Question For The Atheist.

[bookofmormontruth]

Would I be the only "TBM" that believes in "evolution"?

At least the evolution defined as a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. We can see evidence of this on a daily basis.

In regards to Adam and Eve descending from "apes", not at all.

[Calm]

I would recommend not using that question anymore. It's inaccurate and shows a ignorance to what the theory of evolution is. Evolution does NOT claim that we came from apes that exist now. It's not a straight line evolution. Evolution is a tree, the theory would state that Humans and Apes share a similar ancestor (which looks very little like modern apes or human). Then that from that ancestor branched a line that eventually became modern apes and another branch that eventually became human.

That is a simplistic explanation for sure, but your question is not only over simplistic, it is just completely inaccurate.

Even if we did come from apes, there is no essential reason why apes would have ceased to exist simply because a new species appeared. Honestly, the question doesn't make much sense to me.

For me, it's like saying "if you are descended from that man and his wife, then why are they still around when you are here"?

[WalkerW]

Would I be the only "TBM" that believes in "evolution"?

See above. Obviously not.

Though to say you believe in evolution would be rather misleading. You are getting into the whole "micro vs. macro" debate.

[Mordecai]

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

If we evolved from apes, or if there were a reasonable chance of us evolving from apes, then apes at various times in history might repeatedly evolve toward being humans. We might also see multiple examples of the transitional forms occurring at various times in history. But that wouldn't cause apes from ceasing from being apes, unless there were some conditions met: #1 apes were unfit to survive to a great extent compared to the transitional forms toward homosapien (or they had bad luck and got destroyed by catastrophe) #2 the transitional forms that led to being more human like were significantly more fit and #3 the purported mutations that resulted in those transitional forms were likely to occur.

Of course, #1 is not accurate, because they clearly have survived. #2 There is no evidence that gradual changes in an ape toward being more human would make them significantly more fit, which is what Darwinism would demand, and #3 There is zero chance of apes evolving into humans in the short time alloted if we judge by the fossil record.

Regardless, there is evidence indicating that apes and humans have a common ancestor, a primitive monkey. That is, apes and hominids never merge anywhere and hominids appear in the fossil record before apes, while monkeys appear prior to both apes and hominids. That's not to say we won't find a more ancient ape, but it has become unlikely that we will.

[Chris Smith]

Atheists don't usually say something came from nothing. Atheists usually replace God with some impersonal explanation for the universe's existence such as branes, strings, simulation, cosmic inflation, many-worlds, information, or an eternal oscillating universe.

[Hayds]

I actually admire the "faith" that atheists have because they have to have much more than me because all things to me denote that there is a God (Alma 30:44).

Atheists don't have faith. The meaning of the word is basically "no faith" To an atheist nothing denotes there is a God, so it is easier for an Atheist to not believe than it is for an Atheist to believe. The questions or issues that concern a theist simply are not on an Atheist's radar. Its an unfair to comare Atheists with Theists becuase its apples and oranges. Unfortunately Atheism is always classed in with religions as a belief system when in actuality it is the lack of any belief system.

[WalkerW]

Atheists don't have faith.

Sure they do. Everyone does in some fashion.

The meaning of the word is basically "no faith"

More like "no god." Epicureans and Christians were anciently called atheists due to their rejection of the traditional gods.

The questions or issues that concern a theist simply are not on an Atheist's radar.

The meaning of life and search for truth don't show up on atheist radars?

Its an unfair to comare Atheists with Theists becuase its apples and oranges.

How? Both are philosophies.

Unfortunately Atheism is always classed in with religions as a belief system when in actuality it is the lack of any belief system

I don't think many atheists would say they don't have some kind of "belief system." Everyone has a belief system.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think many atheists would say they don't have some kind of "belief system." Everyone has a belief system.

I second that. The belief system of an atheist is just different from the belief system of a theist.

While the argument often starts with belief:

Atheist: "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for it"

Theist: "I believe in God because of all the evidence I see for it"

Both have similar belief systems in the end because they are basing their beliefs on evidence.

The real argument is was constitutes "evidence" and reliable evidence at that?

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

I don't really want to get into this debate, but here are a few things I would say.

Neither atheism or theism are belief systems. They are singular points of belief or lack of belief (without jumping into the atheism/agnosticism definitional battle) that fit into one's belief systems, but they are not beliefs.

To elaborate, no one generally talks about "theism". They talk about worldviews that happen to be theistic. Mormon Christianity is one such worldview. Sunni Islam is another. These worldviews are more properly belief systems, because rather than being about one data point (belief in God), they are systems of beliefs (not only whether one believes in God but what one believes God to be like , what one believes God expects of human behavior [both to God and to other humans], what does one view as valid ways of knowing things about the universe, etc.,)

If you want to address philosophies that happen to be atheist, then that's fine. But then you're going to have to talk about, say, secular humanists, or talk about atheist existentialists, or talk about absurdists. You might talk about a popular, rationalist, empiricist, scientismic mix that seems to be all the rage among the so-called "new" atheists.

But then, you're then not covering atheism as a monolithic category...you are addressing subsets that happen not to believe in deities.

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

I don't really want to get into this debate, but here are a few things I would say.

Neither atheism or theism are belief systems. They are singular points of belief or lack of belief (without jumping into the atheism/agnosticism definitional battle) that fit into one's belief systems, but they are not beliefs.

To elaborate, no one generally talks about "theism". They talk about worldviews that happen to be theistic. Mormon Christianity is one such worldview. Sunni Islam is another. These worldviews are more properly belief systems, because rather than being about one data point (belief in God), they are systems of beliefs (not only whether one believes in God but what one believes God to be like , what one believes God expects of human behavior [both to God and to other humans], what does one view as valid ways of knowing things about the universe, etc.,)

If you want to address philosophies that happen to be atheist, then that's fine. But then you're going to have to talk about, say, secular humanists, or talk about atheist existentialists, or talk about absurdists. You might talk about a popular, rationalist, empiricist, scientismic mix that seems to be all the rage among the so-called "new" atheists.

But then, you're then not covering atheism as a monolithic category...you are addressing subsets that happen not to believe in deities.

[WalkerW]

To elaborate, no one generally talks about "theism". They talk about worldviews that happen to be theistic. Mormon Christianity is one such worldview. Sunni Islam is another. These worldviews are more properly belief systems, because rather than being about one data point (belief in God), they are systems of beliefs (not only whether one believes in God but what one believes God to be like , what one believes God expects of human behavior [both to God and to other humans], what does one view as valid ways of knowing things about the universe, etc.,)

Worldview or paradigm is a much better term. Well said.

[Brian 2.0]

Neither atheism or theism are belief systems. They are singular points of belief or lack of belief (without jumping into the atheism/agnosticism definitional battle) that fit into one's belief systems, but they are not beliefs.

we are mis-labeling here, and labeling is bad anyway. I agree with your point and it goes back to some of what I was saying earlier about Dawkins scale of belief and how you can land on that scale but only for a certain topic. The OP was talking about "an atheist" so it's hard not to get into labeling in trying to respond.

[Brian 2.0]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Getting us back to the original post... I don't know who the radio personality was or who he was interviewing, but I don't often hear "athiests" arguing that something came from nothing. In fact, it's often the atheist arguing against just that fact and calling out people who believe in ex nihilo creation myths.

[thews]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Meaning that the universe was created out of nothing. For me this comment kind of intrigued me. I enjoy talking about the first cause of things. What do you believe specifically about the origins of the universe. What caused it?

I love debates with atheists as they tend to get very lively. Do you think there is any merit to this train of thought?

Something cannot come from nothing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/quotes

The Book: It is important to note that suddenly, and against all probability, a Sperm Whale had been called into existence, several miles above the surface of an alien planet and since this is not a naturally tenable position for a whale, this innocent creature had very little time to come to terms with its identity. This is what it thought, as it fell:

The Whale: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello Ground!

[dies]

The Book: Curiously the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias, as it fell, was, 'Oh no, not again.' Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly *why* the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.

On one hand, God's existence is infinite in concept... just as the concept of nothing becoming something. The end result is that we are finite regarding cognitive capability and this is a fact. Accept this fact and things make more sense.

[Cherubbish]

The problem is assuming that we "came from apes" rather than share a common ancestor with apes.

I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys...Well, they're right, they're not descended from monkeys...The essential idea of common ancestry is that ultimately all living things on this planet share common ancestors if we go far enough back into the past...We share a common ancestor with all primate species. This means that we're related, by having a single ancestor somewhere in the past, to monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. But the idea of common ancestry goes way deeper than simply saying we're related to monkeys. We're in fact related to all mammals. You go farther back, we are related to all vertebrates. And, ultimately, we are related, if you go far enough back, to every living thing on this planet. The almost universal nature of the genetic code, the fact that all life depends upon DNA, all of these things are evidence of this commonality of ancestry, if we go far enough back in time. (Ken Miller, "In Defense of Evolution," NOVA, Interview by Joe McMaster, April 19, 2007)

Speaking of Ardi, Donald Johanson (founding director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University; discoverer of Lucy) stated, "I think it's very important to say that this supports the long held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes." (Carolyn Johnson, "Scientists Announce Discovery of Earliest Prehuman Skeleton," The Boston Globe, Oct. 1, 2009; emphasis mine)

"Once again, humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys...No animal gives birth to an instant new species, or at least not one as different from itself as a man is from a monkey, or even a chimpanzee. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work." (Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2009: )

Thanks! I knew there was an obvious answer to this, so now I know.

[WalkerW]

I don't really want to get into this debate, but here are a few things I would say.

Neither atheism or theism are belief systems. They are singular points of belief or lack of belief (without jumping into the atheism/agnosticism definitional battle) that fit into one's belief systems, but they are not beliefs.

To elaborate, no one generally talks about "theism". They talk about worldviews that happen to be theistic. Mormon Christianity is one such worldview. Sunni Islam is another. These worldviews are more properly belief systems, because rather than being about one data point (belief in God), they are systems of beliefs (not only whether one believes in God but what one believes God to be like , what one believes God expects of human behavior [both to God and to other humans], what does one view as valid ways of knowing things about the universe, etc.,)

If you want to address philosophies that happen to be atheist, then that's fine. But then you're going to have to talk about, say, secular humanists, or talk about atheist existentialists, or talk about absurdists. You might talk about a popular, rationalist, empiricist, scientismic mix that seems to be all the rage among the so-called "new" atheists.

But then, you're then not covering atheism as a monolithic category...you are addressing subsets that happen not to believe in deities.

By the way, I enjoyed your business major post. I'm a former accounting major myself. I'm now finishing up a degree in organizational behavior (with graduate work in the future).

[Rivers]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Meaning that the universe was created out of nothing. For me this comment kind of intrigued me. I enjoy talking about the first cause of things. What do you believe specifically about the origins of the universe. What caused it?

I love debates with atheists as they tend to get very lively. Do you think there is any merit to this train of thought?

I listened to the exact same thing today. The idea of a first cause is a pretty standard theist argument. The best answer that an atheist can give is this: We don't know what caused the first cause but attributing it to God isn't the only option.

Atheists basically call this argument a "God of the gaps" argument.

I like how the atheist brought up the "who created the creator?" argument and Sean Hannity just replied that God has always existed.

I don't think this is the best argument for theists. If it is possible that there is a God that has always existed, why isn't it possible that the universe itself has always existed?

I've heard this same debate about the existence of God many times and it always goes the exact same route. IMHO I don't think there is any way to argue for the existence of God logically. I think the only real proof for God is personal revelation.

[Analytics]

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

Uh, we didn't just come from apes, we are apes. The "Great Ape" taxonomic family includes chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.

[thews]

Uh, we didn't just come from apes, we are apes. The "Great Ape" taxonomic family includes chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.

There have been approx. 50 cases of Hypertrichosis (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis) in the last 300 years. If we evolved from apes, at what point in the artist's pictorial of how fossilized bone would lose hair really ring true? IOW, why aren't some of us covered in hair?

[WalkerW]

Atheists basically call this argument a "God of the gaps" argument.

Rightfully so. However, the scholastics were a bit more sophisticated in stating that this first cause is what we call God.

I like how the atheist brought up the "who created the creator?" argument and Sean Hannity just replied that God has always existed.

Sean Hannity is what we're going off of? Is it the "debate" he had with Christopher Hitchens?

If it is possible that there is a God that has always existed, why isn't it possible that the universe itself has always existed?

The first cause isn't some cause that started way back when that just so happens to be uncaused. Aquinas knew nothing of the Big Bang and maintained that a "first cause" is needed even if the universe had always been. Why? Because the universe is made up of finite parts (e.g. buildings that did not exist before are built, planets that did not exist before are formed, etc. These are things that had potential, but were then made actual.), the universe in principle does not have to exist. What maintains its existence? Edward Feser covers this extensively in his The Last Superstition: The Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008). There is a difference between potentiality (essence) and actuality (existence). For example, you may have an idea for a building (e.g. blueprints), but this only represents its potential. It does not actually exist yet. Once it is built, fulfilling the prior plans, it is actualized. Would-be parents make love in order to produce a child. They have the idea of a child, which gives it the potential to exist. But until it is conceived, it does not actually exist. And so forth. This is atrociously oversimplifying the issue, but you hopefully get the gist. The classical theism as I understand it is that God's essence is pure actuality. If all things in the universe in principle did not have to actually exist, but do, then something must account for its existence. This would be pure actuality; where essence and existence (potentiality and actuality) are one and the same. This pure actuality, ground of all being, Being itself, has been equated with God.

I think the only real proof for God is personal revelation.

Personal experience is the clincher. Even was for Aquinas.

[Walden]

Would I be the only "TBM" that believes in "evolution"?

At least the evolution defined as a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. We can see evidence of this on a daily basis.

In regards to Adam and Eve descending from "apes", not at all.

Wait, you "see evidence of [evolution] on a daily basis," but then go on to argue that there is no way that evolution could account for the human race? Seems a bit disjointed if you ask me.

[Rivers]

The first cause isn't some cause that started way back when that just so happens to be uncaused. Aquinas knew nothing of the Big Bang and maintained that a "first cause" is needed even if the universe had always been. Why? Because the universe is made up of finite parts (e.g. buildings that did not exist before are built, planets that did not exist before are formed, etc. These are things that had potential, but were then made actual.), the universe in principle does not have to exist. What maintains its existence? Edward Feser covers this extensively in his The Last Superstition: The Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008). There is a difference between potentiality (essence) and actuality (existence). For example, you may have an idea for a building (e.g. blueprints), but this only represents its potential. It does not actually exist yet. Once it is built, fulfilling the prior plans, it is actualized. Would-be parents make love in order to produce a child. They have the idea of a child, which gives it the potential to exist. But until it is conceived, it does not actually exist. And so forth. This is atrociously oversimplifying the issue, but you hopefully get the gist. The classical theism as I understand it is that God's essence is pure actuality. If all things in the universe in principle did not have to actually exist, but do, then something must account for its existence. This would be pure actuality; where essence and existence (potentiality and actuality) are one and the same. This pure actuality, ground of all being, Being itself, has been equated with God.

Very intriguing ideas. I may have to read more about it.

[bookofmormontruth]

There have been approx. 50 cases of Hypertrichosis (link: http://en.wikipedia..../Hypertrichosis) in the last 300 years. If we evolved from apes, at what point in the artist's pictorial of how fossilized bone would lose hair really ring true? IOW, why aren't some of us covered in hair?

It is a genetic mutation. End of story.

The gene wasn't dormant or "turned off" and then magically expressed itself in the 50 cases. The same way that bald apes are a genetic mutation or if we followed your logic, apes descended from humans.

[bookofmormontruth]

Wait, you "see evidence of [evolution] on a daily basis," but then go on to argue that there is no way that evolution could account for the human race? Seems a bit disjointed if you ask me.

See post # 28 and research the differences.

[One Clear Voice]

Uh, we didn't just come from apes, we are apes. The "Great Ape" taxonomic family includes chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.

Australopithecus????