I don't think the definitions you posted are completely incorrect, because the most colloquial, popular usage of the word atheist is "one who does not believe in the existence of god(s)". It is also possible that many self identified atheists hold on to this view. But from a strictly evidential point of view, a rational atheist must also be an agnostic, otherwise her atheism is simply a belief based on personal opinion. As an agnostic, a person simply states that one does not know whether gods exist or not. As an atheist she does not make her lack of belief contingent on the 100% certainty of the lack of existence of gods. This is the reason entities like Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or Invisible pink unicorns, or his holiness the FSM will find themselves invoked in conversations like these. Granted one has no evidence for the existence of these beings, but then, what evidence does one have for the lack of existence of these? Why is one not an agnostic about the Bigfoot? Why is one firmly in the atheist camp when it comes to unicorns? I need some evidence or even some statistical probability for a belief before I can even label myself an agnostic. That is the reason atheists who have wrestled with these ideas will carefully qualify themselves as simply "lacking belief(s) in god(s)". Even atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins will not boldly claim that "no gods exist" but will say something like "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low". I myself will describe my beliefs as threefold: 1. Given the current status of human knowledge, I will probably never know during my lifetime whether an external, all powerful sentient being exists or not. 2. Even if such a being is found to exist, I find it extremely unlikely that this entity has any interest in the affairs of whales, humans, ants or bacteria on a tiny speck called Earth existing for a tiny blip in the scale of time. 3. Lacking any objective evidence whatsoever, I will not assign a "special status" to the belief in god or hold off my lack of belief until it can be proven that god does not exist (a negative proof). I am however willing to change my mind if positive evidence is found.

Yup. I am fortunate to know wonderful, beautiful, attractive women who are attractive because of the warmth and confidence they exude. This thread is weird to me, probably because I am from a different country and come from a different cultural context altogether. I drip dry my hair (because it is easier and also because it is healthier for my hair). It would have never occurred to me, had I not read this thread, that I could have been labelled frumpy for that. Women here, never wear makeup at home. Some do for work, but it is absolutely normal for women in my country to wear no makeup at all. We often wear loose, baggy clothing too. In spite of these, I still consider myself as putting my best face forward. :001_smile: I feel attractive and not in the least bit conscious about my unmade up face. Not wearing makeup everyday does not equal not caring about oneself. There is an implication by many on this thread that wearing at least light makeup is the minimum default for women to feel attractive about themselves and look attractive to others. There is also an assumption that only women lacking in self-esteem would not dress up or want to look "pulled together". But for me and for many others on this thread who admit to dressing frumpy most of the time, I think it is because we just don't give our clothes or our appearance much thought on a daily basis. Sure I like to get dressed, wear makeup and jewellery when the occasion demands it, but on most days I feel perfectly beautiful, happy, attractive and even sexy in my frumpiness :001_smile: .

She doesn'nt need pesky evidence, science or logic. "Intuition" is all she needs.

The human brain is objective evidence for the human brain, nothing more. You still need to demonstrate evidence for your claim that the sequence of brain evolution shows the primacy of intuition over reason as a tool for understanding.

That is great. Then what do you mean by saying that we should expect to see half cats and half dogs if evolution were true? Or that there are no transitional fossils?

So, let me see if I can summarize the gist of your argument. The emotional centers of the brain are much older than the rational centers of the brain. Since evolution selected for the emotions and moral instincts earlier than it selected for rationality, our emotions (love, intuition) and our moral instincts (empathy, altruism, fairness) are superior tools for understanding the world than our capacity to reason (logic, science). If that is indeed your argument, then I suppose it would be futile for me ask what objective evidence do you base that on. It would also be futile to point out that humans with their capacity to reason have been far more successful at constructing knowledge than any other animal. Sadie said earlier, we need our (rational) brains to understand our brains.... It seems on the other hand that your intuition tells you that intuition is better for learning about everything. As Barb said:

Do you understand the theory of evolution?

ETA: Oops I seem to have messed up some of my quotes. They read as albeto(.), when I am actually responding to ananemone. Science is indeed a tool and a method, but turns out that science has proven to be a spectacularly consistent, reliable and successful method for understanding the world and for constructing our knowledge base. It is easy for some people to claim that Intuition can be a useful tool, when that some person happens to be Einstein, but does intuition come anywhere close to science in consistence and reliability? Indeed, a lot of our current scientific understanding is counter-intuitive. The fact that the earth is big ball freely floating in space is counter-intuitive. Many of science’s most interesting findings – heliocentrism, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics are all counter-intuitive. Einstein says that intuition is developed by experience. I would go further to say that intuition is also developed by knowledge. Your intuition can mislead you to incorrect conclusions if it is based on misunderstanding the current science. No, all of physics does not rely on intuition (and neither does Einstein say so). Some physicists most certainly do, and many other physicists make breakthroughs by challenging intuition. And what are these other perspectives with which to understand the world. How many significant findings have these other perspectives added to our understanding of the world? I would sure be interested to know. Scientific progress is fuelled by the relentless nature of human curiosity, spirit of adventure, yearning for knowledge and willingness to persevere against impossible odds. I agree that humility is important for a scientist, but IMO so is hubris ;). I think it would be presumptuous on my part to think that my lack of understanding and imagination translates to a limit on science. You are confusing “moral behavior†such as empathy & altruism with “moralityâ€. Moral behavior is just one component of animal intelligence, some other components of which include memory, problem solving and social living. It would be impossible to argue which came first – moral behavior or other aspects of intelligence such as the capacity to think. In all probability all aspects of intelligence evolved side by side. Human Morality - a system of social and cultural laws - on the other hand is as much a human construct as the scientific method. You have claimed in several posts that morality follows some universal physical laws. Yet we find that morality varies with culture. Morality evolves over time. And even with a single culture there are people who hold different moral values. There is nothing universal, unchanging or absolute about human morality. In fact there may be as many versions of moralities as there are humans. I think you are misunderstanding De Waal. De Waal is not claiming that there is an external source for morality, but rather his research shows morality evolved because of brain biology. De Waal also draws a distinction between moral behaviour and morality in this essay: At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.†This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. ... This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment. And this is exactly where Sam Harris comes in, because he believes that we can arrive at these “universal standards of morality†through rational investigation. He says in this article: Throughout the book [The Moral Landscape] I make reference to a hypothetical space that I call “the moral landscapeâ€â€”a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys represent the deepest possible suffering. Different ways of thinking and behaving—different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc.—will translate into movements across this landscape and, therefore, into different degrees of human flourishing. As parents and home-educators I think we can appreciate this position. Definitely the science of child psychology and development has informed my own attitudes on the ways to parent my child such as to maximize his emotional well-being. The science of neuroplasticity, cognition and learning has helped me approach my child’s education differently. The science of the brain has helped me become more compassionate and kinder and less judgemental. In short, the landscape of my moral values has been influenced by science.

Well, I was actually hoping that you could elaborate on the mechanisms of evolution that you disagree with. But since you say you agree with microevolution, I suppose you do agree with Neo-Darwininian evolution which proposes that organisms evolve primarily through random mutation and natural selection.

Actually I don't see why the trees should have growth rings. The purpose of growth rings is not to "depict age". Growth rings are just patterns of wood growth depending on season and climate and can be used to determine age since we can know the seasonal changes in a year. There are years with very narrow rings which are due to droughts, and sometimes even missing rings. So you see, even growth rings don't just mutely exist, tell a story of the past if you are willing to look and listen. If all humans just believed that, we would never have made the progress that we have. I am grateful to all the people who do not stop at just wondering, and who push to find solutions no matter how impossible the problems seem.

How do you find evidence for the supernatural? If there is evidence, then would it not then be seen as natural?

What is Darwin's version of evolution and how is it different from your version of evolution? (and please don't say Macroevolution. The third way group that you seem to be fond of, do accept macroevolution)

This thread reminds me of the question "Did Adam and Eve have a navel?". Check out the wikipedia article on Omphalos hypothesis to understand the criticisms for option C.

What is it about option C that makes sense to you? I asked the same question to the OP before: She has not yet responded. I presume that is because she has arrived at her position without understanding the science and is therefore unable to explain her reasoning. So you believe god has planted elaborate false clues and red herrings to deliberately mislead? Such an idea of the "all powerful divine" amuses me because this god seems tiny and petty and not even capable of matching the wisdom and compassion of some of the awesome people on this board.

The first link - well, the author writes a "peer reviewed" paper for a journal for which he is also in the editorial board. OK. The second link - it has nothing there which proposes an alternate theory to "Neo Darwinism". Infact it is not a paper on evolution at all. ID proponent William Dembski seems to think that the chief scientist in this group James Shapiro is a "Darwinist". http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/is_james_shapir_2055551.html.

This is terrible news :crying:. Moira first and now Tom. The boards were so much richer due to their presence. They will both be missed. :crying:

How do you find Option C plausible? How do you reconcile the idea that god planted a false history for the Universe and left evidence for events and things that never even existed, with the idea that god is not a trickster/deceiver?

I think this statement reveals a lack of understanding of science. The earth and the universe are not "just simply old". Piecing together the various clues from studying astronomy, geology, paleontology, an engrossing story emerges, that which we know as the history of the universe and the earth. We can study and know, for example, when the universe was born, when various stars were born and then died, how and when the solar system was born, how and when the earth was born, how the seas took shape, which volcanoes erupted when, which rivers once flowed and then stopped flowing, how the continents were once shaped and how they changed shapes over time, how and when the various mountain systems were born, when the planet was covered by ice and when was it covered by forests, what kind of trees and animals grew in the forests at various points of time in the past, what was the climate at various points of time, how did life progress over time and so on and on. (that is the just the tip of the geological iceberg) I find it fascinating that scientists can study the clues left behind and reconstruct the past. It is not as simple as saying that because Adam/Eve were adults, the earth must also have been old. Did Adam and Eve have a history? Did they have memories of crawling as babies or playing in the garden as children? The earth does. The earth has a history and a memory of the past in the form of tell tale clues that scientists dedicate their lives to studying. You and I, as lay people have little understanding of the work that goes into such a study and therefore the "theories" that we will come up with in our ignorance are going to be laughably simplistic and embarrassingly naive.

1. That would be an interesting theory if it were at all plausible scientifically. But it is not. Geology/Paleontology is not about finding a bunch of fossils "at various stages of decay" and concluding that the earth must be old. Geology is a complex field and to understand the mathematical and procedural nuances of any geological theory requires years of serious study. 2. If this is the position that you want to hold, then we could also argue that God could have also created this world just yesterday with all our memories and histories planted just to create an impression of age. If all objective evidence leads to create the impression of age, and there is no way to know if God created us 10 minutes ago or 10000 years ago, then such an argument for all practical purposes is futile.

I expect to see a baby in a diaper. A diapered baby butt would be an exceedingly ordinary sight and would not draw my attention at all.

Try jabongworld.com

Yes I get that. But don't you think you can choose your reaction to even negative stimuli - maybe not always? But many times. For me, "choosing happiness" is simply a way of choosing a greater amount of control over my reactions, evenly intensely negative reactions such as grief and anger, so that my emotions do not consume me. And as somebody pointed out earlier, it does take a huge amount of work and practice and maybe even therapy to get to that place.

I don't know. That is how I would define happiness.

This is probably a semantics issue. I do not see happiness as an emotion, but rather as a state of mind, an attitude. When seen as an attitude to life, I do value happiness very very high.

I can understand this concern, because I have gone through this feeling myself. It has helped me immensely to change my attitude from treating my child's character traits as something 'I wished he did not have' to something 'I have to deal with and work with'. With the former attitude, I would be unduly focused on undesirability of his behaviors and how he needs to change, right then. With the latter mindset, I can use practical tools and tips to help him cope and know that it is a work in progress and takes practice. I know you took issue with albeto's post, but there is this wonderful gem there which I would like to highlight: I would encourage you to rethink your tactic and instead learn how to introduce and reinforce these skills in such a way that works best for him. I love this. Ultimately we all want our kids to make right choices, not for us, but for themselves. I like how the above quote challenges me to ask "How can I help my child do the right things for his own reasons in a way that is practical and doable for him?