Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

This is completely, totally, 100% not true. But I get why you would believe it. Any belief in abiogenesis is indoctrinated into you with no sound basis except that it's the only way to go when God is omitted. It's every bit of an assumption that religion is. It's the model for a scientific experiement, a placebo, not reality. It has no affect whatsoever on any scientific experiment ever done- similar to time travel in that it's great to think about, impossible to accomplish specifically because it is impossible.

So anyone trying to conduct experiments to replicate the building blocks of life in what are chemical similar conditions to early earth which are based on whole fields of science are not only a waste of time but I would imagine by this logic some kind of intellectually dishonest activity?

I will have to politely disagree with your assumptions.

 

[Kurdel]

How do religious and non-religious people explain alturism vs. darwinism?

We need to define what we are speaking about here.

Altruism is a social concept where people help each other.

Natural selection is a biological concept, where certain traits advance the survival of a species and is thus encouraged when it comes to breeding.

Social Darwinism is a sociological concept where people apply the principles of natural selection to society.

Social darwinism is a cold and horrible way to run a society, and we should be glad we don't live in the world Republicans want to create where it is every man for himself.

Altruism is admired by humans, so it is a meme that is encouraged through natural selection.

I hope this could clear up your question.

 

[Tawpgun]

This is completely, totally, 100% not true. But I get why you would believe it. Any belief in abiogenesis is indoctrinated into you with no sound basis except that it's the only way to go when God is omitted. It's every bit of an assumption that religion is. It's the model for a scientific experiement, a placebo, not reality. It has no affect whatsoever on any scientific experiment ever done- similar to time travel in that it's great to think about, impossible to accomplish specifically because it is impossible.

And you thing "God Did It" is a more credible? You trust some diety that REALLY IS impossible to prove exists or doesn't over actual scientists who devote their time and effort into research, testing, models, and who come up with their best explanation, whether its the actual real one or not.

Ok. Then I guess I'm done here.

 

[JGS]

So anyone trying to conduct experiments to replicate the building blocks of life in what are chemical similar conditions to early earth which are based on whole fields of science are not only a waste of time but I would imagine by this logic some kind of intellectually dishonest activity?

I will have to politely disagree with your assumptions.

You're disagreeing with an assumption I don't have lol.

It's not a waste of time at all to try to create life.

Science doesn't have the ability to see life occur by chance. They are more than welcome to observe any and everything.

Dishonesty has nothing to do with this.

 

[Yoshiya]

What would have been the ramifications if an indecipherable formula had been added to the bible that primitive man could not possibly have understood at the time, and were passed through the ages unchanged, only to be deciphered today? Like, if it included the trillionth digit of Pi? What would this imply?

That some intelligence apart from humanity at the time had a hand in its creation, presumably. Good thing it doesn't and the whole tome can be safely discredited.

 

[JGS]

And you thing "God Did It" is a more credible? You trust some diety that REALLY IS impossible to prove exists or doesn't over actual scientists who devote their time and effort into research, testing, models, and who come up with their best explanation, whether its the actual real one or not.

Ok. Then I guess I'm done here.

Why wouldn't it be just as credible?

Again, let's looked at aliens who are more advanced than us coming down and "seeding" the earth. If you like scietific theory/fiction at all, you know there are some who believe this concept. What's the difference?

An actual scientist has a belief system. That's all this is. A scientist believes, based on observation and a lack of belief in God, that life got here somehow. That's logical to assume. It's something I agree with. What's he going to do- leave an unanswerable void there or come up with a solution to the dilemna of how life got here?

The reality is that he came up with it not that it was based in reality. Reality is that if in a secular world where God is miraculously proven to never have existed, a scientist isn't even a millimeter closer to figuring out how life got here.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You're disagreeing with an assumption I don't have lol.

It's not a waste of time at all to try to create life.

Science doesn't have the ability to see life occur by chance. They are more than welcome to observe any and everything.

Dishonesty has nothing to do with this.

So, what exactly would science have to do experimentally to reconstruct abiogenesis as you interpret it? Are you the kind of person who would only accept a full recreation of a planet in the same evolutionary state as the early earth before you will accept the concept, implying it is intellectually unsound to attribute abiogenesis in a petri dish with the start of life on earth?

 

[jaxword]

So anyone trying to conduct experiments to replicate the building blocks of life in what are chemical similar conditions to early earth which are based on whole fields of science are not only a waste of time but I would imagine by this logic some kind of intellectually dishonest activity?

I will have to politely disagree with your assumptions.

Lying and being dishonest are very common tools when trying to further religious belief.

 

[Raist]

It doesn't matter if it's a common belief of theist if it's a common belief of the atheist too. This just means it's a universal thought.

The Bible doesn't mention that we'retop dog (Maybe you could provide a verse again). In fact, it specifically mentions that humans are inferior to everything but animals and that we are specks in comparison to the universe.

So you can blame a "theist", but not the text they look to.

Oh come on. the bible is laced with anthropocentrism. We're god's most special and beloved creation, we are the only ones to have a soul, to have emotions, we were made in his image, etc etc. And "inferior to everything except animals" pretty much states "superior to everything" (as far as living beings go).

 

[JGS]

So, what exactly would science have to do experimentally to reconstruct abiogenesis as you interpret it? Are you the kind of person who would only accept a full recreation of a planet in the same evolutionary state as the early earth before you will accept the concept, implying it is intellectually unsound to attribute abiogenesis in a petri dish with the start of life on earth/

I already answered this. They cannot experiment with abiogenesis beyond observation. As soon as life is created, you taint the process and prove nothing except that it takes a creator to do it.

It's not abiogenesis unless the example you gave does indeed happen- it's why it's not proveable. It's more than perfect condition, it is also perfect chance that would have to happen a gabillion times over. It's not going to happen. Time travel will happen first.

However, it doesn't take a whole planet- one semi-complex life form (Let's say a jellyfish or even better a potato) will do since in that very process a thousand other impossibilities will have already occurred to get there.

Oh come on. the bible is laced with anthropocentrism. We're god's most special and beloved creation, we are the only ones to have a soul, to have emotions, we were made in his image, etc etc. And "inferior to everything except animals" pretty much states "superior to everything" (as far as living beings go).

Us being his favorite creation (We're not btw) is not the same as us being his most important. We are not needed at all in the functioning of the universe or in his rule.

However, it makes sense that intelligent creatures holds his attention more than dumb or semi-smart creatures.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I already answered this. They cannot experiment with abiogenesis beyond observation. As soon as life is created, you taint the process and prove nothing except that it takes a creator to do it.

It's not abiogenesis unless the example you gave does indeed happen- it's why it's not proveable. It's more than perfect condition, it is also perfect chance that would have to happen a gabillion times over. It's not going to happen. Time travel will happen first.

However, it doesn't take a whole planet- one semi-complex life form (Let's say a jellyfish or even better a potato) will do since in that very process a thousand other impossibilities will have already occurred to get there.

So we will never know why stars form then? All star formation is based on hypothetical computer models. All star forming regions are shrouded in dust and never will be directly observable with any kind of acceptable resolution.

Taken a step further, we will never know why planets form then? It is simply not good enough to observe all the predicted hallmarks of a theory, one must witness it first hand?

You just negated the need for most experimentation and theoretical science.

 

[Kurdel]

I already answered this. They cannot experiment with abiogenesis beyond observation. As soon as life is created, you taint the process and prove nothing except that it takes a creator to do it.

You are really myopic with all of this.

I there were an experiment that put in place the building blocks and developped life, it would explain that with those SPECIFIC conditions, no intervention is needed.

It really is depressing seeing that even if that experiment would be possible today, people would still interject their stupid misunderstandings and beliefs into the results.

However, it makes sense that intelligent creatures holds his attention more than dumb or semi-smart creatures.

He made us in his image, granted us dominion over all life on the planet and commits hatefull genocide based on what we do.

I think this God is obsessed over us, if anything.

 

[JGS]

So we will never know why stars form then? All star formation is based on hypothetical computer models. All star forming regions are shrouded in dust and never will be directly observable with any kind of acceptable resolution.

Taken a step further, we will never know why planets form then? It is simply not good enough to observe all the predicted hallmarks of a theory, one must witness it first hand?

You just negated the need for most experimentation and theoretical science.

How when I specifically said there's nothing wrong with trying? It's like hoping the Na'vi are out there and thus NASA gets more funding on a pipe dream. The funding is the important thing.

In the process of trying you learn other stuff. You seem to be making the argument that the concept of abiogenesis is what fuels experimentation. It doesn't do that at all, but it's also harmless while the real experiments are conducted. You also seem to be perplexed with the notion that there are some things that humans simply cannot do no matter how hard they try.

 

[JGS]

You are really myopic with all of this.

I there were an experiment that put in place the building blocks and developped life, it would explain that with those SPECIFIC conditions, no intervention is needed.

It really is depressing seeing that even if that experiment would be possible today, people would still interject their stupid misunderstandings and beliefs into the results.

I get that, but it takes more than the conditions. There will never be a condition that allows for the chance occurence of life generating without previous life.

It's kind of sad you think something being discussed that you cainfess cant be done is still stupid.

He made us in his image, granted us dominion over all life on the planet and commits hatefull genocide based on what we do.

I think this God is obsessed over us, if anything.

I think it says he can multi-task. The Bible is centered on humans so logically the relationship between God & humans is paramount. That doesn't mean at all that's the only thing he's focused on.

 

[Kurdel]

I get that, but it takes more than the conditions. There will never be a condition that allows for the chance occurence of life generating without previous life.

It's kind of sad you think something being discussed that you cainfess cant be done is still stupid.I think it says he can multi-task. The Bible is centered on humans so logically the relationship between God & humans is paramount. That doesn't mean at all that's the only thing he's focused on.

I am not ready to say that, seeing it is a ridiculous leap of logic and that statement cannot be proven.

Also, the it depends on your definition of God. We all assume we are talking about the Abrahamic God, that created us in his image from dirt and cares if we show our hair in public or where we stick our genetalia.

If he cares about other things than Man, I would be quite curious to know what it is.

 

[Kinitari]

How when I specifically said there's nothing wrong with trying? It's like hoping the Na'vi are out there and thus NASA gets more funding on a pipe dream. The funding is the important thing.

In the process of trying you learn other stuff. You seem to be making the argument that the concept of abiogenesis is what fuels experimentation. It doesn't do that at all, but it's also harmless while the real experiments are conducted. You also seem to be perplexed with the notion that there are some things that humans simply cannot do no matter how hard they try.

His issue is with you equating the faith attributed with religion (by your own definition, an entirely baseless one) with scientific theories that cannot be properly reproduced in labs.

Question, off the top of your head, how many scientific theories do you think we cannot replicate in labs? And do you look at them with as much disdain and imply that those who give them weight are engaging in faith based belief?

 

[Log4Girlz]

How when I specifically said there's nothing wrong with trying? It's like hoping the Na'vi are out there and thus NASA gets more funding on a pipe dream. The funding is the important thing.

It is not fundamentally the same. How can you believe there is nothing wrong with trying to conduct experiments to verify the possibility of a process which you have deemed impossible? I would have a problem spending time or money on a concept which was fundamentally impossible. Having said that, I do not agree with your stance on abiogenesis.

In the process of trying you learn other stuff. You seem to be making the argument that the concept of abiogenesis is what fuels experimentation. It doesn't do that at all, but it's also harmless while the real experiments are conducted. You also seem to be perplexed with the notion that there are some things that humans simply cannot do no matter how hard they try.

I do not have a problem with that notion. Constructing models whether mathematically, or experimentally to recreate the conditions involved at the beginning of a process we wish to understand better may be the best tool we will ever have, and is typically acceptable to draw conclusions from.

Otherwise, by your logic, it will forever be impossible to know how stars and planets form, or the magnetic field of the earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm_iqzmR2cE

Since it is impossible to view the process of the magnetic core being generated at earth's center, then recreating an analogue is worthless. Abiogenesis experiments are fundamentally similar. They strive to recreate realistic analogous model of how life is proposed to have started on earth. If they are successful, and life can spring forth from non-living molecules, then abiogenesis has been further validated.

 

[soul creator]

I hereby propose that none of us here were actually born, because there's no way we can time travel back to the night our parents had sex, and recreate the exact same conditions.

Therefore, my position is that we were all teleported here from an alternate dimension approximately 10 minutes ago.

 

[Wichu]

As soon as life is created, you taint the process and prove nothing except that it takes a creator to do it.

Going to point out that this is illogical.

If I plant a tree in my garden and tend to it until it matures, it doesn't mean every single tree in a forest was planted by somebody.

Just because something can be done by certain means doesn't prove that it's the only way to do it. Demonstrating abiogenesis in a lab would in no way prove 'it takes a creator to do it'.

I get that, but it takes more than the conditions. There will never be a condition that allows for the chance occurence of life generating without previous life.

That's the job of science to find out. Many things around today would have been deemed impossible in the past.

Spoiler

"There could never have been a being powerful enough to create the universe". Just as valid as your argument.

I hereby propose that none of us here were actually born, because there's no way we can time travel back to the night our parents had sex, and recreate the exact same conditions.

I quite distinctly remember that night. Your mother is fiiiine.

 

[Dude Abides]

I hereby propose that none of us here were actually born, because there's no way we can time travel back to the night our parents had sex, and recreate the exact same conditions.

Therefore, my position is that we were all teleported here from an alternate dimension approximately 10 minutes ago.

Standard minutes or God-minutes?

 

[Orayn]

I hereby propose that none of us here were actually born, because there's no way we can time travel back to the night our parents had sex, and recreate the exact same conditions.

Therefore, my position is that we were all teleported here from an alternate dimension approximately 10 minutes ago.

Omphalism Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Creationists

 

[The Technomancer]

I hereby propose that none of us here were actually born, because there's no way we can time travel back to the night our parents had sex, and recreate the exact same conditions.

Therefore, my position is that we were all teleported here from an alternate dimension approximately 10 minutes ago.

Well there's no evidence for that claim, but it sounds alright, so I guess that makes it a plausible explanation worth serious consideration.

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

[soul creator]

Standard minutes or God-minutes?

God isn't limited to puny human concepts such as "time"

Spoiler

/Satymadas

edit: lol Lionheart

 

[Lionheart1337]

I love how the two spoilers above are interchangeable.

 

[JGS]

I am not ready to say that, seeing it is a ridiculous leap of logic and that statement cannot be proven.

Also, the it depends on your definition of God. We all assume we are talking about the Abrahamic God, that created us in his image from dirt and cares if we show our hair in public or where we stick our genetalia.

If he cares about other things than Man, I would be quite curious to know what it is.

You're reading too much into it. It's merely an opinion. I'm not stating it as anything beyond that. Honestly, since you can;t refute that, you go back to name calling and disrespecting another's beliefs (Of which you're lacking context in the ridicule anyway but that probably doesn't matter).

His issue is with you equating the faith attributed with religion (by your own definition, an entirely baseless one) with scientific theories that cannot be properly reproduced in labs.

I'm not equating that. He and others are saying that because I hold no value in abiogenesis, it must be because I believ in God. The two have little to do with each other. If God never existed, it wouldn't change what could be/has been proven regarding the origin of life.

Question, off the top of your head, how many scientific theories do you think we cannot replicate in labs? And do you look at them with as much disdain and imply that those who give them weight are engaging in faith based belief?

I don't hold abiogenesis in disdain. I think it's a perfectly acceptable theory in scince fiction works. I simply don't respect it the same way as I respect legitimate scientific principles. By scientific measures, there's no way I can be required to accept it as fact.

 

[Wichu]

If God never existed, it wouldn't change what could be/has been proven regarding the origin of life.

So, where exactly has abiogenesis been disproved? Just because it is not proven doesn't mean it is false. Similarly, just because it hasn't been demonstrated in a lab doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

[JGS]

Going to point out that this is illogical.

If I plant a tree in my garden and tend to it until it matures, it doesn't mean every single tree in a forest was planted by somebody.

This is an illogical analogy because even if you only planted one tree, the thing that is known as a fact is that the other trees came from a previous tree.

Just because something can be done by certain means doesn't prove that it's the only way to do it. Demonstrating abiogenesis in a lab would in no way prove 'it takes a creator to do it'.

I don't think I disagreed with this at all but the two statements aren't connected.

That's the job of science to find out. Many things around today would have been deemed impossible in the past.

I agree with this too. I'm not sure why people keep thinking I'm saying science shouldn't investigate or disprove religious concepts. I'm all for it since it tightens the parameters of belief.

"There could never have been a being powerful enough to create the universe". Just as valid as your argument.

Since it's belief/opinion, I don't have a problem with this view.

I'm not sure where I was arguing about the universe's formation. With that said, it's equally invalid to say that God doesn't work within the parameters of the universe since creation is possible within those parameters and we don't know it all anyway. We don't even know if this universe is the only parameters.

So, where exactly has abiogenesis been disproved? Just because it is not proven doesn't mean it is false. Similarly, just because it hasn't been demonstrated in a lab doesn't mean it's impossible.

This is similar to "where has God been disproven isn't it?

No one said abiogenesis must be disproven. if scientists want to focus their resources on that, then so be it. My opinion on that is they won't get anywhere not that I'm going to go blow up the lab if they try.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not equating that. He and others are saying that because I hold no value in abiogenesis, it must be because I believ in God. The two have little to do with each other. If God never existed, it wouldn't change what could be/has been proven regarding the origin of life.

Hmmm....

This is completely, totally, 100% not true. But I get why you would believe it. Any belief in abiogenesis is indoctrinated into you with no sound basis except that it's the only way to go when God is omitted. It's every bit of an assumption that religion is.

They cannot experiment with abiogenesis beyond observation. As soon as life is created, you taint the process and prove nothing except that it takes a creator to do it.

Sounds exactly like what you're doing. So because you cannot experiment with a theory outside of observation (ie, recreating it in a lab) it doesn't hold any water?

Or is it just Abiogenesis? You do understand that this is held as the most likely theory of how life started for -a reason- correct? It's not like scientific/biological/chemistry communities hold all scientific arguments up to scrutiny except Abiogenesis.

Your constant equation of it as something that is made up, something that is baseless, something that holds no water flies in the face of thousands of people who's entire lives revolve around understand its core principals (biology, chemistry).

Why is it that Abiogenesis is so easily dismissed then, if it's not because of (your constant claims that) its fundamental inability to be reproduced in labs?

I don't hold abiogenesis in disdain. I think it's a perfectly acceptable theory in scince fiction works. I simply don't respect it the same way as I respect legitimate scientific principles. By scientific measures, there's no way I can be required to accept it as fact.

Science fiction... sigh. You understand that when you say stuff like this, it's hard to actually discuss things with you. I understand some people are being pedantic or trying to insult you, but I generally respect you as a poster - but you are so stubborn on this issue. It's not science fiction, it is a strongly held to theory by scientists world wide who experiment, discuss and spend a lot of time trying to decipher the concept. There is no reason life cannot come from non life. In fact the line between life and non-life is a lot less of a binary one than we think. Look at virus's, look at protocells, look at a whole slew of evidence and our understanding of the very basic single celled organisms. It's not like this is written in L. Ron. Hubbard's book - this is real science. Just saying "It's not real science" without really specifying beyond "it cannot be reproduced in a lab' you KNOW is a disingenuous argument.

 

[Zaptruder]

lol @ everyone trying to engage JGS in an actual debate on science.

On these topics, he's not just ignorant... he's *willfully* ignorant.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Hmmm....







Sounds exactly like what you're doing. So because you cannot experiment with a theory outside of observation (ie, recreating it in a lab) it doesn't hold any water?

Or is it just Abiogenesis? You do understand that this is held as the most likely theory of how life started for -a reason- correct? It's not like scientific/biological/chemistry communities hold all scientific arguments up to scrutiny except Abiogenesis.

Your constant equation of it as something that is made up, something that is baseless, something that holds no water flies in the face of thousands of people who's entire lives revolve around understand its core principals (biology, chemistry).

Why is it that Abiogenesis is so easily dismissed then, if it's not because of (your constant claims that) its fundamental inability to be reproduced in labs?



Science fiction... sigh. You understand that when you say stuff like this, it's hard to actually discuss things with you. I understand some people are being pedantic or trying to insult you, but I generally respect you as a poster - but you are so stubborn on this issue. It's not science fiction, it is a strongly held to theory by scientists world wide who experiment, discuss and spend a lot of time trying to decipher the concept. There is no reason life cannot come from non life. In fact the line between life and non-life is a lot less of a binary one than we think. Look at virus's, look at protocells, look at a whole slew of evidence and our understanding of the very basic single celled organisms. It's not like this is written in L. Ron. Hubbard's book - this is real science. Just saying "It's not real science" without really specifying beyond "it cannot be reproduced in a lab' you KNOW is a disingenuous argument.

If you read the Atheist bible, you will see that abiogenesis was not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Figboy79]

Christians:

1) Were you indoctrinated by this religion since birth because your parents follow this religion, or did you become a Christian later in life?

I was raised in a Christian family, but sometime in my early to mid teens, I made a decision to continue to follow my faith.

2) If you were born in ancient Greece, do you think you would believe in Zeus with the same fervor you believe in God or would you be more or less critical?

I can't say yes or no to this, because it's almost impossible for me to put myself in that mindset. The world was a very different place back then.

3) Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God (ie it's perfect, infallible, exactly how it should be, not just written by man)?

I believe that there is a lot of the Bible that could be considered to be the word of God. I also believe that a lot of the Bible was heavily altered to further the agendas of men who were drunk off of power.

4) Do you believe that some or more of the detailed stories in the Bible (Adam and Eve, Noah, etc) are metaphorical or do you believe all are literal?

I believe that a lot of the Bible is metaphorical. Looking at the period in which it was written, how it's been translated, and how some concepts just couldn't be described back then, I find it impossible to take it literally. Imagine travelling back to the 15th centry and trying to explain to them how the internet works, with the limited vocabulary/understanding of the 15th century. The Bible is written in parables and metaphors, because that's one of the simplest and easiest forms to convey something complex

5) If you think some are metaphorical, how do you determine which are metaphorical and which are literal? How do you reconcile the two?

I'm a Christian, but I don't think science and faith are as oil and water as some do. Science hasn't explained everything, and neither has religion. I can't 100% determine what is metaphor, and what isn't, but that's not, to me, what the Bible is for. I look at it as a guide in some ways, and entertaining read in others. I usually feel pretty good about my life situation after reading some of the things I've read in the Bible. I don't agree 100% with what is written in it's pages, but who agrees 100% with everything/everyone they encounter? Disagreements with God and God's will are common place for a Christian. It's no different than disagreeing with a parent or family member/friend.

6) If they are metaphorical, then why do you follow it as an actual religion and not just fables or stories meant to teach a moral lesson?

Because I'm not following the Bible. I'm following my belief in a God. Not a book. I believe that there is an amazing force that created everything. How it created everything is of little concern to me. What's important to me is that I acknowledge that there are things far beyond the understanding of current science/knowledge/faith, and I'm ok with that. I don't need to know how everything works. I'm happy to be in it, doing my thing. My belief in God has no bearing in how I interact with my fellow human beings (and other creatures on the planet, of course). The Bible is a fascinating read, full of interesting stories. But like I said, the Bible isn't my religion, it's a book and guide, nothing more. It gives structure to certain aspects of Christianity, but it's not why I'm a Christian, or why I follow Christianity.

7) Have you ever seriously sat down by yourself and critically thought about your religion and why you believe it?

Often. In the end, I come to the conclusion that I enjoy being a believer in a higher power, which isn't exclusive to Christianity, but that's just my background. I could easily follow a lot of other faiths, because I don't discount them as legitimate belief systems.

 

[Raist]

Figboy, your views are quite interesting. I personally have a problem with this however:

4) Do you believe that some or more of the detailed stories in the Bible (Adam and Eve, Noah, etc) are metaphorical or do you believe all are literal?

[...] The Bible is written in parables and metaphors, because that's one of the simplest and easiest forms to convey something complex

Why wouldn't the bible say "So I'm god, I creat the universe roughly 14 billion years ago, set up some rules and it's been working on its own since then. See the universe is big so I can't take care of everything, therefore I created the laws of physics, chemistry, the process of evolution" etc etc, in quite simple terms.

Sort of "How stuff works for dummies" ie very simplified but still accurate.

 

[Figboy79]

Figboy, your views are quite interesting. I personally have a problem with this however:



Why wouldn't the bible say "So I'm god, I creat the universe roughly 14 billion years ago, set up some rules and it's been working on its own since then. See the universe is big so I can't take care of everything, therefore I created the laws of physics, chemistry, the process of evolution" etc etc, in quite simple terms.

Sort of "How stuff works for dummies" ie very simplified but still accurate.

I get what you're saying, but that's not very fun to read. It's a lot more interesting to read about awesome stuff than boring technical stuff. lol

 

[JGS]

Figboy, your views are quite interesting. I personally have a problem with this however:



Why wouldn't the bible say "So I'm god, I creat the universe roughly 14 billion years ago, set up some rules and it's been working on its own since then. See the universe is big so I can't take care of everything, therefore I created the laws of physics, chemistry, the process of evolution" etc etc, in quite simple terms.

Sort of "How stuff works for dummies" ie very simplified but still accurate.

Again the bible is not about How Stuff Works. You're projecting what you want it to be instead of what it is- a book for worshippers

 

[Raist]

I get what you're saying, but that's not very fun to read. It's a lot more interesting to read about awesome stuff than boring technical stuff. lol

Maybe, but if you want to convey something complex, metaphors and parables can be the worst thing to do sometimes, because it's very open to interpretation.

Again the bible is not about How Stuff Works. You're projecting what you want it to be instead of what it is- a book for worshippers

I guess I missed the deeper metaphoric meaning of genesis, what is supposedly moral or not and rituals from leviticus then.

 

[JGS]

Sounds exactly like what you're doing. So because you cannot experiment with a theory outside of observation (ie, recreating it in a lab) it doesn't hold any water?

Assumption is not faith and belief in abiogenesis is not a religious belief.

Or is it just Abiogenesis? You do understand that this is held as the most likely theory of how life started for -a reason- correct? It's not like scientific/biological/chemistry communities hold all scientific arguments up to scrutiny except Abiogenesis.

I'm not really sure how many times I can repeat myself on this. They cannot hold abiogenesis up to scrutiny. If they do, please explain what that scrutiny is rather than simply saying they do. How do you scrutinize it? I'm well aware of the reason why it's considered the most likely theory

Your constant equation of it as something that is made up, something that is baseless, something that holds no water flies in the face of thousands of people who's entire lives revolve around understand its core principals (biology, chemistry).

on that point, it is very similar to religion. There is no particular reason for me to value it except for the value I wuld place on it. Even your best argument seems to be that scientist accept it (After much scrutiny obviously), therefore it is an acceptable theory. You're playing the numbers game that religious people aren't allowed to. However, the principle is identical. Just because a group buys into something doesn't make it any more likely a premise.

Why is it that Abiogenesis is so easily dismissed then, if it's not because of (your constant claims that) its fundamental inability to be reproduced in labs?

You misunderstand again. I personally do not think it's possible to produce in a scientific setting (Whether that's a lab, or an atom smasher, or the Grand Canyon). In any event, I'm being a little more general than making a constant claim of it being lab worthy. The lab has a hard time duplicating any number of natural occurences can't be duplicated. Abiogeneis more importanly can't be reporduced anywhere. The lab of all places would be the easy part.

Science fiction... sigh. You understand that when you say stuff like this, it's hard to actually discuss things with you. I understand some people are being pedantic or trying to insult you, but I generally respect you as a poster - but you are so stubborn on this issue. It's not science fiction, it is a strongly held to theory by scientists world wide who experiment, discuss and spend a lot of time trying to decipher the concept. There is no reason life cannot come from non life. In fact the line between life and non-life is a lot less of a binary one than we think. Look at virus's, look at protocells, look at a whole slew of evidence and our understanding of the very basic single celled organisms. It's not like this is written in L. Ron. Hubbard's book - this is real science. Just saying "It's not real science" without really specifying beyond "it cannot be reproduced in a lab' you KNOW is a disingenuous argument.

Again, two sides of the same coin. i don't see what the controversy is honestly. You do realize that to me you are seem frustrated with the notion that I believe in God? i don't see how it is odd that something could be created even if it's just to start the process going. That's all this boils down to. So why would this be a frustrating discussion at all unless you honestly believe you have the abilty to convince me a creator doesn't exist? That's the first part. The second part is my lack of belief in abiogenesis has little to do with my belief in God since it hasn't been proven regardless of religious belief or lack of it.

It's pretty clear that I can't answer in a way that won't be construed as disrespectful without lying. I would literally have to say abiogenesis is a fact of life.

When my religious thought it dismissed 100% as silly, there's no particular reason to take anything not involving actual science any more serious. I try very hard to be respectful of abiogenesis teaching (At least for the past few months) but at the end of the day it's not a valid scientific teaching. It is a Point A for scientists to start at since most research and discovery starts further down the Point alphabet.

I wish I could get ones to understand that not holding to it does not equate to me finding no value in science, but I'm losing that battle since it's always an all or nothing scenario. Accepting something at face value or by majority rule isn't even encouraged by scientists, so why is it encouraged by Gaffers?

I guess I missed the deeper metaphoric meaning of genesis, what is supposedly moral or not and rituals from leviticus then.

It would be understandable since the Bible is not your cup of tea. It's like me and horror movies.

 

[Cyan]

Question for atheists: do you believe in free will? If so, what's your justification? If not, does the nonexistence of free will bother you at all, or are you content, generally, with the illusion?

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Question for atheists: do you believe in free will? If so, what's your justification? If not, does the nonexistence of free will bother you at all, or are you content, generally, with the illusion?

I haven't reached a decision yet about what I believe, but I would say I lean quite strongly towards determinism. Even if we do have free will it is at least rather limited due to our environment and genetics playing such a large role in the decisions we make.

If free will doesn't exist I think determinism does rather than fatalism, which is good because even if we do not choose the actions we take they still have an actual effect upon reality. Certainly the illusion we make choices seems to be a lot better than the possible alternative of us feeling like we're trapped in a machine.

 

[danwarb]

Question for atheists: do you believe in free will? If so, what's your justification? If not, does the nonexistence of free will bother you at all, or are you content, generally, with the illusion?

Free will isn't well defined or it doesn't make a lot of sense. We're free to make the decisions we make, which have lots to do with sensory input and the state of a brain over time. If not having free will means that decisions are forced upon us by other brains, free will is the opposite of that.

An alternative wouldn't reflect the brain, our experiences and personalities, would it be just completely random behaviour?

 

[Conciliator]

Question for atheists: do you believe in free will? If so, what's your justification? If not, does the nonexistence of free will bother you at all, or are you content, generally, with the illusion?

I prescribe to determinism...we are a product of our experience and our biology - how much of it is experience and how much of it is biology is incidental to my point - and ultimately don't have any choice over those things. We can't choose our biology whatsoever, we can't choose our initial experience, and that biology and initial experience determines who we are and thus the choices that we(think we) make, and thus our following experiences, and so on and so on.

I don't like determinism and would prefer free will.

EDIT: To be clear, this assumes that there is nothing metaphysical about the mind or the self, rather religious or in the vein of Deepak Chopra(spelling?) kind of bullshit.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I'm in Dennett's camp.

 

[JGS]

Good Lord, this thread is hard to find in search. I guess I need to add it. Anyway this is a question to all.

Where does nationalism or patriotism fall in regards to belief or lack thereof?

I assume that most religious or non-religious have some measure of it. The religious have often been gullible enough (imo) to believe a particular deity is on their country's side. I'm not quite sure what the non-religious view is.

However, from the religious side, I'm still curious as to why God would favor a particular country or if he's not why would they have pride in a particular country that God may not be pleased with (By saying God, I'm using terminology I'm familiar with. Insert whatever deity of choice).

 

[Orayn]

I think nationalism and extreme patriotism are absolutely in the same territory as religion. As soon as I hear people turn to superlatives like "THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH," I know that I'm hearing claims made on faith and good feelings, rather than critically analyzing all the countries of the world and ranking them by some greatness index. Jingoistic attitudes are even worse them people mix them with their religious convictions, as if you could prop up one unprovable faith-based claim with another.

 

[Evolved1]

How do religious and non-religious people explain alturism vs. darwinism?

Alturism being the feeling you get to want to help someone, like for instance let's say a car veers off the road into a lake and you see people drowning. Most people feel the need to help unless you're a cold person inside. There's no instinct there as far as I can tell, this is a genuine need to help other people at the cost of your own life, which goes against...

Darwinism, survival of the fittest, instinct etc... would all tell you to not even get in that water because something could happen to you.

You would want to read about kin selection. (not group selection)

Short answer is that (if you were to ask an evolutionary biologist) most altruism we observe isn't altruism at all. It's ultimately selfish behavior. Behavior that appears altruistic, because we so often anthropomorphize, but it's only superficial. When you do the math, there's a clear correlation with selfish benefit. There are exceptions -- human behavior, for example. But these exceptions are incredibly rare elsewhere in nature.

 

[FanTomasas]

This can never become a discussion, because:

Atheists will tell theists why they are right, because their answers are based on logic and proof.

Theists will tell atheists what they believe is true. They answers will never incorporate any real proof or follow logic.

 

[Orayn]

This can never become a discussion, because:

Atheists will tell theists why they are right, because their answers are based on logic and proof.

Theists will tell atheists what they believe is true. They answers will never incorporate any real proof or follow logic.

This is a thread of asking and answering questions. Going back and forth on the details and convincing the other guy we're right isn't the goal.

 

[Cyan]

This can never become a discussion, because:

Atheists will tell theists why they are right, because their answers are based on logic and proof.

Theists will tell atheists what they believe is true. They answers will never incorporate any real proof or follow logic.

There's another thread for that.

 

[Raist]

You would want to read about kin selection. (not group selection)

Short answer is that (if you were to ask an evolutionary biologist) most altruism we observe isn't altruism at all. It's ultimately selfish behavior. Behavior that appears altruistic, because we so often anthropomorphize, but it's only superficial. When you do the math, there's a clear correlation with selfish benefit. There are exceptions -- human behavior, for example. But these exceptions are incredibly rare elsewhere in nature.

No, it's very common in social species.
There's definitely a logical problem in equating the ToE to selfishness. That's summarizing the whole thing to "survival of the fittest" which is not a goal of evolution but just a consequence of natural selection. Going all the way to pure selfishness would be disastrous for evolution, because it works through populations, not individuals.

 

[Sentenza]

No, it's very common in social species.
There's definitely a logical problem in equating the ToE to selfishness. That's summarizing the whole thing to "survival of the fittest" which is not a goal of evolution but just a consequence of natural selection. Going all the way to pure selfishness would be disastrous for evolution, because it works through populations, not individuals.

Bingo.
"Altruism" is most likely the product of empathy, which is extremely common in sentient beings and exactly part of what makes them "sentient" and social".

Long story short: altruism is a positive behavior as it helps to propagate the population and to build stronger communities; on the other hand it can also occasionally "backfire" as it allows to act in a way that could appear against self-preservation of the single individual.

 

[Evolved1]

No, it's very common in social species.
There's definitely a logical problem in equating the ToE to selfishness. That's summarizing the whole thing to "survival of the fittest" which is not a goal of evolution but just a consequence of natural selection. Going all the way to pure selfishness would be disastrous for evolution, because it works through populations, not individuals.

I would ask that you provide at least an example or two. And then I will respond with the literature.

Summarizing evolution (haphazardly) would be: genetic perpetuation through its propagation.

You can do the math here... and then look at the studies that demonstrate "altruism" in populations is correlated with relatedness, and organisms that help others at cost to themselves are actually doing it for their own benefit. Their genes are gaining advantage by assisting their kin. The further removed (with regard to relatedness) the less likely individuals in a population are to be altruistic toward one another. This is in the literature.