T-Nation Atheists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
392

[quote]agshag wrote:
There is a Buddhist saying that goes something like this, “Do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.” Essentially this is saying don’t confuse the signs for what they are pointing to. Religion is meant strictly to be a sign pointing to God. Most of you are equating religion and God as the same thing. It is when you start worshipping the sign instead of what it is pointing to that you get Jihads and supposedly Christian countries invading other countries to conform them to their ideals. I promise this is not from God. In fact Jesus’s teaching on non-violence are very obvious (although we Christians are the only ones who don’t see it). Even Gandhi recognized this about Christians.
God is not something to be owned and therefore something that does not need to be defended. It is the gods that we have created in religion that need to be defended.
To have a problem with God simply because of the way religion chooses to present Him is a mistake. Religion is a human construct and every one of us has gotten it wrong (and right) to some extent.
I say this not to change anyone’s mind, but to caution you about confusing the finger and the moon. I believe that God is infinite and therefore the paths to God are also infinite. When it is time we will all be brought back to Him.

[/quote]

Dude, you are going straight to hell. My finger IS God, and you will tremble before him!

Seriously, though. I would like to say its refreshing to see an intelligent post like that. I agree that the line between religion (the collection of rituals and cultural phenomena surrounding belief in a deity) from the deity itself, is blurred far too often.
God or Not is not the same as Christian or Non-Christian. I hope more people follow suit (except ZEB and company, becuase they are all idiots… he he he just trying to play the “bitter atheist” part).

However, you are still going to hell because you didn’t jump throught the required hoops, as per the Book…

393

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument holds no water. See the following:

The Miller-Urey experiment, for all its failings as far as creating a close approximation of Earth’s early atmosphere, certainly proved one thing. It is possible, even likely, to produce organic compounds and amino acids from inorganic compounds in a high energy environment.

An even simpler example of entropy failing to remove all order from a random system can be done in your kitchen. Toss some cooking oil in water. The oil will naturally form cells within the water. This is an instance where chemical self regulation trumps the literal predictions associated with entropy.

To anyone wishing to find a more detailed discussion on entropy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics, I highly recommend the following page. It is well laid out and written in plain language.

http://www.entropysimple.com/content.htm

Todd[/quote]

Thanks, bro. I hate the entropy argument. Almost as much as I hate “irreducible complexity!”

394

Interesting post, agshag.

Here’s an issue I have. Man has continuously been pushed from a central position in existence since the birth of modern religions. Christianity made a lot of sense 2000 years ago. At that time, people honestly believed that the world was the extent of existence, or at least the center of existence.

Then about 500 years ago, Copernicus and then Galileo came along. They posited, correctly, that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Since that time, subsequent discoveries have further relegated man’s importance within the universe to virtually nonexistent. To me, at this point in time, it is the height of presumption to assume that despite all of that, man is somehow the focus of creation.

There may or may not be a God, but given what I know about the world and about the universe, I find it extremely hard to believe that any God that would exist would be particularly caring or interventionist. Once those characteristics can theoretically be removed, the discussion about the ultimate existence of God becomes rather moot in my way of thinking.

Todd

395

How did something that didn’t exist (non living matter turning into living matter), which can’t be proven, manage to design all plants, animals and humans?

Let me guess you’re answers:

-Genetic Mutations:

Doesn’t show signs of anything positive in the real world.

-Evolution:

Only microevolution is proven which is animals adapting to their enviornment. Macroevolution is bullshit. It’s never been proven and it can’t because their is nothing to suggest that it did happen. But wait, smart scientists and archeologists with really convincing stories are telling me it did happen. Hmm, maybe I should believe them…

(Note sarcasm)

-All over billions and billions of years:

Which also can’t be proven. Human beings are incredibly arrogant to think they can comprehend and try to pick a part such an enormous time frame. Also, the dating methods have proven to be flawed.

396

[quote]jeep7588 wrote:

Has life ever been created out of a blob of non-living material in any science lab?

[/quote]

I don’t know if it was ever created or not but it is possible.

How, you ask?

Asuming your body is a science lab and your food doesn’t live anymore after the passage through your gastro-intestinal-tract, the cells take non-living material up and transform it to “living-material”, then they separate and bang you get life.

Same procedure in the lab. You synthesize DNA, proteins make them feel warm and cozy add some “food” and with some “luck” you get life.

To this type of questions you have to answer in a “simple” manner.

  1. Empty space.
  2. Because it can. Think about it!

“Why worship a god, why not be God yourself?”

-F.W. Nietsche-

397

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
How did something that didn’t exist manage to design billions of species?[/quote]

who says he did?

398

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
How did something that didn’t exist manage to design billions of species?[/quote]

I have a better question: How are you being helpful in contributing to this discussion so far?

401

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
…

An even simpler example of entropy failing to remove all order from a random system can be done in your kitchen. Toss some cooking oil in water. The oil will naturally form cells within the water. This is an instance where chemical self regulation trumps the literal predictions associated with entropy.
…[/quote]

This is a silly example. It is like saying because a house does not fall down it is proof that entropy does not apply.

It has been a hell of a long time since I took thermo but I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The second law of thermodymanics has no bearing on the debate of the origins of life since the Earth is not a closed system.

No more needs to be said.

402

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument holds no water. See the following:

The Miller-Urey experiment, for all its failings as far as creating a close approximation of Earth’s early atmosphere, certainly proved one thing. It is possible, even likely, to produce organic compounds and amino acids from inorganic compounds in a high energy environment.

An even simpler example of entropy failing to remove all order from a random system can be done in your kitchen. Toss some cooking oil in water. The oil will naturally form cells within the water. This is an instance where chemical self regulation trumps the literal predictions associated with entropy.

To anyone wishing to find a more detailed discussion on entropy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics, I highly recommend the following page. It is well laid out and written in plain language.

http://www.entropysimple.com/content.htm

Todd[/quote]

Beware wikipedia articles…they can be edited by anyone with an account. To get an account all one needs to do is pay a fee.

How did we go from “T-Nation Atheists” to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

403

i just dont know what i believe…when i in school and i had a paper due the next day i hadnt started, then i beleived in God…when i crash the car, i prayed to him to not let dad beat the shit out of me or get mad…but generally, me and god have this understanding in which we dont need to speak to each other i dont necessarily have to beleive in him, but that he is around…

the first time i was in a church for a service was when the future wife made me, the 2nd was our wedding…their wont be a third…unless i had a paper due the next day and i call on him again.

404

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
How did something that didn’t exist (non living matter turning into living matter), which can’t be proven, manage to design all plants, animals and humans?

Let me guess you’re answers:

-Genetic Mutations:

Doesn’t show signs of anything positive in the real world.

-Evolution:

Only microevolution is proven which is animals adapting to their enviornment. Macroevolution is bullshit. It’s never been proven and it can’t because their is nothing to suggest that it did happen. But wait, smart scientists and archeologists with really convincing stories are telling me it did happen. Hmm, maybe I should believe them…

(Note sarcasm)

-All over billions and billions of years:

Which also can’t be proven. Human beings are incredibly arrogant to think they can comprehend and try to pick a part such an enormous time frame. Also, the dating methods have proven to be flawed.[/quote]

Okay. So you are saying that we shouldn’t listen to scientists, who are really smart, but, rather, we should listen to you, who has established himself as an idiot.

Solid argument there.

Todd

405

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Interesting post, agshag.

Here’s an issue I have. Man has continuously been pushed from a central position in existence since the birth of modern religions. Christianity made a lot of sense 2000 years ago. At that time, people honestly believed that the world was the extent of existence, or at least the center of existence.

Then about 500 years ago, Copernicus and then Galileo came along. They posited, correctly, that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Since that time, subsequent discoveries have further relegated man’s importance within the universe to virtually nonexistent. To me, at this point in time, it is the height of presumption to assume that despite all of that, man is somehow the focus of creation.

There may or may not be a God, but given what I know about the world and about the universe, I find it extremely hard to believe that any God that would exist would be particularly caring or interventionist. Once those characteristics can theoretically be removed, the discussion about the ultimate existence of God becomes rather moot in my way of thinking.

Todd[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

I don’t think that the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. If you look at the Bible in this way, the conflicts with science would disappear

406

So what if man is not the center of creation? Why should that change anything? Suppose you are the oldest sibling and for a few years you are the center of your parent’s attention. Then a sibling comes along to grab that attention. Does that mean that your parents don’t love you as much as they did before?

You might be jealous at first, but you grow to love your sibling. Why can’t creation be viewed in that way? Being the center of everything is just a way to satisfy the ego. If we simply look at all of creation as coming from God and it is to be loved for that reason then what difference does it make if one is more important than the other. In the grand scheme of things all of creation is dependent upon the rest of creation for its survival.

If there are no more trees, we have no more air. If Planet X does not exist, the gravitational pull of Planet Y changes and suddenly the universe begins to collapse.

What specifically do you know about the world or universe that leads you to believe that God is not caring?

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Interesting post, agshag.

Here’s an issue I have. Man has continuously been pushed from a central position in existence since the birth of modern religions. Christianity made a lot of sense 2000 years ago. At that time, people honestly believed that the world was the extent of existence, or at least the center of existence.

Then about 500 years ago, Copernicus and then Galileo came along. They posited, correctly, that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Since that time, subsequent discoveries have further relegated man’s importance within the universe to virtually nonexistent. To me, at this point in time, it is the height of presumption to assume that despite all of that, man is somehow the focus of creation.

There may or may not be a God, but given what I know about the world and about the universe, I find it extremely hard to believe that any God that would exist would be particularly caring or interventionist. Once those characteristics can theoretically be removed, the discussion about the ultimate existence of God becomes rather moot in my way of thinking.

Todd[/quote]

407

[quote]aslater wrote:
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics.

This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
[/quote]

The New Testament is reliable and accurate because there were so many copies in circulation? Is that the gist of your argument? I’d argue that there are so many copies in circulation/well preserved because 1) catholic priests were often the only literate members of their society- and thus transcribed many copies of old texts and 2)the power and influence of the catholic church- because of the emperor Constantine. Once they had power- it was easier for them to preserve and promote their ideology.

I’ll also go back to the point I made about how the books in the bible were selected- many other books were thrown out. I guess it boils down to faith as to whether or not you believe the church leaders present at the Council of Carthage were divinely inspired. Personally- I view the large number of bibles in circulation is due to effective propaganda.

408

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
…

An even simpler example of entropy failing to remove all order from a random system can be done in your kitchen. Toss some cooking oil in water. The oil will naturally form cells within the water. This is an instance where chemical self regulation trumps the literal predictions associated with entropy.
…

This is a silly example. It is like saying because a house does not fall down it is proof that entropy does not apply.

It has been a hell of a long time since I took thermo but I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The second law of thermodymanics has no bearing on the debate of the origins of life since the Earth is not a closed system.

No more needs to be said.

[/quote]

I agree with you about the closed system point. However, a literal interpretation of the Second Law of Thermo would predict that oil would spread homogeneously throughout the water (much like cream within coffee). That this does not happen is evidence that other factors have to be considered when regarding entropy. Studies about why oil does not disperse in water actually won a Nobel prize in the 1930s.

Todd

409

[quote]eisenaffe wrote:
jeep7588 wrote:

Has life ever been created out of a blob of non-living material in any science lab?

I don’t know if it was ever created or not but it is possible.

How, you ask?

Asuming your body is a science lab and your food doesn’t live anymore after the passage through your gastro-intestinal-tract, the cells take non-living material up and transform it to “living-material”, then they separate and bang you get life.

Same procedure in the lab. You synthesize DNA, proteins make them feel warm and cozy add some “food” and with some “luck” you get life.

What was here in the begining? Why does the universe even exist in the first place?

To this type of questions you have to answer in a “simple” manner.

  1. Empty space.
  2. Because it can. Think about it!

“Why worship a god, why not be God yourself?”

-F.W. Nietsche-

[/quote]

Wow I guess you have all the answers.

Please show me one experiment that creates anything that is alive from what is not alive. The food arguement makes no sense whatsoever. How would protein or DNA be synthesized in nature if not for a living being or cell doing it? DNA must come from somewhere you can not “synthesize DNA” Thats why things must be cloned it takes life to make life.

There is still no explaination for why the universe exists in the first place.

Any comment on the millions of deaths that occurred in the name of the “state” or in the name of Communisim ( which avows alligence to the State above all else and abolishes all religion and traditional family?)

Or how a being that only exists on this planet for such a short amount of time can understand all the mysteries of life.

When “Man” plays the role of God as then you are beholden to that “Man’s” rules and values which is what happens when God, family and tradition have been replaced by the “State” So in fact there are examples of countries run with no underlying backbone of religous values ie. the countries run by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pott ect…

Jeep

410

[quote]Hamster wrote:
I have a couple thoughts on this:

First,

This idea comes from Josh McDowell’s book “More than a Carpenter,” and others have said it as well:

Jesus could not have possibly been just a “good guy.” He claimed to be God! So it stands to reason that either he was: a)God, or b)a liar and a great deceiver of many!

This idea of him being somewhere imbetween is hogwash. The only other viable options are that he didn’t exist at all (and thus the New Testament is pure fiction), or that what he said and claimed was misrepresented in the Bible.

Just a thought.

[/quote]

Please spare us the circular reasoning taken right out of the Bill Bright Campus Crusade handbook on “How to witness to the Wretched”.

You cannot possibly look at this with an objective eye given your current allegiance to Mithra, no, Osiris, no that?s not right, Ra? oh wait I am sorry you worship the other god-man who “walked” the earth… Jesus.

The fact is there are NO facts. You cannot tell me Jesus even existed apart from the new testament. You cannot prove the new testament by using the new testament. You need other sources. In addition, since those have yet to be returned to the Jerusalem library the evidence is not there.

To even consider your claims one must believe that the sources are credible. It?s funny to me how the bible speaks of these great and epic adventures of the creator of the universe doing mighty acts of power for the world to see. Now he?s relegated to a paper back book that you can read. I love the ?clause? in the new testament that doesn?t condone those people who actually want to see proof or visible evidence of his existence. They are just an ?evil and wicked generation? that seeks for a sign.

411

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
…

An even simpler example of entropy failing to remove all order from a random system can be done in your kitchen. Toss some cooking oil in water. The oil will naturally form cells within the water. This is an instance where chemical self regulation trumps the literal predictions associated with entropy.
…

This is a silly example. It is like saying because a house does not fall down it is proof that entropy does not apply.

It has been a hell of a long time since I took thermo but I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The second law of thermodymanics has no bearing on the debate of the origins of life since the Earth is not a closed system.

No more needs to be said.

I agree with you about the closed system point. However, a literal interpretation of the Second Law of Thermo would predict that oil would spread homogeneously throughout the water (much like cream within coffee). That this does not happen is evidence that other factors have to be considered when regarding entropy. Studies about why oil does not disperse in water actually won a Nobel prize in the 1930s.

Todd[/quote]

I used to work with dispersions and emulsions. The density difference, surface tension etc. are just way more important to what is happening. I wouldn’t even think to consider entropy when blending oil and water. I am just being too literal.

412

[quote]Buttered_Corn wrote:
…You cannot possibly look at this with an objective eye given your current allegiance to Mithra, no, Osiris, no that?s not right, Ra? oh wait I am sorry you worship the other god-man who “walked” the earth… Jesus.
…[/quote]

You forgot Heracles.

413

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Buttered_Corn wrote:
…You cannot possibly look at this with an objective eye given your current allegiance to Mithra, no, Osiris, no that?s not right, Ra? oh wait I am sorry you worship the other god-man who “walked” the earth… Jesus.
…

You forgot Heracles.[/quote]

“Oooooh Heracles, heracles.”