How Life Began

  • 140 Replies
  • 18037 Views
*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #120 on: February 25, 2009, 06:47:36 AM »
Stop spamming in the serious boards, KingMan.
I meant that he is obviously prejuduved on the subject, so he cannot declare win.

First of all, what the fuck is prejuduved? Second of all, my comment had nothing to do with my beliefs (you assume I'm an atheist for one, I am not) erego, you are biased against me and your opinion is invalid. Third and fourth of all, fuck off kingman, and another win for Guessed.  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 06:52:16 AM by Guessed »
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


?

Proleg

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #121 on: February 25, 2009, 08:52:10 PM »
(you assume I'm an atheist for one, I am not)
Are you one of those "I don't believe in God and I am also not an atheist" people?

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #122 on: February 25, 2009, 08:56:24 PM »
Why does he have to believe in anything. I personally don't believe in anything. This does not make me an atheist because atheist believe there is no god. I don't know if there is a god and I get annoyed when people try to draw that line saying you need to ether believe in god or be an athiest
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #123 on: February 25, 2009, 09:00:39 PM »
Why does he have to believe in anything. I personally don't believe in anything. This does not make me an atheist because atheist believe there is no god. I don't know if there is a god and I get annoyed when people try to draw that line saying you need to ether believe in god or be an athiest

As with many things in life there's a continuum. The continuum roughly looks like:
Theism - agnosticism - weak atheism - strong atheism.

"Strong atheism" is more or less what you identify as "atheism", the positive disbelief in any deities. In contrast, weak atheists don't believe in any deities or think that the burden of proof to establish the existence of deities as a probable hypothesis has not been met. The exact dividing lines between each category is not always clear (the dividing line between weak atheism and agnosticism is particularly blurry).

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #124 on: February 25, 2009, 09:06:41 PM »
(you assume I'm an atheist for one, I am not)
Are you one of those "I don't believe in God and I am also not an atheist" people?

Not quite. It's sort of hard to explain, but I suppose I lean more towards agnostic. There is a very good chance god does not exist, however there is no irrefutable evidence against "his" existence, so he might. Existentialism is what I try to practice.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #125 on: February 26, 2009, 12:43:20 AM »
(you assume I'm an atheist for one, I am not)
Are you one of those "I don't believe in God and I am also not an atheist" people?

Not quite. It's sort of hard to explain, but I suppose I lean more towards agnostic. There is a very good chance god does not exist, however there is no irrefutable evidence against "his" existence, so he might. Existentialism is what I try to practice.



This is where atheist activists will site a space-tea cup or the flying spaghetti monster.  You cannot prove that either of those exists, but the inability to not prove their existence does not add credibility to their argument.  Just because you cannot prove something doesn't exist does not give it equal standing.  I think if you forced yourself to spend time thinking about this, and things like it, you will fall off the fence and join the noble ranks of atheism.  I recommend either of the following books for your endeavor?

The God Delusion by, Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235637500&sr=8-1

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235637578&sr=8-1

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #126 on: February 26, 2009, 01:43:37 AM »
As with many things in life there's a continuum. The continuum roughly looks like:
Theism - agnosticism - weak atheism - strong atheism.

"Strong atheism" is more or less what you identify as "atheism", the positive disbelief in any deities. In contrast, weak atheists don't believe in any deities or think that the burden of proof to establish the existence of deities as a probable hypothesis has not been met. The exact dividing lines between each category is not always clear (the dividing line between weak atheism and agnosticism is particularly blurry).
There is no line between Atheism and Agnosticism. They are not mutually exclusive.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An Agnostic is someone who thinks that the existence of God is unknowable. Agnosticism refers to what you know, and Atheism refers to what you believe.

God is unfalsifiable. He can not be observed, and his existence can not be tested scientifically. Nobody will ever know for sure if God exists. If you realize this, you are Agnostic, whether you believe in God or not.  I don't believe in God because he can't be observed or tested, which makes me an Agnostic Atheist. If you realize that the existence of God is unknowable but choose to believe in him anyway, you are an Agnostic Theist.

If you think you absolutely know, without a doubt, that there is or isn't a god, you are delusional.

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #127 on: February 26, 2009, 05:43:32 AM »
(you assume I'm an atheist for one, I am not)
Are you one of those "I don't believe in God and I am also not an atheist" people?

Not quite. It's sort of hard to explain, but I suppose I lean more towards agnostic. There is a very good chance god does not exist, however there is no irrefutable evidence against "his" existence, so he might. Existentialism is what I try to practice.



This is where atheist activists will site a space-tea cup or the flying spaghetti monster.  You cannot prove that either of those exists, but the inability to not prove their existence does not add credibility to their argument.  Just because you cannot prove something doesn't exist does not give it equal standing.  I think if you forced yourself to spend time thinking about this, and things like it, you will fall off the fence and join the noble ranks of atheism.  I recommend either of the following books for your endeavor?

The God Delusion by, Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235637500&sr=8-1

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235637578&sr=8-1


I've read them both. I prefer Daniel Dennet.  I don't believe that there are only two sides ( belief and lack there of). This is a mistake often made by both camps, in assuming that we all have to be polarized. I won't waste my time declaring the existence or fictitiousness of any god, because quite frankly I'm too busy trying to make my life ( the one thing I do know for certain exists [though that too is arugable depending on how badly you want to skirt metaphysics]) the most rewarding it can be to worry about the afterlife.

Also, on a different tangent, I don't find Dawkins to be any better than say a Jerry Falwell, or others of his ilk. They are convinced that they are right and everyone who believes otherwsie is ignorant, that their path is the only one to salvation [falwell says that not believing in god is dangerous, dawkins claims the exact opposite]. Though Hitchens is a loveable penguin, and his research on waterboarding was extrordinarily well done.

/tangent
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 06:04:51 AM by Guessed »
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #128 on: February 26, 2009, 07:42:24 AM »
I can agree with most of that except for one glaring difference.  Falwell taught prejudice, bigotry, supremacy, and douche-baggery.

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #129 on: February 26, 2009, 07:45:02 AM »
I can agree with most of that except for one glaring difference.  Falwell taught prejudice, bigotry, supremacy, and douche-baggery.

And Dawkins doesn't teach you the same? He teaches that all religion is harmful (prejudice), dangerous (bigotry), and un-necessary ( supremacy), and he's (as well as Hitchens) are both douche-bags. There is no difference, so I am impassive to both arguments.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #130 on: February 26, 2009, 07:53:42 AM »
Ok, on a good day I might be able to concede to supremacy.  I can't see bigotry and prejudice though.  These were things that Falwell blatantly advocated.  You can compare the three as strong leaders in their views, both positively and negatively, but it is obvious that the moral side (of these three people) was not the christian side.

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #131 on: February 26, 2009, 07:59:20 AM »
Neither side was, or indeed is, moral, because morality has such a sliding scale. Once again, I fail to see a difference. It's easy to see that one side is worse than the other, if you have an engrained bias.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #132 on: February 26, 2009, 08:05:44 AM »
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/falwellquotes.htm

I have trouble seeing how you keep saying that things like that should be given equal ground to Dawkins and Hitchens.

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #133 on: February 26, 2009, 08:08:46 AM »
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/falwellquotes.htm

I have trouble seeing how you keep saying that things like that should be given equal ground to Dawkins and Hitchens.

Because they both maintain that religion is poisonous and against the laws of nature, etc, etc. Much as falwell maintains that homosexuals are poisonous to society and the laws of nature. Because they preach the abolition of these teachings which they deem harmful, as does falwell. If you're only looking at one side it is very easy to draw an easy winner. However, if looking at the whole picture, there still is no discernable difference.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


Re: How Life Began
« Reply #134 on: February 26, 2009, 08:18:21 AM »

There is no line between Atheism and Agnosticism. They are not mutually exclusive.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An Agnostic is someone who thinks that the existence of God is unknowable. Agnosticism refers to what you know, and Atheism refers to what you believe.


There's an issue here with there being multiple definitions in use. Under the definitions you gave yes. In general, when anyone uses almost any of these terms (except possibly just "strong atheist") they should probably specify what they mean.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #135 on: February 26, 2009, 08:28:34 AM »
I think looking at the whole picture unbiased will clearly show a win in favor of Dawkins and Hicthens.  They say the world will be better without religion based on centuries of hate, evil, malice, torture, and killing brought about in God's name.  Dawkins was the professor for the public understanding of science at oxford and backs his views on evolution on tried and true science.  Falwell on the other hand incited fear and panic in people by promising them an eternity of torture.  He founded a university that displays rocks from the beginning of time with 4,000 year-old tags on them.  He regularly called people satanic, blamed terrorist attacks as being brought on my a morally unsound America, and vigorously spoke out against the gay community.  He condemned abortionists, berated feminists, was overtly racist, and constantly spoke anti-Semitic remarks.  I again say, I do not see how you can compare bigotry and hate mongering of this magnitude to Dawkins or Hitchens.

I shall conclude with a quote I edited from Dawkin's book, The God Delusion.

The God of the Old Testament JERRY FALWELL is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction HISTORY: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Me

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #136 on: February 26, 2009, 08:35:09 AM »

I shall conclude with a quote I edited from Dawkin's book, The God Delusion.

The God of the Old Testament JERRY FALWELL is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction HISTORY: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Me

That's really not at all fair to Falwell. I disagree pretty strongly with the man, but I see no evidence that he was "infanticidal" or "genocidal" or "filicidal" or many of the other terms used. You had a good argument until you got to this point.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #137 on: February 26, 2009, 08:37:59 AM »
Yes, I agree.  It was meant to be funny, not literal.  Though, I do find it amusing that only three descriptions are in contention.


EDIT: That's unfair too, many more than three should be disputed.  Still tho, funny, not literal

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #138 on: February 26, 2009, 04:59:48 PM »
There's an issue here with there being multiple definitions in use. Under the definitions you gave yes.
The definition I gave is what the word has meant since the day it was coined. It is the definition given in every dictionary.

Quote
In general, when anyone uses almost any of these terms (except possibly just "strong atheist") they should probably specify what they mean.
That kind of defeats the purpose of having words for things. ::)

Making up your own definition for words to suit your own needs is a Creationist thing. Lets leave it to them, shall we?

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #139 on: March 01, 2009, 07:12:48 PM »
Quote
In general, when anyone uses almost any of these terms (except possibly just "strong atheist") they should probably specify what they mean.
That kind of defeats the purpose of having words for things. ::)

Making up your own definition for words to suit your own needs is a Creationist thing. Lets leave it to them, shall we?

I'm a mathematician. We make up meanings for words all the time also. Joking aside, using definitions is fine as long as: a) all parties are clear what definitions are in use for that purpose b) they really stick to those definitions c) they don't try to use one definition and then sneakily use connotations from other definitions.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #140 on: March 06, 2009, 02:38:30 AM »
@Edtharan, Stop making your posts so damn long!
Sorry  ::)

But IU had a fair amount of information that was needed to answer your questions. The big problem is that most people only get the short answer to these questions, and because they don't have the details, they get things wrong, and because they are not told the full explanation, they don't understand all the backing of them. they then makes claims like: "Evolution doesn't work" etc.

Also, people keeps stating that they need facts to understand evolution, but the "fact" is that Evolution is a process. Before any of the "facts" of evolution can make sense, you need to know the process.

And the process of evolution is not all that simple (well in some ways it is, but to actually know enough about biology to demonstrate the process is complicated).
Everyday household experimentation.