If evolution is real why are there still apes?

[Dutch Uncle]

Quite a few are Asian-Americans too, per Wikipedia.

Jade is one of the few Christians here who actually acts in accordance with Xtian precepts.

Thanks for the link, but the number can be deceptive. First, Asian-Americans are less than 6% of the population. 6% of 6% is a pretty small demographic. No doubt there are Asian-American anarchists, but the numbers are very small.

Another factor is how groups like to fluff up their numbers: LGBTQ likes to fluff up their numbers by including every woman "who kissed a girl" or ex-male prisoner who had a "homosexual experience". Gun banners fluff up their numbers of gun violence by including suicides. Atheists fluff up their numbers by including Buddhists.

Agreed on Jade. Phan too, IMO, although her beliefs appear a little mixed.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Doc Dutch is the biggest asshole on the forum.

Millions of dollars, partly from your parent's tax dollars, went into making me the best and biggest asshole I could be! Please thank them for me.

I even have a merit badge!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Atheism has, to some, become a label slaoped on a system of beliefs, but to me, that's a red herring. Atheism is simply lack of belief. It does not require anything 'active'. Everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one fewer God than others. The other red herring is that difference between atheism and agnosticism. I'm not even really sure I understand people who claim to be agnostic. To me, it's hedging your bets. If I am 99.999% sure that there is no God, does the .001 make me an agnostic? Hardly, IMHO. Agnosticism implies to me that 'maybe, maybe not'. I simply see 'God' as superfluous. Completely unnecessary, and always, always anthropomorphized.

I LOWE Tyson. If you ever get the chance, google him talking about his conversation with James Cameron about the night sky in Titanic. Pretty damn funny.

Many atheists embrace that label. The "Four Horsemen of Atheism" and their fans being a prime example.

You exemplify the difference between Christians: there are those who are in-your-face, there are those who mind their own fucking business and everything in between. Like all things human, it's a range of behavior, not only a black & white difference.

 

[Concart]

Many atheists embrace that label. The "Four Horsemen of Atheism" and their fans being a prime example.

You exemplify the difference between Christians: there are those who are in-your-face, there are those who mind their own fucking business and everything in between. Like all things human, it's a range of behavior, not only a black & white difference.

So wait, you're saying that Cypress's approach and PMPs are different?

I agree that some atheists are dogmatic. And some are not. Same with Christians. The dogma is the problem.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't think Christianity should get to do all the screaming. Some of us on this thread wrote that in real life and at work, we have had very few experiences of being prostylitized by aggressive christians. Very few.

I see it somewhat differently. As you noted keeping religion out of gov't and ed is a legitimate policy goal, but the folks who are shoehorning it in are doing so aggressively. Take Hobby Lobby for instance. They support atheist China for their cheap goods that they sell, then turn around and tell the women in America who work for them that they will decide which healthcare is available to them based on their sincere dedication to their lord and savior. Oh, yeah, then they get nailed by the NY Atty General for false advertising with their "permasale" schemes. They are no more dedicated to Christ than an atheist but they use their faith to drive public policy.

I find that action quite aggressive. Same with any of a hundred other examples not including the whole Religious Right's war on women and abortion rights. We have several SCOTUS justices who actively lied about their adherence to stare decisis just so they could get on the court and then gut Roe.

That level of aggression is not acceptable and I suspect you and I both agree with that position. But it is aggressive. The religious have been quite vocal and aggressive and the atheists have, what, 5 "famous" vocal adherents? Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hithchens, and maybe a couple others...vs entire swaths of organized religion that fight daily and loudly to stand up for their faith and aggressively push it.

Personally, when I was in the process of "de-converting" from Christianity it helped to have a voice like Sam Harris or Dawkins. Now that I'm a bit longer in the tooth as an atheist I can definitely see Dawkins as being kind of a nasty anti-theist, but it doesn't change the point.

I am not an aggressive atheist in real life (I may play one from time to time on here) and as I said I actually have mostly Christian friends. I even see a lot of value in the faith. I don't, however, think that one side has the right to proselytize while the other side has to sit quietly by. And vocal folks on any given side can be a benefit to the side if only to help those who are timidly exploring a position to realize that, indeed, they are ALLOWED to think the "bad thoughts". That maybe the "bad thoughts" aren't bad after all.

Just my 2cents.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So wait, you're saying that Cypress's approach and PMPs are different?

I agree that some atheists are dogmatic. And some are not. Same with Christians. The dogma is the problem.

Not per se, but that would be one example. FWIW, Pmp is a Christian in name only. He is truly an evil person. I challenge anyone on JPP to post a shred of proof that he conducted himself as a Christian rather than a Satanist wearing a Christian mask.

Agreed on dogma. There's also the matter of extremism, since dogma is usually established rules and documentation. Atheists do have their "dogma" but it's a range of things too. Less formalized than other established religions.

 

[Concart]

Not per se, but that would be one example. FWIW, Pmp is a Christian in name only. He is truly an evil person. I challenge anyone on JPP to post a shred of proof that he conducted himself as a Christian rather than a Satanist wearing a Christian mask.

Agreed on dogma. There's also the matter of extremism, since dogma is usually established rules and documentation. Atheists do have their "dogma" but it's a range of things too. Less formalized than other established religions.

What I can tell you about me is that I am an atheist with zero dogma. My issue with organized religions (pretty much all of them), is that the extremists hijack those religions for nefarious purposes. I don't think the two discussions have that much in common, but that's my viewpoint.

 

[Cypress]

Atheism has, to some, become a label slaoped on a system of beliefs, but to me, that's a red herring. Atheism is simply lack of belief. It does not require anything 'active'. Everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one fewer God than others. The other red herring is that difference between atheism and agnosticism. I'm not even really sure I understand people who claim to be agnostic. To me, it's hedging your bets. If I am 99.999% sure that there is no God, does the .001 make me an agnostic? Hardly, IMHO. Agnosticism implies to me that 'maybe, maybe not'. I simply see 'God' as superfluous. Completely unnecessary, and always, always anthropomorphized.

I LOWE Tyson. If you ever get the chance, google him talking about his conversation with James Cameron about the night sky in Titanic. Pretty damn funny.

I think atheism is to closely affiliated with supposedly being an oppositional ideology to the Abrahamic religions.

I think atheism at its core is a rejection of religion, in general

A few of the Asian religions do not have a specific creator god, but they still are infused with the irrationality, mythology, ritual, superstition, and the supernatural that atheism has always been traditionally opposed to in Christianity, based on it's rational Enlightenment principles .

Anthropomorphization of the Christian God is bad theology in most christian practices I am aware of. God is supposed to be unfathomable, and apart from space and time.

To me, being an agnostic is not a matter of degrees or percentages of uncertainty.

It is an open acknowledgment of ignorance.

I do not believe my primate brain has the cognitive capacity to percieve and correctly interpret all true knowledge, and I do not categorically reject the very real possibility of a higher truth and an underlying purposeful organizing principle to the cosmos

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What I can tell you about me is that I am an atheist with zero dogma. My issue with organized religions (pretty much all of them), is that the extremists hijack those religions for nefarious purposes. I don't think the two discussions have that much in common, but that's my viewpoint.

Agreed on extremists. Those who post about how evil religion is by pointing to historical wars are overlooking the fact that the leadership of those eras used religion as a tool to motivate the masses. The wars themselves were rarely religious at all. Consider the Irish "troubles". Religion was a motivator, but the real issue was British control of Ireland.

 

[ExpressLane]

Science would say that we didn’t actually evolve from apes but that we both evolved from a common ancestor in a process that is essentially the genes of our common ancestor mutating into different forms leading to us and apes.

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Another problem is that after that branching of genes from our common ancestors there is zero evidence of it ever happening again.

Statistically that would be an impossibility since if it happens once it should be an ongoing process.

So yes, after that split from the common ancestor each species evolved in their own way but never again did any species genes branch out again to create multiple new species.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Can we identify a single living species that has evolved into different species? Is that even possible?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think atheism is to closely affiliated with supposedly being an oppositional ideology to the Abrahamic religions.

I think atheism at its core is a rejection of religion, in general

A few of the Asian religions do not have a specific creator god, but they still are infused with the irrationality, mythology, ritual, superstition, and the supernatural that atheism has always been traditionally opposed to in Christianity, based on it's rational Enlightenment principles .

Anthropomorphization of the Christian God is bad theology in most christian practices I am aware of. God is supposed to be unfathomable, and apart from space and time.

To me, being an agnostic is not a matter of degrees or percentages of uncertainty.

It is an open acknowledgment of ignorance. I do not believe my primate brain has the capacity to percieve and correctly interpret all true knowledge, and I do not categorically reject the very real possibility of a higher truth and an underlying purposeful organizing principle to the cosmos

In the West, agreed.

As demonstrated with the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, atheists reject religion because they have their own religion. LOL

Agreed on primate brains being able to understand an entity capable of creating the Universe. Most can't even comprehend the size of their own planet.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Can we identify a single living species that has evolved into different species? Is that even possible?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for proof that you could not possibly have graduated from an American medical school.

Truly, thank you. This also means you are a charlatan, a liar and a fraud. I've thought so for the past few years, but now I have proof.
Thank you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Science would say that we didn’t actually evolve from apes but that we both evolved from a common ancestor in a process that is essentially the genes of our common ancestor mutating into different forms leading to us and apes.

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Another problem is that after that branching of genes from our common ancestors there is zero evidence of it ever happening again.

Statistically that would be an impossibility since if it happens once it should be an ongoing process.

So yes, after that split from the common ancestor each species evolved in their own way but never again did any species genes branch out again to create multiple new species.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Stupid question,

No one said that humans evolved from apes.

Humans and apes have a common ancestor - but diverged a million years back or so.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Stupid question,

No one said that humans evolved from apes.

Humans and apes have a common ancestor - but diverged a million years back or so.

...but Down Under dumbasses have a much closer link.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you didn't provide even one rebuttal to one point. Did your university make you too stupid or too pompous to answer? Or both?

There was no point.

Asking why there are still apes is like asking "if green is a mixture of yellow and blue, why is there still orange?"

It's nonsensical. That orange and green have a common ancestor - yellow - doesn't mean that green "evolved from" orange. FURTHER, that green and orange exist, in no way precludes the idea that their common ancestor, yellow, can also exist.

 

[Concart]

I think atheism is to closely affiliated with supposedly being an oppositional ideology to the Abrahamic religions.

I think atheism at its core is a rejection of religion, in general

A few of the Asian religions do not have a specific creator god, but they still are infused with the irrationality, mythology, ritual, superstition, and the supernatural that atheism has always been traditionally opposed to in Christianity, based on it's rational Enlightenment principles .

Anthropomorphization of the Christian God is bad theology in most christian practices I am aware of. God is supposed to be unfathomable, and apart from space and time.

To me, being an agnostic is not a matter of degrees or percentages of uncertainty.

It is an open acknowledgment of ignorance.

I do not believe my primate brain has the cognitive capacity to percieve and correctly interpret all true knowledge, and I do not categorically reject the very real possibility of a higher truth and an underlying purposeful organizing principle to the cosmos

I can speak only for myself, but that is not true in my case. Those two things exist independently, one is passive, the other active. I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but there is no dogma attached to that disbelief. I don't give one second of thought about why I reject those mythical beings, and I don't give a second of thought to my non-belief in God. I simply don't see the need for God. I'm fine with accepting that what is known by man represents a wholly insignificant amount compared to what can be known. I simply don't have any need for a God of the gaps. Science, given enough time and advanced enough technology can explain all of those gaps, and that explanation, as it always has been, will be found in the natural world.

My rejection of 'religion' is actually a rejection of religious dogma. I have no issue with faith, until you tell me I have to have faith in the EXACT SAME THINGS THAT YOU DO or else. And by you, I mean the organized religions throughout history.

 

[BidenPresident]

I can speak only for myself, but that is not true in my case. Those two things exist independently, one is passive, the other active. I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but there is no dogma attached to that disbelief. I don't give one second of thought about why I reject those mythical beings, and I don't give a second of thought to my non-belief in God. I simply don't see the need for God. I'm fine with accepting that what is known by man represents a wholly insignificant amount compared to what can be known. I simply don't have any need for a God of the gaps. Science, given enough time and advanced enough technology can explain all of those gaps, and that explanation, as it always has been, will be found in the natural world.

My rejection of 'religion' is actually a rejection of religious dogma. I have no issue with faith, until you tell me I have to have faith in the EXACT SAME THINGS THAT YOU DO or else. And by you, I mean the organized religions throughout history.

All US citizens subsidize churches and religious institutions. US law prevents them from being assessed property taxes.

 

[Cypress]

I see it somewhat differently. As you noted keeping religion out of gov't and ed is a legitimate policy goal, but the folks who are shoehorning it in are doing so aggressively. Take Hobby Lobby for instance. They support atheist China for their cheap goods that they sell, then turn around and tell the women in America who work for them that they will decide which healthcare is available to them based on their sincere dedication to their lord and savior. Oh, yeah, then they get nailed by the NY Atty General for false advertising with their "permasale" schemes. They are no more dedicated to Christ than an atheist but they use their faith to drive public policy.

I find that action quite aggressive. Same with any of a hundred other examples not including the whole Religious Right's war on women and abortion rights. We have several SCOTUS justices who actively lied about their adherence to stare decisis just so they could get on the court and then gut Roe.

That level of aggression is not acceptable and I suspect you and I both agree with that position. But it is aggressive. The religious have been quite vocal and aggressive and the atheists have, what, 5 "famous" vocal adherents? Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hithchens, and maybe a couple others...vs entire swaths of organized religion that fight daily and loudly to stand up for their faith and aggressively push it.

Personally, when I was in the process of "de-converting" from Christianity it helped to have a voice like Sam Harris or Dawkins. Now that I'm a bit longer in the tooth as an atheist I can definitely see Dawkins as being kind of a nasty anti-theist, but it doesn't change the point.

I am not an aggressive atheist in real life (I may play one from time to time on here) and as I said I actually have mostly Christian friends. I even see a lot of value in the faith. I don't, however, think that one side has the right to proselytize while the other side has to sit quietly by. And vocal folks on any given side can be a benefit to the side if only to help those who are timidly exploring a position to realize that, indeed, they are ALLOWED to think the "bad thoughts". That maybe the "bad thoughts" aren't bad after all.

Just my 2cents.

Hobby Lobby is involved in interstate commerce and thus falls under Federal civil rights laws concerning religious or gender discrimination.

I previously said that I was on the same page as Tyson when it came to keeping religious dogma out of education, government, and law. That is a serious and legitimate problem.

 

[Cypress]

In the West, agreed.

As demonstrated with the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, atheists reject religion because they have their own religion. LOL

Agreed on primate brains being able to understand an entity capable of creating the Universe. Most can't even comprehend the size of their own planet.

I don't see how you can categorically rejects gods as false, but then be open to the possibility of resurrection, samsara, the Buddhist vision of hell, and the Hindu concept of a universal spirit. LoL

When you really cut to the chase, atheism pretty much has to be a rejection of religion in general, as it famously prides itself on being the progeny of Enlightenment principles and rationality

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Hobby Lobby is involved in interstate commerce and thus falls under Federal civil rights laws concerning religious or gender discrimination.

Hobby Lobby is run by a family who feels that theft of antiquities, lying to the public and supporting atheist China for their sweet mammon is offset by their espousal of faith.

I previously said that I was on the same page as Tyson when it came to keeping religious dogma out of education, government, and law. That is a serious and legitimate problem.

On which we both clearly agree.