Thread: That's it, I'm done

Originally Posted by Bosco

Dude, science explains all of gods mysteries. You may call it abiogenesis...thats cool, that does perfectly explain how everything started.......WTF started that.
If you cant look up at the sky and be simply amazed at the sun, moon, stars everything and you just think there is a natural hypotheses for why all life came to be, you need to get a life.

What? Because I look up at the sky and see for what it really is somehow makes me not have a life? Hmmmm...

Originally Posted by Bosco

Do not believe main stream relighions if thats not your thing, find spritiuality in yourself. Once you come to the realization that there is something greater than what we know and that science is just the way to somewhat explain it then maybe you will understand

In other words... BELIEVE OR ELSE!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What? Because I look up at the sky and see for what it really is somehow makes me not have a life? Hmmmm...


In other words... BELIEVE OR ELSE!

Neither of your posts made since here. I never said anything about you lookin in the sky and NOT having a life. I said look at the sky and just see damn beauty in shit.
Have you ever heard of Gods number? If you have tell me that doesnt have something to do with intelligent design

Originally Posted by Bosco

Neither of your posts made since here. I never said anything about you lookin in the sky and NOT having a life. I said look at the sky and just see damn beauty in shit.
Have you ever heard of Gods number? If you have tell me that doesnt have something to do with intelligent design

I see beauty in the world and the universe... but as far as things go, naturalistic explanations are far better than supernatural ones, all because the former has something the latter doesn't. Evidence. Doesn't take away from the beauty of it all.

God's number? What number is this by any chance?

Also, I think you were trying to spell "sense".

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I see beauty in the world and the universe... but as far as things go, naturalistic explanations are far better than supernatural ones, all because the former has something the latter doesn't. Evidence. Doesn't take away from the beauty of it all.

God's number? What number is this by any chance?

Also, I think you were trying to spell "sense".

Sense***

I believe the number is 1.66 It is called the perfect number. Google it, it is pretty cool

Originally Posted by Bosco

Sense***

I believe the number is 1.66 It is called the perfect number. Google it, it is pretty cool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Number

There are a lot of perfect numbers, all of them currently even numbers. What's so special about 1.66?

Originally Posted by Bosco

Dude, science explains all of gods mysteries. You may call it abiogenesis...thats cool, that does perfectly explain how everything started.......WTF started that.

And what the fuck created god then? Don't say "god is magic" because that doesn't count as an explanation, I could just as well claim the universe has supernatural powers.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Number

There are a lot of perfect numbers, all of them currently even numbers. What's so special about 1.66?

sorry its called the golden number http://goldennumber.net/

And for the poster before me, well i dont know that answer, but i am going to guess and we did?

There was an old quote saying "if coinciousness wasnt in the universe there would be no god or no universe, without god there there would be no coinciousness"

I know i spelled that wrong most likely but you get what im saying

Originally Posted by Bosco

sorry its called the golden number http://goldennumber.net/

And for the poster before me, well i dont know that answer, but i am going to guess and we did?

There was an old quote saying "if coinciousness wasnt in the universe there would be no god or no universe, without god there there would be no coinciousness"

I know i spelled that wrong most likely but you get what im saying

On that quote, the universe would exist with or without conscious entities within it to be aware of its existence. Us being here has nothing to do with universe's existence. For all we know, the universe could have existed in a constant cycle, expanded and crunching, in an ongoing process, and it just happens to be this current cycle that we are aware of the universe around us.

Also, the golden ratio is simply a mathematical pattern that has been observed in nature... I don't see how this is somehow proof for intelligent design. Besides, ID has to meet the burden of proof on many different areas, not just with one piece of flimsy evidence.

Are prime numbers also evidence for God as well? Not Pi though... in the Bible, Pi is 3, and we know that to be false, as Pi is equal to 3.14159265 (9 s.f).

Exactly, we created god.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

On that quote, the universe would exist with or without conscious entities within it to be aware of its existence. Us being here has nothing to do with universe's existence. For all we know, the universe could have existed in a constant cycle, expanded and crunching, in an ongoing process, and it just happens to be this current cycle that we are aware of the universe around us.

Also, the golden ratio is simply a mathematical pattern that has been observed in nature... I don't see how this is somehow proof for intelligent design. Besides, ID has to meet the burden of proof on many different areas, not just with one piece of flimsy evidence.

Are prime numbers also evidence for God as well? Not Pi though... in the Bible, Pi is 3, and we know that to be false, as Pi is equal to 3.14159265 (9 s.f).

If a tree falls and no one is around does it make sound?

I know thats kinda corny but we dont hear it so in our minds it didnt make sound.
If no one was here to experience the universe, then its not really here.

Originally Posted by juroara

1. I can't really take the blog seriously because of the language. therefore I can not take the death threats that he is talking about seriously as well. angry resentful people exaggerate and blow things out of proportion.

2. most churches, especially catholic churches will actually ask that only believers come up to receive the body of christ - since there are always a few christians in the church who don't agree with the catholic view regarding the body of christ *symbolic versus literal*

3. you don't believe, you've no business coming up. period. it wasn't the cracker being stolen, so much as a total disrespect in a ritual that is meant for only a catholic to participate in. the ritual I repeat, is not open to non-believers. the church is, the ritual is not.

4. church on a whole is a place for believers, and believers in the church. it's meant to be a safe happy little spot for church-based family. it's like inviting someone you trust into your home, only to have them take something of sentimental value from you without permission. or rather, what if you started an atheist only club only to discover a XIAN within your group =b and then the XIAN disobeys your rules

5. whether or not the angry people realize it, what really made them angry was the lie of being a believer, and being entrusted with something meant for only believers. its like entrusting a secret to whom you thought was a friend, only to have them say it to everyone behind your back. it was trust and disrespect of that trust that made them angry.

6. I am actually not catholic. And there are very few people who are more against dogmatic rituals as I am. HOWEVER, when in the walls of a religious place, it is like coming into someone elses home. you are a guest there, you need to show some respect. you don't want to show respect, be an adult and don't bloody go. I don't. I don't go. perrriooood.

7. the only people who have any real right to make a scene at church, are christians who are challenging the church. in this matter, it becomes a protest and a statement. Just as it is, that only the people of a specific country can really protest against their own government. What does a foreigners words mean, if no one in the country cares?

8. how weak is a statement at church from a non-believer. your actions and protest would mean NOTHING. and would only be counter-production. look at how mean the atheists are children? look at how the people who are going to hell behave? do you really think the actions of a non-believer at church can change anything?

9. if your aim isn't change, then you are just angry, bitter and resentful. get over what ever issue you have with church and move on with your pity life.

10. if you are wanting to see changes as a non-believer, you need to understand your only arena to challenge church is outside of its walls.


the point that I am trying to make is, your view point, and the view point of the blogger is wrong. it is not that someone does not believe in the 'cracker' that made them angry. most christian churches last I checked do not agree with the catholic church regarding the literacy of the bread being Christ's body. this does not make anyone so angry they need to make death threats.

and again, there are always such christians at catholic masses, because of marriages and such forth to non catholics.

trust and respect belong to the ego. do I believe that someone was pissed enough to make a death threat? someones ego trust and respect being slapped in the face has made people angry beyond belief. I am not justifying the behavior. again, only explaining the behavior stems from human ego, NOT FAITH.

HUH?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Exactly, we created god.

You do not get the point.

Originally Posted by Bosco

If a tree falls and no one is around does it make sound?

I know thats kinda corny but we dont hear it so in our minds it didnt make sound.
If no one was here to experience the universe, then its not really here.

Sound is an arbitrary distinction. If a tree falls down, the air molecules present would be displaced by the falling tree (transfer of energy), and thus vibrate. Sound is merely us detecting these displacements in the air.

So technically, the displacement of air still occurs, but we aren't there to detect it as sound.

Thus it still exists.

Of course things exist without people to observe them. How did the Earth come to be? If things do not exist when nobody is there to watch them, then the Earth would never have come to be, and nobody would ever have come to exist in the first place. If you believe in creationism, how did God make the Earth if nobody was there to see him doing it?

You lack the capability for any sort of deep thought if you think that naturalistic explanations are shallow. Learn to see nature and appreciate it as the totality of existence; it is much more beautiful then believing that a malicious, stupid, vindictive man (for whom there is no evidence) created it. What an ugly idea.

Originally Posted by Xei

Of course things exist without people to observe them. How did the Earth come to be? If things do not exist when nobody is there to watch them, then the Earth would never have come to be, and nobody would ever have come to exist in the first place. If you believe in creationism, how did God make the Earth if nobody was there to see him doing it?

You lack the capability for any sort of deep thought if you think that naturalistic explanations are shallow. Learn to see nature and appreciate it as the totality of existence; it is much more beautiful then believing that a malicious, stupid, vindictive man (for whom there is no evidence) created it. What an ugly idea.

Why does it have to be a man? Can it not just be a life force, or energy?

and didnt i explain before that Life is beautiful and even when we die nothin may happen, but we are here now to experience it and that in a way is god?

Originally Posted by Bosco

If you cant look up at the sky and be simply amazed at the sun, moon, stars everything and you just think there is a natural hypotheses for why all life came to be, you need to get a life.

Natural hypothesis and amazement are not mutually exclusive. Scientists look up and are amazed all the time. I'd imagine that's why most of them are scientists in the first place.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Atheism requiring faith? No it doesn't... and that in itself depends on the position you take with Atheism. You have gnostic atheists (disbelieve in gods and say there's evidence to prove such assertions) and agnostic atheists (disbelieve in deities and assert there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove deities). Scepticism is not equivalent to faith, so please don't mistake it for faith.


A great vid detailing why Atheism is not faith-based.

Also, design? Oh by Longcat, don't get me started. Look up some things on evolution and abiogenesis before you assert the whole design thing:

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

And that's just Youtube channels specialised in promoting a better understanding of the science behind Evolution and occasionally on Abiogenesis.

I would argue more deeply into this, but I have work to do.

Sigh. When I refer to "atheism," I mean a general disbelief in a higher order that gave way to our orderly universe, be it a deity, a cosmic cause, or whatever. I say it takes faith to believe that everything we know is an accident, because such accidental perfection is highly, highly, highly improbable.

Let's say you're walking down 5th avenue in New York City and you 1000 quarters on the sidewalk. Upon closer inspection, you notice all the quarters are heads-up, equally spaced from one another, and perfectly fill up two squares of concrete. At a loss to explain why they're there, you look around and eventually notice an open window above with a bucket sitting in the sill. Now obviously it's possible that the coins were spilled and all miraculously landed that way, but intuition suggests that someone specifically placed the quarters there, perhaps as a joke or an art project. The probability that the coins all landed heads up after a random fall is 1 to 1.07150861 × 10^301, let alone the probability that they will all land equally spaced and only taking up two squares of concrete. And this kind of order isn't even close to the order of our own universe, where trillions upon trillions of events and parts must all function simultaneously to function.

My good sir, to believe that such an intricate universe did not spring from some higher order, but rather randomly formed against nigh infinite odds requires a great amount of faith, regardless of what you call it. (Btw, Dicitionary.com says "faith" is "belief that is not based on proof"... and there is no conclusive proof or evidence that a higher being does not exist.)

For some however, it is easier to have faith in such a concept because the absence of a deity or a higher purpose frees the individual from personal responsibility.

An' don'chu daer bring lawngkat into dis!!!!!! >

Originally Posted by bcomp

Sigh. When I refer to "atheism," I mean a general disbelief in a higher order that gave way to our orderly universe, be it a deity, a cosmic cause, or whatever. I say it takes faith to believe that everything we know is an accident, because such accidental perfection is highly, highly, highly improbable.

Let's say you're walking down 5th avenue in New York City and you 1000 quarters on the sidewalk. Upon closer inspection, you notice all the quarters are heads-up, equally spaced from one another, and perfectly fill up two squares of concrete. At a loss to explain why they're there, you look around and eventually notice an open window above with a bucket sitting in the sill. Now obviously it's possible that the coins were spilled and all miraculously landed that way, but intuition suggests that someone specifically placed the quarters there, perhaps as a joke or an art project. The probability that the coins all landed heads up after a random fall is 1 to 1.07150861 × 10^301, let alone the probability that they will all land equally spaced and only taking up two squares of concrete. And this kind of order isn't even close to the order of our own universe, where trillions upon trillions of events and parts must all function simultaneously to function.

My good sir, to believe that such an intricate universe did not spring from some higher order, but rather randomly formed against nigh infinite odds requires a great amount of faith, regardless of what you call it. (Btw, Dicitionary.com says "faith" is "belief that is not based on proof"... and there is no conclusive proof or evidence that a higher being does not exist.)

For some however, it is easier to have faith in such a concept because the absence of a deity or a higher purpose frees the individual from personal responsibility.

An' don'chu daer bring lawngkat into dis!!!!!! >

I guess none of those links were visited, and the video largely ignored. A huge fucking shame. Also, you ignore physics and mathematics if you wish to assert everything is a design. As for the whole odds thing, I invoke the Anthropic Principle.

[Example] DNA is all long and twisty, just like Longcat... so it is all made in Longcat's image. DNA could have formed in all sorts of different forms, but no, it choose to be a long molecule. What are the odds of that?! Prove me wrong!

That analogy isn't really correct, because we're not dealing with an event inside our universe, we're dealing with what created the whole universe.

A better analogy would be if you came across 1000 coins with heads up, and they were the only thing in the whole of reality.

Now it is clear why your analogy is flawed; it is very improbable that those coins should be like that, but it is a ridiculously more improbable hypothesis that a person with a brain intelligent enough to put those coins there randomly came to be.

The whole deal with fine tuning is much more elegantly explained by the anthropic principle and the multiverse theory.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I guess none of those links were visited, and the video largely ignored. A huge fucking shame. Also, you ignore physics and mathematics if you wish to assert everything is a design. As for the whole odds thing, I invoke the Anthropic Principle.

[Example] DNA is all long and twisty, just like Longcat... so it is all made in Longcat's image. DNA could have formed in all sorts of different forms, but no, it choose to be a long molecule. What are the odds of that?! Prove me wrong!

Yeah my computer's freaking out and crashed flash. Can't see any flash things... .

Pssh. Anthropic principle. Cheap cop-out. Doesn't address the origin of the universe, just accepts that it happened and says that's reason enough for the wild probabilities.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Yeah my computer's freaking out and crashed flash. Can't see any flash things... .

Pssh. Anthropic principle. Cheap cop-out. Doesn't address the origin of the universe, just accepts that it happened and says that's reason enough for the wild probabilities.

It's a counterpoint against the use of wild probabilities, because using probabilities in such ways is somewhat fallacious. Despite the odds, Evolution has happened, whether you acknowledge the mountains of evidence for it or not.

Just to link to a recent find: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html

The problem of justifying God through the gaps of knowledge in Science is that when Science figures out the answer for some particular gaps, does that constitute an attack on God? I mean, it's also rather pathetic to have to justify a deity's existence solely on what we don't know, because eventually, as Science has done, it has turned what we don't know to what we do know. It's just a matter of time and progress for Science.

Also, no attempt to falsify my Longcat analogy?

Originally Posted by bcomp

Sigh. When I refer to "atheism," I mean a general disbelief in a higher order that gave way to our orderly universe, be it a deity, a cosmic cause, or whatever. I say it takes faith to believe that everything we know is an accident, because such accidental perfection is highly, highly, highly improbable.

In what sense is our universe orderly? Shit is smashing into other shit or just blowing up all the time. On earth, nature continuously breaks itself, overcompensates, breaks differently, and compensates for that, with species dying off, diverging, overrunning one another, joining symbiotically and changing territories. Even our own institutions--our economies, our diplomacy--which we know for a fact were made by intelligent beings, frequently outstrip our attempts to bring them to order, collapsing, exploding or thriving in unpredicted ways.

Such perfection, accidental or otherwise, is highly, highly, highly delusional.

To say that the odds are so against us existing on earth in this universe, is to blatantly ignore the fact that we do exist her on earth. Of the trillions and trillions of stars (probably more that are too far away to see) each with a chance of having multiple planets orbiting it, I'd say the chances of SOME kind of life existing in the universe is a 100% certainty. Keep in mind, although humans cannot survive drastic changes from our current environment, there are many organisms that can. To say that life can't adapt to some environment drastically different from ours is definitely not something I'd say

I don't expect much company on this one, but to say life is qualitatively different from the rest of the activity of the universe is taxonomic hubris. The universe, at least in this phase, compounds heterogeneity and complexity of forms and relationships. At the boundary of our vision--the distant past, where we perceive a Big Bang--all is one, homogeneous and in fact cospatial. Nearer our space-time, we see particles and space emerge from increasingly complex arabesques of void, until atoms/molecules and expanding space bring form. That form then compounds into more complex amalgamations which yield heavier and heavier elements which disperse and commingle in yet more complex arrangements.

Life is not a freak accident or a divine plan--it is the natural activity of the universe as expressed here. A tree does not put out leaves because it planned to do so, nor by accident, but because the conditions arise where it is possible.