We are called atheists
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 9:38:30 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
By Observer
We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the minds of
men and women according to their convictions there about . The label
makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to . We are
individuals , many of whom , search for sound foundations upon which
to place reasonable trust ,that such will provide for a life
consistent with the betterment of the entire family of living
creatures , with whom we share not only kinship but interdependence .
All sociopolitical induced “moral structures” of the past have been
poorly constructed of ideological concepts which were poverty
stricken, by the near universally accepted ignorance and superstitions
there-within . Groups attempting to achieve dominance over and
protection from other groups , believing that the perpetuation of
their own ideologies would keep them powerful and safe lead the way to
counter productive derision , injustice, and even atrocities. Such
inclusive of, but not limited to, all religions which adapted a
fictive god thing wherein were projected their own human frailties
relating to anger, jealousy, revenge,cruelty, and a need for absolute
obedience and other human propensities.
We live and behave in much the same way now , save that we have many
among us who have the requisite intelligence , educational and ,
experiential endowments necessary to introduce new scientifically
derived and reasonably dependable data , heavily influencing ,not
only our mechanical abilities to provide for the needs and wants of
sentient creatures but to equally supply in depth data of profound
utility in our evolution in ethically related matters.
And so with ,the above mentioned cognoscente, we begin our joyous
though sometimes bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown,
being fully aware of the wisdom of insecurity.
We are a large and growing segment of the worlds population who rely
on reason , logic, scientific method and, the necessity of critical
thinking in the determination of what is and is not probable.
Discarding the most improbable, nonsensical , meaninglessness of
religions and adapting ,daily, to new discoveries , we hope to
influence those ignorant of or in rejection of the tools of the
cognoscente,
to learn a new way of thinking and to thereby free themselves from the
debilitating influence of religion/superstition.
Such is a complex and difficult task as those, infected with these
memes, are oft or at least sometimes influenced by electrochemical
brain functions ,releasing powerful endogenous opiates and other
chemicals which produce, industrial-strength feel good sensations and
occasionally hallucinatory experiences which serve to addict them .
Not all can be reached as their habituated thought patterns and the
reinforcement of such as stated above have become much more powerful
than their abilities to question or to see that such is only symbolic
of their inadequacy to find or understand the meaning satisfaction
and joy, in a universe unguided by intelligence, and which cares not
what happens to any portion thereof .
They have mindlessly eschewed the thrill of discovery in favor of
religious morbidity. Those, few, who
can share some of this wondrous joy proceed, immediately to , defile
such by asserting that none the less , and without regard to the
antithetical aspects of such discoveries, to religious/superstitious
ideologies, their fictive god “dun it”.
Linguistic barriers exceed the abilities of communication when
theists insist the the universe was “created” when more simply such is
best described with the phrase”extended in and of space” such space
being unhampered by the limitations of time , intent, or
“intelligence” which ,necessarily extends all that exists within and
of its self by virtue very minimal properties.
They prefer to add an unnecessary and meaningless idea of additional
complexity by asserting , that a creature of infinite power,
intelligence, benevolence, brought our universe into existence by some
sort of magical powers inherent therein.
Further they insist that the universe is fine tuned for the benefit of
man kind, when it is obvious that our little world is a tiny, but
dynamic exception to the fact that most anywhere out side of this
small spherical safety zone, the universe would kill us
instantly ,unless, we encase our selves in a device capable of life
support, and then, only for a limited time.
I would like to invite all who read these words to simply experiment
with the tools of the cognoscente and see what might be discoverable
remembering that the process of applying reason, logic ,scientific
method and critical thinking is home port for an intelligent
inquirer .
If you can not bring your self to believe that there exists no god and
non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
unattended or unexplored.
If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
quandary as helpfully as possible.
Your questions should best be amenable to logic, reason, scientific
method, and a reasonable reliance on the produce thereof and to which
the precise rules of critical thought can be applied. If not , then,
ask them anyway.
All else, however, is meaningless rhetoric to which one can only
reply with lessons in the tools of the cognoscente listed above.
With that ,we we invite you to join our joyous though sometimes
bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown.
Regards to all
Psychonomist
We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the minds of
men and women according to their convictions there about . The label
makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to . We are
individuals , many of whom , search for sound foundations upon which
to place reasonable trust ,that such will provide for a life
consistent with the betterment of the entire family of living
creatures , with whom we share not only kinship but interdependence .
All sociopolitical induced “moral structures” of the past have been
poorly constructed of ideological concepts which were poverty
stricken, by the near universally accepted ignorance and superstitions
there-within . Groups attempting to achieve dominance over and
protection from other groups , believing that the perpetuation of
their own ideologies would keep them powerful and safe lead the way to
counter productive derision , injustice, and even atrocities. Such
inclusive of, but not limited to, all religions which adapted a
fictive god thing wherein were projected their own human frailties
relating to anger, jealousy, revenge,cruelty, and a need for absolute
obedience and other human propensities.
We live and behave in much the same way now , save that we have many
among us who have the requisite intelligence , educational and ,
experiential endowments necessary to introduce new scientifically
derived and reasonably dependable data , heavily influencing ,not
only our mechanical abilities to provide for the needs and wants of
sentient creatures but to equally supply in depth data of profound
utility in our evolution in ethically related matters.
And so with ,the above mentioned cognoscente, we begin our joyous
though sometimes bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown,
being fully aware of the wisdom of insecurity.
We are a large and growing segment of the worlds population who rely
on reason , logic, scientific method and, the necessity of critical
thinking in the determination of what is and is not probable.
Discarding the most improbable, nonsensical , meaninglessness of
religions and adapting ,daily, to new discoveries , we hope to
influence those ignorant of or in rejection of the tools of the
cognoscente,
to learn a new way of thinking and to thereby free themselves from the
debilitating influence of religion/superstition.
Such is a complex and difficult task as those, infected with these
memes, are oft or at least sometimes influenced by electrochemical
brain functions ,releasing powerful endogenous opiates and other
chemicals which produce, industrial-strength feel good sensations and
occasionally hallucinatory experiences which serve to addict them .
Not all can be reached as their habituated thought patterns and the
reinforcement of such as stated above have become much more powerful
than their abilities to question or to see that such is only symbolic
of their inadequacy to find or understand the meaning satisfaction
and joy, in a universe unguided by intelligence, and which cares not
what happens to any portion thereof .
They have mindlessly eschewed the thrill of discovery in favor of
religious morbidity. Those, few, who
can share some of this wondrous joy proceed, immediately to , defile
such by asserting that none the less , and without regard to the
antithetical aspects of such discoveries, to religious/superstitious
ideologies, their fictive god “dun it”.
Linguistic barriers exceed the abilities of communication when
theists insist the the universe was “created” when more simply such is
best described with the phrase”extended in and of space” such space
being unhampered by the limitations of time , intent, or
“intelligence” which ,necessarily extends all that exists within and
of its self by virtue very minimal properties.
They prefer to add an unnecessary and meaningless idea of additional
complexity by asserting , that a creature of infinite power,
intelligence, benevolence, brought our universe into existence by some
sort of magical powers inherent therein.
Further they insist that the universe is fine tuned for the benefit of
man kind, when it is obvious that our little world is a tiny, but
dynamic exception to the fact that most anywhere out side of this
small spherical safety zone, the universe would kill us
instantly ,unless, we encase our selves in a device capable of life
support, and then, only for a limited time.
I would like to invite all who read these words to simply experiment
with the tools of the cognoscente and see what might be discoverable
remembering that the process of applying reason, logic ,scientific
method and critical thinking is home port for an intelligent
inquirer .
If you can not bring your self to believe that there exists no god and
non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
unattended or unexplored.
If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
quandary as helpfully as possible.
Your questions should best be amenable to logic, reason, scientific
method, and a reasonable reliance on the produce thereof and to which
the precise rules of critical thought can be applied. If not , then,
ask them anyway.
All else, however, is meaningless rhetoric to which one can only
reply with lessons in the tools of the cognoscente listed above.
With that ,we we invite you to join our joyous though sometimes
bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown.
Regards to all
Psychonomist
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 9:49:03 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Nicely put Dave. I await with interest as to what the discussion
becomes..............
becomes..............
Birric Forcella
<erniecat1@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 10:37:08 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Be careful. You may attract rabbits.
Birric Forcella
Better explanations rule !
Birric Forcella
Better explanations rule !
Bill Bowden
<bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>May 9, 2012, 12:01:59 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
> If you can not bring your self to believe that there exists no god and
> non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
> such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
> method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
> unattended or unexplored.
>
> If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
> address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
> problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
> quandary as helpfully as possible.
>
Yes, I still can't figure out how a single-cell organism evolved
> non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
> such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
> method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
> unattended or unexplored.
>
> If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
> address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
> problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
> quandary as helpfully as possible.
>
without some engineer putting it together.
http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-problems-for-evolution/
"The design of living things has always been a huge problem for
evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably
complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing
important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of
statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds
that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise
by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely
arranged amino acids.
And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working
parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be
present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life is
impossible without an Intelligent Designer."
-Bill
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 2:37:27 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 9:01 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:
> On May 8, 6:38 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By Observer
>
> > If you can not bring your self to believe that there exists no god and
> > non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
> > such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
> > method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
> > unattended or unexplored.
>
> > If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
> > address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
> > problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
> > quandary as helpfully as possible.
>
> Yes, I still can't figure out how a single-cell organism evolved
> without some engineer putting it together.
>
LL. What you can't figure out has no bearing wjatsoever on the
>
> > By Observer
>
> > If you can not bring your self to believe that there exists no god and
> > non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
> > such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
> > method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
> > unattended or unexplored.
>
> > If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
> > address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
> > problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
> > quandary as helpfully as possible.
>
> Yes, I still can't figure out how a single-cell organism evolved
> without some engineer putting it together.
>
truth.
> http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-problems-for-evolution/
>
> "The design of living things has always been a huge problem for
> evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably
> complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing
> important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of
> statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds
> that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise
> by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely
> arranged amino acids.
evolved over millions of years. By "Evolutionists," you presumably
mean people who accept evolution as a scientific probability above all
others. They don't have a problem with it. It's creationists who
have a problem with it. It's no problem at all for people who accept
evolution as the best explanation for life so far. They are not
scratching their heads wondering how it could be true. It's poor
deluded creationists who are doing that.
.......
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 3:50:15 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
For some reason my response to Bill did not come through. So, if it
does I apologize for the double post.
Please note these two hypotheses Bill.
Hypothesis 1.
The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species
giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes,
said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just
astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of
silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680
zeros. (Editor’s note: In the seventh paragraph, "10 followed by
2,680 zeros" has been changed to "1 followed by 2,680 zeros.) So the
statement part referring to 1 in 10 to the 2,680th power should be
deleted and just “1 followed by 2,680 zeros “ should be the correct
Maths.
Hypothesis 2 – the creationist hypothesis:
The creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have
no evolutionary ancestors.
The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans
is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the
probability that humans were created separately from everything else
is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.
(As of publication time, requests for interviews with several
creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.)
So, even before you can talk about single celled organisms, you really
need to address the maths, don’t you?
On May 9, 2:01 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:
For some reason my response to Bill did not come through. So, if it
does I apologize for the double post.
Please note these two hypotheses Bill.
Hypothesis 1.
The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species
giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes,
said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just
astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of
silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680
zeros. (Editor’s note: In the seventh paragraph, "10 followed by
2,680 zeros" has been changed to "1 followed by 2,680 zeros.) So the
statement part referring to 1 in 10 to the 2,680th power should be
deleted and just “1 followed by 2,680 zeros “ should be the correct
Maths.
Hypothesis 2 – the creationist hypothesis:
The creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have
no evolutionary ancestors.
The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans
is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the
probability that humans were created separately from everything else
is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.
(As of publication time, requests for interviews with several
creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.)
So, even before you can talk about single celled organisms, you really
need to address the maths, don’t you?
On May 9, 2:01 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:
Marc
<mjhrobson@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 4:36:44 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 6:01 am, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:
The beginning of life is a problem of chemistry - one which chemists
are working on right now. Biological evolution arises once there is
life. Evolution by natural selection works on living populations.
Evolutionary biologists are not working on the origin of life but
rather the origin of species. Evolution explains diversity of
species...
Besides this is another bankrupt gap argument: You (or any
creationist) sees a gap in the picture (with the origin of life, or
universe); and then point to the gap saying, "Look, look, this is
unaccounted for!" This is perfectly reasonable as if there is a gap it
needs to be closed. However, creationists make the bankrupt move of
"therefore God". Yes the scientific account of life, the universe, and
everything else is as yet incomplete; this incompleteness does not
mean that a God exists! It just means that 'we' have not yet the
completed the picture. Also with all due respect the chemistry of life
is self-organising; proteins are empirically shown to arrange
themselves into chains of more complex molecules. I have friends
working in bio-chemistry and you can watch 'simply watch' more complex
organic chemistry arise from less complex chemistry - as far as I know
(not being a biologist/chemist) the science has already given rise to
RNA (where no RNA was before) and beyond that in laboratories already
we have created synthetic DNA chains which are programmed to illicit
desired behaviour from cells. Our first nano-machines may well turn
out to be biological - or, at least, chemical. I will make a
prediction (a prophecy): Chemistry and bio-chemistry over the next
decade (starting from this moment) WILL get DNA to organise chemically
within a space that no DNA existed before; once this is done what will
the next 'gap' be that will allow you to go 'therefore god'.
Do you really not see the weakness of the gap argument? Basically, it
uses God to fill in an incomplete account of the universe, rather than
attempting to finish the story... It is like painting a picture and
not finishing it, and when questioned about the empty spaces on the
canvass suggesting that empty space is god. Surely you see in the
analogy that we're not going to be even a little convinced by that. Is
this really the only roll you have for God; an idea for filling in
incomplete's in another person's painting?
Why not start with something positive. Tell us what God is and what
follows from the hypothesis that there is such a force. What would I
expect to see in the world and what should I not see? At least then we
could begin to evaluate the idea; but if all god amounts to is a gap
then it is not a compelling idea!
wrote:
are working on right now. Biological evolution arises once there is
life. Evolution by natural selection works on living populations.
Evolutionary biologists are not working on the origin of life but
rather the origin of species. Evolution explains diversity of
species...
Besides this is another bankrupt gap argument: You (or any
creationist) sees a gap in the picture (with the origin of life, or
universe); and then point to the gap saying, "Look, look, this is
unaccounted for!" This is perfectly reasonable as if there is a gap it
needs to be closed. However, creationists make the bankrupt move of
"therefore God". Yes the scientific account of life, the universe, and
everything else is as yet incomplete; this incompleteness does not
mean that a God exists! It just means that 'we' have not yet the
completed the picture. Also with all due respect the chemistry of life
is self-organising; proteins are empirically shown to arrange
themselves into chains of more complex molecules. I have friends
working in bio-chemistry and you can watch 'simply watch' more complex
organic chemistry arise from less complex chemistry - as far as I know
(not being a biologist/chemist) the science has already given rise to
RNA (where no RNA was before) and beyond that in laboratories already
we have created synthetic DNA chains which are programmed to illicit
desired behaviour from cells. Our first nano-machines may well turn
out to be biological - or, at least, chemical. I will make a
prediction (a prophecy): Chemistry and bio-chemistry over the next
decade (starting from this moment) WILL get DNA to organise chemically
within a space that no DNA existed before; once this is done what will
the next 'gap' be that will allow you to go 'therefore god'.
Do you really not see the weakness of the gap argument? Basically, it
uses God to fill in an incomplete account of the universe, rather than
attempting to finish the story... It is like painting a picture and
not finishing it, and when questioned about the empty spaces on the
canvass suggesting that empty space is god. Surely you see in the
analogy that we're not going to be even a little convinced by that. Is
this really the only roll you have for God; an idea for filling in
incomplete's in another person's painting?
Why not start with something positive. Tell us what God is and what
follows from the hypothesis that there is such a force. What would I
expect to see in the world and what should I not see? At least then we
could begin to evaluate the idea; but if all god amounts to is a gap
then it is not a compelling idea!
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 5:28:21 AM5/9/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
I just find it better for me to start without consider their is a gap.
I think the evaluation concept is enough to say that a God does not need to have a hand in the process for it to succeed.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 7:31:05 AM5/9/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
"The design of living things has always been a huge problem for
evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably
complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing
important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of
statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds
that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise
by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely
arranged amino acids.
Why not? It happens every day. And it isn't by chance.
Evolution is a process that has taken billions of years to unfold.
And if your god exists and is "loving" as many Christians claims then why wouldn't it create an entire universe where humans could run around freely.
Why just one little planet where humans are subjected to numerous life threatening risks both animate and inanimate?
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
dali_70
<w_e_coyote12@hotmail.com>May 9, 2012, 8:02:04 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 12:01 am, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:
> Yes, I still can't figure out how a single-cell organism evolved
> without some engineer putting it together.
Where did the engineer come from?
wrote:
> Yes, I still can't figure out how a single-cell organism evolved
> without some engineer putting it together.
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 11:49:21 AM5/9/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:01:59 PM UTC-7, Bill Bowden wrote:
On May 8, 6:38 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By Observer
>
> If you can not bring your self to believe that there exists no god and
> non is necessary to our functioning and evolving universe , pretend
> such is the case and look for answers in the produce of scientific
> method, in the various fields of scientific endeavor leaving none
> unattended or unexplored.
>
> If you do so and are not comfortable with the answers you find then
> address our learned friends, who do so with regularity, describing the
> problems and one or several of us will gladly respond tlo your
> quandary as helpfully as possible.
>
Yes, I still can't figure out how a single-cell organism evolved
without some engineer putting it together.
In that case why wouldn't you wait for conclusive evidence one way or the other?
http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-problems-for-evolution/
"The design of living things has always been a huge problem for
evolutionists.
Not really. Natural selection gives the impression of design, but it's a natural process.
Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably
complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing
important functions and all mutually interdependent.
Disagree. I think single celled organisms are imaginably complex, and the sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology are in the process of breaking that complexity down, this argument from incredulity notwithstanding.
The laws of
statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds
that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise
by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely
arranged amino acids.
And those protein molecules arose by natural selection, not chance. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the process.
And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working
parts of a cell.
No it isn't. They all follow the same laws of nature (chemistry, physics, biology).
When it is recognized that all of these parts must be
present and functioning at the start,
"Start" of what?
it must be admitted that life is
impossible without an Intelligent Designer."
Fallacious and ignorant arguments aren't a valid reason to get me to admit anything.
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>May 9, 2012, 11:54:07 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Marc,
Very well put together and an extremely lucid appraisal of the:
(God of the Gaps.)
Very well put together and an extremely lucid appraisal of the:
(God of the Gaps.)
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>May 9, 2012, 12:03:31 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Obs',
What can I say my friend, that has not been said and penned
long before this. I Know you will not take it amiss from a friend,
if I give complement by asserting you have mellowed in the last
couple of years and it suites you admirably.
Thank you for a great post. Again.
What can I say my friend, that has not been said and penned
long before this. I Know you will not take it amiss from a friend,
if I give complement by asserting you have mellowed in the last
couple of years and it suites you admirably.
Thank you for a great post. Again.
Bill Bowden
<bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>May 9, 2012, 7:56:24 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 12:50 am, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolut...
I didn't see any math, just big numbers with lots of zeros. Reminds me
of the museum visitor who inquires about the age of the dinosaur
bones, and the attendant claims the bones are 65,000,014 years old.
So, the visitor asks the attendant how he could be so sure about the
14 years, and attendant replied; "Well, when I started working here 14
years ago, they told me those bones were 65 million years old."
-Bill
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolut...
of the museum visitor who inquires about the age of the dinosaur
bones, and the attendant claims the bones are 65,000,014 years old.
So, the visitor asks the attendant how he could be so sure about the
14 years, and attendant replied; "Well, when I started working here 14
years ago, they told me those bones were 65 million years old."
-Bill
Bill Bowden
<bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>May 9, 2012, 8:30:48 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 4:31 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Bill Bowden <
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Bill Bowden <
>
> bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > "The design of living things has always been a huge problem for
> > evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably
> > complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing
> > important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of
> > statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds
> > that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise
> > by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely
> > arranged amino acids.
>
> Why not? It happens every day. And it isn't by chance.
>
> Evolution is a process that has taken billions of years to unfold.
>
> And if your god exists and is "loving" as many Christians claims then why
> wouldn't it create an entire universe where humans could run around freely.
>
> Why just one little planet where humans are subjected to numerous life
> threatening risks both animate and inanimate?
>
It's like giving a kid too many toys. Children need to learn the value
>
> <snipped>
>
> > "The design of living things has always been a huge problem for
> > evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably
> > complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing
> > important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of
> > statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds
> > that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise
> > by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely
> > arranged amino acids.
>
> Why not? It happens every day. And it isn't by chance.
>
> Evolution is a process that has taken billions of years to unfold.
>
> And if your god exists and is "loving" as many Christians claims then why
> wouldn't it create an entire universe where humans could run around freely.
>
> Why just one little planet where humans are subjected to numerous life
> threatening risks both animate and inanimate?
>
of hard work and accomplishment overcoming obstacles. If everything
were easy in life, it would be boring.
-Bill
Birric Forcella
<erniecat1@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 10:48:05 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
To Bill Bowden et al.:
No, the odds are not unimaginably large against life forming. On the
contrary, as I understand it, the odds are quite large FOR life
forming and tiny against life forming, though I wouldn't put some
definite number on it.
Think about it rationally. All that needed to form for life starting
is some kind of blob, large or small, that eats stuff and at some size
divides. The division doesn't even need to be internally programmed,
it can happen from mechanical causes, getting hit by stuff (lots of
stuff could hit you back then) or other means.
Now consider that the raw material for that blob is extremely
abundant. Figure all the carbon on earth, including the oil in the
ground, all people and plants, etc. Figure into that all the water on
earth (there was no free oxygen), nitrogen in the atmosphere.
That's an incredible amount of raw material.
Now also consider that there were millions, probably hundreds of
millions of years of time for that blob to form. It could have
formed in any SPLIT second of those hundreds of millions of years.
How many split seconds do hundreds of millions of years have?
Now, that blob only needed to form once, and all the conditions for
evolution by natural selection to start were fulfilled.
It really seems to me exceedingly unlikely that life should NOT have
formed.
No, the odds are not unimaginably large against life forming. On the
contrary, as I understand it, the odds are quite large FOR life
forming and tiny against life forming, though I wouldn't put some
definite number on it.
Think about it rationally. All that needed to form for life starting
is some kind of blob, large or small, that eats stuff and at some size
divides. The division doesn't even need to be internally programmed,
it can happen from mechanical causes, getting hit by stuff (lots of
stuff could hit you back then) or other means.
Now consider that the raw material for that blob is extremely
abundant. Figure all the carbon on earth, including the oil in the
ground, all people and plants, etc. Figure into that all the water on
earth (there was no free oxygen), nitrogen in the atmosphere.
That's an incredible amount of raw material.
Now also consider that there were millions, probably hundreds of
millions of years of time for that blob to form. It could have
formed in any SPLIT second of those hundreds of millions of years.
How many split seconds do hundreds of millions of years have?
Now, that blob only needed to form once, and all the conditions for
evolution by natural selection to start were fulfilled.
It really seems to me exceedingly unlikely that life should NOT have
formed.
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 11:23:16 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
What I was trying to get across to Bill was
if one looks at the final numbers of calculation which
have been done, it is more probable that life
evolved in the way that science is proposing (hence
evolution occurring) than the concept of a man
being made by a God - ie creationism.
Basic numbers (maths) to date:
Life occurring (over time): 1 followed by 2,680 zero
Creationist probability: 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power
The probability of life occurring a la creationism is mind
boggling implausible. Life occurring through natural
processes is far more likely - just what you said, but in
a different way.
if one looks at the final numbers of calculation which
have been done, it is more probable that life
evolved in the way that science is proposing (hence
evolution occurring) than the concept of a man
being made by a God - ie creationism.
Basic numbers (maths) to date:
Life occurring (over time): 1 followed by 2,680 zero
Creationist probability: 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power
The probability of life occurring a la creationism is mind
boggling implausible. Life occurring through natural
processes is far more likely - just what you said, but in
a different way.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 6:31:07 AM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Why would your god create people who would be bored with an easy life if he was perfect?
-Bill
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
love&peace
<williamukor@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 7:49:57 PM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
>"we we invite you to join our joyous though sometimes
bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown".
...As if belief in God automatically disqualifies one from the 'adventure of discovery of the unknown'. many theists are already there with 'you'., and you know it.bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown".
Bill Bowden
<bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>May 11, 2012, 11:17:14 PM5/11/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
generating DNA where there was none before. I'm sure science will
eventually create primitive life in a laboratory, but it will still be
a copy of a process not fully understood. They used to say electric
current flowed from a positive potential to a lower potential until
they found the electrons moved the other way from negative to
positive. It didn't make any practical difference, since you would get
the same results working the problems either way, as long as you were
consistent in the assumptions. Just because a man can use a battery to
his advantage doesn't mean he understands it.
-Bill
Bob T.
<bob@synapse-cs.com>May 12, 2012, 8:49:10 AM5/12/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 11, 8:17 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
> I'm sure science will
> eventually create primitive life in a laboratory, but it will still be
> a copy of a process not fully understood. They used to say electric
> current flowed from a positive potential to a lower potential until
> they found the electrons moved the other way from negative to
> positive. It didn't make any practical difference, since you would get
> the same results working the problems either way, as long as you were
> consistent in the assumptions. Just because a man can use a battery to
> his advantage doesn't mean he understands it.
>
evolution without understanding the process one bit!
- Bob T
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 14, 2012, 12:23:38 PM5/14/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 10, 4:49 pm, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"we we invite you to join our joyous though sometimes
>
> bewildering adventure of discovery of the unknown".
>
> ...As if belief in God automatically disqualifies one from the 'adventure
> of discovery of the unknown'. many theists are already there with 'you'.,
> and you know it.
No man or woman can "know" what lies in the mind of another . I
however offer you these observations so that you may avail your self
of the possibility that you might think anew .
[quote]
Only the individual can think, and thereby create new values for
society, nay, even set up new moral standards to which the life of the
community conforms. ... The ideals which have lighted my way, and time
after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have
been Kindness, Beauty and Truth. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Communities tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and
a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause
mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which
fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness. (Albert Einstein,
1934)
Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best books of contemporary
authors looks to me like an extremely near-sighted person who scorns
eyeglasses. He is completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions
of his times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And
what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the
thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the best case
rather paltry and monotonous.
There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style
and with good taste within a century. What has been preserved of their
work belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We owe it
to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the people
in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate themselves from the
superstitions and ignorance that had darkened life for more than half
a millennium. Nothing is more needed to overcome the modernist's
snobbishness. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Symptoms Of Cultural Decay
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is
necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all
spheres of cultural life. (Albert Einstein, 1952)
... knowledge must continually be renewed by ceaseless effort, if it
is not to be lost. It resembles a statue of marble which stands in the
desert and is continually threatened with burial by the shifting sand.
The hands of service must ever be at work, in order that the marble
continue to lastingly shine in the sun. To these serving hands mine
shall also belong. (Albert Einstein, On Education, 1950)
When, after several hours reading, I came to myself again, I asked
myself what it was that had so fascinated me. The answer is simple.
The results were not presented as ready-made, but scientific curiosity
was first aroused by presenting contrasting possibilities of
conceiving matter. Only then the attempt was made to clarify the issue
by thorough argument. The intellectual honesty of the author makes us
share the inner struggle in his mind. It is this which is the mark of
the born teacher. Knowledge exists in two forms - lifeless, stored in
books, and alive, in the consciousness of men. The second form of
existence is after all the essential one; the first, indispensable as
it may be, occupies only an inferior position. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
My dear children: I rejoice to see you before me today, happy youth of
a sunny and fortunate land. Bear in mind that the wonderful things
that you learn in your schools are the work of many generations,
produced by enthusiastic effort and infinite labour in every country
of the world. All this is put into your hands as your inheritance in
order that you may receive it, honour it, and add to it, and one day
faithfully hand it on to your children. Thus do we mortals achieve
immortality in the permanent things which we create in common. If you
always keep that in mind you will find meaning in life and work and
acquire the right attitude towards other nations and ages. (Albert
Einstein talking to a group of school children. 1934.)
Numerous are the academic chairs, but rare are wise and noble
teachers. Numerous and large are the lecture halls, but far from
numerous the young people who genuinely thirst for truth and justice.
Numerous are the wares that nature produces by the dozen, but her
choice products are few.
We all know that, so why complain? Was it not always thus and will it
not always thus remain? Certainly, and one must take what nature gives
as one finds it. But there is also such a thing as a spirit of the
times, an attitude of mind characteristic of a particular generation,
which is passed on from individual to individual and gives its
distinctive mark to a society. Each of us has to his little bit toward
transforming this spirit of the times. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
On Freedom
1. Those instrumental goods which should serve to maintain the life
and health of all human beings should be produced by the least
possible labor of all.
2. The satisfaction of physical needs is indeed the indispensable
precondition of a satisfactory existence, but in itself it is not
enough. In order to be content, men must also have the possibility of
developing their intellectual and artistic powers to whatever extent
accords with their personal characteristics and abilities.
The first of these two goals requires the promotion of all knowledge
relating to the laws of Nature and the laws of social processes, that
is, the promotion of all scientific endeavour. For scientific
endeavour is a natural whole, the parts of which mutually support one
another in a way which, to be sure, no one can anticipate. (Albert
Einstein, 1940)
The development of science and of the creative activities of the
spirit in general requires still another kind of freedom, which may be
characterised as inward freedom. It is this freedom of spirit which
consists in the independence of thought from the restrictions of
authoritarian and social prejudices as well as from unphilosophical
routinizing and habit in general. This inward freedom is an infrequent
gift of nature and a worthy objective for the individual.
..schools may favour such freedom by encouraging independent thought.
Only if outward and inner freedom are constantly and consciously
pursued is there a possibility of spiritual development and perfection
and thus of improving man's outward and inner life. (Albert Einstein,
1940)
[end quotes]
Observer
Attachment to ignorance/superstition/religion are not compatible with
the discovery of objective reality, as therein are contained contained
"final conclusions" based on profoundly incomplete data and
meaningless conjecture, as opposed to a beginning of rational
inquiry.
I would like to invite all who read these words to simply experiment
able, remembering that the process of applying reason,
logic ,scientific
method and critical thinking is home port for an intelligent
inquirer . Lacks one , lacks all.
method and critical thinking is home port for an intelligent
Please investigate the meaning , method and necessity of each . so as
to enable for your self., the discover-ability of what can and most
probably will bring true peace and love to a festering and dangerous
society of fools.
Psychonomist
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages