So your an Athiest

[GrandizerII]

It looks like what we're going back and forth about here is the Fine Tuning argument, and here's the problem I have with that (maybe it's already been covered): what the fuck is the Universe actually fine tuned for? If it's supposed to be fine tuned for life, then whoever did it did a piss-poor job, considering the sheer volume and mass of the Universe versus how much life there is. The Universe is producing a pitifully small amount of life, so if that's its job, it's fucking up big time.


Looking at what's actually in the Universe, it looks a lot more like it's fine tuned to produce empty space with occasional blips of plasma, rock, and/or gas. Life barely clings to the scantest of perches, while most of the Universe would kill anything instantly. Instantly.


Hell, not even our planet is finely tuned for life, especially not human life. There's so much stuff here that can kill you, much of which is completely outside the spectrum of our senses (radiation and natural gas, for example).

It was covered a little bit. Just a thought, but maybe the majority of the universe is inhospitable to life to show us how rare and privileged our planet is. As for earth, it is extremely well suited for life. It has the appropriate magnetic field, the well sized and positioned moon, it has the proper atmospheric conditions, it is in the habitable zone, it is the right size, and we have the proper sun to support life, we have the gas giants to attract and absorb asteroids, and we have an abundance of water. These are just a few of the many parameters that need to be met for a planet to sustain life.

Parameters that can be eventually met in a universe like this.

[AAA]

What counts as proof? Nothing in existence can prove God's existence in your mind, so how do you want me to prove it?

Well, that's f***ing convenient, isn't it. Nothing in existence can prove that I am god, so that must mean my claim of divinity is just as valid as your imaginary friend's. Except I can make a claim - your god can't even do that, he has to rely on uneducated, dim-witted peasants to talk for him.

Religions work in EXACTLY the same way as a scam does. You need to believe some dumb c*nt, who has a vested interest in me believing him - and then I can rationalize it, if I need to, by interpreting everything in a way that allows for god. If there is a god that works in that way - he/she/it can go f*** himself, as can all his deluded lackeys.

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

---

It was covered a little bit. Just a thought, but maybe the majority of the universe is inhospitable to life to show us how rare and privileged our planet is. As for earth, it is extremely well suited for life. It has the appropriate magnetic field, the well sized and positioned moon, it has the proper atmospheric conditions, it is in the habitable zone, it is the right size, and we have the proper sun to support life, we have the gas giants to attract and absorb asteroids, and we have an abundance of water. These are just a few of the many parameters that need to be met for a planet to sustain life.

Parameters that can be eventually met in a universe like this.

Yeah, but the fact that a universe like this even exists is unlikely if we are just going on random chance.

---

I'll tell you some evidence right now. Information rich sequences in each and every one of us. Universe with precise qualities that allow it to support life. complexity of life that humans can't match. If you don't at least look into these evidences for yourself, I think you are going to be without excuse.

But that's the thing.  That's literally just your bald assertion, coming from a fallible human.  God can tell me that himself if he wanted.  Does he not want me to believe in him?

I don't know God's thoughts. But it seems like you are working harder to avoid him than you are willing to see if there is any truth to his existence.

---

What counts as proof? Nothing in existence can prove God's existence in your mind, so how do you want me to prove it?

---

I don't know what to tell you. You have to be more open minded than that. That is a really simple minded excuse for denying a designer.

Hey man don't ask me for proof of your claim, its your job to make the case for your claim.

I tried telling them that the evidence, and they simply said that's not proof. So I don't think that you will accept that there is proof of anything.

[Alex K]

You brought up mutation rates when I asked where you got the information that evolution is insufficient, not me.
I'd like to to hear a biologist respond to this, but what is your point here? That it cannot lead to new additional genes because it would replace an old one? But there are not just point mutations, so what is your point?
What do you mean by becoming the *correct* base? Correct for what?

Which calculation exactly?

correct base simply meaning the one of the four that yields functionality. The calculation is simply to see if it is reasonable to believe that point mutations could add a new functional sequence. It is essentially  that you have around 100 amino acids in a typical protein. Each amino acid comes from 3 bases. Each base has a 1 in 4 chance of being the one that yields the appropriate amino acid to try to make a functional protein.  These have to all happen in a sequence with no (or very few) misses. 300^1/4 is an oversimplification of the calculation I have tried to do. There are other variables but this

Are you seriously trying to say that there is exactly one unique sequence of bases that makes a functional protein?
That's silly.

[AAA]

correct base simply meaning the one of the four that yields functionality. The calculation is simply to see if it is reasonable to believe that point mutations could add a new functional sequence. It is essentially  that you have around 100 amino acids in a typical protein. Each amino acid comes from 3 bases. Each base has a 1 in 4 chance of being the one that yields the appropriate amino acid to try to make a functional protein.  These have to all happen in a sequence with no (or very few) misses. 300^1/4 is an oversimplification of the calculation I have tried to do. There are other variables but this

Are you seriously trying to say that there is exactly one unique sequence of bases that makes a functional protein?
That's silly.

No, there are a lot of functional sequences, but they have to have a specific order of the bases. And they are rare.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

AAA, TheRocketSurgeon has you pegged perfectly - your strangely warped ideas on evolution are nothing more than psychological projections on chemicals which really don't care less what you think they do, and they will keep doing what they do no matter how much you wish they would do something different. You believe in a disembodied person who you treat as the Big Kahuna of all gods, but he hasn't actually done anything, he isn't doing anything now, and he probably won't do anything in the future. He cares less than the mindless chemicals which are now hard at work shaping the future of life, just as they always did, and changing conditions will select their best work for posterity.

Anybody with a web connection can view and evaluate the hard-won understanding which scientists have aquired these days, but as a student you can actually see how this works firsthand. You don't know how lucky you are right now to have this access to the best of what those who work in the field are able to point out. They know what they are talking about, and you should open your eyes now, while you can! The scientists here are not selling you bullshit, like the high priests of yore who would tell their people outlandish things, while meeting in secret and conspiring with magicians to fool the public with demonstrations that would make the kings who they controlled look strong, LOL! If it were like that, then why would they waste their time talking to you now?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Please read this, AAA.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[AAA]

AAA, TheRocketSurgeon has you pegged perfectly - your strangely warped ideas on evolution are nothing more than psychological projections on chemicals which really don't care less what you think they do, and they will keep doing what they do no matter how much you wish they would do something different. You believe in a disembodied person who you treat as the Big Kahuna of all gods, but he hasn't actually done anything, he isn't doing anything now, and he probably won't do anything in the future. He cares less than the mindless chemicals which are now hard at work shaping the future of life, just as they always did, and changing conditions will select their best work for posterity.

Anybody with a web connection can view and evaluate the hard-won understanding which scientists have aquired these days, but as a student you can actually see how this works firsthand. You don't know how lucky you are right now to have this access to the best of what those who work in the field are able to point out. They know what they are talking about, and you should open your eyes now, while you can! The scientists here are not selling you bullshit, like the high priests of yore who would tell their people outlandish things, while meeting in secret and conspiring with magicians to fool the public with demonstrations that would make the kings who they controlled look strong, LOL! If it were like that, then why would they waste their time talking to you now?

I understand that I'm lucky to have access to the available information. But the science will quickly come to a halt if we discourage discussion on what the evidence means. Discussion on the meaning of evidence is how science progresses. I don't really disagree with the evidence itself. For example I understand most of the mechanisms by which DNA can be manipulated. I disagree on the theoretical grounds that say that changing the DNA improves its information content and that life's genetic code developed without the input of intelligence. You have access to the information too, go check it out and keep an open mind. You tell me to open my eyes, but I'm concerned that I'm not the one with my eyes shut.

---

Please read this, AAA.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I read it. It's interesting. I'm a little disappointed that almost all the meat of the article was condescending statements about religious people. The possible models for abiogenesis were kind of just thrown in there and barely mentioned.

I don't want to say that they aren't true, but I will say that if there were a well working model then I'm sure it would be more well known. I have heard of some of them before, but from my experience it seems like the scientists will give unfair starting conditions to get some important molecules. After you get the important molecules, you still have to have a way to get them into semi long sequences (at least long enough to have the chemical capacity to replicate.) One of the models said that they got some peptides. But it is important to know that you could have perfectly good DNA (or RNA) sequence, and it is still useless by itself. Or you could get a fully formed DNA pol, and it is still useless by itself. It seems like they get a few molecules and claim that from there you can get all the information necessary to produce a stable, replicating system. Again this is just me speaking generally, I'm not going after each specific model they pointed out.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I wasn't linking you to it for the article, but for the several dozen links they provided, illuminating most of the points you've been asking us about.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

AAA, TheRocketSurgeon has you pegged perfectly - your strangely warped ideas on evolution are nothing more than psychological projections on chemicals which really don't care less what you think they do, and they will keep doing what they do no matter how much you wish they would do something different. You believe in a disembodied person who you treat as the Big Kahuna of all gods, but he hasn't actually done anything, he isn't doing anything now, and he probably won't do anything in the future. He cares less than the mindless chemicals which are now hard at work shaping the future of life, just as they always did, and changing conditions will select their best work for posterity.

Anybody with a web connection can view and evaluate the hard-won understanding which scientists have aquired these days, but as a student you can actually see how this works firsthand. You don't know how lucky you are right now to have this access to the best of what those who work in the field are able to point out. They know what they are talking about, and you should open your eyes now, while you can! The scientists here are not selling you bullshit, like the high priests of yore who would tell their people outlandish things, while meeting in secret and conspiring with magicians to fool the public with demonstrations that would make the kings who they controlled look strong, LOL! If it were like that, then why would they waste their time talking to you now?

I understand that I'm lucky to have access to the available information. But the science will quickly come to a halt if we discourage discussion on what the evidence means. Discussion on the meaning of evidence is how science progresses. I don't really disagree with the evidence itself. For example I understand most of the mechanisms by which DNA can be manipulated. I disagree on the theoretical grounds that say that changing the DNA improves its information content and that life's genetic code developed without the input of intelligence. You have access to the information too, go check it out and keep an open mind. You tell me to open my eyes, but I'm concerned that I'm not the one with my eyes shut.

---

AAA, I was there when powerful church leaders began promoting "Intelligent Design" theory in the 1990s. I never got as deep into biology as you are now, but I read enough of the ideas put out by the so-called scientists who wrote such books to be clear on what they are trying to do, and that it isn't science. It's an effort by a megagroup which calls itself "The Discovery Center", and it is bankrolled by evangelical churches - particularly those which fear science the most (it threatens job security for evangelical preachers). Yes, they actually paid these weak scientists who grew up in their churches to write the bullshit which launched their careers, and the authenticity of their scientific credentials are nothing what they appear to be at first glance.

Remember the Scientific Method, and how it works? I addressed this with you already, and strangely it's the one significant point I made for you which you have ignored completely. You cannot call it science unless you go through all five steps in sequence! Starting with a question on how things work qualifies as a first step, putting you on track for a scientific conclusion followed by data gathering, analysis, ideas, and testing. If your final conclusions are different than what your initial ideas were going in, then there's a much better chance that you actually did some science! ID doesn't do that, it begins with an idea which religious people wish to believe, and then sets out in an attempt to prove it.

If you aren't aware of just how badly the people behind ID want to believe that life has a designer, and more importantly how badly they want you to believe their idea, then I have something here for your education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

[Homeless Nutter]

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

Things, that are demonstrable and repeatable. What is ONE thing you can do, that ALWAYS works and can not be explained without the existence of god?