When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Whateverist]

Nothing to see here other than an unintelligent and overcomplicated presumption. You really shouldn't have to work so hard to disprove what would make good sense if you understood it in favor of your own, which makes far less good sense...oh, wait!

You haven't even formulated an argument, you just go along with mainstream science, (which I DO understand), without ever questioning the serious flaws that it has. Name calling doesn't make your position more likely

Then again refraining from name calling is unlikely to lead to your questioning your gratuitous position. May as well have a little fun while we're at it, Sparky.

[The Valkyrie]

Nothing to see here other than an unintelligent and overcomplicated presumption. You really shouldn't have to work so hard to disprove what would make good sense if you understood it in favor of your own, which makes far less good sense...oh, wait!

You haven't even formulated an argument, you just go along with mainstream science, (which I DO understand), without ever questioning the serious flaws that it has. Name calling doesn't make your position more likely

---

Why are we going round in circles on this discussion?

I've already given my answer above and think it's rather clear.

The flaws don't fit perfectly.  If you think they do, ask all those who have nearly choked to death on various foods.

No you were the one saying the flaws fit perfectly in the evolutionary models. 

Your scientific approach: all new structures have no function until we can PROVE what it is. They must be vestigial if we don't know what they do. Evolution of the gaps. 
My approach: if it exists it probably has a function. 

As for the throat problem, let me ask you a question. What evolved first, the esophagus/trachea settup that you hate so much, or the epiglottis, which covers the trachea during swallowing? If you ever didn't have the epiglottis, you would choke and die every time you swallowed. If you had an epiglottis with no lung/trachea settup, then you would be wasting resources by producing tissues and you would be selected against. Not to mention the fact that you could not breathe or eat.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate you on biology or evolution.

I'm leaving in a couple of hours and won't be back for about a week.

I'll let the others educate you, though I don't honestly expect you to listen to them.

[AAA]

You haven't even formulated an argument, you just go along with mainstream science, (which I DO understand), without ever questioning the serious flaws that it has. Name calling doesn't make your position more likely

---

No you were the one saying the flaws fit perfectly in the evolutionary models. 

Your scientific approach: all new structures have no function until we can PROVE what it is. They must be vestigial if we don't know what they do. Evolution of the gaps. 
My approach: if it exists it probably has a function. 

As for the throat problem, let me ask you a question. What evolved first, the esophagus/trachea settup that you hate so much, or the epiglottis, which covers the trachea during swallowing? If you ever didn't have the epiglottis, you would choke and die every time you swallowed. If you had an epiglottis with no lung/trachea settup, then you would be wasting resources by producing tissues and you would be selected against. Not to mention the fact that you could not breathe or eat.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate you on biology or evolution.

I'm leaving in a couple of hours and won't be back for about a week.

I'll let the others educate you, though I don't honestly expect you to listen to them.

Yes, because I'm sure you know more about biology than me. Biology is my forte

[The Valkyrie]

You've got me beat!

In my career of choice we know nothing about biology and aren't at all dependent on our knowledge of it.

[Goosebump]

34 pages for a troll basically waving a flag by page 3.

[Cyberman]

You've got me beat!

In my career of choice we know nothing about biology and aren't at all dependent on our knowledge of it.

Yes, it's not as if it cuts to the heart of your job, is it?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Beccs is a surgeon, AAA, and I'm a retired biologist. Your statements thus far demonstrate an astounding lack of understanding of how evolution actually works. I'm not saying this to belittle or insult you; I'm truly baffled that you think it works the way you have been claiming, the past few pages.

The reason something is vestigial is not because it has no function; rather an organ is considered vestigial if it is inherited from an ancestor in which it had a primary purpose that is now lost. Often, the original function of the organ can be seen in related species that did not lose that function as part of their evolutionary development... an example is the wings of flightless birds. Clearly, they inherited the "have feathers and wings" from flighted ancestors, then grew so large that the wings could no longer support that function. Now, the wings are used for cooling and for balance, but not for flight. Another famous example is the pelvis and miniature hind "legs" of modern whales; you can see that the ancestral versions had such legs, based on fossils we've found, but in the modern version the legs have miniaturized so much that they never emerge from the skin. Those miniature legs and wings are vestigial organs. Whoever told you that an organ must have zero function to be considered vestigial was lying to you.

The reason they are saying they could design better humans is not because they think they have the magical powers to create one from scratch, but because there are numerous basic engineering problems with the layout of the human body, problems that make no sense if we were designed from scratch by some Creator, but which make perfect sense if you look at us as the descendants of quadrupeds. The classic example of this (there are many others, if you bother to look) is our double-curved spine, located at the rear of the torso. If it had been centrally located, the weight would be more-evenly distributed and back problems would be less common; the design of the discs is also problematic, as they were evolved originally to hold weight beneath them, as a quadruped's spine does, and never meant to support vertical weight for years on end. Because of the double-bend and the vertical gravity problem, over time the discs can become pinched by this pressure and uneven load, resulting in pinched/enflamed nerves (because they pass right through the gap nearby) and a truly awful form of back pain. Bad design, but perfectly well-described by the process of evolution from quadruped ancestors who laid out our basic body-planform. If you really want to know about these other issues, I suggest you read the book Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

Now on to what you said to me:

I read the article, I haven't watched the video yet. The difference between your interpretation and mine is this. If we do see the building blocks of life so abundantly in the universe, then you seem to think this means that life must develop often. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if the building blocks of life are so common, then life also should be according to the materialist model. 

When I see the fact that there are building blocks of life out there, I then wonder why there is no other signs of life. It makes abiogenesis even rarer when it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else despite having what it needs. Also discovering acetate in outer space is a small step toward the building blocks of life. The amino acids are more complex than that, and some even require multiple enzymes (made out of the amino acid that needs to be produced by them) in order to synthesize them. Then you have the problem of getting the building blocks to come together, which also requires enzymes. Also I agree that NASA should continue researching, but they may be wasting their money if life really didn't form spontaneously. The more ways they find out life cannot form naturally, the more likely an intelligent causal agent becomes. Do we have to exhaust all possible natural mechanisms before a designer becomes reasonable?

I don't understand why none of you Intelligent Design types ever seem to understand that life was not always the way it is today, or to grasp what it means when they say they've developed a model of the Pre-RNA World biochemistry. What makes you think that enzymes were always the only way to do the required chemistry? What makes you think that life should be common or else a designer is necessary? Even you are claiming that it is a difficult set of circumstances to jump from prebiotic to reproducing biomolecules... so even if it's common to form the precursors, why should we expect to find life "everywhere"? I happen to think some form of life is common anywhere conditions are right, based on what I know of the chemistry involved, but that's a big leap from "everywhere", and it's hardly surprising that we've found nothing since the only places we've gone don't have any water. If we wind up finding nothing beneath the ice of Europa, I'll be surprised, but for now your "why don't we see it?" argument is ... to put it nicely, more than a bit premature.

The reason I was pointing out that NASA does this kind of research is not to actually suggest that they're wasting their time, but to suggest that they know what the fuck they're talking about better than I do, and certainly better than you do, and they're willing to invest careers and resources (that could be spent on other projects) on this line of research... and have produced some pretty amazing natural and laboratory discoveries along the way. They clearly think that life can and does form naturally wherever conditions are right, and so they are trying to figure out just what those conditions are (other than what we already see on earth) and where we might look to find our first proof.

Please, AAA. Seriously. There are hundreds of thousands of serious, working evolutionary biologists who are Christians, and every one of them would agree with what I'm saying, and not with what you're saying. My fiancee, an evolutionary biologist and devout Christian, sat right here next to me on this computer while I had a conversation with another person about Intelligent Design, and she made comments about his ideas which were so disparaging and insulting that even I wouldn't repeat them in typed format. She considers ID to be an insult to the Creator, whereas evolution is something that just happens, in the words of Darwin, "whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity". God, she says, does not need to "stick his fingers in the pie" and meddle while the recipe bakes.

There are many things that are "apparently true", to our simple and biased human senses/thinking, which turn out not to be true when those biases are eliminated via the Scientific Method. The classic example is how genetics actually works, versus the Lamarckian adaptation model proposed for hundreds of years before Mendel discovered how it actually works via careful observation measurements that eliminated previous suppositions. That didn't stop the "divinely inspired" authors of Genesis from getting it dead-wrong, in Genesis 30, where they attribute the wealth of Jacob (acquired from his boss Laban's flocks) to his cleverness in exploiting the Lamarckian adaptation model... an idea that seemed good at the time, and actually fooled everyone until about 150 years ago, because it is "apparent" but not true.

Please, check your prejudices and read any of a number of good books on evolutionary biology written by Christians who are also scientists (that is, actual scientists; not the wolves-in-sheeps-clothing at places like the ICR, who distort science and mine quotes out-of-context to make real scientists look stupid or confused), which might help you understand the things you seem to be misconstruing about how biochemistry and the evolutionary processes actually work. You may be quite intelligent, but biology is clearly not your field of expertise. Again, I don't say this to insult you, but only to put a "reality check" brake on your POV.

[Cyberman]

The investigation into the possibility of life extra-Earth is an eliminatory one, and nothing to do with guesswork. I'm picturing our proclaimed biology expert thinking of NASA scientists scratching their 'eggheads' and being baffled at not finding ET life, when that's the whole point. Not finding life in one particular environment means we've eliminated one type of environment in which to expect to find life. Examining why that should be further expands our knowledge of how life functions and better refines our methods of searching.

[Delicate]

https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908

Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Which are you?

EVIDENCE.  You yammer on and on and on about "evidence", you ignore responses and keep yammering about "evidence", and even when we ask for "evidence" you keep yammering on and give us nothing.  Zip.  Nada.   Pages upon pages upon pages of people asking for your "evidence".  You give us absolutely nothing.  Worse than nothing - you ignore everything you've been told, and type crap like the nonsense above.  All you do is stick your nose in the air, try to think up a new way to tell us how superior you are, and have fun typing more insults.  

We tell you and tell you and tell you:  Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.    We tell you that we have not seen sufficient substantive empirical evidence to support belief in any deities.   Evidence, not something from a book of fairy tales, not stories for people who had "experiences", not philosophical arguments, not "look around you, only an idiot looks at nature and fails to see god" - - - you keep flapping your jaw about evidence, so give us the evidence.  

Put up or shut up.  How much longer are you going to spread shit all over our carpets and try to claim you're throwing pearls before swine?

I have to ask you to stop and think more carefully.

Read the question:

People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence. Which are you?

"Where is the evidence?" is not one of the answers. The answers are one of the following:
a) I've examined the evidence and found it lacking, or
b) I'm incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Those are the only two possibilities that can explain why someone sees a lack of evidence. 

So once again: Which is it?

If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge, you wouldn't have a category for both in your epistemology.

Love,

Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge. 

PS- Ask me to explain.

Pretty sure that the two terms exist because of the difference.

Pretty sure noone's talking about the existence of the terms.

Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge. 

PS- Ask me to explain.

How is it that someone as learned as you in epistemology struggle so with the idea of justified true belief?

You're good at repeating slogans. Too bad you don't understand them.

It's been about 50 years since justified true belief was refuted. For my struggle (and those of contemporary epistemologists) you can thank Edmund Gettier.

But to keep the discussion on track, the bottom line is: Your belief+knowledge account of your view about the existence of God refutes atheism itself. 

Here's why:

1) The JTB account entails that if a belief is justified and true, it is knowledge.
2) Your belief (atheism) is not knowledge (agnosticism)
3) Therefore your belief (atheism) is not both justified and true. (modus tollens)

Taking (3) as a premise in a second argument, we get the following:
1) If a conjunction is false, one or both of the conjuncts are false.
2) The conjunction "The belief (atheism) is true and justified" is false.
3) Therefore, either atheism is unjustified, or atheism is false, or atheism is both unjustified and false.

Read the second conclusion again. You're logically committed to the view that atheism is either false, or unjustified, or it's false AND unjustified.

Someone who knows a bit of formal logic can verify the structure of my argument here.

Thanks for playing. Now tell me about your justified true belief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course you're arguing that the two should not be disparate.

I'm pointing out that they are, and that there's a reason for it.

If you cannot understand the simple difference between belief and knowledge, I don't see much hope of this being a productive conversation. You go on ahead and bruit about your misapprehnsions regarding atheists, and I'll resume regarding you as someone unworthy of serious consideration.