BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

Dear David,

I am chuckling over that remark. I should mention that it`s good to see you still posting your poetry. I recall when you received grief over it and I have admired and do admire your courage in keeping on keeping on. We are on different pages regarding God, but that just means that one of us is right (or both or neither). I follow you from time to time on Myspace, and I do appreciate being one of your friends on that site.



Dear Don, I messaged you and I`ll respond to your last post in my next post.



Gal called the fire department and said, HELP, my house is on fire. I said, `How do we get there.` She replied, `Duh! In the big red truck.`

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:08 AM

Dear Guest, 999: that's England's emergency number!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:59 AM

Why do atheists need a test? You're an atheist if you say you are. If you say you are, good for you and who cares? I thought it was about not believing in god rather than trying to save the world from "the harm caused by religion" which I would say is zero. Religion doesn't harm people--people harm people. I'm not getting the point of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:36 AM

Dear David,

Sheep don`t know how to read.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:35 AM

dear 999

Excellent insight. Albert was only roughly right. He needed a cosmological constant to fudge the equation since he did not have the data regarding unseen dimensions.

(something you may have hinted at)
I have often mused if the speed of light is different in different dimensions since space is half of the reality we call space time!
A miniature dimension may have a speed of light that is small compared to ours. If so its light would be dark from our perspective.   See where I am going here?
The density of such a small dimension would also have the potential to be extremely dense compared to ours.
'
Gravity may be the dominant vibtating force in one outer dimension that surrounds all other dimensions yet all we sense is the little energy that leaks out of that dimension into ours.

The forces in our observable universe is roughly the same everywhere.
There have been findings that over time there has been tiny changes in the laws of physics in the millionsths of a percent, but that may only be due to a slight disintegration of some atomic particles over time.

Over time all sorts of relative forces have changed, like positive matter overtaking antimatter. Various relative changes in our observable universe is now causing it to accelerate in its expansion.

So I ask you "Could this be caused from standard matter entering black holes and passing into a dimension that acts as an outer gravity to our observable universe, pulling it ever outward faster and faster?"


your contribution will be made known to the Nobel committee.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM

For lost sheep - Getting To Know God

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM

There are 3 good arguments to prove that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He worked at His Father's business
2. He lived at home until he was 33
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God.

But, there is also compelling evidence that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice, when there was virtually no food
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it
3. Even when He was dead, he still had to get up because there was still work to do

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:47 AM

Thing is, even Einstein didn`t find a unified field theory. The question since Rutherford isn`t the speed of light. The question is either what`s the speed of dark or where can a guy find a good blt sandwich.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

electromagnetic vibration along with all the other forces that wiggle squirm and flow is the stuff of which all stuff is made.

Be it a looped string from string theory or the pulsing of a giant magnatar, the anthropormorphic notion of vibrating music is the stuff that all stuff is made.

Roughly speaking, energy equals mass, if you expand mass by the speed of light times the speed of light.


btw
is this thread about evolution or is it about creationist personalities trying to insult those who have studied evolution????????????

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:30 AM

`ALL matter is made of light...so, however light came together, could it be said, would it not be true, that light created all matter??`

Only if it was made by Westinghouse.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:53 AM

I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:37 AM

...but the premise of my 'old argument' referred to, by you, was based on the 'old argument' by me, sorry if there was confusion about that.

Here, is my quote (C&P): "I apologize for not being more clear. In the context of 'evolving' I was referring to the Evolution THEORY...actually, I said that...you misunderstood, for some reason(doesn't matter).
In the evolution theory, living beings evolve to preserve life, and adapt..entropy, things decay.

Which direction do you think we, are going?..Are we somehow evolving to a higher life form, as in fish to birds, to mammals to apes to humans?
Or humans to decay and oblivion?

Same question to Foolestroupe.....(or anyone who may agree or disagree)"

Sounds more like a question to me.....of which you flew off the handle's charts,.....(Well, I guess I got the feedback).

Still open, for an answer, to the question,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:22 AM

Since you demonstrate repeated confusion and misrepresentation of scientific concepts, smearing the sky fairy stuff into everything, it's pointless to talk.

""Old arguments"??? The statement, that 'all things are made of light'..at what point did that become "OLD"? "

You've cleverly picked the wrong "old argument". Pointless telling you to read back. What I referred to was the Species A -> species B stuff "fish to birds to mammals etc ... thus proving an evolution to higher states, etc". This is the game the fundy wackjobs played since Darwin publisjhed.

This sort of 'confusion' just wastes time as you lead others around in a merry dance. Been there, done that - survived years of such 'clever tactics' by someone who was eventually found to be Schizophrenic. I don't know or care if you have such problems, but when you display such actions, I rapidly get bored and walk away.

I don't have to prove the existence of invisible powerful magical beings sticking their d*cks into everything.

Goodbye

You win!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:33 AM

Foolestroup, I'd LOVE to have a positive discussion about this! That is exactly why I posted as I did. ...and... I too, agree with your: "It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power."

Science is the arrived at by "THE OBJECTIVE OBSERVER", not by trying to hand pick things in science to promote a preconception, wouldn't you say?

Now when you re-read your post(s), can you see why, I'm calling that to your attention...including "It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power."

"Old arguments"??? The statement, that 'all things are made of light'..at what point did that become "OLD"? Seems more like a 'constant' to me. Wouldn't you say? Now, either science didn't know how to look for that, or didn't see it, till recent history, or perhaps the observers weren't objective enough, to finally come to that conclusion..right? It seems like it would have to be one or the other....in any event, they didn't know it, or prove it, one way or another...fair enough?

Now, because some guy wrote it down, as being said 2000years ago, either he was a lucky guesser, or he had his finger on the pulse of..something!.....or maybe just random? The chances of 'lucky' and 'random' seem pretty slim, to me..how about you?

Now, without 'ridiculing science', the fact that that has been said, for centuries, with nothing to prove it with, but just believing it by 'faith'(unless someone else, along the way, got their finger on the pulse), I would think that science, coming to the same conclusion, WITH PROOF, would be seen as a sigh of relief....and compatible..possibly, in other overlooked areas, too. Who knows, what isn't known yet?....Fair enough?
....and the person arguing for so long, might not have been as 'small minded' think.....maybe the PERCEPTION of him was small minded!..only because, the 'OBSERVER'S mind, could not conceptualize outside the limits of his own mind....(you don't have to personalize this, its not an attack.) ...

...and while one person, based on science, and logic, is trying to show, another person that there IS something, often disregarded, or misunderstood, such as light, and those 'finger on the pulse people' years ago, wrote that...and here's a exact quote, "God is Light"...that means those small minded people, are talking about a 'something'..of existence.....SOMETHING...OKAY?

Whereas, as you so aptly posted, "I have nothing to prove."...which is, of course, "BS:True Test of an Atheist".

Wanna talk?

Respectfully,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:58 AM

QUOTE
It would be far more interesting to have a discussion, with you, if you knew what you were talking about!....don't you think?
...
I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points
UNQUOTE

What you mean by the second part of that, I can't work out, without insulting you by saying that perhaps you just want to me confess that you are the only with with logical arguments and correct ideas?

It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power.

If you can't win an argument, then just insult the opponent, eh? They did that too. If you act like them, you may be mistaken for them. I've refrained from the other threads along these topics cause I thought little positive would come out of them - now this thread has reached that point too.

I'm not the one putting forward arguments in which semantic terms are muddled, and many other logical fallacies committed.

I have nothing to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:57 AM

QUOTE
It would be far more interesting to have a discussion, with you, if you knew what you were talking about!....don't you think?
...
I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points
UNQUOTE

What you mean by the second part of that, I can't work out, without insulting you by saying that perhaps you just want to me confess that you are the only with with logical arguments and correct ideas?

It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power.

If you can't win an argument, then just insult the opponent, eh? They what they did too. If you act like them, you may be mistaken for them. I've refrained from the other threads along these topics cause I thought little positive would come out of them - now this thread has reached that point too.

I'm not the one putting forward arguments in which semantic terms are muddled, and many other logical fallacies committed.

I have nothing to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:29 AM

OPPS! Big BOo BOO. 4th sentence should read:It would be awfully stupid of a creator to make critters in a world to have the ability to change to meet the vicissitudes of a planet that undergoes change via the sun's fluctuations, the moon's gravity, seasons due to axial tilt, plate tectonic and so on AND NOT MAKE MAN TO FIT INTO THAT SAME SCHEME.

I might also mention that when studying any ancient or historical text it is always an error to not take into consideration where that people were in their ability to understand the world in which they lived, how they tended to see things. Do not try to understand Genesis for instance with our modern concepts of time (6 day creation for instance and an accurate clock to measure it to measure a 24 hour period). Rather you ask yourself what was the point of this story? Why was it important to these people? Does it touch upon a universal truth, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:24 AM

Foolestroup: "I just quoted them from the 'lesson' linked to in a previous post by someone else."

It would be far more interesting to have a discussion, with you, if you knew what you were talking about!....don't you think?

As so far as your post: "Unfortunately what you said is exactly what the 'Creationists' and now 'ID' proponents say to deliberately twist and misrepresent something that not only is it clear that they DO not want to understand, but FEAR that if they do and accept, they will lose temporal power in manipulating others. From the very beginning of the publication of the concepts of Darwin and Wallace, such religious fanatics have trumpeted that 'evolution cannot exist, cause my magic sky fairy did it - and we do not believe that Man evolved from monkeys'. Science never said that Man did."

This is my quote: "Not only have you avoided the issue, by accusing me of being slipping 'fundamentalist' Christian teachings, into the mix, you've misstated what is being said, to manipulate the topic to argue against a simile, I gave to Slag, to suit your personal, point of view, so you can comfortably argue it on your personal point of view, which seems to contradict itself. Then you assert claims, of which you have NO proof, other than your OPINION.

I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points."

Now underline: "to manipulate the topic to argue against a simile, I gave to Slag, to suit your personal, point of view, so you can comfortably argue it on your personal point of view, which seems to contradict itself."

...and read, in light of: "I just quoted them from the 'lesson' linked to in a previous post by someone else."

Come on, can't you come up with an original thought????....or are you waiting for it to be 'Created', so you can contradict it, TOO!

My post was concerning LIGHT, and energy that cannot be created, nor destroyed!

ALL matter is made of light...so, however light came together, could it be said, would it not be true, that light created all matter??

My comment was to Slag, just stating, that 'the light came into darkness'..which he gave a parallel quote from the Bible. It's not that I'm promoting a 'fundementalist' doctrine, as much as 2000 years ago, this was said, and only proven about 75 years ago!

Sounds like they had some understandings that 'science' is still playing 'catch up' with!

What I suspect, is that many atheists, perhaps yourself included, say there is no God, but really mean to say, 'There is no God, at least what I conceived it was, and perhaps, still do!'

..and by the way, I am not a fundamentalist, nor evangelical.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:46 PM

"I have no idea what directed mutation could possibly be.

Well, you'd better ask Foolestroupe. He's the one who introduced the term"

I just quoted them from the 'lesson' linked to in a previous post by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:43 PM

My own thread is getting hard to follow! A few items. Some may be surprised I'm fine with evolution as a theory and adaptation as a reality. It would be awfully stupid of a creator to make critters in a world to have the ability to change to meet the vicissitudes of a planet that undergoes change via the sun's fluctuations, the moon's gravity, seasons due to axial tilt, plate tectonic and so on. There is no book in the Bible entitled "How I Did It, by God!". Why? Because as far as a human relationship with deity is concerned, those thing are practically irrelevant. That is not the point. Personally I find science of all sorts most interesting as it tends to satisfy my curiosity about most phenomena. The history of Western thought is also extremely interesting. When scientific reasoning was first enunciated the world changed. How human beings think changed. And what a tool for discovery and understanding. The acceleration of knowledge and general betterment of mankind took a tremendous upward surge that is still sky rocketing into every aspect of the physical universe.

But the human condition has not changed. I won't harp on that. It is my opinion that we humans are flawed beings.

If you begin with God, God being who and what He is, is capable of doing literally anything, anyway He wants. It can make sense in the human mind or not and none of what we may think or believe does not affect the nature of God one scintilla.

You can almost say the same for the state the field of theoretical physics is in. The nature of physics is such that in a multi-verse of infinite dimension anything is possible, just not always observable or verifiable. But rigorous mathematical considerations have brought us to this point in our understanding of the nature of the universe we find ourselves in.

There are people who do not believe science. There are people who do not believe IN science and the reasons are many. Some fear what science may unleash upon Humankind. Some do not have the intellectual capacity to understand and follow the pathways of science. And some cannot resolve the conflict they see between science and religion.

The reverse is true for religion and religious experience, for want of a better term. There are many scientist who believe in God or an entity outside their abilities to apprehend with the tools of scientific thought and there are those who don't and it is really as simple as that. Either you do or you don't.

And the point of that is the thrust of my initial question. I could turn it around in a religious forum and ask why are so many Christians intimidate by science? To me it reflects a fundamental lack of faith to be frightened by the powers of man and his mind. I would ask the religionist isn't your God all powerful or is he limited to YOUR ability to understand? If so, that would reduce their faith to superstition and I really think that a lot of so called Christians operate at that level. They have to protect their God and their own minds from "evil" superior powers. They worship a very small God.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

"Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That sounds as if you are saying that there is mechanism in a bacterium that says "Aha! I'm being exposed to Methicillin. I'd better make some changes to my DNA. I'll just change that Adenine to a Thymine and that'll sort it out." That sounds dangerously close to Lamarckism."

It doesn't sound like anything of the sort. You are talking in terms of goals and I have comprehensively dismissed this already more than once. The cause and the resultant change are blind to each other. Not difficult.


"Quite. The sequence of bases resulting from the change, whatever the cause for the change, is random; it's natural selection that determines whether it is any use or not or, more specifically, whwther it survives."

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals. On one island the mutation may be beneficial, on another the self-same mutation may be useless. Natural selection does not work directly on genes, but on favourable (or not) expressed attributes according to the prevailing environmental circumstances. Read your Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

Steve Shaw

I have no idea what directed mutation could possibly be.

Well, you'd better ask Foolestroupe. He's the one who introduced the term in his post of 30 Sep 10 - 10:51 PM .

"Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?"

Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That sounds as if you are saying that there is mechanism in a bacterium that says "Aha! I'm being exposed to Methicillin. I'd better make some changes to my DNA. I'll just change that Adenine to a Thymine and that'll sort it out." That sounds dangerously close to Lamarckism.

The specific new order of bases you refer to will almost certainly be completely useless, remember.

Quite. The sequence of bases resulting from the change, whatever the cause for the change, is random; it's natural selection that determines whether it is any use or not or, more specifically, whwther it survives.

Just so we don't waste any time on side issues, God does not come into the argument in my problems with what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM

There is nothing to test. "Atheism" is no more than a convenient one-word term to define us. Being the affable souls we atheists are, we put up with that. But atheism is not non-this or anti-that. To acquiesce in that is to accept that the deluded-religious can define us. Well they're not defining me, thanks. Anyone who wishes to define me had better show that they are doing it rationally. Religious people fall well short of that qualification. Call me an anti-cosmic teapot bloke and I'll laugh in your face. People who define me as a non-believer in their highly-improbable God deserve no better.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:46 PM

Actually, there is no true test of an atheist. They are as varied in nuance as any other group of people. I, for one, don't feel any need to test my atheism. Or defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

The True Test of an Atheist is whether they can stand up when misrepresented and say

"What part of No! can't you understand?"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE
Making the false assumption that atheism is another belief systems isn't true. Atheism means not-believing in theology or a god. It is not a religion
UNQUOTE

It is closer to say that it is in fact 'anti-religious thinking' - something which frightens those with religious beliefs of any kind - so they make fun and denigrate by saying, an atheist eh? Oh you are still religious though - atheism is just your religion.... haha!

Not Funny, really!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:24 PM

Strings
my dear friend, again there are no laws based on religion but on social and moral accepted codes of behavior to preserve a society. History taught us if you kill and steal your society will collapse. Those laws that were based on religion were unconstitutional. No one goes to jail because they missed church. School prayer was a good example, it was based on religion and was rendered illegal (rightfully so) But we had the law for many many years because no one challenged it. If laws such as this still exist in some states then it waits to be challenged. The Supreme Court doesn't go looking for cases, it rules on cases brought to them. I cannot speak for other countries, just my own.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

"Just because science has not yet uncovered causality in the Big Bank theory"

Ahhh so that's why the GFC happened...


:-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

"There may be Gods, but they care not what men do."
(Henry David Thoreau, writer and philosopher /1817-1862)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

"It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so" Ernestine Rose quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

Repost - did not stick after previewing and then posting - lucky I saved it....

QUOTE
"Not only have you avoided the issue, by accusing me of being slipping 'fundamentalist' Christian teachings, into the mix, you've misstated what is being said"
UNQUOTE

Unfortunately what you said is exactly what the 'Creationists' and now 'ID' proponents say to deliberately twist and misrepresent something that not only is it clear that they DO not want to understand, but FEAR that if they do and accept, they will lose temporal power in manipulating others. From the very beginning of the publication of the concepts of Darwin and Wallace, such religious fanatics have trumpeted that 'evolution cannot exist, cause my magic sky fairy did it - and we do not believe that Man evolved from monkeys'. Science never said that Man did.

Once you bring forth that same misrepresentation, whether you are one of that crowd, or just a misinformed layman (whether you have been brainwashed by those with a political agenda to 'discredit Darwin' or not), it doesn't matter. The type of thinking that leads on from the thought that species A -> B when both are still current will lead you round in circles of blind misunderstanding. For example it is conventionally accepted to say that 'the sun rises', but unless you REALLY UNDERSTAND that what is happening is different, based on bigger ideas, you have not progressed from the sort of thinking that caused persecution of the man who wrote the book with the maths and said it was just mathematically easier to think differently than the accepted norm of the times. Sadly he BELIEVED in their magic sky fairy anyway, but because he was seen as a threat to their Power, he had to be destroyed - hardly an Act of Love by worshipers of a God of Supreme Love!

You see Science says species A -> both B & C - just because you insist on using the same semantic label for two of the entities doesn't make them the same thing in Science - there are also genetic differences - so before the days of being able to actually examine the DNA, it was probably understandable that the thinking was fuzzy. If you claim that 'man descended from monkeys' then you have to say 'which species of monkey' and since all the species are different from each other (by definition!) AND Man - you are saying something that Science doesn't, and misrepresenting the position of Science. The difference may be far too subtle for some minds to grasp, but it IS critical and fundamental to Science.

Trying to then castigate someone for saying/believing something you don't understand, misrepresenting what they really DID say takes us back to the the time of burning witches. Why is she a Witch? Because I say she is - or even more evidence, my magic sky fairy told me she was. Some of the most clever men of the time in the church began to realize that something wasn't right, and that is WHY the witch burnings were stopped. A lot of people still had the need to believe they existed though.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

There may be a causality to Evolutionary processes as you would fold (as Dawkins has pointed out) an origami boat out of paper. Randomness is the propaganda offered by religionists. Evolution makes no such claim. But causality doesn't mean a single "creator" any more than a god decides to strike you down with a thunderbolt. The "First Cause" theological argument has been debunked many times as "OK, who or what caused the First Cause?"

Just because science has not yet uncovered causality in the Big Bank theory doesn't mean
that it isn't there. One thing for sure, not one sky god or super creator caused that as
Hawkings has pointed out so eloquently. He also maintains that this idea is irrelevant
to what happened scientifically.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

Then there is the the question of Separation of Church and State. When religion is imposed politically or in terms of laws without redress, then to sweep this under the carpet is tantamount to cowardice.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:31 PM

Reason: ALL things are made of light, and/or light energy. So, what will the 'atheists' start blathering about now??...That there is no light????

I have no problem with the concept, and light obviously exists. My problem is with the leap of logic that says this proves that a virgin gave birth to someone who was all man and all god at the same time, who died and came back to life, and who washed away our sins, whatever that means.

There are many, many things that clearly exist but that science can't define or measure. I have never, however, seen anything to suggest that any of these phenomena proves (or even implies) that gods exist, much less the specific doctrinal claims of any religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM

Slag, there are a lot of misconceptions being bandied about as to what atheism is.
These misconceptions need to be clarified and addressed if we are as a people to
embrace plurality and diversity in our thinking. When religious people make outrageous assertions, they need to be answered rationally. Many of these assertions have to do
with atheism and religion. Hence, the long threads are on the subject.

Those who want atheists to "keep quiet" also probably support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Nothing socially has ever been accomplished by sweeping inaccuracies and outlandish statements under the carpet. The true test of an atheist is to speak out when others try to distort or make false assumptions about their point-of-view.

Making the false assumption that atheism is another belief systems isn't true. Atheism means not-believing in theology or a god. It is not a religion. When that atheism is not accepted rationally and is given a reactionary and sometimes violent rebuttal, then as in GLBT or Civil Rights for Blacks, it becomes necessary to speak out regarding injustice.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

That's okay Steve, it will be here. You can come back to it later, and figure it out. Its not THAT complicated.....
.....then again, it may take LIGHT years!....(wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:41 PM

Damn. And I could have sworn I was stardust. I don't understand your post and I have to go and mend the washing machine and put the chip pan on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

Steve Shaw: "...Likewise, evolution doesn't have a goal nor an end-point, something which is misunderstood by those who claim that God kick-started evolution then let nature get on with it (poor old God is even more redundant than that). Evolution is full of dead ends, wacky failures, Heath Robinson arrangements and natural extinctions. Even if I did believe in God (heaven forfend...oops!) "

The phrase that I gave Slag, about "light coming into darkness", which he gave a parallel quote from the Bible, does not mean that there should be "...misunderstood by those who claim that God kick-started evolution then let nature get on with it (poor old God is even more redundant than that)."...Reason: ALL things are made of light, and/or light energy. So, what will the 'atheists' start blathering about now??...That there is no light????

Until they think that one through, I'll just do something else, while waiting for their light to go on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

"Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?"

Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining. The specific new order of bases you refer to will almost certainly be completely useless, remember. There will be millions (I'm guessing) of duff, or worse than duff, mutations for every potentially-useful one. There's nothing intelligent going on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM

Thank you, Foolestroupe!

I have no idea what directed mutation could possibly be.

Imagine (not that you have to - it's real enough) two identical strands of DNA. One of them mutates and the other stays as it is (duh). Let's suppose (more difficult) that every environmental condition had been absolutely identical for both those pieces of DNA. Then I might have to admit that the change was random (I wouldn't like the term much, applied to a single example, but hey ho). But did I just say "more difficult?" I think I might well have meant well-nigh impossible. It is often difficult to pin a particular cause to a particular mutation, but that's only because we don't understand everything yet. What you can't say is that the change happened without cause. Well you can say it but I wouldn't believe you. I'd want to be looking ever more closely for a cause. But because I don't care for "random mutation" it doesn't mean I believe in "directed mutation." The cause is there, the DNA is there but they are blind to each other.

Natural selection gets to work ruthlessly on mutations, but there is no goal. That isn't to say that there won't be progress in a particular direction, but that is not the same as a goal. Likewise, evolution doesn't have a goal nor an end-point, something which is misunderstood by those who claim that God kick-started evolution then let nature get on with it (poor old God is even more redundant than that). Evolution is full of dead ends, wacky failures, Heath Robinson arrangements and natural extinctions. Even if I did believe in God (heaven forfend...oops!) I'd be pretty annoyed with him for pissing around like that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM

Foolestroupe

Are you claiming that changes occur 'without cause' - i.e. 'randomly' (in the sense of being 'uncontrolled')?

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just trying to clarify what is being claimed. Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM

Well then how about this one:

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
These are the things I learned:

    * Share everything.
    * Play fair.
    * Don't hit people.
    * Put things back where you found them.
    * Clean up your own mess.
    * Don't take things that aren't yours.
    * Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
    * Wash your hands before you eat.
    * Flush.
    * Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
    * Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
    * Take a nap every afternoon.
    * When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
    * Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
    * Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
    * And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:07 PM

Foolestroup: Not only have you avoided the issue, by accusing me of being slipping 'fundamentalist' Christian teachings, into the mix, you've misstated what is being said, to manipulate the topic to argue against a simile, I gave to Slag, to suit your personal, point of view, so you can comfortably argue it on your personal point of view, which seems to contradict itself. Then you assert claims, of which you have NO proof, other than your OPINION.

I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points.

The true test of an atheist, perhaps??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:54 AM


I am specifying that there is no room for this term in a discussion of evolution. Nothing that happens to make species change is ever random in that there will always be a cause. Mutations are never random, in spite of the ludicrous received-wisdom term "random mutations."

If you mean mutations that survive and propagate, you're right.

But at the cellular level, I wonder. Yes, I suppose that if a cell comes up with a change there may have been a stressor of some kind that made some change more likely. (Note "suppose" and "of some kind" and "more likely".) But the environmental change (say the presence of some mutation-encouraging chemical) doesn't, as I understand, determine the nature of the cellular mutation.

Given the occurrence of a cellular mutation, and assuming that the offspring is viable, we get to Darwin, with natural selection. At that point I certainly agree that one could not validly call the process random.

But it's important to note (perhaps getting off the immediate point) that the process is not at any point teleological or purposeful. It has no intent or target; it's not "to improve the species". It may possibly end up doing so, but chance combinations of factors play a big role in that, and a mutated organism may have an advantage for current conditions, elbowing out the unmutated population, only to find that the result is harmful in the longer run, say if conditions change.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:34 AM

I am not at home and not in a position to read the thread, just Slag's thought-provoking intro. So apologies if I am repeating a point already made.

Slag was curious to know why aetheists don't just leave believers to get on with it. The answer in my case is that religious faith distorts loyalties. Or to put it more neutrally, it results in loyalties to perceived higher authorities which may, or may not, exist. The self-distructing jihadist is an extreme example; a slightly milder example would be the 19th century mill worker persuaded to expect his reward in heaven rather than hope for it on earth. Moreover religion has been exploited by many regimes, not least Constantine's, thanks to which Christianity not only survived but became one of the world's leading religions.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:08 AM

"but since certain parasites that can ONLY live on/inside humans exist, they must have evolved AFTER man"

Not necessarily so...could they not , just as easily, entered the human body as a generalist, later specializing only on humans after many years.

'man' is the 'highest form of life, just under the Angels'

Possibly much like a theory put forward by the RC pope. Seems more reasonable to also include women... and while you are at it, why not the octopus?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:18 AM

"the research shows that genetic miscopyings occur"

oops - sent too soon - I should have said

"the research shows that genetic miscopyings occur which are transmitted to the next generation. This occurs due to changes in the actual germ cells of the creature undergoing the environmental stress - a breakthrough discovery, but the demonstrated mechanism now does exist to explain why genetic pattern changes can occur 'relatively rapidly', i.e. over non-geological time periods, and that relatively simple causal mechanisms also exist."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE
A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

I'm sorry Steve, but are you arguing in support of directed mutation?
UNQUOTE

No

QUOTE
Are you claiming that the changed sequence of DNA base pairs was actually caused in some way?
UNQUOTE

Are you claiming that changes occur 'without cause' - i.e. 'randomly' (in the sense of being 'uncontrolled')?

No change without Cause - and we don't need the 'directed mutation' concept, which is an intellectual red herring in the context of your question - and there is still no need for magical sky fairies - the surviving children of the WWII Dutch Famine Winter had serious problems caused because of environmental factors - such as starvation.

It's now been understood that germ cell changes can occur if the parents experience certain environmental factors - then changes (miscopyings) DO occur (but not quite like the giraffes 'stretching their neck' to reach the top leaves!).

For example, the dietary efficiency of a child may be affected depending on whether the parents experienced severe 'feast or famine' or the young child did - the girls have their germ cells (ovaries) formed in vitro, but the guys germ cells (sperm) don't start getting getting formed till puberty. Consequently, if the 'hardships' are experienced during those particular times for each sex, then the research shows that genetic miscopyings occur. As a working hypothesis, there does seem to be a causal link that we as yet can't define exactly what chemical reactions occurred, what enzymes were in excess or shortage, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:01 AM

Wither entropy?

The argument for evolution versus entropy is rather academic. If evolution meant getting better and more efficient, then it would defeat entropy. But evolution doesn't. We have evolved into being rather lazy, mainly through no real predators, (other than each other.) A few thousand years ago, I would have had bulging biceps and a six pack rather than a bulging belly and the whole barrel.

To pit entropy against evolution is the same as wondering how a quantum event can produce a seemingly non quantum physical universe. Apples & pears if you ask me.

(Mind you, I didn't get away with that in my PhD thesis... I recall being pushed on comparison, even though my subject was oscillation of otherwise inert media....)