What variety of atheist are you?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2011, 11:56 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
Hey, has anyone got a link to a description of "irreducible complexity" that makes sense? I must admit I can't even understand the argument, let alone agree with it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2011 12:12 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(25-08-2011 10:50 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @DeepThought We both bear the burden of proof in places. My point with irreducible complexity is fairly specific to abiogenesis though. Life itself is irreducibly complex because from a naturalist standpoint it must be able to both reproduce itself and evolve. These two things mean that it must be able to copy and add variation to information which in and of itself requires a fairly complex mechanism. At this point I don't know why I took the time to explain that, but have fun ripping it appart if that's what you want. I don't know why I explained that, but do whatever you will with it. I really don't care anymore.
@DeepThought I see no way life was designed as it is now (at least not by an O^3 creator).

I see no need to rip it apart. I actually agree with you, life is complicated and there is allot we don't understand. I think claiming irreducible complexity with abiogenesis isn't really useful since we don't know enough about life to make that claim.

We have already shown that complex systems like the eye can arise using evolution and slow gradual changes. I think that process can also apply to pre-evolution in molecules that copy themselves. Can't prove it yet though time will tell won't it!

If we created life using abiogenesis in a lab setting with a step by step process would that be good enough for you?

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 02:41 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
Using the term idea is just terminology. I was saying the form known as rabbit could happen twice. English is based on the idea that the speaker is discussing their own thoughts. I don't generally spend the extra time to remove all emotion invoking words from sentences about things that lack emotion.

I can't say much on irreducible complexity. I think it's an odd argument because like most other things there always seems to be an endless loop as you reduce. Your discussion of life seems kind of like a mental disconnect, it's as likely that two things performing the separate things joined together. Non-life includes chemical reactions which can mix. The issue with irreducible complexity is that it's only a philosophical argument. There has been nothing that really must be irreducible, and none of the examples that were study-able have been irreducible. The origin of life requires we understand how to make life in order to test it.

You can see creationism as correct if you want, not really trying to disprove you and of course I'm unlikely to change my mind =p As far as knowing how to think as an atheist, I'm not sure what that means because we tend to argue with each other over everything. Just remember that the wisest person will always accept a possibility of being wrong even when they are certain. I accept the possibility and always look into things, unfortunately when discussing creationism you kind of need to link me to an acceptable argument (or accept just discussing person to person). It's hard to find many discussions that aren't garbage. The reason creationism has more trash than science is because the community is less strict, it has nothing to do with their mental abilities.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 04:52 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
Re "I'm not sure what that means because we tend to argue with each other over everything."

NO WE DON'T!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
26-08-2011, 10:56 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(25-08-2011 11:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey, has anyone got a link to a description of "irreducible complexity" that makes sense? I must admit I can't even understand the argument, let alone agree with it.

Quoting from wiki:
"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

What this means, to use an example is this:
the eye is a very complex mechanism made of many different parts that must all work together to accomplish the overall function. Since evolution slowly adds parts one at a time, the evolving mechanism (pseudo-eye) would have been useless to the organism, because only a complete eye can see. Since evolution doesn't select for incomplete, useless traits, it's impossible that these incomplete eyes could have been selected and transmitted through generations.

Of course the problem with IC is that each and every system they have tried to use to make their point (the eye, the bacterium flagellum, the clotting system) have all been shown to be functional and useful even when "incomplete". So as others have said, the IC game is a rather infantile one: they point at a complex biological system and go "ahaha, see, see, see? That's irreducibly complex! Because I say so!" and expect science to do all the work to show them it is not.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 01:37 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2011 02:05 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(26-08-2011 12:04 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  If we created life using abiogenesis in a lab setting with a step by step process would that be good enough for you?

I have no idea whether or not that would be good enough for BlackEyedGhost, but we have done just that: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.

And here's a less technical discussion from Wired Science: Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-08-2011, 06:23 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(26-08-2011 10:56 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(25-08-2011 11:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey, has anyone got a link to a description of "irreducible complexity" that makes sense? I must admit I can't even understand the argument, let alone agree with it.

Quoting from wiki:
"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

What this means, to use an example is this:
the eye is a very complex mechanism made of many different parts that must all work together to accomplish the overall function. Since evolution slowly adds parts one at a time, the evolving mechanism (pseudo-eye) would have been useless to the organism, because only a complete eye can see. Since evolution doesn't select for incomplete, useless traits, it's impossible that these incomplete eyes could have been selected and transmitted through generations.

Of course the problem with IC is that each and every system they have tried to use to make their point (the eye, the bacterium flagellum, the clotting system) have all been shown to be functional and useful even when "incomplete". So as others have said, the IC game is a rather infantile one: they point at a complex biological system and go "ahaha, see, see, see? That's irreducibly complex! Because I say so!" and expect science to do all the work to show them it is not.

Thanks heaps! I've just realised why I've never understood the IC argument...there is nothing logical to understand LOL.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 03:34 PM
 
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
I suppose I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist. I was raised to be the very epitome of a "cultural Christian," I would identify as Catholic although we never went to church or really read the Bible (I don't know if there's even one in my parents' house).
By the fourth grade, I realized that there really was no reason to believe the supernatural claims. I hid this from the world for a long time until I was in college. I would brand myself as an agnostic for years until I realized that agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. I don't believe claims that a god exists, therefore I'm an atheist; I don't think that we could ever know for certain that there is no god, therefore I'm an agnostic atheist.

As far as Jesus goes, do I think he existed in the way that the Bible portrays him? No.
There might very well have been a Jewish guy named Jesus (or Yeshua or whatever) upon which the NT stories are loosely based, but divine? C'mon now.
Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 06:35 PM
 
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
Reply to your primary question, "What variety of athesit are you?":

There is only one kind of atheist, i.e., an atheist is a person who does not accept the claim "there exists some god" usually due to lack of evidence or invalid argumentation.

Each claim that fails to convince by rational, evidence-based means and is therefore rejected is another instance of atheism on the part of the person rejecting the claim.

Each claim typically comes with alleged proof; if the alleged proof fails, or if a reality check on alleged aspects of the god in question fails, that is a particular instance of atheism on the part of the person rejecting the claim. The next claim may offer different alleged proof, no attempt at proof, or any of a variety of typical attempts to convince one to accept the claim.

The vast majority of claims of the form "there exists some god" fail for similar reasons. When a person concludes from this that all known such claims are false, that is an instance of atheism. If some new concept comes up, such as a neologism, e.g., "god is love", then it is addressed by the same means, i.e., critical reasoning and reality checks.

Many gods have been alleged to exist. Most such claims are long forgotten.

I recognize that a great many people work from one particular religious paradigm. But overall through the history of civilization there has never been any credible evidence that at least one god exists. The various gods proposed and forgotten may have had features recognizable in some contemporary religion or they may have had some features not currently popular (like demanding human sacrifice to ensure that the corn grows in abundance, or to feed the priests a high-protein diet by feeding them human beings). Just the same, they are for the most part abandoned and forgotten.

If you cannot be sure that there is not some particular god, it is because you have a particular god in mind. Atheism is only concerned with whether or not particular claims of the sort noted are true, false, or indeterminate. I have yet to be presented with a claim of this sort that has been supported with credible evidence or that did not fail the logic test, i.e., the form of the attempt at logical argument incorporated a logical fallacy.

It is not up to the atheist to carry about a model of what a god might be if some god existed, i.e., the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is not rational to carry such a model in one's mind if there is no evidence to support it, or if such a model defies known laws of nature, or if such a model is strikingly similar to already failed claims, so similar as to be equivalent.
Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 11:56 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
ok let's answer the question :

i am the "who gives a flying fuck if there's a god" type of atheist .. also i am a "live and let live" one (i am only offended by religious people if they try to force ME (or kids in general) to replace science with religion) and a "Hell ,can't you man up to your mistakes and stop thanking your imaginary friends for them?" kind of atheist ..

*goes back to her telescope* those photos of the moon are not going to happen alone <___<
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maerie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: