 sj |
||
|
||
BS: True Test of an Atheist
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:20 AM I forgot about all those "morning services" and "choral evensongs" on the wireless. Aaargh. Sometimes I even join in with the singing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM "Ironic...I've never professed to be of any 'religion' on this forum..though I have a working knowledge of several..." Working knowledge of several? Are you three vicars? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:29 AM "Self described Atheism is a fundamentalism and a religion. Steve Shaw seems to be is a high level practitioner of that religion." This is a slightly odd statement considering that I've never tried to describe atheism and never want to. I know you'd like me to have some sort of atheistic belief system to shoot at but I assure you that such a thing isn't even inchoate in my mind. Stop feeling so threatened! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:57 AM >> I know you'd like me to have some sort of atheistic belief system to shoot at but I assure you that such a thing isn't even inchoate in my mind.<< No On this thread, you define your beliefs by attacking the beliefs of others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:11 AM FOOLestroupe: "Tolerance of other beliefs is a humanist concept....." .....can then do is to 'save the unbelievers' by frothing at the mouth till they have convinced the 'unbelievers', if not actually murder them should they be stupidly stubborn enough to defy 'the truth' and resist... ...logically also applies to believers of other sky fairies, whether they believe they are the ONLY sky fairy or not." "Tolerance of other beliefs.." ? Hey pal, You have no remote clue what my beliefs are, and you jumped in with your immature emotional rant, assuming I was things that I'm not. That was in YOUR stupid head! There are people in here, that have experienced things, you never even dreamed of, and you think you have the right to project your petty little mind, in them, as if they lived there. Some of these experiences changed lives, and they would yours as well, if you knew what they are talking about..but you don't! Got it? You come off with your emotional whiny, pout, and expect any respect to your validity, by talking down to them??!! Grow up! There are people in here, who are LIGHT YEARS above your understanding, or your manners! Who gives a fuck what you think you know...IT DOESN'T WORK! FOOLestroup: "Much of their pragmatic philosophy is very socially useful, but that doesn't mean that I go along with the whole sky fairy concepts of 'hungry ghosts', infinite dimensions that no one can see except the one individual that had 'exceptional powers'... and other mythical entities, etc...." Do you have any idea how childish that is to some others who may have seen or experienced something large than you describe, because of your VERY limited vision?? You expect to taken seriously????? I wasn't going to post to you, when I offered my last 'Good Bye' on my previous post..and you probably have no idea why, and who cares, if you did. Your a lightweight, no matter how big your opinion or your head! To some in here, who have experienced something beyond ANYTHING 'normal' existence has to offer, this isn't one of those mental chewing gum exercises, to talk you in or out of anything,..anything you know jack shit about...and reduce it to 'politics' or your sex trips. Some people take life changing experiences, more seriously, because maybe they got a glimpse of another side. They know exactly who they are. If you were able to have a mature dialogue, exchanging ideas, without the childish insult attempts, that would be one thing, and maybe we learn from each other...but this behavior of yours,...well, some of us have learned more than we need to know about you..let's put it that way! Not really interested in anything you have to say, or think. By the way.... I'll leave you with this..to give you something to whine about I thought it was silly, too...nonetheless.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:13 AM Same to you Steve...grow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:14 AM >>If YOU don't believe what YOU are demanding others believe, why insist on it? Why even say it?<< I DO believe it. I said it because I thought it might help him. Shaw, is attacking the religion of others, religiously. I'm saying that since he seems to be obsessed, to the point of finding it necessary to insult people. He is more obsessed that someone who simply does not believe can he. I am suggesting that he would be better off either giving into his apparent religious urges or if he won't do that, to just try not to be so mean. I am NOT demanding, and these suggestions were not aimed at anyone but him. Everything I said to Steve was meant for Steve based upon what he has said, to me and to others. I meant it sincerely even though it was couched in humor and partly by reflecting back his own tactics. Foolestroupe, I fail to see why you would be insulted by that, or why you should even care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:10 AM I don't know, go away for a couple of days and the whole thread goes doolally. Steve Shaw You are talking in terms of goals I most certainly am not. and I have comprehensively dismissed this already more than once. Quite right too The cause and the resultant change are blind to each other. Not difficult. So what is the point in insisting on this cause? 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. All true but irrelevant to the point I am taking issue with. Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis. Read your Darwin. I have studied biology, genetics and evolution at unversity level. I have read my Darwin. He had nothing to say about mutations arising from the miscopying of DNA because it wasn't discovered till the following century. The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. I have never come across this suggestion before in all my studies. Please back it up with some references or examples or something. Earlier you said - If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause. No I'm not, anymore than I have to demonstrate that there isn't a teapot in orbit round the Sun between Earth and Mars. You're making the claim. The ball's in your court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:12 AM Jack the Sailor There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them. Hi Jack. Pleased to meet you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:24 AM There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them. And why would you hear from them? I was brought up without religion and never had any interest in it. It doesn't figure in my life in any shape or form at all. I live my life, there's on the average day no reason for me to post notices about not being religious on the internet or tell people about it. Which doesn't mean that I am not here, un-religious and all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:38 AM "Yes Mayor - this man has no dick!" :-) "To some in here, who have experienced something beyond ANYTHING 'normal' existence has to offer" "There are people in here, that have experienced things, you never even dreamed of, and you think you have the right to project your petty little mind, in them, as if they lived there. Some of these experiences changed lives, and they would yours as well, if you knew what they are talking about..but you don't!" "Some people take life changing experiences, more seriously, because maybe they got a glimpse of another side. They know exactly who they are." "If you were able to have a mature dialogue, exchanging ideas, without the childish insult attempts, that would be one thing, and maybe we learn from each other...but this behavior of yours,...well, some of us have learned more than we need to know about you..let's put it that way! Not really interested in anything you have to say, or think." Hmm.. who started the 'insults' 'you just need to find the Godliness you seek, etc' - oh not you, you just don't like looking in the same mirror you hold up to others. What immature arrogance - you are not a telepath... but you claim to know my life experience more intimately than I do... "Hey pal, You have no remote clue what my beliefs are, and you jumped in with your immature emotional rant, assuming I was things that I'm not." Snap! My younger brother finished his Doctorate at the Seminary - I was supposed to go too - but with my father dying slowly of leukemia, while my mother was also dying meant that someone had to take a paying job. My mother had come home on more than one occasion after asking some good Christian married men with kids who pontificated with even more fire and brimstone than you from the pulpit for some 'christian charity'. "You're a good looking lady luv - spread your legs and you and your kids will be well taken care of." Met your sort before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:51 AM "Hey pal, You have no remote clue what my beliefs are, and you jumped in with your immature emotional rant, assuming I was things that I'm not. That was in YOUR stupid head! There are people in here, that have experienced things, you never even dreamed of, and you think you have the right to project your petty little mind, in them, as if they lived there. Some of these experiences changed lives, and they would yours as well, if you knew what they are talking about..but you don't! Got it? You come off with your emotional whiny, pout, and expect any respect to your validity, by talking down to them??!! Grow up! There are people in here, who are LIGHT YEARS above your understanding, or your manners! Who gives a fuck what you think you know...IT DOESN'T WORK!" Tee hee. A Christian then... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM "Same to you Steve...grow up!" Oh the irony of this, after that awful sweary rant... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM "Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis." Natural selection does no such thing. It works on expressed characteristics, on the phenotype in other words. After all, a gene mutation is very likely to occur first, if it survives at all, as a recessive gene, as you'll know from your university studies (I have a biology degree too). There is nothing there for selection to work on unless the double recessive allows the mutated gene to be expressed - tricky when you think about it. It ain't easy for tham thar mutations to get their feet under the table. "Read your Darwin:" go back to the quoted post and check the context of that remark. [The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. I have never come across this suggestion before in all my studies. Please back it up with some references or examples or something.] Any particular altered sequence will have been altered by something. Bases don't just jump on and off DNA strands for the hell of it. Something makes them reorganise the way they do. We might not know exactly what every time but that is no reason to suppose that it happens without cause. I don't get why you don't get that. [If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause. No I'm not, anymore than I have to demonstrate that there isn't a teapot in orbit round the Sun between Earth and Mars. You're making the claim. The ball's in your court.] I haven't made a claim. I'm taking issue with somebody else's claim tht mutations are random. I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases, so it's reasonable to suppose that mutations in general have causes, though there's clearly no certainty. "Don't know" doesn't mean "no cause" (or that it was God doing it or something). I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:17 AM I get the impression that there are some "Atheists" whose God is Atheism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM Well that's a bit like saying that the Bible (or name your theological text) is God. I don't think God would like that very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM "Well that's a bit like saying that the Bible (or name your theological text) is God. I don't think God would like that very much. " Right on! It's known as bibliolatry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM Late getting back in, but "random" is a tricky word: colloquial meanings is: without direction or purpose mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution I'm pretty sure that genetic mutations fit both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 04 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM Steve Shaw "Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis." Natural selection does no such thing. It works on expressed characteristics, on the phenotype in other words. You are quite right, sloppy speaking on my part. Natural selection actually works on the consequences of the change in base sequence after it has been translated into RNA and then protein and then expressed as a change in the phenotype. It is even further removed from the mechanism of DNA replication than I said. "Read your Darwin:" go back to the quoted post and check the context of that remark. I did, in fact, quote and comment on the context where you, yet again, cited natural selection as evidence for the non-randomness of changes in the base sequence during copying. I have no problems with what you are saying about natural selection, it is just nothing to do with the copying or mis-copying of DNA. Any particular altered sequence will have been altered by something. Bases don't just jump on and off DNA strands for the hell of it. Something makes them reorganise the way they do. We might not know exactly what every time but that is no reason to suppose that it happens without cause. I don't get why you don't get that. There is a "mechanism" for tossing coins or throwing dice. There is nothing (or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction) that causes the coin to fall heads or the dice to fall six. The result is random. I haven't made a claim. Sorry, but it sounds to me as if you are claiming that mis-copying is a non-random process. I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases, Really? Please provide references and examples. I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly. Since, on the evidence so far, you are the only person who holds that position, that's not all that humble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM Mutations can be triggered by ionising radiation and by ultra-violet light and by numerous chemicals that we even call mutagens, among other things. If a mutstion arises that can't immediately be assigned to such a cause, I'm sure you'd think it reasonable to try to find one. Good college, was it? "(or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction)" Exactly. Tia, back to you after I've had me tea! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 04 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM Steve Shaw Mutations can be triggered by ionising radiation and by ultra-violet light and by numerous chemicals that we even call mutagens, among other things. If a mutstion arises that can't immediately be assigned to such a cause, I'm sure you'd think it reasonable to try to find one. Of course, but I would have no reason to believe that the outcome was any more predictable than any of those external physical causes. "(or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction)" Exactly. You have just agreed with TIA's mathematical definition of random. Why are you arguing that mutation is non-random? If a mutstion arises Did something "cause" that typo? Was the substitution of an "s" for an "a" deterministically predictable? You could just as easily have hit any other adjacent key or, given that typing is a two |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 04 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM Forgot to add - Good college, was it? Yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM "Of course, but I would have no reason to believe that the outcome was any more predictable than any of those external physical causes." You appear to be defending "random" as if it means "unpredictable." "You have just agreed with TIA's mathematical definition of random. Why are you arguing that mutation is non-random?" Basically I'm arguing that it's reasonable to suppose that mutations are caused by something. Right up from downright unstable molecules with over-excited atoms to being nobbled by colchicine or gamma rays. The word random seems inappropriate, as it implies spontaneity or "without cause." Even over-excited atoms or sub-atomic particles that do wacky things will only be doing them because of some fortuitous combination of circumstances, because they do do them all the time. A cause, in other words. The results, in some scenarios, may well be random distribution, but I don't see how this can be applied to mutations. They are unlikely to be spontaneous and they can't be analysed statistically in that way. I'm saying I don't think random is either the right term nor does it communicate the right idea of what's going on when genes mutate. Tia: the sense in which I suspect "random" is being used here is "without direction or purpose." Actually, that is a characterisation of mutation I can cheerfully live with, though describing the results of mutations as random is futile. (He said, looking around over his shoulders in case someone inserts God into it... ;-) ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM Guest from Sanity "informed" us as follows: They are not commas, Sweet Ebbie! You should read 'shooting scripts' or playwrights. They are an indication of time, usually thoughtful, in nature....you know, THOUGHT-ful???? Then how do they miraculously get into your posts, GfS? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM Steve Shaw You appear to be defending "random" as if it means "unpredictable. Er... Yes. What's your definition? Tia: the sense in which I suspect "random" is being used here is "without direction or purpose." Good. Actually, that is a characterisation of mutation I can cheerfully live with, Good. though describing the results of mutations as random is futile. Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause. (He said, looking around over his shoulders in case someone inserts God into it... ;-) ) Please leave God out of this discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM One true test of a Christian is their tolerance of alternative views. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it is! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: From: Ed T Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM "Please leave God out of this discussion" The thread title is "True Test of an Atheist" That would lead one to assume that God has no place thediscussion, well, maybe...but,he/she tends to have his/her agents(s)...and they are not all directly endorsed by St. Peter :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:23 PM "because they do do them all the time." I meant because they don't do them all the time. Aargh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:35 PM I was interested to read where Jack the Sailor said this: Being a strident Atheist give one all of the drawbacks of having religion with none of the benefits. I tend to agree with you, Jack. And I have tended to agree with that statement for sixty years while I have sometimes called myself an agnostic and sometimes an atheist. Some of the benefits of religious belief I recognize are emotional, some social; those are the benefits of the belief itself, regardless of the truth of what's believed in. Then, if the truth of the belief were really there and I believed, there would presumably be what I'll refer to as "supernatural benefits". And as an "out of the closet atheist", there are definitely social drawbacks. If one were weak in one's atheist position, unsure of the logic of one's beliefs, the uncertainty would be uncomfortable, and a drawback. But recognizing that "If I just believed X, I suppose I'd gain a lot regardless of what might be the untruth of the proposition" doesn't suddenly make X believable. The fact is that I don't find X (the whole theist and Christian position, in this context) believable, and I cannot find it believable despite much thought, reading, and discussion over the last sixty years, and I WILL NOT PRETEND to believe X in order illegitimately to claim some of the social benefits. And further, if I were merely pretending to believe in order to gain the social benefits I wouldn't get the putative emotional benefits either; instead, I'd get a negative "benefit" by knowing myself to be intellectually dishonest, knowingly engaged in self-deception or the deception of others. That being the case, I would not characterize myself as "a strident atheist", to use your words, Jack. I really, truly wouldn't want to talk a convinced theist out of his position (if that were even possible), because I would be harming him, depriving him at least of the emotional and possibly the social benefits, and the supernatural benefits too, in the unlikely event that there were any. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM Once and awhile, in frustration over differences in opinion on the meaning of a word, I seek comfort in the totally insane "Urban Dictionary". Here are some random (NO, not that useage) definitions from that site. It is so refreshing, and gives an understanding where our civilization is headed. Random: a word that follows no criteria or pattern. A word often misused by morons who don't know very many other words. Correct: The decay of a radioactive isotope is random. This is correct because nobody can predict exactly when the atom will decay. It actually doesn't follow a pattern. Incorrect: Lol! Here r sum randome people I just met. This is incorrect because the people have been chosen by a number of criteria: they are people that happen to be closeby and people who are willing to talk to you. Incorrect: LoL here R sum randome words that I am thinking of. The words are not random because you have specifically chosen them on the criteria that they are "suprirsing" or "unusual". Random: The most over used and misunderstood word in the english language. Commonly used by english teens, often buying into the fast growing subculture of emo. 1)Supposedly meaning spontaneous and off the wall by ignorant people. 2) how a large proportion of the myspace community describe themselves. 3) A way for morons to pretend they are capable of original though when actually every aspect of their lives is planned out meticulously with out fail. Person A: and we said " mouse pad cups" Person B: How totally random of you Person C: "quiet you mundane little twat, stop abusing that word. you have no concept of random that words to big for you. your misuse offends me. I ought to brick you" Random The most annoying word ever. You'll say something that relates to your previous topic, yet they say it's random because they can't comprehen it. "Cake is good. I just got one from the bakery, and it was chocolate." "That was random, LMFAO." "No, you asshole, we're still talking about cake." Random act of being naked; most commonly associated with sleeping in the nude. (Adjective) "Cindy enjoys sleeping random on occasion". Random unexpected hard-on. "Dude, I was in class and I just got a random". Random Irrelivant, unexpected, unusual technical definition, selected on no particular attributes. "I can't think of any. here, i will insert the word random". Random redneck term used commonly with large vehicles. Referring directly to making physical contact with something else using the vehicle. Hey Bo, wheredyaget dem deers? "I random over on the highway". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:52 PM ">>I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly. Since, on the evidence so far, you are the only person who holds that position, that's not all that humble. " May I humbly submit you publish the result of your survey on that erroneous sweeping claim? Steve and I are different people - perhaps FOOLestroupe is just ignored... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Mrrzy Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM I love the unexpected hard-on meaning! Random in psych experiments means "according to a random number table or unseeded random number generator" - that last bit added because the seeded ones apparently weren't random, marring oh, about a decade of research... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:17 PM "Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause." Overwhelmingly, the results of mutations are that the mutations will not survive, way before the point where natural selection gets hold of them. A mutation may be a nonsense or lethal combination for a start. Then again, even if a mutation codes for a potentially-viable trait, it may well be recessive and not expressed. A tiny minority of mutations will ever find phenotypic expression, and only then will natural selection, er, "get to work." The assertion that mutations have causes is demonstrable in that certain environmental conditions or chemical agents can be shown experimentally to cause mutations. Blimey, even fag smoke is known to contain mutagens. We all know that unprotected sunbathing (exposure to UV) can cause mutations in skin cells. Asbestos fibres can trigger cancerous mutations in lungs and surrounding tissues. And so on. The fact that frequency of mutations can be increased by subjecting tissues to these agents surely makes us suspect that mutations in general have causes. I don't know why you don't see this point. I'm not saying I'm right but at least I'm not being counter-intuitive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:28 PM Mrrzy I seem to remember that I mumbled on about such stuff before, particularly in 'computer games', there is a whole sub-field of computing (dabbled a bit there too!) related to generating 'random' numbers - mathematically it seems that computers can only generate pseudo-random numbers for a whole bunch of reasons that the keen student can look up for themselves, as my Uni lecturers used to say with a wry smile. Amusingly, if you attempt to generate 'random numbers' by manual means - eg guessing, the output displays no 'random' bell curve, but is always strongly biased, a fact magicians have known and exploited for centuries. That and a bit of sleight-of-hand 'forcing' and 'distraction' is how they get their results. But people still strongly believe in spite of objective research evidence that they actually have 'free choice' which guarantees that their selection process will be 'random'. 'Religion' (and politics, which some consider to be a form of 'religion'!) depends on the beloved techniques of 'forcing' - guaranteeing particular outcomes irrespective of selections or other inputs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM Thanks for the ultra-sane urban dictionary quotes, Ed. This one is actually pretty serious: "Correct: The decay of a radioactive isotope is random. This is correct because nobody can predict exactly when the atom will decay. It actually doesn't follow a pattern." This illustrates very well the point I've been trying to make. Actually, I don't know much about radioactive decay so I might not use the right words, but here goes. Saying that the decay of a radioactive isotope is random is actually meaningless. Are you saying that subatomic particles are emitted in a random way in terms of direction, or are you talking about the rate of emission of particles being random, or are you saying that some atoms of the isotope in question decay whilst others don't? And you haven't referred at all to causality. Impose a cause (such as putting billions of similar atoms next to our atom so that the critical mass is exceeded) and you will have to let go of that word random. And when you say it doesn't follow a pattern, for how long have you observed the process to confirm this? Could there not be a pattern you haven't detected? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:34 PM "Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause." The classic case of demonstrating 'a cause' in evolution - and from earliest times of researching 'evolution' (who first documented it? - I know) was 'the little moth' sitting on the black tree... sorry, nearly broke into song..... :-) In industrial England, the light colored bark trees that were blackened with soot allowed birds to more easily catch the lighter moths. The population shifted with time to darker colors. After the local soot generation stopped and the environment was 'cleaned up', eventually the population percentage of lighter colored moths was favored again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM I used to mark 'A' level biology essay papers for the University of London. The bloody peppered moth serially drove us examiners mad. It is not an example of evolution at all, though it is an example of natural selection at work. The dark moths were generated in small numbers well before the Industrial Revolution, but were not favoured by the environment and so few survived to breed. But a few did. The point is that the dark moths did not "evolve" as a result of soot blackening tree trunks. Dark moths were *always* there. In order for dark and light moths to evolve into two species, isolation of dark and light populations would have to occur for so long that, at the end of it all, the dark and light moths would no longer be able to interbreed. That bit is simply not part of the peppered moth story as we hear it. Now I'm not saying that the peppered moth can't evolve. I am saying that it can't evolve into two species unless isolation of populations takes place. God, I used to love scoring out bloody great long accounts of the peppered moth "as an example of evolution" with my red pen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:15 PM Steve Shaw, you just said a magic word: "counter-intuitive". We all, I think, intuitively feel that any event has some cause. That's part of why the Big Bang is so hard for people to swallow. And the idea that the Judaeo-Christian god was not caused or created, but existed forever, as an attempted escape from the First-Cause argument. But we (or at least I) know that many, many, many intuitive convictions or judgments turn out to have no basis, once investigated. Many, many scientific studies are ridiculed because they inquire into beliefs or relations that almost all of humanity have historically found intuitively true: "They have to have an experiment to study THAT? Everybody knows that!" and if their findings are contrary to the intuitive opinions the findings tend to be attacked. Steve, I think you are in essence saying that, "If we could just investigate and investigate the origins of mutations, I believe that somewhere back there we'd find a cause, because I find universal causation intuitively powerful." And so do I; I'm more comfortable intellectually with the idea of universal causation. I suppose everyone is, at first blush. But to say that a stressor such as radiation, asbestos fiber, or some chemical makes cellular-level (and intracellular) change statistically more common doesn't quite get to the level of causation of a particular change. And WHICH specific change in many cases appears not to be "caused" by the stressor impinging; the result is "caused" all right, I think, but by such a multitude of environmental and cellular facts as to ultimately unpredictable, thus random. We are talking about "faith" here, faith in causation, which I share; and also adopting or rejecting one or another meaning of "random" in support of one or another intuitive judgment You close with "at least I'm not being counter-intuitive". That may be just the problem, on both sides of this particular corner of the discussion. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM Science to stimulate "random" thought" Natural Selection May Not Produce The Best Organisms Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution? How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM Well Dave, I hope you took in that I was being self-deprecating at the end of that post. I tend to think you did. We atheists don't deal in certainties, unlike some of those Christian chappies. I have this visceral feeling that the word "random" is often used for scenarios which we just don't understand, and I'd rather say "I don't think I understand why this event happened" than "I can't see what caused this so it must have been random." It's a potential cop-out, a bit like the God of the Gaps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:38 PM Thank you Steve, I thought you might love the 'moth' tale .... :-) The Foole loves the role of Devil's Advocate... hee hee.... You - the percentage of light and dark moths at birth hasn't changed, last I heard, just that the percentage of current surviving traits moves around according to whatever current pressures exist.... sorta like politicians, isn't it :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:39 PM Well, Ed, I had a quick look at those rather tabloidesque links you put up. I get a bit suspicious when I read about "genes evolving" (they don't: genes mutate, organisms evolve) and "evolution learning" (it doesn't: it's blind and has no goals and there's no underlying intelligence to "learn" anything). Hope you don't think I'm chucking the baby out with the bathwater and all that, but I think I'll stick to more learned sources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM Yep, well said, Foolestroupe. I wasn't having a dig, it's just that I had that sodding moth coming out of my ears for twelve years on the exam board! Actually, they're very pretty. We had one on an apple tree trunk last week and my wife had to look twice to see it at all. As we're in unpolluted Kernow, you won't be surprised to hear it was a light one! They're also incredibly well camouflaged on natural concrete paving slabs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM Steve I have a friend who once was brought to tears marking a paper. It rattled his religious faith as well a lot of his other life beliefs too, causing him much grief - probably a genuine example of 'life changing experiences' that our foaming at the mouth 'banter friend' was previously claiming that I know While writing a dissertation on evolution, the sincere student had ignored the set text books, the whole University Library et al, and quoted only from the Bible. This friend was terrified that if he failed the paper (which really he HAD no 'intellectual' choice but to do), he would be sacked - the Uni being in an area of strong 'Religion', and what with Vice Chancellors leading public prayer meetings etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:56 PM "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." Bertrand Russell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM Random- a silent sprinter re the general topic at hand: the 3 things you never discuss, religion, politics, atheism. re natural selection: Given the Earth's sub-atomic environment, genetic mutations are inevitable. The vast majority are of no value with most being harmful. If they should afford some advantage over other "same niche" creatures then there is a possiblity that such a mutation will be passed on. That's natural selection at the genetic level. An interesting development has been the discovery of "switching" genes. It seems that some genes have adaptives or responsive sequences built in and that certain environmental conditions will cause that segment to "turn on". It's seems it's already in there and ready to go. Pretty amazing stuff. Back to the topic: "Religion" is some form of ritualized behavior often engaged in as an attempt to influence devine or other-worldly influences or as an act of adoration of the same. Sometimes it is seen as a routinization of experience and the actual point of the religious action is lost. That is to say, it becomes a mindless perfomance. Unfortunately the term is used broadly to mean any spiritual experience or life altering experience as in "he got the 'religion' and doesn't do that any more" or some such. As such it ignores the distinctive aspects of an individual's experiences and unfairly categorizes him, his experience and in general, is dismissive of the same. I may be guilty of the same coming from the other direction but aside from the anecdotal bad and worse experiences some have had with those who claim a religion, a postion in some organized religion, etc. and all the emotional fallout that ensues, I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:01 PM QUOTE used to love scoring out bloody great long accounts of the peppered moth "as an example of evolution" UNQUOTE This is a perfect example of what I was rabbiting on before about how people easily muddle up semantic labels with great abandon, almost enjoyment, with no remorse. IME those with great 'faith' and little skepticism are the easiest to be suckered (they do it themselves) into this trap, and they really see no problems at all. Their thinking is totally clear, there is no beam in their eyes, they KNOW the facts .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM "I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a separate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct? " I appreciate your sincerity, but you really have that ass-backwards. The 'religious' are unable to 'prove' (except in their own mind, by convoluted semantic jumbling and smearing of concepts) any of their complex convoluted mumbo jumbo, which by their OWN definition 'is beyond human understanding' (told you I was brought up fundamentalist Lutheran!), so they just accept it 'in their hearts' on 'faith'. To see a current topical example, you might like to wade through Conrad's thesis on 'FREED Folk Music' where he insists as a matter of 'faith' that getting stonkered with gallons of 'bier' on every musical occasion is necessary for 'the release of his muse'... :-) The one with 'faith' KNOWs, the atheist just 'not-know's - as I said "What part of No is so difficult to understand?" which has now become a fairly standard answer to the "Creationist/ID proponents' whose intellectual flailings about remind the student of the history of scientific progress of things like 'the aether', orgonne, the musical theory of the crystal spheres of the rotations of the planets, the history is littered with ineffectual attempts to grasp understanding.. I've input here on that before, so I'll let others have a turn, or I'll be back later, supposed to be mowing grass, really ... :-) ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM "re natural selection: Given the Earth's sub-atomic environment, genetic mutations are inevitable. The vast majority are of no value with most being harmful. If they should afford some advantage over other "same niche" creatures then there is a possiblity that such a mutation will be passed on. That's natural selection at the genetic level." Well, Charlie Darwin knew nothing about the genetic level and I'm more than happy to stick with his model of natural selection, which is that it acts on expressed characteristics. He worked it all out even though he'd never heard of genes, and he was able to do so because natural selection does not act on sequences of bases on a long-chain chemical in your cells, but on your expressed physical and physiological attributes. To us today that means the phenotype. That man-eating tiger doesn't analyse your genome before he goes for you. He sort of notices that he can run faster than you. The wonderful thing about Darwin's big idea is that it's embarrassingly simple, and it is by no means out of date. "I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?" Nope, not correct at all. Way too negative, and I'm not keen on your veiled pejorative when it comes to science. We ask for evidence for any assertions made, which is a highly rational stance. We know that there is much still to be discovered. But we find it puzzling that believers don't want to ask questions. When you're dealing with a being who's supposed to explain everything, yet who is completely inexplicable himself and who breaks all the laws of physics, we feel that asking questions and demanding hard evidence is justified. |
