Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 06:57 am
Has anyone ever postulated that the god(s) were killed in the initial explosion?

If not, I hereby do so.

Just in case the cosmic background radiation survey digs up a forensic blood splatter pattern.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 07:11 am
@youngthinker,
The problem: to be an atheist you almost have to believe in evolution, and everybody knows evolution is a bunch of bullshit by now and is basically being defended by die-hard perverts looking for ways to rationalize lifestyles, and by academic dead wood like "farmerman" on this forum who have too much ego and tenure investment in it to let go.


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://concerts.ticketsnow.com/Graphics/photos/TinaTurner.jpg

  • 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?


0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:08 pm
Believing in anything that makes sense to you you demented fuckwit. Behold the stupidest idiot on the entire face of the earth. Although it is hard to fathom that this pathetic deadshit is the end result of 2 million years of evolution.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:16 pm
I really hope that the smart people here DON'T come and point out all the flaws in morons logic. This worthless little loser, is so terrified of death, that he will go to any lengths, including inventing an entire new way of thinking, to avoid the reality that he is alone in the universe. His type just can't face the fact that there is no magical afterlife. To face the fact that the second that his final brain cell (amazingly, he must have some), finally dies, that he'll stop, and it's over, fill losers like these with a primordial fear so deep, that to acknowledge his errors would leave him completely unable to function on this earth. This is the type that need the immature crutch of religion, or to be drugged into an anti-psychotic stupor.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 04:16 pm
The problem with not being an atheist, is that you have to believe in a god. What could be stupider than that.

You have to believe that some being has existed for all eternity, was not created, knows EVERYTHING, is immortal, and can create anything just by wanting it to be so.

What could be stupider or more pathetic than that?

You have to believe some form of everything being created just by a wave of his/her/their magical hands.

What could be stupider or more pathetic than that?

You have to be believe that the first man was made out of clay.

What could be stupider or more pathetic than that?

You have to believe that the first woman was created out of a rib of the first man.

What could be stupider or more pathetic than that?

You have to believe that they were banned from paradise because the "rib woman" was tricked by a talking snake into eating the fruit from a magical tree.

You have to believe that their son found a wife, even though no other women had been "created".

You have to believe that the "saviour" was born to a virgin.

You have to believe that he rose from the dead.

You have to believe that he floated bodily into heaven.

You have to abandon all verifiable logic, and give yourself over to a fantastic group of fairytales and miracles, and give your entire life over to subservience to this magical man/woman/group of beings, in order to have a magic afterlife after all your eathbound brain cells die from lack of oxygen.

What could be stupider, or worse, or more pathetic than all of that?

dogdog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 11:26 am
@Wilso,
This is maybe too obvious, but Wilso seems to be confusing belief "in a god" with Christian fundamentalism. One could believe in a god and not believe any of the beliefs listed above.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 12:16 pm
@dogdog,
dogdog wrote:

This is maybe too obvious, but Wilso seems to be confusing belief "in a god" with Christian fundamentalism. One could believe in a god and not believe any of the beliefs listed above.


And how would you class gungasnakkke's confusion?
0 Replies
 
dogdog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 05:53 pm
Clearly insane.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 07:56 pm
@dogdog,
dogdog wrote:

Clearly insane.


On that we can agree. You managed to work him out very quickly.
0 Replies
 
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:10 pm
@youngthinker,
Do you not believe in God or do you KNOW God does not exist?

I ask the question as to not believe implies a willingness to be proven wrong, which then implies a certain amount of doubt. To KNOW God does not exist implies no doubt. No Doubt = Atheist. Doubt no matter how slight = Agnostic
So are you an Atheist or Agnostic
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:19 pm
@bob600,
This is not so, and is part and parcel of the position of moral superiority which agnostics often attempt to claim. I am atheist--which is to say that i am without god. I don't know if there is a god, but i am atheist because i respond to any theistic claim i've ever heard by saying "I don't believe that." Atheism is not a belief, it's the absence of any theistic belief.
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:23 pm
@Setanta,
First can I say I am an Atheist, I KNOW God does not exist, I have no doubt.

Can you say the same?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:25 pm
No, i can't. Then again, i can't say there are no faeries, pixies or elves. Nevertheless, were you to tell that there were faeries, pixies or elves, i'd say exactly the same thing: "I don't believe that." In its simplest terms, atheist means without god. I am without god. I don't really care if that matches whatever definition you insist on.
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:32 pm
@Setanta,
You stated that you "don't know if there is a God" and the definition of Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity, is unknown or unknowable and thats exectly what you are saying. I will agree you may be an agnostic biased strongly towards atheism, but while there is a doubt its still Agnosticism.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 04:26 pm
Absolutely no doubt.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 09:34 pm
@bob600,
bob600 wrote:
I will agree you may be an agnostic biased strongly towards atheism, but while there is a doubt its still Agnosticism.

To press Setanta's point, are you then also an agnostic about the existence of fairies and elves? Or would you rather call yourself an afairyist or an a-elvist?

EDIT: Strike that. I just noticed you claim to know god doesn't exist. That renders my question moot. In this case, my comment on your discussion with Setanta is simply that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Even if one doesn't know there is no god (and thereby be an agnostic), one can still disbelieve in her existence (and thereby be an atheist).
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 02:47 am
@bob600,
bob600 wrote:

You stated that you "don't know if there is a God" and the definition of Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity, is unknown or unknowable and thats exectly what you are saying. I will agree you may be an agnostic biased strongly towards atheism, but while there is a doubt its still Agnosticism.


To say that one doesn't know something, is not to say that something cannot be known.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 02:57 am
@bob600,
Let me put this in stronger terms--i don't give a rat's ass how you attempt to twist the definition of atheist. Atheist means without god, and i am without god. You claim to know that there is no god, to which i call bullshit. You think that you know that, but you don't know that. You can of course be an atheist without knowing to a certainty. But your attempt to foist your definition entailing a certitude off on others changes nothing.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 09:53 am
@bob600,
bob600 wrote:

First can I say I am an Atheist, I KNOW God does not exist, I have no doubt.

Can you say the same?
Saying you KNOW God does not exist is intellectually dishonest at best. I believe God exists but I could never truly say I KNOW FOR A FACT because I can't know. It took me awhile to understand that but I finally do.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 02:44 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

bob600 wrote:

First can I say I am an Atheist, I KNOW God does not exist, I have no doubt.

Can you say the same?
Saying you KNOW God does not exist is intellectually dishonest at best. I believe God exists but I could never truly say I KNOW FOR A FACT because I can't know. It took me awhile to understand that but I finally do.


Militant atheists like me would counter that it's equally, intellectually dishonest to say that you KNOW the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Is that what you're claiming? I don't feel dishonest at all in stating, unequivocally, that the tooth fairy DOES NOT exist. I don't feel dishonest at all in stating, unequivocally, that god DOES NOT exist. There are no gods. We don't have a soul. We're a collection of chemical reactions and electrical impulses. When they stop, we stop. End of story.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I'm an aethist....
  3. » Page 20
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/25/2022 at 11:12:16