmauddib]

"then it's not really wrong to rape a child" I have never understood the theistic obsession with raping children when this subject comes up. It is always the first example used. Are you telling us that if these people did not believe in god they would love to go around raping kids or what? Probably not as we see the church does it just as much as anyone else.

However, a socio democratic golden rule is more than enough to establish that such a thing is wrong. We need no objective morality for it

[seabrain]

Yes.

[seabrain]

Lee Smullins has conducted numerous studies involving the observation of particle-collapse at the center of black holes. The amount of energy released as a result of these particle collisions are EXACTLY, and I mean EXACTLY the same in their mathematical proportions as that which was released at the Big Bang. This suggests that there is a "big bang" at the center of every galaxy, and that our Big Bang was only one of trillions. If you had read up on your science you would already know that.

[seabrain]

There is actually very strong scientific, repeatable evidence supporting the multiverse theory.

[ofssk]

Hes such an arrogant miserable sod and Im not basing it on this vid Ive seen him pop up many times before

[opntheirhartzJesus]

now that's funny,,, only not

. Peace

[migkillertwo]

all I heard in that entire dirge of Atkins' was "There is no God, its high time you accept it"