NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheism dying? (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html)

I give a shit what other people think. That's why when Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya says "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance," I'm really hurt and feel ignorant and irrational. Oh, and I start believing in God too.

Atheism dying? (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html)

That's odd, poll after poll would suggest that religion is on the decline world wide. Perhaps in America this might be true, but not world wide.

The title reminded me of somebody's sig:

"God is dead."~Nietschze
"Nietschze is dead."~God
:D

Agnosticism and atheism have never been very prominent. As of 2002, 14% of the world's population was atheist or agnostic. Christians were 33%, Muslims 22%, and Hindus 15%. That's 70% right there for ya. However, another thing is that there are periods of time where religionism spikes--those are called "Awakenings" if I recall. It is believed by social scientists that we are currently in one right now.

Maybe one day, there won't be very many atheists. Does that really matter? As far as spirituality goes, meditation alone can help improve illness. Not to mention that it doesn't seem to matter who, if anyone, they pray to. Cells can store massive amounts of information. How does that matter?

I read this a while back and almost posted it, but I dunno if the source is reliable. Either way, the article's claiming that general spirituality is on the rise, not membership in churches/synagogues/mosques. Dunno what to make of that.

Atheism dying? (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html)


I guess the day that I have long feared as come. Time for me to go out a burn some churchs to the ground to even things outs.

Agnosticism and atheism have never been very prominent. As of 2002, 14% of the world's population was atheist or agnostic. Christians were 33%, Muslims 22%, and Hindus 15%. That's 70% right there for ya. However, another thing is that there are periods of time where religionism spikes--those are called "Awakenings" if I recall. It is believed by social scientists that we are currently in one right now.

Yes, except that 14% agnostic number is likely primarily due to the Billion+ Chinese who are allowed no official faith under the Communist system. Even Canada has a number over 70% in terms of belief in some higher power, so I'm not sure 70% is an accurate figure worldwide.

Would people stop using Neitzsche like that?

First off, Nietzsche said "God is dead" no more than Shakespeare said "To be, or not to be, that is the question..." Hamlet delivered the solliloquy and a madman spoke the words "God is dead" after throwing his lantern on the ground.

Furthremore, it wasn't meant for the death of an actual god, but a symbolic one.

Maybe one day, there won't be very many atheists. Does that really matter? As far as spirituality goes, meditation alone can help improve illness. Not to mention that it doesn't seem to matter who, if anyone, they pray to. Cells can store massive amounts of information. How does that matter?
I'm sorry, but what? Where the hell did "Cells can store massive amounts of information" come from? And it matters very much that cells can store the amount of information that they can. Otherwise the complexity of life that is present today would not exist. The largest viruses have around 200 genes. Humans have around 20000.

And according to Stats Can, the number of "No religious affiliation" people increased from 1991 to 2001. I don't know about the % though, I'm lazy...

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/popula.htm#rel
at the bottom of the page.

oh, and to avoid confusion, the 2001 one uses the actual numbers while the 1991 one uses the numbers in thousands.

edit: did the math, up 4%. From 12.4% to 16.5%.

I'm sorry, but what? Where the hell did "Cells can store massive amounts of information" come from? And it matters very much that cells can store the amount of information that they can. Otherwise the complexity of life that is present today would not exist. The largest viruses have around 200 genes. Humans have around 20000.

That was a quote from the article, about cells.

And according to Stats Can, the number of "No religious affiliation" people increased from 1999 to 2001. I don't know about the % though, I'm lazy...

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/popula.htm#rel
at the bottom of the page.

No one's disputing that the number of Canadians who believe in God drops every year, down somewhere near 15% since 1990. The article's talking worldwide.

Can I ask a question? No, that wasn't it.

Who cares?

Who really cares?

You have your belief, why is everyone so interested in what everyone else believes in? More importantly, why would you want to change what they believe in? Why would you care how many people believe in what?

Religions themselves have never been the cause of war. The people who follow them who are seemingly obsessed with what other people believe in, they are the causes of so-called 'religious wars'. Seriously, leave each other alone.

From the article itself. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because if you look at human cells, the majority of our DNA is junk. The point is something like this: a six hundred gigabyte hard drive is nice, but if whatever you store on it is simply garbage, it doesn't really matter how big it is--you could make do with less storage space by eliminating the garbage portions.

Yes, except that 14% agnostic number is likely primarily due to the Billion+ Chinese who are allowed no official faith under the Communist system. Even Canada has a number over 70% in terms of belief in some higher power, so I'm not sure 70% is an accurate figure worldwide.
I'm wondering if you realise that 14 + 70 = 84. Not 100. Around 6% are Buddhists, 4% traditional Chinese religions, 3% indigenous African religions, and the other 3% are the other religions that don't really matter. Like Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Shinto, Rastafarianism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, et al.

And according to Stats Can, the number of "No religious affiliation" people increased from 1991 to 2001. I don't know about the % though, I'm lazy...

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/popula.htm#rel
at the bottom of the page.

oh, and to avoid confusion, the 2001 one uses the actual numbers while the 1991 one uses the numbers in thousands.

edit: did the math, up 4%. From 12.4% to 16.5%.


I love living in Canada

Like Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Shinto, Rastafarianism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, et al.
Ya mon!
:p

I'm wondering if you realise that 14 + 70 = 84. Not 100. Around 6% are Buddhists, 4% traditional Chinese religions, 3% indigenous African religions, and the other 3% are the other religions that don't really matter. Like Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Shinto, Rastafarianism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, et al.

What's your point? All I'm saying is that in Chinese census data, the Communist government will always claim there to be no religion, as a success of the system. Similarly, the Greek government claims there are no ethnic divisions in Greece, which is ridiculous. I'm not saying that 100% or 50% or X% are not being reported, only that it's not really knowable in many places.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because if you look at human cells, the majority of our DNA is junk. The point is something like this: a six hundred gigabyte hard drive is nice, but if whatever you store on it is simply garbage, it doesn't really matter how big it is--you could make do with less storage space by eliminating the garbage portions.
Though I haven't read the article so I don't know the context, you obviously do not know much about evolutionary biology. There is a reason we have so much DNA that is not used, otherwise the body would not waste the components during DNA synthesis. Junk DNA, the consensus is, serves the purpose of preserving DNA. Limiting the number of mutations. The goal of all genetic information is to preserve itself, which is why we have things like DNA polymerase, which, in all likelihood, didn't exist with the first life forms on the planet.

So, what's your point again?

I'm agnostic. I study biology and fully believe in evolution (but never forgetting the healthy skeptic side a scientist should have) but I cannot admit or deny that there is a higher power. But there is so much beauty in the universe that you wonder if there isn't some sort of creative force. But what intrigues me the most is the meaning of life. Why do we need to reproduce and to keep making chemicals react in such a way that life is.


And even the pope admits that evolution is a fact and the bible is not to be read literally.

I found another site that was off about the death of atheism. It was written by a very blatantly biased christian author whose main point was that religious people have more children and thus they will overwhelm the atheists.

I kinda wonder if this guy was aware that high birth rates are closesly related to female illiteracy.

All I'm saying is that in Chinese census data, the Communist government will always claim there to be no religion, as a success of the system.
They really aren't too strict about that anymore, however. Hell, they're becoming capitalist, but are still adamantly saying they aren't. Explain, if you will, how if China has 1/4 of the world's population, that 84% of the world claims to have a religion?

I wonder how they would find that out worldwide. There are enough countries which don't have a decent, acceptable census. Heck lol, they could just ask 100 people in very country to get that data as well... Statistics... so lovely overrated.

I mean, who gives a damn about this anyway. Atheism will or will not die out? Errr... and that's supposed to bug or interest me... why? The matine ritual of the north sibirian ice snail is more interesting than that.

But there is so much beauty in the universe that you wonder if there isn't some sort of creative force. But what intrigues me the most is the meaning of life. Why do we need to reproduce and to keep making chemicals react in such a way that life is.
You say such things and claim to be a biologist? That's pretty sad.

First: please go read the article before debating it. Second: if you had read the article, you would know that my point is that the belief expressed within--that evolution could not have produced something that could store so much, is flawed. My argument was based around the fact that although cells can store massive amounts of data, not all of it is useful. Actually, the whole argument that evolution couldn't produce such cells is unsupported in the article.

It is not your fault for misunderstanding me, but do everyone a favor and read the subject matter first.

The statistics offered so far dont really offer much relevent information, regardless of their accuracy.

Uneducated and badly educated people should not provoke surprise when it comes out that they are religious.

A more telling statistic on the waxing or waning of religion today would be religiosity among well educated people in the developed world.

It is not your fault for misunderstanding me, but do everyone a favor and read the subject matter first.
Eh, I would, but I'm too lethargic right now.

First: please go read the article before debating it. Second: if you had read the article, you would know that my point is that the belief expressed within--that evolution could not have produced something that could store so much, is flawed. My argument was based around the fact that although cells can store massive amounts of data, not all of it is useful. Actually, the whole argument that evolution couldn't produce such cells is unsupported in the article.

It is not your fault for misunderstanding me, but do everyone a favor and read the subject matter first.

I agree, the whole "watchmaker" argument really doesn't prove anything because there really is no reason complexity can't evolve. Though I have to point out a lot of the junk DNA is being found to have a purpose because of the protein code/RNA code around it that scientists are only now beginning to understand. In any case, science is not driving people from Atheism.

The other force the article describes does exist, however. We atheists can no longer claim moral superiority because there has been death in the name of atheism as well. We can no longer make the argument that an atheist world would be an end to genocide, war, and oppression, which has weakened our cause.

One force not talked about in the article is the rising hatred of the US. With us being thought of as impious culture-killers by the Islamic world and other nations, religion is one of the few options that seems to really take a decisive stand against the west. Strange as it may sound, in the third world tradition is the rebellious thing to do, and atheism seems like a sell-out to the US.

I know on campus there has been a general rise in religion groups, hell, it made the front page of The Lantern.

You say such things and claim to be a biologist? That's pretty sad.

First: I'm not a biologist yet.
Second: I can't prove god exists and neither can you, so shut up.

There is so much beauty in the universe, in this planet, and there are so many questions that probably can't be answered by science, like why do a bunch of organized molecules need to keep organizing molecules and to find ways to make those molecules staying organized (If you know what I mean. I doubt that though.)? This makes me thing if this driving force that pushes living things to reproduce is... supernatural.

Maybe it's just a product of randomness and physics. But why are physics the way they are? And why do atoms and molecules exist in the first place?

"Not knowing" and being open doesn't make me a poor biologist (or biology student). It makes me a better one though.

And Albert Einstein that said that the more he understood the universe, the more he believed in god.

And this too: http://www.dlshq.org/messages/einstein.htm

Can I ask a question? No, that wasn't it.

Who cares?

Who really cares?

You have your belief, why is everyone so interested in what everyone else believes in? More importantly, why would you want to change what they believe in? Why would you care how many people believe in what?

Religions themselves have never been the cause of war. The people who follow them who are seemingly obsessed with what other people believe in, they are the causes of so-called 'religious wars'. Seriously, leave each other alone.

Well done. Perhaps the most pertinant post thus far...

I wonder; the article has some interesting points...Atheism has had its share of militants and shameless self-promoters. This puts it on a fairly even footing with the dirty laundry of most other major theological systems. Atheism has lost much of its moral "high ground", perhaps due to the 20th's century's great injusticies by such militants and self-promoters.

The curious nature of the article is the fact that very few interviewed consider the rise of "Multiple Independent Personal faiths" to be anything other than a truly bad thing.

Perhaps organized religion only dislikes one thing more than another organized religion; those without orgzanization entirely. Atheism, through its government sponsors and their attempts to force atheism in the 20th Century; lost its claim as an "independent theological revolution."

People with these independent stances on faith and spirituality seem like a real threat to orgnaized religion; seeing as you can't "disprove" them all, you can't "debunk" them all, you can't attack their specific beliefs, there are simply too many induvidual systems. Athiesm came to resemble another religion that could be "attacked" by lashing out and "debunking" science in proxy.

Looking at this situation, it appears to be almost a decentralization of power. From the churches to the iduvidual; rather than negating religion entirely, perhaps humanity has found faith "outside the box" so to speak. Humans find faith naturally, and rather than becoming "Atheist" when given a choice they chose what more closely "freelance, mix and match faiths" when in a natural state.

An interesting thought, no?

Well done. Perhaps the most pertinant post thus far...

I wonder; the article has some interesting points...Atheism has had its share of militants and shameless self-promoters. This puts it on a fairly even footing with the dirty laundry of most other major theological systems. Atheism has lost much of its moral "high ground", perhaps due to the 20th's century's great injusticies by such militants and self-promoters.

The curious nature of the article is the fact that very few interviewed consider the rise of "Multiple Independent Personal faiths" to be anything other than a truly bad thing.

Perhaps organized religion only dislikes one thing more than another organized religion; those without orgzanization entirely. Atheism, through its government sponsors and their attempts to force atheism in the 20th Century; lost its claim as an "independent theological revolution."

People with these independent stances on faith and spirituality seem like a real threat to orgnaized religion; seeing as you can't "disprove" them all, you can't "debunk" them all, you can't attack their specific beliefs, there are simply too many induvidual systems. Athiesm came to resemble another religion that could be "attacked" by lashing out and "debunking" science in proxy.

Looking at this situation, it appears to be almost a decentralization of power. From the churches to the iduvidual; rather than negating religion entirely, perhaps humanity has found faith "outside the box" so to speak. Humans find faith naturally, and rather than becoming "Atheist" when given a choice they chose what more closely "freelance, mix and match faiths" when in a natural state.

An interesting thought, no?
Interesting indeed. Theological belief will evolve through time. (yes atheism is theolgical belief. Lack thereof technically but it still counts)

Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat,"
All religious or spiritual beliefs, or lack of them, should be private.

I support capitalism, so I am not trying to diss it or anything, but I think that capitalism kills religion. Why? Because it promotes materialism which is the opposite of spirituality. I've seen it in my own country. When we were poor and socialist we were practically a Catholic theocracy! Now that we are rich and capitalist we have a lower level f religiosity and a pretty much secular state.

Even Canada has a number over 70% in terms of belief in some higher power, so I'm not sure 70% is an accurate figure worldwide.
Even Canada? What's so unbelievable? Does their government ban religion or something?

I regard the idea of "debunking" science as something very dangerous. True, sometimes theories were wrong/incomplete (like the Newtonian system being replaced with the Einsteinian one), but that doesn't mean science per se is wrong, and trying to debunk it is utter nonsense and has the potential to bring us back into the medieval ages.

Concerning evolutionary biology (the arch-nemesis of Christian fundamentalists, don't forget that), has evolved way beyond where it was in 1858 when Darwin posted his "Origin of Species". Darwin had no real idea of DNA (which was discovered by Watson and Creek in 1953 - nearly 100 years later!), and even today people have actually just begun to figure out how it really works. The huge amount of fossils which are known today which had not been found back then.

And i haven't even started on astrophysics and geology. I'm saying religions should start accepting science and not try to debunk it in their mindless arrogance.

Would people stop using Neitzsche like that?

First off, Nietzsche said "God is dead" no more than Shakespeare said "To be, or not to be, that is the question..." Hamlet delivered the solliloquy and a madman spoke the words "God is dead" after throwing his lantern on the ground.

Furthremore, it wasn't meant for the death of an actual god, but a symbolic one.
Hear, hear!

Actually, "god"'s probably just playin' dead, very much like that dude in the middle of the room on "Saw".

I'm confused, why some of the atheists in this thread getting angry? Almost reminds me of the fundamentalists from a certain group. :p

I regard the idea of "debunking" science as something very dangerous. True, sometimes theories were wrong/incomplete (like the Newtonian system being replaced with the Einsteinian one), but that doesn't mean science per se is wrong, and trying to debunk it is utter nonsense and has the potential to bring us back into the medieval ages...

...And i haven't even started on astrophysics and geology. I'm saying religions should start accepting science and not try to debunk it in their mindless arrogance.

Should they? Perhaps, but look at it from the perspective that they see Atheism is a religion, and Science is its holy scripture; instead of your own viewpoint that Atheism and science are only coincidentally linked. Suddenly the constant "attacks" on science are thrown into context. Its understandable that someone who believes that through science, atheism will replace their own faith will lash out at those who seek to uproot them.

Science is, of course, seperate from Atheism in the sense that few scientists actually support the notion that "science disproves god" or anything along those lines. But there are militant Atheists, those all too ready to make the mistakes of the past anew. There are some who call for the end of religion and the establishment of atheism as the sole way of expressing human relations with the spiritual.

Its NOT mindless arrogance; its misguided defensiveness. These attempts also have the odd side effect of making people within the scientific community struggle to defend their hypothesis and note observations with that much more certainty. Perhaps a little motivation is a good thing?

Yes, except that 14% agnostic number is likely primarily due to the Billion+ Chinese who are allowed no official faith under the Communist system. Even Canada has a number over 70% in terms of belief in some higher power, so I'm not sure 70% is an accurate figure worldwide.

China has actually got one of the fastest growing churches in the world, despite being supressed and hunted down. In fact I think its THE fastest growing church, not entirely sure. Its between them and N.Korea, which also is persecuted and hunted down.

Maybe it's just a product of randomness and physics. But why are physics the way they are? And why do atoms and molecules exist in the first place?

Maybe you should read up on basic physics.

Hear, hear!

Actually, "god"'s probably just playin' dead, very much like that dude in the middle of the room on "Saw".

If God is like Jigsaw*, suddenly everything makes so much more sense ^.^



(*aka 'that guy from 'Saw', for those who haven't seen the movie. And also: GO SEE 'SAW', YOU FOOLS!)

Atheism dying? (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html)
gee, that's odd, since stats for the US and Europe show numbers for secularism rising even faster than Christianity is declining. in the US, secularism is the second largest "religious denomination," larger than Judaism, Islam, Paganism, and all "other" religious categories combined.

given that secularism has been rising steadily since the Enlightenment, and given that education level and religiosity are negatively correlated, i think we can rest assured that the modern world will become progressively more secular.

Atheism dying? (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html)
The article is fucking absurd. It states that Atheism is losing it's scientific underpinnings, and backs the statement up with a Philosopher who claims that evolution can't account for the information found in a cell. Since when are philosophers qualified to teach mollecular biology?

It then claims that Atheism is mimicing the vices of the Spanish inquisition. That's such an absurd claim. Atheists in Europe and the USA don't go around torturing and killing the faithfull. I stopped reading after that. Exposure to that level of stupidity kills brain cells.

Second: I can't prove god exists and neither can you, so shut up.
I'm not referring to the existence of god. I can't prove or disprove god or any variation thereof at all. I'm referring to this:But there is so much beauty in the universe that you wonder if there isn't some sort of creative force. But what intrigues me the most is the meaning of life. Why do we need to reproduce and to keep making chemicals react in such a way that life is.That is not something any self-respecting biologist would ever say. I suggest you read up on Dawkins if self replication is that much of a mystery to you. Also, I wonder if you realise that we are a product of our environment, not vice versa.

There is so much beauty in the universe, in this planet, and there are so many questions that probably can't be answered by science, like why do a bunch of organized molecules need to keep organizing molecules and to find ways to make those molecules staying organized (If you know what I mean. I doubt that though.)? This makes me thing if this driving force that pushes living things to reproduce is... supernatural.
What level of biology are you at? Primary school? Again, read some Dawkins.

Maybe it's just a product of randomness and physics. But why are physics the way they are? And why do atoms and molecules exist in the first place?
I think Myrth answered this for me:Maybe you should read up on basic physics.

"Not knowing" and being open doesn't make me a poor biologist (or biology student). It makes me a better one though.
Certainly. However, you're not demonstrating openmindedness. You're demonstrating ignorance.

And Albert Einstein that said that the more he understood the universe, the more he believed in god.

And this too: http://www.dlshq.org/messages/einstein.htm
Well he's entitled to that. He also was not a biologist.

Maybe you should read up on basic physics.

Oh, will I find why things exist as they do? Why the various forces of nature in it's entirety developed into life?

Don't be stupid. I can explain anyone here how your emotions are just evolutionary tools that help you survive, amongst many, many other things that explain how we came to exist. But don't tell me that basic physics will explain why it happened.

Did you get the difference between how and why?


I'm saying religions should start accepting science and not try to debunk it in their mindless arrogance.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

Oh, will I find why things exist as they do? Why the various forces of nature in it's entirety developed into life?

Don't be stupid. I can explain anyone here how your emotions are just evolutionary tools that help you survive, amongst many, many other things that explain how we came to exist. But don't tell me that basic physics will explain why it happened.

Did you get the difference between how and why?
You seem to have a very, very anthropocentric and biocentric view of the universe. You just can't seem to get it into your head that life is a product of the universe, the universe is not a product of life.

I can't speak for a majority, but I know I go to a Catholic school with nearly a 1000 pupils but only 50 or so go to Church regularly. We even have a Sikh in my year (I have only known Christians to ever get into a Catholic school)... I'm sure in the next few years, with the education I have received, the number of religious people in the UK will plummit, especially within Chrisitianity.

I'm not referring to the existence of god. I can't prove or disprove god or any variation thereof at all. I'm referring to this:That is not something any self-respecting biologist would ever say. I suggest you read up on Dawkins if self replication is that much of a mystery to you. Also, I wonder if you realise that we are a product of our environment, not vice versa.
[...]
Certainly. However, you're not demonstrating openmindedness. You're demonstrating ignorance.


I have no doubt that humanity and life evolved from chance and environmental pressures. I am just amazed at the complexity of life and the universe. I'm not saying that the bearded guy made it this way. But nature did. And until we can't explain it, I'll probably find the reason why cells exist and must reproduce and "supernatural".

He is an ardent and outspoken atheist

I don't think Dawkins is completely impartial here. I wonder if he can prove that a higher force doesn't exist.

Although I didn't read the book, I understand his "selfish gene" concept and it can explain the endosymbiotic theory, for example, and I agree with most of his concept, but it still doesn't explain why genes exist.


You seem to have a very, very anthropocentric and biocentric view of the universe. You just can't seem to get it into your head that life is a product of the universe, the universe is not a product of life.

You are misinterpreting my words. I'm just saying that it's an awe-striking thing how random chance originated the wonders of life.

And we still can't figure out how organized proteins exist, the chicken and the egg problem: which came first, DNA or protein?

"Evolutionists still have the problem of figuring out how simple amino acids could combine to make proteins, which are essential to life. And how could you get nucleotides, in order to make DNA and RNA? And how could other chemicals come together to make cell membranes, which make up the very complex "skin" on the surface of every cell of living things? Membranes are more than just grease bubbles."

I'm just being healthily (?) skeptical here. I want ALL the answers.

I'm saying religions should start accepting science and not try to debunk it in their mindless arrogance.

It is neither arrogant nor mindless to dismiss superstition as such.

HL Mencken put it quite well:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

HL Mencken put it quite well:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Really, I couldn't :P

As long as the beliefs of others aren't harmful and they don't try to impose them on others, why shouldn't we let them have them?

I have no doubt that humanity and life evolved from chance and environmental pressures. I am just amazed at the complexity of life and the universe. I'm not saying that the bearded guy made it this way. But nature did. And until we can't explain it, I'll probably find the reason why cells exist and must reproduce and "supernatural".
Well then, that settles that. Because you don't understand it, you assume others do not. Look into some of the theories on abiogenesis. Especially the Cairns-Smith theory, which should blow your mind.

I don't think Dawkins is completely impartial here. I wonder if he can prove that a higher force doesn't exist.
Why must everything revolve around whether there is a higher power or not? If there is, it is beyond human comprehension and should just be discarded when dealing with science. Dawkins isn't trying to prove or disprove god. He is trying to understand life.

Although I didn't read the book, I understand his "selfish gene" concept and it can explain the endosymbiotic theory, for example, and I agree with most of his concept, but it still doesn't explain why genes exist.
So your problem is with the origin of life. The Cairns-Smith theory of abiogenesis might help you get your mind around self-replication.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Really, I couldn't :P

As long as the beliefs of others aren't harmful and they don't try to impose them on others, why shouldn't we let them have them?


There are quite a few things that I do not think anyone has been able to put better than Henry Louis Mencken. :)

You are misinterpreting my words. I'm just saying that it's an awe-striking thing how random chance originated the wonders of life.
Dawkins goes into that in The Blind Watchmaker. It seems like an impossible occurance from our organismic time, if I may borrow from E.O. Wilson, but not quite so much from, say, geological time. Perhaps it would need to go out even further than Wilson went, into astronomical time or something like that when it is not quite so incomprehensible that abiogenesis could occur.

And we still can't figure out how organized proteins exist, the chicken and the egg problem: which came first, DNA or protein?

"Evolutionists still have the problem of figuring out how simple amino acids could combine to make proteins, which are essential to life. And how could you get nucleotides, in order to make DNA and RNA? And how could other chemicals come together to make cell membranes, which make up the very complex "skin" on the surface of every cell of living things? Membranes are more than just grease bubbles."

I'm just being healthily (?) skeptical here. I want ALL the answers.
Fair enough. Still doesn't justify thinking its supernatural.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Really, I couldn't :P
That's because its Mencken.

[...]Fair enough. Still doesn't justify thinking its supernatural.

I never said it was supernatural. I'm saying it makes one wonder.

Anyway, I looked superficially into the Cairns-Smith theory ( http://originoflife.net/crystals/ ), the minerals replicating by breaking and transmitting information and such, but it still doesn't tell me why. And this theory isn't globally accepted anyway, although it is quite interesting.

I'm not saying that life isn't a product of chance and chemistry. Actually, life being a product of chance just makes it all much more interesting and raises many questions (rather than the "god made it that way and let's leave it at that" answer).

Thanks for sharing. But the ultimate question is there: the reason of meaning, which is probably no reason, but if there is no reason, should it happen this way, according to physics?
Is life just a product of entropy?
I'm might not be making myself very clear, for I am not a genious, but I can explain that question if needed.

Oh, will I find why things exist as they do? Why the various forces of nature in it's entirety developed into life?

Don't be stupid. I can explain anyone here how your emotions are just evolutionary tools that help you survive, amongst many, many other things that explain how we came to exist. But don't tell me that basic physics will explain why it happened.

Did you get the difference between how and why?




"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

There was a rather brilliant thread on here a while ago called "god and the why question", I dont suppose anyone has a link to it? But to paraphrase it said that there is no why. Things just happen, humans only assign a why question because they assume things have to have a reason, and since everything in our modern world has a use and a purpose, many carry on to ask why shoudnt the universe have a use and a purpose? This is a rather loaded question, of course and there is no reason to assume that it should.

Since I'm not much of a creative writer the other thread expressed it much better.

EDIT: and for g-ds sake can we please stop relying on quotes from famous people to prove our arguments? If you cant make up your mind without someone famous agreeing with you then maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

I never said it was supernatural. I'm saying it makes one wonder.
Oh, then that's fine. No problem with wondering.

Anyway, I looked superficially into the Cairns-Smith theory ( http://originoflife.net/crystals/ ), the minerals replicating by breaking and transmitting information and such, but it still doesn't tell me why. And this theory isn't globally accepted anyway, although it is quite interesting.
No theory on abiogenesis is. What the Cairns-Smith theory shows is self-replication. Even silicates may be capable of self-replication. And might've been out competed by superior organic methods.

I'm not saying that life isn't a product of chance and chemistry. Actually, life being a product of chance just makes it all much more interesting and raises many questions (rather than the "god made it that way and let's leave it at that" answer).
Yes.

I'm might not be making myself very clear, for I am not a genious, but I can explain that question if needed.
Please do, I didn't catch your meaning.

Why=Matrix Spoon.

There is no evidence of any sort of sentient or otherwise controlling entity.

There is amazing stuff out there, but its not -magic-. It's nature.

Much of this comes from the human idea that everything must be in a heirarchy, and since they, in their own minds, are so much 'higher' than animals, that there could/should/must be something even higher.

Trick is, we're as ass as any other species.

It then claims that Atheism is mimicing the vices of the Spanish inquisition. That's such an absurd claim. Atheists in Europe and the USA don't go around torturing and killing the faithfull. I stopped reading after that. Exposure to that level of stupidity kills brain cells.

Given the atrocities committed by people who claimed to adhere to atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc), I think that the point is well made.

No theory on abiogenesis is. What the Cairns-Smith theory shows is self-replication. Even silicates may be capable of self-replication. And might've been out competed by superior organic methods.

Yes, I understand that crystals replicate themselves. I meant the theory. And I also understand how organic beings might have prevailed over mineral beings.

Please do, I didn't catch your meaning.

Doesn't the universe (as in universe -> system) tend to the least ammount of potential energy, to a state of disorder? And isn't life some sort of override or vitiation to that tendency?

Given the atrocities committed by people who claimed to adhere to atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc), I think that the point is well made.
Given the atrocities of the people who claimed to adhere to religion (Hitler, Vlad Tepes, Richard the Lionhearted, Cortez, the guys who engaged in the genocide of Native Americans, a good portion of the Popes, etc.)...

Besides, atheism isn't an organized system. You make it sound like it is.

Given the atrocities committed by people who claimed to adhere to atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc), I think that the point is well made.
They killed people for their political views, not religious. There is no organized conspiracy of Atheists that tries to torture and kill theists into conforming to a godless lifestyle.

"As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."

My god, this is extreme and utter ignorance and shows a complete lack of understanding of biology..it sickens me.

"As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."

My god, this is extreme and utter ignorance and shows a complete lack of understanding of biology..it sickens me.
The worse thing is that Flew didn't even say that. Incidentally, he's still an atheist and really fucking pissed at the media for claiming otherwise.

The worse thing is that Flew didn't even say that. Incidentally, he's still an atheist and really fucking pissed at the media for claiming otherwise.
I thought he was a deist now?

Yes, I understand that crystals replicate themselves. I meant the theory. And I also understand how organic beings might have prevailed over mineral beings.
Yes, I'd hope so. My point is, that anything that has tendencies towards making it so that it is reproduced again will become more present than it would be otherwise. This is life in a nutshell.

Doesn't the universe (as in universe -> system) tend to the least ammount of potential energy, to a state of disorder? And isn't life some sort of override or vitiation to that tendency?
Ahh, so you're saying that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well, the short answer is, it most certainly doesn't. I'm too lazy to expound upon that right now.

No, no. I know it doesn't. It actually uses it. Like the membrane gradients, for example the proton gradient between the matrix and inter-membrane space of the mitochondria is used to produce ATP and the axon membrane gradient is used to produce eletrical stimuli that induce movement. All thanks to the 2nd law.

But in the essence, life overrides it, no?

It intrigues me.

If God is like Jigsaw*, suddenly everything makes so much more sense ^.^



(*aka 'that guy from 'Saw', for those who haven't seen the movie. And also: GO SEE 'SAW', YOU FOOLS!)
I suppose there's some material, especially Old Testament happiness, that might be construed as such. That's what i was thinking at least when i posted it. If so, i'd gain a little more respect for it.

Given the atrocities committed by people who claimed to adhere to atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc), I think that the point is well made.

Tad bit unfair, eh? I won't bother to cite all the evil reliigious folks, but its hypocritical to say the least. More than that, why do you think that Atheism caused Stalin and Mau to be the way they were, seeing as how its a system of disbeleif, and doesn't teach people how to act.

Oh it doesn't?

"Don't do this, don't do that"

Religion isn't the only way to teach people what is right or wrong you know?

I thought he was a deist now?
Nah. He's an atheist. That's why he's so pissed off at the media. They lied.

That's odd, poll after poll would suggest that religion is on the decline world wide. Perhaps in America this might be true, but not world wide.

Yes.

Nah. He's an atheist. That's why he's so pissed off at the media. They lied.
link?

link?
Can't find the exact one. The site I originally found it on doesn't have the thread the link was in anymore.

So I did a google search, and it seems that he no longer knows what he believes. He also appears to be going senile. linky (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369)

Tad bit unfair, eh? I won't bother to cite all the evil reliigious folks, but its hypocritical to say the least. More than that, why do you think that Atheism caused Stalin and Mau to be the way they were, seeing as how its a system of disbeleif, and doesn't teach people how to act.

The basic point is that we Atheists now can't really claim that we have the solution to things like genocide, as atheists have also committed atrocities.

Just as a footnote, I don't know about Stalin, but Mao's "Great Cultural Revolution" was a genocide of the religious. He did it to convert people to his worldview just like the inquisitors did.

Oh yeah, all you people arguing with Tribal Ecology....
ALL THEY IS SAYING IS THAT, WHILE IT'S EASY TO LOGICALLY DESCRIBE WHY LIFE IS AS COMPLEX AS IT IS USING JUST SIMPLE LAWS OF PROPABILITY, THE HUMAN MIND CAN'T COMPLETELY ACCEPT THIS AT AN INTUITIVE LEVEL. THEY'RE NOT SAYING ITS NOT TRUE, THEY JUST FIND THE UNIVERSE BEAUTIFUL. SO WHY ARE ALL YOU PEOPLE ATTACKING THEM!

Goddamit, be gentle with the editing.

And thank you for your support but I don't need it really. And I'm a person, not a people. A guy.