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

[Delicate]

Whatever your reasons might be for having that distinction, if you have that distinction, it logically entails that your atheism is false or unjustified. Or both.

If you disagree with my argument, point out where I am logically out of step or factually incorrect. As far as I can see, my reasoning is deductively valid.

Garbage in, garbage out. Simply because something is sound logically does not mean it is factually true.

So if all men and mortal, and Socrates is a man, it's possible that Socrates could be immortal in your atheism?

[Delicate]

I think you have something confused. Let's start from the beginning.

Atheists here combine two mutually exclusive views into one (agnostic atheist).
They justify this by saying "agnostic refers to their knowledge, while atheist refers to their belief".
JTB (which at least one atheist here seems to affirm) says JTB = knowledge.

Again forgive my obtuseness. But is not atheist one who rejects belief in the existence of deities? Also is not an agnostic one who thinks something such as "god" can't be known. How then are these Mutually exclusive?

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.

On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.

But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.

[Goosebump]

So you claim that God does exist and Atheists claim he doesn't. And you say that Atheists are false in their claim? So then god or gods do exist?

[Jenny A]

Garbage in, garbage out. Simply because something is sound logically does not mean it is factually true.

So if all men and mortal, and Socrates is a man, it's possible that Socrates could be immortal in your atheism?

You continually miss the fact that a logical argument is only as good as the factual premises on which it is based.

If all men are immortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is immortal. Garbage in, garbage out. As long as your premises remain unproven, any argument dependant upon them is just so much nonsense.

[Goosebump]

Again forgive my obtuseness. But is not atheist one who rejects belief in the existence of deities? Also is not an agnostic one who thinks something such as "god" can't be known. How then are these Mutually exclusive?

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.

On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.

But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.

So if atheist arguments are false then God or "gods" do exist right?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You two have better credentials than me and most likely know more, but I am using facts reach the design conclusion. I don't get  why what I'm saying is demonstrating a lack of how evolution works. You guys keep saying that to me, but I think I understand the mechanism and I just don't think it is sufficient to explain away all the chicken or the egg problems that come with it. If there is some secret knowledge that can help me see the light of evolution, I would love to hear it, but you guys just repeatedly telling me that I don't understand it seems to just be a way of putting yourselves above me without tackling the real question. 

With respect, you are ignoring facts in order to support your pet hypothesis, or else you make suppositions that are simply not true, such as the (already mentioned to you) supposition that life in its original stages must have functioned in the same exact way as life, today. That's why we chuckle at your "requires enzymes" statements, for instance; there is no reason to presuppose that an enzyme is the only way to allow the requisite chemical reactions to take place, especially since we observe that a number of precursor chemicals form naturally in interstellar ice crystals when exposed to radiation, and that these chemicals are found in every comet we've looked at. If you look at the current "best-guess" models of abiogenesis, you'll see that they think these precursors reached ocean vents, where arsenic, phosphorus, and sulfurous chemicals were enough to provide the necessary energy to attain the reactions, and that they were catalyzed by the surface shape of certain basaltic rocks, not enzymes. So... again... read more.

The "light of evolution", as you call it, is very simple: populations of reproducing critters will change slightly with each generation, due to mutations and random chance (genetic drift), as well as being shaped by the pressures from the environment (Natural Selection) and from within the population as it strives for existence (sexual selection, for instance). If groups/herds/tribes break off from the main population for whatever reason, then the direction in which that population evolves will not be the same as the main group because the novel genotypes/phenotypes that emerge in the splinter group will not be bred into the larger group's gene pool... that's what allows speciation to happen, a new branch on the tree of life.

Several of your statements seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the processes involved in how evolution actually works at the biochemical (genetic) level, other than a layman's overview; I am not here to educate you about the details, as that's the purpose of the college courses which teach the information you're asking from us. Pay the tuition, take a 300+ level course on biochem and genetics, and your questions will be answered. So it's not a matter of "putting myself above you" (etc), but of telling you that it is clear to me that you have not yet passed these courses or read equivalent primary source material to understand it on the level you need in order to not leap to false conclusions. Again, I'm not insulting you; I'm actually trying to help. But if the help you want is "teach me everything you learned in your Junior and Senior years as a biochem student", then you're barking up the wrong tree. I'll be glad to tell you when something is in error and point you to the best place on the web (if I truly believe you're just a curious person and not a Christian bigot or troll who just enjoys jerking our chains) in order to learn the necessary material, but I'm not a professor and I'm not being paid to teach you.

I don't think anyone ever told me that an organ has to have no function to be considered vestigial, but if vestigial organs can have functions, then where do we draw the line? We could easily interpret the appendix as part of the design. Same with wings on flightless birds. Sure they don't have the function that we typically think of wings for, but it fits both evolutionary and design theories well enough. It comes down again to presuppositions. The whale legs again have an important function as a place for muscle attachment. If vestigial organs are what you defined them as, then aren't all of our structures vestigial? Structures gradually changing their purpose over time. It seems like we can either call everything vestigial or nothing vestigial based on that definition. 

Oh for fuck's sake, I even know the ICR Creationist propaganda pamphlet you got that "whale muscle attachment" argument from! Stop it. Why would the muscles attached to this tiny piece of remnant leg (below) be "important"? Well, claim the Creationists, the pelvis is an attachment point for muscles that help control the penis, and thus not vestigial. The problem is we know there were previously whales with legs (e.g. Ambulocetus), from which these whales evolved. The remnant pelvis may serve to help steer the penis, but why do they have a pelvis at all, rather than a specialized penile structure that doesn't involve borrowing from terrestrial designs?

---

---

Isn't the more obvious explanation, "its ancestors had full legs, and over time the legs got smaller and smaller, until now there's almost nothing left of them and they don't even protrude from the skin any longer"?

Whether or not they still maintain their original muscle attachments or can serve some remnant function is irrelevant to the basic issue: it has legs that are no longer legs, they're only there because their ancestors were land mammals that had legs, then aquatic mammals that sometimes used their legs to walk, etc. Now, they're remnants of the past, like the ostrich wings which no longer generate lift, and thus are not really "wings" any more. Often, evolution will take something that is no longer in use for its original purpose and come up with some other way to use that leftover bit (this especially happens at the molecular level, rather than the body-part level), which is for instance how the bacterial flagellum evolved out of protein-groups that were originally for an entirely-different purpose.

Also the poor design arguments are always interesting. If our backs are better suited for quadrupeds, then would we be better off (as far as back pain goes) if we spent our lives with the posture of such organisms? I predict that this would lead to more back issues. 

No, because our legs and the rest of our systems are adapted to bipedal movement as well (this causes other problems in our knees, feet, birth canals, etc). Humans are a mass of compromises that were necessary to make, as trade-offs to gain the free use of our hands. It's statements like the above that convince me you're just refusing to really consider what makes evolution work. We are the descendants of quadrupeds, yet we have evolved to walk upright. This leads to problems because the original design was not well-suited to this purpose, in the way a from-scratch design would have accomplished it, but evolution must work with what it's given in each new population/generation.

This is one of the problems I have with the theory of abiogenesis  and evolution. They have gone on for a while about the RNA world hypothesis, but they are straying from evidence to theory based on presuppositions. Why was there an RNA world? Because RNA can have metabolic and replicative properties and is the only molecule that could bridge the gap between non-living and life. Because we know evolution to be true, we can say that there must have been an RNA world. 

Do you see the problem with this? They are building on presupposition based on presupposition upon presupposition. I worry that they are building their ideas on false realities. Why do I think that enzymes are always necessary? Because that is what we always observe. I shouldn't try to invoke something that we don't know can happen to explain what we see. Intelligence is the known cause of information, sketchy models of pre-RNA biochemistry are not known causes of information. Therefore, I feel more comfortable with what I know can explain it than something that I have no experience explaining it.  

I am not trying to attack NASA, and I welcome their research. I think that the money could be put to better use, but that is a different story. I understand that they are smarter than me, but intelligent people can be wrong. In fact it is when intelligent people are wrong that science takes a turn and gets closer to truth. If we discourage discussion, then progression will halt. 

I understand why you think this. However, none of what you've said happens to be fact. Black holes are "causes of information"; you're confusing your definitions. No one is saying that intelligent people cannot be wrong, or that science always manages to catch the presuppositions of its practicioners, but the entire point of competing scientists (who often dislike one another, for nationalistic or personal reasons) looking at the published ideas of others and shooting them down if they can (Peer Review) is to try to eliminate this problem. Suffice to say, what you're proposing to be the case would only be possible if the Scientific Method was ignored entirely by almost literally every scientist in the business.

As to the ID people who claim they are being stifled and that dissent is being punished, that has been looked at as a claim and turned out to be a load of crap. What is punished, in science, is publishing bad methodology, research, or conclusions. Some have tried to make "I was punished for supporting ID", but the claims were found to be bogus. For one instance.

I also know that you can be a christian and believe in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that I see problems with the theory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am not just going to accept a problematic theory because it is OK for my religion to do so. Also I don't think that design is insulting to the creator. Evolution is insulting to the creator. It paints a nasty picture for the creator. Years of misfits and suffering to bring us into the world is not a loving way to bring about humans. I realize that this does not determine the truth of either theory, but I would not want to worship the creator if He used evolution. However, I don't disagree with the theory on theological grounds, it is on scientific grounds. 

You imply that people who believe in intelligent design are not real scientists. I think that this is the type of treatment that discourages people from questioning the scientific consensus. I'm sure that you realize the importance of differing takes on the evidence in science. Most breakthroughs occur when very few individuals question the current consensus and begin looking at the evidence and testing their alternative models. If we don't allow people to question the consensus, then we will no longer progress.

I don't imply it; I openly state it. Why do I say that ID proponents are not real scientists? Why, they've said so themselves! See for instance the testimony of Michael Behe on the stand in the Kitzmiller case, where he admitted that under his redefinition of science, even concepts like astrology would qualify! Science does not stifle dissenters; all it does is shoot down bad ideas as bad ideas. When people then turn around and say, "the scientific method is therefore wrong, not my idea, and the method must be changed so my idea can be right!", you should probably be more skeptical of them. The simple fact is that many, many great ideas were proved right by scientists, even ones who at first resisted the new idea... but ID does not fail because it's a non-mainstream idea; it fails because it's not even science, and anyone who really knows their stuff can (and does) poke holes in the contentions of ID proponents almost instantly. That is even true for the Christians who actually know evolutionary biology, as in the example I provided, which is why I provided it. But you're right about one thing: whatever our hopes/expectations for the Creator might be, the fact of the matter (if we ever managed to discover it) would not actually undermine or support anyone's theological arguments... it's just a thing that is, and discovering it would just be to find the "fingerprints of God" on the ongoing, never-ending process of creation by natural laws.

And I find evolution, even with all its death and suffering, to be a rather elegant thing. Granted, it would be nicer if we had a benevolent creator who wanted to make us perfect and without suffering, but I don't see how it reflects poorly on Her if the Creator of the Universe left it to run according to its fixed laws, rather than sticking Her Almighty Fingers into the pie to stir things up when the apples weren't settling where She wanted them. I'll take a cold, indifferent universe over the caprice of interventionist gods! It's sheer human arrogance that expects the gods to be concerned with us, out here on our pale blue dot circling a mediocre yellow dwarf star on the back edge of an outer spiral arm, one out of hundreds of billions of planets in this galaxy alone, which itself is one of hundreds of billions.

You have not rejected science or the theory of evolution; you've rejected straw-man versions of them, which Creationists set up so they can easily knock them down and declare victory before the eyes of the credulous. Real science doesn't work like that at all... please, I beg of you, learn some more about that before you try to continue this conversation.

Incidentally, it's now 12:30, and I have to get up in 5 1/2 hours to drive to see the inlaws and spend my holiday on the road to visit my own extended family after that, so it'll be a few days before I'm likely to be able to type long responses like this. I'll try to check in via my smartphone, but that's a harder format. I'll be glad to answer any (genuine) questions you may have... just PM me the link(s) to the question(s), and I'll get to them as soon as I'm able.

Cheers and Merry Christmas to you. Happy Holidays to the rest of you. Io, Saturnalia!

[Goosebump]

@TheRocketSurgeon That must have taken you and hour or more to put together. I would think a surgeon would have better things to do, but we all have hobbies!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Garbage in, garbage out. Simply because something is sound logically does not mean it is factually true.

So if all men and mortal, and Socrates is a man, it's possible that Socrates could be immortal in your atheism?

That's clearly not what I said. I'd suggest you reread for content rather than vapid riposte. Your summation is flawed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist.

Category error. Some atheists make a positive affirmation; others don't. Mistaking one segment for the whole is sloppy thinking, likely fueled by your bias.

This is exactly why hopes of intelligent discussion with you are fruitless: you don't listen, and you can only think inside your own constraints, seeing through your own filters.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which Clockmaker is best: the one whose clock unfolds time regularly, or the one whose clock needs constant attention and readjustment?