(February 10, 2015 at 1:27 am)Harris Wrote: Whole Theory of Evolution is standing right upon the idea that living organisms evolved from simpler to complex bodies because of (Mystical) Natural Selection, mutation, replication, etc. Therefore, increase in information content is the most fundamental and most crucial aspect of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, for this (so-called) scientific belief (information content increased over evolution) scientific evidences are absent.

"Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context. We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyze a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

(February 10, 2015 at 1:27 am)Harris Wrote: I never said that communism is atheism. However, I said:

Materialism and atheism are the most fundamental and central tenant of Communism in Marx's manifesto

In the words of Leon Trotsky,

“We are of opinion that Atheism, as an inseparable element of the materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

Atheism was just one of many tactics used by the communist dictators to control the population.

Yeah, while Catholicism was a free choice for all living in Europe during the dark ages. Or like Islam is in Saudi Arabia or in the ISIS-occupied territories today. Nothing like those filthy communist Atheists of the USSR.

(February 10, 2015 at 1:27 am)Harris Wrote: My point remains intact, if according to you atheism is spreading successfully then why after the fall of Soviet Union atheism falls drastically in former Soviet Republics. Another point to note here is that we can find traces of atheism in ancient Greek literature, which is about 2000 years old; it is a long time for the flourishing of any ideology. Question is why atheism has produced only handful of atheists in this immense extent of time. The answer is because atheism is illogical.

You realize that atheism was and still is - in some places like uhh... the majority of muslim countries - punishable by death. I don't know about you, but I would find it quite an incentive to stay quiet about my disbelief.

It's clear that it's wrong to force ANY kind of belief system. The Soviets did that, but I don't think that any atheist around here would agree with the political views of the Soviet Union.

(February 10, 2015 at 1:27 am)Harris Wrote: Atheist dictators forced people to reject religion and accept atheism literally on gunpoint. That was how they made atheism common among people. Only a very small minority adopted atheism by their free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Naturally, when people got freedom they ran back to their houses of worship. In short, atheism (the idea that there is no God) is illogical.

This is pure and simple non-sequitur bullshit. How does the fact that they turned back to their original religion prove that atheism is illogical and not that they were simply *forced* not to worship?

(February 10, 2015 at 1:27 am)Harris Wrote: In short, atheism (the idea that there is no God) is illogical.

It is god that is illogical. Only a deluded brainwashed theist can believe in an illogical, impossible, magical sky-daddy.

No theist, as of yet, has even come up with a fathomable description of a god, let alone any evidence. And the reason is, as they think on the description, they realize how illogical, ridiculous and impossible it is for a god to exist. It is much easier to come up with vague descriptive phrases and qualify them with "It is the mystery of god".

So, what is your description of god? I realize it is difficult to describe something that does not exist, but go ahead, give it a shot.

No one has even demomstrated that a God is possible.

Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it can actually exist in reality.

"A cube with 9 faces and a married bachelor please."

(February 10, 2015 at 1:38 am)paulpablo Wrote: Where was the example of why consciousness and human intelligence are not functions of the human brain?

I have given plentiful examples to show that physical brain is not a proof of consciousness.

Structure of a processor and OS are Artificial Selection.

Artificial functions are the product of conscious design directed toward the realization of goals represented in consciousness. Because it is directed toward the realization of goals, the process of design is clearly teleological.

Structure of mind is a design not a pattern.

We have no such evidence that utterly mindless processes even exist, much less, what they are capable of - those are assumptions.

Consciousness poses a “hard problem” for physicists is the subjective quality of experience. If anyone try to explain how brain processes could give rise to the illusion that there is consciousness, the illusion that brain processes have the quality of consciousness then he has a purpose in promoting his (absurd) theories. For it is self-evident that illusions presuppose consciousness: an illusion cannot exist without consciousness.

(February 10, 2015 at 1:38 am)paulpablo Wrote: Why does natural selection have to be a being or entity for someone to take it as science?

It's like if the army have an assault course and the army Sergent says

"Ok the selection has been made by the assault course."

He doesn't mean the assault course came to life, grew eyes, inspected the army recruits and spoke to the army sergent and said

"Ok I've selected Jenkins, Tom and Harry, but Peter and George just didn't make the cut."

It's an expression which means some people have been selected due to their success on the assault course.

Natural selection is the logical conclusion to a situation where different living beings have different biological traits and some are more successful than others at living and breeding.
The ones who live and breed, they live, the one's who don't breed and die just die.

In the world of science, there is no such thing as “assault course.” Science concretely deals with physical objects and physical forces. Anything, which has no physical properties, is out of the scope of science.

Neither computers by themselves nor the processes of mutation can produce large amounts of novel information, at least not unless a large initial complement of information is provided. By definition, Natural selection depends upon the capacity of the organism to replicate a system of different molecules, and this capacity, in turn, derives from pre-existing sources of specified information.

The process of natural selection cannot distinguish between my zombie twin and me. Evolution selects properties according to their functional role, and my zombie twin performs all the functions that I perform just as well as I do; in particular he leaves around just as many copies of his genes. It follows that evolution alone cannot explain why conscious creatures rather than zombies evolved.

Darwin developed his principle of natural selection by drawing on an analogy with artificial selection: the process of selective breeding to change the characteristics (whether anatomical, physiological, or behavioural) of a group of organisms. Natural selection is just elimination. There is nothing or no one who selects -- unlike the case of artificial selection. There is no agent of natural selection with a conscious or unconscious purpose for selecting this trait or that to be passed on.

Artificial functions are the product of conscious design directed toward the realization of goals represented in consciousness. Because it is directed toward the realization of goals, the process of design is clearly teleological.

There is not a single way evolution could proceed that could not itself be the desired outcome of an agent. The claim of 'no teleology' or 'no agency' is an unverifiable assumption that adds nothing to the science. It can be discarded.

“So far, my account of the 'innate dualists' theory has simply posited that humans are natural born dualists and teleologists.”
Page 181
The God Delusion

(February 10, 2015 at 6:26 am)Tonus Wrote: I did answer your question: death is neither good nor evil.

If death is neither good nor evil then you should not be afraid of it. Are you not afraid of death?

(February 10, 2015 at 6:26 am)Tonus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Do you really think God Exist?

Tonus Wrote: I don't believe that any of the ones yet enumerated by man exist.

Well I asked that question because in your previous response you were saying:

“It is how god set things up, god wants suffering, god wants conflict, god wants pain and death and struggle, and god is simply making you tough enough to become a soldier.”

I thought perhaps you believe in God but little bit unhappy with Him.

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: "Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context. We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyse a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

Whatever explanation you had given above is totally based on conjectures. Dawkins is much smarter than you are and yet he has not come up with some verifiable scientific model to show how simple organisms gain information that made them complex over evolution.

No one has any evidence that evolution really happened over 3 billion years. It is an unjustified assertion that is totally based on the assumptions. You only have fossil record, which cannot be taken as solid scientific evidence because of the tremendous gaps it has.

“Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some LUCK to get started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that LUCK. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of LUCK, with anthropic justification.”
Page 141
The God Delusion

“I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on Earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection. Unfortunately, this is a prediction that we shall, in all probability, not be able to test in our lifetimes, but it remains a way of dramatizing an important truth about life on our own planet.”
Page 288
The Blind Watchmaker

Throughout his work Dawkins abundantly used the words such as

“Perhaps, maybe, possibly, almost certainly, most likely, in all probability, somehow”

These words are not representing science. Scientific truths are based upon definite and precise evidences. Total evolution is based over assumptions and conjectures because there is no definite and precise evidence for the justification of evolution and natural selection.

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: Yeah, while Catholicism was a free choice for all living in Europe during the dark ages.

How many atheists catholic church had killed in the middle age?

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: Or like Islam is in Saudi Arabia

I am curious to know what kind of Islam Saudi Arabia has and how it is different from the Islam in other Muslim countries.

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: or in the ISIS-occupied territories today.

Do you know those who avowed Nelson Mandala most wanted terrorist and tortured him nearly whole of his life based on this accusation were the people who had given him the Nobel Prize for Peace? Is not it funny?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...27902.html

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: Nothing like those filthy communist Atheists of the USSR.

Do you know apart from USSR what atheists had done in Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan?

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: You realize that atheism was and still is - in some places like uhh... the majority of muslim countries - punishable by death.

I don't know about you, but I would find it quite an incentive to stay quiet about my disbelief.

Tell me in which Muslim country atheists were killed just because they were atheists. You are only trying to dramatize fictitious assumption.

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: It's clear that it's wrong to force ANY kind of belief system. The Soviets did that, but I don't think that any atheist around here would agree with the political views of the Soviet Union.

Right on target. The political views of atheist dictators in Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Afghanistan only exhibit that lack of God leads people only to barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness.

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: This is pure and simple non-sequitur bullshit. How does the fact that they turned back to their original religion prove that atheism is illogical and not that they were simply *forced* not to worship?

If mainstream belief in the world is not atheism and never was in the entire human history that is a sufficient proof, that atheism is illogical.

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: It is god that is illogical. Only a deluded brainwashed theist can believe in an illogical, impossible, magical sky-daddy.

Can you prove non-existence of God by means of science? The best what you have is the evolution however; evolution and natural selection are limited to animated objects only.

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: No theist, as of yet, has even come up with a fathomable description of a god, let alone any evidence.

Study Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, and Cosmological Argument. Especially, focus on Fine Tuning.

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: And the reason is, as they think on the description, they realize how illogical, ridiculous and impossible it is for a god to exist.

Prove by using science that idea of God is illogical. I want to see what argument you have to disprove existence of God.

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: It is much easier to come up with vague descriptive phrases and qualify them with "It is the mystery of god".

You seem to be a deluded person.

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: So, what is your description of god? I realize it is difficult to describe something that does not exist, but go ahead, give it a shot.

I had given very logical proofs on the existence of God. Because you do not believe in God, therefore, you are closing your eyes over any given fact and this way you are unable to see the truth. On the other side you believe that science is capable to give you all answers then consider the statement:

“Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science?

Tell me:

Can Science prove that rape is evil?

Can Science prove that your spouse loves you?

Can Science explain the fine-tuning of the physical constants?

Can Science explain why we require sleep?

Is not gravity still a greater mystery than evolution?

(February 12, 2015 at 3:21 am)robvalue Wrote: No one has even demomstrated that a God is possible.

Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it can actually exist in reality.

"A cube with 9 faces and a married bachelor please."

Just because your physical senses are not capable to perceive something does not mean you do not have evidence and that thing actually does not exist. Just as scientists believe in the existence of Black Holes based on trails of stars, similarly we can perceive God thorough the functioning of the universe.

No, you can make unfounded assertions about God by looking at the universe. How can you demonstrate that God has done anything? How you can differentiate it from my pet metaphysical dragon's work?

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: "Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context. We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyse a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

Whatever explanation you had given above is totally based on conjectures. Dawkins is much smarter than you are and yet he has not come up with some verifiable scientific model to show how simple organisms gain information that made them complex over evolution.

What the fuck has Dawkins to do with what I said? Everything I wrote above can be found on any college-level genetics book, and is not based on any conjecture. When I argue, I don't just pull things out of my ass, you know. Duplications, insertions of viral DNA and mutations have been observed, and there's no reason to think that they couldn't happen in the past too.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote: No one has any evidence that evolution really happened over 3 billion years. It is an unjustified assertion that is totally based on the assumptions. You only have fossil record, which cannot be taken as solid scientific evidence because of the tremendous gaps it has.

No one has any evidence that an invisible man in the sky poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago, or whenever the fuck you date your creation story.
Also, there might be gaps in the fossil record, but what we have there, plus the comparison between genomes of the species we have today (eg humans and the rest of the great apes) makes quite a lot of sense! Your view is biased and ignorant.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote: “Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some LUCK to get started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that LUCK. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of LUCK, with anthropic justification.”
Page 141
The God Delusion

“I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on Earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection. Unfortunately, this is a prediction that we shall, in all probability, not be able to test in our lifetimes, but it remains a way of dramatizing an important truth about life on our own planet.”
Page 288
The Blind Watchmaker

Throughout his work Dawkins abundantly used the words such as

“Perhaps, maybe, possibly, almost certainly, most likely, in all probability, somehow”

These words are not representing science. Scientific truths are based upon definite and precise evidences. Total evolution is based over assumptions and conjectures because there is no definite and precise evidence for the justification of evolution and natural selection.

And with this, you've shown everybody you don't understand how science works, and how it's different from religious dogma. The fact that you can't be 100% sure about something IS part of science because our understanding of the world changes and is refined decade after decade, century after century, along with the advancement of our technology.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: Yeah, while Catholicism was a free choice for all living in Europe during the dark ages.

How many atheists catholic church had killed in the middle age?

The Catholic Church could get you burnt at the stake just for being a heretic. Would you have had the guts to even go on and say you were an atheist then?

Look at what happened to Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
And he wasn't even an Atheist, he was a Pantheist. And this happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. So... guess what happened (or could happen) to atheists then.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: Or like Islam is in Saudi Arabia

I am curious to know what kind of Islam Saudi Arabia has and how it is different from the Islam in other Muslim countries.

Yeah, to be more precise, there's not much difference between Islam in Saudi Arabia and in the majority of other Muslim countries. You can get killed for being an Atheist in many of those. In the 21st century. You can find a neat list of the countries that punish atheism with death here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: or in the ISIS-occupied territories today.

Do you know those who avowed Nelson Mandala most wanted terrorist and tortured him nearly whole of his life based on this accusation were the people who had given him the Nobel Prize for Peace? Is not it funny?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...27902.html

Replying to this disgusts me. How dare you even compare Mandela, who fought for the equal rights of his people, to the savages of ISIS who brutally murder everyone who does not agree by the letter to what they say?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: Nothing like those filthy communist Atheists of the USSR.

Do you know apart from USSR what atheists had done in Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan?

Those people were COMMUNISTS, dude. COMMUNISTS. Atheism is not a political ideology; it can be a part of one, but it certainly ISN'T its core. Communist/totalitarian/authoritarian states persecute religions as they persecute any other ideology that is not in line with what the government says, not because of an intrinsic property of atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god(s).

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: You realize that atheism was and still is - in some places like uhh... the majority of muslim countries - punishable by death.

I don't know about you, but I would find it quite an incentive to stay quiet about my disbelief.

Tell me in which Muslim country atheists were killed just because they were atheists. You are only trying to dramatize fictitious assumption.

Again, look here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: It's clear that it's wrong to force ANY kind of belief system. The Soviets did that, but I don't think that any atheist around here would agree with the political views of the Soviet Union.

Right on target. The political views of atheist dictators in Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Afghanistan only exhibit that lack of God leads people only to barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness.

Stop being an idiot. You know as well as I do how much ANY religious belief can lead to "barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness".
Isn't what ISIS is doing right now in the name of Islam barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?
Weren't the forced conversions of the Natives of South America to Christianity barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?
Weren't the Irish Troubles of the last century an example of how even minimal religious differences can make people barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?
Wasn't the general clusterfuck of Yugoslavia some 20 years ago the epitome of the barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness caused by religious and ethnic conflicts?
And I'll stop it there.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 10, 2015 at 7:13 am)Lucanus Wrote: This is pure and simple non-sequitur bullshit. How does the fact that they turned back to their original religion prove that atheism is illogical and not that they were simply *forced* not to worship?

If mainstream belief in the world is not atheism and never was in the entire human history that is a sufficient proof, that atheism is illogical.

Non-sequitur, and appeal to popularity. gg

(February 14, 2015 at 4:30 am)robvalue Wrote: No, you can make unfounded assertions about God by looking at the universe. How can you demonstrate that God has done anything? How you can differentiate it from my pet metaphysical dragon's work?

The same question I can ask about Natural Selection. Although you say, Natural Selection is blind unguided process but if you analyse living beings there is nothing that is random, unguided, and purposeless in their construct and functionality.

What is Natural Selection if it is not blind god? How can you define origin of universe and origin of life if you say both origins are not the outcome of Nothingness? What is the alternate to Nothingness if it is not God?

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

If by “geological evidence” you mean fossil record then for your information fossil record does not provide any evidence on how living beings evolved. Therefore, it makes no difference if you say living organs evolved in 5 minutes or they evolved in 5 trillion years.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: "Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context.

How hilarious!

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyse a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

What is the difference between “DNA as information” and “reactions in a ----load of different ways.” If “Increase in information content does not make any sense in a biological context” then what does that mean when you say “DNA provoke most useful reactions in the most efficient ways?” What a comical depiction you had given for genetic information.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Whatever explanation you had given above is totally based on conjectures. Dawkins is much smarter than you are and yet he has not come up with some verifiable scientific model to show how simple organisms gain information that made them complex over evolution.

What the fuck has Dawkins to do with what I said? Everything I wrote above can be found on any college-level genetics book, and is not based on any conjecture. When I argue, I don't just pull things out of my ass, you know. Duplications, insertions of viral DNA and mutations have been observed, and there's no reason to think that they couldn't happen in the past too.

Dawkins failed to provide proper information model yet school textbooks are showing how information developed over evolution, does that means Dawkins is a Donkey, who carry load of textbooks over his back without knowing what is inside those books.

Aristotle defined that heavier object hit the ground first than the lighter object if both objects released simultaneously. That information was in the textbooks for more than thousand years, so what!

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: No one has any evidence that an invisible man in the sky poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago, or whenever the fuck you date your creation story.

Idea of Intelligent God gives a solid understanding about everything that exist. Nothingness and Chance are outright confusing and ambiguous. You reject the existence of God and you do not have alternate to Nothingness. You are a lost person.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Also, there might be gaps in the fossil record, but what we have there, plus the comparison between genomes of the species we have today (eg humans and the rest of the great apes) makes quite a lot of sense!

This is not science. This is conjecture.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Your view is biased and ignorant.

My views are not based on Nothingness or Chance but yours are.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: And with this, you've shown everybody you don't understand how science works, and how it's different from religious dogma.

The fact that you can't be 100% sure about something IS part of science because our understanding of the world changes and is refined decade after decade, century after century, along with the advancement of our technology.

What makes you so sure that evolution is true if our understanding changes decade after decade with the advancements in technology?

Without proper scientific proofs and evidences, your belief in Evolution is no more than Faith in an unknown blind god.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: The Catholic Church could get you burnt at the stake just for being a heretic. Would you have had the guts to even go on and say you were an atheist then?

This response does not contain number of those atheists who were killed by Catholic Church. I repeat my question, how many atheists were killed by Catholic Church? I need digits not an Abstract Blah.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Look at what happened to Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
And he wasn't even an Atheist, he was a Pantheist. And this happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. So... guess what happened (or could happen) to atheists then.

Giordano Bruno was not an atheist. I asked you how many atheists Catholic Church killed.

If I grant the case of Bruno to the favour of your argument then you are bringing one man (not atheist) killed by Catholic Church against 100,000,000 plus lives that atheists took within 150 years.

Shame on you.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Yeah, to be more precise, there's not much difference between Islam in Saudi Arabia and in the majority of other Muslim countries. You can get killed for being an Atheist in many of those. In the 21st century. You can find a neat list of the countries that punish atheism with death here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Your source is not telling the number of atheists who were killed by Muslims in the Muslim world.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, within last 50 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in USSR, Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan in last 150 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Saudi Arabia in the entire history of this country.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Replying to this disgusts me. How dare you even compare Mandela, who fought for the equal rights of his people, to the savages of ISIS who brutally murder everyone who does not agree by the letter to what they say?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

I am not associating Mandala with ISIS. I am comparing ISIS with the secular world. With those who were calling Mandala a terrorist and who had made his life miserable. When Mandala gained popularity, those cunning notorious hypocrites announced Nobel Peace Prize for Mandala.

I think you have some problem with your understanding or you are playing the fool.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Those people were COMMUNISTS, dude. COMMUNISTS. Atheism is not a political ideology; it can be a part of one, but it certainly ISN'T its core. Communist/totalitarian/authoritarian states persecute religions as they persecute any other ideology that is not in line with what the government says, not because of an intrinsic property of atheism.

All those communists were atheists. There were no Muslims, Christians, and Jews among those communists who were insanely cutting and crushing human beings.

Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe. Such a philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic. Under it, God is merely a figment of the imagination; religion is a product of fear and ignorance. Moreover, Communism, like humanism, thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society. Cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, Communism provides no place for God.

Even today all communists are atheists. Have you ever seen a person who believe in the existence of God and he is a Communist as well?

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Again, look here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Your source is not giving factual data on killed atheists.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Stop being an idiot. You know as well as I do how much ANY religious belief can lead to "barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness".

You are talking subjectively. In place of giving data, you are playing emotional games. I do not understand why you feel reluctant in giving precise numbers of killed atheists. Perhaps violent, maniac, fundamentalist Muslims had not touched even a single atheist and you are shouting and yelling simply to distract the attention of audiences from the crime that atheism has committed against humanity.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Isn't what ISIS is doing right now in the name of Islam barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?

People who are taking active part in the movements of ISIS are chicken-headed stupid culprits. I do not blame them for what they are doing. I blame those who are organising, funding, and using those criminals to get hold on Muslim lands. In fact, they are real barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, ferocious, and bloodthirsty people who always hide their criminal faces behind the veil of politics. These wheeler-dealers are controlling these chicken-headed culprits and for all terrorist acts done by these criminals in the Muslim lands, they put blame on the heads of Muslims who lost their families and homes. These scoundrels give full financial and technological support to the culprits who spread terror in the Muslim World.

Terrorism in today’s world is nothing but a war strategy of the secular world. First Secular World creates terror in some nation by supporting negative elements in that nation and by sending trained killers and then they attack that nation to kill that artificially created terror. This way Secular force enter the region and get control over that land and over all available resources. Secular governments are as barbarous as were the communist governments. Basic reason for this barbarism is one and the same, the elimination of Divine Laws from their sovereign systems.

What is ISIS?

https://vimeo.com/108572730

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Weren't the forced conversions of the Natives of South America to Christianity barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?

Weren't the Irish Troubles of the last century an example of how even minimal religious differences can make people barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?

Wasn't the general clusterfuck of Yugoslavia some 20 years ago the epitome of the barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness caused by religious and ethnic conflicts?

And I'll stop it there.

Can you give total number of humans who lost their lives in the incidents you have mentioned?

Can you give total number of atheists who lost their lives in the incidents you have mentioned?

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If mainstream belief in the world is not atheism and never was in the entire human history that is a sufficient proof, that atheism is illogical.

Lucanus Wrote: Non-sequitur, and appeal to popularity. GG

You can say Harris is a stupid person because he believes in unseen God but you cannot say the same thing to over five billion people in the world who believe in the same unseen God. You have to check your own selves why you do not have that sense of God when almost total population of the world has that sense. It is a natural sense.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

If by “geological evidence” you mean fossil record then for your information fossil record does not provide any evidence on how living beings evolved. Therefore, it makes no difference if you say living organs evolved in 5 minutes or they evolved in 5 trillion years.

What does this have to do with my point?
And, by the way, the fossil record does provide some evidence on how living beings evolved. If you just bothered to go look and study.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: "Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context.

How hilarious!

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyse a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

What is the difference between “DNA as information” and “reactions in a ----load of different ways.” If “Increase in information content does not make any sense in a biological context” then what does that mean when you say “DNA provoke most useful reactions in the most efficient ways?” What a comical depiction you had given for genetic information.

DNA is not information because there's nothing conscious behind it and behind the way it develops. It's not arranged with purpose; rather, it's arranged in a way that has been favoured over billions of years of natural selection. The DNA that had the biggest chance to duplicate itself simply did that and propagated over time.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: What the fuck has Dawkins to do with what I said? Everything I wrote above can be found on any college-level genetics book, and is not based on any conjecture. When I argue, I don't just pull things out of my ass, you know. Duplications, insertions of viral DNA and mutations have been observed, and there's no reason to think that they couldn't happen in the past too.

Dawkins failed to provide proper information model yet school textbooks are showing how information developed over evolution, does that means Dawkins is a Donkey, who carry load of textbooks over his back without knowing what is inside those books.

Aristotle defined that heavier object hit the ground first than the lighter object if both objects released simultaneously. That information was in the textbooks for more than thousand years, so what!

I really can't see your point here. Who the fuck cares about Dawkins?
And the knowledge of Aristotle was updated as soon as it was proven wrong. The point here being..?

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: No one has any evidence that an invisible man in the sky poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago, or whenever the fuck you date your creation story.

Idea of Intelligent God gives a solid understanding about everything that exist. Nothingness and Chance are outright confusing and ambiguous. You reject the existence of God and you do not have alternate to Nothingness. You are a lost person.

The "Idea of Intelligent God" doesn't give a solid understanding about anything. Why should it? Is there any evidence for it?
Uncertainty is not bad at all. It's intellectual honesty at the very least. You don't have a shred of evidence for the existence of a god, neither for his involvement in the creation/development of the world, yet, since you've read it in a book that claims to be the ultimate truth about the universe, you accept that there is a god and that it indeed created the universe. But there's no guarantee that the book itself is true! And if you are so sure about it, well, you *are* deluded. You can't just claim something without having any evidence to back it up. But you do, and you don't accept it.

Can't you see how childish your behaviour is?

Look at this, and then tell me what you find more solid an understanding:

(1)
-"How did the variety of species that we see today come to be?"
- "God did it."

(2)
-"How did the variety of species that we see today come to be?"
-"It's complicated: we still don't know exactly how it came to be. Still, based on the evidence we have, we can reasonably suppose that it evolved through a process of natural selection. The organisms that were better adapted to their environment had a better chance of reproducing, and so they filled their environmental niches. This is confirmed by the fossil record, by genome sequencing and by observations on contemporary species, such as the Italian Wall Lizard" (that's really dumbed down, but you can't explain the whole of evolution in 4 lines)

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Also, there might be gaps in the fossil record, but what we have there, plus the comparison between genomes of the species we have today (eg humans and the rest of the great apes) makes quite a lot of sense!

This is not science. This is conjecture.

Science is conjectures backed up by evidence. If you don't like science, then shove your head up Mohammed's butthole, I don't fucking care.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Your view is biased and ignorant.

My views are not based on Nothingness or Chance but yours are.

My views are based on science, which is the interpretation of the world based on what we can observe/test empirically. Yours are based on an ancient Middle Eastern Man's brain farts.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: And with this, you've shown everybody you don't understand how science works, and how it's different from religious dogma.

The fact that you can't be 100% sure about something IS part of science because our understanding of the world changes and is refined decade after decade, century after century, along with the advancement of our technology.

What makes you so sure that evolution is true if our understanding changes decade after decade with the advancements in technology?

Without proper scientific proofs and evidences, your belief in Evolution is no more than Faith in an unknown blind god.

Evolution is something we can reasonably assume to be true based on the evidence we currently have. I assume it's true, I'm not SURE it's true. Show me peer-reviewed, scientific studies that prove that it isn't and I'll change my mind. Unlike you, I understand when I'm wrong and I'm willing and able to change my mind.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: The Catholic Church could get you burnt at the stake just for being a heretic. Would you have had the guts to even go on and say you were an atheist then?

This response does not contain number of those atheists who were killed by Catholic Church. I repeat my question, how many atheists were killed by Catholic Church? I need digits not an Abstract Blah.

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Look at what happened to Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
And he wasn't even an Atheist, he was a Pantheist. And this happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. So... guess what happened (or could happen) to atheists then.

Giordano Bruno was not an atheist. I asked you how many atheists Catholic Church killed.

If I grant the case of Bruno to the favour of your argument then you are bringing one man (not atheist) killed by Catholic Church against 100,000,000 plus lives that atheists took within 150 years.

Shame on you.

Who the fuck cares about the numbers? There probably *weren't* even atheists during those times! So fucking what!

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Yeah, to be more precise, there's not much difference between Islam in Saudi Arabia and in the majority of other Muslim countries. You can get killed for being an Atheist in many of those. In the 21st century. You can find a neat list of the countries that punish atheism with death here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Your source is not telling the number of atheists who were killed by Muslims in the Muslim world.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, within last 50 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in USSR, Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan in last 150 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Saudi Arabia in the entire history of this country.

The numbers don't matter! Atheists *are* persecuted too, and there has been constant prejudice against them during all of history. So stop being a prick and just accept that.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Replying to this disgusts me. How dare you even compare Mandela, who fought for the equal rights of his people, to the savages of ISIS who brutally murder everyone who does not agree by the letter to what they say?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

I am not associating Mandala with ISIS. I am comparing ISIS with the secular world. With those who were calling Mandala a terrorist and who had made his life miserable. When Mandala gained popularity, those cunning notorious hypocrites announced Nobel Peace Prize for Mandala.

I think you have some problem with your understanding or you are playing the fool.

What you said just doesn't make any sense at all. Mandela's goals and ISIS's goals are completely different. Are you always this stupid or did you drink something today?

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Those people were COMMUNISTS, dude. COMMUNISTS. Atheism is not a political ideology; it can be a part of one, but it certainly ISN'T its core. Communist/totalitarian/authoritarian states persecute religions as they persecute any other ideology that is not in line with what the government says, not because of an intrinsic property of atheism.

All those communists were atheists. There were no Muslims, Christians, and Jews among those communists who were insanely cutting and crushing human beings.

Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe. Such a philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic. Under it, God is merely a figment of the imagination; religion is a product of fear and ignorance. Moreover, Communism, like humanism, thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society. Cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, Communism provides no place for God.

Even today all communists are atheists. Have you ever seen a person who believe in the existence of God and he is a Communist as well?

Well, here in Italy there *are* Catho-Communists, but that's another story.

All Communists are Atheists ≠ All Atheists are Communists. And Communists didn't do what they did because of their atheism, they did it because they didn't want their regime to be challenged. Stop being a moron.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Again, look here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Your source is not giving factual data on killed atheists.

No one fucking cares about HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD TO DIE! What matters is the laws: religious people can persecute the non-religious too.

Fucking hell, you're thick!

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Stop being an idiot. You know as well as I do how much ANY religious belief can lead to "barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness".

You are talking subjectively. In place of giving data, you are playing emotional games. I do not understand why you feel reluctant in giving precise numbers of killed atheists. Perhaps violent, maniac, fundamentalist Muslims had not touched even a single atheist and you are shouting and yelling simply to distract the attention of audiences from the crime that atheism has committed against humanity.

Again. It was not atheism. It was communism. Now please, go fuck yourself.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Isn't what ISIS is doing right now in the name of Islam barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?

People who are taking active part in the movements of ISIS are chicken-headed stupid culprits. I do not blame them for what they are doing. I blame those who are organising, funding, and using those criminals to get hold on Muslim lands. In fact, they are real barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, ferocious, and bloodthirsty people who always hide their criminal faces behind the veil of politics. These wheeler-dealers are controlling these chicken-headed culprits and for all terrorist acts done by these criminals in the Muslim lands, they put blame on the heads of Muslims who lost their families and homes. These scoundrels give full financial and technological support to the culprits who spread terror in the Muslim World.

Terrorism in today’s world is nothing but a war strategy of the secular world. First Secular World creates terror in some nation by supporting negative elements in that nation and by sending trained killers and then they attack that nation to kill that artificially created terror. This way Secular force enter the region and get control over that land and over all available resources. Secular governments are as barbarous as were the communist governments. Basic reason for this barbarism is one and the same, the elimination of Divine Laws from their sovereign systems.

Yeah, the Secular Governments of the Bush dynasty, George and George W, known for their atheism

Also, the barbaric secular governments of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark... Don't even get me started on those.

(February 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 7:28 am)Lucanus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If mainstream belief in the world is not atheism and never was in the entire human history that is a sufficient proof, that atheism is illogical.

Lucanus Wrote: Non-sequitur, and appeal to popularity. GG

You can say Harris is a stupid person because he believes in unseen God but you cannot say the same thing to over five billion people in the world who believe in the same unseen God. You have to check your own selves why you do not have that sense of God when almost total population of the world has that sense. It is a natural sense.

It's SO natural, when it's shoved down your throat as soon as you're born.

Quote:The process of natural selection cannot distinguish between my zombie twin and me. Evolution selects properties according to their functional role, and my zombie twin performs all the functions that I perform just as well as I do; in particular he leaves around just as many copies of his genes. It follows that evolution alone cannot explain why conscious creatures rather than zombies evolved.

You just made up this zombie, it doesn't actually exist, no unconscious zombie has been able to breed.

---

Quote:In the world of science, there is no such thing as “assault course.” Science concretely deals with physical objects and physical forces. Anything, which has no physical properties, is out of the scope of science.

An assault course has physical properties.

---

Quote:Darwin developed his principle of natural selection by drawing on an analogy with artificial selection: the process of selective breeding to change the characteristics (whether anatomical, physiological, or behavioural) of a group of organisms. Natural selection is just elimination. There is nothing or no one who selects -- unlike the case of artificial selection. There is no agent of natural selection with a conscious or unconscious purpose for selecting this trait or that to be passed on.

I have to back track on what I said before, I worded a previous answer I gave you wrongly.

When I said there is no being doing any selecting, I actually meant there is no one being doing the selecting, and that natural selection isn't a conscious thing which is doing the selecting.

Because sexual selection I think according to some people is a part, an agent of natural selection and evolution, this makes anyone who is choosing a sexual partner an agent of natural selection who is making a choice to breed with a specific type of person and that results in the passing on of certain traits to the next generation . So there are choices being made within sexual selection but this isn't true for the entirety of what makes up natural selection.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: It is god that is illogical. Only a deluded brainwashed theist can believe in an illogical, impossible, magical sky-daddy.

Can you prove non-existence of God by means of science? The best what you have is the evolution however; evolution and natural selection are limited to animated objects only.

Science cannot proof the non-existence of something. Based on what one knows of science, logic can rule out the non-existent.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: No theist, as of yet, has even come up with a fathomable description of a god, let alone any evidence.

Study Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, and Cosmological Argument. Especially, focus on Fine Tuning.

Those stupid arguments have been debunked a myriad of times.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: And the reason is, as they think on the description, they realize how illogical, ridiculous and impossible it is for a god to exist.

Prove by using science that idea of God is illogical. I want to see what argument you have to disprove existence of God.

Again, science cannot prove the non-existence of something, but based on what one knows of science, logic can rule it out.

Infinite regression prohibits the beginning of anything, so there must be no time and everything is. No before, no after, no causality. If everything is, then there was no creation and there is no need for a god.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: It is much easier to come up with vague descriptive phrases and qualify them with "It is the mystery of god".

You seem to be a deluded person.

And yet you have avoided any description.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)IATIA Wrote: So, what is your description of god? I realize it is difficult to describe something that does not exist, but go ahead, give it a shot.

I had given very logical proofs on the existence of God. Because you do not believe in God, therefore, you are closing your eyes over any given fact and this way you are unable to see the truth. On the other side you believe that science is capable to give you all answers then consider the statement:

I asked for a description, not a 'proof'. One cannot prove the existence of something until there is a description of what is to be proven.

(February 14, 2015 at 4:18 am)Harris Wrote: Can Science prove that rape is evil? All 'evil' is based on social morals. It is not an absolute. It changes from decade to decade, generation to generation, culture to culture.

Can Science prove that your spouse loves you? Yes.

Can Science explain the fine-tuning of the physical constants? There is no such thing.

Can Science explain why we require sleep? Yes.

Is not gravity still a greater mystery than evolution? No.

My answers in bold.