11
   

Afterlife?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 03:31 am
@ascribbler,
ascribbler wrote:

Yes Frank you are an agnostic atheist because you do not believe in god(s).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8[/youtube]




No...I am not an atheist of any kind.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 04:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, I remember a photo you posted once — a birthday party and a bunch of your friends ribbing you about being an atheist. Seemed like you took it in good humor. Still have that pic?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 04:22 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


Frank, I remember a photo you posted once — a birthday party and a bunch of your friends ribbing you about being an atheist. Seemed like you took it in good humor. Still have that pic?


I do not remember such a photo...or even of such an event, Hightor. There is not a friend of mine who would suggest that I am an atheist.

I have had many, many people who describe themselves as "atheists" insist that I am an atheist by virtue of the fact that I do not "believe" in any gods.

An "atheist" is someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor. I have never met a person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I do not fall into that category.

I truly am not an atheist.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 04:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
They had you holding a sign or something, and you had a big smile on your face. As I said, they were ribbing you. I certainly accept that, according to your definition, you are not an atheist.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 04:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
I don’t know why some people have the need to label everyone else and tell them what they are.

You can call yourself whatever you want Frank, it’s nobody else’s business.
ascribbler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 05:35 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I have had many, many people who describe themselves as "atheists" insist that I am an atheist by virtue of the fact that I do not "believe" in any gods.


"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

"noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Now that you have confirmed by attestation that you are an atheist can we now proceed to discuss your agnosticism?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 06:25 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


They had you holding a sign or something, and you had a big smile on your face. As I said, they were ribbing you. I certainly accept that, according to your definition, you are not an atheist.


Thank you for that last part, Hightor.

The description of the picture does not trigger any memory for me at all. The only friends I've ever discussed this with are atheistic friends from A2K (Joe Nation; Lola; Blatham; Thomas; ehBeth; and LittleK)...and although we've all been together for beers and photos, I never remember any picture of the sort you mentioned.

Could be such a picture exists, but one of them published it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 06:27 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I don’t know why some people have the need to label everyone else and tell them what they are.

You can call yourself whatever you want Frank, it’s nobody else’s business.


Thank you, Izzy. I see this asshole, ascribbler, is going to push this bullshit, so it is not gonna go away easily.

Grab some popcorn.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 06:37 am
@ascribbler,
ascribbler wrote:

Quote:
I have had many, many people who describe themselves as "atheists" insist that I am an atheist by virtue of the fact that I do not "believe" in any gods.


"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

"noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism




Dictionaries tell us how words are used...and many atheists use the word "atheist" that way.

But until the 1950's just about every dictionary had as its primary meaning: "Someone who denies the existence of God or gods."

Some dictionaries still do.

The etymology of the word certainly leans more toward "having no gods" than anything to do with "beliefs" or "lack of beliefs."

However, as I said earlier, every person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor seems to be of the opinion that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

That is not something I subscribe to in any way, shape or form. I do not have that opinion at all.

I MOST ASSUREDLY AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Quote:
Now that you have confirmed by attestation that you are an atheist can we now proceed to discuss your agnosticism?


**** you very much for that, ascribbler. If you would like to discuss the items about which I am agnostic, we can certainly do so.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 07:09 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Religion is about magic. A discussion of chemical reactions is science. Half a billion years in all of the world's oceans must involve an astronomical number of random chemical reactions. What's your basis for saying a self-replicating molecule couldn't form by chance over a long period of time in a sample with a nearly uncountable number of reactions occurring? A molecule could be built in stages in numerous separate random reactions.

This is not about 'religion', we are talking about science and mathematics now.

The process you described falls under the umbrella of 'magic'. It violates more than a few laws of physics. And it’s the equivalent of bumper sticker 'wisdom', - **** Happens.

So if you want to stand on 'science', here is my challenge to you (or anyone else so inclined). Below is my simplest explanation of why it couldn’t have happened as you (and farmer) said. None of this is cut and pasted from elsewhere as some have claimed although the facts stated are from mainstream molecular biology and computer science. You may disagree with my conclusion but I don’t think you will find any scientific errors in the argument. You are welcome to point them out if you do. I eagerly await your reply.

—————————-


Farmer said:
yeh, all it takes are astronomical numbers of incidents ovr astronomical timelines (like deeep time , or anything over a BILLION years or so), and its almost a given .

Leadfoot replied:

Just for the record, here's why I don’t believe it's 'almost a given'.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though amino acids can potentially form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein is a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.


bulmabriefs144
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 07:51 am
@Leadfoot,
This.

Although it is possible for me to make some bread by tinkering with a recipe, adding more water or more flour or more butter, as the situation demands, this is intentional action even if it doesn't follow a recipe on paper.

I feel like any hardcore atheist has never made anything in their life, and thus can only relate to theories by fuzzy-headed professors. Having made plenty of things, I can tell that thete is a strictly by formula creation, a doing things by feel creation, and completely random generally doesn't work. If I type random notes into the keyboard, the only way I ever get a song is if I leaen which notes work, and which don't. If I continue to be random, I am probably not human.

Why does magnetism work? Because metals need to stick together to hold planets together. Same for other forces like molecular bonds. Some for, as you say, behavior of proteins. These reactions are planned in order to create a viable result. Without these ground rules, life would be a bunch of slimes struggling to flop about with whiplike legs.

Intention. Without a goal, evolution of any kind can't take place. Without a set of basic rules, we don't even have a planet.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 08:13 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Yep. Monkeys banging on typewriters are more likely to write 'The Joy of Cooking' than life arising by chance.

Pesky random thought:

'Science' has come full circle. Before Mr. Pasteur discovered how to pasteurize food, men thought maggots/life spontaneously came to life from rotting matter. Mr. P. disproved that about maggots but now these pseudo 'scientists' says ALL life came about that way. It’s Hilarious.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 11:33 am
@Leadfoot,
sneak it in. Remember, the "Bar code " doesnt create the chicken soup.
"belief without proof is the arena of religion.
Denial without proof , is more akin to science"
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2021 05:51 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Denial without proof , is more akin to science

That is what I’ve been trying to tell you for years now.

'Science' as you construe it, is denial of the obvious without evidence.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2021 09:34 am
@Leadfoot,
only as in comparison with religion which is"acceptnce without proof" I think I posted those mots years before you even became conscious of how religion tries to usurp science by make-believe.

What about "the bar code doesnt create th chicken soup.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2021 03:33 pm
@farmerman,
As i told Brandon, I'm not talking religion here, either you got a counter argument or you don't.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2021 07:26 am
@Leadfoot,
Monkeys typing Joy of Cooking, would first involve actually teaching them English and how to type. Otherwise it would forever be vdjgsucmgx!hditsjfsmyskyat ksytkdldsmtcmzxajhqwekjtwgkc!h stuff. Assuming the latter was possible , you'd have to contend with rather pronounced ADHD typing. As a sufferer, without the hyperactivity part, I'm pretty sure what I know what this looks like. Dangling paragraphs and sentences. Run-ons. The more than occasional typo added in or wrong word.

Fun fact, Pasteur actually discovered what he thought was spontaneous life, in a compost, but suppressed this because he decided that this would somehow defy his notion of God as creator. Actually it wouldn't, but Pasteur was a pretty sketchy scientist. It's all there in "The Dream and the Lie of Louis Pasteur."
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2021 07:28 am
@farmerman,
The bar code doesn't create the chicken soup?

The hell you saying...?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2021 11:09 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:
This.

Although it is possible for me to make some bread by tinkering with a recipe, adding more water or more flour or more butter, as the situation demands, this is intentional action even if it doesn't follow a recipe on paper.

I feel like any hardcore atheist has never made anything in their life, and thus can only relate to theories by fuzzy-headed professors. Having made plenty of things, I can tell that thete is a strictly by formula creation, a doing things by feel creation, and completely random generally doesn't work. If I type random notes into the keyboard, the only way I ever get a song is if I leaen which notes work, and which don't. If I continue to be random, I am probably not human.

Why does magnetism work? Because metals need to stick together to hold planets together. Same for other forces like molecular bonds. Some for, as you say, behavior of proteins. These reactions are planned in order to create a viable result. Without these ground rules, life would be a bunch of slimes struggling to flop about with whiplike legs.

Intention. Without a goal, evolution of any kind can't take place. Without a set of basic rules, we don't even have a planet.


So...let me be sure I've got this correct, Bulma. You are saying that your blind guess is that THERE IS A GOD...as opposed to the blind guess of some atheists that THERE ARE NO GODS.

Am I right?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2021 11:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
Hey Frank, not trying to argue here. Can you do something with this?

P1 and P2 to support a C of: Therefore the sun will rise at dawn tomorrow.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Afterlife?
  3. » Page 11
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 12:56:24