DEBATE

[_eric_]

I've been having a debate with one of my religious co-workers and since it seems as though he is no longer replyng, I wanted to post it on a forum. I've been looking around and it seems that this forum is quite a bit better than the others I have come across. I am hoping to get some feedback but if there are any religious people here I would be happy to continue the debate.

Since it is pretty long I am going to post each response seperately starting with the e-mail my friend sent me requesting this debate. Any input is greatly appreciated.

(we are both jet engine mechanics which is why there's an analogy to engines in one of the responses)

It starts off a little slow but I hope you enjoy it.

Eric

[_eric_]

Jeff 1

So I got into “the conversation” today with someone at work… although he isn’t atheist… he’s still dumb. Whenever you want to debate again let me know… even if its through email… here’s a starting conversation piece…
http://library.thinkquest.org/C007461/b ... tatues.htm

[_eric_]

Eric 1

Come on man, you could have picked a better starting piece than that. I've seen David Blaine do more impressive things than making a statue cry. Even in the article that you sent me there is a valid explanation. Does that mean that is exactly how they did it? No. But what's more reasonable: a statue crying or a hoax perpetuated by a money hungry thief. Have you ever seen a pictures of the sites where these "miracles" have taken place. There's almost always two things present. Poor ignorant peasants from third world countries and buckets of money. To see the people running these scams to tell these unfortunate people to keep their money would be the real miracle in my eyes. And what if these miracles had a bit of a different spin? Say, Buddha crying blood at a Thai temple. Had they used the method talked about in the article you sent me no scientist would be able to prove it wrong. Had I sent you an article of this slightly amended miracle, what would be your response?

This article reminds me of another scam well known in the Catholic church, stigmatas. Based on the many pictures of Jesus crucified on the cross it was thought that this type of capital punishment was carried out with stakes driven through the hands. Accordingly, the stigmata's had wounds on their hands. It was later thought that ones hands would not support the weight of ones body so the stakes must have been driven into the wrists. Alas, the wounds migrated to the wrists of these religiously afflicted people. Sound ridiculous doesn't it? But that's not all. Even later a group of scientists tested whether or not a crucifixion through the hands would be able to support the weight of the body my measuring the force that was subjected to the hands. They found that the hands carried very little of the load. So again the wounds migrated back to the hands... presto chango. Even if the wounds remained in the same location, various methods have been used to recreate the stigmatic effect. It's pretty cool really. Using these methods, I could walk up to you and show you these stigmatas actually appearing on my hands. Even one of the popes was afflicted with stigmata and it was officially deemed as such by the church. Although no one saw it he walked around with bandages on. Then when he died guess what... no wounds. And the church's response? God must have removed the wounds, lol. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

In the end, people believe what they want to believe. Sometimes even with lack of evidence or actually in spite of contradictory evidence. Nothing personifies the gullibility of man as much as the Mormon religion. And they believe that they have the ultimate truth with the same conviction as you.

[_eric_]

Jeff 2

ok... first of all... you used the word reasonable... hmmm... lets look at that... I went ahead and pasted the definition for you..
Main Entry: rea·son·able
Pronunciation: 'rEz-n&-b&l, 'rE-z&n-&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason

... that's a funny example isn't it... a reasonable THEORY... now although religion is theory(and I understand that)... science is also very much a theory, and you've said it before... nothing about religion or science is a proven fact... so what does REASONABLE mean to me? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Reasonable is besides the fact to me. Now on to the picture.
If you came home, and had a picture of a dead relative or something... posted on a dresser somewhere... and you saw blood or what appeared to be human tears crying from there eyes, what would you think. Honestly now, would just automatically say... "there has to be some kind of scientific explanation for that!!"... or would you sit and think... "hmmm... is this just a coincidence?"... or would you possibly think to yourself... "I just saw a miracle with my own eyes!" My guess... and its just a guess... but it would be the second one... right in-between. And I'm sorry, but with how many times the crying statue or the crying picture has appeared all over the world(look it up), and its such a big hoax... why did nobody look into it more. My take on it is that there were maybe one or two scientists that had what they thought was a REASONABLE explanation (sarcasm) on the whole matter... and the rest... nothing. They had no explanation. That's right Christian... people just like you, with no explanation. Which is why I put you in the second phrase up there... because when science can't explain it, they turn to... coincidence... why do you refuse to believe what's true dude?

[_eric_]

Eric 2

First of all, science is not a theory. Science is a method of explaining things. Theories are a big part of science, however, if not the biggest part. They are used to explain FACTS. Religion fails to meet the criteria of a theory as used in the same context. It is not used to explain anything other than “god did it”. If that explanation is at odds with the facts then the facts are wrong because the bible is the “word of god”. You’re right though, science doesn’t know everything, nor does it claim to… yet. But does that mean what cannot be explained yet is god? For as long as there has been written history, god has been the answer to anything “unanswerable” from the origin of disease and lightening to the origin of man. It’s called the god of gaps. And inevitability when the real answers are found god’s gap get smaller. It is to the point that any rational religionist has abandon religion to answer the questions of the world. Instead, religion is now used solely as a moral guide by many (we’ll discuss that later). Only the religious fundamentalists still use religion in the way that so many others have used it through out history. There are still people who believe the earth is flat despite seeing pictures of an obviously round earth. There are still people who believe the earth is only 10 thousand years old. And what is the answer they give for the magnitude of evidence against them? That god created the earth to fool scientists into thinking the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That’s it. That’s their explanation. I’m not kidding. Theories are also amended or completely discarded in light of new facts. Religion fails to meet the criteria of a theory in this aspect as well. Religion already claims to “know” the facts regardless of what they find to be true. “It is far easier to see the truth when you stop assuming you already have it.“

Now, if I were to see a picture bleed I would obviously look for an explanation rather than immediately contributing it to god. Just as if I were to see an engine leaking oil I would not look to god as my first explanation. I would look for a reasonable explanation like the #5 bearing area. Besides, I don’t think there’s a How Mal code for “god did it”. That may seem like a ridiculous comparison doesn‘t it. I mean who uses god as an explanation for engine problems right? Instead you would use, say it with me now, reason. So why, when something might be considered a miracle, would we suspend the use of reason to solve our problems and instead invoke the supernatural? On the other hand, maybe Zeus did it for worshipping a false idol. Of all the gods that have existed and still exist, it’s pretty presumptuous to assume that it is the christian god that is responsible for all these so called miracles don’t you think?

[_eric_]

Jeff 3

So its completely inappropriate that you use a jet engine as an example... something that has oil and other fluids running through it... its been known to leak... it has a history of doing that and its easily explained... people can use reasonable explanation on that... but HEY... I KNOW... MAYBE SOMEONE MADE THE BEARING THAT WAY... MAYBE ITS JUST HOLLOW AND THE OIL IS LEAKING THROUGH ITS POROUS HOLES IN ITS HOLLOW FRAME! (see the link I sent in my first e-mail) Yeah... that must be what happened Eric. My point is... that a picture... a painting... how is that explainable. You can't use reason to explain that. Reason can explain things like engine leaks... they've happened a ton... back since the early 1900's. People know about them and are experts. That's where reasonable explanation comes into place, not here my Atheist friend. Now, onto the word Theory... one of my favorites...

Let us start with another definition...

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory

now, does this sound like Religion... without a doubt. Does it sound like science... most definitely. Hmmm... lets start with the theory of evolution. It is a theory that we evolved from apes... its not any more proven than the fact that we were created just like the book of Genesis explains. That's why it is a THEORY... a belief... hypothetical... just like the definition says. You claimed that theories were used to explain facts. Sorry... but I know that's just another belief of yours. Those aren't facts Eric, they're theories... if they've been proven, they're Laws... not theories... but the fact that you even said theories explain facts is almost like a belief... dare I say, Religion? Very close to the same thing. Its all in what you believe.

[_eric_]

Eric 3

You failed to grasp the analogy with the jet engine. Whether an answer is readily available or not does not change the method you use to get that answer. Maybe god made the engine leak or maybe it’s a broken carbon seal. This was meant to be an extreme case to point out that you do indeed use reasoning in your everyday life, and how you abandon it if the answer is not at you finger tips. Edward Abby once said “what ever we cannot easily understand we call god. This saves much wear and tear on the brain.” I think that pretty much sums it up.

Your hypothetical bleeding picture question, is completely irrelevant because I have yet to see a picture bleed. What if Scooby doo came in to your bedroom and told you to buy a mystery van to travel the country and preach the gospels of Mickey Mouse. Neither are likely to happen so the question is moot.

Now you may say “but people have seen bleeding statues before.” Have they? Even the president of the Trinity Foundation (a religious organization) says "Our experience shows that most of these have a natural explanation. But in some cases there's fraud.” In another case a bleeding statue in Rome was tested and was found to have traces of blood in the tears. When the person who discovered this supposed miracle was asked to give a blood test he refused. Now why do you think that is? Are you so naïve to think that someone would not fake a bleeding statue miracle for profit? Why do you think the church is so reluctant to officially declare these statues as miracles? Because they have been wrong in the past and would lose credibility if it turned out to be a fraud. And the ones that are declared miracles by the church? They are kept behind glass where scientists are not allowed to test them because of their holy status… how convenient.

Now, on to the most erroneous part of your response… your definition of theory. I have already tried to explain that to you but I guess it didn’t take. So, I going to leave it to smarter people than myself to differentiate between the layman definition of theory and the scientific definition. Normally I wouldn’t cut and paste such a large excerpt but I think it’s something you need to read. Notice how religion could not be considered a theory in the same sense:

[by Lenny Flank
(c)1995
One of the most common accusations heard from creationists is that "evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven". Such assertions are also heard from conservatives who give political support to the creationists. For instance, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience, concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed." (cited in Berra 1990, p. 123, Wills 1990 p. 120, and Eldredge 1982 p. 28)
This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. The distinction between these is important in understanding and in countering creationist arguments, since the word "theory" also has a popular usage that is quite different from its scientific meaning (the vast majority of the US population--some studies have indicated as high as 95%--are in essence scientifically illiterate, and have only the vaguest grasp of modern scientific thinking, and the creationists always make a point of appealing to this popular ignorance).
In the popular view, the word "theory" means simply something that is unproven--an assertion which may or may not be true. It is this meaning which the creationists refer to when they assert that evolution is "just a theory", the implication being that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then it should have no more standing than creation "science". In science, however, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data. This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say "theory").
Once a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against the data (both old and new) to see how well it fits with the established facts. If the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, then it must be either modified and tested again, or discarded completely and a new hypothesis formed. Once a hypothesis has passed the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific theory--i.e., it becomes an established framework within which to interpret the relationship of various bits of raw data. On the basis of this theory, new hypotheses are formed, and areas in which new data may be gathered are identified. If the theory continues to correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly predict the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high degree of reliability. Such a theory is not a mere supposition or guess; it is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability. ]

[_eric_]

Jeff 4

Alright then... thanks for the science class... but I do indeed know what a theory is. Like it says down there... and like I stated in the previous email... its an UNPROVEN thing. A hypothesis... an educated GUESS. Unfortunately for you, its still unproven. Perhaps God made it all like this... just to see who would stick with him... and maybe that's why nothing is actually proven. Maybe he gave just enough "factual evidence" except for the stuff that could actually prove it. Because when it comes to "evolution", what has been able to be 100% proven. Even a better question for you though could be... where did it all begin?
You could say, with monkeys... and I would ask you... before that? And you would babble on and on all the way down the chain and through the times... and you would finally come to,,, I DON"T KNOW. How do you explain this. Before there was anything... nothing... no living organisms... nothing. How do you explain how it began? I mean, I could tell you... but I doubt you want me to.

I have a very nice Bible if you'd like to read up on something worth your while!

[_eric_]

Eric 4

Suppose a man is murdered. The police catch another man running away from the scene of the crime. In this man’s possession is a knife bearing his fingerprints as well as the dead man’s blood. In the murdered man’s house there are bloody finger prints and bloody foot prints all matching the suspect. There is a trail of blood from the house to the spot where the suspect was caught. Now, no one can go back in time so no one can absolutely “prove” that the suspect is the killer. Instead you rely on the overwhelming evidence. That is exactly the case with evolution. Evolution is only unproven in the sense that nobody has witnessed it. Now you’re saying, if no one is there to witness it, we shouldn’t research the abundance of evidence, we should just say “screw it, god did it.” And that’s what has happened for centuries. And if someone found evidence that was contradictory to “god’s word” then that person was either killed or thrown in jail. Even Galileo was tried for blasphemy for saying that the sun didn’t revolve around the earth. It has only been recently, through the separation of church and state, that ideas contrary to god were not punished. It has been this freedom of ideas that has catapulted our civilization into the modern world we now take for granted. More has been done to understand this world, this universe, in the past couple of centuries with science than in all the time before that with religion. They didn’t call it the dark ages for nothing. Joseph Lewis talks about some of the accomplishments of man since the Declaration of Independence in “An Atheist Manifesto.” I know I said I wouldn’t use long excerpts but I think it’s pointless to paraphrase the words of such a brilliant man. I’ll just let him do the talking:

[Anesthesia was discovered.
Do you know what it means to relieve man of his pain and suffering? Anesthesia is the most humane of all of man's accomplishments, and what a merciful accomplishment it was.
For this great discovery we are indebted to Dr. W. T. G. Morton.
Do you know that the religionists opposed the use of anesthesia on the ground that God sent pain as a punishment for sin, and it was considered the greatest of sacrileges to use it -- just think of it, a sin to relieve man of his misery! What a monstrous perversion! This one instance alone should convince you of the difference in believing in God or not.
No believer in God would have spent his energies to discover anesthesia. He would have been in mortal fear of the wrath of his God for interfering with his "divine plan," of making man suffer for having eaten of the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge."
The very crux of the matter is in this one instance.
Man seeks to relieve his fellow man from the suffering of disease and the pangs of mental agony. The believers in God are content that man's suffering is ordained, and therefore he accepts life and its trials and tribulations as a penance for living.
The fear of the wrath of God has been a stumbling block to progress.
When Dr. James Young Simpson sought to apply anesthesia to a woman in childbirth, the clergymen of his day foamed at the mouth and spat upon him with vituperation and abuse, for attempting to violate God's direct command that "in pain thou shalt bring forth children," as based upon the idiotic text of the Bible. But Dr. Simpson persisted despite the ravings of the religious lunatics of his day.
The importance of Dr. Simpson's application of anesthesia to the relief of pain in childbirth, and his open defiance of the religionists, are beyond the measure of words to evaluate.
The X-ray was discovered in our time.
Professor Wilhelm Roentgen deserves our everlasting debt of gratitude for this contribution. Its application alone in the field of medicine makes it one of the greatest contributions to the service of man.
Dr. Karl Lansteiner's discovery of the composition of the blood -- made in our time -- has been responsible for the saving of countless thousands of lives.
Blood was also feared by the religionists, and a taboo was placed upon all those who touched it, as being contaminated.
Even the dissection of the human body was prohibited by religion.
The study of human anatomy is within our own time, and the fruitful results of this scientific exploring of man's physical structure are incalculable.
It is needless, I think, to tell you why the study of human body is so recent. Until the emancipation of the mind of man from the thralldom and shackles of religion, it was taught and believed as a "religious truth," and maintained under penalty of eternal damnation, that if the human body was dissected, God would not be able to recognize you on the day of resurrection!
Such has been the paralyzing menace of religion that has prevailed over the mind of man.
The discovery of the chemistry of food and its application to nutrition has contributed more to the health of the human race than all the Gods, clergymen and priests since the dawn of existence.
Preventive medicine has accomplished amazing results in bringing health to, and prolonging, the life of the people.
Hygiene and its application have saved millions upon millions from disease and premature death. It has stayed the "hand of God" in his madness in spreading deaths from epidemics of disease.
Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species" and the great principle of evolution was promulgated.
Modern emancipated medicine has reduced the infant death rate by more than 50 per cent, and has been responsible for more than doubling the life span of man within the past century.]

Ok, back to the topic at hand. When you said that you would explain to me how it all began I assume you were talking about creation science (aka the “god did it” cop out). Using creation science to explain the world is the equivalent to saying that the man in the above scenario died of natural causes. All the evidence points the other way. When it comes to the question of how life started you said I would be force to say “I don’t know.“ That science doesn‘t know. And you‘re right. It’s not arrogant enough to assume that it knows everything. I would think that is a redeeming factor of science, not a fault.. There are speculations about how life began but we have not been able to adequately test them yet. And because we don’t have the means to test them yet you are letting your god fill the gaps of science once again. I wonder what gaps he will fill when we know the truth.

It seems like we are running around in circles when it comes to defining theory. You tell me that you understand it then you show me that you don’t in the very next sentence. You said that a theory is a hypothesis… an educated guess. A hypothesis is an educated guess, you’re correct about that. But a hypothesis is only the STARTING POINT of a theory. Re-read what Lenny Flank said in the previous response. You said that a theory is UNPROVEN. As we have seen, this is just arguing semantics. Whether a theory is fact or not is irrelevant since a theory does not strive to become fact. Such is the case with the hypothetical murder. It can never be a fact that the suspect is guilty, only a theory backed by facts. As with different murder cases, different theories have different degrees of evidence supporting them. It is an exercise in futility to try and pick on evolution as “just a theory.” That is one of the most well supported theories there is. To refute it you will need a little more then just “god did it because I have faith.” You will need FACTS to back it up. And I’m sorry brother but those facts just don’t exist.

[_eric_]

Jeff 5

For the third time, I know what a theory is... I promise. I know its not something striving to be a fact... its pretty much an educated idea... am I right? The point is... it isn't a fact... and the murder scenario... give me a break dude... its not that easy and you know it... plus the guy who would have left all of that evidence left behind usually pleads guilty...and in that aspect, with him admitting it... it makes it far easier to convict him of a crime... as opposed to the other guy that had a rational excuse as to why all that evidence was there... perhaps he was trying to help the person... and he got blood on him... perhaps the murder weapon was there, and without thinking... he grabbed it to go show the cops or something... I don't know... but I guarantee it has and could happen.

Now... how do you know for sure that the way Catholicism states it isn't the way. Sorry to say... but evolution doesn't have all the evidence pointing to it as in the ever so wonderfully put "murder scenario" that you listed below... and another thing... how come, if monkeys did evolutionize, and got all the way to humans... why doesn't it happen anymore? I know I'm no science buff... believe me... but perhaps you could explain that for me... and what was it, what creature was it should I say, that monkeys grew from.

Now explain where feelings come from, love, the conscience that I know you have... I don't believe there are any good scientific explanations for those... but go ahead and throw it back at me, lets see what you've got!!!

ps... I know what a theory is!!

[_eric_]

Eric 5

Once again you have missed the point of the analogy. It was meant to demonstrate the fact that evolution is only unproven in the sense that it has not been witnessed. I could have painted a more exact picture of the scenario to alleviate any room for speculation but I figured with the scenario I chose, you would get the point… I guess not. The reason evolution has never been “witnessed” is, of course, due to the fact that our time here on earth is merely a blink of an eye on the evolutionary time scale. Had we seen a cockroach produce an offspring of mice, that would be strong evidence against evolution. Instead, evolution works very slowly. You asked why evolution doesn’t happen anymore. I will tell you that it does. Evolution is a slow but continual process. But that doesn’t mean actual evidence of evolution hasn’t been witnessed. When humans intervene with natural selection we can speed up the process of evolution exponentially. Take the domestic dog for example. Genetic evidence suggests that man domesticated wolves only about 12 thousand years ago. Since that time, selective breeding has produced an array of different breeds from 3 pound Chihuahuas to 250 pound mastiffs, and everything in between. In my opinion, nothing demonstrates evolution, in such a short time frame, better than the domestic dog. Genetic evidence is not the only evidence to support the extremely close relationship between dogs and wolves. One of the best indicators on whether or not two animals are closely related is whether or not they can hybridize (breed). For example, horses and donkeys mate to produce mules, lions and tigers mate to produce ligers/tigons, ponies and zebras mate to produce zonies, camels and lamas mate to produce camas and so on. Besides domestic dogs being able to breed with any other type of domestic dog, they can also breed with wolves. Wouldn’t it be cool to breed a human with a chimpanzee? It would, at least, be pretty funny to watch religionists trying to decide whether or not the offspring had a soul, don’t you think? I can already hear some numb nut like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell talking about the animal with only half a soul, only half of a conscience, lol.

You asked how I know for sure that the way Catholicism states it isn’t the way. You said that evolution doesn’t have all the evidence pointing to it. I could sit here all night and state facts that support evolution but I’d like to hear some of the facts supporting the Catholicism way. Not just feebly trying to “prove” evolution wrong (although you‘re more than welcome to try), but actual evidence that it was the Christian god that created this universe. And while we’re on the subject, what exactly is the Catholicism way? I’ve heard so many interpretations of what other people think is the “Catholic way” that a little clarification might be in order. Before I argue a point, I like to know what I’m arguing against.

Ok, on to the next subject. You asked me to give an explanation for love. Well what do you consider love? Is it when you get “butterflies” in your stomach? Is it when you get jealous seeing your partner flirting with a member of the opposite sex? Is it when you can’t stand to be away from that person? Or is it something else entirely? Once again, what am I trying to explain?

You also mentioned wanting an explanation for having a conscience. I think it‘s safe to assume that you, like most christians, attribute this trait to our soul. If your reasoning holds, then all humans would have a conscience. In practice however, conscience is found to be a product of your environment or of genetics. You and I would feel bad if we were to see a person or an animal being tortured so it’s safe to assume that we have a conscience. People desensitized to violence or who have had a traumatic childhood, however, often don’t feel bad about such acts. Society often dictates what is right and what is wrong. When slavery was commonplace, did the slave owners have a conscience while raping and torturing the slaves? Then we have sociopaths. People in blatant violation of your “soul theory” <-(sarcastic). Using positron emission tomography (PET), scientists have been able to link their lack of remorse to abnormalities in the frontal lobe of the brain. Even religion can make someone act as though they don’t have a conscience. When a muslim tortures an infidel to uphold “god’s law”, do you think he feels bad about it? I would posit that he does not.

Let’s talk a little about conscious as well. Although experiments in neurology are showing great promise in pin pointing the mechanisms that cause man to be conscious and self aware, religionists also try to attribute this to the soul. They also say that humans are the only animals with a soul. Using transitive reasoning again, we can deduce that only humans are capable of being self aware. If this statement is untrue, then either one or both of the two previous statements are untrue as well. One way to see if an animal is self-aware is to put them in front of a mirror. For example, put a dog in front of a mirror everyday for 10 years and he will act as though he sees another dog every time and eventually get bored with the dog who doesn’t play with him. As far as we know, dogs have no understanding of the concept of “self” in that sense. Put a monkey in front of a mirror and you will get the same result. So is there any other animal that can grasp the concept of “self” enough to recognize themselves in a mirror? Yes, there is. And you will be delighted, I’m sure, to hear that it is our closest living relative… the chimpanzee. When shown a mirror, chimps are, at first, startled but they quickly realize that there is indeed no other animal in that plane of glass. They start to use the mirror in the same way that so many humans use it, to groom themselves. They look for bugs in places that have been previously inaccessible to the self-groomer. They use it to look at parts of their body that they have never seen before. It seems we may not be all that different after all.

[_eric_]

Jeff 6

SORRY, MY COMPUTER IS STUCK ON CAPS.
USING A MODERN DAY DOG IS A PISS POOR EXAMPLE! THAT’S LIKE SAYING IF I HAVE SEX WITH A BLACK GIRL… AND THE BABY COMES OUT HALF AND HALF… THAT ITS CONSIDERED EVOLUTION. IT ISN’T. I DIDN’T MISS THE POINT OF THE ANALOGY.. DAMN IT… I DON’T THINK YOU GIVE ME ENOUGH CREDIT FOR WHAT I UNDERSTAND… I WAS JUST REFUEDING YOUR POINT WITH A POINT OF MY OWN.
NOW AS FAR AS CATHOLISICM… WE BELIEVE IN THE ADAM AND EVE READING… FROM THE BOOK OF GENESIS… IF YOU WANT TO READ THE CATHOLIC BIBLE… OR AT LEAST SOME OF IT… I HAVE A NICE VERSION OF IT… IT’S THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE… AS OPPOSED TO THE KING JAMES OR OTHER VERSIONS. I THINK YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET YOU TO EXPLAIN THOUGH. ALSO, ON THE SAME CONCEPT, LOVE… THE FEELING… ALL THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED. BUTTERFLIES… THE FEELINGS YOU GET… EVERYTHING.
AS FOR ANIMALS AND THEIR CONSCIENCE… I DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU HEARD(AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW) THAT HUMANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH CONSCIENCE… I BELIEVE OTHER ANIMALS DO HAVE CONSCIENCE. I JUST DON’T BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN THE CONSCIENCE… I THINK SOUL DOES. MY OLD DOG HAD A CONSCIENCE… DOES YOURS? DO YOU? AS FAR AS THE MUSLIM TORTURING THE INFIDEL… AS YOU SEEING HIM AS SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T FEEL BAD ABOUT THE TORTURING… I’LL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION… WOULD YOU? BELEIVING IN GOD ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO BELIEVING IN SATAN AS WELL… WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE LACK OF CONSCIENCE IN SOME BEINGS….

[_eric_]

Eric 6

I’m still in awe that you would liken the mating of a Chihuahua and a mastiff to the mating of you and a black girl. Maybe if I were talking about a yellow lab and a chocolate lab I could see your analogy but come on. We’re talking about an animal that is 125 times bigger than the other animal… they don’t even look alike. Had you seen them in the wild, you would undoubtedly consider them different species. I am getting the feeling that you are purposely being obtuse to avoid conceding the point.

You said that you believe in the adam and eve story yet you neglected to provide any facts to back it up. Then you said I should read the new american bible instead of any other version. How is your version any better than the king james version. Is there proof that yours was translated more accurately? I think not. So what makes yours better?

Now on to love. There are many chemicals produced by the human body that are responsible for our state of mind. Love is no different. Claire McLoughlin from the department of the Royal Society of Chemistry says “When we fall in love, our palms sweat, we can stutter and become breathless, we can't think clearly and it feels like we have butterflies in our stomachs. This is all due to surging brain chemicals called monoamines. They are called dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin.” Oxytocin is a chemical released during orgasm that increases the bond between lovers. The chemical responsible for monogamy is called vasopressin. Unfortunately, we are not one of the species that produces this chemical in abundance, which may account for our high divorce rate.

You said you don’t believe science has an explanation for having a conscience. In my previous response I stated that people without a conscience (aka sociopaths) has been found to have an abnormality in the brain… not an abnormality of the soul. Yet you still maintain that the soul is responsible for the conscience. Where are your facts to back this up? You asked me where I heard that humans were the only animals with a conscience. Well, Jeff, I heard it from religious people like you. They think the conscience is proof that we have a soul and other animals do not. Then, in an amazing turn of events, you tell me your dog has a conscience. If we follow your reasoning that would mean your dog has a soul. But wait, does that mean that only dogs and humans have a soul. Does a monkey have a soul? How about a snake… how about bacteria? Where do you draw the line? I think you’ve typed yourself into a corner on this one Jeff.

[_eric_]

Jeff 7

Quit trying to screw me up… you won’t… so I begin…

First of all… as far as humans having sex… this is what I’m saying… a human can breed with another human… just like dogs to dogs.  Now there are many different types of dogs… sizes… breeds… but they are all dogs!  There are many different sizes and types of humans… fat… skinny… and in-between… black… asian… whatever… that’s what I’m talking about.  Now if you can get a dog to go breed with a cow… or a human… then I will understand what your saying.  But for now, dogs to dogs, humans to humans, and blah blah… I hope you get my point… I really hate having to explain to you what I’m saying, over… and over… and over… and over!

Now… as for the Adam and Eve thing (notice I have respect enough to capitalize Them)… you asked in the previous email what story I believed… if you want me to cut and paste the Book of Genesis on to an email I will… but that’s what you asked me… I must have been mistaken to think that you had done your research on this matter… I thought you had told me a while ago that you had… oh well… let me know if you want “the facts”.  As for what makes the Catholic Bible better to me… that’s what I believe… we can go into that some other time (preferably in person… that’s a whole bunch of typing)

Love… feelings…. Am I supposed to believe that anyone who has ever been in love has had sweaty palms… and that’s it… chemicals… dadadadada… I don’t.  You say that an emotional bond is created by a chemical in the body?  Sorry, I just don’t believe it man…

First of all, as far as conscience and animals… I believe that some animals do and some animals don’t.  I still would like to know where you got this information that only humans have consciences.  I’ve honestly never heard that… I believe that certain ones do and some, like bacteria, don’t.  I don’t believe that bacteria has a soul and goes to heaven when it dies.  If you want me to give you a list of animals… I’d rather it just be a question and answer format… for example… does a dog? Yes… does bacteria? No…. its just easier that way… especially considering all the different species of animals God put on this earth… most important question though… where did you hear that only humans have consciences… as for religion that is. 

As for a few questions for you… do you believe in air and one million dollars?  Simple question… I would just like you to answer yes or no.

[_eric_]

Eric 7

You said you don’t believe chemicals are responsible for feelings. You talked about how you don’t believe oxytocin could create an emotional bond. Many placebo controlled experiments have shown great promise in the use of oxytocin in helping autistics and people with anti-social behavior create bonds. What about the people with depression who find life a little more worth living because of anti-depressants? So it’s not only geology, paleontology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, anthropology, geneology, biology and molecular biology that you don’t trust, but chemistry and pharmacology as well? So I guess a lack of evidence is a prerequisite before you will accept something as true.

When I asked you to elaborate on the “catholic way” I didn’t just mean adam and eve (notice how I have enough sense not to capitalize the names of mythical figures in a show of respect). I was hoping for a little more. For example, do you believe the earth is only 10 thousand years old, do you believe the earth is flat, do you believe the sun rotates around the earth, do you believe there was water in the sky that separated the heavens from the earth. These were all considered the word of god at one time. Some still consider them as such today. Only recently have the passages been conveniently “reinterpreted” to fit with contemporary scientific views in an attempt to salvage their religion. But you still maintain that god created life because there needed to be a starting point. Even rational religious people who accept evolution say this. But where is the starting point when it comes to god. Where did he come from? Is he exempt from this need for a beginning? No! So really, god doesn’t answer anything, he just creates more questions. And when I asked for facts, I didn’t want you to copy and paste the book of genesis. I’ve read it and it proves nothing. Just because a book says it’s the word of god doesn’t make it so. I’m talking about verifiable evidence. Something that can be verified objectively… like proving that a million dollars exists or that air exists. Nice try, by the way, on trying to bait me in to saying I believe in something so that you could liken it to your belief in god. And you say my analogies are weak.

I have heard many religious people claim that the conscience is proof that humans have a soul and animals don’t. Do I think that? I don’t think there is enough evidence to support the argument either way. But any animal that we can effectively communicate with (mostly mammals), can be taught the difference between right and wrong using the “punishment and reward” method. Does that mean they have a conscience? No. Their response is a product of training. We don’t know if they truly feel bad when they do something that we consider “wrong”. Unless trained, animals react on instinct. The same is true with us. When you told me that you could list all the animals with a soul. I’ll bet that list contains mostly, if not exclusively, animals whose behavior is similar to ours. I bet that list wouldn‘t include termites? But why? They have social structures that may be even more complex than ours. When working as a team, a hill of termites acts as though it is one organism all striving for the good of the colony. You can hardly say that about humans. So what’s the magic ingredients that guarantees inclusion into your list? Being more like humans? That’s pretty egocentric if that’s the case?

I’ve noticed you have failed to present facts in any of your responses. You just continually say “I believe this but I don’t believe that.” I’m sorry brother, but in a debate you need to produce some kind of evidence. You can’t just say “this is the way it is because I believe it to be so” and consider that an argument.

You’re losing this debate, Jeff. Your god would not be happy with you:)

[_eric_]

Jeff 8

alright fellow... I've just noticed something while reading through all these things... you've obviously been in these debates plenty of times with people. It seems like some of your replies have been well meditated... it seems like you know exactly what to say... so lets start a real debate... k?

Atheism vs. Religion...

I've been reading through a few forums and I see that when asked how everything started... most come to the same conclusions... 1. it hasn't yet been scientifically proven(this is where you're at I think).. or 2. Beyond human understanding... so here is where a question lies for me... if you say that the start of the universe is beyond our "human understanding", or that it "hasn't been scientifically proven", then how can the thought of a God or supernatural being be sooooo abstract. It just makes more sense to me(and not only me) that a God would be a valid explanation, and it is mine obviously. On to the chemicals...

Even if(and I still don't believe it to be true)... these chemicals are the reason for all of those feelings... how on earth did it happen that way? How did it just so happen that all those chemicals mixed together to make us like that... where did those chemicals come from? If the way we were created was through evolution, and we started as bacteria... into whatever... into whatever... into an ape... into humans(I know there's more to it than that, but its not my point)... and these chemicals... when did they take part? I know I said that I believe some animals have consciences... and even feelings... but the farther back you go in your theory of evolution, the less I believe feelings of love, happiness, sadness, anger, etc. existed... where did they come from?

Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, is it not? Now I know that today marriage isn't the same as used to be... as you know and have previously stated... with all the divorce rates and what not... but honestly dude, what is the point in getting married? Tax cuts, same last name... what? You know, that back in the day... it was a religious sacrament, and that's how it was for a long time, still is in some cases. An engagement ring... are you going to eventually go this route... like everyone does? I'll explain where this came from... quite easy actually, it can be traced back to the ancient Romans, to where the roundness of the ring represented eternity. Therefore, the wearing of wedding rings symbolizes a union that is to last forever. It was once thought that a vein or nerve ran directly from the "ring" finger of the left hand to the heart(and obviously I don't believe that)... my point... why would you want to do all of this... an engagement ring... holy matrimony(heheheh)... are you just a product of your environment? A product of society? I'm not saying you are... just asking a simple question is all.

Now although I've been a tiny bit sarcastic in few subjects... it was just meant to calm the mood... I'm trying to steer away from the sarcasm and all of that... I don't want to hurt your FEELINGS... just kidding

[_eric_]

Eric 8

I’m glad to see that you’re doing some research. While I have debated christians in the past, this is the first time I’ve done so on paper (or computer).

You said you wanted to start a new debate: Atheism vs. Religion. That may be too broad of a subject for this debate because of the vast differences in different religions. I am willing to narrow it down to christianity but even that encompasses a huge amount of sects that disagree with each other on a lot of important points. Even people of the same sect can’t agree on some things. This is why I asked you to clarify your beliefs. This is why I asked you those questions in my previous response. Today, the most educated of the christian debaters do not deny the facts found by science. They don’t even deny the theories that have held up to immense scrutiny to explain those facts. Instead, they try to use scientific findings to uphold their belief in God. This poses some problems, however. Even if scientist were to grant theses people’s views validity, it still does nothing to prove that the christian god exists. Following their reasoning, it could have just as easily been thor, or the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn. If I were to assert that it was your burden of proof to prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster didn’t exist, you’d tell me I was crazy. And you’d be right. It would be my responsibility to prove that he does exist. It is no different with your god. You can’t presuppose something and than use that something as an explanation and expect to be taken seriously. You have to give proof first. For example, religionists often try to attribute the start of the universe to god by reasoning that something can’t come from nothing. I think this was the point you were trying to allude to when you said it is beyond human understanding. But then they completely abandon this reasoning when it comes to god. This is the huge logical fallacy that somehow eludes religionists while trying to debate rationally. Religionists also try to use “flaws” in certain hypothesis about the start of the universe to prove that what they say has to be correct. How boldly arrogant. New hypothesis come out at a weekly rate and none of them think that if they prove another hypothesis wrong then they are correct by default. Now you might be saying “that’s just what I believe. I’m no scientist so who cares what I believe.” I wish it were that easy but it’s not. In this country, especially, religionists disguised as creationist and even fundamentalist politicians are trying to force god back into the public schools. What a sad day it will be if this nightmare is realized. When god is taught as the reason for everything that is not explained you will get a generation of people who are content with not knowing the truth. All scientific progress will eventually cease. What a sad, sad day that would be!!!!! It will be like the old days when new scientific facts were brought to light, their discoverers will be branded as blasphemers and heretics for even questioning the word of god. This, alone, is one of the main reasons I have such contempt for religious fundamentalists. They teach people that ignorance is not only acceptable, but virtuous.

The feelings of love, happiness, sadness, anger, etc. are all products of evolution. They all helped in the survival of our ancestors one way or another. Some have a more obvious use (like love) while others are a bit more abstract (like sadness). You said you don’t see how the chemicals or hormones that produce these emotions can come about by evolution. Well all I can tell you is to read a book. There are literally libraries of books that explain the intricacies of evolution. This is hardly the place to go into such explanations. Here’s a link to an article that might shed some light on our current topic: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/05/hormone.html .

I am failing to grasp your reasoning for bringing up marriage. It does nothing to further your point. Just because some secular traditions are based in christianity doesn’t mean that christianity is correct. That would be like saying because christmas has its origins in paganism that the pagans had it right.

All of the half-way decent arguments made by religionists are based solely on letting their god(s) fill the gaps of science. Everyday science comes closer to filling these gaps and shrinking “god’s domain”. What a wonderful day it will be when god is no longer needed to explain our ignorance.

[_eric_]

Jeff 9

I’m glad to see that your sarcasm hasn’t taken its way out of this, but I guess that’s what I can expect… I did like the phrase “boldly arrogant”… even though I didn’t like the context you used it in.

I still don’t buy the feelings thing… but we’ll get into that later.  So where does the hatred towards Christians from Atheists come?  It just seems like Atheists are always trying to deny God… how come?  Its almost like Christians can have God and science… but Atheists can only have science.  Where you brought up religious… or baptized or anything?  I don’t(and I could be wrong) see a whole bunch of Christians running around trying to convince Atheists to become Christian… so why the other way around?  What is it about us that scares you guys so damn much?  You even told me last night that you have made many people question their religion… I know you approached me about this back in the shop… not visa versa… just curious.  There not being a God is something that you’ll NEVER be able to prove… just like I can’t prove that there was no such thing as evolution… now unfortunately, I don’t think God can be FORCED into public schools, I mean… there would have to be a vote… possibly an election

[_eric_]

Eric 9

None of what I wrote in my last response should be taken as sarcastic… harsh maybe, but not sarcastic.

To set the record straight, I don’t hate all Christians. In fact, I don’t hate most Christians. This should be obvious just by the fact that I’m friends with you. What I do hate is fundamentalists from any religion and anyone trying to force their ignorance on to me. I was not raised religious. But I was also not raised atheist. As a kid I sometimes questioned god’s existence but took it for granted that he must exist since so many people believe in him. This is a mistake that many people make today. It wasn’t until I came into the service that I met people who actually tried to convert people to their religion. Curious, I listened to what they had to say. When I did some research of my own I realized that none of these people knew about their own religions. So I took a step back from any preconceptions that I may have had and I looked at the facts objectively. I wanted to see what religion, if any, had their facts right. I would ask you to do the same but I don’t think you could step back that far. Nor could many religious people. They have had god forced into their minds from such a young age that looking objectively at the facts becomes nearly impossible. They have been taught not even to question god existence, not to entertain any facts that would suggest otherwise and that it is a sin to eat from the tree of knowledge. So I consider myself lucky that religion wasn’t forced onto me before I reached the age of reason. While researching the facts I discovered that the only logical conclusion is atheism. I also discovered religion’s history of intolerance. Not just towards atheists but toward other religions as well. I also discovered that religious intolerance is still very much alive today. No other type of discrimination is as socially acceptable as that afforded to atheists. So you may say I’m intolerant of intolerance. I’ve heard many say that that makes me just as bad as religious fundamentalists. I say these people have their heads firmly placed up their asses to believe a load of crap like that. People intolerant of racism are never told that they are just as bad as the racists. Yet there is a double standard for atheists. Many blatantly say that atheists are the devil. Many, in a show of complete incompetence, link atheism to communism. They say atheists are ruining their country. They say that atheists are immoral heathens. Many people, especially from the south, when I tell them that I’m atheist, look at me as though they can’t believe I am admitting it. When our former president George Bush was asked if he thinks if atheists should be considered patriots, he said he doesn’t consider atheists patriots nor does he consider them citizens, this is one nation under god. And this is not an isolated view. This is perhaps the view of most fundamental conservatives. Even your bible calls non-believers fools. In ‘Gentle Godlessness’, Paul O’Brien talks about how atheists are specifically and directly condemned in the Bible, and how that follows naturally into the christian faith. Now I’m not trying to gain any sympathy because atheism is more tolerated today than it ever has been. But I see more and more people trying to set in motion things that would change this.

You told me that christians can have god and science. This only true if you let science answer the “how” questions and let religion answer the “why” questions. But if that were the case, assuming that no one would try and push their answer to “why” on others, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. But I have only seen religious scientists able to make this distinction. The vast majority have their beliefs firmly set on science’s turf. You said that I can never prove god doesn’t exist. When it comes to the christian god, you’re wrong. That god made testable claims. If humanity started with adam and eve as opposed to evolution there would be proof. If the universe was only 10 thousand years old there would be proof. That fact that all of the verifiable evidence points the other way is proof that he does not exist. If these claims were not made by religious doctrine and were instead made by a scientist, his peers would have been quick to show him how wrong he was. So why should we afford these views some special status just because they were written in an ancient book. What is impossible is to prove is that any god doesn’t exist. It is also impossible to prove that the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster don’t exist. That is by no means grounds for accepting that they do. But you likened god’s inability to be proven wrong with evolution. You couldn’t have picked a worse analogy. On the contrary, if evolution were false, it would be very easy to prove it wrong. One would only need to find the fossil of a mammal in an early Paleozoic era digging ground. You would only need to find a human fossil buried at the same depth as dinosaurs. And with our huge recent advances in genetics, it would be quite easy to prove evolution wrong had it not been what happened. I hope you can understand the difference.

Okay, on to the next point. Our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us something else that religious people often don’t understand (or don‘t want to understand). It grants us freedom from religion. This is the reason it’s been deemed unconstitutional to teach creation science in school. It is an obvious attempt to force someone’s religious beliefs onto someone else. If more people were knowledgeable about science, however, there would be far less of these fundamentalist christians. It is no coincidence that the most uneducated societies are the most religious (of course there are exceptions). It is also no coincidence that more than half of our scientists don’t believe in god. And finally, it is no coincidence that when it comes to the best scientists in our country (those admitted into the National Academy), 90% don’t believe in god. I can see why religious people don’t want their kids to learn science. It may be a bit of a cliché, but knowledge definitely is power. Are we to say that it is okay not to teach science in southern schools because it conflicts with religion? Let’s not lessen these kid’s education any more than it already is. It’s a good thing our supreme court judges aren’t as stupid as some of the judges in the “bible belt”. The constitution also talks about maintaining a separation of church and state. But you’re saying that if god is forced into schools as the result of an election that it would be okay. Democracy, right? But you’re forgetting one important thing. You’re a minority as well. Once we go down the road of allowing the government to sanction certain beliefs it will inevitably follow that only those beliefs will be allowed. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that. Contrary to some peoples thoughts, christianity is not a religion. It is a collection of religions. And if one of those religions is upheld by the state, what do you think will happen to the other ones? Religion is hardly known for being tolerant of different beliefs. What if your religion doesn’t get chosen, Jeff? Democracy, right? Slavery was upheld in the south because the majority of the (white) people wanted it that way. It was also a blatant violation of the constitution. Just because something is upheld democratically doesn’t make it right. That’s the reason the constitution was written in the first place. To ensure EVERYONE’S rights are upheld.

You asked why I approached you about religion. The reason I came up to you is because I’m interested in how much religious people know about the religion that they devote their lives to. Much more often then not, they know very little. They know nothing about the current arguments religionists use when debating atheists. They know nothing about their religion’s history except what was read to them out of the bible. They know surprisingly little about what their scriptures say. And they know even less about science. All they seem to know is that their parents told them god exists and that’s what they believe. They use their faith as an excuse for their lack of knowledge. And that’s okay. Not everyone cares about this issue enough to research it. They are content with believing what they were taught. And that’s okay too. What’s not okay is when these people try and look down on the people who were not content with being spoon fed their beliefs. I also approach religious people to gain information. I am curious why people believe what they believe. And finally, I debate with religious people to see how much I understand. Nothing tests your knowledge of a subject better than trying to explain it to someone else. They will ask questions that you’ve never thought of before and it makes you think a little more as a result. I never get into these debates for the purpose of personally attacking someone. But you’re the one who requested this debate. When I make someone question their beliefs I feel as though I have helped liberate them a little bit. This is because, only when you’re not already “positive” of the truth can you entertain other thoughts objectively. Most religious people are not up to the task. Are you?

I will end this response with a quote that puts into words, better than I can, what I dislike about religion (as you can see, I have already abandoned the etiquette of not posting large quotes so one more won‘t hurt):
[I dislike the hypocrisy, the corruption, the greed and the lies.
I dislike the veneration of ignorance, the glorification of idiocy, the wild-eyed hatred of progress and the fear of education, which send the faithful shrieking, vampire-like, from the light of knowledge. I dislike the way in which prejudice is passed off as piety. The way superstition is peddled as wisdom. The way intolerance is raised to the lofty heights of "Truth". I dislike how hatred is taught as love, how fear is instilled as kindness, how slavery is pressed as freedom, and how contempt for life is dressed up and adored as spirituality. I dislike the shackles religions place on the mind, corrupting, twisting and crushing the spirit until the believer has been brought down to a suitable state of worthlessness.
So lost and self-loathing, so bereft of hope or pride, that they can look into the hallucinated face of their imaginary oppressor and feel unbounded love and gratitude for the additional suffering it has declined, as yet, to visit upon them. I dislike people's need for a communal delusion, like drug addicts who unite just to share the same needle. I dislike the way reason is reviled as a vice and reality is decreed to be a matter of convenience. The way common sense and ordinary human decency get re-named "holy law" and advertised as the sole province of the faithful.
I dislike religions' wholesale theft of any number of ancient mythologies, only to turn around and proclaim how "unique" their doctrine is. I dislike how intelligence is held as suspect and inquiry is reviled as a high crime. I dislike the pillaging of the impoverished, the extortion of the gullible, the manipulation of the ignorant and the domination of the weak.
I dislike the invention of sins for the satisfaction of those who desire to punish. I dislike the demonization of unbelievers, the ill-concealed hate of proselytizers, the hysterical rants of holy rollers, the wigged-out warnings of psychic healers, the dismantling of public education via religious school vouchers, the erosion of civil rights by theocratic right-wingers, the righteous wrath of gun-toting true believers, the destruction wrought by holy warriors, the blood-drenched fatwas of ayatollahs, and the apocalyptic prophesies of unmedicated messiahs.
Most of all, though, I dislike the certain knowledge that religion, in one grotesque form or other, will be with us so long as there is a single dark, cobwebbed corner of the human imagination that a believer can stuff a god into.]


Eric 9.5

I’ve been reading through our debate and I noticed that by not responding to your explanation of how dogs can only mate with dogs and humans with humans, it looks as though I conceded the point. So a little explaining of my own might be needed. Any man-made labels used to group animals (ex. species, genus, phylum) are exactly that… man-made. These labels are used for taxonomy purposes. If all of the extinct animals (more than 99% of all the animals that ever existed) were still alive today, our group classifications would become absolutely useless. Every “intermediate” between species would be right in front of us. You would see a smooth transitional series linking every modern species to their common ancestors. Although these labels are used to assist us in some ways, nature is in no way bound by them. When natural or artificial selection ‘creates’ different animals like a chihuahua and a mastiff it doesn’t make any difference that we still label them dogs. That is misconstruing the reasoning for our using these labels in the first place. You then told me that my point would be better made if a dog were to successfully breed with a cow. When two animals are able to produce offspring it is an indication of very close relation. Genetic evidence suggests that the genetic divergence of a dog and a cow happened much too long ago for them to successfully breed. So if they did produce an offspring not only would my point not be made, but biologists would have a lot of explaining to do.

Maybe when you compared the mating of dogs with the mating of humans I was too quick to disagree with you. Maybe you had a point. Unfortunately it is not the point you were trying to make. The differences between different races are absolutely the result of evolution. Different groups of homo sapiens have only been reproductively isolated from each other for a very short time. Not enough time for significant changes to take place but definitely enough time for small changes. All of these changes can be attributed to evolution. People closer to the equator have darker skin than people closer to the poles. Darker skin means more pigmentation and more protection from the sun. It is no surprise that dark skin was ‘selected’ and light skin was not. The difference between the eyelids of “asians” and those of “non-asians” is also attributable to evolution. With all of today’s technology, natural selection doesn’t exert very much pressure on us. But it wasn’t always that way. When humans were more “primitive” we made our living the same way that many of today’s animals make their living… by hunting and gathering. If one human can see a little better than another, he will be a little better at spotting predators and prey. It should go without saying that this person will have a little better chance of surviving and passing on his genes. In the arctic environment where “asians” migrated from, a smaller opening in the eyelids can make a huge difference in sight. You can test this by going out into the snow on a cold, sunny day and opening your eyes as wide as you can. It hurts doesn’t it? So in a sense you were right to liken the difference between dogs to the difference between humans, just not in the sense that you thought you were.

The domestic dog serves another purpose in our debate. Creationists often claim that microevolution is possible while macroevolution is not. They say that any genetic differences you find within a species creates an upper-limit on the amount any one animal of that species can diverge from another. So when minor changes occur in fruit fly experiments, those changes are meaningless because the fruit fly already possessed those changes somewhere in their gene pool. In other words, it is entirely possible for two fruit flies to produce any of these observable changes the first time they mate. Although it might require a significant amount of luck, they are right. This is only because these experiments have begun quite recently. The changes are not going to be significant. Nor does any scientist expect them to be. But the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is only in the amount of time needed. Otherwise they are exactly the same. Lucky, and unknowingly, when man first started domesticating wolves, they started their own evolutionary experiment. An experiment that destroys creationist’s claims of microevolution. If you apply their fruit fly ‘explanation’ to dogs, two mastiffs could create an offspring of Chihuahuas (or visa-versa). Obviously, for all intents and purposes, this is impossible.

Although it seems to have been beaten to death, I realized that there is one aspect of the word theory that you still don’t understand. Calling something a theory in no way implies a lack of evidence. No amount of evidence will ever raise a theory to a law… ever. It doesn’t work that way. If we were to abandon the scientific vernacular and speak in layman’s terms then evolution would indeed be called a fact. But scientists don’t talk like that. They consider facts to be things like fossils. Explanations, no matter how well supported by the facts, are always going to be called theories. To avoid further confusion, it would help if you could put in your next response something resembling “Eric, I know that calling something a theory in NO WAY implies a lack of evidence.” I think that would help clear this up.

There are a couple features of life that show a glaring deficiency in the argument for design (creationism). One of them is the presence of vestigial organs. These are features that serve a diminished, non-existent, or different purpose than they did for the animal’s distant ancestors. Some examples are our tailbone, our appendix, the hip bone of a snake, the wings of a flightless bird, the hind leg bones of a whale, or the eyes of a blind cave fish. The more examples that are given the more obvious the deficiency of the “god did it” hypothesis becomes. Just try to imagine why god would give a fish eyes that don’t see. The other feature that shows the inefficiency of creationism is dormant genes in the genetic code of animals. Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, talks about how the code scientists use to decipher DNA is somewhat similar to the 1s and 0s computer programmers use. Just as computer programmers can make sense of these 1s and 0s, so can scientists make sense of DNA coding. While studying the DNA of birds, for example, scientists noticed that the code to make teeth still exists in their genome. This code was expressed in the bird’s ancestors but now lays dormant. This was is proven by researchers being able to “turn on” the gene and produce birds with teeth. Humans possess dormant genes as well. The Chicago Tribune recently ran an article about a promising medical alternative to prosthetic limbs that stated the following: “Like salamanders and other lower species, humans possess genes that direct the body to make new arms and legs after an injury. But in humans, the genes lie dormant, inactivated after evolution favored the swift patching of wounds through scarring over the slow regeneration of body parts.” The presence of these dormant genes only makes sense in light of evolution.

While reviewing this debate I also noticed that you mentioned that you were not alone in your denial of evolution. Unfortunately, you are correct. But this lack of acceptance has nothing to do with a lack of evidence. It has to do with evolution being at odds with their religion (this throws out the notion of christianity and science co-existing). If evolution were accepted throughout the religious community it would mean conceding many of the foundational myths of their religion. Adam and eve would be seen as the myth that it is and god’s “infallible word” would lose credibility. The idea of a soul being an entity separate from the body that survives the body’s death would be exposed as a myth as well. As you said, the farther you go back in evolution, the less likely it seems that these animals had a soul. That’s true. In light of evolution, the soul can only be used as a metaphor to represent human (or mammalian) attributes brought about by natural selection. The idea that these attributes survive the body’s death becomes science fiction when you see that the body is what creates these attributes in the first place. This would obviously place the whole heaven and hell part of christianity in the same fictional realm. Although acceptance of some of these dogmatic ideas are not necessarily required by christian doctrines, most christians that I’ve talked to accept them as foundations for their beliefs. So, if you take all of this away from modern christianity, you’re not left with much else. Arguing against evolution becomes a desperate attempt to salvage their religion. This attempt has produced an array of arguments that are at best misleading and at worse embarrassingly and nonsensically false. But despite the glaring falsehoods of these arguments, every word is eaten up by the religious right and regurgitated to anyone who isn’t scientifically literate enough to see what a load of crap it really is. A quick search on the internet will provide you with plenty of examples of websites propagating this nonsense. Why do you think that is? Because these people are so concerned about the scientific truth? Nope! A closer look at these anti-evolution sites will show you that 99.9% of them are christian websites. They are definitely not scientific sites dedicated to an honest pursuit of the truth.

Although you haven’t brought it up in this debate, you recently told me that since so many people believe in the abrahamic god, there must be some truth to it. How could so many countless millions of people believe in something that is not only non-existent but evidently so? Why would these religions exist at all if there weren’t some truth to them? The appeal of religions like christianity seems pretty evident. I would guess that religions got their start as a result of ignorance and fear. When people started to question things that were, at the time, unanswerable, religion provided them with explanations. Although most of these ancient explanations have been replaced with scientific explanations, there are still things yet to be answered. So people used religion to explain that which hasn’t yet been explained just as they do today. And even if the answer is available, it sometimes seems too complicated and people digress to the comfort and simplicity of their religion. So ignorance plays a vital role in the continued adherence to religious dogma. Fear probably played an equally vital role in the start of religion when people started to realize that their death was imminent and that they had no control over their destiny. While some people can come to terms with this fact, many are deeply disturbed by it. So when religion came around claiming that one’s soul is immortal and that death is just a stepping stone to reaching eternal bliss, people were all to eager to buy into it. It takes the sting away from death. And I’m sure the prospect of burning in hell for eternity had a little to do with people’s acceptance of religion as well. Today, many people still hold their faith for the same reasons. They continue to profess their believe in god for fear of going to hell or for the empty promise of an eternity in heaven. It is fear that keeps them loyal. It is fear that keeps them expressing their faith.

The more religious people I talk to, the more I notice that fear is one of the only things that keeps faithful. Many people realize that their religion is illogical but still don’t dare to abandon it for fear of losing their place in heaven and going straight to hell. The obstacle of fear is not an easy one to over come. And once you are able to put aside these childish fears there is another, more real, fear waiting around the corner. It is the fear of being ostracized by one’s community and family. Imagine for a second that you decided to denounce your belief in god and become an atheist. What do you think your father, the preacher, would think? Do you think he would welcome your newly found intellectual freedom with open arms? It’s just a guess, but I would think not. And he could hardly be blamed for his reaction. Religions like christianity have this kind of intolerance of non-belief ingrained in its dogmas. If someone really believes that by not accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, you will spend eternity in hell, then it would be irresponsible of him not to do everything in his power to make you accept him. This is another reason why christianity’s claim of tolerance is not realistic. Being tolerant of other’s beliefs means that you’ve accepted the fact they are going to spend the rest of eternity being tortured. That’s doesn’t sound very “christian-like” does it? The true-believers who try and force their beliefs on others, it could be argued, are the only ones who are acting in accordance with their religion. Every one else either doesn’t really believe what they say and are just going through the motions or they don’t care that more than half of the world’s population is going to hell. This was how the crusades and the inquisitions were justified. If being torture here on earth can save someone from being tortured for eternity then it is for their benefit to torture them. And if hell was actually a place, than these christian soldiers were right to do what they did. Of course, all of this is seen as the brutal and barbaric act it is once you realize that this belief is all based on myth. This example pinpoints what Steven Weinberg meant when he said: “With or without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

What about faith in christianity? Faith by definition is believing in something without evidence or in spite of evidence (hardly synonymous with an honest pursuit of the truth). What kind of ideal would consider this such a high virtue? What kind of ideal makes it a sin to doubt any part of it? One without any evidence! Otherwise you wouldn’t be hearing about how important it is to have faith… you would be hearing the facts that back up their outlandish claims. So religions like christianity profess faith as the highest virtue and as a result, never have to provide a single shred of evidence. This belief in the sanctity of faith is widely accepted and it is considered impolite to even question it. Because of this, religion has been shielded from the kind of rational scrutiny afforded to any other type of ideal. But if more people saw faith for what it was, the deficiencies of religion would be much harder to ignore. Perhaps more so than ignorance and fear, our stance on faith is what provides the environment needed for religion to survive. An environment where you are exempt from having to explain yourself only if your claims are ridiculous enough to require an appeal to faith for justification.

This response turned out to be much longer than I anticipated so I will end it here by addressing something else that I neglected to respond to. You said “I don’t (and I could be wrong) see a whole bunch of Christians running around trying to convince Atheists to become Christian… so why the other way around?” Unlike many christians, I don’t really care what others believe. I would never stand in front of a church, for instance, trying to “convert” people to atheism. All I do is discuss religion with friends for the reasons I mentioned in my previous response. If someone agrees with some of my views all the better but that is not my reason for talking to them. Or maybe I‘m misunderstanding you and you think that atheists, in general, are trying to force their beliefs on you. I have heard quite a few ultra-conservatives making this claim in the media. Ben Stein made this very claim last year which, needless to say, provoked a few responses from internet message boards. One said “I can't remember the last time I received a flyer promoting atheism, people knocking on my door urging me to reject christ, or billboard advertisements encouraging me to join the local atheist club.” And frankly, neither can I. Someone else from the same message board wrote: “Remember when a bunch of atheists got together to try to force Sunday Schools across the country to teach evolution? Remember when a bunch of godless homosexuals tried to get a "Defense of Marriage" amendment passed that would prevent Christians from marrying? Remember when a bunch of atheists tried to get the phrase ‘There Are No Gods’ put on our currency? Remember when all those atheists put up statues of Marx with his famous quotation ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’ in front of government buildings? Remember when George Bush Sr. said that Christians should not be considered citizens?” Obviously this is a satire of the ways in which the religious right has forced their beliefs onto society. When shown in this context it is quite easy to see that it is christianity (not some fabricated “atheistic movement”) that has continually imposed their beliefs on others. It is only when someone questions this imposition that, without even a hint of irony, christians scream about how their religious freedom is being oppressed. It is only then that christians scream about atheism’s stronghold over society. But they are confusing neutrality with opposition. Being neutral with respect to religion in our government in no way implies atheism… it only implies neutrality. And I don’t think our constitution could be any clearer about its position on that.

[Grim Reaper]

Eric, are you a Viking?

[_eric_]

All hail Thor!

[_eric_]

No responses? It's too long isn't it? I got a little carried a way in my last couple of responses, lol.

[Tanath]

Yeah, it's too long. It's like reading a book.

[Teague]

Interesting to read but pointless to debate any further with this guy. Since he won't concede to anything and is seemingly unprepared to listen, you've hit a dead end.

maybe you should have just posted a question and then let others respond to it.

[_eric_]

I don't think I ever thought I would be able to change his mind. But he is one of the few people I've met that's both intelligent and absolutely positive about his beliefs. I just thought it would be interesting to debate him. I don't think he's going to respond anymore but he said he was going to send this debate to his dad (a preacher). I'll post more responses if any come my way. Thanks for the comment.