Let's Examine the Claims of Atheists - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15181020
Sandzak wrote:
RNA is also a code. There is a law in informatics no code without a codewriter.



Biology is not informatics, nor is it constrained in any way by informatics.

You're assuming your conclusion, there are less subtle ways of saying that...
#15181025
@late OK. According mathematics if 100 monkeys would for unlimted time type randomly on typewriters they would once write Shakespeare's Hamlet with every point and comma.

But I still believe in God because Newton said the universe has laws where come this laws.

Image



2-4 Billion Years are to short to get a working RNA code perhaps panspermia theory is right.
#15181038
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm sure a scientist can explain it and i'm 100% sure a priest has no evidence a supernatural being created DNA.

If science is yet unable to explain something that doesn't mean God did it.

Image
#15181053
@Potemkin

You know Potemkin, I just want you to know, that I have "thoughts and prayers" for you. :lol: Didn't you get the memo that "thoughts and prayers" is the solution to all problems!? And if we just have "thoughts and prayers" you know problems will just fix themselves! :lol:
#15181107
Why do you think evolution is "100 monkeys typing randomly"? Biological evolution can be better viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry.
#15181108
There was an experiment, a student simulated the early earth, he put in a huge bottle half filled of water + minerals and the other half CO2 and nitrogene. UV lamp and small lightnings... after a few weaks aminoacids evolved.

ingliz wrote:Why do you think evolution is "100 monkeys typing randomly"? Biological evolution can be better viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry.





But evolution is random mutation this where the stronger mutation survives. (coincidence)



Btw Darwin was not the first who said the fittest/strongest survives, it was Osman Beg (the father of the Ottoman dynasty)
#15181336
The thread started with subjective preconceived generalizations of what atheists believe. It lost me at the first sentence because of that. The entire premises and context became a rationalization to engage in preconceived stereotypes. If I want know to what an atheist thinks thanks I will ask one. These threads posed as intellectual discourse to rationalize generalizing atheists for me lime all such stereotyping threads are pointless. Thank you.

As for your points on spirituality and science not necessarily being dettached I agree but not based on stereotyping atheists but my own interpretation of fractal theory which is a bit of both. That said I am a primate period. Save the political or other labels. I have fleas, kill indiscriminately, over estimate my intelligence and shit and piss in what I drink and eat, tend to rape, destroy, put dirty chemicals into the ecosphere. Those are all the scabies you need to understand what I am about. I smell and am not nice to other life on the planet. Until I get my act together I am just a pain in the ass. Thank you.
#15208743
PhantomStranger wrote:The thread started with subjective preconceived generalizations of what atheists believe. It lost me at the first sentence because of that. The entire premises and context became a rationalization to engage in preconceived stereotypes.



Says the atheist, who also begins with subjective preconceived generalizations of what people of faith believe. YOUR generalizations are of course rational, intelligent, wise and accurate. Anything not comporting to your worldview is immediately condemned and not worth reading.

No, the elegance of everything we see, hear and do has NOT been proven, explained and understood by atheist dogma. That is quite impossible.
#15208746
Sandzak wrote:@late OK. According to mathematics if 100 monkeys would for unlimited time type randomly on typewriters they would once write Shakespeare's Hamlet with every point and comma.


While such a remark sounds plausible, it is absurdly impossible.

A typewriter has 92 keys, characters and numbers including upper case. For a sentence of only 100 characters in length, there are 92 to the 100th power combinations. The probability of monkeys randomly typing 100 successive characters perfectly is 1 chance in 92^100th or 1 chance in 10 to the 196th power.

1 chance in 10^50th is impossible. In fact, Richard Dawkins defines 1 in 10^40th as impossible. So this short sentence, supposedly to be typed my monkeys, is many orders of magnitude beyond just impossible.

10^50 grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Imagine someone putting on a space suit and climbing into a sandmarine and selecting one of the enormous spheres to plow through and find one specially marked grain of sand on the first and only try. That is 1 in 10^50. You don't get an infinite number of attempts, for the definition is "1" chance in 10^50.

Q.E.D.
#15208755
MrWonderful wrote:
Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion

The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.

The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics
_____________________________________



If you look at the early scientists, they believed in a deity. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler. But their work was, for the lack of a better term, mechanistic.

They were all trying to figure out how the Solar System worked, and Aristotle just didn't cut the mustard once you had a telescope.

This is not, at all, about what scientists believe in their private lives. It's about the work. Science is always about the work.

The idea of Truth is part of the Platonic tradition of philosophy. Modern philosophers of science don't use the traditional language of philosophy. My fave is Ronald N Giere.

I find it funny that you take turns attacking Carl Sagan, and then use him as a source. Pick one.

Here is some actual philosophy:

" So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere. Such secularists are not saying that God does not exist, exactly; they feel unclear about what it would mean to affirm His existence, and thus about the point of denying it. Nor do they have some special, funny, heretical view about God. They just doubt that the vocabulary of theology is one we ought to be using."
Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj ... /rorty.htm
#15208756
Sandzak wrote:Depends where you are the muslim world got more religous, africa too.

The most thing I love on religion is the distaste of sodomites.

:lol: Please please stop there. Seriously do you think we from the European world are going to take lectures from Muslims on homosexuality. Until relatively recently the Muslim world was an absolute paradise for homosexuals, pederasts and homosexual paedophiles. It was a well known magnet for rich homosexual Europeans as well as homosexual poets artists and the like. The Muslim world is drenched in hypocrisy pretending to be against it, but in practice its absolutely rife.

There are huge problems with the modern neo Darwinist theory of evolution. Problems so bad you could drive a bus through them. Its often theists who challenge the absurd dogmas of the scientific establishment but none of this makes the absurd drivel of Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Mormonism a jot more plausible.

Wow how do you explain the Cambrian explosion? You can't therefore we should execute the homosexuals.

Yes how did this RNA / DNA code evolve? Scientists have no explanation, therefore we should exterminate the Caananites.

Look at the incredible complexity of the cell. Our appreciation of the complexity seems to increase by the year. If you can't explain that complexity, then obviously you're morally obliged to cut your foreskin off.

When you start to look into the maths of protein folding you're inexorably drawn to the conclusion that its immoral to eat pork.

Yes we all know about the sickel cell adaption to Malaria. The classic selection on a random mutation of a single base pair. But there is just not sufficient time and population size to explain the emergence of humans or other higher life forms. The maths doesn't add up. Therefore Jesus must have rose from the dead. The logic is inarguable.
#15208774
pugsville wrote:The Christian god is absolutists cruel ruler without mercy or compassion. He should be opposed whether true or fictional, because he's a bad concept either way.

The other gods who were knocking around at the time were, for the most part, even worse. Would you rather we still believed in the Assyrian god Assur, who demanded conquest and the burning of captives? Or the Aztec sun-god Huitzilopochtli, who required to drink huge quantities of human blood before he would deign to get out of bed in the morning? And I’m not even going to mention Moloch, or Baal. The ancient Greek gods were fun, I grant you that. But worthy of worship? :eh:
#15208779
Potemkin wrote:The other gods who were knocking around at the time were, for the most part, even worse. Would you rather we still believed in the Assyrian god Assur, who demanded conquest and the burning of captives? Or the Aztec sun-god Huitzilopochtli, who required to drink huge quantities of human blood before he would deign to get out of bed in the morning? And I’m not even going to mention Moloch, or Baal. The ancient Greek gods were fun, I grant you that. But worthy of worship? :eh:

Well, there is certainly competition, but remember Yahweh committed multi-species genocide by drowning the world. The flood myth is not unique to this religion but it is certainly serious competition for a top homicidal maniac. :lol:
#15208781
Potemkin wrote:The other gods who were knocking around at the time were, for the most part, even worse. Would you rather we still believed in the Assyrian god Assur, who demanded conquest and the burning of captives? Or the Aztec sun-god Huitzilopochtli, who required to drink huge quantities of human blood before he would deign to get out of bed in the morning? And I’m not even going to mention Moloch, or Baal. The ancient Greek gods were fun, I grant you that. But worthy of worship? :eh:


Blame the catholic church. These others are some abstracts notions. the Catholics I know.
#15208787
pugsville wrote:Blame the catholic church. These others are some abstracts notions. the Catholics I know.

They are abstract notions to us now, but I assure you that their worship had very real effects at the time. On one memorable occasion, the Aztecs sacrificed more than 100,000 captives in one ceremony (I believe it was the coronation of one of their emperors). The Catholics can be annoying, and even cruel and oppressive on occasion, but they're a bunch of pussies compared to most ancient religions.

None of the couriers find Whiting, for the simple[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

It is official, Sweden and Finland are applying f[…]

The Death of Luxury Brands

TK Maxx Fun fact, in the US these stores are ca[…]

We have to get to the bottom of this...

You make 'private commercial bank licenses' sound[…]