The Illogic of Atheism? (if you like math and logic - no bible quotes pls)

[Trigger]

Well lets start with Louie Pasture. (see his name on your milk or oj)(Pasteurized)
Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Louis demonstrated that the fermentation process is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[5]but rather to biogenesis

So life or code had to come from somewhere, right.

Ok great you're getting there. You're absolutely right life had to come from somewhere.

Now find me some evidence that we came from "god" and then show me where "god" came from

There is more evidence that we came from lighting and amino acids than "God"

 

[Rusky]

Apparently Darwin didn't think it was nonsense. So here's a letter from Darwin to Pasteur.

"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Famous quote of Louis Pasteur.
"The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant's wife."

Pasteur is in the 100 most influential people of human history.

 

[blueRAP]

Well lets start with Louie Pasture. (see his name on your milk or oj)(Pasteurized)
Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Louis demonstrated that the fermentation process is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[5]but rather to biogenesis

So life or code had to come from somewhere, right.

Not very effective. You might as well just have said "Look at that rock, I don't know where it ultimately originated so God must have created it." God is just as empty of an answer as is any other random guess.

Rusky, is God your belief, or your theory? Maybe you just find it unsettling to accept that we don't have an absolute answer to how everything originated.

 

[tweak50]

Apparently Darwin didn't think it was nonsense. So here's a letter from Darwin to Pasteur.

"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Famous quote of Louis Pasteur.
"The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant's wife."

Pasteur is in the 100 most influential people of human history.

This post makes no sense. First, the letter is addressed to Joseph Hooker, not Pasteur. Your first quoted segment does not support your theory, and the second quoted statement has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Trigger]

This post makes no sense. First, the letter is addressed to Joseph Hooker, not Pasteur. Your first quoted segment does not support your theory, and the second quoted statement has nothing to do with anything.

Typical Creationist

 

[Rusky]

This post makes no sense. First, the letter is addressed to Joseph Hooker, not Pasteur. Your first quoted segment does not support your theory, and the second quoted statement has nothing to do with anything.

Here the whole thing. So we don't have useless distractions. Click link to verify of what ever you need to do. This is pointless, maybe Pokemon is a better topic.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin and Pasteur

By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." The collapse of spontaneous generation, however, left a vacuum of scientific thought on the question of how life had first arisen.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Again, the logic breaks down at number 2.



So, even without going against anything creationists say, this logic fails.

In the end, we could argue:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) Not all codes are created by a conscious mind; there is a natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA does not have to be designed by a conscious mind.

Regards,
::emp::

Actually this is not the case but you're probably an atheist who pretty strongly believes in evolution so I'll respectfully disagree with you.

For the agnostics/existentialists, what do you think about this (NOTE: This is Marshall's contention below I have CTRL+P):
There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:

1.The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2.The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3.The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4.The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)
5.The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)
6.The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)
​

---

As for me (riddarhusetgal...) I absolutely believe in evolution. However, after much scientific investigation and reflection, I also believe in intelligent design.

What started me on this path was reading the personal biographies of some of the greatest scientists in the world...

The first thing I came to understand was that the evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive even though the extreme Christian fundamentalist and the extreme atheists would have you believe that...

interesting quotes:

"Einstein would later come close to these sentiments. But at the time, his leap away from faith was a radical one. "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

AND

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Eventually he came to believe something close to what I believe, "

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)


In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

Can you imagine one of the greatest minds in the history of scienc ebeing so humble??


For a long time, I wanted to understand how some of the greatest scientific minds in the world could reconcile their beliefs in science with their spiritual beliefs which often seemed so at odds with each other.

The first thing that I came to understand is related to the nature of "proof" or "evidence". Fundamentalist Christians (or fundamentalists from any religion) teach the importance of having "faith" which to the rationalist means "believing in something for which there is no scientific proof".

But what is proof? When I started reading about these scientists, over and over again they started talking about the supremecy of their own "direct experience" when it comes to some of the greatest discoveries they presented the world with.

But what is "direct experience" other than believing in something for which scienfic proof has yet been presented?

There would have been no theory of relativity had not some of the greatest minds in history realized that traditional logic and rationality forces you to throw out any idea for which science has not yet proven....



An example would be how Einstein discovered the theory of relativity. He had a dream where he was riding on a beam of light. After he told a friend about it, (to paraphrase), the guy was like "let me get this straight, you want to question the past 200 years of scientific proof of newtonian physics -throw it out of the window - because you had a dream that you were riding on a beam of light?! That's not rational or logical dude...."

But he could not deny the reality of his own direct experience. Eventually of course the theories were proven and that experience really changed him, from what his memoirs said.

To sum it up, I came to understand that direct experience is as "much" proof that anyone ever needs. Not the Bible, not the lab. After a series of direct experiences which I could not deny, my beliefs about the nature of man, spirit, evolution, the Bible and intelligent design were satisfied.

Another thing that informed me began when I started studying neuroscience and how on a very fundamental level our pre-existing beliefs shape our reality and what accept as true. To put it succinctly, through the reticular activating system (RAS) our brain filters information that isn't aligned with the current neuro connections and "belief tracks" if you will in the brain. That's why fundamentalist Christians are so strongly tied to their beliefs as are fundamentalist atheists. In a very real sense, the brain/mind is presenting BOTH OF THEM with facts (filtering information to the brain) that is absolutely proof that what they believe is true.

Generally what tends to happen is that only some undeniable personal experience changes the belief of the god-believer into an atheist or an atheist into a god believer....



When I say strongly tied what I mean is that they both actually have "proof" that what they believe is fact on a very literal level. The brain's job is to filter out or emotionally reject anything that doesn't "gel" with what's currently there.


I really thank "god" for the fact that I had well educated parents who encouraged me investigate my beliefs - even in a "god" of sorts. The problem is that people tend to be born into a belief system and most of us are completely unaware of it.

I mean how often does the average person sit back and say to themselves, "Hang on for a second, I am going to church everyday, praying, etc. why do I believe this stuff.....how much of this shit is real and how much of this stuff in the bible is some harry potter style fantasy??"

Similarly, those born into the opposite extreme, how often do they find themselves saying, "hang on a minute, how can I deny the existence of things that science has yet to prove? Many of the things we now accept as true were considered fantasies eons ago...Further, what evidence do I have that the spirit of man does not exist and there is a part of me that cannot be explained by science?"

Just my thoughts guys...to tell you the truth I learned along time ago not to have these kinds of conversations with hard-core Christians or hardcore atheists so it's cool to have some "seekers" in the mix....


Just my thoughts.....

 

[xmcp123]

Typical Creationist

:anon.sml:reread it

 

[tweak50]

Typical Creationist

Might want to reread that

 

[1EightT]

Here's the thing. Religious people always balk at science when we can't answer every question from the beginning of time. At least we're trying to find the answers. Instead you guys look up at the sky, don't understand what you see, so you say "god did it". Just because you don't understand the universe, or how a plant converts sunlight into energy, it doesn't follow that "god must have done it". That's an insane and completely illogical argument.

 

[tweak50]

Here the whole thing. So we don't have useless distractions. Click link to verify of what ever you need to do. This is pointless, maybe Pokemon is a better topic.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin and Pasteur

By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." The collapse of spontaneous generation, however, left a vacuum of scientific thought on the question of how life had first arisen.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

I think your confused on some of this.

The current theory of evolution does not support spontaneous generation, no big surprise there. You are 100% correct in thinking that spontaneous generation is a joke, you will never see a fly appear out of thin air.

Your quoted letter fully supports a newer model of the evolution theory. Congratulations on proving nothing.

 

[Trigger]

I can agree with you riddar.

I'm not an atheist, I think that there could be a possibility that something created us, but I know that
whatever it was does not love me, care about me, and in most likely hood is either dead or has forgotten about us, like you forgot about your 5th grade science volcano project which is probably sitting at the bottom of a very large landfill right about now.

I do not know how life "got" here. But the idea that "god" made us and loves us is just as silly to blindly believe as the "aliens created us and are using us a science experiments."


*edit*

Well actually, now that I think about it, there is move proof for my new alien theory really.

 

[Rusky]

I think your confused on some of this.

The current theory of evolution does not support spontaneous generation, no big surprise there. You are 100% correct in thinking that spontaneous generation is a joke, you will never see a fly appear out of thin air.

Your quoted letter fully supports a newer model of the evolution theory. Congratulations on proving nothing.

That was just the start. As I said. I can go on to my next point.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

I can agree with you riddar.

I'm not an atheist, I think that there could be a possibility that something created us, but I know that
whatever it was does not love me, care about me, and in most likely hood is either dead or has forgotten about us, like you forgot about your 5th grade science volcano project which is probably sitting at the bottom of a very large landfill right about now.

I do not know how life "got" here. But the idea that "god" made us and loves us is just as silly to blindly believe as the "aliens created us and are using us a science experiments."


*edit*

Well actually, now that I think about it, there is move proof for my new alien theory really.

@Trigger - that's cute!
I can understand why you (and alot of people) feel that way. You know when it comes to this whole idea of "proof" what got me thinking was a couple of things:

1. Someone told me once, "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there...."

At first I was like "get the hell out of here". Then, I started reading about the human mind alot and how often our senses deceive us. I mean think about it for a second, doesn't it feel like you standing still???

What rational person would believe that the earth is currently spinning at 8oo miles an hour.

It doesn't make fucking sense does it. But it's only because some scientist proved this a relatively short time ago in human history that we believe this.

So then I started reading about exactly how much of life's experience is like this. I mean how many things that seem to real could actually be totally different from what our senses tell us??

An example, in reality what we see "in here" (our mind) is the exact opposite of what things are "out there" as the eyes takes a flipped picture of something, sends electronic signals to the brain which then interprets it.


In reality, we aren't really "seeing" anything, we are using our senses to gather information in the form of light rays, heat rays, etc which is interpreted by the brain.

But what if there are some things "out there" which haven't been picked up by the brain and interpreted. Obviously, since the average person doesn't know that this is how the mind behaves, a "rational" person would conclude it isn't there/doesn't exist.

This is how I feel about alot of the things related to spirituality AND science. What if the "proof" (or lack there of) of a certain thing is there but we aren't looking for it in the right way....

When we see all the pain and suffering in the world, to the average person it seems like there's no god as such and he certainly isn't thinking about us "caring for us", etc., etc.

But what if it's as Einstein and this idea of a "personal God" is not correct. What if it's more "impersonal" as it were. What if this idea of "god" is really a set of universal laws sort of like physics and when you understand them and work in alignment of them they produce good results and when you break them you get screwed.

Sort of how peope thought in cave man times that the shaman who could make fire were really magicians when in reality they just discovered the physics that could produce heat.

What if the stuff they talked about in the bible like walking on water and all the other stuff people consider far out were not "miracles" as such but rather the operation of natural laws which man has yet to discover.

I mean think about it seriously. We don't think twice about man being able to fly. But just a short time ago, to suggest that something without wings could fly was the most irrational, illogical thing one could think of.

How many other things in life to we discount because we haven't yet discovered how they work?


How many other things are actually "real" and "right there" but can't yet pick up on them?

 

[Trigger]

That was just the start. As I said. I can go on to my next point.

People that can back shit up don't go around telling people they are about to back shit up.

That's like getting punched in the face and telling the dude who hit you that your gonna hit him back for that.


Let's fucking see it.....

 

[riddarhusetgal]

All I am stating is that there are too many unanswered questions to allow me to accept at this point that we are no different than the house plant sitting near my desk.

Religeous people rely on faith which cannot be proven by science. Atheist rely on science that is inadequte. Both are flawed and both groups need to keep an open mind.

This is one of the most lucid, wise points (IMHO) I've seen written here on WF.

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL POPEYE?! :485:

 

[riddarhusetgal]

here's a question.. if "man must have a creator which is god", who is gods creator?

KICK ASS QUESTION. I remember asking my slightly religious science teacher that in junior high/high school.


What makes sense to me is a concept close to that which science defines energy as - something that can neither be:

i) created
ii) destroyed

So if you have something that i) cannot be created and ii) cannot be destroyed....the only thing that makes sense to me is something that "has always been".

Something similar to a circle, with no beginning and no end. Something that "always was, is, and shall be".

Another alternative view is that god/the creator (whatever you wan to call it)...Let's call it "Mr. Big ChrisBa" was something non physical that projected itself onto the world. So "Mr. Big ChrisBa" had the idea of a universe and projected that idea from the nonphysical to the physical, sort of like how you have an idea of a building which is something nonphysical and eventually it becomes something physical - the building.

But what is the "real" building - the idea or the building? If we destroy the building and don't have a blueprint of it, we can never reproduce it. But if he have an idea of that blueprint in our mind, no matter how many times that building gets wiped out, as long as we have the idea of the building close at had (the nonphysical thing), we can reproduce the physical thing.


This is similar to Socrates' theory of correspondence that everything in the physical world has it's origin in an idea.

Just some thoughts - can't claim I came up with them myself unfortunately

 

[Trigger]

@Trigger - that's cute!
I can understand why you (and alot of people) feel that way. You know when it comes to this whole idea of "proof" what got me thinking was a couple of things:

1. Someone told me once, "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there...."

At first I was like "get the hell out of here". Then, I started reading about the human mind alot and how often our senses deceive us. I mean think about it for a second, doesn't it feel like you standing still???

What rational person would believe that the earth is currently spinning at 8oo miles an hour.

It doesn't make fucking sense does it. But it's only because some scientist proved this a relatively short time ago in human history that we believe this.

So then I started reading about exactly how much of life's experience is like this. I mean how many things that seem to real could actually be totally different from what our senses tell us??

An example, in reality what we see "in here" (our mind) is the exact opposite of what things are "out there" as the eyes takes a flipped picture of something, sends electronic signals to the brain which then interprets it.


In reality, we aren't really "seeing" anything, we are using our senses to gather information in the form of light rays, heat rays, etc which is interpreted by the brain.

But what if there are some things "out there" which haven't been picked up by the brain and interpreted. Obviously, since the average person doesn't know that this is how the mind behaves, a "rational" person would conclude it isn't there/doesn't exist.

This is how I feel about alot of the things related to spirituality AND science. What if the "proof" (or lack there of) of a certain thing is there but we aren't looking for it in the right way....

When we see all the pain and suffering in the world, to the average person it seems like there's no god as such and he certainly isn't thinking about us "caring for us", etc., etc.

But what if it's as Einstein and this idea of a "personal God" is not correct. What if it's more "impersonal" as it were. What if this idea of "god" is really a set of universal laws sort of like physics and when you understand them and work in alignment of them they produce good results and when you break them you get screwed.

Sort of how peope thought in cave man times that the shaman who could make fire were really magicians when in reality they just discovered the physics that could produce heat.

What if the stuff they talked about in the bible like walking on water and all the other stuff people consider far out were not "miracles" as such but rather the operation of natural laws which man has yet to discover.

I mean think about it seriously. We don't think twice about man being able to fly. But just a short time ago, to suggest that something without wings could fly was the most irrational, illogical thing one could think of.

How many other things in life to we discount because we haven't yet discovered how they work?


How many other things are actually "real" and "right there" but can't yet pick up on them?

Dude don't get me wrong maybe I didn't make myself clear but when I am referring to a "god" I'm talking about the "general judeo-xtian man in the sky keeping tabs on us"

I understand what you are saying, and can agree with you that this idea of "universal laws" could be a possibility. I mean there are physical laws so natural laws in another dimension could exist, then again it could not.

I practice meditation, astral projection, and some other paranormal shit. I believe paranormal shit is completely natural. I don't think there is anything supernatural about it.

I believe in the possibility of a "spirit world" but not in a mythological way.

I believe our human consciousness could possibly be like a radio, and we are tuned into the 3rd dimension right now. I believe with training and practice we can "change the station" to a different dimension of reality much like we do when we dream aka astral projection.

Hell I have actually astral projected before, so I personally know I can experience being outside my body, but whether or not I actually am is a completely different story. I don't know if I am just hallucinating or if my consciousness really did leave my body.

I would like to believe it did, but I have no clue so I'm not going to force this "possibility" down other people's throats demanding them to believe it as fact when there isn't any proof.

And this is why I get so pissed at creationist. They demand I am wrong and try and force me to believe in something because they are blinded by religion and have an agenda behind their "pseudo science"

I guess we probably think along the same lines. I'm not denying the possibility of "a creator" just stating that there isn't any evidence for his existence, at least in the reality we are currently in. As time progresses who knows? I am open to evidence on both sides as long as it doesn't require "Blind faith or asking a magical deity to live in my heart"

 

[turbolapp]

This argument is what should shut must intelligent athiest up. I have never had an atheist explain to me where that first speck of matter came from. Possibly there are some athiest here that can enlighten me??

Um. We don't pretend to know unlike you supernaturalists that think we all came from a giant fairy.

That's right, I called your god a fairy.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Here's the thing. Religious people always balk at science when we can't answer every question from the beginning of time. At least we're trying to find the answers. Instead you guys look up at the sky, don't understand what you see, so you say "god did it". Just because you don't understand the universe, or how a plant converts sunlight into energy, it doesn't follow that "god must have done it". That's an insane and completely illogical argument.

You're projecting your beliefs onto "all" Religious people. Relax. Take a deep breadth. Reflect.
I CERTAINLY don't believe this.
Einstein didn't believe this.
Socrates didn't believe this.

There's a wide continuum of people who question EVERYTHING. The problem is that very few people understand that much of science is based on the process of scientists looking for answers which support their already fully trenched beliefs. There's alot in science which has led to more questions than answers but the "powers that be" don't let it get out in the mainstream.

The masses are just as equally controlled by a blind belief in religion as they are in a blind belief in science. You would be surprised at the stuff that only gets published in the back of scientific journals or stuff that you only have the will to read if you've been smoking an joint or too, lmao...