The stumbling block for atheists.

[paul becke]

NO, just no. First off ID is not, I repeat not, science. Believers in it do not apply the scientific method. They do not publish their work in well respected peer reviewed journals, the prical sciwnce is not the ne-all and end-all of human knowledhge.first thing that any real scientist does. Most people that do not understand the sciences have no clue how important this first step is. In peer review a paper is submitted to a panel that looks to see if it has any obvious errors and if the work is original and interesting. Those are very low hurdles and ID advocates can't seem to do even that. Once a paper is published it is still not "accepted science" though it is a good first step. Now others in the field will look at it and try to refute it. That is if the paper is at all interesting. If no one cared it might be ignored. But an advocate for ID would not be ignored.

Until ID at least follows the basic rules of how science is done one cannot really say that it is scientific.

Nor is there any evidence for it, but we can get into that in another post.

'Most people that do not understand the sciences have no clue how important this first step is. In peer review a paper is submitted to a panel that looks to see if it has any obvious errors and if the work is original and interesting.'

A process that has been utterly, utterly discredited. Shame on you. Too many dishonest 'all pals together'. Not only that but any of the reveiwers may rubbish a paper submutted, and then steal the implications of its content with total legal impunity. Sheer wickedness. What's more Nobel prize-winners, perhaps with that in mind, are increasingly publishing their work without submitting it for any peer review.

Cut out the reductionist pedantry and just answer my question. Do you think the term, 'retro-engineering' should be abandoned in favour of retro-happenstance' ? If not, why not?

You people need to get it into your heads once and for all. Empirical knowledge is not the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge. Very, very far from it. Do you even realise that in earning your living from quantum mechanics, the very paragon in its success of all physical theories, and indispensable to almost all of modern manufacturing industry, you are battening on the work of men of imagination (a quality Einstein explicitly rated higher than the intellect), who could accept paradoxes/mysteries repugnant to human reason, and use them as springboards to further discoveries anything but repugnant to reason. In other words, 'science', properly so-called, in all its glory and all its desperate, desperate limitations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Cut out the reductionist pedantry and just answer my question. Do you think the term, 'retro-engineering' should be abandoned in favour of retro-happenstance' ? If not, why not ?

Because 'retro-happenstance' is a made-up term that you created.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The ID arguments don't argue for ID. They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else. This concept is usually shortened to "deity"... except by people who want to introduce their respective deity into science, but know that they are not legally allowed to. Thus: liars for [deity of choice].

While the Atheist does exactly the same thing.

The difference...the Atheist pretends science backs their beliefs, when in reality, they bounce off real science in such a way, they create and illusion. They completely forget that they have zero explanation of the beginning, or they say it is some unknown "natural" force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else. So they prefer to start out in the middle and pretend the beginning doesn't matter. All a lie by design, to allow them to not follow the God that requires things they'd rather not oblige, or else.

The "middle" where they do start, is no more than opinion, or even to the point of simply made up, all to pretend to explain how things work without an all mighty. That process they call science, in order to make it sound more enticing to themselves and others, when it is merely a self made delusion, a pacifier that helps them forget the inevitable and allow themselves to feel safe for a short time as they drag as many down with them as they possibly can.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you are both wrong, actually, at least in terms of the more truculent atheists. They have an 'a priori' fear of its implications for them, personally. Implications of restraints on their personal conduct and life-style ; mostly, in terms of their sex life ; the Latin stem of 'religion' being, 'religere', 'to bind'.
Aldous Huxley confessed that that had been his motivation in his younger days, and that of most of his generation.

LOL! Priceless! As if atheism was about lifestyle - and/or sex... and as if most atheists weren't well aware of the sexual peccadillos, corruptions, and moral failings of many of the self-professed religious, and the shamefully illicit behaviour of so many of their clergy with small children.

Matthew 7:3 seems appropriate here.

 

[dysert]

Personally, I think that the "stumbling block for atheists" is that they don't see enough evidence for the supernatural/gods/the christian god. The best many theists appear to have to offer are some voids of human knowledge (like the origin of life) and point at them while shouting the name of their respective god.

I realize that the so-called lack of evidence is a popular explanation, but I'm trying to get at the root cause.

 

[Radrook]

Why do you keep making such obviously errant posts. First off many events are not directly observed in science, we can still see the effects of those events. It is a rather ridiculous demand to see abiogenesis again. It only shows that you have no understanding of it at all. Since life now exists, and exits everywhere on the surface of this planet, anywhere that the building blocks of life can be found you will also. find life, and existing life will consume any precursors to life long before they can become "life" today.

That means to duplicate abiogenesis man will have to do so in the laboratory. And many of the problems of abiogenesis, but not all, have been solved there. That makes your claim of "no evidence" one hundred percent wrong. In fact just last year one of the biggest problems may have been solved:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum



Jack Szostak, who as you see was not involved with this particular paper, is perhaps the world's leading researcher on this topic. For more of his work you can check out this site:

Szostak Lab: Home

Abiogenesis would appear to merely follow existing chemical laws.

Oh really?

When you divest science from the logic that it needs to function properly you are no longer practicing science.

Scientists have a responsibility to apply cogent reasoning and to not propose ideas merely based on wishful thinking and then tout the as if they were fact. The truth is that despite all the braggadocio, abiogenesis lacks the essential pattern observation necessary for an inductive leap used in science to form a deductive premise leading to a conclusion that describes a reality. Instead, it involves a conclusion with neither inductive nor deductive justification. It is similar to claiming that a bird is flying without wings or similar to a building existing without its first two floors.

Furthermore, and as usual, your argument also involves inconsistency of policy via selective blindness. You are able to infer from observation when convenient but suddenly totally incapable of drawing logical inferences when not convenient.

In contrast, life arising only from previous life does have a justification for the essential inductive leap and the subsequent creation of a deductive premise. Why? Well, simple, because we have thousands of observed patterns during thousands of years of observation which justify that conclusion. In contrast abiogenesis has NEVER been observed to occur in nature nor has it been forced to happen under controlled lab conditions. In short, since it lacks both inductive leap justification and a deductive premise derived from it, it is based on blind faith.

 

[Freodin]

While the Atheist does exactly the same thing.

No. Just no, pal. You can get away with arguing for similarities, and they we could go into figuring out the differences.

But "exactly the same thing"? What ever happened to "don't give false witness" that is said to be some kind of important rule in your religion?

 

[paul becke]

Perhaps we should turn the table and present our "really true causes of why Christians attribite false motives to atheists".

Here's mine: Christians are deeply upset by the fact that none of their argument are convincing to rational people - so upset in fact that instead of blaming their arguments they have to blame the recipients

You mean like the great Christian and deist scientists who have virtually monopolised significant, indeed, major, scientific discoveries ? Wake up, Christmas. The notion that you people are rational is beyond laughable. You are a very termpory extremely aberrant anomaly, who owe your power today solely to the mulitinationals and their billionaire malefactors, who do not want their money-making endeavours subject to any moral constraints, whatsoever.

The Chinese and the Indians today provide some of the world's most brilliant scientists, and yet, though the Chinese even invented printing centuries before Christendom, both lost any interest in science, due solely to their non-Christian cultures. Christians, on the other hand, believed in a God who made man in his own image, and as He was a law-maker, the law-maker, they expected to see the physical order subject to rational laws, accessible to reason, and pursued their scientific quest with pertinatious diligence. The mainstream eastern religions either viewed the physical world as illusory (not too far from the truth, ultimately), or socially-oriented. They could still see through your simplistic, 'Lego' reductionist, classical physics as the ultimate reality. You atheists would never have dsicovered quantum physics in a million years. Literally.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. All design is intelligent by definition...

Only if that's how you define it. Many people don't include intelligence in the definition.

I wonder you folk have the nerve to show up on Chrisian boards.

Some of us were invited.

 

[Freodin]

Oh really?

When you divest science from the logic that it needs to function properly you are no longer practicing science.
Scientists have a responsibility to apply cogent reasoning and to not propose ideas merely based on wishful thinking and then tout the as if they were fact. The truth is that despite all the braggadocio, abiogenesis lacks the essential pattern observation necessary for an inductive leap used in science to form a deductive premise leading to a conclusion that describes a reality. Instead, it involves a conclusion with no neither inductive nor deductive justification. Furthermore, and as usual, your argument also involves inconsistency of policy via selective blindness. It is similar to a bird is attempting to fly without wings.

In contrast, life arising only from previous life does have a justification for the essential inductive leap and the subsequent creation of a deductive premise. Why? Well, simple, because we have thousands of observed patterns during thousands of years of observation which justify that conclusion. In contrast abiogenesis has NEVER been observed to occur in nature nor has it been forced to happen under controlled lab conditions. In short, since it lacks both inductive leap justification and a deductive premise derived from it, it is based on blind faith.

And being "based on blind faith" would make it... what? Unreliable? Untenable? False?

You make the argument that we have experience of "life only arising from previous life". I could agree with that... but so what?

In contrast, we do have absolutely NO evidence of a supernatural "creator" making life. So that would mean that is is based on blind faith... and for what reason? Because Christians feel the need to control other peoples sex life?

 

[Freodin]

I realize that the so-called lack of evidence is a popular explanation, but I'm trying to get at the root cause.

This is a very good "root cause". If you have no reason to believe something... you won't believe something.

Quite simple, isn't it?

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps we should turn the table and present our "really true causes of why Christians attribite false motives to atheists".

Here's mine: Christians are deeply upset by the fact that none of their argument are convincing to rational people - so upset in fact that instead of blaming their arguments they have to blame the recipients

As a Christian I object to that. In all cases I am aware of, conflict between "Christianity" and scientific thought stems from devotion to a particular interpretation of scripture, not from the Christian faith as such. The religious beliefs of the Christians participating in this very thread provide an example.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean like the great Christian and deist scientits who have virtually monopolised significant, indeed, major, scientific discoveries ? Wake up, Christmas. The notion that you people are rational is beyond laughable. You are a very termpory extremely aberrant anomaly, who owe your power today solely to the mulitinationals and their billioaire malefactors.

The Chinese and the Indians today provide some of the world's most brilliant scientists, and yet, though the Chinese even invented printing centuries before Christendom, both lost any interest in science, due solely to their non-Christian cultures. Christians, on the other hand, believed in a God who made man in his own image, and as He was a law-maker, the law-maker, they expected to see the physical order subject to rational laws, accessible to reason, and pursued their scientific quest with pertinatious diligence.

You have obviously never actually taken a world history course, have you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

LOL! Priceless! As if atheism was about lifestyle - and/or sex... and as if most atheists weren't well aware of the sexual peccadillos, corruptions, and moral failings of many of the self-professed religious, and the shamefully illicit behaviour of so many of their clergy with small children.

So, you are saying if a few Atheists are pedophiles, that means, anyone that practices Atheism is as well?

No. Just no, pal.

Yes.

 

[Freodin]

As a Christian I object to that. In all cases I am aware of, conflict between "Christianity" and scientific thought stems from devotion to a particular interpretation of scripture, not from the Christian faith as such. The religious beliefs of the Christians participating in this very thread provide an example.

(Pst: I was being snarky. )

Merry Christmas.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, you are saying if a few Atheists are pedophiles, that means, anyone that practices Atheism is as well?

No. You appear to have completely misread my post. And atheism isn't a 'practice', it's simply not having belief in a god or gods. Have you been at the Christmas spirit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

'Most people that do not understand the sciences have no clue how important this first step is. In peer review a paper is submitted to a panel that looks to see if it has any obvious errors and if the work is original and interesting.'

A process that has been utterly, utterly discredited. Shame on you. Too many dishonest 'all pals together'. Not only that but any of the reveiwers may rubbish a paper submutted, and then steal the implications of its content with total legal impunity. Sheer wickedness. What's more Nobel prize-winners, perhaps with that in mind, are increasingly publishing their work without submitting it for any peer review.

Nope, not even close. You are buying into the lies of creationists sources. They only wish that they had a paper that was improperly rejected. What examples do you have of Nobel Prize winners avoiding peer review? Anyone can make bogus claims. I can show that countless scientists use peer review. It is rather difficult at all to show important discoveries that did not go through that process.

Cut out the reductionist pedantry and just answer my question. Do you think the term, 'retro-engineering' should be abandoned in favour of retro-happenstance' ? If not, why not?

Since you, among others are very poorly educated in this area you need some "pedantry". Complaining when you have been shown to be rather lacking is poor form on your part.

You people need to get it into your heads once and for all. Empirical knowledge is not the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge. Very, very far from it. Do you even realise that in earning your living from quantum mechanics, the very paragon in its success of all physical theories, and indispensable to almost all of modern manufacturing industry, you are battening on the work of men of imagination (a quality Einstein explicitly rated higher than the intellect), who could accept paradoxes/mysteries repugnant to human reason, and use them as springboards to further discoveries anything but repugnant to reason. In other words, 'science', properly so-called, in all its glory and all its desperate, desperate limitations.

Quantum mechanics was discovered and was explored using the scientific method. You only continue to dig the hole that you find yourself in.

Try again.

 

[Freodin]

Yes.

Really? Let's see:
"They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else."

Unknown: in the specifics, yes. In the same way as "a creator" is unknown, no. Forming hypoteses is different from making stuff up.
Supernatural: definitly no. That is basically a given.
Omnipotent: No, not by far.
Force: no. Just a mechanism relying on existing, known principles.
Unknowable: no. Or else there would be no reason to research the topic.

So, I stand with my verdict of "no, this is not exactly the same."

Your turn.

 

[Speedwell]

(Pst: I was being snarky. )

Merry Christmas.

I don't blame you. I get snarky about it myself. Happy whatever celebration you are engaging in.

 

[Nithavela]

I realize that the so-called lack of evidence is a popular explanation, but I'm trying to get at the root cause.

Well, if you don't believe the truth, have fun hunting the mistakes..