@spendius,
Aelius Lampridius in the 4th century wrote biographies of Roman emperors. The one of Alexander Severus contained the following information.
Quote: The luxury and extravagance that had formerly been so prevalent at the court were put down; the standard of the coinage was raised; taxes were lightened; literature, art and science were encouraged; the lot of the soldiers was improved; and, for the convenience of the people, loan offices were instituted for lending money at a moderate rate of interest. In religious matters Alexander preserved an open mind. In his private chapel he had busts of Orpheus, Abraham, Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus Christ. It is said that he was desirous of erecting a temple to the founder of Christianity, but was dissuaded by the pagan priests.
One supposes Setanta has discovered that Jesus did not exist in his recent researches.
@spendius,
Quote:We are, piece by piece, dragging these cod atheists out of the closet.
I thought you WERE an atheist, Spendi. What gives? :-)
@hingehead,
Quote:They said that this thread is inherently useless for talking about atheist ideology - because there isn't one. (Cannot believe how many times we go over this).
I cannot believe it either... How many times are you going to repeat this ridiculous strawman?
For the record, and for those not interested in strawmen, all I said is that most Western atheists share common ground in the form of trust in science, some misgivings about religion, a positive attitude to sex in general and minority sexual orientations in particular, and other similar things directly linked with their lack of religion. And that this common ground was enough to sustain a conversation as the one we are having, and potentially can support concerted political action, e.g. to carve out some space for casual expression of atheism in life and politics.
If you disagree, that's fine, but at least try to understand what you disagree with...
@spendius,
Alexander Severus caused the famous words of Christ (Luke 6:31): "And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner" to be engraved on the walls of the palace of the Caesars; he even cherished the idea of building a temple to Our Lord, but refrained when it was said to him that very soon all the other divinities would cease to be honored.
After Severus was assassinated, presumably by a military conspiracy which had no patience with such sayings, the Empire descended, or ascended some might say, into near chaos.
@Olivier5,
Quote:I thought you WERE an atheist, Spendi. What gives? :-)
I said cod atheists Olivier. I'm the real thing. That's why I'm on Ignore. When did you last see these uneducated trolls ignoring a Fundie? They love Fundies.
Did you see that silly quote from Bertie Russell? Intelligence wasn't a recognised characteristic in Biblical times. They believed in action and results. Intelligence was dangerous.
Bertie was known as "The Shagger" in academic circles. So was A.J. Ayer. Female students were guaranteed at least a Pass if they put out.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:Often, if you tell them it's not a closed system and mention the sun, they don't get it because they don't understand the second law of thermodynamics in the first place--they're just parroting something they read online.
True. But in the interest of modesty, let's not forget that the solar system
is a closed system (if we neglect the light from stars other than the sun, which seems safe enough). So while the Second Law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to Earth, it does apply to the solar system. How many people in this thread can explain how nuclear fusion increases the entropy of the Sun, and why this increase is greater than the decrease in entropy that life bestows onto Earth? I'm a physicist, and it took me 15 minutes to explain it (qualitatively) to myself. I have no idea at all how I would explain it to someone without a fairly good background in statistical physics (a two-week crash course minimum). Either I am hopelessly incompetent at explaining things, or this is a tough point for our side to prove as well.
@Thomas,
Have a try, Thomas, to explain it. I'm interested. I feel sure other are.
We have plenty of time.
I have some objections to what you write, though, Boss. The most obvious is that people who don't understand the second law well enough to know that the earth is not a closed system aren't going to understand what you're saying about the sun. The next is that that doesn't apply to the claim that the second law invalidates evolution (not for a few billion years, at least). Additionally, if you point that out to one of the cleverer god-botherers, they're doing to have an "Ah-ha!" moment and claim that they were right after all.
When the sun gets brighter in about a billion years, if the human race still survives, they're going to want to anticipate that, and move out to Mars or the Saturnian moons. Better yet, the human race will need to establish themselves in several other star systems long before that. Intragalactic distances make communicating with such colonies, or going there regularly out of the question--but it would be a good idea if we are to preseve the species.
For practical purposes, though, the pace of evolution is such that it will tick aong nicely for the next billion years. Humans and their favorite species will need to get out of Dodge before then, but that doesn't mean that evolution will necessarily end. For our purposes, if we get out of this star system, especially by establishing many colonies in other parts of the galactic boondocks, our evolution, and the evolution of species we take with us, and species we find or create on those new (in human terms) planets will continue to evolve as long as there's a star there to irradiate the planet.
@spendius,
I didn't see the Russel quote.
@Olivier5,
I hope it isn't because you have Panzade on Ignore. If you have you are missing a good periodic titter.
@Thomas,
Quote:I have no idea at all how I would explain it to someone without a fairly good background in statistical physics (a two-week crash course minimum).
The sheer size of the sun, compared with the tiny weight of total biosphere, seems part of the explanation. I can't compute entropy through a fusion reaction, but I'd bet that whatever neg-entropy is accumulated by tiny tiny living organisms down here pales in comparison with the massive amounts of entropy that must be "produced" by the sun.
@spendius,
I do have him on ignore, sorry. What did I miss?
@Olivier5,
I already told you Olivier.
@spendius,
Whatever - if Panzade said it, it's probably not very interesting.
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:The sheer size of the sun, compared with the tiny weight of total biosphere, seems part of the explanation.
Size doesn't matter when it comes to matters of energy and information.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:I have some objections to what you write, though, Boss. The most obvious is that people who don't understand the second law well enough to know that the earth is not a closed system aren't going to understand what you're saying about the sun.
True. But just because the creationist side is too dimwitted to understand that its argument is false, that doesn't relieve us from our duty to understand why our argument works.
Setanta wrote:The next is that that doesn't apply to the claim that the second law invalidates evolution (not for a few billion years, at least).
Yes it does. If it turned out to be the case that nuclear fusion in the sun adds less entropy to the solar system than life on Earth subtracts from it, then the Second Law
would invalidate evolution. I have no reason to believe that this will turn out to be the case, but I wish I had a tighter grasp on the thermodynamics of it. It's not about the dismal quality of their argument, it's about improving the quality of ours.
Setanta wrote:Additionally, if you point that out to one of the cleverer god-botherers, they're doing to have an "Ah-ha!" moment and claim that they were right after all.
They'll claim that no matter what you point out to them.
@Thomas,
Our old girlfriend, Mother Nature, has a short way with those who ignore her. If the entropy equation failed for life forms on earth, there were be die-offs until some equilibrium were restored.
Your absolutely right--creationists never let little things like facts get in their way.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:Our old girlfriend, Mother Nature, has a short way with those who ignore her. If the entropy equation failed for life forms on earth, there were be die-offs until some equilibrium were restored.
True,
if evolution is consistent with the Second Law. But for purposes of this particular argument, that's what we're trying to establish, so we can't assume it at the outset.
@Setanta,
I observe that in my own family members; no need to look beyond that!
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Because jimmy's friends can't support their beliefs with anything substantial. Jimmy continues to allow his friends to remain delusional. Good on you Jimmy.
Unless they're pushing their delusions on you, and most of them don't, what's the harm in letting people continue with their delusions if it makes them happy?
