Cage Match: William Joyce v. ajwps

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Guess you don't take any of that anti-secular stuff to personally huh?

No. I have faith that I'm right, and that's what's most important to me. Beyond that, I believe a future of widespread atheism is inevitable.

What worries me is the way in which it will manifest. If it leads to a bunch of marxists believing that humans are no better than any other animal (yes, I got that one on the aforementioned atheist message board), that won't do anyone any good. After all if humans are just another animal what difference does it make to slaughter them like animals if it suits ones 'noble' purposes?

We got alot of that in the 20th Century by certain 'atheist' states.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Guess you don't take any of that anti-secular stuff to personally huh?

Damn, Dillo!!! Slow down. You'll work up a cramp stirring up shit that hard!!

Very naughty.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Zhukov
No. I have faith that I'm right, and that's what's most important to me. Beyond that, I believe a future of widespread atheism is inevitable.

What worries me is the way in which it will manifest. If it leads to a bunch of marxists believing that humans are no better than any other animal (yes, I got that one on the aforementioned atheist message board), that won't do anyone any good. After all if humans are just another animal what difference does it make to slaughter them like animals if it suits ones 'noble' purposes?

We got alot of that in the 20th Century by certain 'atheist' states.

Zhukov don't let it bother you in any possible future worldwide atheism being inevitable.

Remember that the only thing inevitable is that which has actually occurred.

My opinion is that atheism is much like a stool held up by two solid legs and one held by paste. The weak leg is reality which has been demonstrated to topple main stream atheism in the recorded history of mankind.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by ajwps
Definition of religion:



Generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power?



The belief in the Budda as a type of prophet is definitely a religion without a supernatural god. Your theory is null.



Not really, it is your definition of religion and not an opnion of yours.

Just remember, I said characterization, not definition of religion.

But the definition that I have for religion from my Webster's II dictionary is this:

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief.
2. a. A belief, activity, or cause pursued with fervor and devotion.
*syns: CREED, DENOMINATION, FAITH, PERSUASION, SECT

This is as it appears in my dictionary. Where did you get your definition?

So by definition of my dictionary, my opinion or as you call it, theory is not null. It stands up to what I said about Buddhism.

As stated, this is just my opinion. It is my opinion of what atheism is to me. Nobody looks at atheism the same way, there's no structure to follow as far as what to do and what not to do to be an atheist. I think that's why there are different types of atheists. *shrug* I believe the only thing atheists have in common is a disbelief in God, though some go further and say that they do not believe in God. Usually this disbelief or "no believe" goes further into other things such as luck, karma, superstitions, etc... But it is all up to the individual I guess.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by ajwps
Remember that the only thing inevitable is that which has actually occurred.

So nothing is inevitable and there's no such thing as prophecy?

The weak leg is reality which has been demonstrated to topple main stream atheism in the recorded history of mankind.

Do you have any examples of "main stream atheism" and it's toppling, because I'm not too sure what you're refering to.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80

Just remember, I said characterization, not definition of religion.

What is your definition of the characterization of religion?

But the definition that I have for religion from my Webster's II dictionary is this:

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief.
2. a. A belief, activity, or cause pursued with fervor and devotion.
*syns: CREED, DENOMINATION, FAITH, PERSUASION, SECT

This is as it appears in my dictionary. Where did you get your definition?

So by definition of my dictionary, my opinion or as you call it, theory is not null. It stands up to what I said about Buddhism.

As stated, this is just my opinion. It is my opinion of what atheism is to me. Nobody looks at atheism the same way, there's no structure to follow as far as what to do and what not to do to be an atheist. I think that's why there are different types of atheists. *shrug* I believe the only thing atheists have in common is a disbelief in God, though some go further and say that they do not believe in God. Usually this disbelief or "no believe" goes further into other things such as luck, karma, superstitions, etc... But it is all up to the individual I guess.

Your characterization of religion is based on a defintion of the tenets of anything referencing the word religion.

Take another look at your Webster II definition of religion. Specifically #2 under defintion above.

2. a. A belief, activity, or cause pursued with fervor and devotion. *syns: CREED, DENOMINATION, FAITH, PERSUASION, SECT.

Let's take a look at the Aethists and their denial of any creator.

Atheism has a definite creed (there is no G-d), is a denomination of anti-theists, Atheists have perfect faith in their denial of a superior power or being, they have their own persuasive arguements and they fall into the definition of a sect or group of adherents who follow in the disbelief of a Creator G-d.

Ergo, Athetists fit this second defintion you found. The following site also defines Religion and all you have to do is click on each successive arrow to the right.

http://faculty.mc3.edu/gpasquar/shows/ReligionDefined/sld001.htm

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one actually believes in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Zhukov

So nothing is inevitable and there's no such thing as prophecy?

Not really. If a prophecy written many years, hundreds or thousands of years prior to the prophecy coming to fruition, then that future verifiable prophetic happening has become inevitable.

Do you have any examples of "main stream atheism" and it's toppling, because I'm not too sure what you're refering to.

What I used was an allegory relating to Atheism.

Atheism has been around since recorded time. Men have also had religions and gods of different sorts from time immemorial. Prehistoric cave drawings indicate as much.

Atheism is a definite religion based on the premise that there is no unseen hand or Creative force behind our percieved reality.

From current scientific evidence and statistical probabilities, there is a fundamental understanding of 'irreducible complexity' which precludes chance or choatic events in the formation of a perfect circumstance for life and the fixed laws which can not exist independently.

By irreducibly complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

This is the third leg of the stool upon which rests the theory of an Atheism religion. The old watchmaker is hiding somewhere are nothing can exist.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one actually believes in.

If one believes in an all encompasing faith that there is no god, then it becomes evident that Atheists have a verifiable belief in that 'scepticism'.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

How many or how few core belliefs do you think are absolutely necessary for a religion to exist? It can be said that any religion is subject to questioning and what experience does one need to throw those beliefs into doubt?

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Actually science do not assume that all observers see the same things as described in QM. Human perception is based on photons being somehow being interpreted by neuron receptors and to the occipital portion of the brain. It appears that no two people see the same thing in the exact say way. Faith is not based on anything other than one's birth parents. No certainty there.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.

In Atheism their faith is used to refer to complete, certain belief in choatic chance or in other words something.

According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists. Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

Faith in a Creator or Faith in the lack of a Creator is the same thing, FAITH.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Hehe.

I would concede that it is possible the universe doesn't exist.

ajwps
Remember that the only thing inevitable is that which has actually occurred.

If a prophecy written many years, hundreds or thousands of years prior to the prophecy coming to fruition, then that future verifiable prophetic happening has become inevitable.

Anyone else see a contradiction there?

a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning {THAT} cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)

Do you have an example of such a system?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Zhukov

Hehe.

Do you have an example of such a system?

Your looking through two of them right now.....

 

[Zhukov]

How's that?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Zhukov

How's that?

I was referring to your two eyes. The following just a simple example of the Irreducible Complexity of the eye and its ability to translate photons into something that you can recognize gives credence to the fact that random cascading events (like in Darwin's evolution) must be guided as even one error in the tremendous number of unexplainable events would result in the failure of everything including the universe. The statistical probability of us being here by random chance and no unseen hand is -0 (trillionth power).

The following is just an infintesimal part of the process of sight as described by Dr. Michael Behe, PhD is a professor of Biochemichstry at Lehigh University. I found his book "Darwin's Black Box' really fascinating. You might want to look at the site below to see some animations of what is described below.

http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/vidgraphics.htm

The Chemistry of Vision:

How Does a Cell Become Sensitive to Light?

Science's misconception that the "black box" of light sensitivity would be simply explained is demonstrated by Michael Behe through a series of animations and illustrations diagraming the complicated chemical processes involved with sight.

Figure 2a is an animation showing the first event in the pathway to vision. When the light photon first hits the retina, it interacts with the molecule "11-cis-retinal". As the photon is absorbed, the 11-cis-retinal molecule goes from an elbow-type position to a straight position.

Figures 2b and 2c illustrate much of the rest of the pathway. In a complicated series of reactions, 11-cis-retinal is bound to the protein "rhodopsin" (RH). The change in the shape of the retinal forces changes in the shape of the rhodopsin (RH). This provides the rhodopsin with the ability to interact with the protein "transducin" (T). This interaction creates a situation in which a small organic molecule "GDP" falls off the transducin and is replaced by another molecule "GTP." The complex of T and GTP has the ability to interact with "phosphodiesterase", whose shape is changed by the interaction, causing a "cutting" of the molecule "cyclicGMP (cGMP), turning cGMP into 5-prime-GMP (5'-GMP).

Some of the cGMP interacts with a protein "ion channel" to allow sodium ions from the outside into the inside of the cell. The ion channel closes down, the sodium concentration changes, and this changes the voltage across the membrane, causing a current to be sent down the optical nerve to the brain to be interpreted.

In short, this is a much-oversimplified explanation of the "simple light-sensitive spot" of Darwin.

I am used to reading technical biochemical information, but even this is a bit above my level of total comprehension.

 

[Zhukov]

I knew you were referring to eyes. I wanted to know why you think they are irreducibly complex organs.

And are you referring to just human eyes, or also the pigmentation of photoreceptive algae, eyespots on Planaria, insectoid compound eyes, and all the other types of light sensitive organelles and complex visual organs extant and extinct within the various species of life on this planet?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Zhukov

I knew you were referring to eyes. I wanted to know why you think they are irreducibly complex organs.

And are you referring to just human eyes, or also the pigmentation of photoreceptive algae, eyespots on Planaria, insectoid compound eyes, and all the other types of light sensitive organelles and complex visual organs extant and extinct within the various species of life on this planet?

Yes I am. Isn't it funny how all these irreducibly complex phenomena happened in the single Cambrian period.

Boom, just like that. There is no fossil record before the Cambrian era except for some one celled poorly differentiated soft bodied organisms.

In this Cambrian era there is no way any slow evolving life forms so complex as to be impossible in thousands of universal spans of time could not happen.

Suddenly in a short period of time, all the species appeared, already separate and apart from one another. Sudden like...

Where is Darwin when we need him to explain this phenomena?

Maybe it was panspermia or the planting of species from some distant planet or galaxy by space aliens.

But the question arises, if this be the case, where did the Aliens come from?