Atheism - The Final Frontier

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by randyvs

 

Because you're accusing me of doing things that you've admitted to doing and then asking me not to do them. I don't act coy, I don't play at words. I post honestly. You, on the other hand, have admitted to posting things just to get a rise out of people.

Where?

A simple suggestion not to be coy is blown out of proportion to an accusation but you don't play at words.
WTF? Your a bit loose arn't ya ? Need a little tightening up ?
Certainly not having a tantrum either so quit with the lies?

reply to post by randyvs

Where?

Your exchange with traditionaldrummer in another thread confirmed it for me.

A simple suggestion not to be coy is blown out of proportion to an accusation but you don't play at words.

I feel it was a proportional response given that the "suggestion" comes from a member who has made a career on these boards of being coy and playing at words.

WTF. Your a bit loose arn't ya ? Need a little tightening up.

Case in point. This adds nothing to the discussion, it's just a personal attack. More just saying things to get a rise out of someone.

Certainly not having a tantrum either so quit with the lies?

Really?

Candy ass crap. I don't need this cause I'm better than you and that.
Believers do this and nonbelievers are like that. Bunch of squirrels gathering nuts. I'm sure you can all do something besides whine. Mocking condescending lies. Is that the best you can pulsate ?

Maybe you should just google this ? How pathetic ?

Yeah, maybe you're right. Seven insults in nine sentences/sentence fragments... definitely not a tantrum. Nope.

reply to post by iterationzero

Yeah, maybe you're right. Seven insults in nine sentences/sentence fragments... definitely not a tantrum. Nope

Maybe I'm right ? How can I be wrong ? I just call'em like I see'em. Same with your current worthless attempts at provocation. No tantrum about it. If that offends, may I suggest the truth does hurt. still havn't even raised an eyebrow. And again you play at words about something said on a different thread or whatever you choose to take out of context. I like this game. Your move.

reply to post by randyvs

I replied to your points, randy. Your entire takeaway from my reply was:

What reason do you have to question my integrity ?

If that's all you got out of my post, then so be it.

Atheism is not the Final Frontier,...

it is the end of exploring previously explored frontiers...

and the beginning of the exploration of NEW frontiers...

Which is probably why the Galactic Community is standing back and waiting...

reply to post by iterationzero


It was the only thing worth questioning. Agreed.
I wonder what obscure meaning you will try to derive from that?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Yeah, maybe you're right. Seven insults in nine sentences/sentence fragments... definitely not a tantrum. Nope

Maybe I'm right ? How can I be wrong ? I just call'em like I see'em. Same with your current worthless attempts at provocation. No tantrum about it. If that offends, may I suggest the truth does hurt. still havn't even raised an eyebrow. And again you play at words about something said on a different thread or whatever you choose to take out of context. I like this game. Your move.

edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You are having a tantrum as is apparent in your recent posts.

It looks like you are projecting your own qualities on those who are opposing you. Saying that others are having a tantrum, attempting to provoke, and playing on words when this is something you do consistently.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Again, no, it doesn't. This is a common atheist mistake. Atheism is said to be "lack of belief in god". It is not a "lack of belief in a specific version of a god" or "lack of belief in a brand of theism". How can one be an atheist by the very definition, that is 'lacking belief in god" if he does not lack belief in god?

AGAIN. (I can go by the definition)

Define what is meant by god.

Any deity, divine or supernatural entity.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Leahn

 

To take a definition of agnosticism, it is unknowable if a "certain deity" exists or not.

Let's take Santa Claus as an example. Do you KNOW he doesn't exist or do you take a position where you are not certain?

Which one are you?

Is Santa Claus a deity now? It is perfectly knowable if certain deities exist or not. Whether you will be able to know it or not depends on which deity you're talking about. You make an universal claim that you cannot back up by logic or evidence.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Commonly, logical arguments are cited as this evidence, however, at best they can only imply a deity's existence. At some point tangible, objective, testable, falsifiable evidence must be presented.

Incorrect. A deductive argument assures the veracity of the conclusion, provided that the premises are true, and the logical reasoning is correct. There is no "only imply" involved. Tangible, objective, testable, falsifiable evidence need not to be presented if we can establish the premises as true and the reasoning as correct. To say otherwise is merely scientism disguised as skeptcism rearing its ugly head.

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Atheism is not the Final Frontier,...

it is the end of exploring previously explored frontiers...

and the beginning of the exploration of NEW frontiers...

Which is probably why the Galactic Community is standing back and waiting...

So said the one ignorant of history, not knowing that we've been here before, many times. History is a circle that repeats itself over and over while technology moves forward. Neither is atheism a beginning, nor is theism a beginning for it is all a circle, and a circle has no beginning or end.

reply to post by Tearman

A star for your pithy and coolheaded post.

I don't think this matters because the mechanism of natural selection is not dependent on true randomness. It can work with pseudo randomness even without any intelligent involvement.

Natural selection works equally well on determistically selected populations. Recently it was reported that a population of robots with a range of programmed behaviours evolved altruism naturally over succeeding ‘generations’ (there was an ATS thread on this, but I can’t seem to find it, so the link is to an original news item).

You could equally well raise a few different, closely related species of bacteria under the same conditions, let them all loose in the same Petri dish and let natural selection determine, over several generations, which are the evolutionary winners and losers. Where’s the randomness? Yet evolution does its job.

The OP is not making himself very clear. I think he is closing in on the Aristotelian/Thomist proposition that all observed effects must trace back to a First Cause, which is identified with God the Creator. Of course, that so-called logic is riddled with inconsistencies, but perhaps the OP does not know this. At any rate, I regard mutation as randomly caused in the normal way of things, but of course it can be artificially induced. In fact, someone’s just invented a machine that mass-produces mutations and then lets natural selection pick the best. The existence of such a machine firmly rebuts the OP’s claim that scientists always view mutation as random, or that natural selection cannot work unless it is.

How many times does it need to be repeated? The theory of evolution works whether the world was created by accident or on purpose.

reply to post by confreak

By the way, how do you know the Universe has deterministic behavior without consciousness? Isn't that a giant leap?

A ball rolls down a chute under the influence of gravity without having to think very hard about it. Hot air and yeast don’t mull over whether to rise or not, they just do. Bacteria don’t have committee meetings about which gut to colonize. And dear old Earth goes on round and round the Sun without, as far as we know, ever having made any decisions about it.

I wonder if you have thought through all the consequences of your claim. If the universe is wholly determined, it means that God is the premeditated murderer of everyone, since he has previously decided just when and how they shall get the black ball. Is that the kind of God you believe in?

reply to post by confreak

RANDOM: made, done or chosen without conscious decision

Where on earth did you find that graphic?

Here’s are a few definitions of ‘consciousness’ compiled from different dictionaries, See if you can find the word ‘conscious’ anywhere on the page.

You might be particularly interested in this definition from a computing dictionary:

RANDOMNESS: 5. In no particular order, though deterministic. "The I/O channels are in a pool, and when a file is opened one is chosen randomly."

Your entire argument is based on a wrong definition.

reply to post by megabytz

You are having a tantrum as is apparent in your recent posts.

Where's the objective evidence of these tantrums you pin on me ? Juggling three topics at the samee time might make me appear curt. Again no tantrums are happening. It's delusional to keep chanting that. There simply isn't anything to get upset over. I don't see how I've given the impression of one ? But I asure you. Nil.

Originally posted by acapablemind

Thus far, I've seen no one make the claim that they can disprove your "God". Again, this burden of proof (as I'm sure has been said 100 times) lies with you sir, not the atheists. I'm not sure however, how you think YOU are going to prove God exists when no one before yourself, over the course of billions of years mind you, has been able to do so?

No, I simply stated Atheists are trying to take science hostage, hence they claim believers don't have the right to perceive science as nothing but elaboration of the creation. I hold the burden of proof, that's true, and I have provided my proof, my evidence. That's where you decide whether you want to believe or not.

There is not a lack of randomness, only your persistent claim that there is. Genetic mutation is random. Random in the sense that it happens by accident via an error in molecule replication during cell division. There is no guiding force, no divine hand, no 'God'. Genetic mutation explains the reason why you and I may have different colored eyes, why our hair is a different color, why we have different blood types. It is a testable, verifiable, natural occurrence that happens....randomly.

It is proven scientifically that there is no such thing as random, science has proven this, not me. Everything science has elaborated on shows lack of randomness, hence cause and effect.

Genetic mutation is not random, random means it happens without any cause, but we are fully aware that mutation, just like anything else we perceive as random has a cause. By injecting the word "accident" you are only going against your own belief. Accident means "happens unexpectedly and unintentionally".

Mutation doesn't occur unexpectedly, it occurs expectedly, we can predict it if we know all the variables involved. And it isn't unintentionally, in order for it to occur unintentionally there needs to be intention first hence a creator which intended for the system to be what it is, but due to an accident the system behaved differently. So either way you are proving yourself wrong.

Of course, I will add that genetic mutation is ONE aspect of Natural Selection which is not random by any means. However, alone, GM is random.

No, GM isn't random, GM is cause and effect, which can be predicted. If it was random, it would be impossible to predict it, but ask any qualified scientists whether we will be able to predict mutations in the future, and they will you yes, if we know all the variables.

reply to post by confreak

I hold the burden of proof, that's true, and I have provided my proof, my evidence. That's where you decide whether you want to believe or not.

Well, your proof has been demolished – exploded. So if you want us to believe you, I’m afraid you’ll have to come up with some more.

It is proven scientifically that there is no such thing as random, science has proven this, not me.

This is completely and totally wrong. What is radioactive decay if it is not random? Why are the answers to sums in quantum mechanics given as a probability distribution, not a fixed value? Have you heard of the Uncertainty Principle? What do you think it means?

Plainly, you don’t know anything about quantum mechanics. Plenty of people on this thread have already pointed out that, on the most basic and fundamental level, quantum mechanics shows that the universe is random. It’s just that when you sum up a squillion similar random actions you will tend to see a drift in a particular direction. We don’t know why this happens; we call it decoherence. It guarantees that on the human scale, the scale of people and dinosaurs, the universe isn’t random. But it is most definitely random on the scale of the very small – the quantum scale – as well as on the very large, because events on a cosmic scale are driven by the unpredictable, essentially random explosions and collapses of stars.

Mutations in nature occur randomly. A toxin is ingested and causes mutations in some of your wife’s ova but not in others. It then becomes a lottery whether a mutated egg or a normal one is released from her ovaries and fertilized by you. How is this not random? You have already said you don’t believe in a God that directly decides every little event in the universe.

I’m sorry, confreak. You’ve had to hear a lot of hard things from people who regard ignorance as a kind of crime. I’ll try to put it more gently. You are not qualified to say anything about science because you don’t know anything about science. Your thread has survived eleven or twelve pages, which is quite an achievement even if it did get some help from randyvs's tantrums and Leahn’s prolixity. But it has run its course now, and you have lost the argument, as religious folk who tangle with science will always lose. If you want to keep your faith, keep it safely away from the cold light of reason. And thanks for the entertainment.

reply to post by Astyanax

Sorry, not interested in changing your mind, you can keep your own perspective, and keep your own perception of the world.

Your mind is made up, I can tell from the other side of the world.

reply to post by confreak

Sorry, not interested in changing your mind, you can keep your own perspective, and keep your own perception of the world. Your mind is made up, I can tell from the other side of the world.

I’m trying to change your mind. Failing that, I hope to change the minds of people more open-minded than yourself.

I think you are projecting your own motives onto me. It happens a lot on ATS.

reply to post by confreak


Atheism isn't really anything new and is more likely the "last frontier" before a society self destructs. Time and time again atheist's are only able to poke their head out when a civilization is on the verge of death.

You cannot completely live in a world without some sort of belief. You need something beyond explanation to prove that world isn't as simple as it looks

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by confreak

 

Atheism isn't really anything new and is more likely the "last frontier" before a society self destructs. Time and time again atheist's are only able to poke their head out when a civilization is on the verge of death.

True. I forgot about this detail. Both Arnold Toynbee and Will Durant consider atheism a by-product of a society of abundance.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by confreak

 

Atheism isn't really anything new and is more likely the "last frontier" before a society self destructs. Time and time again atheist's are only able to poke their head out when a civilization is on the verge of death.

Could be because people realize how beliefs have been used to control them and when those in power loose this control they get taken down. That's a good thing if you ask me.