Atheism - The Final Frontier

See, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by megabytz

[...]

Another thing, and this is not directed at you, but why is it that the religious cannot grasp the simple aspects of evolution. They have been explained multiple times yet they continue to use the same strawman arguments. Evolution is not random. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection which is not random at all. It should be clear now so anyone on this thread making the claim that evolution is random now is either outright lying or willfully ignorant.

You are neglecting the first part of evolution, random mutation.

Life on Earth.

Life on earth has evolved.
Evolution is a slow process which happens by
random mutation. Such mutations give certain life
forms competitive advantages over others which
leads to their growth and the decline of others.

www7.nationalacademies.org...

And random mutation is also natural, so it can justifiably be called natural random mutation.

The other part of the theory of evolution is natural selection which is of course natural, as opposed to unnatural or supernatural.

So, there are two factors in the theory of evolution that are supposed to explain the rise of new species from old species:

natural random mutation,
natural [non-random] selection.

If you remove natural random mutation, then evolution is not evolution as propounded by evolutionists, it is natural programmed [non-random] selection.

You see, what is really most revolutionary with the theory of evolution socalled is the randomness factor, which randomness is understood to be absolute randomness, not relative randomness owing to man's limitation to penetrate into all the variables that work together to produce a result.

Now, absolute randomness does not stop while supposedly nature is doing the selection whatever, it goes on all the time inexorably, so that there is no possibility of any selection to take place that is not destroyed in the next instance of time/space by randomness.

Again, if you remove random mutation, then there is no need for any theory of evolution, but there is only the natural law of selection, i.e., nature is programmed to select according to optimal criteria favoring survival of the socalled fittest species.


So, Confreak is correct to insist that there is non-randomness in the universe of which nature is a part if not identical to.

And non-randomness implicates a programming which implicates in turn a programmer.



Pachomius

reply to post by daskakik

You said
[Then why do people with faith feel the need to hop on threads and post scripture or anything related to god]

What kind of an answer do you want for this absurdity ? How bout this one.

Because we can.

Or

We feel free because we are free.

Or

Because we don't consider your dislikes.

Or

As I've already said. Because of some statemnent that belittles our belief.
When there isn't even anything else that makes any more sense.

Here's a project for you. Show me anything that explains life and existence that makes more sense ? I'll shut up. How's that ? Don't retort just do it. If you retort with out showing me that ? Then you shut up. How bout that pal ?

Originally posted by randyvs
As I've already said. Because of some statemnent that belittles our belief.
When there isn't even anything else that makes any more sense.

Don't recall ever belittling your belief. I did say you lie when you say you don't care and that you are a hypocrite when you say you want to debate then avoid debate by using "because I say so" type responses.

Here's a project for you. Show me anything that explains life and existence that makes more sense ? I'll shut up. How's that ? Don't retort just do it. If you retort with out showing me that ? Then you shut up. How bout that pal?

I have never said that I know anything that explains life and existence. Your the one that claims your "truth" is the truth so the burden of proof is on you.

You can cut down on the bravado. It doesn't help make your point and doesn't phase me in the least.

reply to post by daskakik


Maybe this way.
I
jump
on
threads
and
say
what
I
want?
Just trying to answer your question.

Funny I don't feel burdened.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by daskakik

 

Maybe this way.
I
jump
on
threads
and
say
what
I
want?
Just trying to answer your question.

Funny I don't feel burdened.

So I'm right about your hypocritical call to debate. You admit that you're a troll. Classy. Hope you don't mind if I just tune you out from now on.

Originally posted by Pachomius
So, Confreak is correct to insist that there is non-randomness in the universe of which nature is a part if not identical to.

And non-randomness implicates a programming which implicates in turn a programmer.



Pachomius

Non-randomness does not imply programming, nor programmers. Simple adherence to natural laws; gravity, for example, can create a highly complex, non-random system (the solar system).

If one establishes that there is a lack of randomness in the universe, all they have proven is a lack of randomness in the universe. They have not proven that there is a creator, a programmer, a deity or any other causative factor.

Originally posted by daskakik


So I'm right about your hypocritical call to debate. You admit that you're a troll. Classy.

edit on 29-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Randyvs will try to provoke you, especially in religious type threads. (He even did it to me in this thread). But he's actually a decent person outside of these debates.

Randy, stop misbehaving!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


That's fine. I don't mind rambunctious posts but randyvs isn't here for honest debate. He said so himself so how am I expected to take him seriously. For all I know he may not even be christian just says he is to play devils advocate.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

That's fine. I don't mind rambunctious posts but randyvs isn't here for honest debate. He said so himself so how am I expected to take him seriously. For all I know he may not even be christian just says he is to play devils advocate.

Well, he is indeed a very devoted christian, although his forum tactics are usually meant to provoke. I wish he'd do less of that because once that's out of the equation he's a decent human being. But I understand your frustration - I went through it with him in the past. I'll try to convince him to quit poking and prodding like he has been in this thread.

Behave yourself, Randy!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

There really is no need. I am not frustrated with his forum etiquette. I'm not here trying to change anyone. I'm here to exchange ideas and info. If someone is going to spend a page worth of posts playing keyboard commando it's fine by me but I will not engage that person in what I thought was an honest conversation when it isn't what they want.

Thanks just the same.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

There really is no need. I am not frustrated with his forum etiquette. I'm not here trying to change anyone. I'm here to exchange ideas and info. If someone is going to spend a page worth of posts playing keyboard commando it's fine by me but I will not engage that person in what I thought was an honest conversation when it isn't what they want.

Thanks just the same.

Me either.

Stopped any communications with said person long time ago.

reply to post by Pachomius


I in no way rejected random mutation. I know that there are random mutations but after that natural selection, which is one of the mechanisms of evolution, takes hold and it is not random at all. Every generation has genetic mutations, nature does the rest. When people who are arguing against evolution state that it is random they think the entire process is random.

I guess I should of included descent and genetic difference, gene flow and genetic drift, genetic variation, and the effects of coevolution on populations, since you left those out.

start here

Since it was addressing an inane argument I didn't think I had to go in-depth about all the mechanisms of evolution.

People actually still use the teleological argument?

People have to stop taking Randy seriously...

He makes statements, you post FACTS that prove him wrong, but you don't realize that facts won't ever change his opinion. You might not like it, and to be honest, I think he's delusional even though deep down he knows better, but he has the RIGHT to believe whatever the hell he wants.

So if he wants to believe in unicorns, so be it. It won't stop me from posting, and pointing out that stuff like the global flood and people living in whales is beyond insanity. I really don't care what people believe, as long as their belief doesn't influence public policy.

I'm 100% against teaching creationism in school, because it's NOT based on facts. As long as he doesn't try to push the "teach creationism as an alternative to evolution" stuff I really don't care. I'll just continue pointing out where he's wrong, and I'll do so by pointing out FACTS, something he clearly can't...and he even admits to it, so why should I care?

Then why do people with faith feel the need to hop on threads and post scripture or anything related to god?

I just don;t have a serious answer for this question. That's the message I'm try'in to get thru to you.
How do I take this serious ? Drummer's right tho, I'm miss behaving. I see no reason not to.

I know lets start again. With a clean slate and see how far we can go without ridicule ?

X

So if he wants to believe in unicorns, so be it.

I'm suppose to take you people serious ?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Leahn

 

Where I have moved the goalpost, when that was my first reply to your new argument?

The point still stands - you are comparing scientific hypotheses to God or creationism hypothesis, which is not scientific.

Being the first reply doesn't exempt it from being a goalpost moving. The comparisson was never the point of the discussion. The point was that the claim that establishing evidence was a necessary step before discussing might start about a subject. You can't simply counterargue the arguments I advanced countering such statement with a completely different subject. That's moving the goalpost. The comparisson is not the topic of the discussion. Whether evidence needs to be established prior to discussion or not is.

Noone here is saying you cannot propose the unproven, thats a strawman. We are saying its not logical to propose new hypothesis when its not needed, and when its unfalsifiable.

No, that's not what was said, sorry. And as per your argument, a purely naturalistic hypothesis cannot fully explain the Universe. Unless you can find a way to explain away the 2nd law of thermodinamics and find the source of all energy that exists in our Universe, energy that cannot come from nothing, a supranatural explanation is necessary, and God is a suitable one (although not the only one), so your second argument is also incorrect.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm curious... do you not find the unmoved-mover argument to fall victim to fallacy? To me it's readily apparent. It seems as if you would recognize it also.

No, I don't. The unmoved-mover argument is not fallacious in any way that I can recognize. Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by Leahn
No, I don't. The unmoved-mover argument is not fallacious in any way that I can recognize. Care to elaborate?

The argument relies on special pleading. And it has to in order to work because the premise of the argument invokes infinite regression.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Leahn
No, I don't. The unmoved-mover argument is not fallacious in any way that I can recognize. Care to elaborate?

The argument relies on special pleading. And it has to in order to work because the premise of the argument invokes infinite regression.

The falacy of special pleading basically occurs when one requires a situation to be exceptional to a rule, and is only qualified when no justification for the pleading is offered. Since exceptions exist to almost any rule, one is allowed to declare a certain situation to be exceptional to a certain rule, provided that he can show the reasons for such.

To deem an argument a special pleading just because it requires an exception, even when a reason for the exception is offered, is in itself also a special pleading, unless you can provide a reason to why an exception should not be allowed for that rule even after a reason for the exception is offered. You're basically making a special pleading that "this rule is exceptional in that it has no exceptions" for no reason other than you needing it for your argument.

Aristotle has, indeed, offered a reason for his pleading. His reason was incorrect, but he nonetheless offered one, and since no one could have proven his reason wrong with that day's science, his argument was not a special pleading.

The present day 'cosmological argument' offers a more solid reason. It simply states that we cannot demonstrate causality to exist beyond our known Universe, and therefore we should not assume it to exist. To invoke infinite regression, one has to assume that it exists and works the same way than it works in our Universe. There is no logical way to support that assumption.

The opposing proof, that is, for why we should assume it to not to exist is because the idea of an actual infinite is not logically sound. We can only speak of infinites as a matter of possibilities, but not as realities.

Originally posted by Leahn
The falacy of special pleading basically occurs when one requires a situation to be exceptional to a rule, and is only qualified when no justification for the pleading is offered. Since exceptions exist to almost any rule, one is allowed to declare a certain situation to be exceptional to a certain rule, provided that he can show the reasons for such.

Are you certain that such an allowance is valid? All cases of special pleading will have a reason. I even listed it in my response.

To deem an argument a special pleading just because it requires an exception, even when a reason for the exception is offered, is in itself also a special pleading, unless you can provide a reason to why an exception should not be allowed for that rule even after a reason for the exception is offered. You're basically making a special pleading that "this rule is exceptional in that it has no exceptions" for no reason other than you needing it for your argument.

Again, I'm not certain that simply having a reason for the special pleading excuses it from being a fallacy.

Aristotle has, indeed, offered a reason for his pleading. His reason was incorrect, but he nonetheless offered one, and since no one could have proven his reason wrong with that day's science, his argument was not a special pleading.

That is also a fallacy (argument from ignorance). In other words, since he thought nobody could invalidate his reasoning it must be correct. His argument still relies on special pleading whether it is recognized or not or challenged or not.

The present day 'cosmological argument' offers a more solid reason. It simply states that we cannot demonstrate causality to exist beyond our known Universe, and therefore we should not assume it to exist. To invoke infinite regression, one has to assume that it exists and works the same way than it works in our Universe. There is no logical way to support that assumption.

The cosmological argument is very similar but it has a fancier suit. This argument is also fallacious, relying heavily on the argument from ignorance. The basic premise being: 'something caused the universe to exist, and this first cause must be God'. Or, 'we don't know what caused the universe to exist, therefore my hypothesis of it being a god is correct'.

The opposing proof, that is, for why we should assume it to not to exist is because the idea of an actual infinite is not logically sound. We can only speak of infinites as a matter of possibilities, but not as realities.

In the grand scheme of things the qualities of infinity have little to do with determining the existence of deities. And I'm not certain that any argument or analysis can conclusively determine the existence of a deity. They may give us areas in which to search, though ultimately establishing the existence of anything requires tangible, objective evidence.

Originally posted by randyvs

Then why do people with faith feel the need to hop on threads and post scripture or anything related to god?

I just don;t have a serious answer for this question. That's the message I'm try'in to get thru to you.
How do I take this serious ? Drummer's right tho, I'm miss behaving. I see no reason not to.

I know lets start again. With a clean slate and see how far we can go without ridicule ?

It started with traditionaldrummer asking: "Why should we believe in the bible?

You answered: "People who don't have faith shouldn't."

Then came my question which was: "Then why do people with faith feel the need to hop on threads and post scripture or anything related to god?"

I fail to see the ridicule in any way. If you believe that we shouldn't believe in the bible because of our lack of faith then you know that scripture holds no weight and even general musings about god are seen as just ideas with nothing concrete to back them up, by us of course.

Your answer was basically "I do what I want". That is as fine an answer as any. That's the way you like to do things but it ain't my cup of tea so I'll pass. There's no crying, pouting or seething on my part. It's live and let live.