BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

Steve Shaw

I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one (as she says). But the word is too fraught with difficulties to be useful in this context. It's best avoided.

The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use. There are lots of words that have different meanings in science and general use. Ask someone if they drink alcohol and then hand them a glass of butanol. "Theory" causes a lot of problems. Must we stop talking about scientific theories so as not to confuse the public?

Talk of random mutations, when most if not all mutations have causes, whether identifiable or not, is loose talk.

That is getting close to a statement of faith. There is no science in it. I suggest you take a look at a couple of Uncle DaveO's posts here and here. You are very good at making categorical statements with a sort of priestly authority but back them up with little other than your own discomfort with the word random.

A while ago you said -
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,
to which I replied -
Really? Please provide references and examples.
I'm still waiting. Give us some science.

And show me where I said that mutations can't be unpredictable.

Given the mathematical definition of random, every time you say something like "The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Foolestroupe

If you had read my post about the 'matchbox computer to play hexpawn', you might understand why you are not getting the point.

OK, I've read it.(It was posted in this thread.) Can't really see the point you were trying to make at the time but it seems to be something to do with how natural selection works and hence nothing to do with the point I am making.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:15 PM

Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. No agency involved - ie although there are causes, there is no *intention* in the cause. No radiation, no mutagens required - just a complex process that, by virtue of imperfection (ie, lack of design!), allows/provides a source of variation. And variation is the key to selection - can't pick and choose from one thing, there has to be a sampling.

Most of those mutations, furthermore, are invisible to natural selection as they have no impact on survival or reproduction. But, because they happen at a measurable rate, we can use them to date speciation.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:24 PM

"Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. No agency involved - ie although there are causes, there is no *intention* in the cause. No radiation, no mutagens required - just a complex process that, by virtue of imperfection (ie, lack of design!), allows/provides a source of variation. And variation is the key to selection - can't pick and choose from one thing, there has to be a sampling."

You can't know that any given mutation doesn't have an external, environmental cause, no matter how subtle. For all we know they may all have external causes. This is somewhat simplistic.


"Most of those mutations, furthermore, are invisible to natural selection as they have no impact on survival or reproduction."

Any mutation that is expressed as the phenotype is visible to natural selection. A lethal mutation may not be visible to selection but it certainly has an impact on survival - it kills you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

"The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use."

Modern Science has a strong mathematical base - you cannot choose one or the other - you need a term that is consistently describable by both.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:54 PM

Steve, they're gaining on you. Time to invoke your god Darwin. Hurry! Hurry!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM

Foolestroupe

Modern Science has a strong mathematical base - you cannot choose one or the other - you need a term that is consistently describable by both.

I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:46 PM

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like. But "random" is just one of them words that don't cut it any more in a biological context. It serves to cast mud (or heat, depending on how religious you happen to be) rather than light. You're an intelligent fellow. Break free of "random" and talk biological. You know it makes sense!

.....................................................................

Who's gaining on me, Jojo? Don't you know that we biologists still believe we can go faster than light? Have you a thought?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

///Who's gaining on me, Jojo?///

Why, don't you know? The rest of the human race.

///Don't you know that we biologists still believe we can go faster than light?///

???

///Have you a thought?///

Yes, I use it as a paperweight.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

Poor Jojo. Chasing Steve, looks over shoulder, hoping to see rest of human race in pursuit. But all he can see behind him is one dead sheep and a couple of one-legged creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:05 PM

Any mutation that is expressed as the phenotype is visible to natural selection. - right - but - by far the largest proportion of mutations AREN'T expressed in the phenotype. They have no effect, they are just uncaused changes in the strands of DNA that make up that type of organism. Remember, most of the DNA in your chromosomes doesn't code for jack that has anything to do with you. You are a mere side-effect, as are blades of grass, antelope, elephants, ants, E. coli, or whatever. Make more DNA - but first, make an elephant.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 12:17 AM

///You are a mere side-effect, as are blades of grass, antelope, elephants, ants, E. coli, or whatever.///

If everything is a side-effect then there's really no such thing as a side-effect.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:48 AM

"I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other". "

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, try to pretend cleverness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:50 AM

"I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other". "

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, trying to pretend cleverness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:45 AM

"they are just uncaused changes in the strands of DNA"

Uncaused, eh? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 09:28 AM

Steve Shaw

You're an intelligent fellow.

Kind of you to say so. It makes a pleasant change from some of your more condescending remarks like "Read your Darwin" (I have) and "Was it a good college?" (How good would be good enough to satisfy you?). Alas, your view is not shared by Foolestroupe who I think I can now justifiably ignore.

It's always best in a debate to avoid assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like.

You choose whichever is the appropriate definition for the context. If you are talking about science, you use the scientific definition and make it clear that you are doing so.

Break free of "random" and talk biological.

Once more the voice of authority. You still, despite being asked repeatedly, fail to come up with any references or supporting evidence."This is so because I, Steve Shaw say so. Don't argue boy." You are not in school now nor are you debating with a creationist or intelligent designist.

I think I am beginning to understand your problems with "random". The intelligent design lobby are fond of saying things like "Something as complex as the eye could not possibly have arisen by chance." and fail to grasp the point that natural selection is not random as you have been very fond of telling me. Yes, I know that thank you.
As a reult, "random" has become a bogey word and must be totally expunged from the language. You seem to be unable to separate meiosis, which works on DNA, and natural selection, which works on living organisms. This is illustrated by the fact that it took me several days to get you to actually address the point I was making, which was about errors in DNA copying, and kept banging on about natural selection. For instance -

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals.

Complete non-sequitur. The last sentence has nothing to do with the first two. In fact, there is a non-sequitur between the first two sentences. There is nothing to say that a cause can't have a random result; if I flip a coin, I don't cause it to land heads (wish I could). I know, I know, two flips aren't going to be absolutely identical but if every cause is unique then this is meaningless. OK, my first flip may have "caused" the coin to land heads and my second flip may also cause it to land heads but for different reasons but there is no possibility of predicting the outcome.

The sequence is a result of causes. Really? I'm with Mrrzy - Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. At a trivial level mutations will have causes, a bit of thermal agitation, bits of the "machinery" bumping up against each other, no need for your environmental causes. They happen but are not the main story.

For all I know, you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so and you have failed to provide any evidence. You just trot out your dogma. You are turning evolution into a religion which does it no favours.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:20 PM

Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation.

And "invisible" mutations, i.e. changes in the DNA strand during replication that do not impact any gene for anything phenotypic but occur in the 98% or some such of the organism's DNA that *doesn't* code for the organism, happen at a regular rate, and are part of the normal replication process, and thanks to THAT, we have a molecular clock and that is what can show how long ago two species, like us and the chimps (@5 mya) or the 'panzees and the bobobos (@3 mya), had their common ancestor.

If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all.

It's when a mutation affects *embryology* that you have a change that is visible to natural selection. At that point the change (possibly to a different species, possibly to nothing that works, e.g. extinction) starts to happen very rapidly, yet the basic rate of mutation is not changed.

"Natural selection has no goals" is not a meaningful statement, as natural selection is incapable of intention. It happens, and it is very much not random - selection selects something that works and selects against things that don't. And by work, I mean get more DNA into the next generation in such a way as to promote the survival and replication of the DNA *in* that next generation.

Remember the "goal" of DNA-based life is to become an *ancestor* - not just a parent.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

It's when a mutation affects *embryology*

i.e. in the cell divisions leading up to gametogenesis. Mutations in non- gamete cells aren't propagated.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

(Thinks: Maybe he's not such an intelligent fellow after all...)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the concept that life is serious".

"Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again".

"We willing, following the unknow, doing the impossible. Doing so much, for so long, with so little, that we can conclude anything from nothing".

"A conclusion is the place where you get when you are tired of thinking".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM

Flow, flow the waves hated,
Accursed, adored,
The waves of mutation:
No anchorage is.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM

Look at these pictures and dare deny that most mutations do not survive.The evidence is right there to see.

successful mutations

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

"you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so "

I remember being ridiculed by someone who had read a 100 year old book and refused to accept modern advances on fluid dynamics and acoustics, because the original author had not mentioned what I said ... as far as the Internet, it's a bit like a lucky dip - if you want the latest advances, then Google is not always appropriate, you need appropriate sources, for many of which you may need financial membership.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:47 PM

"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

""Natural selection has no goals" is not a meaningful statement, as natural selection is incapable of intention. "

Semantic confusion of terms.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

Bother.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM

"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Without reading this idiot thread closely (I'm going to die within the next 30 years) have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate (i.e. did chimps and humans separate 3.5 million years ago, or 3.25, or 3.75?)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

"have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate"

I've possessed many a clock in my time, some with batteries in them, others that I wind up, analogue faces, digital faces, etc. Absolutely nothing controversial about them except for one teensy thing. Their rates.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:10 PM

QUOTE
"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Without reading this idiot thread closely (I'm going to die within the next 30 years) have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate (i.e. did chimps and humans separate 3.5 million years ago, or 3.25, or 3.75?)
UNQUOTE

I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Hint: It's tricky to prove a total negative .... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM

As for 'clock rates' living organisms have many 'clocks' - the rates change all over the place depending on factors internal & external to the organisms - some of these factors are documented, many are not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 03:58 AM

I thought the above "Bother" would be sufficient to alert the elves to the fact that the preceding Guest post was from me without benefit of cookie (I wonder what causes that) but apparently not.

Steve Shaw

(Thinks: Maybe he's not such an intelligent fellow after all...)

There you go. If all else fails, insult the intelligence of your opponent. Still no references or examples to back up you statements?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:18 AM

Well, O gastropod, the point is that I find it increasingly frustrating to argue with someone who thinks that "random" means "unpredictable" and who fatuously attempts (no fewer than three times at the last count) to pin spurious religiosity to my opinions. Why, it's enough to drive a man to cliché. Arguing with you is worse than trying to grab a greased pig and at least as bad as pissing into a strong wind. Which could still mean that you're quite intelligent I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Um - how about the observable fact that it happens, and has been happening for close to a billion years?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

" If there really is no Creator or intelligent design then it must be survival of the fittest and no one would need to respect anyone, right? Or is that just too simple?"

David, that's simplistic. Darwin never mentioned "survival of the fittest". That comes from Herbert Spencer, a philosopher around Darwin's time. An either/or argument doesn't apply here. It so happens that atheists and Freethinkers have historically been shown to not only respect other people but have been at the forefront of social issues and constructive social change.

I think it is socially constructive and important to question the "belief" systems that pull our country and others into meaningless wars and assassinations justified by religious zealots. Apparently Slag doesn't think this is important enough. This is why we can't keep "belief" to ourselves unconditionally. The issue has to be faced. Will we allow religious zealotry to dictate political debates? What about the effrontery of those seven
U.S. Republican senators who went on record that they didn't believe in Evolution? Is this not an important issue? What about George Bush receiving his "messages" about Iraq from a god?

The true test of an atheist is to be able to discuss what happens when "belief" gets out of control. It is out of control now and the First Amendment is being violated daily by religious zealots.

An examination of religious beliefs is in order for society to function smoothly. We need
to have an intelligent discussion about religion and not knee-jerk reaction or try to sweep the religious issues under the carpet as Slag has suggested that we do.

It's perfectly fine for those who want to believe in Santa Claus or the Flat-Earth Society
but when religion becomes a vehicle for violence (and make no mistake, it is) then we must discuss it.

Right now, Nixon's former Watergate conspirator Coulson is attempting to Christianize
the prison system in the U.S. by rewarding believers and making those who don't second-class prisoners. The Army Air Force Cadet Training program is attempting to Christianize
recruits by forcing religion down their throats. Is this not important? Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State.

What we need is more discussion about the efficacy of "belief" than a denial of this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:56 PM

Stringsinger commented:

Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State.

That sentence starts with a true observation, up through the word "president", but then adds a conclusion which doesn't wash.

The Constitution doesn't say that a President can't have friends or advisors with religious roots, or spiritual guidance.   

The fact that an individual (including me) would rather have less religious influence on the chief magistrate doesn't rise to a constitutional prohibition.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM

The quote above doesn't say that Graham's presence *caused* the violation, and besides, the presidents that *didn't* have Billy Graham probably violated that separation too... at least while Graham was available. Earlier pres's had more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 09:56 PM

I need to amend my last post.

In that post I agreed that "Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president".

On second thought I have to quibble with "at the right hand". I don't know that that is true. Many recent presidents have indeed had regular (what at least appeared to be) friendly contact with Billy Graham, but "at the right hand"? I think with some of them that that appearance may have been cultivated for public relations purposes, whereas "at the right hand" suggests that Billy Graham was close to and heavily influenced many if not most key decisions of the respective presidents, which I don't think has been or can be documented.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM

"Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State"

Maybe so, maybe not. But, do what does that, or any human religion,earthly religious practice, or action of their leaders or followers, have to do with whether there is a God or not (or, relate to "the true test of an Atheist")?

"Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society." David Hull quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:18 AM

Right on the money Slag.

Like you I grew up non religious. Religious people are not of my concern. I go along with them up till the point where they want to convert me. Then I avoid it tactfully without insulting them.

I think respect is the name of the game. Mutual respect.

If it says In God we trust on a dollar bill so what? It still does the job.

Some people need a code to live by and their religion provides that. If it makes them happy I am happy for them.

It can get out of hand like this:
"The Flag of Islam will one day fly over the White House"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:19 AM

Billy Graham at the right hand of most presidents? Good God! How old is that man?

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

"I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Um - how about the observable fact that it happens, and has been happening for close to a billion years? "

I rest my case - your opinion that there is no external driver is purely a matter of 'faith'. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:15 AM

"I think respect is the name of the game. Mutual respect."

I totally agree with this statement.

What does it matter what ones personal beliefs are, whether they be theist or athiest? Scientific or otherwise?

Seeking knowledge and stating ones knowledge, beliefs and theories, scientific or not, is fine. Standing up against cases where either, and human interpretations of either, especially where they negatively impacts others, or society(now and in the past), I see as fair game...I even applaud those who do so agressively, IMO that is a good thing.

But, belittling the personal beliefs of others, theist or athiest (when you fail to see it the same way), I see as wrong, and reflects poorly on that person.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:38 AM

What matters is forcing your beliefs on other people. In my view, the most outrageous manifestation of this is the indoctrination of children, most outrageous because it is the common practice for major organised religion so to do. Religious people are fond of reminding atheists that we can't prove there's no God (even though we don't need reminding), forgetting that they can't prove that there is one. Yet they act with cast-iron certainty in the passing-on of their highly questionable dogma to their children. I can respect any individual for holding any beliefs they like but I can't respect anyone who passes it on, or who defends this abominable practice, to impressionable people who are strongly discouraged from questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:29 AM

"What matters is forcing your beliefs on other people".

Could you not be suggesting we do the same thing, but from another perspective?

"Religious people are fond of reminding atheists that we can't prove there's no God (even though we don't need reminding), forgetting that they can't prove that there is one"

Maybe so, but why join in? What is the point of jumping into that practice and belittling the beliefs of others by regurgitating ideas and concepts on why their beliefs are wrong? Why not just realize it is pointless, agree to disagree by saying we likely both don't really know for sure and move on to a more productive discourse?

Why not focus on discussing alternatives to better public "ethics, education, democracy and good government, tolerance, and justice—and how all in society, not just those who believe in religion, can help these flourish?

"Yet they act with cast-iron certainty in the passing-on of their highly questionable dogma to their children. I can respect any individual for holding any beliefs they like but I can't respect anyone who passes it on, or who defends this abominable practice, to impressionable people who are strongly discouraged from questioning".

I suspect you will ever have much say on what people pass on to their children in their own household.... as religious folks have little say in your household. In open society, as in public schools, that is a different matter.

But, I see many more harmful ideas and practices passed on to children by parents than a belief in a God... that they will have an opportunity to challenge to decide later in life. I suspect many choose a balance, accepting all concepts of science, and with "some" belief in a God (what may seem to be an in conflict, but likely is not). There will be those on the extreme edges, but not likely most.

I was thought as a child to believe in a God. I do not see it as a bad thing, nor do I see it as limiting my mental reasoning.

I also believe in all the science stuff, including evolution, which I learned in school.

I have shook off the shackles of all organized human religions...and both respect and disrespect their good and bad social and historic records.

I also learned tolerance of other people's views and beliefs, especially where they do more good than harm.

Recently, I saw Richard Dawkins on the Bill Maher show, condemning the bad effects of religion on children. The worst example he seemed to come up with is in British Islamic schools children are taught that salt and fresh water do not mix, because it is stated in the Koran. Well if that is a terrible thing, I fail to see any real negative result as they go on with their lives.

In a University philosophy of science course, I recall reading that a case can be made that there is no such thing as movement from point A to point B. You know, this was interesting. But, I don't feel that, theory right or wrong, this revelation changed the lives of any student in the class, we all moved on and thrived.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: bobad
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:34 AM

"I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

"Intrinsic DNA damage checkpoint

Another interesting aspect is the possible existence of an intrinsic DNA damage signal in a normal cell cycle, in the absence of external cues. Indeed, the replication process by itself can be genotoxic. Replication errors occur stochastically during nucleotide incorporation, and structural intermediates normally arising during unperturbed DNA replication, such as unwound DNA and single-stranded regions, are more fragile than double-stranded DNA organized in a chromatin structure. In addition, single-strand and double-strand breaks are generated by the nicking–closing activity of DNA topoisomerases, which are required to remove torsional stress ahead of the replication forks."

http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v17/n19/full/7591246a.html

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:16 AM

No, really, you can see it happen:

There is a researcher who's put some life forms (bacteria I think), that are completely sequenced (we know every molecule in the "original" DNA), into 12 separate vials with identical chemical media, and every few generations he takes a dropperful of each and puts THEM in that same identical medium in separate vials and has been doing so for years and years, which is absolutely huge numbers of generations of bacterial descendants. I'll get you the citation if you can't google it yourself. That team has been measuring the rate of mutations that do and don't affect survival and the bugs have been specializing and taking different degrees of advantage of the various chemicals to which they are all exposed. Et voila your data - go ahead and read the Dawkins book on evolution if you want it explained to you as if you were an idiot (boy that guy annoys me even as I agree with him!), otherwise go look it up.

No "faith" involved, au contraire.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:41 AM

["What matters is forcing your beliefs on other people".

Could you not be suggesting we do the same thing, but from another perspective?]

No. Atheists have no belief system to pass on. And atheists should always be making clear that they don't deal in certainties. And there is no ostracism, no death threat or no future menace of hell fire for demurring from atheism. I don't know why you can't see this.

[Why not just realize it is pointless, agree to disagree by saying we likely both don't really know for sure and move on to a more productive discourse?]

So we agree that they can continue to cause the damage they do and shut up about it. Fine.

[I was thought as a child to believe in a God. I do not see it as a bad thing, nor do I see it as limiting my mental reasoning.]

It limits your mental reasoning if you don't question (by asking for hard evidence) the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of physics and who is far more inexplicable than the things he was invented to explain. If irrational belief is your idea of mental reasoning not stymied then we're at odds.

[I was thought as a child to believe in a God.... I also believe in all the science stuff, including evolution, which I learned in school.]

You can demand and get evidence for the science you believe in. You can demand evidence, and not get any, for God. It's rational to ask for evidence for assertions put to you, and it's rational to dismiss assertions that can't be supported by evidence.

[I also learned tolerance of other people's views and beliefs, especially where they do more good than harm.]

Quite. But that doesn't mean you have to shut up about the harm.

[Recently, I saw Richard Dawkins on the Bill Maher show, condemning the bad effects of religion on children. The worst example he seemed to come up with is in British Islamic schools children are taught that salt and fresh water do not mix, because it is stated in the Koran. Well if that is a terrible thing, I fail to see any real negative result as they go on with their lives.]

Really? Well, everyone who ever did anything bad in the name of religion had been taught to abide by that religion's teachings when they were yoiungewr. The pope, who condemns millions of women to poverty, ill-health, ignorance and misery with his anti-birth control edicts, was taught to be a good little Catholic all those years ago. And I needn't go on about people who murder doctors at abortion clinics, or suicide bombers...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

Younger, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

Steve S, you say that you are not doing the same thing that religious people do because you have no 'belief system ' to pass on. That, imo, is quibbling.

Unless you are using 'belief' in a very circumscribed way, anyone could think that - because you cannot provide proof for your contentions - you believe you are correct. For that matter, I think you are more adamant in your beliefs than many a nominal Christian.


Oh, and 400.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

No, I have no huge body of written-down theology, no rituals, no churches, no traditions, no superheroes. The difference between that and organised religion is not quibbling. It is a chasm. I have nothing to pass on. All I can do is talk about it. I can't force anyone else under pain of ostracism or hellfire to agree with me. There is no equivalence between relgion and atheism, in spite of religion's wanting to find it.