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

[shmogie]

A deal is composed of two agreeing parties. You proposed, I disposed. Scientific fact is scientific fact, regardless of who presents it. Refute it if you can, but having a filter for who is right or wrong, based upon what they believe is right out of the nazi playbook. So, REFUTE IT. Well, Einstein disagrees with you re the time/space continuum being the result of energy. This is only true in that everything was created by the big bang, a great expansion of energy, which is also matter (E=MC squared), but time and the continuum were created at the bang as well. You may know abiogenesis occurred, but very few in the scientific community would agree with you. Many BELIEVE it did, and many BELIEVE it did not. I know it did not, but that is the result of faith, just as your assertion is. The scientists you allege are are unraveling the mysteries of abiogenesis are about as effective as an alchemist turning lead into gold. They are playing around at the edges without finding a way to to to simply and clearly explain the process, and they never will.

DNA and RNA weren;t the first replicating agents, they had to be coupled with protein properly adapted to fit the DNA so the DNA could program the protein to support the DNA. That is how the the alleged first replicating organism would have had to work.

 

[blü 2]

A deal is composed of two agreeing parties. You proposed, I disposed.

'Reneged' is one word.

'Showed you had nothing in your hand from real science' also covers it.

Scientific fact is scientific fact, regardless of who presents it.

And tendentious creo nonsense is tendentious creo nonsense, its authors having been trained by inventing excuses for the errors of the inerrant bible to employ true statements about reality only when it seems convenient to their overriding purpose of promoting fundamentalist theology.

That fact will be even more plainly demonstrated if you can't now find any of those 'atheist scientists' you offered.

REFUTE IT.

I just did. I pointed out that both your bits of purported evidence were written by professional creos, not professional scientists.

Bring in those real scientists you promised and we can go from there. Or did you just invent them for the occasion?

Well, Einstein disagrees with you re the time/space continuum being the result of energy. This is only true in that everything was created by the big bang, a great expansion of energy, which is also matter (E=MC squared), but time and the continuum were created at the bang as well.

Or were they an innate quality of the energy? I've never seen that addressed by Albert or anyone else.

But as I said, add it to your list ─ it's much much more plausible than your god hypothesis, which as you silence shows, explains nothing.

You may know abiogenesis occurred, but very few in the scientific community would agree with you. Many BELIEVE it did, and many BELIEVE it did not.

Name some real (non-fundie) scientists who think abiogenesis did not occur. Don't just pretend there are such folk. What do they say happened instead?

I know it did not, but that is the result of faith, just as your assertion is.

My belief is in my best present understanding, no more, no less. If the evidence shows I'm wrong, I'll say, I was wrong: now to see what that leads to ... But you don't appear here as though you would ─ you give the impression, not a rare one with believers, that your faith is incorrigible.

The scientists you allege are are unraveling the mysteries of abiogenesis are about as effective as an alchemist turning lead into gold.

Perhaps they'll crack the code, perhaps it won't happen for a while. But it WILL happen because we're the perfect evidence that abiogenesis happened.

Unless someone comes up with a credible alternative that could explain it. That of course won't be a god, unless it's accompanied by a full description of the god's technique.

Which your silence indicates you have no notion about. Why not? If it were shown there's a god and it does miracles, isn't it blindingly obvious that the task of the scientist is to discover, describe and explain how that god exists and how those miracles are done?

They are playing around at the edges without finding a way to to to simply and clearly explain the process, and they never will.

You're confusing them with your creos. The real scientists are following the clues, forming hypotheses, testing them, and so on ─ exactly as you'd expect.

Ah, is this what's exercising you? No, they're NOT doing it to attack creationism. They're doing it because finding out the workings of nature is what scientists do. They'd do it even were there no fundies in the world.

I hope that gives you some relief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Obviously you didn;t read what I posted. A cell is irreduceably complex, it cannot be reduced any further. to take any part away from it would kill it.

You'll need to demonstrate that - that chemical evolution is impossible.

If you think that is unsupported ( which I did in my post) I would respectfully request that you find reputable information that supports the idea that a cell can be further reduced, and live.

I have no need.

I got this claim about the human body once as well - remove a part like the liver or adrenals, and you die. I'll leave you to solve the problem of why that does not imply irreducible complexity yourself.

Yes, the concept of abiogenesis lives and is tenaciously supported by those who, for whatever reason, cannot look at another possibility

I'm ready to look at another possibility. What can you show me?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

When it was done in the absence of evidence or proof. It becomes hate mongering to assault a belief system without evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

You cannot respect a people group whose views you assault without any evidence that their views are untrue.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When it was done in the absence of evidence or proof. It becomes hate mongering to assault a belief system without evidence.

Maybe a mixed, public forum isn't the best place for a person that considers disagreement hate mongering. Perhaps you should keep your belief system to yourself, or share it only with people not interested in critiquing it.

Nobody needs evidence to tell you what is wrong with your argument apart from that argument itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

When it was done in the absence of evidence or proof.

So there is now a moral duty to support someone else's belief, regardless of its moral merits and of its logical sense?

Is that what you are saying?

It becomes hate mongering to assault a belief system without evidence.

I don't think so. When and why would that happen?

For that matter, what would characterize "assault" to a belief system?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So there is now a moral duty to support someone else's belief, regardless of its moral merits and of its logical sense?

Is that what you are saying?

I don't think so. When and why would that happen?

For that matter, what would characterize "assault" to a belief system?

An analogous discussion is occurring simultaneously in another thread:

Scripture has historical and fictional aspects

So you say, but 'fictional' implies a conscious fabrication and your choice of the term is, in my opinion, agenda-driven and petty.

How is calling scripture fiction less acceptable behavior than calling it fact?

I consider most of scripture fiction as well. Are you saying that I should know better than to post that?

Save for the implied ad hominem, it is not. So, for example, I would apply neither term to the Tanakh.

These people are offended that we don't believe what they do and have the audacity to disagree with them.

 

[LuisDantas]

All the more surprising seeing how there are so many scriptures and they hardly bother to support each other in supposedly "factual" matters.

Quite on the contrary, they sometimes go out of their way to accuse others of being mistaken or worse.

 

[Mister Silver]

Quite on the contrary, they sometimes go out of their way to accuse others of being mistaken or worse.

Indeed, the excuse tends to be 'you've misinterpreted it" or "you're taking it out of context".

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed, the excuse tends to be 'you've misinterpreted it" or "you're taking it out of context".

My personal "favorite" is "humans are fallible and are not keeping the message properly".

The implication apparently being that people are entitled to believe in it when they want to and to doubt it when convenient, yet somehow that does not translate into a right to criticize it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Indeed, the excuse tends to be 'you've misinterpreted it" or "you're taking it out of context".

My personal "favorite" is "humans are fallible and are not keeping the message properly".

The implication apparently being that people are entitled to believe in it when they want to and to doubt it when convenient, yet somehow that does not translate into a right to criticize it.

I've been collecting these attempts at disqualifying critics of the Bible for some time now. It's a pretty long list, so I'll box it up in a SPOILER. The first few were paraphrased from memory, but shortly thereafter, I saved quotes.

Spoiler: Reasons heathens are unqualified to interpret scripture

[1] You took the scripture out of context.

[2] You don't understand literary criticism

[3] It's an allegory, not literal.

[4] It's literal, not an allegory.

[5] Scripture is only transparent to those with a child's perspective

[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars

[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit

[8] That's the mystery of it all. "God works in mysterious ways"

[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.

[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"

[11] You don't have enough faith. You have to believe to understand.

[12] You can't criticize the bible because you don't believe or understand it.

[13] Why do we think we can pretend to know God?

[14] Scripture always interprets scripture

[15] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?

[16] You are not TRULY with truth and sincerity seeking God.

[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek

[18] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture

[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.

[20] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.

[21] Stop scripture mining.

[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.

[23] Even Satan can quote scripture.

[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open you mouth.

[25] You have no reference in the knowledge of God to know our experience in Christ Jesus. The Word has to be embedded in one's heart, and that can come from God only.

[26] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?

[27] Dont fall in the trap of being a one verse wonder. You need to understand the passage and true meaning of the verse.

[28] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.

[29] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.

[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.

[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible

[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.

[33] Your arguments are so full of errors and misconceptions I don't even wanna touch it.

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!

[37] Your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[39] We cannot and must not apply modern concepts to ancient cultures. It causes failure to understand.

[40] It takes humility to understand the Bible

[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.

[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[48] You're cherry picking scripture.

[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.

[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.

[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.

[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.

[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.

[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

 

[shmogie]

'Reneged' is one word.

'Showed you had nothing in your hand from real science' also covers it.
And tendentious creo nonsense is tendentious creo nonsense, its authors having been trained by inventing excuses for the errors of the inerrant bible to employ true statements about reality only when it seems convenient to their overriding purpose of promoting fundamentalist theology.

That fact will be even more plainly demonstrated if you can't now find any of those 'atheist scientists' you offered.
I just did. I pointed out that both your bits of purported evidence were written by professional creos, not professional scientists.

Bring in those real scientists you promised and we can go from there. Or did you just invent them for the occasion?

Or were they an innate quality of the energy? I've never seen that addressed by Albert or anyone else.

But as I said, add it to your list ─ it's much much more plausible than your god hypothesis, which as you silence shows, explains nothing.
Name some real (non-fundie) scientists who think abiogenesis did not occur. Don't just pretend there are such folk. What do they say happened instead?
My belief is in my best present understanding, no more, no less. If the evidence shows I'm wrong, I'll say, I was wrong: now to see what that leads to ... But you don't appear here as though you would ─ you give the impression, not a rare one with believers, that your faith is incorrigible.
Perhaps they'll crack the code, perhaps it won't happen for a while. But it WILL happen because we're the perfect evidence that abiogenesis happened.

Unless someone comes up with a credible alternative that could explain it. That of course won't be a god, unless it's accompanied by a full description of the god's technique.

Which your silence indicates you have no notion about. Why not? If it were shown there's a god and it does miracles, isn't it blindingly obvious that the task of the scientist is to discover, describe and explain how that god exists and how those miracles are done?
You're confusing them with your creos. The real scientists are following the clues, forming hypotheses, testing them, and so on ─ exactly as you'd expect.

Ah, is this what's exercising you? No, they're NOT doing it to attack creationism. They're doing it because finding out the workings of nature is what scientists do. They'd do it even were there no fundies in the world.

I hope that gives you some relief.

A statement of willful ignorance with a healthy dose of true BS. Lets see, Meyer holds three PHD.s in scientific disciplines, includung one from Oxford or Cambridge,one of those two little schools. Yet, you discount him because based on his own research, he changed from being an abiogeisis loving evolutionist, to someone who believes in ID. In your prejudiced mind, a flaw that makes anything they say ex post facto wrong. Truly, an attitude of one following the scientific method. And we haven't even addressed nature of randomness and chance, but why bother, since one of the best thinkers in this field ( not my title, a title of his across the board peers ) believes in ID, SPECIFICALLY because of his work in the area of the probabilities of abiogenesis, and macro evolution. so, you don't want to hear any of this, because your philosophical litmus test isn't passed, the quality of the science is bogus. You can't answer Sir Fred Hoyles question, " how many hurricanes must hit an airplane junkyard before a fully functioning 747 is produced ?" I assure you that the fairy tale first cell proposed is infinitely more complicated than a 747. Ooops, I quoted Hoyle, who, being a brilliant mathematician, who DID NOT support ID, but nevertheless provided mathematical models proving abiogenesis impossible, with whom you will disagree, THROW HIM OUT ! I see, if you say, "let's make a deal" to which I say nothing, I am "reneging" on your proposed deal when I ignore it. You must be hell in your personal financial activities, " you reneged because I made an offer to buy your car, I want it right now ! you said nothing about my offer ? I made it, therefore you are bound by it ! "

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lets see, Meyer holds three PHD.s in scientific disciplines, includung one from Oxford or Cambridge,one of those two little schools. Yet, you discount him because based on his own research, he changed from being an abiogeisis loving evolutionist, to someone who believes in ID.

That disqualifies him just as much as if he injected astrology or alchemy into his work. Science has standards. Faith is not among them.

Yet, you discount him because based on his own research, he changed from being an abiogeisis loving evolutionist, to someone who believes in ID. In your prejudiced mind, a flaw that makes anything they say ex post facto wrong.

Yes. Of course.

And we haven't even addressed nature of randomness and chance, but why bother, since one of the best thinkers in this field ( not my title, a title of his across the board peers ) believes in ID, SPECIFICALLY because of his work in the area of the probabilities of abiogenesis, and macro evolution. so, you don't want to hear any of this, because your philosophical litmus test isn't passed, the quality of the science is bogus. You can't answer Sir Fred Hoyles question, " how many hurricanes must hit an airplane junkyard before a fully functioning 747 is produced ?" I assure you that the fairy tale first cell proposed is infinitely more complicated than a 747.

Were you aware that that this argument is called Hoyle's fallacy? You know what a logical fallacy is, correct?

Ooops, I quoted Hoyle, who, being a brilliant mathematician, who DID NOT support ID, but nevertheless provided mathematical models proving abiogenesis impossible, with whom you will disagree

Proving? Proof is that which convinces. Almost nobody is convinced by this argument, which has been refuted - even in these threads. People that already believe in gods embrace it for obvious reasons, but it doesn't turn unbelieveres into believers. Here's one from RF poster Polymath

Spoiler: Polymath's refutation of Hoyle's fallacy

There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.

The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.

Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.

Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.

Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.

Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.

And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen.

 

[shmogie]

You'll need to demonstrate that - that chemical evolution is impossible.



I have no need.

I got this claim about the human body once as well - remove a part like the liver or adrenals, and you die. I'll leave you to solve the problem of why that does not imply irreducible complexity yourself.



I'm ready to look at another possibility. What can you show me?

Science is demonstrating every day, and has been doing so for over a century, that chemical evolution to life is impossible. It will continue to do so, day after day, year after year. Until it does PROVE this, it is impossible, and I am very confident that when you and I die, it will still be impossible. So, let me be clear, you are stating that on the cellular level, a living cell may be further reduced in volume, material, components and still live ? Just provide some scientific support for this, based upon experimentation, and I will believe you.

 

[Mister Silver]

Science is demonstrating every day, and has been doing so for over a century, that chemical evolution to life is impossible. It will continue to do so, day after day, year after year. Until it does PROVE this, it is impossible, and I am very confident that when you and I die, it will still be impossible. So, let me be clear, you are stating that on the cellular level, a living cell may be further reduced in volume, material, components and still live ? Just provide some scientific support for this, based upon experimentation, and I will believe you.

Instead of resorting to mythology, why not provide the world with something other than the supernatural answer of "god did it"?

It is easier, after all, to resort to a gap of knowledge answer than to exercise one's brain in order to find a real answer.

 

[Curious George]

You cannot respect a people group whose views you assault without any evidence that their views are untrue.

This is a non sequitur.

I think this is where we differ. Perhaps as well on our definitions of "evidence."

 

[shmogie]

That disqualifies him just as much as if he injected astrology or alchemy into his work. Science has standards. Faith is not among them.



Yes. Of course.



Were you aware that that this argument is called Hoyle's fallacy? You know what a logical fallacy is, correct?



Proving? Proof is that which convinces. Almost nobody is convinced by this argument, which has been refuted - even in these threads. People that already believe in gods embrace it for obvious reasons, but it doesn't turn unbelieveres into believers. Here's one from RF poster Polymath

Spoiler: Polymath's refutation of Hoyle's fallacy

There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.

The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.

Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.

Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.

Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.

Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.

And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen.

Interesting, but irrelevant. You never answered Hoyles original question. I will get you some up to date statistical and probability data, and invite you to find a refutation of it. Since you are hopeledsly and childishly prejudiced about what constitutes scientific research and conclusions, I will not initially give you the names of the authors. So, they may or may not meet your criteria for being a scientist ( an atheist ), so all you will have to do is find refutations. Now, that is a challenge, do you agree ? I won't be surprised if you don't. You obviously have a dreadful fear of perhaps validating some one or some thing outside the vaunted circle of your fellow travelers.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

I'd say the negative stance is right there in the title: a-theism. It's about critiquing other people's beliefs while refusing to acknowledge your own belief as such, which is a very comfortable position, and a hard habit to break- speaking as a recovering atheist!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science is demonstrating every day, and has been doing so for over a century, that chemical evolution to life is impossible. It will continue to do so, day after day, year after year. Until it does PROVE this, it is impossible, and I am very confident that when you and I die, it will still be impossible.

Actually, science has been doing the opposite. It is creating a chain of chemical transitions that occur naturally and lead from the simplest organic molecules to cells. The chain is as yet is still not unbroken, but new links are being added every year. I am very confident that science will show us how a replicator can self-organize.

So you call abiogenesis impossible because the work on it is still incomplete? Abiogenesis has never been shown to be impossible. How could you do that even were it the case?

So, let me be clear, you are stating that on the cellular level, a living cell may be further reduced in volume, material, components and still live ? Just provide some scientific support for this, based upon experimentation, and I will believe you.

Well, every cell doubles in size before dividing. It is alive at every stage in that phase of growth, so yes, the contents of a cell can be reduced and it still can be alive.

I get this similar argument from those who tell me that a human being is irreducible complex, because we die if you remove the kidneys, adrenals, liver, or pancreas.

But that's not how we formed individually or evolved as a species. We went from a single cell to our present state while being alive at every stage between.