Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheists praying

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by element771 View Post
    No. I think what Tass is adding up are wars by religious nations vs wars by irreligious nations.

    maybe I missed his point.
    I'm not Tass, and it was you that wrote "body count between religious and non-religious societies".
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
      1) Most of them (the Taiping rebellion, Japan's holy war, the Indian mutiny, the Crusades) were religious wars.

      2) It wouldn't matter if they weren't, since the others you cited weren't atheistic wars.

      If all you can do is distort the truth and move the goalposts, your claim is dead in the water. Are you going to abandon it, or are you going to continue pushing falsehoods like most Xtian apologists do?
      I am not moving goal posts and I am not pushing falsehoods. Want to go through the list?

      How is the suppression and eradication of religion in China and Russian not inherently atheistic?

      I have also refrained from insulting you, could you refrain in kind? Specifically, just because we have a disagreement doesn't mean that either of us are pushing falsehoods.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
        It wasn't. It was a war between religious societies.
        So if religious societies engage in war, it is automatically a religious war? I think I'm missing something here. Maybe I came in late...?
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
          I'm not Tass, and it was you that wrote "body count between religious and non-religious societies".
          My apologies for the confusion. You are correct, I did say that in my post. Again, sorry about implying that it was different.

          However, I still don't think my point is incorrect. Even if we grant all of Tass' assertions, both are within error of one another. This still counters the claim that religious societies are inherently more peaceful than atheistic societies.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            So if religious societies engage in war, it is automatically a religious war? I think I'm missing something here. Maybe I came in late...?
            Eh that may be my fault, I was sloppy with my language in my original post and can see how it could be taken like that.

            Sorry everyone.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by element771 View Post
              Eh that may be my fault, I was sloppy with my language in my original post and can see how it could be taken like that.

              Sorry everyone.
              Not a problem. Happens to me all the time...

              And I think the claim that religious or irreligious societies differ all that much in their levels of violence would be hard to make. There are violent religious countries - there are nonviolent religious countries. There are violent irreligious countries, ansd there are violent religious countries. Religion is just another on list of things that can be used as the reason for war.

              I'm not even sure why the comparison is important. Are we trying to prove that "what we believe is better?" To me, a belief is only better or worse in so far as it can be shown to be true. If there is no god, can believing there is one be considered "better?" If there is a god, can believing there is not one be "better?"
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                sure. then you should be able to predict future mutations since you can calculate fractals.

                Do you understand how fractal math works in chaos theory? I seriously doubt it. Like weather computer programs are used to predict patterns in weather and patterns in mutations in DNA. If you have background in fractal math, and recent advances in Genetics you would realize how utterly ridiculous the above question is. There are many references of research on the contemporary use of math, particularly fractal math and genetics. The bottom line is genetic mutation patterns in genetics are not random.

                The following article deals with math aspects of DNA replication, and there are many many more I can cite on demand.

                Source: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/mathematics-of-dna/


                Other interesting facts:

                Similar patterns with variations on these same rules are seen across a range of 20 different species. From the AIDS virus to bacteria, primates and humans

                Each character in DNA occurs a precise number of times, and each has a twin. TTT and AAA are twins and appear the most often; they’re the DNA equivalent of the letter E.

                This pattern creates a stair step of 32 frequencies, a specific frequency for each pair.

                The number of triplets that begin with a T is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with A (to within 0.1%).

                The number of triplets that begin with a C is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with G.

                The genetic code table is fractal – the same pattern repeats itself at every level. The micro scale controls conversion of triplets to amino acids, and it’s in every biology book. The macro scale, newly discovered by Dr. Perez, checks the integrity of the entire organism.
                Perez is also discovering additional patterns within the pattern.

                I am only giving you the tip of the iceberg. There are other rules and layers of detail that I’m omitting for simplicity. Perez presses forward with his research; more papers are in the works, and if you’re able to read French, I recommend his book “Codex Biogenesis” and his French website. Here is an English translation.

                (By the way, he found some of his most interesting data in what used to be called “Junk DNA.” It turns out to not be junk at all.)

                OK, so what does all this mean?

                Copying errors cannot be the source of evolutionary progress, because if that were true, eventually all the letters would be equally probable.


                This proves that useful evolutionary mutations are not random. Instead, they are controlled by a precise Evolutionary Matrix to within 0.1%.

                When organisms exchange DNA with each other through Horizontal Gene Transfer, the end result still obeys specific mathematical patterns.

                DNA is able to re-create destroyed data by computing checksums in reverse – like calculating the missing contents of a page ripped out of a novel.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Last edited by Sparko; 03-01-2018, 10:25 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Do you understand how fractal math works in chaos theory? I seriously doubt it. Like weather computer programs are used to predict patterns in weather and patterns in mutations in DNA. If you have background in fractal math, and recent advances in Genetics you would realize how utterly ridiculous the above question is. There are many references of research on the contemporary use of math, particularly fractal math and genetics. The bottom line is genetic mutation patterns in genetics are not random.
                  Fractal math is not chaos theory. two different subjects.

                  Fractals can be easily calculated. They are very predictable and repeatable.

                  If evolution is as ordered and predictable as fractals and can use checksums and so on, then you are pretty much saying that evolution isn't natural at all but programmed. Sounds like a pretty good argument for God.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Do you understand how fractal math works in chaos theory? I seriously doubt it. Like weather computer programs are used to predict patterns in weather and patterns in mutations in DNA. If you have background in fractal math, and recent advances in Genetics you would realize how utterly ridiculous the above question is. There are many references of research on the contemporary use of math, particularly fractal math and genetics. The bottom line is genetic mutation patterns in genetics are not random.

                    The following article deals with math aspects of DNA replication, and there are many many more I can cite on demand.

                    Source: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/mathematics-of-dna/


                    Other interesting facts:

                    Similar patterns with variations on these same rules are seen across a range of 20 different species. From the AIDS virus to bacteria, primates and humans

                    Each character in DNA occurs a precise number of times, and each has a twin. TTT and AAA are twins and appear the most often; they’re the DNA equivalent of the letter E.

                    This pattern creates a stair step of 32 frequencies, a specific frequency for each pair.

                    The number of triplets that begin with a T is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with A (to within 0.1%).

                    The number of triplets that begin with a C is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with G.

                    The genetic code table is fractal – the same pattern repeats itself at every level. The micro scale controls conversion of triplets to amino acids, and it’s in every biology book. The macro scale, newly discovered by Dr. Perez, checks the integrity of the entire organism.
                    Perez is also discovering additional patterns within the pattern.

                    I am only giving you the tip of the iceberg. There are other rules and layers of detail that I’m omitting for simplicity. Perez presses forward with his research; more papers are in the works, and if you’re able to read French, I recommend his book “Codex Biogenesis” and his French website. Here is an English translation.

                    (By the way, he found some of his most interesting data in what used to be called “Junk DNA.” It turns out to not be junk at all.)

                    OK, so what does all this mean?

                    Copying errors cannot be the source of evolutionary progress, because if that were true, eventually all the letters would be equally probable.


                    This proves that useful evolutionary mutations are not random. Instead, they are controlled by a precise Evolutionary Matrix to within 0.1%.

                    When organisms exchange DNA with each other through Horizontal Gene Transfer, the end result still obeys specific mathematical patterns.

                    DNA is able to re-create destroyed data by computing checksums in reverse – like calculating the missing contents of a page ripped out of a novel.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    PS - That site you are quoting from? Cosmicfingerprints.com is a creationist site. Just thought you would like to know. Your idiotic googling made you a laughing stock again.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                      I don't understand how it is arrogance for a Christians to believe that humanity as a whole are special. God wants a relationship with everyone not just a select few (that was kind of Jesus' point). I would imagine that you could also mean species arrogance I guess? Still doesn't follow. You act like Christians think that God doesn't love his entire creation. That is why we do not get the arrogance claim.
                      Humanity as a whole is not special. I understand you didn't come up with that arrogance on your own, but so long as you're owning it, it belongs to you. I understand that you don't understand that.

                      However, I typically hear atheists claim that they are their own God.
                      Sure you do.

                      Also, what Roy said.

                      Christian view: God loves everyone and everything

                      Atheist view: I am God.

                      now who exactly seems arrogant again?
                      The guy who thinks he can shove words in our mouths and make us like it, while crying out how he's trying to avoid being salty.

                      There's a fairly basic principle of debate that says you need to be able to state your opponent's position well enough that they can agree that's their position. The Christian view is that the atheist view is that they are their own gods, because, hey, everybody's got to have a god, right? Christians think the human struggle has always been about finding the right god.

                      The atheist's view is that there are no gods. Full stop.

                      It's not a tough concept, and entirely coherent outside the Christian misrepresentation. Atheists don't believe there are any gods, and yes, that includes ourselves. We have no superpowers. We can't perform supernatural feats. We don't even think we're immortal.

                      But I'll give you this much. Usually, y'all try to saddle us with your god's redheaded stepchild, and not just the nobodys like ourselves posting obscure message boards. I saw it in a W.L. Craig video once, discussing one of his "Does God Exist" debates, explaining why he didn't credit atheist's responses to his apologetics that he couldn't answer because we were speaking on behalf of the Christian "adversary."

                      Mostly, I like Christians. But it's that sort of thing, where simply explaining why we don't buy into their god elicits a demonization, that kind of scares me about your sort. You never know when the guy across from you is going to lose track of your humanity.

                      I should find that video again. It was an impromptu interview out in the quad, I think, in which he admitted he didn't find anything compelling about any of his debate proofs for the existence of god, but used them anyway because they were successful, rhetorically. To give him full credit, he does tack on the one proof he does consider compelling at the end of his set debate, his personal witness, positioned to maximize the chances he wouldn't have to answer the obvious objections.

                      To be clear here, before you go there again, I don't say this because I dislike him. I dislike him because he says this.

                      Another thing, if you're actually an omnibenevolence theist, (which is logically incoherent in any world with restricted resources), you should know that's not the usual Christian view. They reject it because they need the hell stick to go with the heaven carrot, and most folks understand sending folks to hell isn't benevolent.

                      Also, we have not interacted very often but I am trying not to be salty.
                      Try harder.

                      Telling me good luck with living forever also implies arrogance on your part.
                      Pointing out someone else's arrogance is not itself an act of arrogance.

                      You think you're going to live forever, because you're in tight with the creator of the universe. That's your actual position, unlike that regurgitation misrepresenting my position above. It's not true, but hey, if it makes you feel better, full speed ahead. You've got my blessing.

                      Don't expect me to take it seriously, though.

                      And don't pretend to yourself that it's arrogance to believe I'm not going to live forever. Whatever. It's an atheist thing. You wouldn't understand.

                      Me: there are prominent scientists who are Christians

                      You: ...is far out of proportion to his philosophical impact, something I've noted holds true for most Christian scientists and philosophers.
                      Try this instead.
                      Me: ...is far out of proportion to his philosophical impact, something I've noted holds true for most Christian scientists and philosophers.

                      You: there are prominent scientists who are Christians

                      That being the actual order, except for the bit where I mentioned a prominent scientist who's a Christian. Sandwich that just ahead of your claim that there are prominent scientists who are Christians. The facepalm is optional.

                      Of course, most scientists don't advertise their religious beliefs, thank God. So you've still got room to regain your footing and push me into admitting "most" means "most of those who advertise themselves as scientists acting as apologists" and add in, mathematicians too.

                      Dembski, obviously, but don't even get me started on Lennox.

                      You then provide a dentist as an example of your point at a creation rally.

                      1. He is a dentist and not a scientist.

                      2. You are implying that Christians over celebrate their scientists because that they are Christians. My contention is that there are plenty of scientists who are Christian to that charge does not apply.
                      He was a dentist. But he was promoted as a scientist, and accepted as a scientist, because he was a Christian, in the broadest sense, but especially because he was a Christian creationist. I'm fairly sure I could find the video again if I cared to spend the time, but we both know it happens regularly in AiG styled Christianity.

                      You're responding to a bunch of posters, and obviously not following the conversations, so I'll be gentle with the misremembered order, but that doesn't excuse the miff above, where the existence of scientists who are Christians somehow responds to the charge that scientists who are Christians are over-celebrated.

                      It does work as a good excuse for not noticing the Christian I cited as a prominent scientist was also cited as an example of one who was not over-celebrated, a more serious gaffe.

                      I don't care what they have ...
                      If you're talking about the hundred years war of Christian creationists against Darwin's ghost, that makes you complicit. If you're talking about the celebration of Darwin, it makes you incoherent.

                      I think it is odd and strikes me of veneration in a religious sense.
                      Whatever it has, no matter what it is, seeing as you don't care about that, strikes you as odd, and an act of veneration.

                      You're phoning this in, right.

                      We don't worship presidents on Presidents day.

                      Not even close. The idea that my consciousness is an illusion is a lot different from the world being an illusion. Here is why...
                      You haven't studied Hinduism. Remember that bit where you pilloried Dawkins for going off on Christianity without studying it.

                      If the world is an illusion ...
                      ... and your consciousness is part of that world, then ...

                      That's the actual Hindu position.

                      Well this is out of my area of expertise, i didn't see one protein or anything to do with entropy in there. Just curious, do you have expertise in this area.
                      One of my quals, though it doesn't figure prominently in my research.

                      But enough to contradict Craig can be explained fairly quickly to an audience without the usual backgrounding. Craig claims you can't subtract or divide cardinals. That is, there are no differences or quotients.

                      It's not true.

                      The difference of a greater and a lesser cardinal is the lower bound of all cardinals that sum to the greater, and the quotient is the lower bound of all cardinals that yield the greater as a product.
                      d = a - b iff d = inf {d | b + d = a}
                      d = a / b iff d = inf {d | b • d = a}

                      Those cardinals exist, and are unique, and you'll just have to take my word for it, because that would take a good stretch more time. We need Zorn's lemma, which is equivalent to the axiom of choice, which needs mathematical maturity. You can get a flavor of it, though, by noticing that those definitions work for finite differences and quotients, too.

                      One thing I will say off the cuff about infinite and the number 2. Maybe I am wrong but this doesn't seem like a legit comparison.

                      The number two exists in theory and can correspond to reality. I can have 2 apples for example. How can one have an infinite number of apples?
                      The cardinal of the real numbers, the continuum c, exists in theory and can correspond to reality. If you take one second, and cut it in half, and cut each of those halves in half, indefinitely, every endpoint will correspond to an actual moment in time.

                      There are 2^aleph-naught of them, and 2^aleph-naught = c.

                      On the other hand, you can have an apple, and you can have another apple, and you can identify them as being equal in order to say that you have two apples, but they're not equal, really, so you don't really have two apples, in the mathematical sense.

                      That's what Hilbert was saying about infinity.

                      Then maybe he should not write a philosophy book like the God Delusion.
                      It wasn't a philosophy book. It was a book featuring a scientist laying out a scientific case for the non-existence of God, primarily by way of induction, the scientific method. McGrath, like most of his detractors, didn't recognize that.

                      What does McGrath have anything to do with this? He is an actual theologian commenting on bad theology. Of course he gets a pass because he actually knows what he is talking about. That doesn't make him right but it is far better than being nonsensical.
                      No, he was a non-scientist misrepresenting science as theology with pretensions of philosophy, because when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

                      McGrath has not kept up with modern developments in science.

                      We aren't talking about the same things here. I would agree with this statement. The idea that I was referring to is about peoples atheism being volitional.
                      I suspected your train had gone walkabout, because your posts are so disjointed from the conversation.

                      Now what's this about people's atheism being volitional. I'm not going to try to pretend that has something to do with Nagel's outre ideas about what rightfully homeless communities should be housed in the science building.

                      That is never annoying.
                      It is to me.

                      Did you miss the part that said I don't believe that ID should be allowed in science?
                      Did you miss the part that Nagel does.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                        I am not moving goal posts and I am not pushing falsehoods. Want to go through the list?
                        Sure. I'll start with (i) the Crusades, a major goal of which was the reconquest of the holy city of Jerusalem, and (ii) The Indian mutiny, a major trigger of which was fears that Muslims and Hindus were being forced to break their dietary laws. Both of these are clearly religious goals.

                        Now it's your turn. Explain how World War II was atheistic.
                        How is the suppression and eradication of religion in China and Russian not inherently atheistic?
                        Firstly, they weren't wars. Secondly, most of the victims of Stalin's regime were not vistims because of their religion, but because of possible disloyalty, resistance, threat or simply because they happened to live in areas of state-induced famine.
                        I have also refrained from insulting you, could you refrain in kind? Specifically, just because we have a disagreement doesn't mean that either of us are pushing falsehoods.
                        Disagreement doesn't mean you are pushing falsehoods. Your misrepresentation of historical fact does.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          So if religious societies engage in war, it is automatically a religious war? I think I'm missing something here. Maybe I came in late...?
                          If religious societies engage in a war it is not atheistic.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            If religious societies engage in a war it is not atheistic.
                            I think the disconnect was the difference between discussing religious wars, and wars waged by religious or non-religious countries. Element explained it. But I am curious why this discussion is happening at all. What is the point being made?
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              I think the disconnect was the difference between discussing religious wars, and wars waged by religious or non-religious countries. Element explained it. But I am curious why this discussion is happening at all. What is the point being made?
                              I took their point to be that religious countries are more warlike that secular ones. I was trying to show that it wasn't true. I think I did that.

                              However, now it seems to have morphed into who have more people been killed in the name of...atheism or religion.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                                I took their point to be that religious countries are more warlike that secular ones. I was trying to show that it wasn't true. I think I did that.
                                I cannot say I was convinced, for the reasons I cited. I don't think there is any way to reliably/reasonably make this comparison.

                                Originally posted by element771 View Post
                                However, now it seems to have morphed into who have more people been killed in the name of...atheism or religion.
                                Or this one....for that matter.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X