In an episode of red dwarf (a delightful British comedy series) there is a robot that says he must be deactivated because he will be replaced however the only reason he complies is because he has had the idea of "Android heaven" programmed into him. If he works well in life when he is dismantled or whatever he'll be off to an eternal happiness. The human characters comment on how stupid and cruel this is. Fixing and idea into his mind so he has a false sense of comfort and can never live his life to the fullest as he will always comply based on this idea. The robot says the same thing about human heaven. Think about that for a sec.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread
- Thread starter Adamant Zoroark
- Start date
You know that argument that everyone and their grandma has heard about how Atheism is actually a religion and all that illogical jazz? From now on, let's just have it be one. Then we can have a bunch of people in really cool hats talk to an audience once a week, and we can have a really old man with the coolest hat ride around in a special car. Either that, or we should play along with the baseless stereotype that we atheists are all just twisted sinners working directly for the devil. Seriously, if we did that, we could have black cloaks and talk really ominously all the time...It would be so much fun!
Huh, this thread is still running.
I think that the whole "militant atheist" thing is kind of overblown. The vocal minority of atheists who think that religious people are "less intelligent" or whatever are certainly not to be commended, but they're still just that, a vocal minority. It's easy to attack the assholes who make the news for the most awful comments, but let's all keep in mind that, whether it's an atheist who's gone too far or a staunch creationist, these people do not represent everyone in their group.
Another thing is I think people still aren't really getting what an anti-theist really is. Anti-theists don't deny that religion has ever done anything good for society, nor do they necessarily make a claim as to its historical importance. They simply assert that religion today does more harm than good, and society benefits from its diminishing influence. That doesn't mean that religion is the only thing doing more harm than good, nor does it mean that it's the biggest. This is also a different argument from the one above, as the above argument deals with numbers, and this argument deals with power and influence.
I'm finding the math conversation kind of silly. There's been a lot of philosophical debate as to whether mathematical objects, and by extension ideas in general, "exist". At the end of the day, math is about patterns. Do patterns "exist"? Does a song "exist", or do only its performances "exist"? I personally think that it's a stupid question because different people simply interpret the notion of existence differently. It's much like the tree falling in the forest with nobody around to hear it. Plus, it's not like intellectual copyright law gives a shit about whether or not ideas exist ;)
The stuff about the empty set is especially puzzling. It's just an object that's not going to be broken into smaller parts. What's paradoxical about that?
I think that the whole "militant atheist" thing is kind of overblown. The vocal minority of atheists who think that religious people are "less intelligent" or whatever are certainly not to be commended, but they're still just that, a vocal minority. It's easy to attack the assholes who make the news for the most awful comments, but let's all keep in mind that, whether it's an atheist who's gone too far or a staunch creationist, these people do not represent everyone in their group.
Another thing is I think people still aren't really getting what an anti-theist really is. Anti-theists don't deny that religion has ever done anything good for society, nor do they necessarily make a claim as to its historical importance. They simply assert that religion today does more harm than good, and society benefits from its diminishing influence. That doesn't mean that religion is the only thing doing more harm than good, nor does it mean that it's the biggest. This is also a different argument from the one above, as the above argument deals with numbers, and this argument deals with power and influence.
I'm finding the math conversation kind of silly. There's been a lot of philosophical debate as to whether mathematical objects, and by extension ideas in general, "exist". At the end of the day, math is about patterns. Do patterns "exist"? Does a song "exist", or do only its performances "exist"? I personally think that it's a stupid question because different people simply interpret the notion of existence differently. It's much like the tree falling in the forest with nobody around to hear it. Plus, it's not like intellectual copyright law gives a shit about whether or not ideas exist ;)
The stuff about the empty set is especially puzzling. It's just an object that's not going to be broken into smaller parts. What's paradoxical about that?
Big Thoughts below, kind of felt like posting them, if I'm being fatally wrong you should totally tell me because I love criticism.
The dominant orthodox religions of today feed off of man's weak nature so that when they are given an "instruction manual" for the correct way of living they turn a blind eye to the world around them. I morally object to this implicit egotism and so it flows logically that I morally object to today's dominant religious powers and communities and would like to see the phenomenon erased from society. I'm less familiar with Christianity as I am with Judaism and Islam but I assume I am not far off anyway.
This is an aside from my view of religion as our past wise elders's best explanation for the world around them, which has since been replaced by science, a much better explanation.
I believe proper manners and morals can be taught without threats but this isn't an argument more than it is my Utopian half talking.
Um I think that's it.
The dominant orthodox religions of today feed off of man's weak nature so that when they are given an "instruction manual" for the correct way of living they turn a blind eye to the world around them. I morally object to this implicit egotism and so it flows logically that I morally object to today's dominant religious powers and communities and would like to see the phenomenon erased from society. I'm less familiar with Christianity as I am with Judaism and Islam but I assume I am not far off anyway.
This is an aside from my view of religion as our past wise elders's best explanation for the world around them, which has since been replaced by science, a much better explanation.
I believe proper manners and morals can be taught without threats but this isn't an argument more than it is my Utopian half talking.
Um I think that's it.
Personally, I am a Christian, and I believe that the truth is important, rather than what we feel. There is evidence for Christianity, such as that in the book The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, who become a Christian after researching to disprove Christianity. The Bible is also more accurate than some people think since the new translations use extremely old manuscripts (in the original Hebrew and Greek I believe.) And if the Bible is accurate, shouldn't we take into consideration its content, since many of the New Testament authors were executed painfully for their testimonies?
There's also evidence for God in general, the existence of intelligent life for one example. I know many people believe we evolved, but organisms are too complex for me to believe that- we have thousands of genes, some of which code for different proteins when they are spliced differently, and single mutation could be enough to cause dysfunction. To add to my credibility I would just like to add that I am currently a college sophomore studying for a biology major and have a mentorship at Nemours. To add to the complications the moon is supposedly slowly drifting away due to tides, which would greatly restrict the time for evolution, because it helps keep us in orbit, and according to what many scientist think the moon should have drifted away in the time it would supposedly take for us to evolve. Some celestial bodies also rotate in opposite directions, which seems to contradict the Big Bang theory, since the law of conservation of angular momentum says that if the entire universe exploded from one point, everything should be rotating in the same direction. One could argue that meteors hit these celestial bodies and caused their rotations to switch, but one has to ask if there is any evidence that there were enough impact to do that on such a body. Many quantum physicists, which is arguably the most difficult kind of scientist to be, are also spiritual according to Dr. Michio Kaku.
Finally to those who would simply dismiss God, because, they don't think what they believe is really important, I would like to point out that knowing what God wants helps us live the best lives we can, and it is important because.... well consider what happens if what many believe about Hell is true. I truly believe that Christianity is the truth and that there is a great deal of evidence for it. I'll admit there are some unpleasant aspects to it, but that is how the world works- there are consequences (often somewhat predictable) for our actions, and God tells us what to do, so we don't hurt ourselves in the long run. I again ask you not to dismiss what I have said. If you want to talk or ask questions, then please feel free to do so, and hopefully I will see your response.
There's also evidence for God in general, the existence of intelligent life for one example. I know many people believe we evolved, but organisms are too complex for me to believe that- we have thousands of genes, some of which code for different proteins when they are spliced differently, and single mutation could be enough to cause dysfunction. To add to my credibility I would just like to add that I am currently a college sophomore studying for a biology major and have a mentorship at Nemours. To add to the complications the moon is supposedly slowly drifting away due to tides, which would greatly restrict the time for evolution, because it helps keep us in orbit, and according to what many scientist think the moon should have drifted away in the time it would supposedly take for us to evolve. Some celestial bodies also rotate in opposite directions, which seems to contradict the Big Bang theory, since the law of conservation of angular momentum says that if the entire universe exploded from one point, everything should be rotating in the same direction. One could argue that meteors hit these celestial bodies and caused their rotations to switch, but one has to ask if there is any evidence that there were enough impact to do that on such a body. Many quantum physicists, which is arguably the most difficult kind of scientist to be, are also spiritual according to Dr. Michio Kaku.
Finally to those who would simply dismiss God, because, they don't think what they believe is really important, I would like to point out that knowing what God wants helps us live the best lives we can, and it is important because.... well consider what happens if what many believe about Hell is true. I truly believe that Christianity is the truth and that there is a great deal of evidence for it. I'll admit there are some unpleasant aspects to it, but that is how the world works- there are consequences (often somewhat predictable) for our actions, and God tells us what to do, so we don't hurt ourselves in the long run. I again ask you not to dismiss what I have said. If you want to talk or ask questions, then please feel free to do so, and hopefully I will see your response.
As I explained in this thread, I am a Catholic. And for what it is worth, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Cell and Molecular Biology...
I am aware of the splicing pathways (and that lariat formed by a 2'-5' phosphodiester reminds me of my Rosary :)). I am sure that an allele coding for a dysfunctional splicing signalling would be at low frequency in the the population simply because the deleterious phenotype resulting from the mutation would be under strong pressure to be removed from the gene pool. Must of the observed "perfection" you see in biology cannot be unequivocally ascribed to an intelligent designer because it can be facilely explained within the framework of natural selection; you do have to consider the counterfactual situation where many of our "thousands of genes" have many "mutations" that would cause them to have dysfunction. Again, if that is the case, then such an organism would not come into being because selection pressures would act to reduce the frequency of deleterious alleles in a population, which would prevent two individuals with a high concentration of deleterious alleles from producing offspring.
Last edited:
It is true that natural selection should eliminate harmful genes, but the creation of proteins with novel functions would require a mutation, which could very easily render the gene useless. I find it hard to believe that we evolved these proteins, because we would probably need many mutations (possibly at the same time) in just the right places, so the gene doesn't fall apart. There was the problem with time restraints I mentioned anyway, so even if evolution did work that way, we probably wouldn't have nearly enough time. Also the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a isolated system never decreases, which macroevolution could contradict, although it's debatable whether or not that law is applicable to evolution.
Most of what you said is standard creationism nonsense that I am sure will be addressed by someone, or perhaps me when I get time, but I just wanted to poke at this nugget of false hood.
No. This video does a good job as explaining why this is nonsense, sure you are true in this, however you are ignoring the greater mechanical complications of the moon's drift.
No. This video does a good job as explaining why this is nonsense, sure you are true in this, however you are ignoring the greater mechanical complications of the moon's drift.
Personally I'm agnostic because I find it hard to believe that one religion could actually be right out of the hundreds of thousands that exist and have existed. Christianity can't be right because it's the biggest religion, because before Christianity existed the Romans seriously believed in their Gods and one can argue they were much more intelligent and dignified than the modern American. Nobody argues that Zeus exists for real though.
All of them rely on historical figures who said something, but we can never know for sure if what they said was true or they were just schizophrenic men that were smooth talkers. When much of the world can't be explained, sometimes it's good to have something to explain it. I mean pertaining to the story of Adam and Eve do you think some nomadic peoples thousands of years ago would understand the theory of evolution? Or would it even come across their mind that such a thing is even possible?
But I'm getting off topic. I don't tell my parents because they're super religious so probably once I move out. I don't like talking about religion to people I know because of the shitstorm-causing effect it can have with most people.
All of them rely on historical figures who said something, but we can never know for sure if what they said was true or they were just schizophrenic men that were smooth talkers. When much of the world can't be explained, sometimes it's good to have something to explain it. I mean pertaining to the story of Adam and Eve do you think some nomadic peoples thousands of years ago would understand the theory of evolution? Or would it even come across their mind that such a thing is even possible?
But I'm getting off topic. I don't tell my parents because they're super religious so probably once I move out. I don't like talking about religion to people I know because of the shitstorm-causing effect it can have with most people.
Hm... interesting... perhaps that was an inaccuracy on my part, although MAYBE we're missing something, and I don't appreciate the condescension from the video-maker... Either way shouldn't the moon being significantly closer still have a major effect on the climate and orbit, or am I missing something?
There are also prophecies in the Old Testament that match up with Jesus, as Lee Strobel points out, and, like I said, many of Jesus's disciples, who witnessed his acts, were persecuted and killed gruesomely. Would you die for something you knew was a lie?
Anyway, if evolution was real, we would know it by know- humans and monkeys don't evolve through trading, or leveling up, or being exposed to stones, or any other method, so they must not be part of an evolution line.
Last edited:
Please note that even if all this was accurate, it would be evidence for any deity, not necessarily the Christian (or Abrahamic) God. You could very well explain the same phenomena with Åsatru, Greek/Roman/Egyptian polytheism, Hinduism, Pastafarianism or, heck, Arceism.
Also, your statement about the second law of Thermodynamics assume a closed system. There is this giant flaming orb in the sky called "The Sun" which keeps spreading energy, thus definitely not making Earth a closed system.
The question is, did they know it was a lie? I mean, there have been martyrs in every religion worth its salt, people who have died for their faith aren't exactly uncommon throughout history. Many of those faiths have been glaringly contradicting, but people have died for them nonetheless. If the disciples were convinced they were right, to a point where they'd die for it, it doesn't matter how objectively true it turns out to be. See for instance Islamic suicide bombers, or Falun Gong members being killed for what they believe. Just because someone dies for their religion, doesn't make the religion true.
The point is that the problems with the calculations you are assuming are: 1. too high in the first place 2. they assume that the moon's drift was always constant, something which is just not true.
I can't find the source for this right now, but I have also seen some people point out that as time goes by, the the moon's drift is exponentially decreasing, as the moon is getting farther away and the effect on the tides becomes less. So in the past distant past when the moon was much younger, it was rapidly drifting out, explaining it current location.
Overall, the moon's drift is a complex and dynamic system, factoring in both the location of the tectonic plates and how far the moon is as any point in time, and it certainly can't be used as "proof of God."
So you admit that Ra has to exist?
Well, Jesus was aware of those prophecies too so you can't deny that he could have consciously fulfilled them. Not to mention that our main source of information on Jesus is from some guys who were trying to promote the idea of him being the son of God, so not exactly an unbiased viewpoint.
And I'm going to throw the anthropic principle at you. It doesn't matter how low the odds are of life being created from nothing and then evolving into sentient life because that's what has to happen for sentient life to notice just how improbable it is.
The earth is a closed system, but not an isolated system. No this does not imply the existence of Ra.
The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict with evolution in any sense. Thermodynamic requirements are always taken into account. Basic concepts like Gibbs' Free Energy are taught in even the most basic of chemistry and biology courses. Rather surprised a biology major such as yourself hasn't covered these topics before.
The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict with evolution in any sense. Thermodynamic requirements are always taken into account. Basic concepts like Gibbs' Free Energy are taught in even the most basic of chemistry and biology courses. Rather surprised a biology major such as yourself hasn't covered these topics before.
i find it difficult to imagine that anyone who has a working understanding of biology still believes in intelligent design over evolution. to quote an old cliché that you'll probably get shown countless times in your biology classes: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution - Theodosius Dobzhansky. to top it all off, Dobzhansky was a christian. i have no problem with faith, but i do have a problem with outright denying such well supported scientific theories in favour of illogical intelligent design theories. this kind of nonsense just gets in the way.
intelligent design isn't even a thing anyway. sure, the creatures you see around you are specially adapted for the niches they inhabit, but are they perfect? no. just as an example, there is a nerve which goes to the larynx called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. this nerve crosses under the aortic arch, instead of taking the quicker path straight to the larynx. in a giraffe, this nerve is close to 15 feet in length, when it need only be a fraction of that. i'd like to think that any supposed omniscient creature that can plan and mastermind the myriad of proteins required in dna replication could reroute one nerve over the course of the 500 million years that prototype amphibians have been on the planet. dunno, maybe hes just busy torturing atheists and other ne'er-do-wells for eternity
intelligent design isn't even a thing anyway. sure, the creatures you see around you are specially adapted for the niches they inhabit, but are they perfect? no. just as an example, there is a nerve which goes to the larynx called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. this nerve crosses under the aortic arch, instead of taking the quicker path straight to the larynx. in a giraffe, this nerve is close to 15 feet in length, when it need only be a fraction of that. i'd like to think that any supposed omniscient creature that can plan and mastermind the myriad of proteins required in dna replication could reroute one nerve over the course of the 500 million years that prototype amphibians have been on the planet. dunno, maybe hes just busy torturing atheists and other ne'er-do-wells for eternity
Ahem. That is not what "has" to happen. That is what you believe happened. There are quite a few other possibilities. It doesn't "have" to have happened that way.
My apologies Mr. Mills.
I've never really liked (i.e., understood) the weak anthropic principle (very different from the strong anthropic principle!). Sure, P(universe can accommodate sentient life|sentient life) = 1, but this doesn't really change the fact that P(universe can accommodate life), the actual thing we're marveling over, is seemingly fantastically small.
Sure, it probably is fantastically small. And in all the infinitely many hypothetical universes where the fundamental constants are not set in such a way that life is possible, nobody ever measures them. So when we do measure those constants, and find that their values are ideal for supporting life, that's no surprise: it's a necessary condition for the measurements being carried out in the first place.
While the presence of complex lifeforms may be extremely unlikely, it is not proof of God's existence. This is because the existence of intelligent lifeforms is bound to occur in a universe which has literally countless galaxies, each of which contains several more planets. It may seem strange that out of all possible planets, we exist one one which has permitted the evolution of organisms leading to intelligent lifeforms. But this is merely a form a confirmation bias, since other planets which are not life-permitting naturally go unobserved. The fact that life evolved into a certain way is also another form of confirmation bias. To take your example of gene mutations, any and all fatal gene mutations resulted either in death or the organism being unable to procreate and pass down it's genetic code. It is only natural then, that we do not observe these mutations and only organisms which have been able to adapt to their environments and survive to this current point in time.
I am not sure if I am explaining the argument clearly enough, so I'll link a video which explains it in more depth. I highly recommend that you watch it.
TL;DW summary from the video (found at 7:18): "The fact that we focus on the aspect of life is because of our biased perspective, since we ourselves are one of those rare phenomena in the landscape and we happen to exist to talk about it. But there are in fact thousands, maybe even millions of rare things in our universe. Any of which could hypothetically be the sole purpose as to which a cosmic designer could have chosen to design this universe for."
Last edited:
its not even like the genetic code is some infallible thing that could only be created by an omniscient being. there are no dna polymerases that are perfectly accurate and only 4 (i think) that are classed as extremely accurate (1 error in a million bases) with the other 10 giving an error on average 1 every 100 bases. if an omnipotent and omniscient deity created the genetic code, he did a shit job.
The accuracy of the DNA polymerases are based on the relative free energy of the transition states (as enzymes catalyze reactions by lowering the activation energy) of the correct base-pairs to the incorrect base-pairs. They are far more accurate than the free energy of hybridization (from Watson-Crick base-pairing) for an additional nucleotide would suggest because the polymerases use additional mechanisms besides the obvious base-pairing such as using the minor groove electrons to select against "wobble" pairs. Also many polymerases have 3'-5' exonuclease activity that preferentially cleaves the phosphodiester bonds from terminal nucleotides with mismatching pairs, so the polymerase can have another trial to add the correct nucleotide. These mechanisms would favor kinetically favor the incorporation of the appropriate nucleotide in a nascent chain.
An error rate 1 in 100 bases is too inaccurate for ANY life form to rely on its as a primary means of replication. I think viral RNA replicase (RNA-directed RNA polymerase) has an error rate of 1000. The rather ubiquitous Taq polymerase has an error rate of 1 in 9,000 and it has no exonuclease activity.
----
Still, I do not think the kinetic imperfections of DNA replication is an argument against the existence of a designer. It is not obvious to me how perfect replication can seen as "ideal" since heritable variation in population fitness is the fuel of natural selection (Fisher's fundamental theorem) and mutations are a source of variation. In some context, an increased error rate can increase fitness such as the case with the error prone SOS-response polymerase.
Last edited:
i have no doubt that you a correct regarding the genetic replication statistics (im more a zoologist), however the figure of 1/100 is a figure i attained from the new scientist - http://answersinscience.org/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci 081107.pdf - if you are interested in reading. however, i did erroneously claim the other 10 of the 14 were as sloppy as 1/100 but on second reading it seems that the article said 'some'. either way, lets not turn this into a dna replication debate haha.
this is a flawed argument, in the large majority of cases an increased error rate only spells bad news for the organism. your clear knowledge of dna replication means you know this. however, whilst you are correct that mutations are the source of variation, it is therefore undeniable that mutations are generally unfavourable for the organism. surely any deity worth his salt could figure out how to create heritable variation without the risk of protein degradation?
Calm_Mind_Latias said:
this is a flawed argument, in the large majority of cases an increased error rate only spells bad news for the organism. your clear knowledge of dna replication means you know this. however, whilst you are correct that mutations are the source of variation, it is therefore undeniable that mutations are generally unfavourable for the organism. surely any deity worth his salt could figure out how to create heritable variation without the risk of protein degradation?
I love stuff like this. Lol @ the infinite complexities of creation. I could do better.
Well, that is the figure for human DNA polymerases. Indeed, the ones used for DNA repair (for base excision and nucleotide excision repair) are much less accurate, and your post makes more sense in that context. I misread your post, but it absurd to think that the "main" one (although it is much less transcribed than the other polymerases), the one used in the replication fork whose E. coli analogue is DNA polymerase III, has poor accuracy.
Indeed, this seems to be a good argument for bad design, since the cumulative deleterious effects of incorrectly repaired DNA has consequences outside of the age of fertility, and would therefore not affect reproductive fitness. It is best not to overwhelm DNA repair systems, as those who are exposed to mutagens, such as smokers and unprotected industrial workers, would attest.
Indeed, this seems to be a good argument for bad design, since the cumulative deleterious effects of incorrectly repaired DNA has consequences outside of the age of fertility, and would therefore not affect reproductive fitness. It is best not to overwhelm DNA repair systems, as those who are exposed to mutagens, such as smokers and unprotected industrial workers, would attest.