The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[FormerAtheist]

No, not in the slightest! In fact, I expect to be challenged, just the same as I would challenge others. This will lead to a conversation that will (with any luck) give us a better and more holistic outlook on our beliefs and how we come to them - in fact, I've even shifted on my own beliefs on being challenged as I hope to change the beliefs of others for the better...

I'd probably start by pointing you to List of all our research reports | Equality and Human Rights Commission - not entirely sure what it is you're after, but this site provides a wide array of research covering many aspects from impact of welfare on minority groups to impact of education on equality and diversity in societies - have a search through it and see what you can find - there's plenty of research in this field but if you want to talk about anything specific (say, something like slavery in the bible, or how women are portrayed as less than men, not allowed to positions that oversee men like teaching, or womens testimony being half as worthy in courts of law, or other such biblical values) then let me know.

perhaps not - but we no longer cut thieves' hands off for stealing bare necessities in food to feed their starving infants, we don't stone witches to death or kill homosexuals for being born that way, we don't keep slaves, let alone beat them (but not so much that they die within a day or two), or kill raped women because they didn't scream loud enough, or because they brought shame on the family for being raped, so on. We've learnt much since then despite pockets of this fundamental thinking persisting to varying degrees in varying ways today.

Those societies worked with what they had and like you say, built them on their respective religions - ancient egypt on Amon-Ra , the sungod, etc., ancient Greece on Zeus, Romans on Odin, then Zoroastrian, then Judaism, right up to our western civilization where we've finally found the scientific method and each iteration improved with a combination of what came before and what we've learnt in the mean time. The systems of society today are measurably better in every respect in societal health than any of the previous deity based law systems before it. We've done the research.

This is an ongoing process of course, it certainly isn't perfect - there's plenty of room to improve things, and this is why the research continues and improvements keep incrementing.

Uhhh oh.

I might have jumped the gun.

If so I am sorry I get real testy when people attack Christians. I find it more then someone would find something personal.

I don't even know why but it will get me hot and I will respond fast.

So if I was wrong I apologize.

 

[FormerAtheist]

In that last response I want to say something further. There is a reason why I get angry when people go against Christians. To me its far deeper then personal to me. Its like you are spitting on math or something. To me the math is simple.

If we look at what Christians have done since ... Darwin's time then we can see a net positive that is greater then probably every other group combined. It is what it is. Think of all the organizations that they created and all the good they did in the last 150 years its amazing.

What an amazing story ... what an amazing testament.

Should I get angry when people spit on them in ignorance?
No

We all should be!!!!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What would be nice is if "improvements keep incrementing" instead we see everyone turning into straight up basket cases. Everyone needed lots and lots of pills and Couche time and every now and again some time with some metal to the head. What is that??

Why is that?

Why are kids so messed up today?

Why are people so depressed?

Why are people that are not these delusional happy delirious Christians so less happy?

Have we missed something some thing that these crazy Christians have?

I'd ask you to cite your sources but I'm not even expecting you'd respond with anything that fits the description.

I'm also entirely disinterested in explaining to you why everything you've written here is swimming in ignorance and incoherence going by what you've mused all over this thread already...

sorry...!

 

[FormerAtheist]

I'd ask you to cite your sources but I'm not even expecting you'd respond with anything that fits the description.

I'm also entirely disinterested in explaining to you why everything you've written here is swimming in ignorance and incoherence going by what you've mused all over this thread already...

sorry...!

Wait are you one of those that think Christians have done ... nothing?

What sources are you asking for?

 

[Neogaia777]

I still don't think the argument has been resolved that "something doesn't come from nothing", and if one is to suggest that something comes from nothing, it is highly illogical, an I do not understand that...?

And I believe that there is no such place as "nowhere", and no such thing as "nothing"...

And, so, if something is to come from nothing or nowhere, than that means your actually saying it is coming from something or somewhere... Doesn't it, or isn't it...?

Cause and effect or result is one of the most primary bases of science, yet, there is no cause (or source) for the universe, us, or "whatever"...? all that is basically...? I don't get that...? Doesn't fit into my logic...

God Bless!

 

[FormerAtheist]

I'd ask you to cite your sources but I'm not even expecting you'd respond with anything that fits the description.

I'm also entirely disinterested in explaining to you why everything you've written here is swimming in ignorance and incoherence going by what you've mused all over this thread already...

sorry...!

Tired of this so I must give a link at this point. This section of the site is so not nearly done as a lot of the site because I have a busy life. But yet enough is enough there are only 8 pages that are really many pages each but here is the thing there is so much info that is waiting to be put on there I don't have the time. I am not getting paid to do anything. No one cares about what I'm doing but just a few people that know about some of the info and want it out there.

I have never put this info out there. I am totally tired of these ideas that Christians are the devils and at the same time never did the work of angels.

All you that cry that are hypocrites.

and ignorant.

debunkingatheism

 

[redleghunter]

So, its entirely plausible that new information can come about from non-intelligent means.

If it contains information there was some intelligence involved.

I think some agnostics and atheists fill in the blank by attributing intelligence to natural selection or "mother nature."

Now I'm not saying all as many here are saying "don't know" or "it is what it is."

Either way, whatever explanation or lack thereof ends up metaphysical.

 

[Silmarien]

I'd probably start by pointing you to List of all our research reports | Equality and Human Rights Commission - not entirely sure what it is you're after, but this site provides a wide array of research covering many aspects from impact of welfare on minority groups to impact of education on equality and diversity in societies - have a search through it and see what you can find - there's plenty of research in this field but if you want to talk about anything specific (say, something like slavery in the bible, or how women are portrayed as less than men, not allowed to positions that oversee men like teaching, or womens testimony being half as worthy in courts of law, or other such biblical values) then let me know.

I am agnostic (except insofar as I reject naturalism), but as someone who became interested in Christianity specifically because it seems to embody humanist ideals, I'm going to have to challenge you on your characterization here. What you are describing here is the admittedly patriarchal structure of 1st century Judea, much of which was quite explicitly upended by Christianity. In the context of a society where women's testimony was effectively worthless, it is quite striking that Jesus's first post-Resurrection appearance was said to have been to women. That is not a vindication of the practice--quite the opposite. So the last shall be first, and the first last. There were plenty of people in marginalized positions who appear to have been involved in his ministry, and throughout the Pauline Epistles there is significant evidence of women in influential positions in 1st century Christianity, including Priscilla, Phoebe, and Junia.

Of course, as Christianity moved more fully into the Roman world, that powerful patriarchy would take over once more, but throughout the entire history of the religion there have been strong voices against all sorts of injustice. (Look at Saint Gregory of Nyssa for a 4th century condemnation of slavery.) The Church ultimately sides with the powers of the world far more often than I would like, particularly when it comes to gender issues, but when I look at the Gospel itself, that is not what I see at all. I see the driving force behind someone like Jacques Maritain or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

As for scientific research on equal treatment, I am specifically interested in the metaethical debate between moral realism, relativism, nihilism, and so forth. I see relativism as a breeding ground for fascism, and am disturbed by the inability of many people in that camp to recognize the social consequences of their refusal to try to defend their moral views. I appear to be more concerned by the threat posed by the religious right than many of the atheists on this site, which is disheartening.

Those societies worked with what they had and like you say, built them on their respective religions - ancient egypt on Amon-Ra , the sungod, etc., ancient Greece on Zeus, Romans on Odin, then Zoroastrian, then Judaism, right up to our western civilization where we've finally found the scientific method and each iteration improved with a combination of what came before and what we've learnt in the mean time. The systems of society today are measurably better in every respect in societal health than any of the previous deity based law systems before it. We've done the research.

This is not really how ancient societies worked, though. Rome, for example, had a very sophisticated legal system, and the fact that the pagan cults were considered part of public life doesn't really detract from that. Mathematics and astronomy certainly existed in ancient Egypt and Greece, and a great deal of what came out of Aristotle was fundamental for the development of modern science, which was only possible at all because the groundwork laid by medieval scholastic philosophy. There is a common narrative about the history of science that is every bit as mythical as something you'd find in the Eddas, and certainly aspects of the modern world that we can question. Does the existence of sophisticated biological, chemical, nuclear weapons truly point to a society that is measurably better in every respect? What about the ravages of capitalism and communism, both of which are modern phenomena? Or the negative side effect of the sexual revolution, i.e., the underlying social expectation that women will be sexually available?

 

[Neogaia777]

If it contains information there was some intelligence involved.

I think some agnostics and atheists fill in the blank by attributing intelligence to natural selection or "mother nature."

Now I'm not saying all as many here are saying "don't know" or "it is what it is."

Either way, whatever explanation or lack thereof ends up metaphysical.

And supernatural, and oftentimes unexplainable, and incomprehensible, or unapprehensible much of the time, (all of it/him (God) anyway) which is why they don't like it... (can't put him in their "box")...

But what we need to know about him (and ourselves though and by him) (the essentials) is made pretty clear though... But just because we don't (and possible can't know) all of him, or that is, "everything" about him, they just don't like it/that... So, they reject it/him...

And while it is sometimes fun to ponder him (God) and his ways, most of us have to just accept that there are some things we can't know (about him (God))... And, again, they don't like that very much, thinking they should be able to and can (and for some, it's "do") know "everything"...

God Bless!

 

[redleghunter]

wait, what?? You mean Vishnu being eternal and never ending is natural? ...so your God's eternal is manufactured, or man-made? Actually, I could be on board with that, your God can be man-made....

I'm sorry, you'll have to spell out the difference, then probably explain why your God's version of eternity and creation myth is more realistic or probable than the Hindu creation myths which are both more realistic and are much closer to the observed facts of this universe than the hilariously out of range the fundamentalist YEC imagined 6,000 - 10,000 year old universe is...

Apparently "eternal" in original language for Vishnu is not really eternal as what you posted used naturalist language for origins. I did appreciate the info as I suspect Joseph Smith used some of the Vishnu creation event to explain Mormonism.

 

[Silmarien]

Apparently "eternal" in original language for Vishnu is not really eternal as what you posted used naturalist language for origins. I did appreciate the info as I suspect Joseph Smith used some of the Vishnu creation event to explain Mormonism.

Eh, I'm fairly familiar with the Upanishads, and that stuff is radically non-naturalistic. If you want an example, look at the Bhagavad Gita quote in my signature. Hinduism is super complicated, but it's not really fair to compare it to paganism. One of the most influential philosophies within Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, is... well, I'd say monotheistic, but it goes beyond that. God/Brahman is the only thing that exists, eternal and ultimately one. Everything else is illusion, including your individual self.

 

[dmmesdale]

As for scientific research on equal treatment,

There is no science basis for equality or equal treatment nor has the responder provided one. Bugey.... simply presented a paper which assumes equality. Equality can and is dismissed as religious superstition. Lets not steal from Judeo/ChristianTheism.

I am specifically interested in the metaethical debate between moral realism, relativism, nihilism, and so forth. I see relativism as a breeding ground for fascism, and am disturbed by the inability of many people in that camp to recognize the social consequences of their refusal to try to defend their moral views.

When the Bolsheviks took over they went to the Romanovs about 1 am on July 17, 1918. Ex-tsar Nicholas II, ex-tsarina Alexandra, their five children, and their four remaining servants, including the loyal family doctor, Eugene Botkin all slaughtered. No Christians slaughtering innocent children at that event. The executioners were behaving rationally in accordance with their atheism. What really was to stop them? It's not like little girls have a right from God to life and adults have an obligation to God to protect innocents from being immorally killed. It's not like there is a judgment where these murderers simply following orders will be held accountable even if they escape human justice. They will simply die and then nothingness. No justice for the children who are butchered for simply existing and not doing one thing wrong. All this talk about judgment from God to right the wrongs is simply dismissed as religious superstition.

The rational application in that instance given an atheistic mindset is to pull the trigger. It does, after all, get easier the more it is done. Feel free to rationally tell me where I am wrong and the legal basis which would apply. Canadians are not tax cheats because they do not pay taxes in America and the Bolsheviks are not murderers because they legally execute little children when ordered.

the underlying social expectation that women will be sexually available?

If women are not available then we go extinct. It is a biological expectation for survival. They always have been. Otherwise, we would not be here. So i don't know. You sure do cover a lot of topics in your posts.

 

[FormerAtheist]

The bolded alone demonstrate how scientifically illiterate you are. If you don't understand scientific language, and why words like those are used, then you don't understand the scientific method, the limitations inherent in science, the basics of scientific argumentation, or the peer review process.

So, I went back to have a look at the abstract for the first paper linked - De Novo Origination of a New Protein-Coding Gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Abstract
Origination of new genes is an important mechanism generating genetic novelties during the evolution of an organism. Processes of creating new genes using preexisting genes as the raw materials are well characterized, such as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have identified a new de novo protein-coding gene, BSC4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The BSC4 gene has an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-amino-acid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.​

Nowhere in this abstract do the words "we think", "believe", "possible" or "seems" appear. Nor do any words even like them appear.

Possibly the only "hopeful words" included in it are "propose" and "may" - which appear in the last sentence because the researches are being honest and are presenting a novel explanation.

Just to be sure, I went back and checked the other abstracts - none of them contain any of the word you suggest they do. One of them has the word "suggesting" and the other contains the word "estimate". And that's it.

Really, how dishonest can your characterisation be?

Ok I am on the road holed up on a hotel because I am down for the count with some kind of flew or something and You want to give me this????

Fine lets do this :
retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have

encoding a 132-amino-acid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.

Ok so let me do this and lets let this poor abstract go for the last time because no one has time for this type of thing. Ok everything in red is "sketchy" yes including the new idea of the a nutrient poor invironment. Nice ... not ... do we know ... maybe ... not sure allways sketchy. But based on our current experiments and what we think of today we think ... "perhaps" .... "maybe" ... and my personal favorite: "My be involved" hahahahaha.
Ok let me go to sleep.

That's enough of that lol.

 

[Gene2memE]

Ok I am on the road holed up on a hotel because I am down for the count with some kind of flew or something and You want to give me this????

Fine lets do this :
retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have

encoding a 132-amino-acid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.

Ok so let me do this and lets let this poor abstract go for the last time because no one has time for this type of thing. Ok everything in red is "sketchy" yes including the new idea of the a nutrient poor invironment. Nice ... not ... do we know ... maybe ... not sure allways sketchy. But based on our current experiments and what we think of today we think ... "perhaps" .... "maybe" ... and my personal favorite: "My be involved" hahahahaha.
Ok let me go to sleep.

That's enough of that lol.

Ah, so because the authors are honest enough to acknowledge that there is no absolute certainty, and that there are gaps in our knowledge and the fact that science always remains open to revision, you "cringe" and hand wave away several well evidenced, and mutually supporting, studies.

Got it.

For all your protestations about "the math" and science, you're very clearly disinterested in assessing anything presented to you with an open mind.

You and OldWiseGuy would make a great pair.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Apparently "eternal" in original language for Vishnu is not really eternal as what you posted used naturalist language for origins. I did appreciate the info as I suspect Joseph Smith used some of the Vishnu creation event to explain Mormonism.

Citation please. Mormons are a form of Christians, wherever Joseph Smith gleaned his inspiration from. He died for his beliefs though...

 

[dmmesdale]

Ah, so because the authors are honest enough to acknowledge that there is no absolute certainty, and that there are gaps in our knowledge and the fact that science always remains open to revision, you "cringe" and hand wave away several well evidenced, and mutually supporting, studies.

Got it.

For all your protestations about "the math" and science, you're very clearly disinterested in assessing anything presented to you with an open mind.

You and OldWiseGuy would make a great pair.

Your indictment of dishonesty against FA in 363 has been falsified. The case was not made and ripped apart by the facts.

 

[dmmesdale]

I don't know. Neither do you.



I did not exist.



No. I'm saying that I don't know how the universe originated. And neither do you. That's why we train scientists, to try and find out.



No. Acknowledgement of ignorance.
If you don't know, then you don't know. You can try and pretend to know, but you'll still don't know.



No. The start point is reason and evidence.
If you want your preferred god to be included in science, then provide evidence of it and a demonstration of how he is any kind of a factor in observable reality.



Off course... Unlike religion, science doesn't try and provide the answers before asking the questions. If you are on a quest to try and find out how life came about, why would you start by assuming "it came from X"? That makes no sense.

"Let's find out how life originated!"
"It was made by god"
"Ow... okay, I guess we're done then"



Or more generally put: no undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable, unfalsifiable assertions.



With as underlying reason that such is undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable and unfalsifiable.



It's evidence based reasoning.
Fairies, ghosts and leprachauns are "excluded" for the same reason.



No idea what that means.



You can't falsify the unfalsifiable.



Off course. Do you know of a better method to find out how stuff works and originates?
I sure don't. Science seems to work pretty well.




Above, is nothing but blind assertions and insistence on science including your particular religion, but you give exactly zero reason for why it should do that.

Why should science include your god?
And how? Where does this god play a detectable role? How does this help us? What can we learn from those processes? How to find out if it's really your god that's playing this detectable role and not Thor or whatever?

What do you have, besides your whining that science doesn't care about unfalsifiable propositions?




So you keep saying.
When are you going to demonstrate it?



Haaa... I agree.
Yes. God exists as an abstract entity, like symbols. Indeed. Such abstract concepts only "exist" between people's ears. They don't actually exist in the real world, outside of our brains.



Hilarious shifting of the burden of proof.
Give me something to falsify first.


It's not rigged. It just has one simple rule: provide evidence for your assertions.

Theists just happen to fail at that.
Just like you. Read your post. It's assertion after assertion, with nothing to back it up.



Science not dealing in absolute certainties, does not mean that all propositions are equally likely. It's all about the evidence.



And that "programmer", is evolution.

Humans aren't intuitively theistic. They rather are instinctively pattern seeking, like most animals, and are driven by the desire to survive and reproduce. As a direct result, we are prone to false positives, brain farts, paranoia, superstition,... Again, like most animals.

Being curious, is a dangerous thing in the wild. I'm sure you heared this example before...

You are a hominid somewhere in Africa. You hear a noise in the bush behind you. It could be the wind. It could be a harmless bird or rodent. Those are most likely. It could also be a dangerous predator sneaking up on you. What do you do? If you run, you live - no matter what the noise was. If you stand around to investigate, you'll die if it is a predator.

This is rather important. It means that natural selection would favour those who make assumptions. Those who assume intent. It's easy to see how such "instinctive" behaviour (jumping to conclusions on slim or bad evidence and being prone to assuming intent concerning your person), would lead to theistic beliefs.

As for morality and justice... we are a social species. Morals/justice are at bottom, "rules" on how to behave within a group, for the benefit of the group. Every social species has some kind of set of rules on what is appropriate behaviour and what isn't. As well as some kind of response to those who break these rules.

Groups wouldn't survive otherwise.

Atheists have not falsified God. Me
You can't falsify the unfalsifiable.

Intellgent intervention can be falsified. They do it all the time. If you do not believe in God and your appeal is to science then you need to falsify, not make excuses.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Intellgent intervention can be falsified.

Only when it is defined in such a way that it actually IS falsifiable.
Care to give it a swing? How could "intelligent intervention" be falsified/determined, objectively?

If you do not believe in God and your appeal is to science then you need to falsify, not make excuses.

You make the god claim. You support it.
I reject the claim based on your failure to support it.

As the Hitch once said: That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your indictment of dishonesty against FA in 363 has been falsified. The case was not made and ripped apart by the facts.

Incorrect. All FA succeeded in doing is confirming, as noted by Gen2memE earlier, that FA does not understand, or chooses to ignore the careful use of language within scientific publications. All results are provisional and subject to change in the light of new evidence. Consequently it is not only appropriate, but necessary, to qualify comments, proposals and conclusions.

Let's look more closely at a single example that FA finds "questionable" for its "vagueness".

"we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence."

What is uncertain about "we propose"? The authors have made some observations, have noted something of interest and are seeking explanations. From those plausible explanaitons that they have considered they favour one in particular, which they now propose may be the solution.

The "may be" implicitly makes two announcements, one or other, or sometimes both, will be in play. I would need to read the entire paper and possibly more of their work to decide which.
Announcement 1: That's what we conclude is a plausible explanation. How do you think it stacks up.
Announcement 2: We are continuing to research this solution and alternatives in order to further clarify the situation.

This cautious, meticiulous, honest, dedicated approach to scientific investigation just seems to go right over your head. Rather than praising the dedication, commitment, professionalism and integrity of the researchers, FA, yourself and other of like mind seem to prefer to question the researchers motives, condemn their conclusions and whine about the very care that is a measure of the quality of their research. Why?

 

[tas8831]

Yes Sir a Redleg through and through. Military retirement 4 years ago. Now teaching the stuff to young and not so young officers and NCOs.

20 or 30 year hitch? I was 13B2P for a 4 year ride back in the later 80s. Good old days...