If life is meaningless, that's on you. Not society.

Pirate700

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm taking about those players on the NBA, for example. Some of them earn millions of dollars. And for what? Because they're good at it? I mean, sure, they're good, but their playing sports doesn't do anything important other then to entertain. But look at doctors, or nurses, for example. These people save lives, and make other poeple's lives better. IMO their services are more important. What do you think? Is it unfair for athletes to learn lots of money, vs doctors who may not?

hydralisk86

They earn so much money because so many people pay money to see them.

Maybe it's not right that people will pay to see a guy play basketball but not to have him do something good for the world, but it's how things are.

Also doctors are a bad example, because they make tons of money and don't even have your health as their top priority.

I do too, for movies and in real life.

Polygamy isn't bad, so long as it's agreed on ahead of time.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Ah, but you see, I'm a neuroscientist. I know too much about biology to be able to respect a belief that is so painfully wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory. There's no disputing that species change over time. Even before Darwin arrived on the scene scientists had long been aware that species consistently morphed into new ones. The only question Darwin solved was how that change occured.

And sure, theories have been disproved in science on many occasions but those theories were never on the same level of understanding that evolution is. Natural selection theory stands about the same chance of being disproved as does atomic theory, germ theory, or gravitational theory.

gameguy6700

My grandma always likes to say this one, "the only person who knows anything is the person who knows they don't know anything". You're arrogant. Every scientist who ever believed in a theory felt the same way. And they probably did understand better than the people who had failed before them, but then we came along and "understood" better than them. I'm not smart or anything, but I at least know that we always think we know more than we actually do.

It's really just arrogant to think that you've got something figured out.

It's not arrogant to accept that something is true which has been documented countless times, for which there is no shortage of proof, and which explains just about all of biology. If evolution wasn't true then all domesticated organisms should not exist. We know that humans domesticated dogs, cats, farm animals, and crops from species that you wouldn't even recognize. This is not guesswork, it's recorded in history. The only difference between domestication and natural selection is that domestication by humans is just a consciously directed form of natural selection. And before you try to claim that they're somehow different, I will pre-emptively say that the conditions that allow for domestication to be possible automatically require that natural selection also be possible.

That entire first sentence is arrogant, and missing the point. I didn't say you didn't have evidence or that modern science doesn't point towards you being right. I can't argue with you on it because

A) It'd be hypocritical since I put my faith in faith.

B) Like I already said, this is the answer that modern science has given us. There's no evidence I can show against it.

My point is that future generations could and probably will find that we overlooked soemthing, or that something else has been going on that we couldn't detect with our primitive technology. I'm not arguing that I can prove you wrong, I'm arguing that the future can and probably will prove you wrong, so there's no point in getting so arrogant about your belief. You may as well let everyone have their beliefs. You'd even get to argue less.

you shouldnt try to see reality as it is, and try to fit it into the bible. you shouldnt ignore reality, and only trust the bible you should simply try to see reality as it is, uncompromising.Atheists_Pwn

If you're talking to me, I don't try to fit things into the Bible. In fact I already said the Bible's just a book that most of us haven't read.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Most creationists claim that they take Genesis literally, and the bible does indeed explicitly state that God created exactly two people in the beginning who were crafted in his image and meant to rule over all the other animals. If you think that's all up for interpretation, that's fine, but then I don't really understand why you would reject evolution at that point since it would easily fit into your beliefs if you just think that God guided evolution.

I'm only disputing people who think that God zapped everything into existence as they exist today out of nothing. If you think God guided evolution to create humans then it's impossible to dispute such a claim (although biology does show that such a presence would be unnecessary the only way to definitively disprove it would be to disprove God which isn't happening).

gameguy6700

I never said God guided evolution, the way I see it it doesn't matter if God made us this way or if God changed us to be this way.

And why dispute those people? Can you prove that God didn't zap neanderthals into existence and then let them die out? Or if not that, maybe there's another way it could have happened.

It's best just to respect people's beliefs is all I'm saying, after all evolution is just a belief based on today's science. Every science teacher I've ever had has stressed that plenty of scientific theories in the past have been disproven later, and that it's possible that any of today's scientific theories could be disproven in the future.

Ah, but you see, I'm a neuroscientist. I know too much about biology to be able to respect a belief that is so painfully wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory. There's no disputing that species change over time. Even before Darwin arrived on the scene scientists had long been aware that species consistently morphed into new ones. The only question Darwin solved was how that change occured.

And sure, theories have been disproved in science on many occasions but those theories were never on the same level of understanding that evolution is. Natural selection theory stands about the same chance of being disproved as does atomic theory, germ theory, or gravitational theory.

My grandma always likes to say this one, "the only person who knows anything is the person who knows they don't know anything". You're arrogant. Every scientist who ever believed in a theory felt the same way. And they probably did understand better than the people who had failed before them, but then we came along and "understood" better than them. I'm not smart or anything, but I at least know that we always think we know more than we actually do.

It's really just arrogant to think that you've got something figured out.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

gameguy6700

This is the biggest problem with you evolution guys, you're too literal. The Bible is just a book that barely any of us have actually read. A lot of people talk about how "the Bible says" this and that, but what they really mean is "my religious beliefs say" this and that.

So yeah, the Bible might say that, but that doesn't mean any of us actually believe that. Religion is a belief, not a book.

Most creationists claim that they take Genesis literally, and the bible does indeed explicitly state that God created exactly two people in the beginning who were crafted in his image and meant to rule over all the other animals. If you think that's all up for interpretation, that's fine, but then I don't really understand why you would reject evolution at that point since it would easily fit into your beliefs if you just think that God guided evolution.

I'm only disputing people who think that God zapped everything into existence as they exist today out of nothing. If you think God guided evolution to create humans then it's impossible to dispute such a claim (although biology does show that such a presence would be unnecessary the only way to definitively disprove it would be to disprove God which isn't happening).

I never said God guided evolution, the way I see it it doesn't matter if God made us this way or if God changed us to be this way.

And why dispute those people? Can you prove that God didn't zap neanderthals into existence and then let them die out? Or if not that, maybe there's another way it could have happened.

It's best just to respect people's beliefs is all I'm saying, after all evolution is just a belief based on today's science. Every science teacher I've ever had has stressed that plenty of scientific theories in the past have been disproven later, and that it's possible that any of today's scientific theories could be disproven in the future.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

This is the biggest problem with you evolution guys, you're too literal. The Bible is just a book that barely any of us have actually read. A lot of people talk about how "the Bible says" this and that, but what they really mean is "my religious beliefs say" this and that.

So yeah, the Bible might say that, but that doesn't mean any of us actually believe that. Religion is a belief, not a book.

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?