giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,

Quote:
Yeah...it is your firm blind guess that no gods exist...and cannot exist.

No problem with that...and it would be even better if you would grow up enough to acknowledge that your blind guesses are nothing more than blind guesses.


Frank? FRANK? Is that you???
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If that truly is a problem rather than a cowardly way of getting out of responding...you have to leave,


You never cease to be a hypocrite, Frank.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:42 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Reconsider Heisenberg with respect to a contrary view that "evidence of the universe" is observer related.



To what end?
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Oh, one other thing. Basing things on what religious texts say...really is not especially bright. Some religious texts say things that are probably incorrect. You do realize that, right?

Why yes Frank, I do. But remember, I didnt say I agreed with these writings I'm just using them as a basis to prove the text wrong.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:47 pm
@Olivier5,
You need me to cite evidence that religion has been destructive?
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:49 pm
@kiuku,
Quote:
only if you believe that Mankind is capable of running itself.


Uh...I have a news flash for ya...we have.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:51 pm
@giujohn,
Will you be including in that all the USian religious nut cases who have peddled their crap to justify slaughtering innocents and stealing their wealth, John?
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:57 pm
@JTT,
Absotively!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:58 pm
@giujohn,
I can't wait.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 06:13 pm
@giujohn,
The main problem is that the only real alternative to believing in God (evolution) has been demonstrated to be a bunch of bullshit.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 06:14 pm
@gungasnake,
And you base this on....
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 06:17 pm
@giujohn,
Emails from Tea Party headquarters.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 06:19 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Signature
The price of apathy in public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men (Plato)


How the hell did Plato know the USA was going to come into existence?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 10:00 pm
@giujohn,
You would need to prove that:

Quote:
Any good that might result [from religion] is overwhelmingly subplanted by the tremendous evil that occurs.


As I see it, it's far from easy to prove. For one thing, you have no counterfactual, since most human society so far have been religious. The only atheist societies have been communist ones, and they slaughtered millions...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 10:52 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
You base this on??




The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Quote:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxBbTP7lYdWyifvIpoafdaze7s103OTEgN_V3V80q86SZLo5fE1w

  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

Quote:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!


Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?


Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2014 11:24 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?



Being you.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 12:18 am
@giujohn,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Reconsider Heisenberg with respect to a contrary view that "evidence of the universe" is observer related.



To what end?


Because you don't seem to understand that once naive realism is transcended, "evidence" is contextual and negotiable. On that basis, you are indeed correct in citing social perniciousness of religion as a reason for atheism, but the "existential" argument is irrelevant on the basis that what humans deem to "exist" is merely functional for them. On that view, God(s) exists for believers even though the concept of "God" is dysfunctional for atheists. Compare the concept of "God" to that of "Human Rights" or "Democracy" etc to understand the nebulousness of the word "existence". Note too that ultimately, even scientific concepts such as "particle" and "wave" can be deemed similarly problematic in naive existential terms. (...Whence the reconsideration of Heisenberg). Check out the temporary functionality of "the aether" on the history of science if you can't see the point.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 12:58 am
@giujohn,
A further point of interest...
Quote:
When he was fifty-five, Heisenberg gave the Gifford lectures at St. Andrews on "Physics and Philosophy." He himself was religious, a member of the Evangelische Kirche (Lutheran and Calvinistic mixture), which his family had traditionally attended. As he once wrote me, he obviously did not subscribe to all the tenets of his grandparents. Nevertheless, he and his wife educated their children "definitely along the lines of the Christian religion."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 03:09 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Frank,baby! I know the world exists...it is YOU I think is not for real!


I am not your baby, John.

You do not know if I am real. I agree.

I do not know if you exist.

As for what you call "the world"...it may all be an illusion. It may all be an illusion of the mind I am using.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 02:51 pm
You're late:
John Lennon already said that.
"Imagine"

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


It's amusing how close to being correct he actually was.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Evil of god
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 12:27:08