Atheism discussion thread

[MJinZ]

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.



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.



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.


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.

Complexity is only half of the story.

The other half is the purpose of the complexity - the anomaly of life.

Life is, at heart, complexity. Complexity is order, the opposite of chaos. Many essential Physics and Chemistry theories contend that:

A) The Universe tends towards chaos
B) Matter tends toward the lowest energy state

Moving towards lower entropy of and higher order requires a huge input of energy.

The other side of the coin, aside from complexity itself, is the struggle.

Life... why struggle? Why swim against the tide?

 

[MJinZ]

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.

Odds of developing the basic foundations of life.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Life is, at heart, complexity. Complexity is order, the opposite of chaos. Many basic Physics theories contend that

A) The Universe tends towards chaos
B) Matter tends toward lowest energy state

LOL wow, no matter how many times this BS gets beaten down by Physics and Chem 101, these morons never stop trying it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you disagreeing with Merriam Webster?

I think you both are making the mistake of thinking that there exists such an animal as a "true definition." Definitions are not true or false; they are merely common or uncommon, useful or unuseful.

Moreover, dictionaries do not define words. Rather, they record word usage. Sandorski's usage may be uncommon, but that doesn't make it wrong, per se. Simply uncommon to the point of getting left out of the dictionary.

It is obvious an an assumption is something taken to be true, also known as a fact.

In my experience, assumptions are not to be confused with facts. Facts have a posteriori bases in reality. Assumptions are instead a priori stipulations upon which deductions are premised. Definitions actually fall in to this category. They are assumed meanings, not deduced or induced facts.

 

[sandorski]

LOL wow, no matter how many times this BS gets beaten down by Physics and Chem 101, these morons never stop trying it.

indeed

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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.

It's not that the odds aren't apparently astronomical, but rather that you think that you can infer some kind of significance from the fact of those probabilities. Do you have any idea what the cumulative probabilities are of the precise positions of all the air molecules in your room at any given moment? They are equally astronomical if not worse, but nobody ever proposes that there must exist magical molecule-positioning færies intelligently guiding each one along its path.

It even easier to explain if we suppose that the universe expands multidimensionally in the way that is described by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In that scenario every conceivable possibility is not simply likely, but compulsory. If life is possible, then life is inevitable.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A Religious person does not Assume there is a god(s), they literally Know there is a god(s).

I disagree here, but I'll admit in advance that it's a bit nit-picky.

A religious person may believe that he "knows" there is a god, but he doesn't "know" in the sense that others must recognize his beliefs as real knowledge.

"Knowledge" is most commonly defined as "true and justified belief." While it is even conceivable that a theist has truly legitimate private justification for his alleged "knowledge," nobody has any duty to recognize his beliefs as knowledge until they are demonstrated to be true and justified to that person.

So, in that sense, a theist does not "literally know there is a god," or at least I am under no obligation to concede that claim until the beliefs that he believes are "knowledge" are justified to me.

 

[BeauJangles]

Life is, at heart, complexity. Complexity is order, the opposite of chaos. Many essential Physics and Chemistry theories contend that:

A) The Universe tends towards chaos
B) Matter tends toward the lowest energy state

Moving towards lower entropy of and higher order requires a huge input of energy.

You are referring to the Laws of Thermodynamics, even if you don't know what they're called. As for your point, it is entirely correct. Things to tend towards disorder. You are, however, viewing our existence on this planet as a closed system, which it most certainly is not. We are part of a much, much larger system that, on the whole, is tending towards increased entropy, which we can see every single moment of our lives. The sun itself is a giant entropy-increasing machine, for example. Because we are part of an open system that both gives and receives energy from the larger system, there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics. While we, on a small scale, may actually have become more complex, the universe is still trending towards decreased complexity.

The other side of the coin, aside from complexity itself, is the struggle.

Life... why struggle? Why swim against the tide?

I'd much rather the god-believers answer that question, considering that biology has pretty much answered it for the rest of us.

 

[totalnoob]

FYI folks, it doesn't matter how improbable life is. The universe is bigger than the human mind can begin to comprehend..so despite astronomical odds against it, it will still arise in many places. I don't think people realize just how frakking big the universe is. Think of it this way. In every galaxy, one supernova (star explosion) happens every 100 years..but if you hold your arm out towards the sky and make a dime-sized hole with your fingers, you will be enclosing roughly 10,000 galaxies with your finger..which means with a proper telescope you would see 10 supernovas PER NIGHT in that dime-sized spot. You can see the flash from one supernova on the bottom left here:

On the scale of the entire universe, astronomers estimate that one star goes supernova EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY..so despite it being an extremely rare event (once per century per galaxy), the universe is so big and so old that it happens constantly.

P.S. Here are some more supernova pics. This is how the shockwave looks after the initial "flash" fades away..

 

[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.

Again I would state that there are only two possibilities concerning a designer: it is or it is not. The character of that designer is nearly irrelevant and, in my opinion, your introduction of this idea of an imperfect being who created us is simply trying to jam a god-like being into ever-dwindling cracks. Regardless of his character, his intentions, or anything like that the fact remains that, based on the evidence we have, there are two facts:

(a) this evidence does not prove that any sort of creator exists.
(b) logically, this evidence points to an extremely small chance of any sort of creator existing, regardless of its personal credo or whatever.

The only question I want to ask you is why? Why do we need a creator? There really seems to be very little (no) evidence that our creator played much of a role in our universe once the big bang got things cooking and if you want to insert him into whatever existed before the universe, I'd contend that move introduces more questions than it answers. For example, we may not know how the singularity came into being, but if we suddenly have a sentient, powerful creature that can whip up a singularity and configure it so that life comes to pass, doesn't that beg the question of how the hell did it get there? Why is it there? Why is it creating a universe? And why is it is completely lacking in participation once the universe gets underway?

 

[MJinZ]

You are referring to the Laws of Thermodynamics, even if you don't know what they're called. As for your point, it is entirely correct. Things to tend towards disorder. You are, however, viewing our existence on this planet as a closed system, which it most certainly is not. We are part of a much, much larger system that, on the whole, is tending towards increased entropy, which we can see every single moment of our lives. The sun itself is a giant entropy-increasing machine, for example. Because we are part of an open system that both gives and receives energy from the larger system, there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics. While we, on a small scale, may actually have become more complex, the universe is still trending towards decreased complexity.



I'd much rather the god-believers answer that question, considering that biology has pretty much answered it for the rest of us.

I have a Bachelors in Chemistry and Biochemistry, and have taken Masters courses in Physics. I know very well what they are called.

There are many theories on nature of the Universe, which is essential to trying to explain Entropy. Assuming the Universe is a closed system, then we must ALL result in highest possible Entropy.

At the heart of it, is the question - why struggle to replicate, why struggle to connect, why struggle to organize? What are we organizing against? What is it about life that pushes against the inevitabilities of the Universe (according to some theories, like Heat Death), or go against tendencies of entropy and energy?

Theorizing the mechanisms of life (Abiogenesis) are elementary rolleyes, compared to answering the real question of the complexity - why does complexity exist at all, against all odds?

I think you are missing the big question, Biology answers nothing as to why "survival" is sought after, why in-animacy has sought to develop self-awareness (that's we ultimately are, aware beings from unaware blocks).

 

[BeauJangles]

I have a Bachelors in Chemistry and Biochemistry, and have taken Masters courses in Physics. I know very well what they are called.

There are many theories on nature of the Universe, which is essential to trying to explain Entropy. Assuming the Universe is a closed system, then we must ALL result in highest possible Entropy.

At the heart of it, is the question - why struggle to replicate, why struggle to connect, why struggle to organize? What are we organizing against? What is it about life that pushes against the inevitabilities of the Universe (according to some theories, like Heat Death), or go against tendencies of entropy and energy?

Theorizing the mechanisms of life (Abiogenesis) are elementary rolleyes, compared to answering the real question of the complexity - why does complexity exist at all, against all odds?

I think you are missing the big question, Biology answers nothing as to why "survival" is sought after, why in-animacy has sought to develop self-awareness (that's we ultimately are, aware beings from unaware blocks).

Why does a car "struggle" up a hill when you press the accelerator? It has nothing to do with "pushing against the [sic] inevitabilities of the Universe" it has to do with the input of energy into a machine. The same applies for life.

 

[shadow9d9]

Thats funny, I dont remember any announcements at mass about Catholicism retreating. I do remember them asking us to pray for the end of abortion and a call for ethical medical research that respects life.

And as far as my faith being blind, quite the opposite is true. I have seen enough evidence of Gods existance throughout my life. Not to mention the angels that serve us on his behalf, like our former family members. ()

As delusional as delusional gets.

You have seen no evidence of god. You have found instances where you choose to correlate something with the god that you want to exist. This is not proof of anything but your extreme desire for something to be.

 

[MJinZ]

Why does a car "struggle" up a hill when you press the accelerator? It has nothing to do with "pushing against the [sic] inevitabilities of the Universe" it has to do with the input of energy into a machine. The same applies for life.

That's completely counter intuitive to the tendencies of the Universe. The Universe tends towards disorder and the lowest energy states. Life does not behave.

Energy input does not explain anything about organization. You are saying that inputting energy allows for organization - that much is obvious. Life needed an energy input to create order. The question is WHY organization occurs at all, because it is in no way a direct result of energy input into a system.

You've likened our existence to - "We exist because the food is hanging there to be eaten".

And to answer your question, the car struggles up hill IN ORDER to combat gravity. That is not the reason WHY a car is attempting to struggle uphill though - the reason WHY is because a HUMAN is pressing an accelerator pedal in an attempt to get somewhere.

An easy example I can give to illustrate my question of "why", is to imagine a bus full of people:

Naturally, strangers will spread out across the seats, and they will be in their lowest possible energy state at the time.

Now imagine two random people decide to sit next to each other in an otherwise empty bus. The question is not how - it is theoretically not impossible. The question is Why, because it is theoretically improbable due to what we know about this closed system (the system should be more disordered, not more ordered, and the potential energy would increase, not decrease when they are next to each other).

The answer in this case is because the two people know other and love each other, or whatever. That is the answer to the big question in this case.

If the answer to OUR big question is simple to struggle, to fight against the odds, or whatever it may be. That's just fine and dandy too. But that's a question worth asking and an answer worth looking for because it will allow you to truly decide what to do in "life".

 

[FelixDeCat]

As delusional as delusional gets.

You have seen no evidence of god. You have found instances where you choose to correlate something with the god that you want to exist. This is not proof of anything but your extreme desire for something to be.

And you think Im delusional? How can you presume to know this? Stop kidding yourself if you think being dismissive is intelligent. It isnt.

 

[shadow9d9]

And you think Im delusional? How can you presume to know this? Stop kidding yourself if you think being dismissive is intelligent. It isnt.

Umm... How do you presume to know that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy?

When you WANT something to exist, like you do, you use observations and warp them to support what you want.. that is NOT proof and NOT knowledge.

You have no more evidence of god than I do of Santa.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Umm... How do you presume to know that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy?

When you WANT something to exist, like you do, you use observations and warp them to support what you want.. that is NOT proof and NOT knowledge.

You have no more evidence of god than I do of Santa.

If you are going to continue to be dismissive of my experiences, then you will learn nothing. Go about your way now, Ive nothing further to discuss with you.

 

[shadow9d9]

If you are going to continue to be dismissive of my experiences, then you will learn nothing. Go about your way now, Ive nothing further to discuss with you.

Your "experiences" are warped to what you want reality to be. When you pray and someone dies you see it as proof that god has meant it to be. When you pray and someone lives, you view it as god's will.

This isn't proof.. it is the equivalent of creating the conclusion before testing evidence. All your evidence will be warped toward the conclusion and what doesn't jibe will be forgotten.

Typical of humans. Still pathetic.

I wouldn't want to live such a fragile existence.

Why do you think you go on "retreats" and church? You need the support of other delusionals so you don't lose your "faith" in fantasy.

 

[BeauJangles]

That's completely counter intuitive to the tendencies of the Universe. The Universe tends towards disorder and the lowest energy states. Life does not behave.

Energy input does not explain anything about organization. You are saying that inputting energy allows for organization - that much is obvious. Life needed an energy input to create order. The question is WHY organization occurs at all, because it is in no way a direct result of energy input into a system.

You've likened our existence to - "We exist because the food is hanging there to be eaten".

And to answer your question, the car struggles up hill IN ORDER to combat gravity. That is not the reason WHY a car is attempting to struggle uphill though - the reason WHY is because a HUMAN is pressing an accelerator pedal in an attempt to get somewhere.

An easy example I can give to illustrate my question of "why", is to imagine a bus full of people:

Naturally, strangers will spread out across the seats, and they will be in their lowest possible energy state at the time.

Now imagine two random people decide to sit next to each other in an otherwise empty bus. The question is not how - it is theoretically not impossible. The question is Why, because it is theoretically improbable due to what we know about this closed system (the system should be more disordered, not more ordered, and the potential energy would increase, not decrease when they are next to each other).

The answer in this case is because the two people know other and love each other, or whatever. That is the answer to the big question in this case.

If the answer to OUR big question is simple to struggle, to fight against the odds, or whatever it may be. That's just fine and dandy too. But that's a question worth asking and an answer worth looking for because it will allow you to truly decide what to do in "life".

Right, I firmly believe that our consciousness is a byproduct of evolution. The fact that we are here to ponder our existence isn't proof of some higher power, it's an intended (or unintended) consequence of evolution. You want to ascribe some greater significance to this event, but I don't.

There are studies that support our consciousness is nothing more than an unintended consequence of evolution. Our subconscious mind makes decisions long before our conscious mind is aware.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unconscious-decisions

Or here, where they've found that our feelings of free will seem to be an illusion:

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...timulation_produces_feelings_of_free_will.php

Again, you can ascribe whatever you want to our existence, but the evidence points to our ability to even ponder this question being entirely an accident. If we rolled the dice again in this universe, I think it is incredibly unlikely we'd be here again.

 

[child of wonder]

I would count myself among the ranks of agnostic atheists. It is possible there is some form of non-corporeal energy or spirit that plays some hand in the existence of the universe but I see no evidence of such and, if there were some entity, I could not ever believe that it cares what clothes we wear, who we have sex with, what we do on Sundays, or what man made religion we profess ourselves to be members of.

That being said, all I know for sure is that I have a life right now and I had better make the best of it. If I can do that, be a good person, contribute something to this crazy world, and try to leave this life as a bit more than a talking chimp then I'll happily take my chances with whatever might exist after this life.

 

[totalnoob]

Your "experiences" are warped to what you want reality to be.

This is how it works..

 

[BeauJangles]

If you are going to continue to be dismissive of my experiences, then you will learn nothing. Go about your way now, Ive nothing further to discuss with you.

What he's saying is that our best techniques at evaluating statements like "prayer affects lives" has shown that there is zero correlation. You are free to believe what you will, but there is no connection between prayer and results in life, at least nothing that has been demonstrated in a controlled manner.

 

[MJinZ]

Right, I firmly believe that our consciousness is a byproduct of evolution. The fact that we are here to ponder our existence isn't proof of some higher power, it's an intended (or unintended) consequence of evolution. You want to ascribe some greater significance to this event, but I don't.

There are studies that support our consciousness is nothing more than an unintended consequence of evolution. Our subconscious mind makes decisions long before our conscious mind is aware.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unconscious-decisions

Or here, where they've found that our feelings of free will seem to be an illusion:

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...timulation_produces_feelings_of_free_will.php

Again, you can ascribe whatever you want to our existence, but the evidence points to our ability to even ponder this question being entirely an accident. If we rolled the dice again in this universe, I think it is incredibly unlikely we'd be here again.

Well, I don't need to ascribe a higher significance, what I want is to know why our existence as we know it happened in the first place - not how.

And what you said supports my point to a degree, probability. If something is so improbable from a random standpoint, conversely, what is the probability that it isn't random?

PS - Consciousness and Free Will are whole other topics and bags of worms.

 

[child of wonder]

Well, I don't need to ascribe a higher significance, what I want is to know why our existence as we know it happened in the first place - not how.

And what you said supports my point to a degree, probability. If something is so improbable from a random standpoint, conversely, what is the probability that it isn't random?

PS - Consciousness and Free Will are whole other topics and bags of worms.

Why must there be a "why?"

If we're here by accident why can't we consider ourselves lucky and make the most of the lives we have?

Why MUST there have been some cosmic force or entity that intended us to be here? Must we be so solipsistic and arrogant?

 

[MJinZ]

I would count myself among the ranks of agnostic atheists. It is possible there is some form of non-corporeal energy or spirit that plays some hand in the existence of the universe but I see no evidence of such and, if there were some entity, I could not ever believe that it cares what clothes we wear, who we have sex with, what we do on Sundays, or what man made religion we profess ourselves to be members of.

That being said, all I know for sure is that I have a life right now and I had better make the best of it. If I can do that, be a good person, contribute something to this crazy world, and try to leave this life as a bit more than a talking chimp then I'll happily take my chances with whatever might exist after this life.

Those beliefs are universal amongst people, whether they are self-professed Atheists or not.

And the fact remains, if they are truly Atheists, they have no rational reason to behave in such a manner.