Posts by EdenOne

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

So Eden what say you now?

I'm inclined to say that there is substantial circumstantial evidence supporting the transition to sex differentiation and sexual reproduction in the early stages of life than I previously knew of. The fact that there are examples in observable nature NOW that may give us clues as to how the process might have evolved THEN, in a very remote past, offers powerful clues on how simple organisms might have adopted sexual reproduction. Still, it doesn't quite explain how very complex organisms developed fully distinct yet necessarily complementary reproductive apparel.

Mind you, this won't tip the scale towards Intelligent Design. It's infinitely more complicated the assumption of an intelligent creator behind the process than the process driving itself.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Cofty how tiring is it to have to go over this stuff like every day.

Well, to be honest Cofty has been a relentless promoter of a certain worldview and we had a handful of ugly clashes in the past, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. We don't always agree (sometimes we don't even agree to disagree) but Cofty has been a lot more helpful to me and I'm sure others too that he may imagine. Only he knows if it's been a worthwhile endeavor or not. I'm showing here my appreciation.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Nicolau - It seems to me that you actually are an atheist but that you're rather hesitant to accept the label, why would that be? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I will be an atheist the day irrefutable evidence leads me that way. When that day comes - and I suspect it will come eventually - I won't have any problems to take on the label. For the time being, apatheist, agnostic and anti-religion seem to fit with the evidence at my disposal.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

What I've read so far revolves around the advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual, and why life favored sexual reproduction.

But I'm yet to read evidence of HOW organisms went from asexual reproduction to sexual. It requires two different phenomena that necessarily have to occur simultaneously: sexual process (fusion and recombination of genetic information from two individuals) and sexual differentiation (separation of genetic information into two parts) PLUS requires that two strains of individuals with sexually differentiated genetic material developed differentiated yet complementary reproductive structures (not to mention behavioral strategies) to make the whole process work.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Back on the OT:

What troubles me about the issue of sexual reproduction is this:

a) It appears to be general consensus that the earliest life forms reproduced by means of asexual replication. This is an integral copy of the original that copies itself and then separates. It's a simple, elegant and effective method.

b) It appears to be the general consensus that sexual reproduction appears in a much later stage of life.

The problem is, how did some organisms evolved from asexual to sexual reproduction? Because it's not a simple variation of the asexual method. It's a much more complex process that requires an enormous level of complexity at the very beginning (not saying that asexual reproduction isn't complex; but sexual reproduction is immensely MORE complex; it's a huge leap forward from asexual reproduction.)

For starters it requires that two separate organisms develop specialized, yet necessarily complementary genetic material, cut by half, that will be recombined by means of sexual activity. This is a gargantuan conceptual difference from asexual replication and can only work with a high level of complexity to start with.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

OTWO - So even if you are not invoking God, you are leaning toward not understanding something complex and opening a door for something more complex to be the answer. One enormous hurdle leads to putting up more hurdles.

The way I see it, when faced with something that science can't explain with nothing more than conjecture, one can take one of the following routes:

a) Science can't explain this in a naturalistic way, therefore, God did it.

b) Science can't explain this in a naturalistic way, therefore, I'm open to the possibility that some unknown intelligence might have been involved in steering the process.

c) Science can't explain this in a naturalistic way, but I an certain that one day there will be such explanation, because it has consistently come up with such explanations so far.

d) Science can't explain this, and frankly it doesn't matter anyway.

e) Science can't explain this, and I'm comfortable not knowing.

Route a) doesn't work for me anymore because it's too simplistic and lazy and at the same time, poses issues of enormous complexity for which there is absolutely no evidence to back up, and is open to religious exploitation and deceit.

Route b) is a bit like discussing dark matter. We can't observe it, and we can't really describe its properties, but we're convinced that it's the only plausible explanation for some of the behavior of matter in our universe. It's a seductive idea, but it remains the realm of speculation, for is yet to be demonstrated.

Route c) I'm ok with those who take on this position; seems reasonable; but at the end of the day is of the same substance as belief.

Route d) I'm not comfortable with this. I think it matters.

Route e) Not really comfortable in not knowing. I want to find out!

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Scratchme1010 - This is where I find an issue. The JWs promote this black and white mentality, that if you don't believe their nonsense then you have to believe the opposite. Where does it say anywhere that one has to become an atheist or evolutionist simply because you don't believe in religion or the bible?
Something that I learn was that the WT not only tells people what they are supposed to be, do and believe, but also tells them what they are supposed to be, do and believe if they leave. So, EdenOne, look for how much of your way of thinking may still be influenced by the way the WT promotes that people should think. Your post still resembles that all-or-nothing, black and white mentality. You don't need to be an atheist to believe in evolution, you don't need to believe in evolution to be an atheist, you don't need to constantly look for scientific proof if you truly believe in intelligent design. Your belief is just your choice.

While belief is very often a matter of choice, facts aren't a matter of choice. I have decided to lead my life where evidence takes me. And the Bible simply isn't supported by evidence. Actually, quite the contrary.

You make a lot of assumptions about me, which you wouldn't if you have followed my trajectory on this forum. When I began to realize that JW's weren't "the truth", I tried to savage my faith by doubling down my research of the Bible. I came up with many great 'discoveries' about beliefs, and developed a couple of theological constructs of my own. I published a website with the results of my research into the Bible. Many here must remember those days; it wasn't but a few years ago, perhaps three years ago. I sincerely believed still that there was merit to the Bible and the Christian faith. So, no, it's not true that when one leaves the JWs one necessarily has to believe the opposite of their nonsense.

The WT has no bearing in what I should embrace or not as truth after I left the JW's. It didn't have. I embraced agnosticism after extensive research into the very foundations of the Bible and of Christianity, especially research into the historical Jesus and the movement of Jesus' believers. it all came crashing down in flames.

It was the thorough deception of religious belief that let me to embrace the notion that one should lead life based on facts and evidence, instead of feeble feel-good faith. Wherever that may lead. I still find the Bible a fascinating work and Jesus and his movement a fascinating subject. But I see it from a historian's point of view and not through devotional lenses.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Cofty, your questions deserve a more lengthy reply. I'm still working, but I promise to come back to you later on.

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Giordano, like I pointed out, the article was written by two people who are proponents of Intelligent Design. But, for once, as I also posted, can we forget about the messengers and focus on the message? I'm not advocating ID or theism. I would like to overcome this hurdle that represents the difficulty in coming up with a feasible explanation why evolution dictated the differentiation of sexual genre and sexual reproduction - how come two very different and necessarily interdependent reproductive apparatus have evolved for each species?

60

The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

by EdenOne in

as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

EdenOne

Island Man, I can see the advantages of a broader pool of genetic material versus a near carbon copy of cloning as produced by asexual reproduction. I'm puzzled as to why the cells replicate by means of mitosis cytokinesis but when it comes to reproduction it's a different process called meiosis cytokinesis. How come some living organisms developed such a differentiated process for reproduction while others kept the earlier and simpler (and more efficient) mechanism of mitosis? The process of meiosis is no simple variation of the process of mitosis. It envolves a very different process that couldn't work as a simple variation of mitosis, and in order to work it would have to start off as a complex process in itself.