I might, also, except that it too easily comes across as a kind of secular fundamentalism. Most of the so-called new atheists - they're no longer new - fall into that trap. — Wayfarer

Fundamentalism strikes me as springing from absolute certainty. I'll use the term 'certainly' in common parlance but push me and I'll back away from it pretty quickly. As Voltaire said 'Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is absurd.'

I reckon the usual atheist suspects would all concur.

If anything has value - should exist, should be done - there must be a proper use of the galaxy... — Leftist

Exploration. We have an insatiable desire to see what's over the next hill. The galaxy is the itch. We are going to scratch it.

who use evolutionary theory to bludgeon religious belief. — Wayfarer

Perhaps that should be 'fundamental religious belief.' In which case I would agree.

All that aside Natural selection and survival of the fittest is more value laden than most scientific theories — Andrew4Handel

Now that is abject nonsense. Value is a human construct. Do you think nature values an organism over another? You make your own value in life. Family, friends, a worthwhile job, children, a loving wife, interests in life...they are all valuable.

I just had my son call over to pick up his daughter. They are, as Dawkins said, making an obvious point, in some ways just a collection of genetic information. Which, in both my case and my son's have served their purpose. They have been passed on. We are no longer required by nature to serve any evolutionary purpose. Gee, so I don't love my sone or my grandaughter anymore? Now they have no value?

Gimme a break.

Yes, it's true. They had no money, either. Once you invent money, you need police to guard it. — Vera Mont

You need to protect that which is yours. Food, cattle, weapons, crops, home, women (yeah, those too back then).

If the text-quote is from "The Dawn of Everything," then the their own text contradicts their proposition, inasmuch as the proposition calls me wrong, when I said there have always been hierarchies in social arrangements, so much among humans as much among other social animals. — god must be atheist

This from a little further in the preface to the book:

'...a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized on robustly egalitarian lines, with no need for authoritarian rulers, ambitious warrior-politicians, or even bossy administrators.'

This is the thrust of their position. That there was no simple evolution from hunter gatherer to major civilisations. As they say that some argue:

"For Diamond and Fukuyama, as for Rousseau some centuries earlier, what put an end to that equality – everywhere and forever – was the invention of agriculture, and the higher population levels it sustained. Agriculture brought about a transition from ‘bands’ to ‘tribes’. Accumulation of food surplus fed population growth, leading some ‘tribes’ to develop into ranked societies known as ‘chiefdoms’.

They are not saying that hierarchies did not develop. They are saying that some societies didn't have them. That it's not an unavoidable consequence of population numbers or a static lifestyle or agriculture. That it is, to some extent, a choice.

Why do good girls like bad boys? — Agent Smith

More testosterone?

The Dawn of Everything , a book by anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow, claims that the above received wisdom is wrong. Their arguments have created quite a stir in anthropological circles. — Joshs

I'm about a third the way through it. I have to say that I don't agree with a lot of what they say. They seem to use quite small exceptions to try to disprove generally accepted rules. But it's making me question whether my understanding of the move from hunter gatherer to agriculturist and the concomitant rise of authority figures and the stratification of socity is as rock solid as I thought.

I still think I'm right, but with possible exceptions. But hey, another 400 pages to go yet...

The morally-challenged were evolutionarily successful (might was right) and the good were simply killed off. Now, I somehow don't feel as proud about my ancestry anymore, not that there was anything there to begin with, its bad vs. bad or worse vs. bad — Agent Smith

I've often thought that for me to be here, some of my ancestors must have, at some time, done a few really horrendous things. Take a direct line back and there were obviously some really bad dudes on that family tree.

How many issues can be resolved by evidence? — Andrew4Handel

On the not unreasonable assumption that the evidence is acceptable, then I'm struggling to think of one that can't.

Everything is classed as evidence for evolution. — Andrew4Handel

Not everything. But the vast majority of universal characteristics that we possess have survived for a very long time indeed. So they are part of the process itself.

'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. Theodosius Dobzhansky. And here's another:

'(Evolution) general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.' That from a Jesuit priest, Pierre Tailhard de Chardin.

Can we decide whose beliefs are right and should be prioritised? — Andrew4Handel

Just a shot in the dark here...but how about evidence.

I don't see our position as insignificant. — Andrew4Handel

I don't feel that I am. But the universe could care less about me. Do you know there will come a time when someone has the last ever thought about you. It'll be as if you never existed. Make the most of your 3 score and 10.

The universe apparently doesn't know it exists — Andrew4Handel

Well we are parts of the universe that has developed an ability to contemplate our own existence.

our individual consciousness that allows to imagine concepts such as infinity and allows us to see and experience a huge range of phenomena.

As with Descartes Cogito ergo sum I can only be certain that I exist. Everything else is filtered through individual consciousness.

But you seem to have highlighted the theories need to denigrate the human position. Evolution does not explain consciousness — Andrew4Handel

It is an evolved ability. Random access memory. And by the way, you can't imagine infinity. You have a brain that has evolved to calculate the arc of a thrown rock. To contemplate the distance to the next hill. A million years is meaningless. As is a light year. As is the size of just this small galaxy. I think the problem here is that you don't actually appreciate how insignificant we are in terms of time and size.

All domestic dogs are considered the same species. — T Clark

Extrapolate. That'll get you to where we need to go. Breed, sub species, species, genus etc.

I'm am overstepping the boundary of my knowledge, but it is my understanding that saying "accidental and random" is an overstatement. Much of what happens is influenced by self-organization. Scientists think that living cells develop out of chemical/catalyst cycles that develop naturally. Don't bother to ask for details, because I'm already on thin ice. I refer you to "Life's Ratchet" by Hoffman. — T Clark

Evolution isn't random. But Gregory himself is a chance occurrence. An accident of nature. As we Ll are. Think of everything that had to happen exactly as they did for just our parents to meet. And then go back a thousand generations when all those odds are extrapolated to a virtually infinite number.

We won the galactic lottery. Say a little prayer of thanks every night to your preferred deity.

Understand it in what sense?
As a history of our origins up to this date?
As something that should guide future human development?

There is a limit to the scope of validating (or falsifying) explanations of things that happened before we existed or developed modern technology. It becomes narrative that then quickly becomes and became ideological.

Is The theory make us stop believing in gods? Is it supposed to make us become physicalist/materialist naturalists? Are we supposed to reevaluate the status and value of humans and other animals? — Andrew4Handel

Understand it as to our origins. It's good to know where we came from. It explains so much. And the galactic amount of evidence for that process means that evolution in one sense is a fact. The explanation of how it works is the theory. And that it being fine tuned and added to constantly.

And why would it have been designed stop you believing in God? It's just a scientific theory. It doesn't say anything about God. I thought you'd be pleased to find out how He did it. Unless you think the whole shebang was zapped into existence during a six day week. In which case it's your interpretation of scripture that's being brought into question. Not the existence of God.

Well it has been accused of either being a banal tautology (ie anything that survives is fit) or a dangerous prognosis and value judgement (we should weed out the unfit to improve a species) That powered Social Darwinism.

Darwin Himself said in the descent of man:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health — Andrew4Handel

Don't listen to people who would term it a banal tautology. They are exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the process. You'll learn nothing from them. And definitely don't listen to those who think they can use it as a means to further racial superiority. Evil be there...

And make your mind up if you want to continue talk about the theory of evolution or you want to start a separate discussion on social Darwinism. Another thread would be my suggestion.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

So yes he has a charming prognosis for us that we should be eager to embrace. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you have your choice. You can accept the universe as it is, and our insignificant position within it. Or you can claim that it was all made for us and we are the pinnacle of existence. I can see why you'd prefer option 2. We all want to feel significant and be loved.

People like Darwin and Dennett (The Universal Acid proponent) have strongly advocated that evolution should change how we view life and ourselves. They apparently are un aware of the is - ought barrier that Hitler et al crossed. If evolution is true should we respond in anyway are we obliged to? — Andrew4Handel

As in 'because it's true then we ought to ensure we understand it properly and not reimagine it to serve racist tendencies'?

I think it can be argued that believing in concepts like survival of the fittest, natural selection and animal hierarchies etc has been more harmful than not believing them. — Andrew4Handel

I should point out that survival of the fittest means the survival of those best fitted to their environment. And they will not necessarily be the strongest or fastest. And natural selection simply means that our offspring are not clones. I don't see anything harmful about either of those.

And animal hierarchy? Maybe you mean evolutionary trees. Cladistics perhaps. Which would be harmful to a literal interpretation of Genesis I guess.

Context is important here. There is a significant difference between a barroom and a classroom, but even so... incivility in a barroom might earn a punch in the nose. — BC

I try to keep the tone as I would if I were talking to someone iin a bar. The discussion might get a little robust but I try not to say anything in a forum that I wouldn't say face to face.

Yes, but my question is about your inital comment. On the sites you mentioned: — Tom Storm

It would be the term itself in t'other forum. An immediate ban for it.

Welcome to TPF's sandbox! — 180 Proof

Cheers...

Could you call Dawkins a smug cocksucker? — Tom Storm

No doubt he can be. I'm sure some fundamentalists would think so.

Craig is a smug cocksucker. — Tom Storm

Having found this forum after spending a considerable time on various Christian forums, I am giddy with the realisation that here I can actually type something akin to 'Craig is a cocksucker' and not be imediately banned.

Be still my beating heart...

Atheists want religion to be perfectly clear and this itself is against faith. Faith involves using discretion and reacting even when reason doesn't give a reason. "How am I supposed to know which religion to follow" implies one is not immersing themselves in religion — Gregory

Get some consensus going, Greg. If there was only one god, only one religion and all adherents believed the same thing then I wouldn't be an atheist.

You can't all be right, but...

Consider Richard Dawkins for example. Religion pours hot coals on his mind everyday and it clearly has caused him a lot of suffering — Gregory

Fundamentalists cause him (and me) some angst. Religion? Not so much. Unless it interferes with me and mine.

It often seems to me that some atheists use the lack-theism definition as a way of getting out of having to meet their burden of proof and/or epistemic justification. — deletedmemberbcc

I didn't know I had a burden of proof. Especially as I have nothing to prove. I'm equally sure I don't have to justify any position I hold.

If you make some claims and I don't think that you have good reasons for holding to them then I will not believe your claims. I have no position on God. I have no personal concept of God. All I know about Him is what others tell me. So I make no claims.

So everytime a change in the species happens it happens with a handful of members at most, because it's random. So why did they survive every time there was a mutation — Gregory

If the mutation was beneficial (they more than likely are not) then the individual will have a slightly better chance at surviving and passing on the beneficial genes. They will then propogate through the group.

You really need to check out some sites that explain all this. It's Evolution 101.

We have a dog. What is the first member of its ancestor that is just like it such that our perception recognizes it as a dog.?Now that dog came from non-dog parents? — Gregory

Maybe you have a Great Dane. It has puppies. You pick the smallest and breed from that one. Then you pick the smallest from that litter and breed again. Rinse and repeat. You end up with a very small dog indeed which is going to find it extremely difficult if not impossible to have sex with a Great Dane. Think chihuahua. So those two species of dog will head off in different evolutionary directions.

They then might end up as different as a penguin and an eagle.

The odds that everything had to happen exactly as it did to end up with you sitting there reading this are so astronomically small as to be effectively zero. But you are sitting there reading this. It's only when you nominate what you want to happen in advance that the odds are in any way meaningful. Otherwise (and this is the bit you won't like), you are just an accidental and random result of a disinterested process.

But hey, you are one of the lucky ones who won the galactic lottery. Make us of the few score years you have been allocated and learn about evolution. You can't disparage something you don't understand.