To cofty
TWM - Your intellectual dishonesty makes conversation impossible.
Care to point one out
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To cofty
TWM - Your intellectual dishonesty makes conversation impossible.
Care to point one out
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Finkelstein
The odds of the essential elements coming together over time by chance to form the initial building blocks of one cell is a statistical impossibility.
Not in the acceptance and understanding of molecular biology. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue or irrelevant.
"To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup there are several combinatorial problems – probabilistic hurdles- to overcome. First, all amino acids must form a peptide bond when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. If the amino acids do not link up with one another via a peptide bond, the resulting molecule will not fold into a protein. In nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. In fact, when amino acid mixtures are allowed to react in a test tube, they form peptide and none peptide bonds with roughly equal probability. Thus, with each amino acid addition, the probability of it forming a peptide bond is roughly ½. Once four amino acids have become linked, the likelihood that they are joined exclusively by peptide bonds is roughly [1/2]^4. The probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages is {1/2}^149, or 1 chance in 10^45.
Second in nature every amino acid found in proteins [ with one exception] has a distinct mirror image of itself, there is one left handed version, or L form, and one right handed version, or D form. These mirror image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right handed and left handed isomers are produced with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into account further compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining, at random only L amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 150 amino acids long is [1/2]^150 or roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Starting from mixtures of D and L form the probability of building a 150 amino acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L form is, therefore, roughly 1 chance in 10^90.
Amino acids link together when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another. Notice that water is the byproduct of the reaction. [Condensation reaction].
Functional proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all, their amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements. In some cases, changing even one amino acid at a given site results in the loss of protein function. Moreover, because a there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small 1/20 [actually the probability is even lower because in nature, there are also may none protein forming amino acids.] On the assumption that each site is a protein chain requires a particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 150 amino acids long would be [1/20]^150 or roughly 1 chance 10^195. 1chance in 10^195.
Taking this into account only causes the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chance or the genetic information to produce them, to balloon beyond comprehension. In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sr. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10^40K.
[There are 10^65 atoms in our galaxy]”
[Stephen C. Meyer]
Your faith is based on something you cant even logically define and is notably structured around ancient mythological expressions ( the supernatural ). When you base your proven facts solely upon beliefs, your facts aren't verifiable. Scientifically acquired knowledge and acceptance of that acquired knowledge is based upon observation of physical evidence, not imaginary beliefs, therefore it carries with itself a higher level of perspective reality.
I fully agree. My belief that a cell could not evolve based on slime plus time is proven by science. Again my belief is based on observation and physical evidence, yours belief in a prebiotic soup is based on imagination. One thing is for sure, you as an Atheist have a tremendous amount of faith compared to me a mere Christian. But to each his own, I by logic and reason, you by faith alone.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To slimboyfat
Yes it is.
Atheists hold two contradictory beliefs at once.
1. That human rationality is a result of natural selection shaped for survival not a God given faculty for seeing the world as it really is.
2. Human rationality can be relied upon to deliver a reliable answer to questions such as "does God exist?"
One or the other assumption has to give.
True if rationality evolved over time then, when it comes to truth, we cannot have any confidence in it because evolution aims not at truth but at survival. Any answers would have been selected on either pragmatic or utilitarian bases, because that view aims at survival and not truth.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Cofty
It is just a way of saying you can't work out how rationality contributes to human survival or perhaps was a side-effect of other evolutionary changes.
If your moral beliefs evolved over time then we cannot have any confidence in them because evolution aims not at truth but at survival, then the morals would have been selected on either pragmatic or utilitarian bases, because that view aims at survival and not truth
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Slimboyfat
theism - there is a being who has unlimited power and is perfect in love (how can God be both loving and all-powerful in a world full of suffering?)
Thoughtful atheists do try to provide arguments against God's existence. Undoubtedly, the most important of these is the problem of suffering. When you consider the extent and that of suffering in the world, whether due to natural disasters or to man's own inhumanity to man, then you had to admit that it's hard to believe in God. The horrible suffering in the world certainly seems to be evidence of God's absence. But as one colleague once wisely remarked to me, as a philosopher I am called upon to say what I think about some questions, not how I feel about it. And as difficult as the problem of suffering may be emotionally, that is no reason in and of itself to think that God does not exist.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Cofty
How can it be illogical to fail to believe irrational claims about invisible supernatural beings? Nobody makes a "conscious decision not to believe". I just find christian theism to be on a par with all other superstitions and I don't believe it. If evidence is ever presented to support it I am listening.
No one ‘fails’ to believe. One either believes it or not. Notice the contradicting statements. “Nobody makes a "conscious decision not to believe" vs “and I don't believe it.” Which is it?
Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God also.
Yes.
“Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. [JJC Smart].
Answering ‘yes’ is not a flattering state of affairs. Following the soft atheist to a logical conclusion all you are giving me is a report of the state of your mind. And pity would be the appropriate response from me.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Cofty
TWM - Why are you still ignoring the need to carefully define the god you are arguing for? You ignore all the hard questions don't you?
Why, so you can change the subject? Atheism should be able to survive the same scrutiny that Theism has. As of now I am arguing for a supernatural intelligent being.
A = negative, denial Nope. You pulled that out of your imagination. Atheist means without god.
Even if a grant you that ‘a’ means ‘without’ we have not come to the conclusion that Atheism means ‘without belief in God’. What is negated in the word is ‘God’ not ‘belief’. In the etymology of the word there is no concept of belief. We can go as to meaning ‘a universe without God’ which is another way of saying ‘God does not exist’.
Christians make a lot of specific claims about god. It is possible to show that these claims cannot be reconciled with each other or with reality. Therefore we can say with certainty that the god of Jesus does not exist.
The Atheist reject all forms of deity. Any worldview that espouses deity that does not agree among itself, does not equate to the nonexistence of deity but the nonexistence of uniformity. If there is any question it is settled internally.
If you retreat into a very vague form of deism - a common trick of christian apologists - then of course your very modest claims can never be refuted.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Notice the duplicity and hypocrisy. You keep insisting on discussing Theism vs Atheism which I do not, and then bring this up.
To illustrate - If I said unicorns exist, an a-unicornist could never prove me wrong without perfect knowledge of all the beings - visible and invisible - in the universe. If however I say that a large pink, visible, and noisy unicorn lives in my bathroom then the a-unicornist could prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.
All that can be proven is that there are no unicorns in your bathroom.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To: cofty
Oh dear I didn't realise your were an evolution denier as well! From your first venture into biology it is clear you have never read a single book on evolution or abiogenesis in your entire life.
There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. I believe the finch’s beaks change over time. I do not believe a whale evolved from a mammal. I don’t like to discuss comparative anatomy, I prefer genetics.
What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must the origin of life researcher ‘explain the origin of’? Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’ A block of binary code in a software program is information. DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotide bases that produce a specific effect; therefore DNA contains information. DNA sequences are improbable and specifically arranged to perform, this is functional information similar to CAD – CAM. Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from? Let’s bring cause and effect. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To cofty
TWM - When you get a minute don't forget to reply to my refutation of your OP...
I suggest you slow down a lot and reflect on the answers you are given. There are a lot of people here who have far more knowledge of these issues than you clearly have. With a bit of humility you could learn a lot. Your wordy responses invariably miss the point you pretend to be replying to. You should also reply to Berengaria's post above. She shows irrefutably that your OP got off to a bad start. Atheism means "without god".
The amount of private messages and their content [that I am receiving] disagree with you. You seem to be the only one that cannot connect the dots. Suggest you read the responses again or maybe several times.
Good luck.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To. Finkelstein
The only omniscience thing is natural law holding to intellectual honesty, until proven otherwise.
Omniscience: the state of knowing everything.
Natural Law: A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
How does natural law possess omniscience?