Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

What is wrong with saying that we won't know everything? You do understand the concept of an infinite universe, no? We're human, and last time I checked, we're not omniscient. The pursuit of knowledge isn't a race from one point to the other, it isn't a finite course.

At this point this discussion is only about semantics and logical fallacies. This thread is chock-full of these.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I might, but I fear you'll somehow try to contradict that source or ignore it, as you yourself admitted you would not waste time researching on something you did not care to believe in. Moreover, I am still convinced that you are a "troll," though I am not sure whether you really believe in intelligent design or the arguments you have presented so far.

I have also asked for proof that intelligent design might have some sort of truth to it, but you seem to have provided none?

Ah, I see. Only those who believe in intelligent design are allowed to have extreme superiority.

I asked for proof that life could from by an undirected process. And I have not shown you any superiority. To humble myself enough to admit my rhetorical weaknesses and even an incorrect argument, I see no superiority in that. Throughout half of this conversation I discovered my way of speaking was not potently conveying information and I had to at least annotate what my argument was supposed to say.

---------- Post added at 02:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------

Anyone have any proof that Creationism might be true? Any proof at all? So far, no one was able to provide me with any, other than Noah's Ark.


I am getting annoyed with you. It's like, you're extremely selectively reading and paying attention to certain sentences. It's been explained many times that the atmosphere of Earth was significantly different back then, compared to now. Nearly all living things would not be able to survive during the dawn of life because of how volatile Earth was and the poisonous atmosphere.

But of course, typical Creationist.


---------- Post added at 03:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 AM ----------



So far, intelligent design has nothing for support while evolution and how life may have been created does. Life is about probability anyway, there's always a probability you could die, play the lottery and become rich, or whatever else. There are sound theories, but if you want to continue to live in denial and ignorance, fine by me.

This has nothing to do with life's survival. The environment of the earth has nothing to do with complex machinery forming from an undirected process. I know evolution does happen. But evolution does not support the concept that life began through an undirected process. It is absolutely 105% possible that after life began it could evolve into what we are today. However it is not evidential that life began through an undirected process.

I am only referring to the very, very beginning of life.

It's almost like you're developing an evolution of gaps argument here. Since design isn't proven, let's just go with evolution anyway.

---------- Post added at 02:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------

What is wrong with saying that we won't know everything? You do understand the concept of an infinite universe, no? We're human, and last time I checked, we're not omniscient. The pursuit of knowledge isn't a race from one point to the other, it isn't a finite course.

At this point this discussion is only about semantics and logical fallacies. This thread is chock-full of these.

It's funny you mention that since posts supporting creationism are the minority in this thread.

---------- Post added at 03:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ----------

The thing is we actually have perceived complex machinery form through an undirected process. Interestingly enough none of you noticed it, even though it does support my argument. The stars are, according to Webster, machinery formed by natural processes. The difference between stars and life is that life began once, and stars begin and end constantly. This means we would witness life begin constantly. Anything done by an undirected process can and will be done constantly.

I understand that's what your getting at against design, kkck. In that right, design is more unscientific than wrong. If we have a designer he does not represent what can be observed constantly. What I argued was that we have to research the natural observations related to intelligent interaction rather than the intelligent designer itself because these observations are going referring to what happens constantly in relation to intelligent interaction.

Stars are a bit incomparable because they're really just a chemical reaction with a lot of physics, but you get my point.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

It's funny you mention that since posts supporting creationism are the minority in this thread.

Sure, and you're winning the WPM competition quite handily.

I understand that's what your getting at against design, kkck. In that right, design is more unscientific than wrong. If we have a designer he does not represent what can be observed constantly. What I argued was that we have to research the natural observations related to intelligent interaction rather than the intelligent designer itself because these observations are going referring to what happens constantly in relation to intelligent interaction.[/I]

This is just so wrong and assbackwards. Most of all of the life we're aware of thrives in a delicate balance, stars have formed existed for eons, with quite varying degrees of stability, long before life ever existed here on Earth. In fact, the Earth has only existed for barely a third of of the age of the universe.

To suggest that because two things are a consequence of undirected action and should therefore have comparable occurrences, ignoring all other factors, is asinine. This is pure pretzel-logic.

Stars are a bit incomparable because they're really just a chemical reaction with a lot of physics, but you get my point.

A bit? You can't simply gloss over the fact that this comparison has no point at all. You countered yourself in your own post...

 

[Josef]

Global Moderator Notice:
Okay so this thread is clearly just a "spin-off" on an already existing thread and the discussion even drifted from the "atheism vs other religions" topic to a science vs religion discussion, which makes both topics ready to be merged here. Atheism is not a religion it's a philosophical standpoint, in fact it's the objection of belief that makes it a complete opposite of religion.

Everyone can continue discussing things in this thread as it is a general thread regarding religion and discussion on various topics concerning it, be it atheism, it's relation to science and it's usefulness and need in contemporary society. So everyone please carry on with the discussion. ~ Josef K

 

[Pat]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Miyagi
I understand English isn't your first language and I'm not blaming you for not understanding that, but you're not the only one to insist that they're not comparable.

---
If when the scientific community is speaking English, they use the word machine for both mechanical and organic things, then that means they are comparable. To say life is different than a calculator because it performs more tasks is like saying its more likely that life could form by natural processes than a calculator, because it's more complicated. Am I interpreting it wrong?

My argument is we can't deny that life began, but we cannot prove that it can today. If it was possible then and not possible today then that means the laws of physics have changed. To deny this analogy comparability is to deny the same reasoning that suggests evolution is fact.

I'm not trying to create a god of gaps argument, but presenting why I believe evolution is contradictory. It's scientific reasoning is based on the concept that the laws of physics are today as they have always been and life is the result of an undirected process, even though there is no evidence for this and, if anything, evidence against it. In other words, it requires faith that is not grounded on evidence or inductive reasoning.

Well, this is the second time you turn our discussion into a matter of semantics and I'm quite sure my point was clear both times.

Evolution requires reproduction, so unless you show me a calculator which can feed, grow and reproduce, ergo which is basically alive, then your point is moot, no, we can't compare them in this context.

The formation of life took place in millions of years in an environment as big as the world, we don't have the technology yet to simulate the same processes in severely limited time and space compared to the original conditions assuming it's possible at all. As others pointed out, we're not omniscient, it has only been a few decades since we started using computers but surely the scientists will reveal more mysteries over time. Ancient tribes used to consider everything that they can't explain acts of God or supernatural forces, honestly you're voicing the modern version of their arguments.

 

[M3J]

I asked for proof that life could from by an undirected process. And I have not shown you any superiority. To humble myself enough to admit my rhetorical weaknesses and even an incorrect argument, I see no superiority in that. Throughout half of this conversation I discovered my way of speaking was not potently conveying information and I had to at least annotate what my argument was supposed to say.

It is not my responsibility to continue to show you proof when you refuse to acknowledge it. I also stated that you can research it, because I do not want to waste my time looking up the articles and evidence only for you to ignore it and come up with another ridiculous theory to disprove a possible way that life could form.

You have shown superiority. One or two cases of admittign weaknesses or incorrect argument doesn't really mean you haven't.

This has nothing to do with life's survival. The environment of the earth has nothing to do with complex machinery forming from an undirected process. I know evolution does happen. But evolution does not support the concept that life began through an undirected process. It is absolutely 105% possible that after life began it could evolve into what we are today. However it is not evidential that life began through an undirected process.

Yes it does, it has everything to do with the formation of life and how it involved. The Earth's environment changing continuously is how living things have evolved into what it is in order to survive. Evolution is not the theory of how life formed, but how it became into what it is now.

But we have far more proof and evidence that life formed naturally than through Intelligent Design. Nor you or anyone for that matter have given me any proof or evidence that intelligent design might be true, falling back on faith every single time.

I am only referring to the very, very beginning of life.

It's almost like you're developing an evolution of gaps argument here. Since design isn't proven, let's just go with evolution anyway.

Do you... have bad memory, selective reading, or something? Because majority of us here have said we believe in evolution because there are evidence, proof, and sound theories backing up the theory. If there were bad evidence or flimsy theories or explanation, we would not believe in evolution or not as strongly.

What's more, it looks like the theory of Intelligent Design is more due to lack of understanding and the devout still thinking the Bible should be taken literally.

I honestly think you don't understand majority of the arguments you make, or arguments you use....

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Well, this is the second time you turn our discussion into a matter of semantics and I'm quite sure my point was clear both times.

Evolution requires reproduction, so unless you show me a calculator which can feed, grow and reproduce, ergo which is basically alive, then your point is moot, no, we can't compare them in this context.

The formation of life took place in millions of years in an environment as big as the world, we don't have the technology yet to simulate the same processes in severely limited time and space compared to the original conditions assuming it's possible at all. As others pointed out, we're not omniscient, it has only been a few decades since we started using computers but surely the scientists will reveal more mysteries over time. Ancient tribes used to consider everything that they can't explain acts of God or supernatural forces, honestly you're voicing the modern version of their arguments.

I know what you're saying, but you're not certain what I'm saying. My analogy has nothing to do with calculators evolving. Life is a machine. According to English speaking scientists. Life is a machine a calculator is a machine. If you don't believe that then I'm sorry, I didn't make the language.

What you're talking about is called the god of gaps argument. That means I'd say, since evolutionists don't know, then creationism is true. Which is a logical fallacy. I'm saying, since the foundation of evolution is not proven, it cannot be fact. We're basing evolution on the assumption that we'll just discover our answer is true later, so we might as well pretend like it's true now.

I'm not saying scientists have to answer anything. The problem is that they have answered it, but they didn't prove that answer.

You're saying that i'm just using semantics as an argument. I'm defending against your semantic argument.

According to webster/scientists stars are machines. Period.

"Complex machinery are inanimate devices, not living beings that can feed, reproduce and therefore evolve, so from an evolutionary perspective, they're completely irrelevant. " - You were trying to define machinery vs. life. I corrected your definition. Plain and simple.

"A calculator isn't a living being that can evolve in millions of years to reach its current form. Living beings can reproduce and may have DNA mutations over time which is a part of evolutionary process whereas these aren't applicable to calculators or other complex machines." You're defining life and machinery. Also you're creating a logical fallacy, because my argument had to do with life beginning, not evolving.

"you can't expect a machine such as a calculator evolve in the same way living beings do because it's not alive and is incapable of reproduction. " this is a logical fallacy, because my argument had nothing to do with calculators evolving. My argument compared calculators beginning to life beginning. It did not compare life evolving to calculators evolving.

Called the strawman argument.

m3J

"I think he's using the calculator example as a way to show us how impossible it is for life to have formed without help. Like how humans (directly or indirectly) make calculators, he's saying God must have created life. Which is pretty faulty in the first place." - He was using a calculator to show that given our current laws of physics it is impossible for machinery to form by an undirected process.He did not suggest that God must have created life. This is a logical fallacy. He suggested that the laws of physics have changed which would testify that the theory of evolution is wrong. The correctness of the theory of evolution does not, alone, mean design is right.

Strawman.

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

It is not my responsibility to continue to show you proof when you refuse to acknowledge it. I also stated that you can research it, because I do not want to waste my time looking up the articles and evidence only for you to ignore it and come up with another ridiculous theory to disprove a possible way that life could form.

You have shown superiority. One or two cases of admittign weaknesses or incorrect argument doesn't really mean you haven't.




Yes it does, it has everything to do with the formation of life and how it involved. The Earth's environment changing continuously is how living things have evolved into what it is in order to survive. Evolution is not the theory of how life formed, but how it became into what it is now.

But we have far more proof and evidence that life formed naturally than through Intelligent Design. Nor you or anyone for that matter have given me any proof or evidence that intelligent design might be true, falling back on faith every single time.


Do you... have bad memory, selective reading, or something? Because majority of us here have said we believe in evolution because there are evidence, proof, and sound theories backing up the theory. If there were bad evidence or flimsy theories or explanation, we would not believe in evolution or not as strongly.

What's more, it looks like the theory of Intelligent Design is more due to lack of understanding and the devout still thinking the Bible should be taken literally.

I honestly think you don't understand majority of the arguments you make, or arguments you use....

Strawman and Ad hominem logical fallacy. What you think is selective reading is me ignoring logical fallacies.

Thanks to xi0 i can quickly name all your logical fallacies. I hope you all didn't think that since you're evolutionists you are unable to commit a logical fallacy..

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

Sure, and you're winning the WPM competition quite handily.



This is just so wrong and assbackwards. Most of all of the life we're aware of thrives in a delicate balance, stars have formed existed for eons, with quite varying degrees of stability, long before life ever existed here on Earth. In fact, the Earth has only existed for barely a third of of the age of the universe.

To suggest that because two things are a consequence of undirected action and should therefore have comparable occurrences, ignoring all other factors, is asinine. This is pure pretzel-logic.



A bit? You can't simply gloss over the fact that this comparison has no point at all. You countered yourself in your own post...

Strawman. I'm not talking about life thriving. I'm talking about it beginning.

 

[Pat]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I know what you're saying, but you're not certain what I'm saying. My analogy has nothing to do with calculators evolving. Life is a machine. According to English speaking scientists. Life is a machine a calculator is a machine. If you don't believe that then I'm sorry, I didn't make the language.

A doughnut is round, a tire is round too, therefore we can eat tires. Yeah, I know this is a stupid argument. Since you can't address the main point, you avoid it by making a play on words and arguing semantics.

What you're talking about is called the god of gaps argument. That means I'd say, since evolutionists don't know, then creationism is true. Which is a logical fallacy. I'm saying, since the foundation of evolution is not proven, it cannot be fact. We're basing evolution on the assumption that we'll just discover our answer is true later, so we might as well pretend like it's true now.

"you can't expect a machine such as a calculator evolve in the same way living beings do because it's not alive and is incapable of reproduction. " this is a logical fallacy, because my argument had nothing to do with calculators evolving. My argument compared calculators beginning to life beginning. It did not compare life evolving to calculators evolving.

Evolution is a fact accepted by all credible scientists, the only thing we don't know yet is the exact details of how the first life forms come into being, the rest is addressed by evolution which applies to living beings, not calculators regardless of how you want to categorize them. The first life forms were of course very simple, much simpler than a calculator but thanks to evolution, living beings have got increasingly complex over time which spans millions of years. In other words, we know for a fact that human beings didn't start to exist out of nowhere, scientists have overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

"I think he's using the calculator example as a way to show us how impossible it is for life to have formed without help. Like how humans (directly or indirectly) make calculators, he's saying God must have created life. Which is pretty faulty in the first place." - He was using a calculator to show that given our current laws of physics it is impossible for machinery to form by an undirected process.He did not suggest that God must have created life. This is a logical fallacy. He suggested that the laws of physics have changed which would testify that the theory of evolution is wrong. The correctness of the theory of evolution does not, alone, mean design is right.

Strawman.

What?

And stop mentioning laws of physics. Do you even know what physics applies to, without using Google? You do realize there are differences between physics, chemistry, and biology, right? You don't seem to understand majority of your arguments and seem to prefer making up things, like laws of physics disproving evolution, which in itself makes no sense.

Strawman and Ad hominem logical fallacy. What you think is selective reading is me ignoring logical fallacies.

Thanks to xi0 i can quickly name all your logical fallacies. I hope you all didn't think that since you're evolutionists you are unable to commit a logical fallacy..

You can come up with all the excuses you like, but the fact is, you're selectively reading what you want so it's easier for you to counter. I do not see how it is logical fallacy to ask for proof of Intelligent Design. Surely there must be some?

Do name them, then. Until you do, I'm sure you just learned that word and are just using it freely for one reason or another. You claim a lot, back up so little, and whatever you back up is either biased or illogical.


This is too boring.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

A doughnut is round, a tire is round too, therefore we can eat tires. Yeah, I know this is a stupid argument. Since you can't address the main point, you avoid it by making a play on words and arguing semantics.





Evolution is a fact accepted by all credible scientists, the only thing we don't know yet is the exact details of how the first life forms come into being, the rest is addressed by evolution which applies to living beings, not calculators regardless of how you want to categorize them. The first life forms were of course very simple, much simpler than a calculator but thanks to evolution, living beings have got increasingly complex over time which spans millions of years. In other words, we know for a fact that human beings didn't start to exist out of nowhere, scientists have overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise.

I'm not talking about "the rest". I am only talking about "how the first life forms come into being".

 

[Pat]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I'm not talking about "the rest". I am only talking about "how the first life forms come into being".

Well, we know that microorganisms existed as early as 3.5 billion years ago, the current models suggest that organic molecules (which we were already able to produce in lab conditions) combined to form more complex organic molecules until the first molecular system which can be called an organism was born. Considering the amount of organic molecules in the world and the vast number of reactions that had occurred between them in millions of years, it's not surprising that the building blocks of life could eventually be generated.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I'm saying, since the foundation of evolution is not proven, it cannot be fact. We're basing evolution on the assumption that we'll just discover our answer is true later, so we might as well pretend like it's true now.

You do know the idea of an accepted conclusion, right? At many times during the history of science, things were accepted as the reality, until a new discovery added more information or in some cases, completely changes what we know. When people use the word "fact" in relation to a theory, it means it's based on testable evidence. Obviously human beings can't observe the genesis of life here, but we can accept that it was a natural process, much more than it being by design. Wherever there is liquid water, life should be able to exist. That's why we're so interested in Europa.

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Strawman. I'm not talking about life thriving. I'm talking about it beginning.

No, not Strawman. Thrive, meaning life began and lasted.

 

[M3J]

Thanks to xi0 i can quickly name all your logical fallacies. I hope you all didn't think that since you're evolutionists you are unable to commit a logical fallacy..

Still waiting. Also still waiting for proof of Intelligent Design.

 

[kkck]

Just pointing this out but "evolutionist" is not actually a thing. No one has "faith" or "believes" in evolution. Neither of those is a scientific line of thought.

 

[M3J]

I don't think he cares, he's just being condescending or returning the condescension or mocking those who believe in evolution/are against the idea of Creationism.

Also, is it just me are are majority of religious people hypocrites? Discuss.

 

[xi0]

Also, is it just me are are majority of religious people hypocrites? Discuss.

You don't even need to get into someone's spiritual beliefs. Most people are hypocritical in one way or the other.

 

[kkck]

Also, is it just me are are majority of religious people hypocrites? Discuss.

Nah, at least not more than anyone else. In this particular case the issue is specifically arguing against hard science without any. Seriously, half the discussion here is basically semantics... Also, I don't see much hypocrisy going around here. I would think most people here actually have the opinions they claim to have. There is literally no value or gain in the alternative.

 

[M3J]

You don't even need to get into someone's spiritual beliefs. Most people are hypocritical in one way or the other.

Stuff like "MARRIAGE IS HOLY, HOMOS SHOULDN'T GET MARRIED!" by the same "devout" people who get married and divorced a lot.

Nah, at least not more than anyone else. In this particular case the issue is specifically arguing against hard science without any. Seriously, half the discussion here is basically semantics... Also, I don't see much hypocrisy going around here. I would think most people here actually have the opinions they claim to have. There is literally no value or gain in the alternative.

Not necessarily in regards to this topic but in general.

 

[kkck]

Whats the relevance of that?

 

[M3J]

Discuss. Different change of topic, because the whole intelligent design defense is, to put it kindly, horrible, and I want a change of pace.