Atheism revisited

[Deluge]

[quote name='Ouroboros' post='1657171' date='Jan 21 2009, 15.21']Or even more annoying, be told continually that because I don't 'believe' in unicorns that one day a unicorn would show up and kill me with its magic horn.[/quote]
I'm using this next time someone throws Pascal's wager in my face. I usually ask them if they're worried about going to some other religion's hell, but this is much, much better.

[Mackaxx]

Regarding no monsters under my bed

Wolf king fella
[quote]I'm sure your version of reality is a bliss.[/quote]

As any child can attest the realization that those monsters are not real is quite liberating. Also, 'version' of reality?

Wolf king fella
[quote]There are no contradictions to what is being established- and he does provide evidence and confirms observations scientifically. The article is NOT about establishing who the intelligence is- the author has an OPINION about who it is, however- keep the discussion relevant to the central assertions, the central issues are quite interesting, but you apparently want to divert from them by pointing out that the author has an opinion in ADDITION TO the important central theme being discussed both in the article, and hopefully here.[/quote]

This addresses nothing in my point, so I guess you concede it again. It's great how unlike formal debates its easy for people to check up and see that you aren't actually addressing any of the refutations that are made.

Evidence that is based on an erroneous understanding of abiogenesis isn't what I'd call evidence. His observations and evidence all falls on its head when it becomes clear that the things being spoken about (devolution?) are made up. To even use the word evolve when discussing abiogenesis is stupid.

I haven't even spoken about who the 'intelligence' is either, so I'd kindly ask you don't put those words into my mouth. I've pointed out why many of the statements are blatantly incorrect, misunderstandings and made up fantasy.

So, apparently, even though many have pointed out that all the 'evidence' is bullshit your asking people to focus on the mysterious central issue. So, lets all put aside the lack of proof and made up crap and break it right down to the central issue shall we, for the sake of what you want to discuss you get a free pass, you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. In a nutshell describe the articles important central them for me if you please. The central issue.

[quote]I'm just pointing out how intelligently and carefully controlled those experiments are, and showing that in natural conditions, these conditions do not exist, and that in natural conditions, it would be essentially impossible for such results to happen and survive for a great many reasons- each reason adding it’s own essential impossibilities to the next- until we posit that it is unreasonable to suggest that nature is capable of such a finely tuned intelligent creation and assembly- however, the discussion is about the article, and not whether lab conditions could reasonably be duplicated in nature- the article is discussing the chemical purity and assembly and constructions and inter-reliance of all the subsystems which support the megasystem, and whether nature is capable of these incredible intricacies and self-assemblies in their pure form and IC state, and with the information needed already present and somehow accounted for and fully functional or not.[/quote]

What reasons are there for these reactions not being able to happen over a time scale of billions of years? The ones you gave earlier were made up tosh so I'm going to need some more. Nature can take it one step at a time, over billions of years, a time scale that boggles the human mind, literally. I'd say that if it took nature that long to get it right then nature is an incredibly shitty chemist, not brilliant at all. But over that time scale it doesn't matter, you can be incredibly shitty, eventually you get it right. Its like a combination lock with 100 numbers to choose from, you can press the buttons randomly and eventually you get into the lock, you only need to do it once though. Over a billion years your going to open a shitload of locks.

Your basically tromping out the tired old fossil record argument, the tired old anti evolution argument, that if we can't be there we can't prove it. Say one thing for creationists, say they are recyclers.

[quote]The author has an OPINION about how or what the intelligence is- however- the central theme is NOT about who or what the intellectuality is, but rather the FACT that all we know about nature, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that nature is incapable of creating the intelligently designed species examined in the article. You can either address this central theme or not- but making false claims about what the article is about certainly doesn�€™t help shore up your belief that �€˜nature did it�€™ without any evidence to support your belief- in fact, the evidences show nature couldn�€™t have done it- and this is precisely what the article is about- you are projecting something onto the article that simply should not be projected.[/quote]

Repeating yourself eh, well, when in rome. Pushing this line with other as well I see, no one cares who the intelligence is, what is being pointed out that is that it's not necessary. The FACT you mention isn't fact, as has been pointed out all the evidence you've presented so far has been bunk.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1656958' date='Jan 22 2009, 04.57']A lot of leg work[/quote]

Nice work on your explanation TerraPrime, and nice job stopping someone from doing something more useful than refuting that wacky article ser wolf.

[Crazydog7]

You know for all the atheists that complain about being the great persecuted minority valiantly taking the stand against all the ignorant people who believe in invisible men in the sky I don’t see much difference between the two groups. I take great offense (not that anyone cares) with the concept that has been stated in other threads that religious are “intellectually lazy”

Both extremes of the spectrum I have known religious people who intolerant, amoral and petty the same goes for atheists. I defend religion on this board not only because of my belief but because someone has to.

The atheist would say that morals are an imperfect theist concept that factionalize people until you eventually have one camp that expresses superior morality not in a positive way but simply as an excuse to shit on other people. Can you have a concept of morals without a religious structure of some kind? Even “a code that you live by” has got to be based on something. It you don’t have some concept of morals by some name or other you have a society that is purely survival of the fittest. You can think about what is good for the group as a whole but not what is good for the individual.

There is a more basic need in all of us to feel that there is something out there that gives a shit about us beyond whatever temporary attachments we may have to family and friends. I believe in Jesus Christ and the promise of his resurrection. Comrade Machaxx believes in science. The man who expresses belief and the man who expresses unbelief are more alike then they would ever admit to each other because at some point both men look at themselves in the mirror and say “am I a fool couldn’t the other guy be right?”

These threads are always interesting.

[Vendetto]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657588' date='Jan 21 2009, 20.49']You know for all the atheists that complain about being the great persecuted minority valiantly taking the stand against all the ignorant people who believe in invisible men in the sky I don’t see much difference between the two groups. I take great offense (not that anyone cares) with the concept that has been stated in other threads that religious are “intellectually lazy”
Both extremes of the spectrum I have known religious people who intolerant, amoral and petty the same goes for atheists. I defend religion on this board not only because of my belief but because someone has to.
The atheist would say that morals are an imperfect theist concept that factionalize people until you eventually have one camp that expresses superior morality not in a positive way but simply as an excuse to shit on other people. Can you have a concept of morals without a religious structure of some kind? Even “a code that you live by” has got to be based on something. It you don’t have some concept of morals by some name or other you have a society that is purely survival of the fittest. You can think about what is good for the group as a whole but not what is good for the individual.
There is a more basic need in all of us to feel that there is something out there that gives a shit about us beyond whatever temporary attachments we may have to family and friends. I believe in Jesus Christ and the promise of his resurrection. Comrade Machaxx believes in science. The man who expresses belief and the man who expresses unbelief are more alike then they would ever admit to each other because at some point both men look at themselves in the mirror and say “am I a fool couldn’t the other guy be right?”
These threads are always interesting.[/quote]
Very well said.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657588' date='Jan 21 2009, 22.49']I defend religion on this board not only because of my belief but because someone has to.[/quote]
Why? It's not like an ethnicity or something biological. People can choose to abandon religion in a way that they can not choose to abandon their genetic background.

Broadly speaking, it's [i]an ideology[/i], and not all ideologies are worth defending. If someone started bashing feudalism, would you...seriously, now...feel obligated to defend it?

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657588' date='Jan 22 2009, 14.49']Can you have a concept of morals without a religious structure of some kind? Even “a code that you live by” has got to be based on something.[/quote]

Easy, you base your code on scientific evidence as much as possible, filling the caps whenever possible and amending the code to reflect that. We've been doing it for years, thats why your religion changes so much. It's kind of inspiring to think, wow, we thought of all these rules and you know what, we live really well together thanks to them.


[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657588' date='Jan 22 2009, 14.49']It you don’t have some concept of morals by some name or other you have a society that is purely survival of the fittest. You can think about what is good for the group as a whole but not what is good for the individual.[/quote]

One could say the concept of morals has arisen via survival of the fittest, without morals how could an animal such as we live like we do? It's actually the opposite to what you say, what is good for the individual is good for the group. If what was good for the individual wasn't good for the group then we would have died out years ago.

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657588' date='Jan 22 2009, 14.49']There is a more basic need in all of us to feel that there is something out there that gives a shit about us beyond whatever temporary attachments we may have to family and friends. I believe in Jesus Christ and the promise of his resurrection. Comrade Machaxx believes in science. The man who expresses belief and the man who expresses unbelief are more alike then they would ever admit to each other because at some point both men look at themselves in the mirror and say “am I a fool couldn’t the other guy be right?”[/quote]

Except I don't believe science gives a shit about me so it is a slightly different 'belief'. I more take inspiration from the progress of mankind, you just have to look back at what we were and how far we have come to think wowsers.

In respect to the second half the feasibility of the god described specifically in Jesus Christ is pretty easy to cut down in respect to whats documented in the bible. The moment you start to bring dogma into it is the moment you [i]can[/i] disprove someones specific faith. Things that can be physically disproved with science I mean, we kinda covered it in the last thread.

In respect to the vague hoomy goomy god thing that doesn't do anything but kinda sit back and watch thats harder to disprove, and the analogy about staring into the mirror is a valid one. I've found that once you come to the realization that one specific god is not real all the other god interpretations fall like ten pins. It's like a kid finding out the tooth fairy is bullshit and shortly thereafter giving up the idea of monsters under the bed, the easter bunny and finally santa.

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1657606' date='Jan 21 2009, 23.07']Why? It's not like an ethnicity or something biological. People can choose to abandon religion in a way that they can not choose to abandon their genetic background.

Broadly speaking, it's [i]an ideology[/i], and not all ideologies are worth defending. If someone started bashing feudalism, would you...seriously, now...feel obligated to defend it?[/quote]


Yes and that is my point they both ideologies points of view. Specifically for as much of a beating as religion takes on this board it deserves an advocate or two.

Maybe I would defend feudalism if I lived in a time when it was viable as an ideology. Probably why this good old Carolina boy is a Monarchist at heart (now if someone figured that one out we know the nature of existence)

Maybe the broader question is has religion outlived its purpose? Some would say yes I would say no but I will grant you that the laws that grant churches and other religious groups immunity from taxation is bullcrap.

[Teri]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657588' date='Jan 21 2009, 19.49']The atheist would say that morals are an imperfect theist concept that factionalize people until you eventually have one camp that expresses superior morality not in a positive way but simply as an excuse to shit on other people. Can you have a concept of morals without a religious structure of some kind? Even “a code that you live by” has got to be based on something. It you don’t have some concept of morals by some name or other you have a society that is purely survival of the fittest.[/quote]

I don't know a single atheist who would say that "morals" were a theist concept. Of [i]course[/i] you can have a code of morals without a religious structure or a belief in a deity. Religion is no more necessary to morals than, say, nations are.

Think about it, suppose you're the type of person who finds value in religion, and you have two candidate religions to decide between, that have different moral teachings. You're very likely to judge which of them is the better religion on the basis of which one has teachings that coincide with your conception of right and wrong. A religion that teaches human sacrifice, for example, you might reject as immoral.

But the judgement you're making as to which religion has the better moral system doesn't itself stem [i]from[/i] religion. You had a concept of right and wrong that existed before you adopted either one of them.

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='Teri' post='1657633' date='Jan 21 2009, 23.31']I don't know a single atheist who would say that "morals" were a theist concept. Of [i]course[/i] you can have a code of morals without a religious structure or a belief in a deity. Religion is no more necessary to morals than, say, nations are.

Think about it, suppose you're the type of person who finds value in religion, and you have two candidate religions to decide between, that have different moral teachings. You're very likely to judge which of them is the better religion on the basis of which one has teachings that coincide with your conception of right and wrong. A religion that teaches human sacrifice, for example, you might reject as immoral.

But the judgement you're making as to which religion has the better moral system doesn't itself stem [i]from[/i] religion. You had a concept of right and wrong that existed before you adopted either one of them.[/quote]

Human sacrifice? I could really shout out a word here but if I do such the thread would turn into fetus v. baby thread 44,000.

Ignoring all of that essentially religion is a concept of society rather then a concept of one supreme being? So you again have the argument of religion being a system of control? But isn't a circular argument? Can't a system of unbelief be a system of control as well? If rationalism leads to such a free and open society separate from theism where is the new and better society? Haven't all attempts at a purely secular state failed as completely as all attempts at a religious one? They have all either self destructed or turned inward brutalizing their own populations.

[Teri]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657638' date='Jan 21 2009, 20.45']Ignoring all of that essentially religion is a concept of society rather then a concept of one supreme being? So you again have the argument of religion being a system of control? But isn't a circular argument? Can't a system of unbelief be a system of control as well? If rationalism leads to such a free and open society separate from theism where is the new and better society? Haven't all attempts at a purely secular state failed as completely as all attempts at a religious one? They have all either self destructed or turned inward brutalizing their own populations.[/quote]

I don't know what you're talking about. I never claimed that religion was a necessarily a system of control. And sure a system of unbelief can be a system of control as well. [i]Nobody ever claimed otherwise[/i].

All I said was that people can have a moral code without having a religion or a concept of a god.

You seem to be arguing against some imaginary position that isn't being taken.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1656864' date='Jan 21 2009, 11.55']To be honest, it doesen't. It just requires god to be Omniscient (which he is according to most versions of God) and being able to set initial conditions. Theoretically any development should be predictable given sufficient information. (no, Chaos theory doesen't deny that either)[/quote]

So most theists fall on the deterministic side of quantum mechanics of subatomic particles? Just checking.

Look, regarding morals and theism: the animal kingdom is full of examples where morality exists free of religious influence. Dogs still take care of their puppies. Dolphins still put on shows for humans without apparent reward. Cats.... no wait, lets not bring up cats. Altruism has been extensively documented as well in the animal kingdom, even though it is costly in evolutionary terms for the individual. Animal moral codes may not be as refined as human ones, but they exist devoid of religion.

As for human morals, I reject the notion that the rules were handed down by a supernatural being, so it was other humans coming up with their own codes through years of observation of how societies were evolving. It is easy enough for atheists to do the same by rational thought as well.

[Crazydog7]

On that we can both agree........Cats.......if only religious and nonreligious could come together and figure that one out. But are the primitive moral codes of animals codes or are they just some genetic knowledge that the animals have to survive in order for the species to survive? One of the great questions Life the Universe and Everything.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657662' date='Jan 22 2009, 16.21']On that we can both agree........Cats.......if only religious and nonreligious could come together and figure that one out. But are the primitive moral codes of animals codes or are they just some genetic knowledge that the animals have to survive in order for the species to survive? One of the great questions Life the Universe and Everything.[/quote]

What are moral codes in animals if they are not genetically influenced?

Before answering consider that a moral behavior that is learned may only be learned, respected and practiced because of a genetic predisposition to follow codes..

[Guest Other-in-law]

Cats are the handmaidens of Satan.
[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1657662' date='Jan 22 2009, 00.21']But are the primitive moral codes of animals codes or are they just some genetic knowledge that the animals have to survive in order for the species to survive?[/quote]
Obviously animal moralities aren't something literally written down, but they are interactive behavioural tendencies. The second part...well, why the "just"? That's the same way that human morality started, so I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Human emotional reactions to certain types of things are the starting basis of our morality, and there's probably a genetic foundation for those emotions. We've just added heaps of complex reasoning on top of it.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1657617' date='Jan 21 2009, 23.12']One could say the concept of morals has arisen via survival of the fittest, without morals how could an animal such as we live like we do? It's actually the opposite to what you say, [i]what is good for the individual is good for the group.[/i] If what was good for the individual wasn't good for the group then we would have died out years ago.[/quote]While I agree with the larger point that you are making, not all behavior observed in animals is necessarily in the presumably best self-interest of the survival of the individual creature though such behavior does lead to a greater likelihood of the survival of the group. Of course it is arguable that altruism in animal species is itself a form of self-interest for the creature's survival. But the point largely remains.

ETA: Damn, and then I read that Cyrano beat me to the point on animal altruism.

[quote name='Teri' post='1657633' date='Jan 21 2009, 23.31']But the judgement you're making as to which religion has the better moral system doesn't itself stem [i]from[/i] religion. You had a concept of right and wrong that existed before you adopted either one of them.[/quote]Just to let you know, this [i]exact[/i] line of thinking has been used by numerous theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin to Schleiermacher to C.S. Lewis in support for the existence of a God-given morality that would steer humans/individuals towards "the higher morals of the Christian religion".

[potsherds]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1657688' date='Jan 22 2009, 05.45']Just to let you know, this [i]exact[/i] line of thinking has been used by numerous theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin to Schleiermacher to C.S. Lewis in support for the existence of a God-given morality that would steer humans/individuals towards [b]"the higher morals of the Christian religion"[/b].[/quote]
I've got nothing smart to say, but does anyone else find the bolded statement hilarious? I laughed, I really did.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1657692' date='Jan 21 2009, 21.53']I've got nothing smart to say, but does anyone else find the bolded statement hilarious? I laughed, I really did.[/quote]
The higher morals of the Christian religion are basically 1.) Love God 2.) Love your fellow man. That seems pretty legit. If you find humor in the way Christian morality often plays out in practice, well, I can't fault you for that.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1657695' date='Jan 22 2009, 05.56']The higher morals of the Christian religion are basically 1.) Love God 2.) Love your fellow man. That seems pretty legit. [b] If you find humor in the way Christian morality often plays out in practice, well, I can't fault you for that.[/b][/quote]
Yes, exactly.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1657692' date='Jan 22 2009, 00.53']I've got nothing smart to say, but does anyone else find the bolded statement hilarious? I laughed, I really did.[/quote]There was a reason I put it in quotes. That was generally how it was perceived by not only the theologians but also presumably by their like-minded audience.