What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, if we're going to talk about guilt by association we should deport all Muslims from the U.S.; after all they're probably giving money to terrorist organizations too.

Yet that wouldn't not only be a bad idea, it'd be a stupid idea.

Well "put down" to "deport" is a bit of a stretch." Unless you meant "put down" as in "putting down the rebellion!"

I don't think saying "I think what you're doing is stupid" and "we should enact legislation to bar you from the nation!" are remotely the same thing.

But, no, actually, probably most of them aren't. There isn't a global piggy bank for Islam, the way there is for the Catholic Church. And if there was we'd all be filling it when we refuel our cars.

Saying "I think what you're doing is stupid" is nowhere equal to calling someone a "Muslim Slut" as an insult or a "towel-head bitch" or something.

[The Imperial Republica]

Same could be said about atheism. Question I'm asking myself now is there are around 5 billion (give or take about a billion) "religious nuts" on the planet, and yet we are constantly the ones ripped on for our beliefs. Why do we tolerate you guys?

Well only if you didn't read it...

You may not agree with it, but there's no conceivable way the "same could be said about atheism."

I could make the arguement that you are keeping people from being saved by claiming Christianity is a lie, but you'd call that arguement BS much in the same way I call the arguement that "we're a danger to society" simply because we spread our teachings BS.

[Sun Wukong]

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

They are still birds. No point proven.

So you don't understand evolution. Good to know.

[True American States]

They are still birds. No point proven.

So you don't understand evolution. Good to know.

He's talking about macroevolution.

[Ostroeuropa]

So you don't understand evolution. Good to know.

He's talking about macroevolution.

Oh for fucks sake...

[Sun Wukong]

Well "put down" to "deport" is a bit of a stretch." Unless you meant "put down" as in "putting down the rebellion!"

I don't think saying "I think what you're doing is stupid" and "we should enact legislation to bar you from the nation!" are remotely the same thing.

But, no, actually, probably most of them aren't. There isn't a global piggy bank for Islam, the way there is for the Catholic Church. And if there was we'd all be filling it when we refuel our cars.

Saying "I think what you're doing is stupid" is nowhere equal to calling someone a "Muslim Slut" as an insult or a "towel-head bitch" or something.

Which I don't think is what Alma was advocating, so I can't imagine what you think your point is.

[Its a Texas Thing]

So you don't understand evolution. Good to know.

He's talking about macroevolution.

All the same evolution. He was pointed to a proven example of evolution and he didn't accept it.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll come back when he bothers to answer this, feel free to tg me when he does.

I'll use the imaginary buckfish again. (Imaginary Buckfish Episode 8, Too Many Sequels.)
There exists an imaginary buckfish in this scenario.
The entire species exists in a salt water lake, and is very well adapted to it.
It is the same colour as the vegetation to match it's background, and is an omnivore, preying on smaller fish that try to eat it's stuff, and plants. It's relatively medium sized, but there are no predators above it on the food chain.

One day, erosion causes the lake to be connected to a river nearby, and some of the buckfish decide to go down river, which eventually leads to the ocean.
The ones who stayed in the lakes will over time suffer evolutionary pressure, the ones most able to adapt to fresh water being added over time will survive, until we reach a point where those who can survive easily in fresh water are all that are left. After a while, the trait that allows them to survive in salt water will be discarded since if they lose it, they don't suffer any negative consequences. (MOST evolutionary changes are totally neutral in nature, like this. They neither harm nor benefit the species in it's habitat.)
The ones who ended up in the sea had none of this pressure, and will be salt-water adapted.
The ones who stayed in the initial lake don't really need to adapt further.
They will remain vegetation coloured etc.

The ones who moved into the ocean go down into the depths, to a state of almost total darkness.
They have no need of eyes, and small eyes are a good thing here, since having two soft vulnerable spots on your face is a Bad Idea if they don't have any use. Eventually eyes get small enough to be negligible, and cease to exist at all. In the state of darkness, the pressure placed on blending in with vegetation is relaxed, allowing their colour to drift around into new hues, eventually settling on a neutral grey colour since this requires less energy than to colour ones skin.
There is little vegetation in the depths, and their diet consists almost entirely of smaller fish that they track by sensing movement. Pressure is applied to be quick enough to catch the prey, now that their usual tactic of ambush is no longer viable. As such, their fins will become more powerful, and their bodies more streamlined over time, with those unable to keep up with these changes dying off.
We may see pressure placed on becomming like a snake, where sensing vibration in the water is crucial to survival.
Due to the increased pressure in the depths, bone structure is selected for to be stronger, and size can increase proportionally, which is useful for a predator, and since they work by sensing movement, increasing the surface area of their body acts like increasing the size of their eardrum.

Now, suppose I grab one from each specimen and compare them.
One is green, the other grey.
One has eyes, the other does not.
One lives in fresh water, the other salt water.
etc.

They are both evolved/descended from:
The Imaginary Saltwater Buckfish
but have now become
The Imaginary Freshwater Buckfish
and
The Imaginary Deep-Sea Buckfish
(Though the chances of us naming them this is highly unlikely. You'll notice that we tend to name shit randomly and only later discover how it is related to other things in the tree. We're far more likely to call them: The Imaginary Freshwater Lurker, and the Imaginary Deep-sea Seeker, then discover "Hey, these are both descended from the imaginary Saltwater Buckfish! At which points creationists bitch about different kinds not producing etc etc. Humans are just "Hairless apes." If we'd been called that, the "Different kinds hurp durp!" wouldn't work now would it. But we called ourselves humans, and so you complain we can't be apes.)

Just change the enviromental pressures on two groups of the same species, and you'll see evolution happen. (Or hell, don't do that and just dump two species into geologically isolated, environmentally identical areas and you might see some noticable changes, there is no one size fits all solution.)
Over time, enough drift has occured as to make them radically different and unable to interbreed. At this point, they are a new species.

What part of that scenario do creationists disagree is possible and why?
If you agree it's all possible, you accept evolution is possible. And at that point, why don't you think it's LIKELY or even DEFINATELY occuring?

(if my fellow evolutionists like this post they are welcome to take it and use it later. I find that providing a definate example tends to make them unable to come up with any objection except cattle noises. An example of every change I described is available, i simply piled them all onto one creature to make the contrast between old and new as quick as possible to forgo it being a 100 page long post.)


Now, to the creationists. Before you make any more uninformed objections to evolution, I want you to answer the question above seeing as I HAVE addressed all your issues in this block of text.


There.
Educate yourself and don't come back until you can answer the question I posed.


^This is practically compulsory now.
Buckfish Mark 8

Now lets not hear any more macroevolution shenanigans.

[Sun Wukong]

So you don't understand evolution. Good to know.

He's talking about macroevolution.

You can't grow out of your ancestry. If a bird could become something other then a bird, it would disprove evolution.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you don't understand evolution. Good to know.

He's talking about macroevolution.

Evolution is evolution.

[True American States]

He's talking about macroevolution.

Oh for fucks sake...

Are bronies always this irate?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Well, more often than not you reply with angry things, when I agreed with you.
And I mean you did basically just call me a shitstain in the underwear of the universe. Despite the fact that I keep my religion to myself, support sciences of every type, human rights that some atheists don't even support...
I mean I don't really know how me praying in my living room before sunrise is causing cancer in babies but...

That other thread was a fuckup i'll admit.
Try to see this from my perspective here. I'm an atheist.
Beyond that, i'm an anti-theist.
You keep your religion to yourself? S'funny, here you are in a public space talking about it.
You praying in your living room reinforces cultural standards that view faith as a good thing, instead of something to be sneered at.
Doubt is the real virtue.

When a terrorist blows up a building, they have faith. They know they are right.
And you have a hand in that, because you and all the other religious people have put the idea in their head that faith is a good thing.

Me being an atheist wouldn't keep someone who lives 2000 miles from me from murdering hundreds of people. It wouldn't. A me being religious doesn't make someone else burn down a village, either. Those people are going to be religious no matter how I feel about the existence of a deity. It's not, not at all.

As a Muslim, I encourage science and looking at other viewpoints. I would much rather a scientifically literate and reasonable atheist to an ignorant Muslim.

And keeping my religion to myself doesn't mean that I'm the only one who knows about it and you damn well know that. My religion and my religious beliefs do not affect you. I do not legislate with my Quran. I do not condemn with hadith. My prayers are not in your ears. My dawah is not waking you on Sunday morning. Suggesting that the way I live my life negatively affects you is like saying that a woman wearing a string bikini causes volcanic eruptions. It doesn't happen like that, and you are making things up to try to convince yourself and others that the way that I live and the things I feel are a plague unto society or that my hobbies include sewing, writing, and convincing 16 year olds to grow beards and blow up preschools. It's a downright lie.

[Sun Wukong]

Well only if you didn't read it...

You may not agree with it, but there's no conceivable way the "same could be said about atheism."

I could make the arguement that you are keeping people from being saved by claiming Christianity is a lie, but you'd call that arguement BS much in the same way I call the arguement that "we're a danger to society" simply because we spread our teachings BS.

The difference is that the one is measurable. Your argument is invalid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Saying "I think what you're doing is stupid" is nowhere equal to calling someone a "Muslim Slut" as an insult or a "towel-head bitch" or something.

Which I don't think is what Alma was advocating, so I can't imagine what you think your point is.

My point is there's no good reason to go all vitriolic on someone just because they go "well I became a member of X religion/atheism you guys". If there is, let me know.

His point is, there's a reasonable explanation. My point is there's no reasonable explanation other than they being massive dicks.

[Its a Texas Thing]

Oh for fucks sake...

Are bronies always this irate?

Could you not attack the poster?

[True American States]

That other thread was a fuckup i'll admit.
Try to see this from my perspective here. I'm an atheist.
Beyond that, i'm an anti-theist.
You keep your religion to yourself? S'funny, here you are in a public space talking about it.
You praying in your living room reinforces cultural standards that view faith as a good thing, instead of something to be sneered at.
Doubt is the real virtue.

When a terrorist blows up a building, they have faith. They know they are right.
And you have a hand in that, because you and all the other religious people have put the idea in their head that faith is a good thing.

Me being an atheist wouldn't keep someone who lives 2000 miles from me from murdering hundreds of people. It wouldn't. A me being religious doesn't make someone else burn down a village, either. Those people are going to be religious no matter how I feel about the existence of a deity. It's not, not at all.

As a Muslim, I encourage science and looking at other viewpoints. I would much rather a scientifically literate and reasonable atheist to an ignorant Muslim.

And keeping my religion to myself doesn't mean that I'm the only one who knows about it and you damn well know that. My religion and my religious beliefs do not affect you. I do not legislate with my Quran. I do not condemn with hadith. My prayers are not in your ears. My dawah is not waking you on Sunday morning. Suggesting that the way I live my life negatively affects you is like saying that a woman wearing a string bikini causes volcanic eruptions. It doesn't happen like that, and you are making things up to try to convince yourself and others that the way that I live and the things I feel are a plague unto society or that my hobbies include sewing, writing, and convincing 16 year olds to grow beards and blow up preschools. It's a downright lie.

You go sister!

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

They are still birds. No point proven.

You don't understand evolution or biological classifications. Nice.

[The Flood]

My thoughts on atheism are very negative.

My thoughts on individual atheists depends entirely on the person.

[Ostroeuropa]

That other thread was a fuckup i'll admit.
Try to see this from my perspective here. I'm an atheist.
Beyond that, i'm an anti-theist.
You keep your religion to yourself? S'funny, here you are in a public space talking about it.
You praying in your living room reinforces cultural standards that view faith as a good thing, instead of something to be sneered at.
Doubt is the real virtue.

When a terrorist blows up a building, they have faith. They know they are right.
And you have a hand in that, because you and all the other religious people have put the idea in their head that faith is a good thing.

Me being an atheist wouldn't keep someone who lives 2000 miles from me from murdering hundreds of people. It wouldn't. A me being religious doesn't make someone else burn down a village, either. Those people are going to be religious no matter how I feel about the existence of a deity. It's not, not at all.

As a Muslim, I encourage science and looking at other viewpoints. I would much rather a scientifically literate and reasonable atheist to an ignorant Muslim.

And keeping my religion to myself doesn't mean that I'm the only one who knows about it and you damn well know that. My religion and my religious beliefs do not affect you. I do not legislate with my Quran. I do not condemn with hadith. My prayers are not in your ears. My dawah is not waking you on Sunday morning. Suggesting that the way I live my life negatively affects you is like saying that a woman wearing a string bikini causes volcanic eruptions. It doesn't happen like that, and you are making things up to try to convince yourself and others that the way that I live and the things I feel are a plague unto society or that my hobbies include sewing, writing, and convincing 16 year olds to grow beards and blow up preschools. It's a downright lie.

No, but if you and all the other moderates were atheist, it may well keep them from murdering those people. And if the nutters still believed in it? Nevermind, they can be safely dealt with now, without a bunch of people talking about religious freedom and how we can't lock people up for believing it.
It is through the moderates that religion maintains a veneer of acceptability.
Further, you act as a memetic carrier for the extremism.
You're like a typhoid mary, but for extremism. All the moderates are.
Any person you influence might just snap and go crazy religious.
But nevermind, because moderates are ok.
And yet, how many of them cause exactly that?

I see it as an inherently detrimental and dangerous thing. I'm unlikely to change in that view without serious convincing.

[The Imperial Republica]

I could make the arguement that you are keeping people from being saved by claiming Christianity is a lie, but you'd call that arguement BS much in the same way I call the arguement that "we're a danger to society" simply because we spread our teachings BS.

The difference is that the one is measurable. Your argument is invalid.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by measurable. Can you please explain?

[True American States]

Are bronies always this irate?

Could you not attack the poster?

The brony part was out of line.

[Sun Wukong]

Which I don't think is what Alma was advocating, so I can't imagine what you think your point is.

My point is there's no good reason to go all vitriolic on someone just because they go "well I became a member of X religion/atheism you guys". If there is, let me know.

I'm almost positive I would be justified in vitriol if someone I knew decided to convert to the religion of Flower Wars.

[Banana Isle]

They are still birds. No point proven.

You don't understand evolution or biological classifications. Nice.

evolution = species from species. No new species, no evolution (just "evolutionary" processes)

[Sun Wukong]

The difference is that the one is measurable. Your argument is invalid.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by measurable. Can you please explain?

Insofar as social consequences can be measured demographically and sociologically, and salvation can't be measured at all, and exists only in your imagination.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My point is there's no good reason to go all vitriolic on someone just because they go "well I became a member of X religion/atheism you guys". If there is, let me know.

I'm almost positive I would be justified in vitriol if someone I knew decided to convert to the religion of Flower Wars.

The question is, how do they act?

If you are going to be all vitriolic over a belief and not an action driven by said belief then you're looking at things from the wrong angle.