Bad Apologetics

[Akots]

I didn't say anything about randomness being irrelevant. I imagine you're referring to someone else's remark.

I'm strictly a laymen on these issues and others here can argue ambiogenesis and evolution with much more knowledge than I. My point was simply that when people say things like "How could life arrive from inorganic materials?" they aren't giving any thought at all to the sheer magnitude of time that passed and activity that occurred before life developed. When you consider all of this, then the development of life doesn't seem quite so miraculous.

True; although, there are many who'd argue that nothing is truly random. If you can't see the weave, you're just standing waaaay too close to thre tapestry. Of course, when the tapestry is the universe, we are just a tad disadvantaged...

 

[PixyMisa]

None. I asked if, in your professional opinion, such a construct could be made to live. Not merely be indistinguishable to life, but be life. THAT implies that there are things about life we cannot know... that if we use all our current knowledge to produce abiogenesis, we'd fail; because our knowledge is flawed or incomplete.

How about my unprofessional opinion? Unless you want to talk about recovering corporate databases from "fatal" crashes...

I see two points here. First, that our knowledge of the processes of life is incomplete. This is certainly true, but we're getting pretty good. A project is underway to create a mostly-artificial life-form right now.

Second, the sentence:

Not merely be indistinguishable to life, but be life.

Forces me to ask: if something is indistinguishable from life, how is it not life?

Fascinating things, really...

However, crystals are just like mountains, hills, and rivers; they exist because the conditions exist to cause them. They are created continually from a similar environment; not through reproduction.

In fact, crystals can reproduce Given the right conditions, but that is necessary of life too.

Their physical structure is ordered, yes... but their systems are not a indicitive of life as human systems are.

Certainly. But some theories of abiogenesis are based on the ability of certain crystals to reproduce themselves.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course, nobody can truly force belief on you; I look at my religion's writings, and see that as evicence not only that gofd can exist, but it is not unreasonable for him to exist in the face of all scientific knowledge. The idea that I could argue this factually or convince someone else is utterly ludicrous; it's a personal judgment of mine. I follow these tennants not for fear of god, but because i agree with them; and until I learn something of my religion that disagrees with my personal convictions, I will continue to do so.

Well, this is a perfectly rational way to choose to order your life, with the exception of the belief in a god. If you agree with the tenets of your religion, there is no problem there. But when you speak of evidence, atheists will ask questions.

Supporting a cause needs no belief in God; I simply see the people around me, and the wonders ofnature and science, and have decided to believe based on my sampling of "evidence."

And we say: what evidence is this? We are looking at the same world, but we aren't drawing the same conclusions.

Well, i did get a bit carried away there... what I mean is, they try to invalidate a believer's god; threy adress the possability that god exists by pointing out flaws, when you should be educating about the realities of how a religion can abuse and exploit it's people.

But, to an atheist, all religions are false. It does not matter what they believe in; faith without evidence is the problem. And it's that same faith that ultimately leads to abuse and exploitation.

And of course my religion is personal faith... what else would it be?

Well, there are people in this world who are so assured of the truth of their beliefs and the falsehood of yours that they would willingly give their lives to take yours. They claim not just personal faith but an absolute and objective truth.

 

[Akots]

How about my unprofessional opinion? Unless you want to talk about recovering corporate databases from "fatal" crashes...

\Ads much as a house is not an emergant form of life, a Computer is not a Human. Your argument assumes that a human has no soul, and is purely materialistic, when the issue is wether we are the sum of our materials and systems.

I see two points here. First, that our knowledge of the processes of life is incomplete. This is certainly true, but we're getting pretty good. A project is underway to create a mostly-artificial life-form right now.

Mostly? Approaching zero isn't zero. Only one fay to find out for sure, though... glad the search is going well.

Second, the sentence:Forces me to ask: if something is indistinguishable from life, how is it not life?In fact, crystals can reproduce Given the right conditions, but that is necessary of life too.Certainly. But some theories of abiogenesis are based on the ability of certain crystals to reproduce themselves.

Sigh... you keep making valid points, and i keep having to readjust my perception of a human as a system or collection of matter. So frustrating.

My point was simply that just because something is indistinguishable from life does not make it life in reality. Subjectivity and objectivity are being debated elsewhere, though.

When i say Order turns to Chaos, obviously there are exceptions; because order exists and maintains itself. This implies NOT that individual collections of matter can be exempt from natural laws, but instead that the laws of the universe accomodate certain self sufficient forms of order.

I can alread ysee that my own arguments are highly subjective. Even if i assume a human being has an immortal soul that makes us all special, it cannot be denied that our bodies are made of the same stuff as animals, plants, and rocks.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ads much as a house is not an emergant form of life, a Computer is not a Human. Your argument assumes that a human has no soul, and is purely materialistic, when the issue is wether we are the sum of our materials and systems.

Well, sort of. There is no evidence for a soul. So we are left with materials and systems. I don't assume - or try not to - but repeating "there is no evidence for" all the time gets tiresome.

I only mentioned computers because you asked for my "professional opinion", and that's only good when it comes to computers. Preferably running Unix.

Mostly? Approaching zero isn't zero. Only one fay to find out for sure, though... glad the search is going well.

I was a bit disappointed, as the initial announcements suggested that it would be fully artificial. I think they're using the membrane of an existing thingy (one of those strange thingies that aren't fully cells like bacteria but are much more complex than viruses) to house their artificial living gloop. Probably good research, though.

Sigh... you keep making valid points

Sorry!

and i keep having to readjust my perception of a human as a system or collection of matter. So frustrating.

My point was simply that just because something is indistinguishable from life does not make it life in reality.

And my question to this sort of statement is always: why? If you can't tell the difference, how can you say there is a difference.

Subjectivity and objectivity are being debated elsewhere, though.

This is invariably true

When i say Order turns to Chaos, obviously there are exceptions; because order exists and maintains itself. This implies NOT that individual collections of matter can be exempt from natural laws, but instead that the laws of the universe accomodate certain self sufficient forms of order.

Well, actually, no. There are no exceptions. Overall, order always turns into chaos. That's the Second Law. In the long run, not only are we all dead, but so is everything else. In the short term, and on a small scale, we can steal a bit of time to live our lives.

I can alread ysee that my own arguments are highly subjective. Even if i assume a human being has an immortal soul that makes us all special, it cannot be denied that our bodies are made of the same stuff as animals, plants, and rocks.

Yup.

Oh, and in case you haven't run into this curious fact before: viruses can be crystallised. The crystallised viruses can then be brought back to life - as much as viruses can be said to be alive - unharmed.

 

[Akots]

Well, this is a perfectly rational way to choose to order your life, with the exception of the belief in a god.

I cannot prove the existance of emotions without seeing evidence of behavior around me. I cannot prove animals have emotions... but the evidence of behavioral study is enough proof that they do. (hm... I get the feeling this argument has been used many times before...)

If you agree with the tenets of your religion, there is no problem there. But when you speak of evidence, atheists will ask questions.And we say: what evidence is this? We are looking at the same world, but we aren't drawing the same conclusions.

You said it yourself... it's subjective evidence, of course. No other kind would be acceptable for picking a religion. Just as subjective experiences are required to pick one's career, or pet, or lifemate.

But, to an atheist, all religions are false. It does not matter what they believe in; faith without evidence is the problem.

My evidence comes in the form of watching the people around me; watching how they behave, what they believe, and how they treat others. It's very, very hard for me to explain... as entirely subjecive evidence usualy is.

And it's that same faith that ultimately leads to abuse and exploitation.

*taps nose* Wait... that's it. Thank you, Pixa.

My religion has, in all my years of experience and analasys, never ONCE exploited anybody... thye have never once treated people of other (or no) faiths with anything but kindness and respect. I've read our scriptures, and the books we consider holy, and found them encouraging, not only in a spiritual way but in a modern, social and political way.

The people of my faith have proven to me, through both their actions and words, that their teachings are genuinely aimed at the betterment of mankind, and based on this experience, I agree with it wholly. NOT because I can overlook the discrepancies, but because I have foud none at all.

Which does not mean I do not continue to look for them, every day. I do.

Well, there are people in this world who are so assured of the truth of their beliefs and the falsehood of yours that they would willingly give their lives to take yours.

Such is life.

They claim not just personal faith but an absolute and objective truth.

To a certain degree, even objective knowledge direct from god's mouth would no longer be subjective when we hear it. We are not very objective creatures. Therein lies the requirement of faith to believe in teachings... my faith that i will not be hit by a bus is based on over twenty years of observing me not getting hit by a bus. Doesn't mean I won't, but it doesn't mean I should hide form busses wherever I go.

Let's rip an example out of me... my religion forbids me to consume alcohol. At all. I know, intellectually, that alcohol causes no (or more accurately, inconsequential) harm in measured quantities; however, i follow this tennant on faith, because not only do weigh my subjective evidence for the validity of this faith overal, but I examine the consequences involved, and find them to be acceptable sacrifices. In this case, the consequences of not drinking are pretty obvious.

 

[Akots]

Well, sort of. There is no evidence for a soul. So we are left with materials and systems. I don't assume - or try not to - but repeating "there is no evidence for" all the time gets tiresome.

Save yourselfsome breath... I already know of the lack of objective evidence. It neither proves, nor disproves souls or gods. It is, therefore, irellevant to assume that my faith is based on objective evidence, when it isn't.

I only mentioned computers because you asked for my "professional opinion", and that's only good when it comes to computers. Preferably running Unix.

I understand the example itself, and it's a great analogy for a materialistic view of a human being; i just still disagreed with you. No hard feelings

I was a bit disappointed, as the initial announcements suggested that it would be fully artificial. I think they're using the membrane of an existing thingy (one of those strange thingies that aren't fully cells like bacteria but are much more complex than viruses) to house their artificial living gloop. Probably good research, though.

Aw...

It does make you wonder wether viruses are actual life, or wether their growth more resembles that of crystals or humans. Well, in the most basic terms possible, i mean...

Sorry!

Hope i didn't make it sound like it was a bad thing...

And my question to this sort of statement is always: why? If you can't tell the difference, how can you say there is a difference.

*blink blink*

I couldn't tell the difference between any of jupiter's moons, myself...

The issue there, of course, is that I can be educated on the subject, and that i am obligated to learn about it before teaching astronomy... But before I discover that knowledge, they are all the same to me.

My subjective experiences form the core of my beliefs, and it's a little hard to conbvey such broad personal experiences. Besides

This is invariably true

Well, actually, no. There are no exceptions. Overall, order always turns into chaos. That's the Second Law. In the long run, not only are we all dead, but so is everything else. In the short term, and on a small scale, we can steal a bit of time to live our lives.Yup.

Well... I think you just contradicted yourself here.

If chaos is ALWAYS the rule, then we wouldn't be here... life would NOT have even the opportunity to emerge, as the conditions would not exist to support it in any way. Without any order, atoms would not be able to even bond into any signifigant molecular patterns.

Order should not exist, but of course it does.

Oh, and in case you haven't run into this curious fact before: viruses can be crystallised. The crystallised viruses can then be brought back to life - as much as viruses can be said to be alive - unharmed.

If viruses are not actualy lifeforms, then this is useless trivia. But if they are lifeforms... I can't wait to see how this turns out! Not to mention the implications of ressurecting a living organism after 'petrificaiton'.

 

[PixyMisa]

I cannot prove the existance of emotions without seeing evidence of behavior around me. I cannot prove animals have emotions... but the evidence of behavioral study is enough proof that they do. (hm... I get the feeling this argument has been used many times before...)

I certainly think that evidence for animal emotions is nearly as strong as evidence for human emotions. We can't understanf how a cat feels, but it's pretty clear that it does feel.

You said it yourself... it's subjective evidence, of course. No other kind would be acceptable for picking a religion. Just as subjective experiences are required to pick one's career, or pet, or lifemate.

The problem is that subjective evidence is only good for coming to subjective conclusions. Do you believe in a god as a personal guiding light, or as an entity with a separate, objecetive existence apart from yourself? The first is a logical conclusion from subjective experience, the second is not.

My evidence comes in the form of watching the people around me; watching how they behave, what they believe, and how they treat others. It's very, very hard for me to explain... as entirely subjecive evidence usualy is.

*taps nose* Wait... that's it. Thank you, Pixa.

My religion has, in all my years of experience and analasys, never ONCE exploited anybody... thye have never once treated people of other (or no) faiths with anything but kindness and respect. I've read our scriptures, and the books we consider holy, and found them encouraging, not only in a spiritual way but in a modern, social and political way.

That's certainly admirable. I'll note that I frequently give money to religious charities - because I think they do good, even if I think certain of their beliefs are incorrect.

The people of my faith have proven to me, through both their actions and words, that their teachings are genuinely aimed at the betterment of mankind, and based on this experience, I agree with it wholly. NOT because I can overlook the discrepancies, but because I have foud none at all.

Which does not mean I do not continue to look for them, every day. I do.

OK

Such is life.

I wish it wasn't. Faith without questions is a tyrant. Clearly, you ask questions; I hope other members of your group do too.

To a certain degree, even objective knowledge direct from god's mouth would no longer be subjective when we hear it. We are not very objective creatures. Therein lies the requirement of faith to believe in teachings... my faith that i will not be hit by a bus is based on over twenty years of observing me not getting hit by a bus. Doesn't mean I won't, but it doesn't mean I should hide form busses wherever I go.

But that isn't faith. I don't have faith that my chair won't suddenly collapse under me. I don't need to. My chair will support me - or not - regardless of whether I have faith in it - or not.

Belief in an objective thing from subjective evidence is faith. Or if you're the questioning kind, a working assumption to be tested.

Let's rip an example out of me... my religion forbids me to consume alcohol. At all. I know, intellectually, that alcohol causes no (or more accurately, inconsequential) harm in measured quantities; however, i follow this tennant on faith, because not only do weigh my subjective evidence for the validity of this faith overal, but I examine the consequences involved, and find them to be acceptable sacrifices. In this case, the consequences of not drinking are pretty obvious.

OK, there's a problem. Drinking red wine in moderation appears to reduce the chance of suffering certain ailments. Your religion forbids this? Why? Do they know something we don't? Or is it something that you must simply take on faith? Does your religion allow the questioning of such rules?

 

[PixyMisa]

*blink blink*

I couldn't tell the difference between any of jupiter's moons, myself...

Well, that's not the point.

The point is: we have a living body, and an artificially created body that is - by your own definition - indistinguishable. If the two are truly indistinguishable, we cannot, even in principle, tell the difference. If they are indistinguishable, both are breathing and thinking. How can one be alive and the other not?

Or do you simply suggest that it is not possible in practice to create artificial life, though it may be possible in theory?

Well... I think you just contradicted yourself here.

If chaos is ALWAYS the rule, then we wouldn't be here... life would NOT have even the opportunity to emerge, as the conditions would not exist to support it in any way. Without any order, atoms would not be able to even bond into any signifigant molecular patterns.

Order should not exist, but of course it does.

It's not chaos that is the rule, but the decline from order into chaos. In any closed system, the amount of order always decreases. (Actually, if you look at a small enough space and/or time, there are exceptions, but they neither scale nor last.) Second law of thermodynamics. Entropy. Heat death. End of the world!

If viruses are not actualy lifeforms, then this is useless trivia. But if they are lifeforms... I can't wait to see how this turns out! Not to mention the implications of ressurecting a living organism after 'petrificaiton'.

Yep. Life isn't a binary thing - it's a gradient. Viruses are sort-of alive. Vampire bats are very much alive. Where's the line between life and non-life?

 

[Akots]

If we can create life, what does that say about our existance? If we can create life like ourselves, surely some other entity could.

But again, faith never deals in scientific fact. If it did, it would be science.


(ps: these long responses are killing me... sorry to keep this one so short!)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What disturbs me is the anger and frustration many athiests seem to express.. at a God they do not believe in. Arguments that start with "Why would God do this if..." baffle me.

I call "atheists" like that God-Haters and I despise them. If you don't believe something exists, why are you so pissed off at it?

 

[Kimpatsu]

I call "atheists" like that God-Haters and I despise them. If you don't believe something exists, why are you so pissed off at it?

Atheists don't hate non-existent gods; we hate the cruelty that such superstitions lead to. We're pissed off at attempts to impose theocracy, at the barbarism of Islam and Xpianity, and at the supercilious posts of the superstitious. Can you see the difference?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Atheists don't hate non-existent gods; we hate the cruelty that such superstitions lead to. We're pissed off at attempts to impose theocracy, at the barbarism of Islam and Xpianity, and at the supercilious posts of the superstitious. Can you see the difference?

Well, being an atheist... yeah. That's why I put "atheist" in quotes. I've met too many people on line who have such a bug up their ass about Christianity that all they do is froth at the mouth about what a montrously evil being God is. I'm not going to deny them the right to call themselves atheists, but I'm not going to call them that myself.

I'm not happy with a lot of things about virtually every religion except B'hai and Unitarianism, but I don't spend all day angry at them or their supposedly non-existant deities. The God-Haters do.

 

[Kimpatsu]

You miss the point. Hypothetically speaking, were a god to exist, and she were responsible for creation, then all suffering is her fault, too, and that would be bad.
See how tiring it gets writing in the subjunctive mood all the time? So we write more succinctly. This in no way undermines the fact that god doesn't actually exist.

 

[Guest]

If you want to barf up all the contents of your stomach, spend some time in the Paltalk atheist rooms!

(they are on par with some of the Paltalk religion rooms)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You miss the point. Hypothetically speaking, were a god to exist, and she were responsible for creation, then all suffering is her fault, too, and that would be bad.
See how tiring it gets writing in the subjunctive mood all the time? So we write more succinctly. This in no way undermines the fact that god doesn't actually exist.

I do get it. I've gotten it for a long time. I'm saying there are people who, while they don't believe, are so obsessed with how evil and malicious God is, they hate him despite not thinking he exists. I'll try and dig out an example of what I'm talking about from an old Yahoo forum I used to be a member of.. it might take me a while though.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

1st Law of Thermodynamics proves the soul

Another stunning display of ignorance by apologists is their misuse of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred). The attempted point they try to make goes something like, “energy cannot be destroyed so what’s happens to our energy when we die, it has to go somewhere,” or something like that. The inference they’re strenuously striving for is that our “energy” is our soul and that when we die this energy/soul cannot be destroyed so it has to keep existing ergo we have a soul, now convert!

Of course we all know that our “energy” isn’t destroyed when we die and that it does “go someplace.” The chemical reactions in our body slowly stop and our heat energy dissipates into our surroundings. Over time, the residual potential and kinetic energy of our corpse is digested by bacteria or other beings and transferred to them. The “energy” doesn’t just exit is in one pneumatic exhalation it fades much like ice cubes in a water glass on a hot summer day.

 

[muscleman]

1. Archaeology confirms the Bible.

First, let’s just state unequivocally that the first chapter of Genesis is in no way supported by biology, geology, paleontology or archaeology. Second, I don’t really see the value of this apologetic, as what archaeological finds have supported the Bible are claims of a mundane nature. So what? It’s fallacious to extrapolate from the fact that a non-supernatural claim finds support to the assertion that if they are true; the supernatural claims must be true as well.

Ok, are you up for a challenge? And not like a sissy as many of the cult members here are who likes to ignore those they cant handle?

If you think u can handle the real deal, then lets talk (if u aint a sissy..)...

First of all, Peskanov started a thread called "Muscleman's challenge" on showing a so-called bible contradiction, so far I have debunked all claims, and they backed down like a sissy (because they cant handle my name calling, ohhh too bad kids, grow up...)


The bible cannot be taken literally (and i know u got so many questions for it, but u can post it in the thread "muscleman's challenge..)


Now lets begin the conversation starting with what the sissy cult members ignored in "Proof of God's existence" thread started by me..

The topic is about natural/supernatural,

You claim that the bible is filled with "supernatural occurences", if this is so, then you should have NO problem answering a basic question below...

What does things have to be in order that it may be labeled as "Natural"? Explain.......

 

[muscleman]

and by the way, I got a bad news for you, as of now this thread is rated 4, later on it will be down to 1 or zero.. Why? Because I am about to debunk all of your silly arguments here. Now you only got 2 options, one is to put me on ignore, or deny reality and be delusional....

Sorry child, your atheist cult is about to perish, buh bye atheists philosophy........

 

[Kimpatsu]

...I am about to debunk all of your silly arguments here. Now you only got 2 options, one is to put me on ignore, or deny reality and be delusional.... Sorry child, your atheist cult is about to perish, buh bye atheists philosophy........

Calling me names does not prove your case. Stating that you are about to debunk me does not make your case. So far, you've whined, griped, and indulged in childish name-calling, but I have yet to see one logical proof or any hard evidence from you. Yawn... Show us the money, already. Put up or shut up, Weedyman. We're all waiting.