Selection is sorta of a bad term because some people can't separate it from choice. Things that are better suited to survival are passed on to the next generation. That's it. If you get really scientific, there isn't even such a thing as choice, just interactions of contingencies.
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
Well, when the horde sets its sights on you, it's kinda tough to answer every single question, comment and insult thrown your way. Not that Uchip has asked anything worthwhile anyway.
Are we still arguing about Abiogenesis?
I think someone else in this thread earlier made the point best...
if god has used naturalistic mechanisms in getting us here via evolution... why wouldn't he also use naturalistic mechanisms in establishing life?
I don't get why this is such a large roadblock for theists.
(actually, I do; but the only reason I can concieve is that it's an emotional ego thing... somehow, somewhere, magic (i.e. a set of rules and interactions that is unique to event; has never and will never be used again outside of that one event) has to be inserted into the equation in order to allow us to be differentiated from straight up stuff).
Yo Saty. Why don't you apply some of that buddhist style philosophy you got going on and swallow some ego. Why do we have to operate of rules outside of everything else in the universe?
I think someone else in this thread earlier made the point best...
if god has used naturalistic mechanisms in getting us here via evolution... why wouldn't he also use naturalistic mechanisms in establishing life?
I don't get why this is such a large roadblock for theists.
(actually, I do; but the only reason I can concieve is that it's an emotional ego thing... somehow, somewhere, magic (i.e. a set of rules and interactions that is unique to event; has never and will never be used again outside of that one event) has to be inserted into the equation in order to allow us to be differentiated from straight up stuff).
Yo Saty. Why don't you apply some of that buddhist style philosophy you got going on and swallow some ego. Why do we have to operate of rules outside of everything else in the universe?
Why does it require nature to care, as in a conscious manner? Traits are kept in subsequent generations because the organisms with those traits survived and reproduced to pass their genetic information on, due to higher fitness and greater likelihood for reproduction.
Heredity is the driving force; it's why we've evolved not so much for health than for reproduction. The human body is ultimately a very ineffective 'machine' in a variety of ways, but it's easily explained if you just look at heredity being the primary factor. Nature "cares" that we live long enough to pass our genetic material on, and that's about the extent of it.
This perfectly describes abiogenesis. Interesting take.
Why should I have to swallow my ego? Fuck that shit.
And I'm sorry but I don't understand the question. Why do we have to operate 'of' rules? Do you mean operate 'by' rules? Operate by rules outside of everything else in the universe? I can't parse that, sorry.
Thank you. Well said, and this is all I was asking. Why should it even care about that? If nature is not a living or conscious entity, then surely survival means nothing to it, correct?
I asked if you are suggesting that our incomplete understanding of abiogenesis is proof of a god, and if so, proof of a god that organised religion has worshipped.
Which is in direct line with the purpose of this thread.
answer it or gtfo.
Oh shit. We're arguing about the validity of evolution now? For reals?
Fuck peeps, just go back to high school or something. This isn't really an argument we should be having in a modern intelligent civilized world. (And yet, it is, sadly).
Seriously though, lets not imbue nature with any extra intent. Nature doesn't care - not because it doesn't want to. Because it can't.
But very simply, as long as you're efficient in passing genetic material on, the rest of it can go to shit. But the efficiency of passing said material on is tested by the environment into which that material emerges.
As in; there are a consistent set of physical laws that guide all material and energy in this universe.
If we accept that simple premise - then why would we operate outside of those physical laws? Because the very broad idea of abiogenesis is simply that organic complexity arose from inert matter. It's pretty uncontroversial point if we accept that all matter/energy is guided by a consistent set of physical laws and principles.
Of course you could dispute the initial premise - it's kinda out of my pay grade to argue for or against those theories, but forms a pretty basic assumption for me to formulate the rest of my beliefs on - but maybe you have some good ideas as to why the matter in us; although composed of ordinary elements that are found all throughout the planet... would defy those basic physical principles?
Jeez man you are slower than I thought. No, our incomplete understanding of abiogenesis is not proof of god, not proof of aliens, not proof of abiogenesis, it's not proof of the validity of religion, it's not proof of anything. Why the fuck is this even a question? Like I said, you haven't asked anything worthwhile and that's why I avoided your nonsense.
So far as our material bodies go we absolutely do operate under those physical laws. I've not argued otherwise.Zaptruder said:
why are you here again?
i take it you bumped your head and ended up in the wrong thread
A better question would be, what is there to examine? Atheism doesn't define a set of facts or values. Atheism is only defined by the rejection of gods, which itself is based on previous critical examination. There are no dogmas to adhere to, no myths to believe and no leaders to follow. It's just a group of people with the same opinion. For example, most ufologists are atheists too, but they share beliefs that are completely contradictory to mine. Doesn't mean they're not atheists.
Atheism is often portrayed as a philosophy opposite to religion, but in terms of structure and organization it also is nothing like religion at all. 'Atheist' is just a label for someone who rejects the idea of a god as much as 'grocery shopper' is a term for someone who goes shopping for groceries some time. It's a statement that doesn't tell you much about the opinions and beliefs someone holds at all. Well, except in a thread like this to some extent (this isn't a thread about grocery shopping).
I'm here to laugh at you.
The simple distinction of 'material bodies' heavily implies that we do in fact operate outside of physical laws.
The question then becomes... why is there a distinction? And what does it matter with regards to abiogenesis? If our material bodies are necessary antecedents to our being - then why wouldn't our material bodies be formed in accordance with the physical laws that guide all other matter?
Wow, as an observer, I have to say you are amazing. You quote a meme, then proceed to troll and keep on insulting. *claps*
They do.
Just because a+b works for vectors in 3 dimensions, there is nothing that suggests that the said vectors are not projections of a higher dimensional vector
That does not mean that we cant explore how the addition/multiplication works for 3d, but it also means nothing regarding the existence or non-existence of higher dimensions.
No it does not. If my body is made up of matter, then it follows that it is governed by physical laws.
This whole abiogenesis tangent is so far from the original post I made, which had nothing to do with its validity or as a proof of anything.
I am not surprised at the direction it took, but nonetheless I will remind you that my initial post was a simple observation of how there are many people who claim to believe nothing that is not empirically proven, but who drop that criteria for things like abiogenesis. Never mind the lack of evidence or proof, never mind that it remains almost entirely speculative. If it aligns with my prior held beliefs, I will latch onto it even as I make the claim that I'm a person who believes only in that which can be empirically proven.
I was not trying to invalidate the theory. I was not using the fact it is incomplete as evidence for god or a creator. The point wasn't the theory, it was the hypocrisy of people who drop their strict empirical criteria for something which jives with what they already believe.
I think the theory is interesting, personally, even if I am incredibly skeptical of it.
Who is/are these "so many people" even doing that?
I don't know that I have ever met anyone who claims to only believe in the explicitly empirically proven, much less have them then turn around and demonstrate otherwise.
meme? wtf are you talking about
this guy took the thread completely off topic and refuses to answer anything, instead replying with deliberate troll baiting. And you take his side?
thats just a little bit suspicious.
It is so suspicious that I cant wait to hear your explanation. What am I, his friend, his brother, or his alt?
They do.
Just because a+b works for vectors in 3 dimensions, there is nothing that suggests that the said vectors are not projections of a higher dimensional vector
That does not mean that we cant explore how the addition/multiplication works for 3d, but it also means nothing regarding the existence or non-existence of higher dimensions.
I see. So at this point, we are simply arguing that human behaviour is so complex that it requires higher dimensional activity to support it. And conveniently, that higher dimensional activity can't be measured by any material object that resides in our standard dimensionality?
The question still remains; why would extra dimensionality come to affect human behaviour, if humans are built on the same substrate as all the other stuff in our universe? What's the mechanism by which this extra dimensionality comes to infiltrate and bind onto our material dimensionality... and why does it only occur for us? If it doesn't occur only for us - then what other physically unexplainable phenomena is there where we must resort to a recourse of unexaminable, undetectable, higher dimensionality stuff?
probably someone that feels that I have offended their beliefs
I dont see any other reason why you would pick a side with someone as immature as that
also
what meme?
and whats with the condescending tone? does it make you feel more self important?
No one in particular. In my original post I said it's something I often see in "these discussions". I wasn't addressing anyone in the thread because abiogenesis wasn't being discussed.
But when someone mentioned it, it reminded me of past discussions where people have clung to it doggedly and asserted it to be true despite earlier claims to believe only that with empirical evidence. Atheists sometimes think they can back up their faith, too. I don't hold that against them, though.
Log4girlz seems convinced that abiogenesis will happen in a lab within 20 years and I have seen him repeatedly claim to believe only in empirically provable things.
Faith would imply that there is more evidence against than for
your understanding of the word is just straight up wrong
Those are good questions. I do not know it if counts as a thread derail or not, so I will be brief.
If we assume that there are higher levels of existence that we cant currently measure with our scientific means, then we might want to explore all that has been speculated(!) by all those horribly distorted Holy Books. The majority of scientists can go like "hey, that is bullshit, they did not even include evolution, why would I listen to THAT?", but a tiny small percentage might dedicate his life to this: "Hey. I want to see for myself: what if I imagine that this system that I have been exploring is just a subsystem of something much, much larger? The question is, how should I look all the information around me: in a way that strengthens separatist views, or a way that is completely different?"
There are tons of independent things in this life that point to something that is a driving force behind all this. Some say reproduction is one of our basic urges. Why, I might ask. Why? If there is nothing beyond death, beyond a life form's death, then why would it sometimes even sacrifice itself for its childs or its mates? This is a behavior that is present in almost every single animal species out there. Everyone but us humans act very simply, following this rule: life itself is what is eternal, and I represent part of it. If my offspring lives, I(!) get to live through them. Not just metaphorically, not just rhetorically, not just "do not worry, kid, death is not that scary"-like. No.
Explore the idea that there is a mass conciousness experiencing itself through its different faces (like a tree and all it leafs, only the individual leafs would be attached in a 4th dimensional way, meaning that you cannot actually see the connection to the "tree"). I am absolutely certain that once a large number of scientists would start and explore the idea that everything we learned so far about this existence could be applied in a totally different way, our way of life would change - drastically. In a positive way.
I edited while you were responding.
Mario said:
I just don't see these "so many people" wandering around the world or in the average GAF thread.
Atheists sometimes think they can back up their faith, too. I don't hold that against them, though.
Just for the record, atheism is not a faith position. It is the rejection of a faith position and not a positive assertion in and of itself. Atheists may hold other beliefs on faith, but atheism itself is not one of them.
I haven't read that myself.
Well, I think most are simply following the line of logic similar to the one I laid out. They're confident mostly in the fact that life operates on the same physical laws as the rest of the material universe - the only reasonable conclusion from that premise is that at least one form of life has arisen from abiogenesis - i.e. where non-organic matter 'transmutes' into organic matter into 'life'.
In that sense... abiogenesis is proven in so far as its inductively (may be the wrong term, I'm not good with these words) proven, as long as we accept the premise that all matter/energy operates on the same basis.
If not abiogenesis, then it raises some very considerable questions, that can't be (easily, if at all) answered.
In that sense... abiogenesis is not dissimilar to the expectation the sun will continue rising tomorrow and the day after.
Yeah, we're not completely justified - but the evidence and experience around it completely supports the idea, and there's no real reason to not believe it will continue doing so.
And since you haven't seen it it must not exist, right?
For fuck's sake, it was a tongue in cheek comment. Just for the record, a tongue in cheek comment is meant to be taken facetiously or ironically.
Atheists often lack a sense of humor too, but again, I won't hold that against you.
That's awesome.
Ha, OK. My bad guys. Just had to wait for good ol' Zap to show up and show me that abiogenesis is basically already proven through induction (lol).
I recant all prior statements about the lack of evidence or highly speculative nature of the theory.
No one in particular. In my original post I said it's something I often see in "these discussions". I wasn't addressing anyone in the thread because abiogenesis wasn't being discussed.
But when someone mentioned it, it reminded me of past discussions where people have clung to it doggedly and asserted it to be true despite earlier claims to believe only that with empirical evidence. Atheists sometimes think they can back up their faith, too. I don't hold that against them, though.
Log4girlz seems convinced that abiogenesis will happen in a lab within 20 years and I have seen him repeatedly claim to believe only in empirically provable things.
I believe in things which are founded in evidence, observations and empirical proof. I have no problems believing in works in progress when founded in evidence, observation and empirical proof. If this clarifies things
Lets look at a question asked earlier towards atheists and my response.
My issue with religion is that it is based on faith and not reason. Abiogenesis is based on reasoning. It is the natural conclusion to draw from observable evidence from a variety of scientific fields. I am not aware of any reputable scientists who object to the theory.
I made no such claim.
For fuck's sake, it was a tongue in cheek comment. Just for the record, a tongue in cheek comment is meant to be taken facetiously or ironically.
Atheists often lack a sense of humor too, but again, I won't hold that against you.
Sorry. Hard to discern your tongue in cheek comments from those demonstrating flawed understanding of concepts or misuse of words.
Nah I think you just take yourself way too fucking seriously.
Prove it, or I won't believe you.
this dismissive attitude holds no place in debate
Well played.
Well, the theories and evidence that we have, despite their relative tenuousness doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum. They rest against the greater backdrop of the idea that all matter/energy operates on a consistent set of laws in our universe.
While the confidence for any one theory is understandably low (even if they are viable)... it's not hard to see why there's a great deal of confidence in the overall idea of abiogenesis.
In that sense, what other options are there? Other than of course unmeasurable intervention from forces external to the universe in a unique once off event.
Aliens, dude. Aliens. Or Care Bears.
It is theoretically possible that Aliens seeded this earth with life. The origin of life on earth could be due to alien intervention. But to assume so would be foolish without significant evidence. If there was an ancient text describing aliens and their influence on earth, it would be scrutinized in great detail for any information which could be interpreted as only possibly being known by an alien race.
We have a similar scenario with the torah, bible and quran. These texts are supposedly dictated by another intelligence, but there doesn't appear to be any information contained in them that would allow us to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a greater intellect was required to be involved in their undertaking.
Atheists often lack a sense of humor too, but again, I won't hold that against you.
Atheists have nothing in common except the lack of belief in a god, which is why atheism is a stupid concept to begin with. I don't believe in unicorns, would that make me a-unicornist?
Wat
pretty sure hes implying that the absence of belief in a god should not beget a stereotype
Either abiogenesis initiated the chain of life, or external unmeasurable forces did.
I'll admit... there is faith in science.
On one side of the faith is
the natural universe is systematically discoverable and accords with a consistent set of universal principles.
On the other is
The natural universe can be modified by an external, unmeasurable set of forces (either too subtle for us to measure*, or set/done in such a way as to be undetectable).
*although one has to ask; if it is too subtle to measure... then how much affect can it have on our macroscale world?
Science can only accord with one side. Without the ability to discover in any form - through direct evidence, or induction, or whatever principle of logic you are able to use... then we simply have no way of touching it.
The problem as I see it is that... the efficacy of the core assumption in science - the testability of the natural world is unquestionable - allowing us to achieve wonderous advancements.
Where as, with the latter... it is a gateway for any number of arbitrary assumptions. How do you figure out if what you're believing is right or not? As far as I can tell; you can't... it is a matter of faith.
Of course, I don't think you'd dispute much of what I've been saying (perhaps you'd like to offer another snide comment though)...
But I simply make the point; One core assumption is more reasonable and of greater efficacy than the other - and unfortunately are quite incompatible.
Also, I should reiterate the point of belief and confidence - the atheistic (is there a better word for the idea of 'independent of theism' rather than simply - without theism?) belief in abiogenesis (any many other things) is simply a confident belief, based on all the other stuff we've already described. Like the contigent belief that the sun will rise tomorrow - it can be overturned easily should evidence reveal strongly otherwise.
cutmeamango
Banned
Abiogenesis comes from the simple principle that if galaxies and stars and planets and rocks can be observed as forming through physical interactions, so does everything.
We can only attest rationally that it's more likely than not that its principle is correct.
Asking those who study it to reach a conclusion or find empirical proof is a bit naive. They have to deal with 2-3 billions of years of factors and hypothesis that are "as humanly possible, infered".
And I don't see any harm with having it as a belief, we all believe gravity exists anyway!
We can only attest rationally that it's more likely than not that its principle is correct.
Asking those who study it to reach a conclusion or find empirical proof is a bit naive. They have to deal with 2-3 billions of years of factors and hypothesis that are "as humanly possible, infered".
And I don't see any harm with having it as a belief, we all believe gravity exists anyway!
a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheists have nothing in common, except lack of belief. How is that hard to grasp?
How is it stupid?
Why would you label yourself as a person that denies something that doesn't enter your thought at all.
Hear Sam Harris explain it more eloquently than I ever could.
Satyamdas, your initial premise is flawed. When one believes in a religion, they claim it is the truth. When one "believes" in a scientific theory, what they really do is accept it as the best current understanding. Do you recognize the difference? No claim as to the ultimate truth is made. Accepting abiogenesis as the best explanation for the creation of life on this planet is not in any way contradicted by criticizing others for accepting as truth claims that lack evidence. Feel free to criticize anyone claiming abiogenesis as we understand it today is and always will be the answer, but I don't see anyone doing that.
The point he's making is that atheists is an unnecessary category... because we don't have individual categories for people that don't believe in unicorns, or people that don't believe in flying teapots.
Personally, it's not a line of thought I'm particularly enamoured by - we categorize all sorts of things, especially when its useful to categorize.
The absence of something doesn't mean it isn't categorized - it is if it's a useful category and differentiator for us.
Despite some objections, atheist is a useful categorical concept in human conversation. If in practice, the idea of god was really like the idea of fairies and unicorns... then no, it wouldn't be a useful category. But it's not; theism is this big important social thing; where subscribing to it heavily implies that you follow (or at least believe) a certain set of doctrine/dictates/dogma with which many are familiar.... while been atheist implies that you don't.
That said, I understand that it'd be more useful if we could have better publicized 'denominations' or recogntion of categorical philosophies... like secular humanists, free thinkers, etc.
But most atheist philosophies don't actively form groups to spread their ideas - e.g. many atheists hold secular humanist beliefs without even know what the term means.
I'm latino, I'm a human, I'm a male. There are dozens of labels one can place on me or I can place on myself. I am neck deep in a society which constantly reminds me of a concept I do not believe in. The label atheist is a quick, efficient means of getting across my feelings about the nature of reality, which I do think about all the time...and which I do not feel requires the existence of a creator.
Nah, you can definitely prove a negative.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
Don't you see the irony that if nothing can happen without life first then god can't happen either.
Dude Abides
Banned
Ether + Fire + Earth --> Life!
- Status