Author Topic: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism  (Read 8318 times)

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2015, 03:38:58 PM »
the biggest difference is that your claims are wholly unfounded where as mine are backed by history even before written word, and recently backed by science as well. So maybe it wouldn't hurt if everyone could be a little more opened minded about things they aren't certain of. Just a suggestion.

If that is so, why not give us some facts?  Okay, one fact?  Do you know any?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2015, 04:02:43 PM »
If that is so, why not give us some facts?  Okay, one fact?  Do you know any?
The fact that everything isn't strictly observable and henceforth not only comprised of the physical alone.

How bout the fact that all material of the physical at a subatomic level isn't technically stationary or constant. Oh yeah, let's not forget that it's all the same "substance" that's all connected.

Definitely doesn't seem like life and existence aren't simply the sum of there physical parts which aren't physical in the traditional sense anyway.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


Offline SGOS

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2015, 04:14:11 PM »
it seems that you are stating "we don't know so not God"

Not at all.  I don't make a claim either way.

Quote
the biggest difference is that your claims are wholly unfounded where as mine are backed by history even before written word, and recently backed by science as well. So maybe it wouldn't hurt if everyone could be a little more opened minded about things they aren't certain of. Just a suggestion.

See above.

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2015, 04:18:35 PM »
Not at all.  I don't make a claim either way.

See above.
Oh, you're agnostic?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


Offline SGOS

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2015, 04:27:53 PM »
Oh, you're agnostic?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Most in the forum are.

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2015, 04:44:11 PM »
Most in the forum are.
Kinda feel like a dick now. Agnosticism is a good thing if your trying to learn. But to claim agnosticism after attaining knowledge otherwise would not be too smart. Not implying anything, just sayin. To be of good is close to being of God. Good as in outwardly good without wanting anything in return from this part of reality or existence.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2015, 10:34:07 PM »
Kinda feel like a dick now. Agnosticism is a good thing if your trying to learn. But to claim agnosticism after attaining knowledge otherwise would not be too smart. Not implying anything, just sayin. To be of good is close to being of God. Good as in outwardly good without wanting anything in return from this part of reality or existence.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

  Depends on what you think agnosticism is ?
Termin 1:1

 Evolution is probably the slowest biological process on planet earth, the only one that comes close is the understanding of it by creationists.

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2015, 11:13:09 PM »
  Depends on what you think agnosticism is ?
Neither confirmation or denial or a deity.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2015, 11:46:01 PM »
Neither confirmation or denial or a deity.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You're close. It means you don't know.  And really, if you're honest, and consider the absence of evidence,  there isn't a person on the planet that can know. This means every human is agnostic - whether they are willing to admit it or not. But while you're willing to entertain the possibility of a god,  most on here are not so inclined to do so without evidence. Therefore atheism is a more apt description of us. So don't start believing we have very much in common with regard to whichever god it is you worship.
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

Offline SGOS

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #39 on: October 11, 2015, 05:46:59 AM »
Neither confirmation or denial or a deity.


Actually, the definition as it was originally coined is "the belief that you cannot know that God exists."  This allows agnosticism and atheism to exist side by side.  So I'm also an atheist.  In recent years, theists have corrupted the definition to mean a point between belief and atheism, but few atheists, those who recognize the nature of knowledge and its difference from mere belief, do not use the term that way.

It's convenient that God be constructed so that no one can know that God does or doesn't exist.  And this appears to be a comfort for believers because they can take the liberty to  bypass actual knowledge and substitute it with belief in their search for truth.  Then they seem to elevate belief to an even higher status than knowledge, and claim that belief can actually reveal truth.  Now I can be an arrogant prick, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can know the unknowable.  Leave that to the Pope, and the guys who evangelize over the airwaves through their tin foil head gear.

Since I cannot know the truth, or to make it more palatable to believers,... SINCE I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH,   there is an unfilled hole in my knowledge base.  So if a theist asks me to look into my own heart and know the truth of God, I find that literally impossible to do (I can actually only look in my knowledge base). 

There is no knowledge in my heart, only muscle, nerves, and blood, so the only honest answer is that I have no such truth, and that leads me to a neutral position where I just don't have a belief in God.  Not that it automatically leads me to denial.  It just leaves me right there where I started.  I lack what I need to believe in that which I cannot know.  Or to put it in other words, I don't believe in a god. 

This appears to be unfathomable to theists.  It's not because they don't like my lack of belief (although most don't like it at all).  They just get caught up in a non-existent "for us or against us mentality; You can only believe he exists or believe he doesn't exist."  They don't understand what not believing means.  It seems to be beyond their grasp, and I'm quite sure this is why they misuse the definition of agnostic and atheist to a point where the two words have actually become corrupted in common usage.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 06:03:38 AM by SGOS »

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2015, 06:26:56 AM »
This guy still around?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline SGOS

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #41 on: October 11, 2015, 06:46:41 AM »
How bout the fact that all material of the physical at a subatomic level isn't technically stationary or constant. Oh yeah, let's not forget that it's all the same "substance" that's all connected.

Yeah, I suppose you could call this a fact, although there are still enough unknowns existing at the sub atomic level to warrant some caution about assuming too much.  But fact or not, I'm not sure how this supports any of your (what I call mystical) beliefs.

Quote
Definitely doesn't seem like life and existence aren't simply the sum of there physical parts which aren't physical in the traditional sense anyway.

There is nothing I can see that disqualifies life as being either physical or traditional, no matter what is happening at the sub atomic level.  It's physical.  It has mass, and can be observed.  it is composed of matter.  That's the definition of "physical".  I'm not ready to make the kind of leap of faith into the metaphysical discussion of why the physical isn't really physical.  I'm sure philosophers could have a hey day talking about such unknowns, but none of their conclusions lead to anything of substance.

Life appears to be very traditional.  There doesn't seem to be anything spectacularly special about it either.  Given the right conditions, the right materials, temperature, etc., it seems to be inevitable.  It starts to show up in the fossil record during the pre-Cambrian period, which in geologic terms could be thought of as early, if not simply "as soon as possible."  Elements begin to mix and combine forming minerals and organic compounds, and life just seems like the natural continuation of mixing and combining, given even less than ideal conditions. 

Humans tend to make a big deal about life and give it special status, probably because we happen to be a part of that category, and our self-absorption leads us to see ourselves occupying a special place in a really not so special, but quite imaginary hierarchy of matter and it's behavior.  I think a better way to think of life is that it's natural, rather than special.  We are just bags of chemicals, one of which twitched billions of years ago, and took a natural progression to the next inevitable step.  I don't know why this happened or how it happened, but it certainly did happen.

Offline SGOS

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2015, 06:55:42 AM »
This guy still around?

For whatever reason, I just discovered him, so he seems like a totally new person to me.  He advocates keeping an open mind, and I like that.  If he applies that advice to himself, rather than just others, he might even gain some insight into how atheists think and how we process information.  But like I said, I only ran into him a day or two ago.

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #43 on: October 11, 2015, 09:31:45 AM »
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Homo Naledi Versus Creationism
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2015, 09:33:51 AM »
The fact that everything isn't strictly observable and henceforth not only comprised of the physical alone.

That's a fact?  Okay, name one thing that exists and is not observable. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?