Atheism discussion thread

[TubeTote]

Hormone secretion mostly, as I recall. It all happens in the Brain and is the reason that Drugs often Suppress or Enhance Emotions.

So strange...I guess that could explain why so many people fall in love with the wrong person (guilty). Those damned hormones.

I would be very interested if anyone else has any specific knowledge of this mechanism.

 

[MJinZ]

Ok, you got me.

Doesn't change anything though. There are no gods.

That is your belief, but you can not logically prove it (which was my point).

Someone else's belief in God or Religion is also unproveable.

But if you claim to be a rational person, then you are not an Atheist (using the "know no Gods" definition"). So take your pick, Agnostic or Irrational? Or just using your definition of Atheist?

 

[sandorski]

So strange...I guess that could explain why so many people fall in love with the wrong person (guilty). Those damned hormones.

I would be very interested if anyone else has any specific knowledge of this mechanism.

Pretty much.

 

[mjrpes3]

I would like to disprove (or prove) the existence of God. But I have a problem. What is the definition of this thing that I am trying to disprove (or prove)?

 

[MJinZ]

So strange...I guess that could explain why so many people fall in love with the wrong person (guilty). Those damned hormones.

I would be very interested if anyone else has any specific knowledge of this mechanism.

For the most part, neurotransmitters determine emotional and psychological sensations, though some hormones, like adrenaline, are also neurotransmitters.

 

[amdhunter]

I would like to disprove (or prove) the existence of God. But I have a problem. What is the definition of this thing that I am trying to disprove (or prove)?

Some magical dude that has nothing better to do than torture you for eternity if you don't worship him while molesting little boys.

 

[sandorski]

That is your belief, but you can not logically prove it (which was my point).

Someone else's belief in God or Religion is also unproveable.

But if you claim to be a rational person, then you are not an Atheist (using the "know no Gods" definition"). So take your pick, Agnostic or Irrational? Or just using your definition of Atheist?

What does it matter really? Atheist, Agnostic, or a Believer? Doesn't change Reality one bit. If something showed Evidence of its' Deity, it might be a god. Chances are it wouldn't be, at least in any fashion that we have formulated the term.

We know we exist, for all intents and purposes, we are the highest Intelligence in the Universe. That we remain until someone else comes onto the scene. Holding onto quaint notions of gods born from our distant ancestors is foolishness. A foolishness we know all too well to be very destructive and a threat to our future.

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.

Time to put it away.

 

[MJinZ]

I would like to disprove (or prove) the existence of God. But I have a problem. What is the definition of this thing that I am trying to disprove (or prove)?

Definitions vary, but they mostly involve some sort of entity of greater power (than us).

 

[TubeTote]

For the most part, neurotransmitters determine emotional and psychological sensations, though some hormones, like adrenaline, are also neurotransmitters.

Well what is interesting to me is the varying degree of emotions...

I mean, how can one love so fully and deeply, nearly unconditionally...yet there is no sexual component. Other times you can have a strong sexual urge, but there is not necessarily love involved. It seems nearly impossible to find both together in one mate. All this is determined by the chemistry between the two entities? It's simply random?

 

[MJinZ]

Well what is interesting to me is the varying degree of emotions...

I mean, how can one love so fully and deeply, nearly unconditionally...yet there is no sexual component. Other times you can have a strong sexual urge, but there is not necessarily love involved. It seems nearly impossible to find both together in one mate. All this is determined by the chemistry between the two entities? It's simply random?

Love and Sex are different pathways. They are connected in some ways, like how a gay man can not love a woman the way they can love another man. At the same time, love is more emotional while sexual arousal is more physical.

I know I am sexually attracted to tons of different people but have only loved ... maybe... one.

 

[mjrpes3]

Definitions vary, but they mostly involve some sort of entity of greater power (than us).

On this definition, I am almost compelled, then, to believe that "God" exists, given the size of the universe and the fact that out of the billions of galaxies out there one of them must contain an entity that is of greater physical and or mental power than us.

 

[TubeTote]

On this definition, I am almost compelled, then, to believe that "God" exists, given the size of the universe and the fact that out of the billions of galaxies out there one of them must contain an entity that is of greater physical and or mental power than us.

This is kind of where I am coming from, putting a HUGE emphasis on that specific definition...

I was shot down for posting about this earlier, but I believe it does have some basis regarding religion, atheism, ect.

Do most people of science believe that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe? I can't seem to find specific data on this through web searches. I'm aware there is no public documented proof of this, but what about the Drake equation and other such theories? To me, it seems nearly impossible that we are the only intelligent life, especially considering how limited we are. It scares me to think that we might be the smartest things in existance, as we are pretty f***ing stupid when you look at the big picture.

 

[lxskllr]

This is kind of where I am coming from, putting a HUGE emphasis on that specific definition...

I was shot down for posting about this earlier, but I believe it does have some basis regarding religion, atheism, ect.

Do most people of science believe that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe? I can't seem to find specific data on this through web searches. I'm aware there is no public documented proof of this, but what about the Drake equation and other such theories? To me, it seems nearly impossible that we are the only intelligent life, especially considering how limited we are. It scares me to think that we might be the smartest things in existance, as we are pretty f***ing stupid when you look at the big picture.

Any opinions in that regard are pure speculation. You're back to asking if god exists. You can say anything, and you'll either be right or wrong; there's no way to prove it. Personally, I'd bet money there's other intelligent(using this very broadly to describe humans :^D) life out there, but I'm just speculating :^)

 

[BeauJangles]

That is your belief, but you can not logically prove it (which was my point).

Someone else's belief in God or Religion is also unproveable.

But if you claim to be a rational person, then you are not an Atheist (using the "know no Gods" definition"). So take your pick, Agnostic or Irrational? Or just using your definition of Atheist?

You're missing the point. We either live in a world where one of two things are true: (1) some god-like entity exists or (2) it does not. We have no proof that it does exist, we also do not have any proof that it does not exist.

The evidence we DO have indicates that it isn't a 50-50 proposition between existing or not existing. If anything, the chances of a god-like being existing are extremely small. So, why should I believe in something that, at best, we have no proof exists and, at worst, the chances of it actually existing is infinitesimally small?

 

[zoiks]

You guys are all going to hell

 

[sandorski]

You guys are all going to hell

 

[MJinZ]

You're missing the point. We either live in a world where one of two things are true: (1) some god-like entity exists or (2) it does not. We have no proof that it does exist, we also do not have any proof that it does not exist.

The evidence we DO have indicates that it isn't a 50-50 proposition between existing or not existing. If anything, the chances of a god-like being existing are extremely small. So, why should I believe in something that, at best, we have no proof exists and, at worst, the chances of it actually existing is infinitesimally small?

Actually, there are far more than those 2 possible scenarios. It could be that there are no God-like beings, there are multiple Godlike beings, Evil God-like beings as well as Good God-like beings, or even just Godlike beings who aren't really Gods, but more like people are to lab-rats.

From a Biological standpoint, the complexity and purposefulness of the genetic code of life is astronomically improbable to be formed from randomness. The codes are complex and structured, it's mechanisms incredible and advanced. As someone who studied and worked with Genetics extensively, I can not rationally disbelieve intelligent design.

From an empiric standpoint, we can see evil, disaster, and tragedy in life all the time. No rational person can also discard the idea of an imperfect intelligent designer, a sadistic intelligent designer, or an intelligent designer that is very much mixed and flawed.

 

[destrekor]

This is kind of where I am coming from, putting a HUGE emphasis on that specific definition...

I was shot down for posting about this earlier, but I believe it does have some basis regarding religion, atheism, ect.

Do most people of science believe that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe? I can't seem to find specific data on this through web searches. I'm aware there is no public documented proof of this, but what about the Drake equation and other such theories? To me, it seems nearly impossible that we are the only intelligent life, especially considering how limited we are. It scares me to think that we might be the smartest things in existance, as we are pretty f***ing stupid when you look at the big picture.

We can dream and believe there are a multitude of species just sitting around on their home planet as well.
We can imagine there are species that have extended their presence into multiple star systems.

But that's all we have. There is constant research into the question of "are we alone?", and on that note, we continue the search for planets that can support our life. Scientists often think life like ours will require a planet like ours, but scientists speculate that life can spring up in a variety of places... though, they still look for basic things that water to support life.

For all we know there could be species out there that developed on a bio-chemical design very much unlike ours. The genetic design might not resemble anything we know, the fluid that comprises the cells and circulatory system could be of some drastically different composition than water.

But, it's all unknown.
This is something that has readily identifiable evidence, but it requires us finding it. We currently only have the capability to survey a very, very, very tiny fraction of our universe.. essentially, it's only the nearby galactic neighborhood.

There is a lot of "probability" factors that lead people to believe something has to be out there, somewhere. Earth is essentially a product of chaos theory - we see everything now merely because we've been afforded that opportunity. We are the product of an unimaginable number of events that happened the way they did... some of us look at that as proof of design, others just see it otherwise.

Point being, everything situation has multiple outcomes, and one event at some point dictates the possibilities elsewhere. There is just so much "stuff" in the Universe, that everything is essentially quite random... some of us don't see it that way because we are here to think about it.

Side note:
We wouldn't even comprehend "life" had it not been for the creation of language. We'd just do stuff because that's what needs to be done to stay alive, keep others around us alive. We would have had no thoughts of "self", because we'd need to have a language in our heads to make sense of it. We'd think in pictures and abstract concepts, such as "this large stick can hit that animal with many teeth? And I can satisfy this aching stomach?" ... but of course, without the words.

With language, came thought, communication of thoughts, and eventually discovery of the value of self.

We have our ancestors a lot to thank them for. The only thing that separates man from other species is complex communication. Each generation learns of many previous generations, and thus progress is born. Without language, we'd be just another animal going about the daily activities needed to survive - hunt, gather, eat, sleep.

 

[TubeTote]

Actually, there are far more than those 2 possible scenarios. It could be that there are no God-like beings, there are multiple Godlike beings, Evil God-like beings as well as Good God-like beings, or even just Godlike beings who aren't really Gods, but more like people are to lab-rats.

From a Biological standpoint, the complexity and purposefulness of the genetic code of life is astronomically improbable to be formed from randomness. The codes are complex and structured, it's mechanisms incredible and advanced. As someone who studied and worked with Genetics extensively, I can not rationally disbelieve intelligent design.

From an empiric standpoint, we can see evil, disaster, and tragedy in life all the time. No rational person can also discard the idea of an imperfect intelligent designer, a sadistic intelligent designer, or an intelligent designer that is very much mixed and flawed.

That is a very good point. In fact, I would venture to say that the possibilities are endless. That is why I previously brought up the concept of 'eternity' and 'forever' (and was shot down for it). Can an atheist believe in these concepts? I certainly can as an agnostic.

 

[BeauJangles]

Actually, there are far more than those 2 possible scenarios. It could be that there are no God-like beings, there are multiple Godlike beings, Evil God-like beings as well as Good God-like beings, or even just Godlike beings who aren't really Gods, but more like people are to lab-rats.

From a Biological standpoint, the complexity and purposefulness of the genetic code of life is astronomically improbable to be formed from randomness. The codes are complex and structured, it's mechanisms incredible and advanced. As someone who studied and worked with Genetics extensively, I can not rationally disbelieve intelligent design.

From an empiric standpoint, we can see evil, disaster, and tragedy in life all the time. No rational person can also discard the idea of an imperfect intelligent designer, a sadistic intelligent designer, or an intelligent designer that is very much mixed and flawed.

I'm talking Biblical God here.

I would point out that if you believe that natural selection is random then you've got it all wrong. There is nothing random about it. Yes, it would be impossible for things to have evolved into the complex lifeforms we see around us if we just left it up to complete and total randomness, but natural selection is not random. If anything, it is an extremely deliberate process; a process which weeds out the weak from the strong and continually promotes genetic variations that are beneficial to the organism.

 

[sandorski]

Actually, there are far more than those 2 possible scenarios. It could be that there are no God-like beings, there are multiple Godlike beings, Evil God-like beings as well as Good God-like beings, or even just Godlike beings who aren't really Gods, but more like people are to lab-rats.

From a Biological standpoint, the complexity and purposefulness of the genetic code of life is astronomically improbable to be formed from randomness. The codes are complex and structured, it's mechanisms incredible and advanced. As someone who studied and worked with Genetics extensively, I can not rationally disbelieve intelligent design.

From an empiric standpoint, we can see evil, disaster, and tragedy in life all the time. No rational person can also discard the idea of an imperfect intelligent designer, a sadistic intelligent designer, or an intelligent designer that is very much mixed and flawed.

Incorrect.

 

[Jeff7]

On this definition, I am almost compelled, then, to believe that "God" exists, given the size of the universe and the fact that out of the billions of galaxies out there one of them must contain an entity that is of greater physical and or mental power than us.

Yeah, and that's fine and dandy - except that this greater power has absolutely no involvement in our existence. Kind of like your relation to a termite mound in Africa. Sure you're a higher life form, but you have zero influence on those termites. Likewise, a higher civilization 60,000 light years away is probably not concerned with, or even aware of, our existence.

Do most people of science believe that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe? I can't seem to find specific data on this through web searches. I'm aware there is no public documented proof of this, but what about the Drake equation and other such theories? To me, it seems nearly impossible that we are the only intelligent life, especially considering how limited we are. It scares me to think that we might be the smartest things in existance, as we are pretty f***ing stupid when you look at the big picture.

Same here.
Hubble Ultra-Deep-Field
Look at the Moon when it's high in the sky, and note how small it looks. Imagine a line 1/10th the width that it appears, and draw a square of equal width. That's what the UDF image was looking at, a tiny patch of sky. In that are thousands of galaxies, with tens or hundreds of billions of stars in each one. Based on what we've observed of our local neighborhood, planetary systems are fairly common.
I think it would be far more unlikely to say that life didn't develop elsewhere. It's happened on Earth, and life here can exist in quite a wide range of environments, drawing energy from different sources, some entirely removed from sunlight.

From a Biological standpoint, the complexity and purposefulness of the genetic code of life is astronomically improbable to be formed from randomness. The codes are complex and structured, it's mechanisms incredible and advanced. As someone who studied and worked with Genetics extensively, I can not rationally disbelieve intelligent design.

I guess I have a different view of it. You're looking at the result of billions of years of nature's work on genetic evolution, and trying to fully comprehend it in a comparatively minuscule timescale.

And purposefulness? Howso? My understanding of it is that if a genetic trait is beneficial, or at the very least is not detrimental, then it is more likely to remain in existence. That's the purpose that it keeps.

From an empiric standpoint, we can see evil, disaster, and tragedy in life all the time. No rational person can also discard the idea of an imperfect intelligent designer, a sadistic intelligent designer, or an intelligent designer that is very much mixed and flawed.

Unintelligent design theory.

And no, I've said that sort of thing - if this God in the Bible is real, he's a sadist at best, and a deranged sociopath at worst. So I don't discard that idea in that context.

Even so, I don't see this Universe as requiring any sort of designer. Just simple natural complexity, that's all.

 

[MJinZ]

Incorrect.

You'll need something else to back that up besides your own opinion.

Mathematicians have calculated the odds and they are astronomical. If I can remember some of the books I've read in college, I'd link to them.

 

[Jeff7]

You'll need something else to back that up besides your own opinion.

Mathematicians have calculated the odds and they are astronomical. If I can remember some of the books I've read in college, I'd link to them.

Odds of what? Odds of life developing?

I think that's the whole problem of retroactively applying odds.

The odds of me getting into a car accident on Monday is fairly low.
But once it's Monday, and I'm in the process of crashing, I'd say that the odds are around 100%.

(Though it doesn't quite work that way, I'm sure. )

Kind of like the old puddle thing - the puddle finds itself in a hole which was seemingly shaped perfectly to fit the puddle. The puddle thus thinks that, because it is so terribly unlikely for a hole to form which fits it precisely, the hole must have been designed by some external entity.


It depends what the odds are that you're trying to calculate. And it depends on the scope. If you're saying, "On one of 100,000 planets, life will develop," then hey, we're that one planet.
If you're saying, "In exactly 3.21256 billion years, a primate species will evolve, and one of these life forms will be eventually be named Bob Johnson.", then that's slightly less-likely, assuming you're not speaking to someone named Bob Johnson as you make this "prediction" of the odds.

 

[sandorski]

You'll need something else to back that up besides your own opinion.

Mathematicians have calculated the odds and they are astronomical. If I can remember some of the books I've read in college, I'd link to them.

You've been reading crap Creationist/ID BS. It doesn't matter what someone has Calculated. We're here, life existing here = 100%.