In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

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.

Full Story

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25651 Jul 13, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists made her do it. They'd like nothing better than to serve the Jews... on toast.
Elohim made her do it! Elohim wants her to curse goyim & have goyim serve the jews or die!

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#25652 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).
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"
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?
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.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25653 Jul 13, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists made her do it. They'd like nothing better than to serve the Jews... on toast.
This rabbi is funny & racist!

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25654 Jul 13, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>You don't get it, do you? You're so submersed in yourself and your own theories that you can't even see why that statement was funny.
Do you have a fire bush?

Is it true Redhead women have more sex?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#25655 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You should study the modal differences in what is "possible", "probable", and "actual".
Then you might not make such bull shit statements.
Somehow,*you* labelling something as bull shit is just funny.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25656 Jul 13, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Cows have served for thousands of years as man's greatest aid, we don't judge other cultures who have long lived off cattle
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?

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#25657 Jul 13, 2012
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
doesn't make him into a godfearing christian bible thumper.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
Spinozism (also spelt Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such. Pantheism. Not a christian, though many have tried to make one of him. Then there are those good Christians who have openly spoken out against Spinoza's pantheism.

Not a single Christian can agree on what any other Christian believes.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

#25658 Jul 13, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>You don't get it, do you? You're so submersed in yourself and your own theories that you can't even see why that statement was funny.
Do Redhead girls with freckles also have freckles on their vagina?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#25659 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not science, buddy.
That's ad hoc speculation as a prop for argument.
Not at all. Entropy is directly related to the number of accessible quantum states. During a 'bounce', it is quite likely that the number of such states is limited and so entropy would *have* to decrease as a bounce is approached. That would, in turn, mean that both sides of a bounce have oppositely directed entropy arrows.

The oscillating universe is rather unlikely because of the accelerating expansion, but a previous contracting universe is still possible to likely depending on the model. This argument suggests that the direction of entropy switches at the bounce, which destorys your argument.
If a theory needs suspension of general relativity and thermodynamics to be plausible, with no (zero) positive evidence for it, you might as well be juggling your balls and whistling.
We *know* that general relativiy has to be modified for quantum level phenomena. We have a couple of plausible theories on how to do that. Thermodynamics is simply large scale statistical mechanics with entropy relating to a count of accessible quantum states.
General relativity might "need" to be altered for consitency with quantum mechanics, but you don't *know* what the alteration is, or if it would escape the requirements of the second law.
I am not suggesting a violation of the second law, appropriately stated. If anything, it suggests that entropy in an open universe always has an arrow in the same direction as the expansion. Such has been speculated before.
No, the "arrow of entropy" cannot be reversed - at least you have no basis for suggesting it might - other than your imagination.
On the contrary, if there is a restriction on the number of accessible quantum states, entropy *would* be reversed. This is likely in a contracting universe with a bounce.
No, infinite past is impossible, and that is considering all possibilities.
Try counting down from infinity. We exist. That disproves past infinity.
Only in your imagination. Your lack of understanding of the requirements of infinity is only a problem for you.

“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.... ;)

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
Our world came from nothing? 30 min Richardfs 723
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 48 min _Bad Company 1,023
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 22,931
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Bozo the Clown 228,597
Heaven 2 hr Carchar king 6
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 5 hr Jaimie 154
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 5 hr Thinking 8

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE