Jump to content

Atheism


Matrim Fox Cauthon

Recommended Posts

Heh. Oddly enough, while you were typing this I was perusing old threads to see if memory was truly serving me or if I'd fallen prey to a kind of a preconceived, judgmental bias.

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1673055' date='Feb 3 2009, 20.53']You said [i]"my belief doesn't require yours, yours [b]shouldn't[/b] require mine or any others."[/i] There's an implicit suggestion in that that my belief does in fact somehow requires yours. I was baffled by the suggestion because in no way is that the case. I said it was weird (and incorrect). If there was a misunderstanding, that would have been the point for you to clarify. (or to ask for clarification from me) Instead out of fucking nowhere you accuse me of spouting proclamations of rampant idiocy. Do you not see how that was out of place, how that just might be a fucking problem? Seriously, what was going through your head? "I'm not sure what he's saying, did he misread what I said?, well, I'll just call him a fucking idiot and call it a day..."[/quote] ~I emphasized the "shouldn't," wondering if that was the issue with the statement.

Is it because the first set 'doesn't' require another’s while the other 'shouldn't'?

If I'd said, 'my belief doesn't require yours, yours doesn't require mine or any others' would it be any different? Hmn... probably not. I can see how the statement was vague enough to have been errantly read into. The error is not yours, btw. What I was trying to say is this-- my belief doesn't require you to believe it, yours shouldn't be a requirement of mine or any others. Still vague perhaps, but closer. Given our argumentative history on religion, the god fearing, and believers in general, you invariably dug into a very Dawkinsean stance of 'logic dictates.' With that in mind, what I was trying to address was a freedom of belief that 'science' and 'logic' are trying very hard to deny anyone who believes counter to the evidence, or even the lack of evidence otherwise. This is hardly fair, especially for people like me who believe in [a] God [i]while[/i] holding stock in the scientific method and just plain good sense as well. It was more of an entreaty, really. I don't require you to believe as I do, why should you hold such requirements [science and logic] restricted only to your beliefs?

Fuck, I just wrote it and now you got me second guessing it. Am I making any sense yet?


[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1673055' date='Feb 3 2009, 20.53']Out of the fucking blue: [i]"You have no problem whatsoever issuing proclamations of rampant idiocy..." [/i]
Not trying to be a dick? Really?[/quote]

Really really. Substitute a poor word choice of proclamations with accusations, and you'll see how that statement changes. Or maybe if I'd attached a proper object... EHK: Religion is the cause of this ill, that, all these, [i]etc etc[/i]


[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1673055' date='Feb 3 2009, 20.53']Even if what I said in past threads was as bad as you remember, what the fuck does it matter? None of that was evident in my statements immediately preceding our exchange nor during our actual exchange. You brought that baggage to the table, not me. It was irrelevant and completely out of place in the discussion.[/quote]

You've said a lot of truth here. I actually drove home considering that I hadn't given you a fair shake instead of feeling good about how many concessions I'd wrung out of my builder because of the current market conditions. Which in itself is ridiculous, yet not. It bothered me that I'd been so misunderstood. What's bothering me now is my impulse to assume the misunderstanding was yours. It's a good thing you've chosen to illustrate how I pissed you off instead of continuing with the harangue because now I can actually see where I went wrong and where your gripes are legitimate. I'll concede to most of them. Apparently I can be as vague and unintentionally obfuscatory as Eef and some others have tried on occasion to tell me.

Miscommunication mine. Sorry EHK.

I still don't think it's irrelevant, we [i]both[/i] obviously have baggage when it comes to this topic although not necessarily with each other, but your correct that it was out of place in this discussion. Even if there are things I dislike about some of your stances on this subject, when I recall that wee sprat called EnlightenmentHK that showed up before our portcullis one day all fire and and fucking brimstone and see how much you've changed since then-- it's really unfair for me to unintentionally stymie your changing further.

Can you accept an olive branch sincerely meant... and just [i]try[/i] to answer the fucking question? :P


ETA: spelling, grammar... hmn. ok, done. lots to think about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Craster's Son' post='1673078' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.15']I believe that you are correct that homosexuality was more accepted in both ancient Greek or Roman society, but I was aware of this when I made my educated guess.
I would not agree that it is clear that evolution selects against homosexuality, but I won't go there for fear of taking this discussion to far off topic.[/quote]
Oh, well that is as far back as I know (Greeks) so your guess on whether religion or human nature put the original idea of Homosexuality as being morally wrong is as good as mine. As far as women being persecuted, I imagine this changed when religion was in play. I believe anthropologists say that women were often treated differently, shielded by males and kept as safe as possible for reproductive reasons and I suspect this changed and warped with time as from needing to be protected to us having authority over them. I would guess some belief had to go with this, I wouldn't call it religion but it's possible it could have been a belief in some diety giving them said authority because women seemed to believe it as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Eponine' post='1672943' date='Feb 3 2009, 20.29']I've heard gay people take the stance that they wouldn't have been gay if they could have helped it. That as a tormented, rejected, humiliated teenager, they would have chosen being straight and "normal" rather than continuing to be a social outcast. That's how I feel about atheism. Anyway I feel this has gotten away from the (at least attempted) logical tone of the previous threads, so continue...[/quote]I'll take it a step further and say its hard to find any kind of community at all. This is a point my family doesn't get and I can't explain without them seeing it as disrespectful. I would love it if there were some all powerful being who loved me, an afterlife, etc but it doesn't make sense. True disrespect would be pretending to believe to make them happy. It took me four years to "come out" to my family as an Atheist and even now its a topic we do not talk about. They seem incapable of being mutually respectful about it and insist that I "respect" their views by never mentioning mine.

It's a sad fact that, for many people, apostasy means giving up at least some portion of your family's support. I consider myself lucky in this respect, because although I do feel somewhat cut off from them emotionally, I realize it could be so much worse.

[quote name='Craster's Son' post='1673012' date='Feb 3 2009, 21.58']Off the top of my head, I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of cultures that have existed throughout history have taken issue with homosexuality. I'd say a similar number have practiced oppression based on gender. Certainly, the Abrahamic faiths don't have a monopoly here. Are you certain that these situations are actually caused by religion, or are they more of a reflection of the culture from which the religion sprang? Just a thought.[/quote]I'd respond that precious few of these other cultures have contributed to the current homophobic state of this country at all. You rarely hear a justification against gay rights that even attempt to hide its religious nature. You're correct about the world throughout time, but in the US today I'd say the Abrahamic faiths deserve 99% of the blame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dornish' post='1673100' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.35']I'd respond that precious few of these other cultures have contributed to the current homophobic state of this country at all. You rarely hear a justification against gay rights that even attempt to hide its religious nature. You're correct about the world throughout time, but in the US today I'd say the Abrahamic faiths deserve 99% of the blame.[/quote]
I can't disagree with anything you've said, but I would counter with the fact that there are a growing number of voices within the religious community providing justifications for gay rights within the context of our faith. There is no denying that we are still a minority, though.

ETA that a look at these other cultures historically does indicate that humanity appears to have a predisposition towards bigotry regardless of religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dornish' post='1673100' date='Feb 3 2009, 23.35']I'll take it a step further and say its hard to find any kind of community at all. This is a point my family doesn't get and I can't explain without them seeing it as disrespectful.[/quote]

Although I feel this way, I also believe that the perfect, loving, caring community of the church is largely a myth. I don't mean that no one has a good experience or that they form no real, lasting friendships, but just as often I've seen as much dysfunction and more as with any other group of people. I've been a member of three churches of different denominations and at all three have witnessed things that made me unable to go back. (And not because I have a different standard for or bias against religion; if these things had happened at a secular club I was part of, I would have left it too).

Yet despite all that, I continue to miss my IDEA of a church community.

After my divorce, my father was telling me that I should return to church (I hadn't come out with the atheism at all, because I didn't want the two issues getting mixed up and for some other reasons), and he said something that struck me as very sad. He said that in his relationship with my mother, she was the outgoing one and the one who connected to people at church. And that if he and she got divorced, for whatever reason, he felt the same thing would happen to him as did to me- that everyone would rush to support her and they would forget about him and not be interested in reaching out to him. And he's been an elder, been assistant treasurer, helped with scores of church events, he's just very introverted, like me. And he was ok with knowing this because he believed that church and being with other Christians was more important than having friends who would be there for him no matter what (and because he is confident with good reason that he and my mom won't be divorcing).

But I took the opposite lesson from it. I couldn't keep living my life trying to build a community with people who deep inside I knew would desert me if I didn't make the choices they liked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1672895' date='Feb 3 2009, 19.28']To get back on topic:

Couldn't agree more about your thoughts on the cultural role of religious communities. It's the main reasoning behind why I think that aspect of religion is worthy of respect no matter what you choose to believe.[/quote]I do not think that it is necessarily worthy of respect on that alone, but that is merely how contemporary churches operate. There is no inherent quality of religion that requires youth programs for example, but it is an incredibly modern development that came about to be able to incorporate the youth into the church and cater to them.

[quote name='Deluge' post='1672987' date='Feb 3 2009, 21.25']I definitely know what you're talking about. I've heard it suggested that non-believers in America are somewhat jaded in regards to our society, and so are reluctant to participate in a lot of charities, causes and other sorts of community stuff. I've spent a lot of time thinking about what needs to be done, and I guess that the most sensible thing is to just get more involved in our communities, and take any sort of rejection from religious people in stride. Show them that the godless aren't devoid of morals, you know?[/quote]The broader point is not just about community involvement, but that modern religion provides a focused community that gets involved in the larger community around them. Many specialized groups do provide a similar psychological function (environmental groups, Rotary and Kiwanis clubs, etc.).

[quote name='Meili' post='1672990' date='Feb 3 2009, 21.29']I agree religious people often see non-belief and rationalism as people insulting the way they live their life.[/quote]It is not that it is insulting their way of life so much as it is threatening the central foundation of that community.

[quote]But when you gave your broad description of what role religion plays in the community, you didn't specify whether you thinked it is necessary or not so I wasn't disagreeing with you on any point.[/quote]What do thoughts of necessity have to do with the subject? I am not making a value judgment on the necessity of religion, but merely providing an analytically descriptive case for the cultural role that churches fulfill in religious communities.

[quote]You just said 'keep [it] in mind' and then you sat on the fence waiting for others to weigh in. So what could I even be disagreeing with you on then?[/quote]The validity of the conclusions and assumptions?

[quote name='Eponine' post='1673025' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.19']I've been part of or at least a lurker on many ex-Christian internet groups. I understand that people need to have a place that they can rant and get out all their hurt and anger that they may be unable to express in real life. But I'm kind of disturbed by how many people just stay on and seem to focus their new life around bashing Christianity. Oddly, it does seem to bring people together the way the church used to. Of course it's impossible to tell how large a community that really represents out of all former Christians, but I still don't find it to be a good thing.[/quote]Perhaps this ranting is a passing phase. For the sake of world humanism, I do hope that atheists get off of their butts of bitching and moaning about religion and actually do something positive for the world. If they want to paint religion as evil, that is fine, but evil is also sitting on your hands while evil is going on around you.

[quote]And although this may sound selfish, it's easy to tell someone to get involved with giving of themselves, but the church also gives back with support for its members (well sometimes). What gives support for us? As far as I can see from internet searches, there's not much professional counseling directed toward people leaving religion (although there's some for those leaving cults, but that is just as likely to be Christian as not). [b]I was going to make a separate post about this, and I still can, but it seems relevant to this discussion too. [url="http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/124174/?page=entire"]http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustic...74/?page=entire[/url] It's about how women are instructed by pastors to stay in abusive relationships because their role is submission.[/b] We leave religion totally broken, and we have no support on the other side.[/quote]I have actually taken a course on pastoral care, and I have NEVER heard that or even had that implied by the instructor. If such a thing were even suggested in that class, that person would probably have been killed on the spot and not just because religions like to keep people for stupid reasons. There is actually a growing trend towards specialization even amongst the ordained, and there are a numerous pastors who are clinically certified for professional counseling. Honestly, I am horrified that someone would suggest that.

[quote name='Meili' post='1673030' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.25']Some seem to come from it, some don't and none I am 100% certain of. I am certain that religion currently keeps them in play though. Issues like Homosexuality being morally wrong and a mortal sin are actively pushed directly from the holy books. But you asked which came first, not which is causing it now. Wasn't homosexuality much more accepted in Greek and Roman socities? I know in Greek cities it was pretty common and accepted and they had more gods than all the monotheistic ones combined. So in some cases, one religion permits it, some don't. Evolution wouldn't have pushed the human species towards it so it likely had taboos against it well before religion though, but clearly once humanity started thinking up entire religions, we also could have realized it posed no threat as far as ensuring our survival goes.[/quote]I do not think that homosexuality was morally accepted in Roman societies. And I seem to recall one emperor's relationship with a young male lover being frowned upon by his contemporaries. But I think people have misapprehensions about what "Greek homosexuality" entailed. It was okay as long as one was quite younger than the other since it made one "naturally subservient" and "like a woman" to the other, but for two males of equal standing and age to be in a homosexual relationship was frowned upon.

[quote name='Eponine' post='1673128' date='Feb 4 2009, 00.13'][b]Although I feel this way, I also believe that the perfect, loving, caring community of the church is largely a myth.[/b] I don't mean that no one has a good experience or that they form no real, lasting friendships, but just as often I've seen as much dysfunction and more as with any other group of people. I've been a member of three churches of different denominations and at all three have witnessed things that made me unable to go back. (And not because I have a different standard for or bias against religion; if these things had happened at a secular club I was part of, I would have left it too).[/quote]Of course, but so is the concept "traditional family" and yet people still long to be a part of a family and a close group of people. Churches are rife with ugly internal congregational politics, but that is the nature of any collective group of people.

Azor Ahai, just give it a rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt there's flaws in any community, but the automatic social contacts one can get through a church are invaluable. As you've pointed out they might not always be good friends but sometimes a bad social life is better than none at all. It's sad how some churches beat it into their followers heads that its more important that you associate with fellow believers than to develop real friendships.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1673134' date='Feb 4 2009, 00.20']I have actually taken a course on pastoral care, and I have NEVER heard that or even had that implied by the instructor. If such a thing were even suggested in that class, that person would probably have been killed on the spot and not just because religions like to keep people for stupid reasons. There is actually a growing trend towards specialization even amongst the ordained, and there are a numerous pastors who are clinically certified for professional counseling. Honestly, I am horrified that someone would suggest that.[/quote]

It happened to me many times, and not just from one church or person. When I read that article (just today), I was shocked to recognize my own story.

One person, who I barely knew and who certainly didn't know any of the circumstances behind my divorce told me that a woman in his church had caught her husband having homosexual sex. The husband was confronted by the church leaders and convinced to "repent" (not just of the affair but of the homosexuality). And his wife was counseled that she should forgive him and help him repair their marriage. And the moral of the story was that whatever my husband had done to me couldn't have been worse than what this man did to his wife, yet he was able to repent and she was able to forgive with God's power, and I had no excuse for not doing the same.

I also got the following email, only slightly condensed:

From what you and ----- told me, there has been no sexual infidelity. On this basis, I am positive that Christ would have you to, indeed, command you to stay married to -----. I realize that staying with ----- would be incredibly painful and would conflict with what you perceive to be your happiness. However, I ask you to be faithful to Christ and to choose Him over your happiness. While divorce would not be in itself the unforgivable sin, if you never repented of it... then I honestly do not know what would happen to your soul. All sin is forgivable, except for, perhaps, sin which is never repented of. I am telling you this not because I care for your relationship with -----, but because I love you and care for your relationship with Christ. And right now, your relationship with ----- is bound up in your relationship with Christ.

Both of these people were "nice" people, not anyone you'd pick out of the crowd as being fanatical or even different.

I'd like to be able to help other people in the same situation. Just from searching online, I've found no resources except from the one group in the article who are still Bible-believing Christians with no intention of leaving the church. I don't know how to find or start something like that. If anyone knows, PM me because I seem to be constantly hijacking the thread with personal issues. Which is why I try to stay out of these.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Eponine' post='1673146' date='Feb 4 2009, 00.43']I'd like to be able to help other people in the same situation. Just from searching online, I've found no resources except from the one group in the article who are still Bible-believing Christians with no intention of leaving the church. I don't know how to find or start something like that. If anyone knows, PM me because I seem to be constantly hijacking the thread with personal issues. Which is why I try to stay out of these.[/quote]
Au contrare, your stories are the most interesting portion of this thread and at least tangentially relevant. Carry on as much as you feel comfortable doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]It is not clear that you are following the argument here. The argument started with me stating that those who seek to discredit evolutionary science should demonstrate a keen grasp of the science they seek to discredit for their criticism to be valid. Your counter was that the articles you cited were not endeavors to discredit science. I pointed out that the articles specifically listed components of the evolutionary theory to argue against, therefore, they most certainly were trying to discredit science, given that the overall body of work encompassed in the heading of evolutionary theory is indeed accepted to be scientific. That the components of the evolutionary theory are falsifiable is a given, since it is part of science. So really, I don't know what this latest comment you made means, in this context.[/quote]

The theory of evolution may be science, but science is not limited to only evolution. In other words your insinuation that by attacking evolution is an attack against science is a bit misleading.


[quote]His last name is Williams, with an "s." [url="http://www.hippoiathanatoi.com/Reviews/Entry/2665/"]http://www.hippoiathanatoi.com/Reviews/Entry/2665/[/url][/quote]

Brain fart

[quote]Again, your comment is cryptic at best. I laid out some evidence on why a specific argument from Williams' second article was wrong. You brought up homochirality, which I didn't even address. I don' t know what argument you're trying to make any more. My point was that when Williams was trying to talk about the presence of genetic redundancy as "powerful evidence of design," his interpretation of available data was flawed. Can you address that?[/quote]

Irreducible complexity, need more?

[quote]This is not true.

Ribozymes are self-assembling RNA units that can carry out enzymatic activities. These entities have been widely researched since its discovery. Here's the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozymehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme"]wiki article on ribozyme[/url] as a starter. Recent work in the field have revealed several interesting properties of ribozymes. For instance, the kinetics of self-assembly of these ribozymes is influenced by several factors, including the availability of divalent cations and specific identity of their basepairs in the piece of RNA (Chauhan et al., 2008. J. Mol. Bio. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2008.12.075, and references therein). The ribozymes are counter-arguments to the idea that entities have to rely on "metainformation" to transcend their primary roles and functions.[/quote]

I have read about several such experiments, and in each case they must intelligently control the initial conditions, otherwise the RNA will stick to everything it touches. In other words, the initial conditions are intelligently designed (to include the fabrication of the RNA molecule itself).



[quote]This is not true.

Mutations in the genes controlling the circadian rhythm in fruitflies can alter the male mating dance pattern, leading to reproductive isolation, i.e., speciation. Further, the p element transposable element in fruitflies have caused different populations of flies to become reproductively incompatible, i.e., speciation. These are both mechanisms that give rise to new species.

But I suspect that that's not what you really meant. I think what you meant is this: If we posit that Gene A functions in organism X, and that it leads to a protein that performs a particular set of functions, known as {A}. The argument you're making is that we will never get something that is [not {A}] from this scenario, and therefore, organisms that evolutionary theory places as descendants of X, let's call it X', that displays [not{A}] are impossible.

This is demonstrably false on many accounts.

First, Gene A can be mutated so that it now carries out a new function. Mutations in substrate recognition sites can change the specificity of enzymatic actions. One example is the two forms of haemoglobin in humans. The fetal form and the adult form differ only slightly.

Second, the promoter and/or regulatory elements of Gene A can be mutated so that the gene product is now produced at a different time. Most of the developmental genes are regulated for the timing and the spatial range of its expression. For instance, miss-expression of the homeobox genes in worms and flies can lead to miss-formed body plans, such as flies with two thoraxes, or a leg forming at where the antenna is supposed to be. Miss-expression of genes can also alter the wings in fruit flies so that the pair of vestigial wings (called halteres) will develop into a pair of formal wings, making the mutant flies look like what dragonflies would have. There's an entire sub-discipline in biology that focuses on the molecular mechanisms that control development, and there're plenty of examples on how the changes in how a gene is expressed can and do have significant impact on body plans and overall functions.

Third, evolution is concerned with population changes over time. We can't get humans to express genes that will give us a prehensile tail like our monkey cousins have, but that doesn't mean that our shared ancestor did not possess it, or that the change to developing a prehensile tail was impossible. The argument against this is as simplistic as saying that since I have dark brown hair with no freckles, then my cousin should not have red hair and freckles.[/quote]

I am talking about naturalistic explanations, not intelligently designed explanations. They are using intelligent design to copy what life already makes, and then championing the replicative properties of what already exists in biology. That doesn’t get anywhere near a naturalistic explanation for proto-life, not to mention explaining the autopoietic hierarchy, each step of which cannot be explained by the step below it, not to mention comprehensively integrated, information-driven, metabolic functions that integrate the same.


[quote]Yes, it has been suggested, albeit backed by illegitimate use of scientific data sourced poorly and riding on a train full of faulty logic. The suggestion is worth less than the electricity it costs to transmit it through the internet, as far as I am concerned.[/quote]

............. :rolleyes:

[quote]Evolutionary theory is indeed not time-travel observations made about our past. That much I will readily and happily concede. However, it is the best explanation of what might have happened based on what we know now of how life works. Doubting evolutionary theory would be the same as doubting that humans constructed the pyramids using wooden levies and primitive stone-cutting tools and manual labor. Can we rule out that space aliens didn't come down to build the pyramids? No, we can't. But there's no evidence for it, and we know that humans could have done it, based on what we know of physics and on historical evidence of the existence of the needed tools. Similarly, we cannot rule out that space aliens came to Earth to alter the evolutionary paths of the life forms, but we have no evidence for it, and we know that life could have evolved without the assistance of aliens based on what we know it is capable of. If people would prefer to believe in the supernatural explanations, that's their right. If believing in God or aliens as the causative agent of the diversity of life on Earth makes them happy, then so be it. Their choice, however, does not in any way discredit the science, nor can they be rightfully called rational. It's okay if people choose to be irrational about this, as long as they do not seek to unjustifiably denigrate the rational explanation in an attempt to make themselves feel better about their irrationality.[/quote]

My immediate reaction is the multiple posts I’ve read on here that claim darwinism doesn’t address origins. This seems to be a sheer act of desperation to me.....

In regards to the water molecules, and silver that were mentioned in the previous thread...I also think of cardiac cells and fibers. Taking a sliver of cardiac tissue from the heart and looking at it under the microscope, it beats like a whole heart beats. Muscle fibers contract, neurons pulse, excretory cells from excretory organs excrete and so on.

It’s a mightily hollow explanation to explain that it’s just this way because of natural selection over billions of years. A much better explanation is since each of these cells obviously have a purpose, that there was some meaningful force behind their being and functions in the first place.

Proteins and basic chemicals forming together in such a way with this kind of complexity to form complex functions make more sense in that they were designed opposed to they “just are” via natural selection over (alot) of time; mechanisms and structures of purpose from no purposeful rational force behind it makes little sense if any to most people.

Even the simplest experiments have some kind of intelligent design behind them, the right chemicals, the right environment, etc...even these simple factors take enormous thought and trial and error by scientists and we’re nowhere near the idea that we can take these chemicals separately and add them together in just such an exact and necessary way to succeed to cause cells to beat on their own in order to eventually make a heart beat (on it’s own, structurally).

But to THEN think about these cells forming complex structures like a heart with ventricles and valves and adding in electrical current to the muscle, beating pulsating muscle, to in turn form a heart, one of billions or more of different KINDS of hearts...is too staggering to think all just happened with no purpose, randomly, over “alot of time”.

Just sorting out the differences between a hamster’s heart compared to a gerbil’s heart, or mice, or guinea pigs, etc. etc. etc. could take a lifetime and we still wouldn’t be close to understading the complexity.

[quote]1. Self-propagating RNA species have been discovered, and their [i]de novo[/i] appearance demonstrated, as you yourself conceded.

2. Which "naturalistic experiments" are you referring to wherein it was demonstrated that RNA-dependent RNA polymerases cannot be found? Citation? Incidentally, how does one perform an experiment that is naturalistic, as in, free of human manipulation? If you do not control the variables, it's not an experiment, it's an observation. Can you define these terms as you use them? Because they mean very contradictory things to me as I understand them.[/quote]

I'll repost:

I am talking about naturalistic explanations, not intelligently designed explanations. They are using intelligent design to copy what life already makes, and then championing the replicative properties of what already exists in biology. That doesn’t get anywhere near a naturalistic explanation for proto-life, not to mention explaining the autopoietic hierarchy, each step of which cannot be explained by the step below it, not to mention comprehensively integrated, information-driven, metabolic functions that integrate the same.

[quote]This is the essential flaw of intelligent design argument: That which is improbably must be impossible.

Is it improbable that a single person will win 10 Powerball lottery drawings in a row? Yes, very improbable.

Now, if I were to show you the winner of 10 consecutive Powerball lotteries, would you then concede that the improbable had indeed happened? Or would you argue that since winning 10 consecutive lottery drawings is so improbable, this person must not be real?[/quote]

Are you implying that chance is the result of complexity?

Do our eyes of purpose.....mmmm....


[quote]So how many mutations are we seeing today, and what is the number of "positive mutations" needed? From where did you get these numbers?

Also, the 3 questions that you ignored, addressed the different aspect of this question of how do organisms carry so many mutations without harming themselves. Your protest on this subject has been pre-emptively answered, in part.[/quote]


From part 2:

(3) Error tolerance

Living things tolerate errors remarkably well. Evolutionists use this property to argue that since life is error tolerant, then it could have arisen in an error tolerant (sloppy, haphazard, inefficient, mutation-ridden) stepwise, Darwinian manner. This fallaciously assumes that error tolerance is an intermediate step between non-functionality and functionality, but it is not. Error-tolerant systems are very much more complex than error-intolerant systems.

The computer industry provides an excellent illustration of this principle. Word-processing software of thirty years ago produced very similar results as today, but with very much shorter software codes. Today’s error-tolerant software that detects, interprets and corrects errors as you type, requires far more code, far greater programming skills, and far more computer memory and processing power, than the earlier models. Error tolerance is therefore not a sign of error-prone evolution, but a sign of advanced engineering design.

As I showed in Part I of this article, the reason that organisms tolerate errors is because they have the most wonderful repair and maintenance mechanisms built-in by design!

I believe this and the considerable built in redundancy (also discussed in part 2) might go a long way to explain why frogs do not evolve into giraffes.

So not only can any one given life-form repair its self, but it also has multiple ideas of what it is.


If your a frog and you suffer a specie altering mutation, unless your genetic information completely forgets that your a frog and decides that your a giraffe, you will still be a frog. (Because of redundancy of stored information and error correction)

If your genetic information does forget your a frog, you will probably become worm food and not a lofty headed giraffe.


It would appear that living things were designed to have a limit to how much they would vary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dornish' post='1673137' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.26']No doubt there's flaws in any community, but the automatic social contacts one can get through a church are invaluable. As you've pointed out they might not always be good friends but sometimes a bad social life is better than none at all. It's sad how some churches beat it into their followers heads that its more important that you associate with fellow believers than to develop real friendships.[/quote]

:agree:

Which is why, if I ever have kids, I'll probably try to join some sort of non-religious organization or something like a UU church just for support that's not related to employment or family. Yeah, I know that probably makes me a hypocrite amongst atheists, but even though I grew up not believing what I learned in church, I still appreciated the community. The school I went to for K-8 was very small, and everything else I did outside school was with friends I knew from school, so having an opportunity to have a broader social circle was nice. I was friends with a couple of people from my choir. I still talk to some of them in a non-religious setting--they're not particularly religious themselves--and my sister is best friends and roommates with a girl she's known since they were 2, and in sunday school together. So, I'm grateful for that, even if the religion thing was a complete failure for me. On the other hand, I know all about poisonous social environments, and the combination of that and my disinclination toward theism are enough that I would not join a religious organization no matter how desperate I was for a social life. (At that point, I'm happy enough being a hermit.)

Like others, though, I've never really been tempted to join an Atheist Club or whatever, just for the hell of it. Off the internet, I'm not all that interested in talking about atheism, and tend to run into like-minded people just in the circles I run in. (Science people, and their friends.) :dunno:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1673134' date='Feb 3 2009, 23.20']Perhaps this ranting is a passing phase. For the sake of world humanism, I do hope that [b]atheists get off of their butts of bitching and moaning about religion and actually do something positive for the world[/b]. If they want to paint religion as evil, that is fine, but evil is also sitting on your hands while evil is going on around you.[/quote]

I hope so too. Getting rid of religion and the nonsense of a uberbeing creating us from mud and any other nonsence would be the first positve thing done and once that shit is removed people could start living this one instead of wasting it preparing for the next.


[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1673134' date='Feb 3 2009, 23.20']I have actually taken a course on pastoral care, and I have NEVER heard that or even had that implied by the instructor.[/quote]
That doesn't suprise me. Most religious people pay no attention to the atrocities that stem from the same book they read, otherwise they might be tempted to question and maybe doubt the words and verses that directly stemmed from those verses.

I like how you phrased that 'modern churches get more involed in the community'. They have to if they want to convert people that people with wings fly among us.... I imagine Quakers have a difficult time spreading the word of christ but nothing beats feeding the poor,building a house for a family and sponsoring local fun events. The ol 'Hey, we're just like you only we want to save you AND help you (but if you want that help, you want to maybe go with me to church sunday or maybe just say a prayer of thanks that the lord told me you needed help!) :dunce:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kat' post='1673171' date='Feb 4 2009, 01.07']On the other hand, I know all about poisonous social environments, and the combination of that and my disinclination toward theism are enough that I would not join a religious organization no matter how desperate I was for a social life. (At that point, I'm happy enough being a hermit.)

Like others, though, I've never really been tempted to join an Atheist Club or whatever, just for the hell of it. Off the internet, I'm not all that interested in talking about atheism, and tend to run into like-minded people just in the circles I run in. (Science people, and their friends.) :dunno:[/quote]

I've pondered the idea of attending events at my old church just for the social contacts but ultimately I couldn't bring myself to build any kind of relationship on a deliberate lie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1673169' date='Feb 3 2009, 23.03']It’s a mightily hollow explanation to explain that it’s just this way because of natural selection over billions of years. A much better explanation is since each of these cells obviously have a purpose, that there was some meaningful force behind their being and functions in the first place.[/quote]

Luckily, most of us in science don't use words like "hollow" and apply subjective descriptions to our hypotheses without evidence.

I think you're the ID person I was looking for earlier, though. Can you explain to me why ID is content with occasional nudges in the right direction over hundreds of millions of years, all to end up with an intelligent species whose history is only a tiny fraction of the total history of life, living on a planet which has only been around a fraction of the total time period? I mean, if this is all supposed to be a "meaningful force", why is there all this seemingly meaningless spare time, full of [s]evolutionary[/s] designed dead ends?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dornish' post='1673158' date='Feb 4 2009, 00.52']Au contrare, your stories are the most interesting portion of this thread and at least tangentially relevant. Carry on as much as you feel comfortable doing so.[/quote]I agree. I do not think that the Christian church can adequately grow and respond to the world around them without knowing the alienating effect that their behavior can have.

[quote name='Kat' post='1673171' date='Feb 4 2009, 01.07']:agree:

Which is why, if I ever have kids, I'll probably try to join some sort of non-religious organization or something like a UU church just for support that's not related to employment or family. [b]Yeah, I know that probably makes me a hypocrite amongst atheists,[/b] but even though I grew up not believing what I learned in church, I still appreciated the community. The school I went to for K-8 was very small, and everything else I did outside school was with friends I knew from school, so having an opportunity to have a broader social circle was nice. I was friends with a couple of people from my choir. I still talk to some of them in a non-religious setting--they're not particularly religious themselves--and my sister is best friends and roommates with a girl she's known since they were 2, and in sunday school together. So, I'm grateful for that, even if the religion thing was a complete failure for me. On the other hand, I know all about poisonous social environments, and the combination of that and my disinclination toward theism are enough that I would not join a religious organization no matter how desperate I was for a social life. (At that point, I'm happy enough being a hermit.)[/quote]Atheists actually form a sizable portion of the UUC. My only problem of sorts with the UUC is that I never have any idea what they believe, due to what seems to be mostly a Baskin Robbins 31 and a Flavor of the Month sort of approach to religion. While that definitely have its benefits, it also comes with a list of practical drawbacks.

[quote]Like others, though, I've never really been tempted to join [b]an Atheist Club or whatever[/b], just for the hell of it. Off the internet, I'm not all that interested in talking about atheism, and tend to run into like-minded people just in the circles I run in. (Science people, and their friends.) :dunno:[/quote]Humanist Society?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dornish' post='1673183' date='Feb 4 2009, 01.14']I've pondered the idea of attending events at my old church just for the social contacts but ultimately I couldn't bring myself to build any kind of relationship on a deliberate lie.[/quote]

Last year, I went to a Bible study with a Christian friend (a real friend) mostly to spend some time with him, but also wondering if I could fit back into my old life in any way.

I felt extremely comfortable and familiar with the socializing. Just... the style of conversation or something was reassuring. The atmosphere was good before and after the study.

But I felt extremely uncomfortable when some girl ended a discussion of her week with a tearful breakdown over how wonderful God was. And I'd hoped that the study would be more of an open discussion (because I am still interested in how others interpret the Bible), especially since it was on Ecclesiastes, but no matter what points I brought up (and I was careful not to be an asshole or debate too forcefully), it was like they had selective hearing and couldn't digest anything beyond the simplistic (I almost said "truths") doctrines that made them feel good. AH CAN SEE JEEEZUS IN THIS PASSSAGE! Ok sorry, that was uncalled for. But really, it was just a hallelujah session, not a study. Anyway, it became obvious that I wouldn't be able to keep going. Ironically, when I was a Christian, I probably would have ripped their interpretations to shreds (even by Christian standards, it was pretty bad), but it seemed... hypocritical or something to do it as an atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1673095' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.28']~I emphasized the "shouldn't," wondering if that was the issue with the statement.

Is it because the first set 'doesn't' require another’s while the other 'shouldn't'?

If I'd said, 'my belief doesn't require yours, yours doesn't require mine or any others' would it be any different?[/quote]

That probably would have helped. Though I think my misunderstanding started earlier than that. I read the [i]"God needs to have a visible thumb in the pie in order for you to care, fair enough man. I don't require that..."[/i] as implying some sort of deficiency in my viewpoint. Probably why I responded with the 'You need these things, we don't' bit. Though using 'doesn't' instead of 'shouldn't' would likely have nipped it in the bud earlier. In either case, i apologize for the misunderstanding as well.

[quote]Hmn... probably not. I can see how the statement was vague enough to have been errantly read into. The error is not yours, btw. What I was trying to say is this-- my belief doesn't require you to believe it, yours shouldn't be a requirement of mine or any others. Still vague perhaps, but closer. Given our argumentative history on religion, the god fearing, and believers in general, you invariably dug into a very Dawkinsean stance of 'logic dictates.' With that in mind, what I was trying to address was a freedom of belief that 'science' and 'logic' are trying very hard to deny anyone who believes counter to the evidence, or even the lack of evidence otherwise. This is hardly fair, especially for people like me who believe in [a] God [i]while[/i] holding stock in the scientific method and just plain good sense as well. It was more of an entreaty, really. I don't require you to believe as I do, why should you hold such requirements [science and logic] restricted only to your beliefs?

Fuck, I just wrote it and now you got me second guessing it. [b]Am I making any sense yet?[/b][/quote]

You started off doing so, but lost me near the end. I don't think science and logic are trying to deny anyone freedom of belief. People are free to believe whatever they like. However they shouldn't expect to be immune to challenges of their beliefs, especially when they're contrary to existing evidence and have no real evidence of their own to support them. Beliefs get challenged all the time, not just religious ones, and that's as it should be. And I'm not sure what to make of the last sentence.


[quote]Really really. [b]Substitute a poor word choice of proclamations with accusations[/b], and you'll see how that statement changes. Or maybe if I'd attached a proper object... EHK: Religion is the cause of this ill, that, all these, [i]etc etc[/i][/quote]

That changes the statement. It removes the insult yet claims (I think) that I actively insult others. (it'd effectively be saying that I accuse others of rampant idiocy) Not much better and still out of place. (though I'm fairly certain I've accused some of rampant idiocy, particularly creationists, so its not an untrue statement) But I think we're past that at the moment. Peace?

[quote]You've said a lot of truth here. I actually drove home considering that I hadn't given you a fair shake instead of feeling good about how many concessions I'd wrung out of my builder because of the current market conditions. Which in itself is ridiculous, yet not. It bothered me that I'd been so misunderstood. What's bothering me now is my impulse to assume the misunderstanding was yours. It's a good thing you've chosen to illustrate how I pissed you off instead of continuing with the harangue because now I can actually see where I went wrong and where your gripes are legitimate. I'll concede to most of them. Apparently I can be as vague and unintentionally obfuscatory as Eef and some others have tried on occasion to tell me.

Miscommunication mine. Sorry EHK.[/quote]

Not a problem, I apologize as well for the misunderstanding and my reaction. I do think Eef might be on to something, you do have a very obscure style that's sometimes difficult to understand.

[quote]Can you accept an olive branch sincerely meant... and just [i]try[/i] to answer the fucking question? :P[/quote]

Honestly, I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just have no idea how to answer it. Either answer is equally meaningless to me. I don't really have the slightest basis on which to begin to form an answer. I guess intuitively something must have come before the big bang, but everything I've heard about QM suggests that its the opposite of intuitive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting that the organizations I mostly associate with the kind of community-building that Fox is talking about is NOT churches (although they do it) but other kinds of organizations (green movements, hobby movements like sports clubs and choirs, political organizations like Young Eagles or political youth groups, all sorts of stuff like that)

I'm wondering if the relative secularization of scandinavian society might have something to do with our extensive networks of associations and "secular" communities? And if so, as The Movement starts to power down, are we going to see more of an interest in religion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triskele' post='1673232' date='Feb 4 2009, 08.32']Kind of a pendulum idea?[/quote]

Kind of, there has been some talk recently about "the new religious wave" (which isn't, btw. just christianity, but many other religions have recieved more interest lately as well)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...