|
On December 02 2009 13:32 Daedes wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 13:07 Biochemist wrote:On December 02 2009 12:53 Daedes wrote:How "probable" is the big bang in resulting in a perfectly ordered universe? What are you talking about? The universe is certainty not ordered and is not perfect at all. Perfect being pretty vague. amino acids turning themselves into working, metabolizing, replicating, organized groups of proteins? (replace with nucleotides/nucleic acids, if RNA world is your thing). okay how life started question... yes we don't know yet. But it is most likely going to be solved in time. But it sounds like you don't think evolutionary chemical reactions isn't likely when it is actual fact. i mean once a living thing in...our vague terms of living...its defiantly not hard to evolve. No one really can say what reality is. Reality in a sense is a vague term not used in a context. If you want to say reality is what is true and what we know is real . then No one has any idea of what reality is. But ignoring countless observations and breaking any chain of the law of physics is creating an impossibility. Physical laws cannot be broken and the world of reality is beyond your or my understanding. I know im not going to change your mind on anything but know, that we all live in belief that is shaped through our experience, in what we hear said is fact, And what we want to be true, thinking we know or understand in our small unexperianced lives of ignorance. Everyone is like this because that is how we survive. But one must be critical of his own thinking,judgments, and statements without absolute proof with demonstration.(which is science,all experiments are repeatable). By chemical evolution I'm talking about pre-"life" evolution. You can find this assumption in any biology or biochemistry textbook. You say it's fact, but I have yet to see an experiment where complex chemicals do anything but degrade into less complex substituents. Entropy, man! Perhaps you could link me to something in the literature describing how these "facts" were obtained? Fair enough Pre-life evolution is a very complex topic which i wont get into as i dont have a full understanding myself and what i do know is to vague to prove true. But theorys for pre-life evolution is still in debate but we slowly get more and more clues as we discover more about genetics, a field that is still much unknown. we say we have a assumption because some form of it has to of happen for life to exists.Also chemicals will stop reacting, when not enough energy and resources are there which really isnt a issue since the primordial soup and sun supplys enough of those things to "support" a self replicating chemical reaction. Yes you can turn complex chemicals into more complex chemicals...we do it all the time 
Of course we can make more complex chemicals by controlling the conditions and chemicals present to force reactions towards an intended conclusion. While you can create amino acids by combining a reaction that occasionally produces them with a rig that isolates them once they're created so they don't immediately disintegrate back to their components (how does THAT one work in the ocean?), you can't get them to do anything useful or assemble into anything productive without using a long chain of specialized conditions and reagents designed to get them arrange themselves in a specific order.
Again, I'm not making the argument that since we don't have an adequate explanation for this then the only solution is that some intelligent designer must have put them together... I'm just trying to point out a couple examples of how our current model requires some evidence-less assumptions like this to make sense. So does creation. There's a wealth of evidence that can be interpreted to support both conclusions, and both require the acceptance of as-yet untestable assumptions.
I don't think I'm being close minded by refusing to dismiss the possibility of either option. I think that makes me somewhat more open minded than those who have already made up their mind.
|
On December 02 2009 14:13 Biochemist wrote:
There's a wealth of evidence that can be interpreted to support both conclusions,
Really, there's evidence for creation?
|
On December 02 2009 14:11 TimmyMac wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 13:33 Misrah wrote:On December 02 2009 13:26 Lanyth wrote:
Your concluding statement about atheism is a belief system is incorrect, it's not "believing in science". It is rather an absence of belief.
Science does not just make random assumption and rely on faith. Any hypothesis made are then taken to experimentation and observation. If the hypothesis is unsupported or contradicted by the experimentation or previous knowledge then the hypothesis is then modify and they test their new prediction. Science is found up by evidence.
Anything that we do not know yet is simply "We don't know yet". It doesn't just mean "God did it". Having an answer doesn't mean anything if there's no reliable evidence. Science doesn't try to know everything but it does have a reliable way to look for answers. You BELIEVE what your senses tell you, because you have no other way to prove anything shown exists. hence the idea oh solipsism ext ext ext. If you can tell me how one can 'prove' that i am really typing on a computer, and that the colors that i see are really those colors, and that glass of coffee on my table is really there- i am waiting. Until then, you believe everything your senses tell you. If i were to cut your 12 cranial nerves from your brain, would you know an external reality existed? would you exist? could you exist? To take your observations as fact is a believe in your senses. This is an absolute. There is no way to refute this, thus my conclusion is sound. Yes, but atheism has nothing to do with believing your senses/observations, and everything to do with not believing in a supernatural being with no evidence. If you REALLY want to stretch it you can say that you're taking some monstrous leap of faith by not assuming that your senses are bullshitting you and god talks to you every day, sure. And ya, you could probably live/sense without the cranial nerves. Take anatomy lol
Too bad for you, i have taken anatomy, and physiology, and pathophysiology, and pharmacology, bio chem, micro bio ext ext So i can say that when it comes to talking about the body i know what i am talking about. If your cranial nerves are severed, you have no more feeling with the rest of the world. I am not going to bother answering the rest of your post, because your so so misguided and blinded.
|
On December 02 2009 14:25 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 14:11 TimmyMac wrote:On December 02 2009 13:33 Misrah wrote:On December 02 2009 13:26 Lanyth wrote:
Your concluding statement about atheism is a belief system is incorrect, it's not "believing in science". It is rather an absence of belief.
Science does not just make random assumption and rely on faith. Any hypothesis made are then taken to experimentation and observation. If the hypothesis is unsupported or contradicted by the experimentation or previous knowledge then the hypothesis is then modify and they test their new prediction. Science is found up by evidence.
Anything that we do not know yet is simply "We don't know yet". It doesn't just mean "God did it". Having an answer doesn't mean anything if there's no reliable evidence. Science doesn't try to know everything but it does have a reliable way to look for answers. You BELIEVE what your senses tell you, because you have no other way to prove anything shown exists. hence the idea oh solipsism ext ext ext. If you can tell me how one can 'prove' that i am really typing on a computer, and that the colors that i see are really those colors, and that glass of coffee on my table is really there- i am waiting. Until then, you believe everything your senses tell you. If i were to cut your 12 cranial nerves from your brain, would you know an external reality existed? would you exist? could you exist? To take your observations as fact is a believe in your senses. This is an absolute. There is no way to refute this, thus my conclusion is sound. Yes, but atheism has nothing to do with believing your senses/observations, and everything to do with not believing in a supernatural being with no evidence. If you REALLY want to stretch it you can say that you're taking some monstrous leap of faith by not assuming that your senses are bullshitting you and god talks to you every day, sure. And ya, you could probably live/sense without the cranial nerves. Take anatomy lol Too bad for you, i have taken anatomy, and physiology, and pathophysiology, and pharmacology, bio chem, micro bio ext ext So i can say that when it comes to talking about the body i know what i am talking about. If your cranial nerves are severed, you have no more feeling with the rest of the world. I am not going to bother answering the rest of your post, because your so so misguided and blinded.
Right. How about the spinal cord then? No sensation through there?
Thanks for coming out.
|
On December 02 2009 14:13 Biochemist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 13:32 Daedes wrote:On December 02 2009 13:07 Biochemist wrote:On December 02 2009 12:53 Daedes wrote:How "probable" is the big bang in resulting in a perfectly ordered universe? What are you talking about? The universe is certainty not ordered and is not perfect at all. Perfect being pretty vague. amino acids turning themselves into working, metabolizing, replicating, organized groups of proteins? (replace with nucleotides/nucleic acids, if RNA world is your thing). okay how life started question... yes we don't know yet. But it is most likely going to be solved in time. But it sounds like you don't think evolutionary chemical reactions isn't likely when it is actual fact. i mean once a living thing in...our vague terms of living...its defiantly not hard to evolve. No one really can say what reality is. Reality in a sense is a vague term not used in a context. If you want to say reality is what is true and what we know is real . then No one has any idea of what reality is. But ignoring countless observations and breaking any chain of the law of physics is creating an impossibility. Physical laws cannot be broken and the world of reality is beyond your or my understanding. I know im not going to change your mind on anything but know, that we all live in belief that is shaped through our experience, in what we hear said is fact, And what we want to be true, thinking we know or understand in our small unexperianced lives of ignorance. Everyone is like this because that is how we survive. But one must be critical of his own thinking,judgments, and statements without absolute proof with demonstration.(which is science,all experiments are repeatable). By chemical evolution I'm talking about pre-"life" evolution. You can find this assumption in any biology or biochemistry textbook. You say it's fact, but I have yet to see an experiment where complex chemicals do anything but degrade into less complex substituents. Entropy, man! Perhaps you could link me to something in the literature describing how these "facts" were obtained? Fair enough Pre-life evolution is a very complex topic which i wont get into as i dont have a full understanding myself and what i do know is to vague to prove true. But theorys for pre-life evolution is still in debate but we slowly get more and more clues as we discover more about genetics, a field that is still much unknown. we say we have a assumption because some form of it has to of happen for life to exists.Also chemicals will stop reacting, when not enough energy and resources are there which really isnt a issue since the primordial soup and sun supplys enough of those things to "support" a self replicating chemical reaction. Yes you can turn complex chemicals into more complex chemicals...we do it all the time Of course we can make more complex chemicals by controlling the conditions and chemicals present to force reactions towards an intended conclusion. While you can create amino acids by combining a reaction that occasionally produces them with a rig that isolates them once they're created so they don't immediately disintegrate back to their components (how does THAT one work in the ocean?), you can't get them to do anything useful or assemble into anything productive without using a long chain of specialized conditions and reagents designed to get them arrange themselves in a specific order. Again, I'm not making the argument that since we don't have an adequate explanation for this then the only solution is that some intelligent designer must have put them together... I'm just trying to point out a couple examples of how our current model requires some evidence-less assumptions like this to make sense. So does creation. There's a wealth of evidence that can be interpreted to support both conclusions, and both require the acceptance of as-yet untestable assumptions. I don't think I'm being close minded by refusing to dismiss the possibility of either option. I think that makes me somewhat more open minded than those who have already made up their mind.
Yes i totally agree. I don't think i ever said it was likely or that we have a clear answer. i was just defending that something of the short had to of happen..."based on what we know now"
|
On December 02 2009 13:59 Daedes wrote:Show nested quote +
By ordered universe I meant the physical laws that enable life as we know it to exist. Where did they come from? They sure are convenient! Why is gravity so weak? Sure is nice, though. The scientific method is only really good at disproving things, not proving them. As such it's still a leap of faith to say that since we can explain how a lot of this stuff works without requiring the existence of a God, there must not be one.
I want you to think long and hard on on what you just said there because im not going to bother answering that
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're getting at the "if physical laws were different and the evolution of life were still possible, it would take on a form more conducive to those other physical laws" thing. i.e. the laws of the universe work well for us because we evolved in it. Sure, it's a perfectly logical conclusion and it makes a lot of sense.
It's the whole "it must be true because we're here and the only way that could possibly happen in the absence of a creator is for it to be true" argument. And that's perfectly fine with me, that's the best we can do given the available evidence and the general consensus for what constitutes good science. It's still relying on an untestable assumption.
|
And ya, you could probably live/sense without the cranial nerves. Take anatomy lol
You may be able to live as the autonomic processes wont be severed, i think, my anatomy is a bit rusty. But u certaintly wont sense anything without them lol
|
On December 02 2009 14:25 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 14:11 TimmyMac wrote:On December 02 2009 13:33 Misrah wrote:On December 02 2009 13:26 Lanyth wrote:
Your concluding statement about atheism is a belief system is incorrect, it's not "believing in science". It is rather an absence of belief.
Science does not just make random assumption and rely on faith. Any hypothesis made are then taken to experimentation and observation. If the hypothesis is unsupported or contradicted by the experimentation or previous knowledge then the hypothesis is then modify and they test their new prediction. Science is found up by evidence.
Anything that we do not know yet is simply "We don't know yet". It doesn't just mean "God did it". Having an answer doesn't mean anything if there's no reliable evidence. Science doesn't try to know everything but it does have a reliable way to look for answers. You BELIEVE what your senses tell you, because you have no other way to prove anything shown exists. hence the idea oh solipsism ext ext ext. If you can tell me how one can 'prove' that i am really typing on a computer, and that the colors that i see are really those colors, and that glass of coffee on my table is really there- i am waiting. Until then, you believe everything your senses tell you. If i were to cut your 12 cranial nerves from your brain, would you know an external reality existed? would you exist? could you exist? To take your observations as fact is a believe in your senses. This is an absolute. There is no way to refute this, thus my conclusion is sound. Yes, but atheism has nothing to do with believing your senses/observations, and everything to do with not believing in a supernatural being with no evidence. If you REALLY want to stretch it you can say that you're taking some monstrous leap of faith by not assuming that your senses are bullshitting you and god talks to you every day, sure. And ya, you could probably live/sense without the cranial nerves. Take anatomy lol Too bad for you, i have taken anatomy, and physiology, and pathophysiology, and pharmacology, bio chem, micro bio ext ext So i can say that when it comes to talking about the body i know what i am talking about. If your cranial nerves are severed, you have no more feeling with the rest of the world. I am not going to bother answering the rest of your post, because your so so misguided and blinded.
To state with any certainty that he or she does or does not still have feeling with the rest of the world is sheer ignorance. This is just something which you believe to happen.
You don't get to argue both ways, that's the problem when you decide that atheists have to submit to the conclusion that they are just believers. If atheists must make a leap for belief then I can place the same enforcement on anything that you argue.
edit: If I sound abrasive in that first sentence it's only because I copied it from one of Misrah's earlier posts.
|
On December 02 2009 14:41 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 14:25 Misrah wrote:On December 02 2009 14:11 TimmyMac wrote:On December 02 2009 13:33 Misrah wrote:On December 02 2009 13:26 Lanyth wrote:
Your concluding statement about atheism is a belief system is incorrect, it's not "believing in science". It is rather an absence of belief.
Science does not just make random assumption and rely on faith. Any hypothesis made are then taken to experimentation and observation. If the hypothesis is unsupported or contradicted by the experimentation or previous knowledge then the hypothesis is then modify and they test their new prediction. Science is found up by evidence.
Anything that we do not know yet is simply "We don't know yet". It doesn't just mean "God did it". Having an answer doesn't mean anything if there's no reliable evidence. Science doesn't try to know everything but it does have a reliable way to look for answers. You BELIEVE what your senses tell you, because you have no other way to prove anything shown exists. hence the idea oh solipsism ext ext ext. If you can tell me how one can 'prove' that i am really typing on a computer, and that the colors that i see are really those colors, and that glass of coffee on my table is really there- i am waiting. Until then, you believe everything your senses tell you. If i were to cut your 12 cranial nerves from your brain, would you know an external reality existed? would you exist? could you exist? To take your observations as fact is a believe in your senses. This is an absolute. There is no way to refute this, thus my conclusion is sound. Yes, but atheism has nothing to do with believing your senses/observations, and everything to do with not believing in a supernatural being with no evidence. If you REALLY want to stretch it you can say that you're taking some monstrous leap of faith by not assuming that your senses are bullshitting you and god talks to you every day, sure. And ya, you could probably live/sense without the cranial nerves. Take anatomy lol Too bad for you, i have taken anatomy, and physiology, and pathophysiology, and pharmacology, bio chem, micro bio ext ext So i can say that when it comes to talking about the body i know what i am talking about. If your cranial nerves are severed, you have no more feeling with the rest of the world. I am not going to bother answering the rest of your post, because your so so misguided and blinded. To state with any certainty that he or she does or does not still have feeling with the rest of the world is sheer ignorance. This is just something which you believe to happen. You don't get to argue both ways, that's the problem when you decide that atheists have to submit to the conclusion that they are just believers. If atheists must make a leap for belief then I can place the same enforcement on anything that you argue.
Yes! now we are spiraling into exactly what i did not want in my paper! everything is a belief, and taking anything as fact, or turning your belief into fact is wrong!!!!! that way everyone loses, no one is right, and lets just live life!
|
On December 02 2009 14:36 Biochemist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 13:59 Daedes wrote:
By ordered universe I meant the physical laws that enable life as we know it to exist. Where did they come from? They sure are convenient! Why is gravity so weak? Sure is nice, though. The scientific method is only really good at disproving things, not proving them. As such it's still a leap of faith to say that since we can explain how a lot of this stuff works without requiring the existence of a God, there must not be one.
I want you to think long and hard on on what you just said there because im not going to bother answering that Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're getting at the "if physical laws were different and the evolution of life were still possible, it would take on a form more conducive to those other physical laws" thing. i.e. the laws of the universe work well for us because we evolved in it. Sure, it's a perfectly logical conclusion and it makes a lot of sense. It's the whole "it must be true because we're here and the only way that could possibly happen in the absence of a creator is for it to be true" argument. And that's perfectly fine with me, that's the best we can do given the available evidence and the general consensus for what constitutes good science. It's still relying on an untestable assumption.
This makes my smile. Okay yes you know i where your coming from and ill give you this. My belief that there is no god is an assumption/faith and i assuming that life must of happened based off past experiments. i still do not know and my belief could be wrong. But i don't draw hypothesis on anything that isn't true or relevent to past experiments, such as god or a intelligent designer. But i cant prove a god/intelligent designer didn't create life
|
On December 02 2009 13:33 Misrah wrote:
You BELIEVE what your senses tell you, because you have no other way to prove anything shown exists. hence the idea oh solipsism ext ext ext.
The senses are not the only thing available to us, however. We also have our rationality and our logic, our inner monologue. These are separate from the senses and can, in some cases, be used to empirically justify our senses by keeping track in the long term of what they register.
Also, no man is an island. If many others can corroborate what our senses register, then our reasoning leads us to believe that our senses (and the senses of the instruments we build) are valid.
Lulz at the flames in here, some people are so touchy.
|
Isn't it against the rules, to use an essay you hand into a prof, outside of class/for another class without permission? Actually, maybe it's just if you use it for another class... Still not a great idea when your professor finds it in a google search.
|
"You don't understand what's going on, none of this Santa stuff makes any sense and there's zero evidence for it, why can't everyone just admit that? What's the big conspiracy about? Why is everyone pretending there really is a Santa? Then it slowly dawns on you, around age ten or eleven ... the chilling, horrible truth:
They're Not Pretending. They REALLY Do Believe There Is a Santa Claus.
Egads! Holy Shit! You suddenly feel a little bit lonely at age sixteen as you come to realize that you may surrounded by fully grown adults who are delusional incompetents that cannot distinguish fiction from fact and are enthralled by some kind of massive group hysteria! They're most of them all like that! And they all think you're nuts for not buying into their delusion! What the hell is wrong with these fucking people, can't they see how crazy this shit is?"
I clearly remember that moment...the moment I realized that horrible truth...they REALLY believe...I cried myself to sleep that night.
^ I was reading reddit, and I completely agree with the guy... the whole religion thing is sad, really.
For example, read this article about a mom who expected god to provide food for her children: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1259894705182640.xml&coll=1
Spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +They almost starved to death
|
Ughh I don't like the term atheism.
Simply it describes ones stance as to how many 'gods' they are comfortable saying exist. With a few moments of consideration you can see that this is almost a pointless thing to know as first 'god' isn't well defined, and second, this quantity says nothing at all about the worldview of this person, nor their morality. The term is almost always used in an adversarial way, and almost anyone who without prompt will tell you they're an atheist is a smarmy cunt. Furthermore, while words like Christian, or Muslim, or Jew all have an idea of morality implicit to them, atheism does not.
With that said, let me tell you why I am an atheist. To me there are no compelling reasons to believe in 'God,' and if there were I couldn't see any compelling reasons to believe that any one text held Its word, nor that any person could tell me what It thought. Perhaps some event may occur that would give me a reason to believe, but I know my mind is fallible and the event must be emotional, so I could not trust my own analysis.
Now, the debate about God is an interesting one. The case against the existence of God is not really what it's about. That's handled by humility. What the debate really is about is summed up in Hitchens' subtitle, How Religion Poisons Everything. While reading that, I found it remarkable how little time was spent on the thesis God is not Great. Instead, Hitchens argues that religious authority is not made accountable, and this is why religion is a poison. He gives hundreds of pages of examples of religions authority enabling offences to morality and decency. The real objection to religion is about power, not about metaphysics.
|
On December 06 2009 14:01 Mooga wrote:Show nested quote +"You don't understand what's going on, none of this Santa stuff makes any sense and there's zero evidence for it, why can't everyone just admit that? What's the big conspiracy about? Why is everyone pretending there really is a Santa? Then it slowly dawns on you, around age ten or eleven ... the chilling, horrible truth:
They're Not Pretending. They REALLY Do Believe There Is a Santa Claus.
Egads! Holy Shit! You suddenly feel a little bit lonely at age sixteen as you come to realize that you may surrounded by fully grown adults who are delusional incompetents that cannot distinguish fiction from fact and are enthralled by some kind of massive group hysteria! They're most of them all like that! And they all think you're nuts for not buying into their delusion! What the hell is wrong with these fucking people, can't they see how crazy this shit is?"
I clearly remember that moment...the moment I realized that horrible truth...they REALLY believe...I cried myself to sleep that night. ^ I was reading reddit, and I completely agree with the guy... the whole religion thing is sad, really. For example, read this article about a mom who expected god to provide food for her children: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1259894705182640.xml&coll=1Spoiler: + Show Spoiler +They almost starved to death
Why would you even bring up religion in that sort of context as the basis for your opinion on religion?
There's much more to religion than some idiot believing that God would magically provide for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
