What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Galloism]

You are right in a way: it doesn't absolutely confirm intelligence.

No, it doesn't confirm it in any way.

It only implies it - heavily.

No, it doesn't.

Similar to if I were an ancient man and I found an empty skyscraper (lets not get too deep on how an ancient man found a modern skyscraper), we cannot absolutely confirm it was made by an intelligent being. There are no intelligent beings around (except the man, and he didn't make it). Even if he doesn't know how it was made, or made by man or a god, he could take one look at a skyscraper and tell there was intelligence behind it.

So you ARE doing the thing you insisted you aren't before: arguing from ignorance.

I study the universe and see the same type of effect.

That's fine, just don't pretend that you're actually using a scientific basis. You aren't. You're using a faith based one.

Thing is: SETI uses a similar basis for detecting life in the universe.

They're looking for specific patterns that are indicative of intelligence, for example, looking for a series of prime numbers and complex repeating patterns.

If these are detected, we will think (without certainty, noted) that we have discovered intelligence in the universe. When applied to our universal constants, we see complex distinct repeating patterns and certain specific patterns indicative of intelligence.

Proof? No. Just indication.

[Galloism]

Stephen Hawking fucking Edwin Hubble in the ass... Fucking read.

You claimed atheism requires zero faith. That's the claim.

Fuck.

That's my claim, not atheism's claim as you falsely stated.

What the?

I have been saying its your claim the entire fucking time. I've asked you to prove your claim.

[Esternial]

It can certainly become awe-inspiring, but trust me when I tell you that when you get down to it and study these things thoroughly, you'll see the simplicity behind seemingly complex things.

Naturally I can only speak about things from my field of study, which includes cellular metabolism and microbiological evolution.

Not only is nature very simple down to it's core, it's also very messy. A God would have done a much better job. Metabolism could have been made much more efficient, and some means of molecular transport are needlessly complicated.

We'll have to discuss that sometime. I've been on a physics/astrophysics kick for the last few months, and... well, here I am.

I don't know much about astrophysics, so it may end up being an enlightening moment for me.

The gist of what I've deducted from my classes is that our physiological pathways feature some oddities. One such oddity - I forgot the exact name, I haven't reviewed that part of my syllabus yet - is a transport molecule being used that shouldn't really be needed, and is actually used by several microorganisms to harvest certain biomolecules (fatty acids, in this instance)

These oddities show that nature has no end goal in sight and just build up on what it already has through relatively simple principles. Our metabolism needs a huge amount of internal control because every reaction that takes place wants to be driven to the state with the most entropy. By regulating supply and demand of substrate and product and using enzymes those pathways can be regulated.

By studying the evolution of these metabolic pathways in tandem with the genetic code and genetic expression of their components from simple to complex life, we could gain insight in how nature has built complex life starting from something very primitive.

I do understand where you're coming from, though.

My own conclusion would be that, if there is an Intelligent Creator, he's not very good at what he does. Humans certainly are not a masterpiece.

[Galloism]

The default position is that a god does not exist, and therefore no faith is required to be an atheist. If you claim that the default position is instead that a god does exist, you are special pleading because of your faith.

I claim no default position. Neither A nor B is my default.

What then? Balance of probabilities?

[The Alma Mater]

Stephen Hawking fucking Edwin Hubble in the ass... Fucking read.

You claimed atheism requires zero faith. That's the claim.

Fuck.

And it was addressed like 4 pages ago.
Atheism is lack of a belief in god. If insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate to your satisfaction that a god exists, you are an atheist.

And he (somewhat) argues that "believing that the universe we live in, with its structure and complexity, could have come to be without divine intervention" is something an atheist accepts on faith.

I say somewhat because it is not entirely his argument - and because Gallo is perfectly capable of explaining his position himself if he so chooses

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Such a creator would have to be retarded, not merely incompetent. The retina is backwards in the mammalian retina - explainable only by a semi-random process, design by a being with severe mental handicap, or by something that intended for it to look like a retard/natural process did so.

[Arkolon]

Err ... OK?

Basically, it is interesting from a game theory angle.

But the practical purpose wasn't to be a study of game theory. It was to convince the reader that God exists, and even if he doesn't you should probably still believe because it might get you saved.

The interesting thing about Pascal's wager from a game theory angle is that what would be our Nash equilibrium, ie our most rational answer, is to believe in God. This is what makes it interesting from a game theory angle. Consider reading any other game theory game with a surprising Nash equilibrium to see the relevance here.

[The Alma Mater]

Such a creator would have to be retarded, not merely incompetent. The retina is backwards in the mammalian retina - explainable only by a semi-random process, design by a being with severe mental handicap, or by something that intended for it to look like a retard/natural process did so.

A quick look at the game "Spore", where humans are able to create lifeforms of their choosing, shows a lot of such creations.
Most are penisshaped.

We could resemble our designer in that regard

[Galloism]

And it was addressed like 4 pages ago.
Atheism is lack of a belief in god. If insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate to your satisfaction that a god exists, you are an atheist.

And he (somewhat) argues that "believing that the universe we live in, with its structure and complexity, could have come to be without divine intervention" is something an atheist accepts on faith.

I say somewhat because it is not entirely his argument - and because Gallo is perfectly capable of explaining his position himself if he so chooses

Clearly not, if this thread is any indication.

[Esternial]

Such a creator would have to be retarded, not merely incompetent. The retina is backwards in the mammalian retina - explainable only by a semi-random process, design by a being with severe mental handicap, or by something that intended for it to look like a retard/natural process did so.

The only other possibility would be that this creator just gave the initial push.

With that I mean anything prior to the conception of DNA. Everything beyond that is a major clusterfuck of weird shit, trail-and-error and lots of mistakes.

Hey, kinda like last Friday.

[Arkolon]

Belief in God is the most rational course of action. Now, onto "which God and why this God?"

Cthulhu, obviously, Reasoning from Pascals wager you after all must pick the Gods whose punishment is most harsh had you picked another.

This wouldn't be totally irrational, no, and not a horrible idea, either.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

The default position is that a god does not exist, and therefore no faith is required to be an atheist. If you claim that the default position is instead that a god does exist, you are special pleading because of your faith.

I claim no default position. Neither A nor B is my default.

What then? Balance of probabilities?

No. You don't get to choose a default position. The default position is inherent based upon the claim being made. In this current argument, "no god exists" is the default position. You need evidence or faith to move away from that, so present your evidence or your faith will become apparent.

[Arkolon]

The page tackles the Judeo-Christian bias in Pascal's wager. I am just saying that belief in a god, or gods, at all, is the most rational course of action.

Which is clearly incorrect. Belief in something without evidence is 0% logic and 100% faith

You should know that epistemological rationalism is not based on evidence in the first place. That's empiricism. lrn2locke.

[Galloism]

Such a creator would have to be retarded, not merely incompetent. The retina is backwards in the mammalian retina - explainable only by a semi-random process, design by a being with severe mental handicap, or by something that intended for it to look like a retard/natural process did so.

The only other possibility would be that this creator just gave the initial push.

With that I mean anything prior to the conception of DNA. Everything beyond that is a major clusterfuck of weird shit, trail-and-error and lots of mistakes.

Hey, kinda like last Friday.

Posit theory:

Our universe is a science project created by college-equivalent students of another universe after drinking a lot of alcohol-equivalent sustenance.

[Mavorpen]

Thing is: SETI uses a similar basis for detecting life in the universe.

...Okay?

They're looking for specific patterns that are indicative of intelligence, for example, looking for a series of prime numbers and complex repeating patterns.

If these are detected, we will think (without certainty, noted) that we have discovered intelligence in the universe. When applied to our universal constants, we see complex distinct repeating patterns and certain specific patterns indicative of intelligence.

That's nice.

Proof? No. Just indication.

Sure, THAT'S indication. Not what you were talking about before. Which begs the question I brought up before: what in the world are you doing applying this standard to outside of the universe, and for what basis do you have to apply it to the universe?

But more than that, your argument was STILL an argument from ignorance. Comparing yourself to an individual that doesn't understand something and concludes there has to be something intelligent behind it is blatantly doing so. But that's not even the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that you're simultaneously arguing from the position of knowledge. You KNOW what a skyscraper is. You KNOW it's made by humans. You KNOW it cannot be formed with no human interaction. You DON'T know that about the universe. You have no idea whether that's true about the universe, and you're adding that element to the universe and applying it to the universe while providing utterly no evidence whatsoever for this basis.

We HAVE a basis when it comes to searching for other intelligent life within the universe: ourselves. In order for your application to the entirety of the universe to work, you would have to have a similar basis: a being that has created a universe. And you don't have such a thing. And you know it. So the only thing you can do is take known patterns that are applicable to beings with a similar level of intelligence and make a leap of faith and apply it to the totality of the universe. That's not scientific. It's faith.

[Galloism]

I claim no default position. Neither A nor B is my default.

What then? Balance of probabilities?

No. You don't get to choose a default position. The default position is inherent based upon the claim being made. In this current argument, "no god exists" is the default position. You need evidence or faith to move away from that, so present your evidence or your faith will become apparent.

Why is no God exists the default position?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

The only other possibility would be that this creator just gave the initial push.

With that I mean anything prior to the conception of DNA. Everything beyond that is a major clusterfuck of weird shit, trail-and-error and lots of mistakes.

Hey, kinda like last Friday.

Posit theory:

Our universe is a science project created by college-equivalent students of another universe after drinking a lot of alcohol-equivalent sustenance.

Counterevidence: there is no sign of poorly-drawn penises on, say, the other side of the moon, or in large cosmic formations. Also, our pants still seem to be on. Most of the time.

Though, we don't know what such students would have as genitals, and therefore we cannot be certain of what would be considered its vulgar illustration.


EDIT: "no god exists" is the default position because the claim is "there exists a god". When someone actually starts to claim "no god exists", the default position will then be "a god exists".
Do not confuse the two: failure to demonstrate that no god exists is absolutely none of what you need to do to demonstrate that a god DOES exist.

So again, give your evidence or your faith will be apparent.

[The Alma Mater]

Cthulhu, obviously, Reasoning from Pascals wager you after all must pick the Gods whose punishment is most harsh had you picked another.

This wouldn't be totally irrational, no, and not a horrible idea, either.

I seriously believe it is the only reasonable conclusion. People have literally worshipped millions of deities throughout history, so even if we assume that one of those religions was right the chance of picking the right one is very, very small.

So you have to assume you will pick incorrectly. Since we have decided that we MUST pick we should strive to eliminate the worst possible consequence of making that error.

[WestRedMaple]

That's my claim, not atheism's claim as you falsely stated.

What the?

I have been saying its your claim the entire fucking time. I've asked you to prove your claim.

You claimed that I claimed that atheism made a claim......which is not a true statement.


I notice the fact that you still refuse to even address my challenge, let alone meet it

[Arkolon]

I don't remember the Christian God ever saying "oh, wait, nah, actually you guys can come to".

It's within the realm of possibilities. Try to keep an open mind when debating.

The God whose existence we are promoting cannot have a counterpart, because no other God can be that God and that God only. We can have the same "functional" God, but that wouldn't be the same God, similar to our (1,-1) God and the G_(1,-1) God, which aren't necessarily the same. It is not within the realm of possibilities, because the God we have chosen to promote in Pascal's wager is set, fixed, and solid. They cannot have actions that are "within the realm of possibilities".

What's wrong with questioning it? Nothing. What's wrong with expanding beyond it? Nothing. What's wrong with morphing its purpose, definition, assumptions, definitions, and the whole argument behind it to satisfy your one particular cause that atheists are pretty much OK with no afterlife? The problem is that this isn't Pascal's wager anymore, so you can't expect me to put up a defense for Pascal's wager against something that isn't Pascal's wager.

Then stop defending and repeating Pascal's wager and make your own argumentation.

Pascal's wager is argumentation in favor of believing in God.

It's more like a refutation of atheism rather than an argument in favour of belief in a, or many, gods.

My own argument addresses the same thing (which is the merits of atheism vs. the merits of believing in God).

Your argument is whether or not the people in question would be happy, and you seem to add the very strange concept of being able to be happy whilst dead, so I guess that yes, as I have said, in this case, an atheist has more chance of winning the argument against a theist because there is a one over infinity chance that the theist is definitely, definitely right.

[Galloism]

What the?

I have been saying its your claim the entire fucking time. I've asked you to prove your claim.

You claimed that I claimed that atheism made a claim......which is not a true statement.

This never happened. You just failed to read my posts.

And no, you don't get to turn it around when you make a claim and try to make your opponent prove the inverse. Prove your claim.

[Arkolon]

For this instance, there is always the chance that a different flying spaghetti monster, or even whole a different god, will do the opposite.

Which would also leave open the possibility of a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell, which brings it all back to 0/0

You intentionally avoided listing that one (even though other people have already mentioned it) for exactly the purpose of getting the result you WANT

Christian God (1,-1)
No god (0,0)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to hell (1,-1)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists nowhere (1,0)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists to heaven (-1,1)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists nowhere (-1,0)
God that sends all believers nowhere, atheists to heaven (0,1)
God that sends all believers nowhere, atheists to hell (0,-1)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to heaven (1,1)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists to hell (-1,-1)
God that sends neither anywhere (0,0)

TOTAL: (1,-1)

I forgot nothing.

[Esternial]

The only other possibility would be that this creator just gave the initial push.

With that I mean anything prior to the conception of DNA. Everything beyond that is a major clusterfuck of weird shit, trail-and-error and lots of mistakes.

Hey, kinda like last Friday.

Posit theory:

Our universe is a science project created by college-equivalent students of another universe after drinking a lot of alcohol-equivalent sustenance.

It would certainly explain all the penises.

[Arkolon]

I don't remember the Christian God ever saying "oh, wait, nah, actually you guys can come to".

I don't remember it saying that Hell even exists on the first place. And there are Christians who also don't either, and who, instead, argue that rather than Hell, you're simply not taken into Heaven and cease to exist. There is no active punishment, but there is one in the sense that you are kept away from God.

The existence of Hell, even within the scope of Christianity, is another assumption that is disputed, even by fellow Christians. With such blatant problems with Pascal's Wager, I sincerely cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to sincerely argue it's a legitimate argument.

Hell regroups all hell-equivalents of the worst afterlife possible.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What the?

I have been saying its your claim the entire fucking time. I've asked you to prove your claim.

You claimed that I claimed that atheism made a claim......which is not a true statement.

Then why even claim the fist claim of your claim if all you're looking for is to argue semantics?