The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

nce"

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Argument from incredulity. You just don't see how it could have happened, therefore it didn't, ergo God, right? Isn't that your implied argument?



You're probably referring to the ribosome, but there is also a "reader" in the nucleus - the enzymes that generate messenger RNA from DNA. This apparatus doesn't care where the DNA came from. If it came from a virus, the apparatus will begin generating viruses.



Scientists have an incomplete but growing understanding of chemical evolution. Religion has added zero understanding to the origin of life. Saying that God did it has no more explanatory power than saying that Norman did it, or that it did it by itself. More needs to be demonstrated.



It possibly happened due unconscious forces passively acting out a cosmic play according to simple rules. The possibility not only hasn't been ruled out, it is at the top of the list for candidate hypotheses for the origin of life in our universe. The supernaturalisitc argument, which also cannot be ruled out, is a gross violation of Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony, and so ranks below the naturalisitic one.



Nobody denies that the intelligent design of life is possible, a topic back in the news right now (genetic engineering). What is denied is that it has been demonstrated to be necessary.

Click to expand...

I think what you alliterated to was the turning away from the standard "chance" hypothesis for abiogenesis to searching for a natural "force" coupled with the proper environment working in tandem to produce life. The chance hypothesis gets dimmer and dimmer. I see the application of Occams razor here a little differently than you. When I was a dyed in the wool atheist, evolutionist, the concept of God was absurd to me.Now, being a Christian, naturalism as an explanation seems absurd to me. So, you might say, I have seen the absurdity of both sides. So, which absurdity is more absurd ?Can anyone apply Occams razor without prejudices bearing on which is the best explanation ? No matter what, it is a most astounding and incredible fact that we exist at all.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

The struggle to which you refer is the church attempting to pierce the church-state wall to impose its values on a nation that includes many non-Christians, a program of demeaning, marginalizing, and scapegoating various target groups such as women, LGBT, and atheists, an anti-intellectual program that has Christians demeaning higher education and pulling their kids out of public school because evolution is taught there while trying to inject creationism into the public school science texts, and various other sins that define the church as a poor neighbor. It's not welcome in my life, which it would love to overrun like kudzu.

Secularists of all stripes including theists that respect basic the basic American principle of church-state separation object to this behavior, and are fighting back. It is a legitimate reaction - a civic duty even.



That an odd claim. Science is nothing but a method for understanding physical reality, and the body of discoveries that it has uncovered.



No, that's the church's political and cultural agenda, which as I just noted, intends to impose itself on the rest of us if it can. Secular humanists just say, "Back off." We don't require the church to submit to anything but the law.

Click to expand...

my apologies on the science comment, cut and paste nightmares.

I agree with you about all that.

The Christian cancer was something I fought against my whole life. it was hard to see my family become christians, it was intolerable. They honestly believed the damn thing. I've experienced Christians all my life and I'm amazed at their existence. The cult preys on despair and desperation, they squander their minds on it. it's like a blind eye seeing only what it wants to see, and rationalizing everything to the contrary away.

shmogie said:

You say that neither the OT or NT state that they are inerrant or infallible, that is correct [...]. 2 Timothy 3;16 ESV " All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in Righteousness."

Click to expand...

That's a claim that studying the Tanakh is ὠφέλιμος ─'helpful', 'useful', ''beneficial', 'profitable', 'advantageous', 'serviceable'. No hint of inerrancy there. And whether or not the author of 2 Timothy is Paul, no NT, no concept of an NT, exists at that time so no reference to it is possible.

So as I said, the notion of inerrancy is dreamed up by some onlooker, not based on the text. Which is a compliment to the text in its way, since the text is indeed errant, full of mistakes scientific, historical, medical, not to mention self-contradictions.

shmogie said:

NO there is no natural pathway from chemistry to life. A fallacy based on hopes and wishes, nothing more.

Click to expand...

Isn't your attempted denial where the hopes and wishes are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but science has offered no reason in principle why that might be so, and the rest of your argument, that it's all too complex, is an argument from incredulity, not a reasoned rebuttal ─ it doesn't even take evolution into account. Evolution explains how the biologically complex can develop from the biologically less complex. We need only one very very very basic self-reproducing cell, and we're off and running.

shmogie said:

That is intelligent design, not abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

I agree (though to call it 'intelligent design' is to politicize it). Creating cells by manipulating other cells doesn't explain the path from chemistry to biochemistry. (It may however give relevant insights into cell formation ─ or not.)

syncretic said:

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Just the same way you can include "not collecting stamps" in the context of "hobby." Very clever.

People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.

Click to expand...

No, people do not find religion. People have religion foist upon them, generally from infancy. And also pretty usually with dire threats of what happens if they don't believe (at 3 or 5 years old) the bumpf they're being indoctrinated with (whether that be Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or whatever).

Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Click to expand...

No, the plight is that those who were so indoctrinated into their theistic religions were not "reasoned" into it, that they cannot be reasoned out of it. And all the atheist has in his quiver is reason.

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Click to expand...

Yes. No. What does the question even mean?

blü 2 said:

That's a claim that studying the Tanakh is ὠφέλιμος ─'helpful', 'useful', ''beneficial', 'profitable', 'advantageous', 'serviceable'. No hint of inerrancy there. And whether or not the author of 2 Timothy is Paul, no NT, no concept of an NT, exists at that time so no reference to it is possible.

So as I said, the notion of inerrancy is dreamed up by some onlooker, not based on the text. Which is a compliment to the text in its way, since the text is indeed errant, full of mistakes scientific, historical, medical, not to mention self-contradictions.
Isn't your attempted denial where the hopes and wishes are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but science has offered no reason in principle why that might be so, and the rest of your argument, that it's all too complex, is an argument from incredulity, not a reasoned rebuttal ─ it doesn't even take evolution into account. Evolution explains how the biologically complex can develop from the biologically less complex. We need only one very very very basic self-reproducing cell, and we're off and running.
I agree (though to call it 'intelligent design' is to politicize it). Creating cells by manipulating other cells doesn't explain the path from chemistry to biochemistry. (It may however give relevant insights into cell formation ─ or not.)

Click to expand...

Well, I actually didn´t finish my post, but I will make my point. If ALL scripture is given by God, then your position is that God gave error to those who wrote the Bible. God is inerrant,therefore his word is inerrant. I challenge you BTW to find anywhere in the Bible where it is stated the earth is flat. I didn´t address evolution, only abiogenesis. My argument isn¨t that it is all too complex, my argument that it is impossible if based on chance, and no alternative to the chance model has ever been proposed. Obviously, you didn¨t fully grasp the facts. INFORMATION in detail is required for an organism to exist. The information must exist before the organism. In the case of the alleged first result organism from all those marvelous chemicals sloshing around, an explanation must be made as to how it had the information to function, and where that information came from. There are none.................................. Essentially your counter argument is ¨well, some day, by and by, we will have the pie in the sky, the holy grail of evolution ¨. Hopes and wishes, nothing more

LuisDantas said:

@shmogie

Facts are what they are.

Dawkins & others may be in evidence, but except perhaps for Sam Harris to some extent they are simply not very inovative. There is very little that they say that has not been said for decades, centuries even, if we allow for the improvement on scientific knowledge along time.

And that should surprise no one. Criticism of theism and blind faith is hardly a new or very creative necessity.

Click to expand...

One more time, they are guilty of poor scholarship, they make mistakes in research, exegesis, and quotations.

shmogie said:

One more time, they are guilty of poor scholarship, they make mistakes in research, exegesis, and quotations.

Click to expand...

Give me an example or two.

Dawkins is not very knowledgeable about religion (although Harris is). But given what I have seen of the criticisms aimed at the two of them, I have a hard time believing you will have anything worthwhile to show.

shmogie said:

If ALL scripture is given by God, then your position is that God gave error to those who wrote the Bible.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say 'given', it says θεόπνευστος, literally 'god-breathed', meaning 'inspired'. That means the words are the author's, not God's.

shmogie said:

God is inerrant,therefore his word is inerrant.

Click to expand...

If so, that demonstrates with great authority that god didn't write the bible, which is full of errors.

shmogie said:

I challenge you BTW to find anywhere in the Bible where it is stated the earth is flat.

Click to expand...

From that era I don't know why you'd expect anything other than a flat earth, but here are some:

Deuteronomy 4:
18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.
Job 38:
13 That it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Psalm 19
4 [...] the sun, [...] 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Psalm 102
25 Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psalm 104
5 Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
Ecclesiastes 1:
22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Isaiah 48
13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
Daniel 4
10 The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth
Matthew 4
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.
Revelation 7:
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea, or against any tree.

Let me know if you'd like some on geocentry.

shmogie said:

My argument isn¨t that it is all too complex, my argument that it is impossible if based on chance, and no alternative to the chance model has ever been proposed.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a phenomenon based on more than chance, and explains natural selection, descent with modification, and some genetics that explain it all. You should acquaint yourself with it in more detail before you make statements like that.

shmogie said:

Obviously, you didn¨t fully grasp the facts. INFORMATION in detail is required for an organism to exist.

Click to expand...

The plain meaning of 'information' is 'that which informs' (a listener, a brain). Is that what you mean here? If so, what brain is being informed, do you say? If not, what definition of 'information' are you using?

shmogie said:

Essentially your counter argument is ¨well, some day, by and by, we will have the pie in the sky, the holy grail of evolution ¨. Hopes and wishes, nothing more

Click to expand...

And, you say, if that's wrong, if science shows in the lab a pathway from chemistry to active (self-reproducing) biochemistry, you'll give up creationism? A clear answer to this, please.

LuisDantas said:

Not an excuse, and no quotation marks. Atheist morality is both a real thing and superior to the theistic alternatives.

Have you read any Sam Harris? Peter Singer?

Click to expand...

To demonstrate that atheist morality is superior, you would have to first prove what morality is, and that there are objective, absolute standards of morality by wish we can measure your superiority.

These absolutes would create axiomatic truths that would inevitably lead to the existence of a divine creator.

I will go ahead, then and say 1) your morals are superior 2) Jesus Christ exists and is Savior. Thanks for helping me clarify.

Curious George said:

I do not think it an excuse for atheist morality. Does it hurt your worldview to realize that not all atheists are villifyimg theists?

Click to expand...

With respect, taking a stance that there is no God villifies all theists. Do you have proof of your negative?

BilliardsBall said:

To demonstrate that atheist morality is superior, you would have to first prove what morality is, and that there are objective, absolute standards of morality by wish we can measure your superiority.

Click to expand...

Quite so.

These absolutes would create axiomatic truths that would inevitably lead to the existence of a divine creator.

Click to expand...

Quite wrong.

I will go ahead, then and say 1) your morals are superior 2) Jesus Christ exists and is Savior. Thanks for helping me clarify.

Click to expand...

If you say so. All the best.

BilliardsBall said:

With respect, taking a stance that there is no God villifies all theists. Do you have proof of your negative?

Click to expand...

When and how did pointing out a mistaken belief become vilification?

blü 2 said:

It doesn't say 'given', it says θεόπνευστος, literally 'god-breathed', meaning 'inspired'. That means the words are the author's, not God's.
If so, that demonstrates with great authority that god didn't write the bible, which is full of errors.

From that era I don't know why you'd expect anything other than a flat earth, but here are some:

Deuteronomy 4:
18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.
Job 38:
13 That it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Psalm 19
4 [...] the sun, [...] 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Psalm 102
25 Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psalm 104
5 Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
Ecclesiastes 1:
22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Isaiah 48
13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
Daniel 4
10 The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth
Matthew 4
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.
Revelation 7:
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea, or against any tree.

Let me know if you'd like some on geocentry.
Evolution is a phenomenon based on more than chance, and explains natural selection, descent with modification, and some genetics that explain it all. You should acquaint yourself with it in more detail before you make statements like that.

The plain meaning of 'information' is 'that which informs' (a listener, a brain). Is that what you mean here? If so, what brain is being informed, do you say? If not, what definition of 'information' are you using?

And, you say, if that's wrong, if science shows in the lab a pathway from chemistry to active (self-reproducing) biochemistry, you'll give up creationism? A clear answer to this, please.

Click to expand...

First, none of your verses prove a a promotion of a flat earth. Note that the one with a tree is a VISION, a vision is can show anything to make a point, it doesn't have to be literal. Second, Christ is a supreme being, the devil is a powerful disgraced spiritual being. Therefore neither are looking with human eyes in this confrontation. Sorry, but your point fails, this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

You are now resorting to word games. Information is data in order and complete that conveys a particular meaning. As I have pointed out, a living organism functions by the very complicated DNA information, working through a method that understands the information, which is what allows the the organism to operate, and instructs very complicated chains of acids and proteins to operate the machinery of the organism. Obviously, this information must exist before the organism. It does in every life form on earth being passed on in reproduction. Where did it come from, all in order, pre programmed, with a method to process it, with a method to implement the processed information in that very first organism that randomly resulted from a random combination of chemicals. You, nor anyone else can answer the question.

Of course evolution is random, by chance ! According to the theory, in a particular group of organisms genetic changes occur, randomly, and disappear if they are of no benefit to the species. A beneficial mutation, according to the theory, races through the species, and in time, becomes a trait of the species. Note that genetic mutations are random, nature doesn't know or care about them, nature doesn't control them or the result, they just happen. Methinks you need to read, or reread "On the Origin of Species". Charlie will set you straight on this.

As to your question, will I abandon my faith if some scientist somewhere creates an organism from chemicals in a lab ? Of course not, that is intelligent design, in which which I believe ! If you, or anyone else, could show me, in nature, organisms being created naturally from chemicals, in nature, with no human manipulation, I would have to seriously look at my faith. You can';t however, this has NEVER been observed.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Exactly. Just the same way you can include "not collecting stamps" in the context of "hobby." Very clever.

No, people do not find religion. People have religion foist upon them, generally from infancy. And also pretty usually with dire threats of what happens if they don't believe (at 3 or 5 years old) the bumpf they're being indoctrinated with (whether that be Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or whatever).

No, the plight is that those who were so indoctrinated into their theistic religions were not "reasoned" into it, that they cannot be reasoned out of it. And all the atheist has in his quiver is reason.

Yes. No. What does the question even mean?

Click to expand...

OF COURSE people find religion. There are millions of converts to particular religions every year. Except in moslem countries, if any non moslems are left, these conversions are not forced or coerced. It happens all the time in the USA. I was raised a Baptist, became an atheist and evolutionist in college, and years later became an Evangelical Christian. This is played out many many times all over the world. Perspectives change, knowledge changes, wisdom changes. Yes, there are also many others going from faith, to no religious faith.

BilliardsBall said:

To demonstrate that atheist morality is superior, you would have to first prove what morality is, and that there are objective, absolute standards of morality by wish we can measure your superiority.

These absolutes would create axiomatic truths that would inevitably lead to the existence of a divine creator.

I will go ahead, then and say 1) your morals are superior 2) Jesus Christ exists and is Savior. Thanks for helping me clarify.

Click to expand...

Not a good argument. Calling one set of values superior to another does not establish the existence of a divine creator, and if it did, it wouldn't point to Jesus any more than to Zeus or Odin.

Also, morality isn't proven. That not a meaningful idea. It's a category error.

Nor do there need to be objective, absolute values for one ethical code to be better than another.

And the proper term is secular humanist values. Atheism is a value free position. An atheist could have Stalin's values or even Christian values.

Would you agree that humanist values are superior to Stalin's? We don't advocate for genocide, authoritarianism, forbidding religious or other types of expression, summary judgment without trial, or terrorism. I'd say that that gives us a leg up, and by your reckoning.

shmogie said:

First, none of your verses prove a a promotion of a flat earth. Note that the one with a tree is a VISION, a vision is can show anything to make a point, it doesn't have to be literal. Second, Christ is a supreme being, the devil is a powerful disgraced spiritual being. Therefore neither are looking with human eyes in this confrontation. Sorry, but your point fails, this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Click to expand...

Proof is that which convinces. The Bible verses and the graphic demonstration of biblical cosmology are both convincing evidence that the Bible writers and most if not all of its original readers were also convinced that the Bible calls for a flat earth.

• Job 11:9 - "Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."

How long is the earth?

• Revelation 7:1 - "And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds"

Where are its four corners?

• Job 38:13 - that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it

Where are earth's edges?

Flatness was not the biblical cosmologists only mistake. We're also told that the earth is fixed, that it rests on on four pillars, and is enclosed by a dome which is itself covered by water. Apart from the pillars, which are sometimes omitted or not four in number, that's the way that the earth is presented in every one of the following illustrations: biblical cosmology - Buscar con Google

How do you reconcile that with a book supposedly authored by a god?

shmogie said:

You are now resorting to word games. Information is data in order and complete that conveys a particular meaning. As I have pointed out, a living organism functions by the very complicated DNA information, working through a method that understands the information, which is what allows the the organism to operate, and instructs very complicated chains of acids and proteins to operate the machinery of the organism. Obviously, this information must exist before the organism. It does in every life form on earth being passed on in reproduction.

Click to expand...

What he's telling you is that the shape of the DNA strands is just form until it is apprehended by a conscious agent. When (noumenal) form is impressed onto consciousness and becomes a conscious phenomenon, the form has entered (come IN) the mind and become IN-FORM-ation. Before that, it's just matter acting passively and mindlessly like rainwater filling a puddle and assuming the shape of the puddle. The shape of the hole is the concave equivalent of the convex shape of the bottom of the puddle. We don't need intelligence to have form or for matter to follow rules without supervision.

shmogie said:

Of course evolution is random, by chance ! According to the theory, in a particular group of organisms genetic changes occur, randomly, and disappear if they are of no benefit to the species. A beneficial mutation, according to the theory, races through the species, and in time, becomes a trait of the species. Note that genetic mutations are random, nature doesn't know or care about them, nature doesn't control them or the result, they just happen. Methinks you need to read, or reread "On the Origin of Species". Charlie will set you straight on this.

Click to expand...

You might like to brush up on the theory a bit yourself. Mutations do not disappear by virtue of being useless to the species. There is no mechanism for evolution to select against a neutral mutation. The mutation must manifest phenotypically in order to be selected for or against.

Such neutral mutations simply accumulate, which is also a strong argument against intelligent design. An intelligent designer could prevent mutation from occurring and cull out useless code. Evolution can't. We find useless code from viruses that have inserted genetic material into some common ancestor that is apparently useless to us inasmuch as it has mutated in different way in different related species to the harm of none of them.

And evolution has both a random and a directed aspect. Black bears in a polar clime will inevitably evolve to become white bears, whereas the white ones will not turn black, even though both populations will suffer random mutations to the opposite color. Thus, a random effect results in a directed outcome.

BilliardsBall said:

With respect, taking a stance that there is no God villifies all theists. Do you have proof of your negative?

Click to expand...

I do not think this is so. Because you see me and others who believe as I in a particular light does not mean that I see you and others who believe the same way as you do in that same negative light. Perhaps it is how we frame our worldview. Not theist compared to atheist, but me compared to you. I do not view theists as villains therefore I do not villify theists.

syncretic said:

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Click to expand...

Logic and reality (atheism) is not the cause of argumentation so much as the theistic view that continues to rely upon fiction in order to ensure harm is continually done to society through its insistence that everyone believe in the same god.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Not a good argument. Calling one set of values superior to another does not establish the existence of a divine creator, and if it did, it wouldn't point to Jesus any more than to Zeus or Odin.

Also, morality isn't proven. That not a meaningful idea. It's a category error.

Nor do there need to be objective, absolute values for one ethical code to be better than another.

And the proper term is secular humanist values. Atheism is a value free position. An atheist could have Stalin's values or even Christian values.

Would you agree that humanist values are superior to Stalin's? We don't advocate for genocide, authoritarianism, forbidding religious or other types of expression, summary judgment without trial, or terrorism. I'd say that that gives us a leg up, and by your reckoning.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you.

The "morality" issue is one that is often claimed by theists as being most closely connected to their belief system. And yet, it is eminently clear to me that evolution is capable of producing not just physical configurations, but mental ones, as well. Think about our feeling of "disgust" at seeing a variety of things -- dead and rotting animals, excrement, putrescence of all kinds. How could evolution "select" for this feeling of disgust (leading to avoidance)? By keeping us from pathogens, and thus allowing us sufficient life to pass on the genes for those feelings to a next generation.

I fail to see why disgust might be the result of evolution, but inherent recognition of "right and wrong" in how to interact with their fellows would not likewise evolve in a creature that is essentially social -- that thrives (and procreates) best in communities rather than as solitary individuals.

Curious George said:

I do not think this is so. Because you see me and others who believe as I in a particular light does not mean that I see you and others who believe the same way as you do in that same negative light. Perhaps it is how we frame our worldview. Not theist compared to atheist, but me compared to you. I do not view theists as villains therefore I do not villify theists.

Click to expand...

I can add to this stance. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in any god, but I do not vilify theists. I actually like quite a lot of people with all sorts of beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. I'm even dating a Christian and I support his beliefs. I've never once tried to change his mind about it, either, even if we occasionally discuss religion.

I do, however, vilify people who treat me as an inferior in any way simply because I disagree with them about their beliefs. I'll allow you yours, so I expect you to reciprocate that courtesy.