In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Read more: Spiked 47,711

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Read more

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#25660 Jul 13, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
<quoted text>
Indians must be traumatized by America!
OOOH GAARRWDDD VISHNU
How do these Americans enslave our sacred cow & grab their boobs for milk by the millions.
Then they kill them & put them in burgers, steaks, meat loafs
OH Garrwwdd Vishnu how could you let this happen?
McDonalds is sac religious! They serve billions of dead sacred cows!
Now this here is funny, I don't give a darn who you are.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25661 Jul 13, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Now this here is funny, I don't give a darn who you are.
Well Mcdonald's doesn't serve cow in India! LOL!

mainstream Orthodox Hinduism. Slaughter of cows (including oxen, bulls and calves) is forbidden by law in several states of the Indian Union. McDonalds outlets in India do not serve any beef burgers. At one time the death sentence was imposed for killing a cow in India,[77] and as late as 1960, an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25662 Jul 13, 2012
. At one time the death sentence was imposed for killing a cow in India,[77] and as late as 1960, an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#25665 Jul 13, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting how Indians spoke of Mahabharata & Bhagavad Gita so close to that of U.F.O's & E.T's?
How Cows are sacred to Indians?
Today there are many accounts of Cattle Mutilations with likely connections to U.F.O's & E.T's?
Figures you believe in UFO's.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25666 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know what YOU'RE talking about.
Buck Crick wrote:
To combat the fine-tuning argument, you are not talking about just a multiverse.
I think I am.
Buck Crick wrote:
You are talking about a Level II theory of pure speculation
I don't know the meaning of that phrase, despite a cursory effort to find it. But I'll bet that it doesn't make a multiverse into more than a multiverse by adding it, as you seem to imply.

Meaning, yes, of course we are "talking about just a multiverse"
Buck Crick wrote:
about an entire ensemble of universes with all kinds of exotic features. It's wild. But it's not science.
Is than an objection? To what?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25667 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
You are making a "metaphysical" argument.
Did I make an argument. Could you phrase it concisely for me, along with what makes it a "metaphysical argument." Sounds like boosheet to me.

Oh, and would you please post the Theory Of Intelligent Design if there is one. Some of us are starting to begin to suspect that you might not have one, and have painted yourself into the most foreseeable of corners. Well played!
Buck Crick wrote:
If you called it "God", you would be on more solid ground.
That word is already used to mean something otherwise defined, and carries unwanted (by us) baggage - your reason for suggesting it, no doubt.

I thought that we agreed that if it got a name, it would be Randy.
Buck Crick wrote:
Instead, you employ pure conjecture on an astronomically naive level to argue around it.
Whatever your objection to that may be, no idea in the history of thought has ever been any less well supported than that of a god, which, as a solution to the problem of the origin of a speck, is prehistorically naive.

Using the god hypothesis to explain a mote is an egregious violation of the principle of parsimony - one which would have Occam slitting his own throat with his Razor.
Buck Crick wrote:
There are already alternate hypotheses.
So what? Is that a barrier to new ones? Is THIS an argument, or part of one? If so, state it. It seems to be, "Hey, we already have a god hypothesis, so more are needed."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25668 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
Unlike the multiverse, some actually have evidence.
The people who search reality for truth for a living welcome all good ideas not already suggested or considered. You say "No more." That's why we know that you don't love truth, nor mind pseudoscience.
Buck Crick wrote:
Multiverse adds nothing.
Except the rebuttal to the Anthropic Principle stuff. It adds that. And the aqueduct and sanitation. I'll grant you the multiverse adds the aqueduct and sanitation.

And the roads. Obviously the roads. The roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, the roads, and the rebuttal to the Anthropic Principle, what has the multiverse ever done for us?
Buck Crick wrote:
The argument could be used to say since it is possible there is no multiverse, then there is no multiverse.
Sure, but no more effectively than you just did.
Buck Crick wrote:
You will grasp at any straw to avoid purpose and intent in our existence.
You will grasp at straws to invent it,
Buck Crick wrote:
You will argue metaphysics and call it science.
I know. You seem to have a problem with that. Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word:

Metaphysical Cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion. The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in modern times it addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of the physical sciences. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods (e.g. dialectics). Cosmogony deals specifically with the origin of the universe.

Modern metaphysical cosmology and cosmogony try to address questions such as: What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose?(see teleology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Cosm...
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#25669 Jul 13, 2012
Tell Us O'le Wise Man Of The Mexican Mountains, Where Do You Suppose The Original Primordial Puke Came From ?

Without Life, You Cannot Make Life.

Or, I Could Be Wrong...Enlighten Me.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#25670 Jul 13, 2012
Remember, We Only Can Take Scientific Methods As An Authority, This Means We Need To Observe It, Repeat It, Measure It, Collaberate With Others, Then Speculate....I Am Awaiting !

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25671 Jul 13, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Figures you believe in UFO's.
Well yeah.
So does / did Kelly Johnson, Herman Oberth, Wernher Von Braun, Nikola Tesla, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, John Lear, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Cooper, Mick Jaggar, John Lennon, David Bowie.Dr. Walther Riedel,Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding,Dr J Allen Hynek, Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, Albert M. Chop, Richard Nixon, J.F.K & Ronald Reagan.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#25673 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "Next to no peer-reviewd research"?
Did you not see me burn Hiding on that one?
As of 2011, there are over 50. Here's one:
Michael J. Behe,“Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
...
But this paper says absolutely nothing in support of any aspect of ID.

(" http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.... ;)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#25674 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...
2. "Not a scientific theory"?
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
...
Predictive future results, independently verified?

Null hypothesis?

Still waiting.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#25675 Jul 13, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
<quoted text>
Well yeah.
So does / did Kelly Johnson, Herman Oberth, Wernher Von Braun, Nikola Tesla, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, John Lear, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Cooper, Mick Jaggar, John Lennon, David Bowie.Dr. Walther Riedel,Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding,Dr J Allen Hynek, Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, Albert M. Chop, Richard Nixon, J.F.K & Ronald Reagan.
Lots of people believe in things that have not one shred of evidence for their existence. Look at all the gods humans believe in...

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25676 Jul 13, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Lots of people believe in things that have not one shred of evidence for their existence. Look at all the gods humans believe in...
There are similar accounts of Godly beings from the sky.

I think they likely mistook E.T's & U.F.O's as gods.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25677 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
As of 2011, there are over 50. Here's one:
Michael J. Behe,“Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’”
Fifty what? Papers? Total. That's the ID literature to support an entire scientific theory? Maybe fifty-five by now.

Did they ever get intelligence, design, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity defined scientifically?

And where's the theory?

That paper, BTW, sure doesn't sound like ot relates to any data for intelligent design. Where does that show that any design was intended or planned? It looks like an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory again.

What a pile of second rate dookie. Fifty papers indeed! That's not even two months worth for you, assuming 2-ply.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. "Not a scientific theory"?

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
Yeah, not a scientific theory.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that ..."

Once again, where is it? I'll tell YOU what it "holds" after I've seen it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25678 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
3. "It was the church"
The intelligent design "term" was coined by two atheists, Fred Hoyle and James Horiganz: "If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of *intelligent design*."
And your point? Why don't you make your points explicitly? You seem to be implying something about the church with an anecdote about the origins of a term.
Buck Crick wrote:
The Intelligent Design "movement" was started by three scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen: "We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?" Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, pg. 211 (Lewis & Stanley, 1984).
Fascinating. You would never have heard of intelligent design without Christian money. Cui bono?
Buck Crick wrote:
4. "Intelligent Design is creationism repackaged to get around the Edwards decision" (from you previously) Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen published their work in 1984. The Edwards decision was in 1987.
//////////
I bet you're starting to lose interest, huh?
Zzzzzzzz.

Are you implying that you think your rebuttal was effective? I don't remember an argument in it. Was that one there? Was it that the ID movement couldn't be a reaction to something that happened in 1987 because the term might have already existed 1984. Perhaps. Well, since you can't even bother to state your argument, here's the whole rebuttal:

FAIL.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#25679 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a fucking liar.
1. "Next to no peer-reviewd research"?
Did you not see me burn Hiding on that one?
As of 2011, there are over 50. Here's one:
Michael J. Behe,“Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Not an ID paper. You can tell because of the total lack of ID in it. It's an anti-evolution argument, which is NOT the same as a POSITIVE case for ID. The paper is in turn countered by literally hundreds of thousands peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution.

So far there is only *one* peer-reviewed ID paper, which if I recall was a re-submission of the Meyer one, and the journal in turn received a bunch of flak from the scientific community for sloppy standards in allowing it to be published.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. "Not a scientific theory"?
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
And that premise does ZIP to answer my questions. We KNOW what the premise is. Now explain the theory.
Buck Crick wrote:
3. "It was the church"
The intelligent design "term" was coined by two atheists, Fred Hoyle and James Horiganz:
"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of *intelligent design*."
The Intelligent Design "movement" was started by three scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen:
"We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?"
Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, pg. 211 (Lewis & Stanley, 1984).

4. "Intelligent Design is creationism repackaged to get around the Edwards decision" (from you previously)
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen published their work in 1984. The Edwards decision was in 1987.
//////////
I bet you're starting to lose interest, huh?
Yes, we agree that the term was coopted by creationists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_desi...

Because you forgot your boys left their own example of a transitional fossil behind...

What's the "scientific theory" of ID, Buck?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#25680 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the Bible.
Nothing you said is true, Duck.
Go play with yourself.
Ah, I see. Fair enough.

Except I didn't mention the Bible there, so your response is irrelevant.

What's the "scientific theory" of ID, Buck?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#25681 Jul 13, 2012
My mistake, I did in fact mention the Bible in that post. My apologies.

However Biblical literalism aside, so far Buck's position has been indistinguishable from that of a creationist. So the only other relevant question in that regard that I'm curious about is whether he's a YEC or OEC.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#25682 Jul 13, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> I love it that you give an ID biologist credit for unbiased research against itself.
I also love that you give someone who teaches at a college whose average SAT scores are 1350. Yale, on the other hand, has average SAT scores of 2100-2370; University of California Berekley at 3000; Dartmouth at 2380, etc.
The value of the teacher is directly proportionate to the educational evaluation.
It is also noteworthy that Behe is a biologist, not a physicist. He has absolutely no expertise in physics.
ID lost in the court of a Christian judge. I don't think any more need be said.
Minor nitpick, Behe is a biochemist rather than a straight biologist. One thing that came out in Dover that most fundies aren't aware of is that while he is a fundie apologist of the highest order, he does basically agree with common descent. He just believes God was necessary for it to happen. The difference to most evolution-accepting theists being is that he makes claims his theological opinions are relevant to science.

Not in the scientific literature though, that he leaves for his books on apologetics instead. He also said "it would not be fruitful" to bother researching IC, and so far no strapping young IDer has taken up his mantle. He also thinks God is dead. Probably doesn't mention these bits much though while touring the church circuit.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Confessions of a black atheist 13 min audy17 286
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min Zog Has-fallen 18,436
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min Uncle Sam 237,664
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 8 hr thetruth 23
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr thetruth 1,979
News The Consequences of Atheism 8 hr thetruth 1,249
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 8 hr thetruth 6,713
More from around the web