Got Faith?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
well its hard to believe that one would have to spell it out for you moonie.
Mother Teresa basically spent her life loving and careing for the unloved.

Teresa received Vatican permission on October 7, 1950 to start the diocesan congregation which would become the Missionaries of Charity.[14] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine
Text

whereas the other desires only to spread hate and murder.

Radical Preachings
In January 2007, Usamah was filmed by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches in their investigation titled Undercover Mosque. Some of his preaching that was secretly filmed included a number of anti-Western, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, and other controversial sentiments.[1][2]

Abu Usamah has told worshippers Osama Bin Laden is "better than a million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" and that non-Muslims are "pathological liars."[1]

Abu Usamah stated that Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state. He says that apostates of islam should be killed.[3]

Regarding women, he said, "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."[1]

Abu Usamah said, "No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar. We hate the kuffaar."[1]

Abu Usamah stated in defense that the documentary had quoted him "out of context."[4]


Text

they were/are both "RELIGIOUS" but stand for 2 very opposite things

How are they opposite when each believes their individual interpretations are right? Both are dedicated to the God of their understanding.

your just being obtuse now.
If there are no absolutes or laws in the universe, no right no wrong, no good no evil, no truth no lies,no up no down, no in no out if everything is relative to your own understanding then civilization itself would dissapear.

If I believe your an hallucination of someones drunken stupor and that you will go away to never post on andantech again does my relative understanding make it truth?

I am being obtuse because you are being diffuse. What you have in common with your two examples is a belief that you know the absolute. But in this battle between all these different yet absolute truths, how do I know who is right and how do you. The difference between you and me, it seems to me, is that I open myself to questions whereas you are certain you know. What I know about the certain is that they look to me to be insane. They believe without doubt at all. Everything is obviously absolute and no two absolutes are the same. What you do not tell me is why you believe what you believe. Why is your good the good?

by posting a reply on andantech and not disappearing you have disproved your own philosophy.

What philosophy. I have asked you questions and shown your answers answer nothing at all in my opinion.


taken from above the only need according to you for something to be true or false or good or bad is for that to be someones understanding of what is true or good or bad or false.
therefore I stated:
If I believe your an hallucination of someones drunken stupor and that you will go away to never post on andantech again does my relative understanding make it truth?[/Q]
since you posted and didn't go away my relative understanding had no basis in reality/truth or life.
Ones opinion is never influenced when ones mind is already settled. therefore why are we playing ping pong...Your serve.

Hehe, no. What I said was that since both believe their ideas to be the Will of God, how are we going to distinguish one faith from the other? I did not say the two beliefs are equivalent, I asked you to tell me how to tell them apart since each of the two is equally self convinced and your opinion looks just the same to me. You are asking me to believe a two to one vote based on nothing but belief, no? How is a person to know what really is the GOOD, when everybody believes that what they believe is good and everybody believes something different? I did not say there is no absolute truth; I just asked you what it is and how will I know?

between feeding a hungry child and advocating murder of non muslums (kufars) confuses you as to which is good and which is bad?
Your conscience itself tells you which is good and which is bad. therefore it is a third witness .
I am however glad to hear you recognize the concept of absolutes.

Ah, so it is a matter of conscience. Now tell me what that is. Why does one person with a conscience kill and another does not? Is one lacking in conscience or just not listening? How do we know when our conscience is right? I often see the last cookie in a jar as my birth right but having eaten it begin to wonder. What is going on?

Have you begun to see that perhaps you do not know?

Even though the knowledge of what is right and wrong is within all, that conscience can be ignored (free will).
Thus the needs for an absolute.
thou shalt not kill (old testament)
Love thy neighbor as thyself(new testament)

Left to our own with relative values every man will do what is right in his own eyes.

let me also freely admit, not all christians are Mother Teresa, nor all muslums Abu Usamah .
each person is on thier own journey in different places and will give account some day for thier actions be they good or evil.
A christian is not perfect , he is merely forgiven.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Your right in and of myself, I know nothing.
the wisdom is not mine it is Gods.
Do you begin to see you know even less?
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.

Ah, absolutes built on the Christian faith. So truth just depends on having been brought up as a Christian. And the absolute is what is in a text.

I always found it odd that those brought up in one culture think of absolutes in one way and those in another another. I sough and I sought and I sought to find something deeper than that. How can what is the Good just happen to be what those who raised us believe and not what those people over there believe. Surely when you see how ridiculous what others believe is, you have to apply that to yourself. And suppose, for example, that you lose faith in your God. Are we going to see you running berserk tomorrow in the streets?

How can the absolute have anything to do with religious faith since there are hundreds and hundreds of them?

 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.
"Just a theory" doesn't cut it. I suspect your understanding of the meaning of the word, "theory" is a bit weak. Let's start with a real definition of the word:
the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e)
n., pl. the·o·ries.
  1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
  2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
  3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
  4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
  5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
  6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The last definition appears to be what you have in mind and is common in less demanding conversation, but in science, a theory is only acceptable if it has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Furthermore, it takes only one exception to disprove a theory.

Creationism, "creation science" and other so-called "theories" of divine causation simply do not meet the criteria for a valid theory. They can't be tested, and they can't be used to describe or to make repeated, accurate predictions about natural phenomena in any meaningful way.

Unless you can disprove evolution, or at least provide an alternative that can be tested in the real world, it's the only explanation that fits the criteria to be accepted as a scientifically valid theory.

Harvey, you are the most beautiful athiest I know. How do your roses bloom each year? Can you prove that? ;)

 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel49
well its hard to believe that one would have to spell it out for you moonie.
Mother Teresa basically spent her life loving and careing for the unloved.

Teresa received Vatican permission on October 7, 1950 to start the diocesan congregation which would become the Missionaries of Charity.[14] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine
Text

whereas the other desires only to spread hate and murder.

Radical Preachings
In January 2007, Usamah was filmed by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches in their investigation titled Undercover Mosque. Some of his preaching that was secretly filmed included a number of anti-Western, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, and other controversial sentiments.[1][2]

Abu Usamah has told worshippers Osama Bin Laden is "better than a million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" and that non-Muslims are "pathological liars."[1]

Abu Usamah stated that Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state. He says that apostates of islam should be killed.[3]

Regarding women, he said, "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."[1]

Abu Usamah said, "No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar. We hate the kuffaar."[1]

Abu Usamah stated in defense that the documentary had quoted him "out of context."[4]


Text

they were/are both "RELIGIOUS" but stand for 2 very opposite things

How are they opposite when each believes their individual interpretations are right? Both are dedicated to the God of their understanding.

your just being obtuse now.
If there are no absolutes or laws in the universe, no right no wrong, no good no evil, no truth no lies,no up no down, no in no out if everything is relative to your own understanding then civilization itself would dissapear.

If I believe your an hallucination of someones drunken stupor and that you will go away to never post on andantech again does my relative understanding make it truth?

I am being obtuse because you are being diffuse. What you have in common with your two examples is a belief that you know the absolute. But in this battle between all these different yet absolute truths, how do I know who is right and how do you. The difference between you and me, it seems to me, is that I open myself to questions whereas you are certain you know. What I know about the certain is that they look to me to be insane. They believe without doubt at all. Everything is obviously absolute and no two absolutes are the same. What you do not tell me is why you believe what you believe. Why is your good the good?

by posting a reply on andantech and not disappearing you have disproved your own philosophy.

What philosophy. I have asked you questions and shown your answers answer nothing at all in my opinion.


taken from above the only need according to you for something to be true or false or good or bad is for that to be someones understanding of what is true or good or bad or false.
therefore I stated:
If I believe your an hallucination of someones drunken stupor and that you will go away to never post on andantech again does my relative understanding make it truth?[/Q]
since you posted and didn't go away my relative understanding had no basis in reality/truth or life.
Ones opinion is never influenced when ones mind is already settled. therefore why are we playing ping pong...Your serve.

Hehe, no. What I said was that since both believe their ideas to be the Will of God, how are we going to distinguish one faith from the other? I did not say the two beliefs are equivalent, I asked you to tell me how to tell them apart since each of the two is equally self convinced and your opinion looks just the same to me. You are asking me to believe a two to one vote based on nothing but belief, no? How is a person to know what really is the GOOD, when everybody believes that what they believe is good and everybody believes something different? I did not say there is no absolute truth; I just asked you what it is and how will I know?

between feeding a hungry child and advocating murder of non muslums (kufars) confuses you as to which is good and which is bad?
Your conscience itself tells you which is good and which is bad. therefore it is a third witness .
I am however glad to hear you recognize the concept of absolutes.

Ah, so it is a matter of conscience. Now tell me what that is. Why does one person with a conscience kill and another does not? Is one lacking in conscience or just not listening? How do we know when our conscience is right? I often see the last cookie in a jar as my birth right but having eaten it begin to wonder. What is going on?

Have you begun to see that perhaps you do not know?

Even though the knowledge of what is right and wrong is within all, that conscience can be ignored (free will).
Thus the needs for an absolute.
thou shalt not kill (old testament)
Love thy neighbor as thyself(new testament)

Left to our own with relative values every man will do what is right in his own eyes.

let me also freely admit, not all christians are Mother Teresa, nor all muslums Abu Usamah .
each person is on thier own journey in different places and will give account some day for thier actions be they good or evil.
A christian is not perfect , he is merely forgiven.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Your right in and of myself, I know nothing.
the wisdom is not mine it is Gods.
Do you begin to see you know even less?
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.

Ah, absolutes built on the Christian faith. So truth just depends on having been brought up as a Christian.

Actually I wasn't brought up christian , I was raised with no faith evident in the family unit. So no it was not dependant upon that either. It was more the seeking part after childhood)

And the absolute is what is in a text.
(yes)

I always found it odd that those brought up in one culture think of absolutes in one way and those in another another. I sough and I sought and I sought to find something deeper than that. How can what is the Good just happen to be what those who raised us believe and not what those people over there believe.

(again it was not the culture or my raising it is the absolutes set forth in the text itself. Actually as I am sure you know it too (the text) was from over there)

Surely when you see how ridiculous what others believe is, you have to apply that to yourself.

( I can only apply what I have seen and that is that there is a loving God that desires a personel relationship with you. And even though I do not believe those that say he does not exist, if I accept such for 5 minutes and consider the possabilities, my losses are at the most that I have lived a good moral life and learned how to love myself and others by following Christs teachings, not that I have attained but that I shall learn a little more each day and hopefully apply them a little better today then I did the day before)

And suppose, for example, that you lose faith in your God. Are we going to see you running berserk tomorrow in the streets?

Beserk? no, but I do hope you see me running. As I need more exercise.

How can the absolute have anything to do with religious faith since there are hundreds and hundreds of them?

(how can it not a religion should not be any more relative then an individual and there are billions of those)
this probably won't help you but let me throw it out anyway for whatever its worth.
I have always felt that "religion" was more mans attempt to reach out to God.
However Gods attempt to reach out to man (according to the text) was/is Jesus Christ through whom there is reconciliation with God.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.
So you think you can justify your own mythology with nothing more than the writings of your own mythology? If that's the best you've got, you've got a lot more seeking of your own to do. :roll:
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Here is a simplified summary of what I'm saying: "As a group, the mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was reduced or eliminated, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was reduced or eliminated, etc. (Table I). These are not mutations that can account for the origin of those cellular systems and activities. While these mutations would certainly be ?beneficial? for bacterial survival when an antibiotic is present in the environment, this benefit is at the expense of a previously existing function.

This is not a rule by any means, sometimes the resistance is built up by removing the part that was attacted by teh antibiotic, but other times new structures are developed. For example one of the primary modes of resistance is the development of chemical pumps in the cell membrane which selectively remove the antibiotic, this requries the ADDITION of a new structure and function to the bacteria. Saying that all observable mutations result in the removal of information is simply not true.

Please give me one example of a new structure and function being developed by a mutation dealing with antibiotic resistance.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Yes, but the portion of the theory of evolution that is debated is not observed... that is, the creation of new genetic information by natural processes.
No, you are wrong, according to both Shannon and Kolmogorov/Chaitin information theories.

You'll have to be more specific than that. A simple "No, your are wrong" won't cut it. I could retort that "No, indeed, you are wrong" but we're trying to have a scientific discussion here. Of course, I understand it is much easier to just negate my points, rather than disprove them.

Originally posted by: Garth
Tell me, when you used the term "information" in your claim above, how did you define it? Do you even understand how it is measured?

I would define information as specified complexity, which is based on Information Theorist Lee Spetner's work on the subject.

The ability to quantify information is indeed a complicated mathematical and scientific study, but it is neither impossible nor illogical to note loss in information due to decreased substrate specificity, reduced catalytic activity, reduced binding strength, etc. All of these parts go into what would be considered the "information content" of a DNA segment coding for an enzyme.

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
So personally, I have reasons to not accept the theory of evolution, both religious and scientific. And I do not consider myself ignorant or unintelligent because of this.
There are no valid scientific reasons to reject the theory of evolution. If there were, certainly a Nobel Prize would await the first person to publish them.

That is an outlandish claim to make, and such attitudes do a great disservice to science, which is supposed to be in the business of proving it's claims false.

And besides, the last creationist who did anything worthy of a Nobel Prize was snubbed by the committee, due to his dissenting view on evolution.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.
So you think you can justify your own mythology with nothing more than the writings of your own mythology? If that's the best you've got, you've got a lot more seeking of your own to do. :roll:

And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.


 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.
So you think you can justify your own mythology with nothing more than the writings of your own mythology? If that's the best you've got, you've got a lot more seeking of your own to do. :roll:

And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.

You should really study your religion more closely. A sizable chunk of your dogma on heaven and hell comes from renaissance fiction writers. BTW, please find me four places in the new testament that mention hell. Thanks. If you need to you can use the old testament too.

Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: techs
100% of the Taliban believe in Allah.
Whats your point?

the devil believes in God too. whats your point.

I think you've found the answer, you should ask yourself what it means.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.
So you think you can justify your own mythology with nothing more than the writings of your own mythology? If that's the best you've got, you've got a lot more seeking of your own to do. :roll:

And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.

You should really study your religion more closely. A sizable chunk of your dogma on heaven and hell comes from renaissance fiction writers. BTW, please find me four places in the new testament that mention hell. Thanks. If you need to you can use the old testament too.

Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: techs
100% of the Taliban believe in Allah.
Whats your point?

the devil believes in God too. whats your point.

I think you've found the answer, you should ask yourself what it means.

mike if you honestly have questions please pm me and I will try to honestly answer them.
However if your goal is simply to argue with me because it makes you feel better about the choices you have made, the argument is counter productive.
I am not going to waste a lot of time arguing with atheists who already have thier minds made up.
while 9 in 10 americans believe in God .
in P and N its probably more like 1 in 10.
this was the op as you recall, and I do not want the thread to turn into an argufest.
with me trying to defend my beliefs in a half dozen arguments with different individuals.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Here is a simplified summary of what I'm saying: "As a group, the mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was reduced or eliminated, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was reduced or eliminated, etc. (Table I). These are not mutations that can account for the origin of those cellular systems and activities. While these mutations would certainly be ?beneficial? for bacterial survival when an antibiotic is present in the environment, this benefit is at the expense of a previously existing function.

This is not a rule by any means, sometimes the resistance is built up by removing the part that was attacted by teh antibiotic, but other times new structures are developed. For example one of the primary modes of resistance is the development of chemical pumps in the cell membrane which selectively remove the antibiotic, this requries the ADDITION of a new structure and function to the bacteria. Saying that all observable mutations result in the removal of information is simply not true.

Please give me one example of a new structure and function being developed by a mutation dealing with antibiotic resistance.

Honestly, go on google and look up drug resistant bacteria. You'd have a much harder time finding a way in which one could become resistant WITHOUT developing a new structure. Even the simplest mode of drug resistance (point mutation of the attacked protien) result in a protien with an altered structure. Further, the development of efflux pumps is a main pathway for multiple drug resistant bacteria. Tell than why pumps would exist to selectively pump out drugs that didn't even exist 20 years ago? These structures in fact did not exist, they evolved (from efflux pumps with other functions) to target antibiotics. These means developing both new structures and functions. You want examples? Google "drug resistant efflux pump evolution" and you can have thousands.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: daniel49
And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.
I agree with your second goal. I don't think it takes any kind of deity to come to the realization that it's makes good common sense. If you think about it, it's just a lot easier and more enjoyable way to live.

It also doesn't take any kind of deity to respect the vastness and wonder of the unknown, but in case you didn't notice, some of yesteday's unknown is now understood as scientific phenomena. Of course, a lot of what we've learned has just enabled us to see how much more we don't know. :cool:

Assuming for the moment that some all powerful single deity exists, how pathetically petty and small it must be if it cares more about which rituals we follow on which days, or which names we use to describe it, than whether we actually try live our lives consistant with your second goal, let alone why such a deity would demand that we remain ignorant and fearful of its manifestations. :roll:
 

Luthien

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2004
1,721
0
0
Assuming for the moment that some all powerful single deity exists, how pathetically petty and small it must be if it cares more about which rituals we follow on which days, or which names we use to describe it, than whether we actually try live our lives consistant with your second goal, let alone why such a deity would demand that we remain ignorant and fearful of its manifestations.

Well, said.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.
See? And that's what I find particularly interesting about the faithful of any religion. They believe what they believe because its the safe choice. They "win" if it turns out there is a God and if they're wrong, so what? Except, there's something inherently wrong with that decision-making process. I just can't put my finger on it ... perhaps someone can help me out?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Yes, but the portion of the theory of evolution that is debated is not observed... that is, the creation of new genetic information by natural processes.
No, you are wrong, according to both Shannon and Kolmogorov/Chaitin information theories.

You'll have to be more specific than that. A simple "No, your are wrong" won't cut it. I could retort that "No, indeed, you are wrong" but we're trying to have a scientific discussion here. Of course, I understand it is much easier to just negate my points, rather than disprove them.
No, I really don't have to, because as of yet you haven't defined what you mean by "information."

Originally posted by: Garth
Tell me, when you used the term "information" in your claim above, how did you define it? Do you even understand how it is measured?

I would define information as specified complexity, which is based on Information Theorist Lee Spetner's work on the subject.
Which is... ?

The ability to quantify information is indeed a complicated mathematical and scientific study, but it is neither impossible nor illogical to note loss in information due to decreased substrate specificity, reduced catalytic activity, reduced binding strength, etc. All of these parts go into what would be considered the "information content" of a DNA segment coding for an enzyme.
And how exactly is that information quantified and measured, hmm? Do you even know?

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
So personally, I have reasons to not accept the theory of evolution, both religious and scientific. And I do not consider myself ignorant or unintelligent because of this.
There are no valid scientific reasons to reject the theory of evolution. If there were, certainly a Nobel Prize would await the first person to publish them.

That is an outlandish claim to make, and such attitudes do a great disservice to science, which is supposed to be in the business of proving it's claims false.
It is. The fact that evolution has not been so falsified is the best testament to its validity.

And besides, the last creationist who did anything worthy of a Nobel Prize was snubbed by the committee, due to his dissenting view on evolution.
Irrelevant.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: daniel49

And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.

Good grief you did NOT just pull out Pascal's Wager and attempt to use it as a persuasive argument, did you?

And you religious folk wonder why we take you for the ignoramuses you so often turn out to be...

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't pretend to be able to answer every question that you have in a way that is meaningful to you individually, but I can point to one who can.


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.



Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


I would not even want to convince you to be a convert through debate.
truth must be found on your own. I cannot seek for you.
So you think you can justify your own mythology with nothing more than the writings of your own mythology? If that's the best you've got, you've got a lot more seeking of your own to do. :roll:

And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.

You should really study your religion more closely. A sizable chunk of your dogma on heaven and hell comes from renaissance fiction writers. BTW, please find me four places in the new testament that mention hell. Thanks. If you need to you can use the old testament too.

Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: techs
100% of the Taliban believe in Allah.
Whats your point?

the devil believes in God too. whats your point.

I think you've found the answer, you should ask yourself what it means.

mike if you honestly have questions please pm me and I will try to honestly answer them.
However if your goal is simply to argue with me because it makes you feel better about the choices you have made, the argument is counter productive.
I am not going to waste a lot of time arguing with atheists who already have thier minds made up.
while 9 in 10 americans believe in God .
in P and N its probably more like 1 in 10.
this was the op as you recall, and I do not want the thread to turn into an argufest.
with me trying to defend my beliefs in a half dozen arguments with different individuals.

so in other words you have nothing. I'm trying to save you from your own delusions, and ideally the rest of the world as well.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Garth
Good grief you did NOT just pull out Pascal's Wager and attempt to use it as a persuasive argument, did you?

And you religious folk wonder why we take you for the ignoramuses you so often turn out to be...
He sure did.
Pascal's Wager

The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way:
  • Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up? Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
In his Wager, Pascal provides an analytical process for a person to evaluate options in regarding belief in God. As Pascal sets it out, the options are two: believe or not believe. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:
  • You believe in God.
    • If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
    • If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
  • You do not believe in God.
  • If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
  • If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions).
Guess he wanted to go out in a Blaise of glory. :laugh:

I like this item near the end of the article:
Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a God that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:
  • You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey

Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a God that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:
  • You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

With no intention of being dragged into the religious debate here, there is a fairly major flaw in this argument. Simply because you're a good person doesn't mean you got to 'heaven'. There is more to it than just that, so this argument doesn't really work. Not that I agree with Pascal's wager, as I think it's rather dumb, but whatever.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: daniel49
And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.
See? And that's what I find particularly interesting about the faithful of any religion. They believe what they believe because its the safe choice. They "win" if it turns out there is a God and if they're wrong, so what? Except, there's something inherently wrong with that decision-making process. I just can't put my finger on it ... perhaps someone can help me out?
I think it's rather simple really. It's all about self importance. God has a club wherein only believers can join. All others go to hell. That makes daniel very special in his own mind. He is going to heaven and he gets to experience the piety and love for the rest of us sinners who are going to hell. It is a passive agressive sort of revenge he takes on those he damns via the vicarious damnation of God, all hidden behind pity.

I could never figure a god who would give somebody free will, place them in an ignorant and cruel world, and then send them to hell if they don't find Jesus. I thought God is greater than you can imagine and I can easily imagine a God greater than that.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49
And you think by your unbelief you can justify yourself when you stand before God someday.
If I'm wrong. I simply tried to live my life by the two greatest commandments
1) to love God with my whole being
2) to love my neighbor as myself
and have suffered no ill gain.

If your wrong however you have lost your very soul.
your choice is your choice my choice is my choice.
I agree with your second goal. I don't think it takes any kind of deity to come to the realization that it's makes good common sense. If you think about it, it's just a lot easier and more enjoyable way to live.

It also doesn't take any kind of deity to respect the vastness and wonder of the unknown, but in case you didn't notice, some of yesteday's unknown is now understood as scientific phenomena. Of course, a lot of what we've learned has just enabled us to see how much more we don't know. :cool:

Assuming for the moment that some all powerful single deity exists, how pathetically petty and small it must be if it cares more about which rituals we follow on which days, or which names we use to describe it, than whether we actually try live our lives consistant with your second goal, let alone why such a deity would demand that we remain ignorant and fearful of its manifestations. :roll:

If I may expand on the bolded above, it was close to that which I was asking daniel to see by looking into why he believes what he believes. The experience of love, the love of another as we should love ourselves bring on the phenomenon of joy or being bliss. The Good is that which burns the self away in the love of the other, the infinite joy that comes to those who die to the ego in the love of the other, of God, of the universe, of love itself, who cares what you want to call it because the you who needs names disappears and only love is left.

"I am the Good, the Good is what I will." It is what it means, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." The lover and the beloved are one.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Harvey

Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a God that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:
  • You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

With no intention of being dragged into the religious debate here, there is a fairly major flaw in this argument. Simply because you're a good person doesn't mean you got to 'heaven'. There is more to it than just that, so this argument doesn't really work. Not that I agree with Pascal's wager, as I think it's rather dumb, but whatever.
The depends on the religion.

More importantly, it's quite legitimate to ask why a God (or gods) would demand something from a person, other than that I try to make the world around them better.

If that's the case, what is the moral justification? A person might quite justifiably state that these gods can send them wherever they like, but preferably far away from their narcissistic pettiness.