Way of the Master Debate Questions

jesterhawk
Theist
jesterhawk's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Way of the Master Debate Questions

Hello,

First off, I will say that I am a Christian and watched the opening arguments for the debate (will watch the rest later) and wanted to drop by and pose a question or two to begin with and go from there.

 

So, here we go

 

1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus.

JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is? I ask because webster's dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity" which is what I always thought an Atheist was. Just want to understand where you come from?

 

 

2) Are you Agnostic?

JH) Following from at least the debate standpoint, you seemed to believe that the existence of God is not provable. Would that make you an Agnostic? (webster's says of agnostic, "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and it does expand a bit on this)

 

 

3) Again, I have a debate mindset, do you chose not to believe in God because of evolution?

JH) Furthermore, there is a theory out there (I don't believe it, but it out there) called I think the Gap Theory where they speculate that God used Evolution to create life and that the days in Genesis are not literal days but God days since elsewhere it tells us that God's days are not like ours. So, for the sake of understand you standpoint, if God used evolution to create the world, would you believe in him or I guess would you be willing to believe in him?

 

 

4) On the Blaspheme Challenge, you are doing it a bit wrong, did you know that?

JH) The verse where Jesus says that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven is a true verse. But your understanding of it is not. Blaspheme, from the greek word, means to "1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, raile." So, just denouncing God or declining him or any of those is not really blaspheme. You have to speak evil of and even that is not exactly it because it is really more a life long condition of the heart like when the Bible tells us that King Saul hardened his heart against God. So, the blaspheme challenge really can't be caught on tape. I understand what you were going for and applaud your boldness, but thought I would mention this.

 

 

5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that?

JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.

 

 

6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that?

JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order. However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve). This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.

 

 

7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible?

JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.

 

 

Looking forward to your responses and my further watching of the debate.




Thanks,

JH


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Can't speak for RSS but

Can't speak for RSS but here are kinda some answers. 

 

1&2) The RSS defines the terms differently and ignore webster's dictionary. (Probably because Webster was a Christain)

3) Evolution doesn't prove or disprove God.

4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.

5)Yep they didn't...Creation requires a creator. The way I see it the only reasonable way to go about that is to argue that "creation" isn't really a "creation" since it always existed.

6)Ok, so what is that reason?

7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god. 

 


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
  It's RRS, not RSS!

ROTF 

It's RRS, not RSS!


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
I just post here. Other

I just post here. Other than sharing many of the views these guys have, I'm not a core member of the squad, so you might not appreciate my input as much.

jesterhawk wrote:

Hello,

First off, I will say that I am a Christian and watched the opening arguments for the debate (will watch the rest later) and wanted to drop by and pose a question or two to begin with and go from there.

 

So, here we go

YAY! We're going on a trip! Wer're going on a trip! Hi ho de dereeo we're going on a trip!

jesterhawk wrote:

1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus.

JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is? I ask because webster's dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity" which is what I always thought an Atheist was. Just want to understand where you come from?

You're really being confusing here when you say, essentially, "I don't believe that Zeus was a god, I believe he was a  a mythological figure, but that doesn't mean I lack belief in him". If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence. Regardless, look at the word "atheist". It comes from Greek. It's a compound word, with "a" meaning "no" and "theist" which comes from "Zeus" or "God". Therefore, it means "no god". That doesn't necessarily mean that we believe there is no god, at all, anywhere, but that we don't believe there is, based on lack of evidence.

jesterhawk wrote:

2) Are you Agnostic?

JH) Following from at least the debate standpoint, you seemed to believe that the existence of God is not provable. Would that make you an Agnostic? (webster's says of agnostic, "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and it does expand a bit on this)

Sapient said that he was an agnostic atheist. Read this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

jesterhawk wrote:

3) Again, I have a debate mindset, do you chose not to believe in God because of evolution?

JH) Furthermore, there is a theory out there (I don't believe it, but it out there) called I think the Gap Theory where they speculate that God used Evolution to create life and that the days in Genesis are not literal days but God days since elsewhere it tells us that God's days are not like ours. So, for the sake of understand you standpoint, if God used evolution to create the world, would you believe in him or I guess would you be willing to believe in him?

I don't think many people choose to not follow the christian god solely because of evolution.

jesterhawk wrote:

4) On the Blaspheme Challenge, you are doing it a bit wrong, did you know that?

JH) The verse where Jesus says that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven is a true verse. But your understanding of it is not. Blaspheme, from the greek word, means to "1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, raile." So, just denouncing God or declining him or any of those is not really blaspheme. You have to speak evil of and even that is not exactly it because it is really more a life long condition of the heart like when the Bible tells us that King Saul hardened his heart against God. So, the blaspheme challenge really can't be caught on tape. I understand what you were going for and applaud your boldness, but thought I would mention this.

The Abrahamic god continually says, in the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Bible, the Qur'An and the holy writings of the Baha'i and Rastafarian faiths (I believe that's all the Abrahamic ones) all say that atheists, by their very belief, are evil, as are ALL who do not believe in the one true god. Not only that, but their particular version of said god. So, by denying the holy spirit, we are fulfilling (not abolishing) the first definition of "blaspheme".

jesterhawk wrote:

5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that?

JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.

There's a reason they didn't "debunk" this any further than they did. It's been debunked. It's a stupid argument. Comparing manufactured goods like helicopters to the world, which as far as we know has no creator, is a false comparison.

jesterhawk wrote:

6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that?

JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order.

Stopping you there for a moment. That has happened, and it continues to happen. Mutations that are negative generally die  out quickly, while positive ones go forward.  So, yeah, we don't walk along haphazardly.

OK, continue.

jesterhawk wrote:
However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve).
WRONG. Faith isn't required. They only have to have kids. Evolution does the rest, assuming those kids reproduce.
jesterhawk wrote:
This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.
Are you a friend of Cameron and Comfort? Anyway, "macro-evolution" is a logical progression from "microevolution". Our DNA changes from generation to generation. Therefore, is it not logical that in millions of years, assuming the DNA continues to change (and it does, and will) a new species will emerge from at least one line?

jesterhawk wrote:

7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible?

JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.

If you need to use faith to believe something, you haven't proven it. 

 

jesterhawk wrote:

Looking forward to your responses and my further watching of the debate.




Thanks,

JH

Looking forward to further respectful discussion.

simple theist wrote:

Can't speak for RSS but here are kinda some answers.

 

1&2) The RSS defines the terms differently and ignore webster's dictionary. (Probably because Webster was a Christain)

No, because we take the literal meaning of the word to be the literal meaning of the word. It has NOTHING to do with the religion of Webster. That was a subtle ad hominem, and I was going to stoop to that level, but you'd just whine about how the big, nasty atheist bullies attacked you for telling the truth.

simple theist wrote:
3) Evolution doesn't prove or disprove God.
Truth.

simple theist wrote:
4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.
You don't understand your own religion.

simple theist wrote:
5)Yep they didn't...Creation requires a creator. The way I see it the only reasonable way to go about that is to argue that "creation" isn't really a "creation" since it always existed.
Look to the answer I gave jester

simple theist wrote:
6)Ok, so what is that reason?
Why do you assume we as people have all answers, or have to? 

simple theist wrote:
7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god.

I certainly hope you're right, but I highly doubt it, based on the specific use of "the Bible".


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
jesterhawk

jesterhawk wrote:

Hello,

First off, I will say that I am a Christian and watched the opening arguments for the debate (will watch the rest later) and wanted to drop by and pose a question or two to begin with and go from there.

 

So, here we go

 

1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus.

JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is?

Atheism is the negation of theism. Theist is one who believes in a god or gods, atheist is everyone else.

jesterhawk wrote:
2) Are you Agnostic?

JH) Following from at least the debate standpoint, you seemed to believe that the existence of God is not provable. Would that make you an Agnostic?

I'm both atheist and agnostic. Theism relates to belief. Gnosticism relates to knowledge. I am without belief or knowledge where deities are concerned, erego I'm an agnostic atheist.

jesterhawk wrote:
3) Again, I have a debate mindset, do you chose not to believe in God because of evolution?

JH) Furthermore, there is a theory out there (I don't believe it, but it out there) called I think the Gap Theory where they speculate that God used Evolution to create life and that the days in Genesis are not literal days but God days since elsewhere it tells us that God's days are not like ours. So, for the sake of understand you standpoint, if God used evolution to create the world, would you believe in him or I guess would you be willing to believe in him?

What you mentioned is not a "theory" in the scientific sense. Theories must be falsifiable and have predictive value. It should be called the "Gap Conjecture" or "Gap Speculation" or somesuch.

I am not an atheist because of evolution. I'm an atheist because there's no well demonstrated reason to be a theist. By the way, I don't "choose" to not believe in God, I simply don't. I'm sure you don't "choose" to believe that gravity makes things fall down instead of up, you simply do.

jesterhawk wrote:
4) On the Blaspheme Challenge, you are doing it a bit wrong, did you know that?

JH) The verse where Jesus says that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven is a true verse. But your understanding of it is not. Blaspheme, from the greek word, means to "1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, raile." So, just denouncing God or declining him or any of those is not really blaspheme. You have to speak evil of and even that is not exactly it because it is really more a life long condition of the heart like when the Bible tells us that King Saul hardened his heart against God. So, the blaspheme challenge really can't be caught on tape. I understand what you were going for and applaud your boldness, but thought I would mention this.

Yes, they knew that. That's not the point.

jesterhawk wrote:
5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that?

JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.

Creation points to a creator? Ok then prove there's a creation. This asinine argument is called begging the question. The questioner assumes that the universe is "a creation", and uses that assumption as validation for his belief that a creator exists.

jesterhawk wrote:
6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that?

JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order. However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve). This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.

If you say so.  What makes you think there's a "destination"?

jesterhawk wrote:
7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible?

JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.

And muslims can prove Allah with faith, Flying Spaghetti Monsterists can prove FSM with faith, and Snarfwidgetarians can prove the Amazing Purple Snarfwidget with faith. You can prove anything to yourself if you already believe it. It's called confirmation bias:

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


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
jesterhawk

jesterhawk wrote:

Hello,

First off, I will say that I am a Christian and watched the opening arguments for the debate (will watch the rest later) and wanted to drop by and pose a question or two to begin with and go from there.

So, here we go

1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus.

JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is? I ask because webster's dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity" which is what I always thought an Atheist was. Just want to understand where you come from?

I don't like the whole Zeus analogy as atheism normal means that one holds no god belief, not that one simply holds a different god belief than the one being discussed. It is accurate in that if only one 'god' story existed, and that was of Zeus, then your not believing in Zeus would make you an atheist. So, as far as in relation to Zeus, only, your being an atheist is true, but this is unnnecessarilly confusing and stretching the limits of reasonable discourse which I think atheists should avoid so as not to be confused with theists. 

Quote:
2) Are you Agnostic?

JH) Following from at least the debate standpoint, you seemed to believe that the existence of God is not provable. Would that make you an Agnostic? (webster's says of agnostic, "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and it does expand a bit on this)

That depends. I could possibly be agnostic on some god concepts. I would first need to hear of a god concept that was coherent. Could you tell me what exactly your god is supposed to be? Just simple things like what he exists as, where he exists, that sort of stuff.

Quote:
3) Again, I have a debate mindset, do you chose not to believe in God because of evolution?

JH) Furthermore, there is a theory out there (I don't believe it, but it out there) called I think the Gap Theory where they speculate that God used Evolution to create life and that the days in Genesis are not literal days but God days since elsewhere it tells us that God's days are not like ours. So, for the sake of understand you standpoint, if God used evolution to create the world, would you believe in him or I guess would you be willing to believe in him?

First off, I don't choose what to believe and what not to believe. I think this is one of the oddest things that I hear theists say. I believe something when I have good reason to believe it. It is a natural occurence of receiving information that provides an answer to some unknown and does so in a way that is coherent and that I can understand. I can not understand why theists seem to think one canchoose to believe something. Go to the top of the nearest building and choose to believe you can fly. Now, are you going to jump?

Secondly, There are many theists that understand the evolutionary process and accept the obvious fact that it is the only reasonable explanation for a means by which we have arrived at the diversity of life we see on the planet today. The vast majority of theists fall into this category (though by a sample of the ones which frequent this site you would never know that). 

Thirdly, what it would take for me to believe in god is for someone to define god as a possibly existing entity and then to show me solid evidence of its existence. Its really as simple as that.

Quote:
4) On the Blaspheme Challenge, you are doing it a bit wrong, did you know that?

JH) The verse where Jesus says that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven is a true verse. But your understanding of it is not. Blaspheme, from the greek word, means to "1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, raile." So, just denouncing God or declining him or any of those is not really blaspheme. You have to speak evil of and even that is not exactly it because it is really more a life long condition of the heart like when the Bible tells us that King Saul hardened his heart against God. So, the blaspheme challenge really can't be caught on tape. I understand what you were going for and applaud your boldness, but thought I would mention this.

This is unimportant. The blasephmy challenge worked as the RRS was able to get their voices onto the national stage. No matter whether the challenge was accurate by any of the wildly different biblical interpretations held by different religious sects is a point I doubt the founders care anything about.

Quote:
5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that?

JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.

I agree that, in my opinion, the whole universe factory thing is not a very strong point against the inference of creator by creation, but your blackhawk analogy sucks for reasons that should be obvious. You can go to the factory whether it is allowed or not. It is physically possible.

The fact is that trying to infer a creator by the presence of a creation is circular, because one is referring to a creation from the outset, and it misses a fundamental difference between what it is to create as a human does and what it would be to create as a 'god' would have to do. A human simply rearranges existing physical matter to form a new 'shape'. A god, who is not bound by nature, would need to create the matter, the laws that govern it, where it exists, every parameter of existence.

In order to infer a god from this type of creation we would need to have something that was not this type of creation to contrast with. It simply makes no sense to try and equate a painting painter relationship and what would be a creator/everything relationship.

Quote:
6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that?

JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order. However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve). This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.

There is so much incorrect in this comment that you should really open a new thread just to discuss this one point.

Evolution is not random in the sense you use here (unguided).

Even if I walk a mile in a circle I have still walked a mile on step at a time. Evolution has no destination so it makes no difference in what direction it wlaks. It will go where the environment pushes it. 

 There are different meanings for the word faith. Religious faith is belief without, or in spite of contrary, evidence.

Intelligent design is simply god of the gaps. It makes no coherent claims. It simply says that evolution has areas that aren't completely filled in therefor creator. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Quote:
7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible?

JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.

No science points to the existence of a god. That is simply untrue to claim that science can lead to such a thing. When you say you have to use faith what you mean is ou have to at some point abandon the science and just suddenly insert god. If you are going to do this you might as well do  it from the start and avoid the science all together.

It is faith and faith alone that leads to a belief in a god. As can be easily shown, faith is not a reliable means to arrive at truth. In fact, the use of faith alone makes it impossible to differentiate between fact and fiction. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
jesterhawk wrote: 1) Kelly

jesterhawk wrote:

1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus. 

JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is? I ask because webster's dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity" which is what I always thought an Atheist was. Just want to understand where you come from?

You are playing with semantics - belief a myth existed is not at all the same as believing that Zeus (a god character in a myth) is real god.  She saying that most people are athiests regarding their belief in the god Zeus.

 

 

Quote:

2) Are you Agnostic?

JH) Following from at least the debate standpoint, you seemed to believe that the existence of God is not provable. Would that make you an Agnostic? (webster's says of agnostic, "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and it does expand a bit on this)

I *lack belief* in a god due to a lack of evidence - this is commonly referred to as "weak atheism".  "Strong atheism" is the *belief* (assertion) that there is no god. Theists tend to get these concepts confused, I don't know why exactly.   

 

Quote:
3) Again, I have a debate mindset, do you chose not to believe in God because of evolution?

JH) Furthermore, there is a theory out there (I don't believe it, but it out there) called I think the Gap Theory where they speculate that God used Evolution to create life and that the days in Genesis are not literal days but God days since elsewhere it tells us that God's days are not like ours. So, for the sake of understand you standpoint, if God used evolution to create the world, would you believe in him or I guess would you be willing to believe in him?

 That is not a theory because it can't be tested...however, if you have proof god is the instigator of evolution, I will accept that god is real - do you have proof?

 

Quote:

4) On the Blaspheme Challenge, you are doing it a bit wrong, did you know that?

JH) The verse where Jesus says that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven is a true verse. But your understanding of it is not. Blaspheme, from the greek word, means to "1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, raile." So, just denouncing God or declining him or any of those is not really blaspheme. You have to speak evil of and even that is not exactly it because it is really more a life long condition of the heart like when the Bible tells us that King Saul hardened his heart against God. So, the blaspheme challenge really can't be caught on tape. I understand what you were going for and applaud your boldness, but thought I would mention this.

The entire point of the challenge is to illustrate that atheists  have absolutely no fear of god because they don't beleive he exists, that is all.   Are you frightened when you eat hamburgers?  To a Hindu you are being blasphemus by eating the sacred flesh of holy cows... do you feel bad about it?  Do you get a twinge of fear running down your spine when you do?  Do you have nighmares of Vishnu beating you with her four arms for all eternity because you had a big mac?  Atheists think the hell idea is just as ridiculous as that - eating cows, denying god...all the same, nothing to fear.

To your point though, I have seen an interview with two theological scholars who claimed that by even purposefully attempting to blaspheme god, you have done so - it was a willful act, they also claimed it doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, that is your choice, but you will burn in hell if you don't, and this is no different - belief in god, in their estimation is not a prerequisite for any of his punishments, otherwise no one should believe in him to avoid going to hell. ...damn good thing there is no evidence he's real eh?  Quite a tyrant Eye-wink

 

 

Quote:

5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that?

JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.

This has been debunked a million times a million ways.  The argument itself is based on the presupisition that there is a "creation", there is a universe, nothing anywhere says it needed to be created by god...show god was needed, then we have a debate... (tip before you waste your time, millions have been trying to show this for the last three thousand years and have still not found a single undeniable piece of evidence that "god did it&quotEye-wink.

 

Quote:
6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that?

JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order. However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve). This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.

Evolution doesn't have a destination, we exist only because we survived, we are intelligent only because conditions in our history and evolution lead to this.  We are only having this conversation because of an environmental stress our ancestors had to deal with over two million years ago.  Intelligence wasn't a destination, it was an advantage that helped our ancestors survive.  No plan necessary. 

 

Quote:
7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible?

JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.

Faith is not proof, so you can't. 

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Only two of those are worth

 

jesterhawk wrote:

5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that?

JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.

Sorry. That's a stolen concept fallacy. Todangst and I blasted that out of the water

here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/7720

here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

and here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

 

jesterhawk wrote:

6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that?

JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order. However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve). This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.

Excellent! I am a molecular biologist, so evolution is my field. I have always argued that the micro/macro confusion is an argumentum ad ignoratium. Any scientist I work with will tell you it is a continuum fallacy.

 

Literally nothing I see would make any sense except in the context of evolution. We do not have faith that it "follows a plan". Using molecular genetics, we can show it. And this is a piece of an essay I wrote which did show just that:

As a molecular biologist, I can confimr that the evidence from molecular biology supports evolution and nothing else.

 

And before we begin, I shall introduce the terminology and the tests from which we gather our information:

 

Vocabulary:

 

Duplicative mutation: A genetic mutation where a gene string is accidentally duplicated during mitosis failure. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability.

 

Homology: A family relationship between two or more genes (or sets of genes) as the result of a duplicative mutation. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

 

Paralogy: A relationship between two closely related genes in a single genome as the result of a mutation. These two genes (or sets) are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier species. For instance, the seven human haemoglobins are said to be paralogous of each other.

Orthology: A relationship between genes or sets of genes in different species. When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Recombinative mutation: Chunks of genetic information are shuffled around. Bear this in mind for what we talk about below.

 

Vocabulary regarding protein organization:

Polypeptide chain: A tertiary protein is one consisting of only one polypeptide chain (one very long molecule made of many amino acid subunits all covalently bonded, usually 50-2000 amino acids long)

 

Tertiary domain: A recognizable subunit of a polypeptide chain. Domains are usually consistent of many alpha helices and beta sheets twisted around each other. A tertiary domain is essentially a clearly distinct building block of a polypeptide chain. When I say distinct, I mean obvious. For example, the protein nucleosaminade is constructed of four distinct regions symmetrically aligned in a tetramer (four identical domains). Perhaps telling you how obvious the domain distinct is. Perhaps a picture would help:

neuraminidase quadrimer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domains can be aligned in stack-up formation (N-terminus to C and so on) to create long strandlike proteins as seen in fibronectin shown here

head-to-tail fibronectin structural protein

 

Hopefully these pictures will make you understand what I mean when I say that a domain is a “distinct region”. The technical definition of a domain is “a region of protein which folds up independent of the rest of the chain”. Thus we can see that a tertiary domain is a clear, distinct region of protein which makes up the large building subunits of polypeptide chains, a fact which will be important later.

 

Modular domain: A domain which pops up all over the proteome of many different proteins and many different domains in many different species, essentially a building block ubiquitous throughout evolution.

 

*critical note about tertiary and modular domains. When we say the domain is in many places, keep in mind that domains are not identical protein strings to the letter. Two protein strings can be 50% different in amino acid string and still be the same domain (as a domain is defined by its function). This is why the human haemoglobin alpha is a different protein string to say, the chimp haemoglobin alpha, but they are still the same domain. This is crucial for a test discussed soon called the molecular clock.

 

Quaternary domain: Many proteins are consistent of many polypeptide chains (tertiary proteins) noncovalently bonded together. If this is the case then it is called a quaternary protein complex, and the subunits of this large complex (called quaternary domains) are the tertiary proteins (the subunits of which of course, are tertiary domains)

 

Primary structure: Unfolded protein. A straight string of amino acids.

Secondary structure: The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the tertiary subunits.

Tertiary structure: The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual atoms and peptide bonds take shape.

Quaternary structure: Only applicable in a quaternary protein. Same as tertiary structure, except of course, with a protein complex holding multiple noncovalent bonded chains

 

Signature sequence: These are crucial for identifying two protein strings which are the same domain but which have very different amino acid sequences (note, the key factor in determining whether two strings are indeed the same domain is 3D geometry, aka the fold or conformation, but this can often take years to construct). For instance, two protein strings can still be considered the same domain even if, say, the match between them is 30% amino acids identical. This is because many of the mutations do not alter the geometry of the string (these neutral mutations are also called “background noise”).

 

So to help us tell where two protein strings are indeed the same domain, we need to find the signature sequences, conserved amino acid strings critical for the functioning of the protein (often these strings are so sensitive that they do not change whatsoever, even over two billion years). For example:

 

This is a comparison of the SH2 domain of the Src kinase protein (a domain which is more or less ubiquitous) between the human and the fruit fly Drosophila. Note that these are actually identical domains despite their clear differences in sequence. The results:

Homo Sapiens

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophila melanogaster:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in both: WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

The reason we can ID these two strings as the same protein is due to the signature sequences which are conserved only in the SH2 domain.

 

Tests used (need to know about these):

 

Sequencing: Very simple. Run a gene sequence through a sequencer and determine the string of nucleotides that make up the gene.

 

Proteomic Sequencing: A protein’s amino acid string can be immediately determined through gene sequencing. This is really boring, so we just run it through a proteomic sequencer and the codons are matched with the correct amino acid.

 

Microarray: Crucial test to measure how mutations affect gene expression. A Microarray is a tiny square on which we can array the genome or a section of genome of any organism we care to test. Each gene is arrayed on it’s own tiny glass square subunit within the array. A mixture of nucleotides is then passed over the array, which bond to the ones aligned on the array. These nucleotides have fluorescent chemical tags attached to them, and thusly, they light up. The rate of gene expression can be monitored based on the fluorescence of the nucleotides to which a particular gene is tagged. In this way, thousands of genes can be monitored simultaneously, the effect of adding or removing any gene can be monitored, different conditions on the gene set can be monitored, and the entire GRNP (Gene Regulatory Node Pathway) can be completely constructed, and the result of evolutionary changes on the GRNP can be monitored to a degree of exact detail. The evolutionary relationship between organisms becomes immediately clear as we can observe the effect of mutations on the organism as a whole (making this test much more accurate than knockout selective mutation test), albeit much more difficult to read).

 

Genetic engineering knockout: When we want to find out what a certain gene does, we can do this:

a) Knockout test. Engineer an organism with one and only one specific gene removed by a process called recombinative deleting. Observe effect on the phenotype to conclude what this gene does. By breeding many mutant versions of an organism with one particular gene, any gene that we wish to test, knocked out of it, we can discern what the missing gene does.

b) Engineered insertion: To help discern what the gene knocked out of one organism does, we can insert it into another and find out exactly how it works. A memorable example, I recall, is the removal of pax6 gene from a mouse, which is a master gene that commands a set of genetic instructions to make an eye. We only discovered this when we inserted it into a fly and astonishingly discovered a perfectly formed fly eye growing on the fly’s leg.

 

What this means is that we inserted pax6 next to the gene expression regulators responsible for coordinating development of the leg. This is the other useful piece of data obtained from an engineered insertion test. For instance, I trust you have all heard of the famous “glowing green monkey”, where researchers inserted a fluorescent green protein gene into a monkey genome and discovered that it was now glowing green, thus indicating that the gene had been inserted next to the one responsible for skin pigmentation.

 

Homologous match comparison:

 

Molecular Clock: A crucial test. The necessity of a protein domain for survival will affect the rate of mutation and change of that gene. Critical genes that are absolutely necessary for survival do not change very easily and are thusly called conserved genes. The rate at which mutations in domains occurs is measured by observing the rate of change of a domains by comparing the amino acid divergence in different species. For instance, haemoglobin changes at a rate of 6% every 100 million years. Due to the fact that the homologous domains are identical, this divergence would only exist if the species in question are descendants of a common ancestor. If ID, creationism, sponataneous appearance of complex life by God waving his magic finger, then these divergences should not eixst. An example of how this can be used to rip Behe's Irreducibile complexity a new asshole shown here:

[Digression]

Blood Clotting Claimed Irreducible By Behe: False.

It might be best to step back and first determine how the metabolic pathways to blood clotting work. It is a complex process indeed. At the heart of blood clotting is a substance in your blood called fibrin. Fibrin is a sticky molecule soluble in water which has the natural tendancy to form a clot. The mesh which it forms stops haemopoitic cells from escaping. Fibrin forms about 3% of the blood. However, it obviously cannot exist normally as fibrin, or it would simply block up the vessels, hence when in the blood, fibrin exists as part of a larger molecule called fibrinogen. Fibrinogen is a complex, amino-acid rich macromolecular complex, which at it’s center contains the fibrin molecule. Surrounding it are many amino acid side chains, which have a negative charge (at the pH of blood, amines and side chains always have a charge). This causes them to repel each other, thus they exist as independent molecules in the blood, without clotting.

This changes when a wound initiates the metabolic pathways known as the blood clotting cascade. A protease enzyme has to catalyze the removal of the side chains, thus exposing the fibrin. This enzyme is called thrombin. But obviously thrombin has to exist as an inactive enzyme otherwise it would simply initiate the reaction whenever. It exists as protothrombin, and has to be activated to become the catalysis enzyme. A tiny additional chain on the protothrombin fold renders it inactive. This has to be removed by another clotting serine factor, Factor X. This too, as a serine, must be activated in the same manner. And so, the blood clotting cascade has four steps more until we reach the beginning. Factor X is activated by Factor XI, which is activated by Factor IX, which is activated by Factor XII, Which is activated by the Kininogen-Kallikrein system of co-activation, which is triggered by external stimuli. This is where the process starts.

 

The activation of the serine cofactors is a similar process. For XI to become XIa (Activated Factor 11), a side chain must be cut removing the ionic charge, which allows it to cascade into the next step. It seems unnecessary complex, almost like an infinite regress of serine-cofactor activation steps. But it makes sense, because for every step that is taken, an exponential signal transduction increase occurs. If it was just a very short pathway, say a single cofactor triggered by external stimuli to start the thrombin conversion, then the clot would be far too small, and would take hours to form. Thus, the six-step amplification works best.

 

In others words, blood coagulation is a complex and beautiful process. But does that mean it is irreducible and could not have evolved? One of the key establishment requisites of Behe’s irreducible complexity is that a mechanism could not evolve by gradual evolutionary steps. But I beg to differ. The implication that he made clear in Darwin’s Black Box was that the designer would have to put all the parts together at once, otherwise it would not really be irreducible or a challenge to evolution. But unfortunately, genetic analysis of the cofactor cascade tells us otherwise. Thus we return to my previous comment about the homologous nature of the cascade.

 

So how could this function have evolved, and how can we trace it? Typically, when we start looking at a biomolecular function, we have a base from which to start. We never start from scratch. Only primordial chemists deal in that. This base function might be exteremly primitive, almost bound by basic laws of chemistry. For instance, when we look at the eye in all it’s glory, we see that all nine divergences that have taken their course come from a highly simplified patch of light-sensitive cells. Likewise, when we observe the fantastic complexity and variation of the Eukaroytic cell membranes, with all their complex ion channels and protein transport functions, we see that in common they are all bound a very simple chemical law known as ampipathism, the tendency of hydrophilic/phobic molecules to align in a bilayer. The membrane’s composition resembles a flagellum in molecular shape, with a long twin hydrophobic fatty acid tail and a stubby hydrophilic choline-phosphate-glycerol head.

 

What similar base function might we find in blood clotting? Studying the evolution of metabolic pathways is different to studying other molecular functions. The job is made significantly easier by the Autocatalytic nature of the pathways as described in my previous link. Much of the steps in coagulation work like that too. The serine proteases that form the original primitive life forms (as being detected on the long arms of chromosomes 1 and 5) were not originally designed for blood clotting, but they were there. In his book Finding Darwin’s God, Ken Miller suggests that cAMP (that’s cyclic adenosine monophosphate) would be a significant launch pad to build up the homologous set of serine cofactors that make the cascade. He’s correct here. cAMP is cellular transduction molecule that acts somewhat like a neurotransmitter, smoothing muscular tissue around vascular epithelial tissue, and inhibiting blood flow. A damaged cell, spilling all of it’s contents, would pour the cAMP out along with it. Evolution could work with that. Cellular mechanisms already possess, for unrelated reasons, white blood cells, whose adhesive nature allowed them to clump the wound

 

From the rudimentary system, where several factors are in place and a simple automatic system of clumping exists, a highly complex multilayered system of cascading can accumulate by two well-known evolutionary processes. One is called duplicate error from which the various homologies are formed, and the other is exon shuffling as done by spliceosomes. From the receptors point of view, we could see how the repeated duplication and slight mutation of the serine cofactors would work, for reasons not the least of which that we can track it’s paralogies. For the most part, coagulation is autocatalytic, it just needs the materials to initiate. If the progenitors are already in place, then well…all that is needed is time for the duplicative errors to occur. If we have primordial serine cofactors (we do), the rudimentary single layer is pre-existing (ie, primordial enzyme A is cleaved to make Aa, which actives the thrombin). This would initiate itself. And we can imagine the naturally selective benefits that would come from the repeated duplication of the serine, as this would make clotting more efficient.

It is in no way Irreducible. You can be sure that we would notice it in the genome if it was (as it turns out, they are strewn all over the genomes across the strata, XII is in Chromosome 5, VII is on 13, Factor VIII is on the sex chromosome etc)

Blood clotting is an example of a zymogen cascade pathway, and any metabolism generated by zymogenes can be generated by duplication and homology. This particular cascade is composed almost exclusively of serine proteases. Surely, serine protease zymogenous cascade is the worst example of "intelligent design", not because it is poor, but because the homology in this particular protein family is more obvious than any other family, kinase domains, homeodomains, Cro repressor dimers, you name it, this is the textbook example of a protein family in an obvious homology. This particular domain is so close in amino acid structure of the proteases that some of the serines are nearly indistinguishable without close scrutiny of the difference in signature sequences. (Sig sequences are tiny stretches of amino acids 10-30 amino acids long used to ID domain stretches that have diverged alot). Of course, the serines haven't exactly diverged alot. In fact, they are one of the most conserved families in the whole proteome. They are the nemesis of intelligent design, an obvious example of duplication and homology.

[End of digression]

 

when I read your first thought was...that's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies which clearly diverge as separation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length separation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indicates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble. Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as separations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

 

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

 

These are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed exactly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

 

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

 

All this in turn is corroborated by ERV tracking and the vertical transfers in Mitochondrial DNA

How do you explain and account for mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration without common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertion occurs when a retrovirus reverse transcribes it's own RNA into a host's DNA by means of polymerase RNA-DNA conversion, 3' and 5' enzymatic degradation and intergrase fusion. Retroviruses are the only organisms that can do this. That is what makes HIV so deadly. The ERV insertions are rare and very random. Although complementation ensures they can only bind to specific points on the host's genome, the amount of possible insertions that the ERV could transcribe, not to mention the fact that this has to be to the power of seven to account for all seven retroviruses, and of course, the fact that it is a very rare occurrence and the fact that even a single transcribed piece has numerous choices of insertion due to multiple duplication errors that exist in Eukaryotic genomes means the odds of finding even just one insertion (let alone 8% of the genome for humans alone) on one identical position in the chromosomal karyotype would be astronomical. And then, that number has to be raised to the power of seven, then multiplied by several thousand to account for all the possible transcribable genes, which has to multiplied by 10 again to account for the duplicative errors, and that doesn't even factor in how rare the insertions are.

The only way it is possible that we can find large strings of ERV's on identical interspersals throughout the genome of species throughout every eon is because of common descent.

It is empirically demonstratable that mitochondria are the result of billion year old symbiosis between ancient oxyphobic bacteria and proto-eukaryotes. This is the reason they have their own little genome. The mtDNA genome in humans is only 16,000 base pairs. Prokaryotes have a remarkable ability to exchange genetic material by a different process which is critical to bacterial evolution. This is called horizontal transfer. Vertical transfer is an ability eukaryotes do not have because their DNA is enclosed in an intercellular packaged membrane (hence the name eukaroyote). Vertical transfer occurs when bacteria simply exchange genes by passing them through the cell membrane to each other. This can occur either by direct junction fusing or literally uptaking of the new material. Prokaryotes can take any peice of nucleic acid string and simply incorporate it immediately because their DNA is not kept in an intercellular membrane.

So, mitochondria, as ancient prokaryotes, of course keep their DNA is a loop strand like every other bacteria. Indeed, mtDNA also undergoes transfer. This is very rare and obviously useless. In this case, it is intracellular thus the transfer is into the nucleus of the host cell, where the master genome is stored. Such is termed mtDNA migration.

I think mtDNA migration is even better than ERV because the probability is even lower by several orders of magnitude that we could find mtDNA on identical positions of the genotypes of multipe species throughout multiple eons without common descent whereby the offspring would inherit the mtDNA. The best part is that obviously, as time passes, the amount of mtDNA in the master genomes should accumulate, since more horizontal transfer is taking place over longer periods of time, and this should still turn up on the same positions in the genotype. What a surprise! It does.

Without common descent, the probability of individual horizontal transfers accounting for entire species inheriting identical mtDNA which remains so throughout geological eons and continues to accumulate and end up in the same places is so low the number is unfathomable.

And now to recall the discussion about protein domains is the clincher, namely the fact that there are no original protein domains in the whole proteomic spectrum makes it very obvious that they evolved by duplication and blind guidance. The entire vertebrae genome was created by shuffling mutations which rearranged domains into novel combinations. The human genome contains only 7% vertebrae specific protein, and differs in terms of size from a fruit fly by only a factor of 1.2, yet the fact that much more novel and complex arrangements of the same protein domains means the construction of a much more complex organism. There is nothing original about the vast diverstiy of life. It all came from very simple, repeating, diverging, primordial, protein domains.

 

HOWEVER, if your argument is one from thermodynamics, that the "order" necessary to drive evolution is impossible on a macro scale, I have refuted that here:

This is a lengthy explanation of the entropy laws, and how they relate to life. I understand that many people have been using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as if it were a challenge to evolution. You can imagine how amusing I find this.

At any rate, we need to understand some basic concepts first. These are The laws of thermodynamics, entropy, enthalpy and free energy.

Let us imagine a box, a system closed off from the universe, with a cell inside it. The cell in a box is a closed system with a fixed amount of free energy. This system will have a total amount of Energy denoted E. Let us suppose the reaction A to B occurs in the box and releases a great deal of chemical bond energy as heat. This energy will increase the rate of molecular motions (transitional, vibrational and rotational) in the system. In other words it will raise the temperature.

However, the energy for these motions will soon transfer out of the system as the molecular motions heat up the wall of the box and then the outside world, which is denoted sea. Eventually, the cell in a box system returns to it’s initial temperature, and all the chemical bond energy released has been transferred to the surroundings. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the change in energy in the box (denoted ∆Ebox or just ∆E) must be equal and opposite to the amount of heat energy transferred out, denoted as h. Therefore ∆E=-h.

 

E in the box can also change during a reaction due to work done in the outside world. Suppose there is a small volume increase in the box (∆V) which must decrease the energy in the box (∆E) by the same amount. In most reactions, chemical bond energy is converted to work and heat. Enthalpy(H) is a composite function of work and heat, (H=E+PV). Technically it is the Enthalpy change (∆H) is equal to the heat transferred to the outside world during a reaction.

 

Reactions with a -∆H are exothermic, and ones with +∆H are endothermic. Therefore –h=∆H. The volume change in reactions is so negligible that this is a good approximation.

 

-h≈∆H≈∆E

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to predict the course of a reaction.

Let us consider 1000 coins in a box, all facing heads. It is a closed system, which, by definition, does not exchange energy input or output with the rest of the universe. States of high order have low probability. For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins.

Therefore, for a living organism to maintain order and increase order, there must be a useful energy input. For that to happen, there will be a useless energy output. Thus increasing the order in the cell will increase the disorder of the entire universe. In this way, we can imagine life forms and other complexities as islands of order in a universe progressing towards disorder. For this to happen, there must be a colossal influx of free energy all the time. This is one the requisites for life. As luck would have it, we have such a system: The sun.

We need a quantitative unit to measure this, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

 

∆S= R log PB/PA

 

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant (2 cal/deg-1/mole-1) ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu).

 

In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1. The state probability after the box is shaken vigorously is about 10^298. Therefore, the entropy change when the box is shaken is R log 10^298 is about 1370eu per mole of each container (6.02x10^23 containers). ∆S is positive in this example. It is reactions with a large positive ∆S which are favorable and occur spontaneously. We say these reactions increase the entropy in the universe.

 

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

 

∆Ssea =h/T

 

We must now look at a critical concept: Gibbs Free Energy (G)

 

When observing enclosed bio-systems, we need to know whether or not a given reaction can occur spontaneously. The question regarding this is whether the ∆S for the universe is positive or negative for the reaction, as already discussed.

 

In the cell in a box system there are two separate components to the entropy change in the universe. The ∆S for the inside of the box and the ∆S for the surrounding sea. These must be added together.

 

For example, it is possible for an endothermic reaction to absorb heat therefore decreasing the entropy of the universe (-∆Ssea) but at the same time cause such a large disorder in the box (+∆Sbox) that the total ∆S is greater than zero. Note that ∆Suniverse=∆Ssea+∆Sbox. 13

For every reaction, ∆Suniverse must be >0. We have just encountered another way to restate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

In this case, the reaction can spontaneously occur even though the sea gives heat to the box during the reaction. An example of this is a beaker of water (the box) in which sodium chloride is dissolving. This is spontaneous even though the temp of the water drops as it is occurring.

 

The most useful composite function is Gibbs Free Energy (G) which allows one to deduce ∆S in the universe due to the reaction in the box. The formula is: G=H-TS.

 

For a box of volume V, H is the Enthalpy (E+PV), T is the absolute temperature and S is the entropy. All of these apply to the inside of the box only. The change in free energy in the box during a reaction is given as the ∆G of the products minus the ∆G of the reactants. It is a direct measure of the disorder created in the universe when a reaction occurs. At a constant temp, ∆G= ∆H+T∆S. ∆H is the same as –h, the heat absorbed from the sea. Therefore

 

-∆G= -∆H +T∆S or -∆G=h+T∆S Therefore -∆G/T=h/t+∆S

 

h/T still equals ∆Ssea but the ∆S in the above equation is for the box. Therefore.

 

-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

 

A reaction will spontaneously proceed in the direction where ∆G<0, because it means that the ∆S will be >0. They are inverse functions of each other. For a complex set of coupled reactions involving many molecules, one can calculate ∆G by adding the ∆G of all the different types of molecules involved before the reaction, and comparing that to the ∆G of all the molecules produced by the end of the reaction. For example, comparing the ∆G of the passage of a single proton through the inner mitochondrial membrane across the electrochemical proton gradient to the ∆G for ATP hydrolysis, we can conclude that ATP synthase requires the passage of more than one proton for each molecule of ATP synthesized.

 

Let’s review:

2nd Law: Basically an expression dictating that the whole universe progresses towards disorder, and any reaction must contribute to that disorder. Disorder is energetically favorable and probability-wise favorable.

Heat Energy: The energy in the random motion and hubbub of molecular jostling and movement. This is basically a measure of temperature, but all reactions give off heat energy, which is irretrievable (another way to restate the second law). Heat energy is denoted h.

Enthalpy: A composite function of heat and work, but since ∆V is always next to nothing, we can regard it as the inverse of heat. Enthalpy is a measure of heat energy lost or ∆H=-h

Gibbs Free Energ

 

The total ∆G for a reaction measures how far from equilibrium the reaction is. The large negative ∆G for ATP hydrolysis means that the cell keeps it very far from equilibrium. Equilibrium is reached when the forward and backward rates of each reaction are precisely equal and the ∆G is zero. For ATP hydrolysis, this occurs when the vast majority of ATP has been hydrolyzed (because ATP hydrolysis is much more favorable than ATP synthesis), like in a dead cell.

 

What we can conclude is that every reaction must have a negative ∆G to occur.

 

But how? What about anabolism, free energy creation, energy stores? Many reactions in cells are energetically unfavorable. Most polymerizations are, oxaloacete generation, ADP condensation etc as well as supramolecular operation like ribosomal assembly, mitosis, mRNA synthesis etc

 

These seemingly impossible reactions make use of a key concept covered earlier. Let us return to our cell in the sea scenario. Except the cell is not in the box, it is in the sea, receiving free energy from the sun.

 

Recall: ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

 

Except now it becomes: ∆Ssea +∆Scell =∆Suniverse

 

For an unfavorable reaction to occur, it must be coupled to a favorable reaction of higher magnitude. IN this way, even the order in the cell increases, the disorder in the sea increases by a greater amount therefore the ∆S is still positive and the ∆G is still negative, leaving the laws of thermodynamics intact.

 

There are a vast number of examples to choose from. Let us consider a typical unfavorable condensation reaction

 

A-H+ B-OH = A-B + H20

 

This reaction will not occur spontaneously. It cannot. It will create free energy of its own accord. That’s impossible. Fortunately there is a mechanism to bypass this.

 

A favorable reaction is coupled to it. ATP Hydrolysis is a favorable and readily occurring reaction where ATP splits one phosphanhydride to ADP, leaving a very reactive inorganic phosphate. This bond, because it is highly reactive, readily bonds with B-OH forming B-O-PO3.

 

This is called a high-energy intermediate. Because the bond is so high-energy, it will immediately react with B-H producing A-B + H2O + Pi + ADP

 

This concept exists in a huge number of reactions. Many reactions involve critical stepwise passing of high energy intermediate chains.

 

The cells must maintain order by maintaining a constant stream of biochemical catabolism and anabolism being driven by enzymes which lower the activation energy. Food is broken down from macromolecular giant biological polymers like polysaccharides, polypeptides, proteins and giant fatty acids by oxidation, electron carrying, and catalysis of favorable reactions into simple molecules like glucose, amino acids and glycerol. Some of this is in turn, catabolized to break the phosphate bonds which release heat energy to power the cell (and increase entropy in the universe). The rest of it is used to be anabolized again into giant structures in glycogen or lipid storage for later consumption or construction into cellular structures like ribosomes. All of these highly intricate metabolic pathways that do these things must be set in motion by thermodynamically favorable events.

For instance, imagine rocks falling off a cliff onto the ground. The kinetic energy is being converted into heat and sound. This is useless. But if we set up a turbine underneath the rock which powers a small hydraulic pump, we are obtaining useful work from free energy.

 

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jesterhawk
Theist
jesterhawk's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Just a quick note:   I

Just a quick note:

 

I wrote the first post before heading to bed.  I just got up and am heading to work.  I will reply in depth tonight when I get off of work.  But just wanted to drop a quick note of thanks for all the response and let you know that I will address the comments.

 

Thanks,

JH 



stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Seems like you can point to

Seems like you can point to all sorts of "things" that require no "creator" all the time.  There's no reason to assume that if you run across a tree in the woods that a group of builders put it there.  You know in all known cases of natural tree growth, you need the same basic requirements.   A seed in the ground, water, sunlight, time, correct climate conditions, etc.   Someone could have planted the seed in the ground or the seed could have been placed there from the wind or other natural occurances.   Simply seeing a tree, actually doesn't give you definitive proof that someone planted it or not. (or that someone used magic to "make it grow&quotEye-wink
It's like looking at a photo of the world and thinking "the shape of the world is similar to a scoop of ice cream, therefore there must be a giant worldly ice cream scoop somewhere." The only fact here is that you can observe a shape, but the conclusion from it is a simple fantasy.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
DeludedGod just won the

DeludedGod just won the thread. Like, whoa.


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
DeludedGod just won the thread. Like, whoa.

 

I love this guy. I read everything he and toddangst have written. Is he married?Wink

I suck at signatures.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cassiopeia

Cassiopeia wrote:

BenfromCanada wrote:
DeludedGod just won the thread. Like, whoa.

 

I love this guy. I read everything he and toddangst have written. Is he married?Wink

HEY! You keep your hands off him, you hussy! *slaps*

(I don't know, but I know I'd go gay for someone as smart as him) 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
simple theist wrote:

1&2) The RSS defines the terms differently and ignore webster's dictionary. (Probably because Webster was a Christain)

No, because we take the literal meaning of the word to be the literal meaning of the word. It has NOTHING to do with the religion of Webster. That was a subtle ad hominem, and I was going to stoop to that level, but you'd just whine about how the big, nasty atheist bullies attacked you for telling the truth.

The Webster thing wasn't suppose to be serious. However I think that it is wrong to alter definitions of words. Also literally it means No God...This doesn't allow the possibility of maybe there is a God or There is no proof there is a God. It means there is No God, period.

Quote:
 

simple theist wrote:
4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.
You don't understand your own religion.
Funny, I've never heard a Christian agree with the RRS in reguards to the unforgivable sin. The RRS hasn't reasurched what it really means.

Quote:

simple theist wrote:
6)Ok, so what is that reason?
Why do you assume we as people have all answers, or have to?

simple theist wrote:
7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god.
I don't, he said there was a reason, and I was curious with what that reason was. He never said he didn't know what it was, his post made it sound like he does know.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: If

BenfromCanada wrote:

If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence.

I know this is an odd little think to nitpick about, but the above statement isn't true at all.


Li Yuki
Li Yuki's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Im confused

LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:

If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence.

I know this is an odd little think to nitpick about, but the above statement isn't true at all.

Wait if you think zeus(or whoever you all were talking about) is mythological then wouldn't that mean by definition that you think he isn't real.

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

Anyways, how is the community doing today?

 

Warning the following post may be offensive to certain people. Theist are not advised to read unless they are prepared to debate!
Side effects include possible deconversion, rational thought, and the lack of fear in the easter bunny.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Seems

stuntgibbon wrote:
Seems like you can point to all sorts of "things" that require no "creator" all the time. There's no reason to assume that if you run across a tree in the woods that a group of builders put it there. You know in all known cases of natural tree growth, you need the same basic requirements. A seed in the ground, water, sunlight, time, correct climate conditions, etc. Someone could have planted the seed in the ground or the seed could have been placed there from the wind or other natural occurances. Simply seeing a tree, actually doesn't give you definitive proof that someone planted it or not. (or that someone used magic to "make it grow&quotEye-wink
It's like looking at a photo of the world and thinking "the shape of the world is similar to a scoop of ice cream, therefore there must be a giant worldly ice cream scoop somewhere." The only fact here is that you can observe a shape, but the conclusion from it is a simple fantasy.
But where did the first tree come from?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Li Yuki

Li Yuki wrote:

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

 

Not to any scholar worth his salt.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: Li

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

 

Not to any scholar worth his salt.

Myth

1.    a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
    2.    stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
    3.    any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
    4.    an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
    5.    an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:
I think that it is wrong to alter definitions of words.

Ugh. I detest prescriptionists. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

simple theist wrote:
I think that it is wrong to alter definitions of words.

Ugh. I detest prescriptionists.

I'm more worried about how the guy giving me my medicine can read them. I'm curious LosingStreak06, what religion do you belong to?


Li Yuki
Li Yuki's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: Li

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

 

Not to any scholar worth his salt.

Lol, I got the difinition from dictionary.com.  You know because i don't feel like getting up and finding a dictionary at 3 in the mourning, but whatever here is the definition pasted from dicitionary.com.

myth·o·log·i·cal      /ˌmɪθəˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mith-uh-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective
1.of or pertaining to mythology.
2.imaginary; fictitious.
Also, myth·o·log·ic.
[Origin: 1605–15; < LL mȳthologic(us) < Gk mȳthologikós (see mythology, -ic) + -al1]
myth·o·log·i·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
myth·o·log·i·cal       (mĭth'ə-lŏj'ĭ-kəl)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.  
  1. Of, relating to, or recorded in myths or mythology.
  2. Fabulous; imaginary.

myth'o·log'i·cal·ly adv.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source
mythological
adjective
based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity; "mythical centaurs"; "the fabulous unicorn" [syn: fabulous

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
On-line Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

mythological

mythological: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

 

Anyways if you don't think their definition is correct then could you give me what "you" think mythological means? 

 

Warning the following post may be offensive to certain people. Theist are not advised to read unless they are prepared to debate!
Side effects include possible deconversion, rational thought, and the lack of fear in the easter bunny.


jesterhawk
Theist
jesterhawk's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Well, I am not going to be

Well, I am not going to be able to get to everything because I just don't have the time. A lot got posted here very fast. Very information overload. But here is what I have to the moment.

simple theist wrote:
1&2) The RSS defines the terms differently and ignore webster's dictionary. (Probably because Webster was a Christain)
Ok, but by this day and age, most of his Christian views have been removed. But ok. Then the question would be do you really define Atheist as one who lacks a belief? That is so broad that you would lose your own identity. Just a note.
simple theist wrote:
3) Evolution doesn't prove or disprove God.
Agreed.
simple theist wrote:
4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.
Normally I would agree with that except that they are using it to make their point.
simple theist wrote:
5)Yep they didn't...Creation requires a creator. The way I see it the only reasonable way to go about that is to argue that "creation" isn't really a "creation" since it always existed.
Except that the creation in question is the universe and we know that in at least its present form it has not always existed. And even under creationism, it has not always existed because the creator created it at one point.
simple theist wrote:
6)Ok, so what is that reason?
I thought I stated my question and then I read this and am lost. Please explain what you mean so I can better answer.
simple theist wrote:
7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god.
For understand, yes. If we said that some supreme being used evolution to create life on earth, then would you believe in a god? Or does it not matter, you just don't believe in a god period. The question is asking is the concept of evolution the reason you do not believe in God. And I saw later that someone posted that they did not know many people who did not believe in God because of evolution. I agree that I do not know many, but I do know three.
American Atheist wrote:
FROM SIGNATURE: Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Interesting. But this begs the question that if you don't follow them back to their flock, how do you know what they claim. Coming from the flock, I can tell you that you have it all wrong.
American Atheist wrote:
FROM SIGNATURE: "God can be presumed false until proven true." -Deludedgod
Interesting. However, and this was not what this thread was about, since you can not prove he is false, then you can also state that "God can be presumed true until proven false." The fact is that it takes faith to believe in something even atheism and it is faith that proves God. No matter how many evidences that point to a creator, in the end, you have to have faith that it was God and not some superior alien race or overlapping string theories, etc.
BenfromCanada wrote:
I just post here. Other than sharing many of the views these guys have, I'm not a core member of the squad, so you might not appreciate my input as much.
That is fine. Let's see what you posted. Smiling
BenfromCanada wrote:
jesterhawk wrote:
1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus. JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is? I ask because webster's dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity" which is what I always thought an Atheist was. Just want to understand where you come from?
You're really being confusing here when you say, essentially, "I don't believe that Zeus was a god, I believe he was a a mythological figure, but that doesn't mean I lack belief in him". If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence. Regardless, look at the word "atheist". It comes from Greek. It's a compound word, with "a" meaning "no" and "theist" which comes from "Zeus" or "God". Therefore, it means "no god". That doesn't necessarily mean that we believe there is no god, at all, anywhere, but that we don't believe there is, based on lack of evidence.
My point was that I believe in the facts of his place in Greek mythology and that a large group of people worshipped him. I even understand the concepts that state he was a man at one time and then kind of ascended to deity. What I do not believe is that he was in fact a god. So, I believe the facts of what he meant to greek mythology.
BenfromCanada wrote:
Sapient said that he was an agnostic atheist. Read this: http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
Sorry, being new I have not had time to read everything here. There is just too much and too little time to do that. So you will have to forgive me if I bring up something that has been addressed or already beaten to death.
BenfromCanada wrote:
jesterhawk wrote:
3) Again, I have a debate mindset, do you chose not to believe in God because of evolution? JH) Furthermore, there is a theory out there (I don't believe it, but it out there) called I think the Gap Theory where they speculate that God used Evolution to create life and that the days in Genesis are not literal days but God days since elsewhere it tells us that God's days are not like ours. So, for the sake of understand you standpoint, if God used evolution to create the world, would you believe in him or I guess would you be willing to believe in him?
I don't think many people choose to not follow the christian god solely because of evolution.
Agreed that not many, but I do know three.
BenfromCanada wrote:
jesterhawk wrote:
4) On the Blaspheme Challenge, you are doing it a bit wrong, did you know that? JH) The verse where Jesus says that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven is a true verse. But your understanding of it is not. Blaspheme, from the greek word, means to "1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, raile." So, just denouncing God or declining him or any of those is not really blaspheme. You have to speak evil of and even that is not exactly it because it is really more a life long condition of the heart like when the Bible tells us that King Saul hardened his heart against God. So, the blaspheme challenge really can't be caught on tape. I understand what you were going for and applaud your boldness, but thought I would mention this.
The Abrahamic god continually says, in the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Bible, the Qur'An and the holy writings of the Baha'i and Rastafarian faiths (I believe that's all the Abrahamic ones) all say that atheists, by their very belief, are evil, as are ALL who do not believe in the one true god. Not only that, but their particular version of said god. So, by denying the holy spirit, we are fulfilling (not abolishing) the first definition of "blaspheme".
Ok.
BenfromCanada wrote:
jesterhawk wrote:
5) Creation points to a Creator, you didn't debunk that? JH) Again, at least at the beginning, you said that because you can't go to God's universe factory and observe creation therefore there must not be a creator. Well, I work in the defense industry as an engineer and we work on Special Blackhawk Helicopters. These helicopters are manufactured here in the United States, but without proper clearance, you can't even get near where they make the rotor blades. So, given your logic, then the creator of the Blackhawk must not exist. Just because we at this moment do not have access to God's universe factory (because if he exists and there is a heaven whose to say that we will not have access to it when we get there) is not a reason to claim that there must not be a God. I realize that you wanted to debunk Intelligent Design, which states that the universe is too complex to have happened by chance, but all you did is miss the mark on this one. Maybe you make a point on this later, but all I had time for this morning was the opening arguments.
There's a reason they didn't "debunk" this any further than they did. It's been debunked. It's a stupid argument. Comparing manufactured goods like helicopters to the world, which as far as we know has no creator, is a false comparison.
Except that you dismiss it because you can not see the creator and yet believe that the helicopters have been created and yet you have not seen their creator. Just because a human did not make the world does not mean that it was not manufactured. However, my point was that Brian stated that when God takes him (and as many as want to go) to his "Universe Factory" where he can observe the process then he will believe. Therefore, we follow his logic as applied to other elements. Spec Ops Helicopters are manufactured by people, but Brian will not be given access to their factory to observe therefore they must not have a creator. His logic falls apart when you apply it to other items which one would have to if it is his defining statement of what he will believe in.
BenfromCanada wrote:
jesterhawk wrote:
6) One step to walk a mile comment takes faith, do you realize that? JH) What got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. First off, if we are to relate walking to evolution, and we can, then we must realize that it is a bit more then one step. Yes, you take one step, but not aimlessly. Your steps, even if haphazard, have to be order to some degree on a macro scale in order for you to walk that mile and arrive at a specific location which is what evolution does do. Because, we could walk around in circles theoretically forever, if we do not have some kind of macro order.
Stopping you there for a moment. That has happened, and it continues to happen. Mutations that are negative generally die out quickly, while positive ones go forward. So, yeah, we don't walk along haphazardly.
However the odds are against those few positive ones effecting the change of a species over time. In the above example, the person walking would have to be in a sandstorm with high winds and blindfolded and told to walk from where they were to a specific point.
BenfromCanada wrote:
OK, continue.
jesterhawk wrote:
However, from the perspective of the one walking the one step, they must have FAITH that if they follow a plan, they will get to their destination even if it takes years instead of less then an hour (which is what a direct line would achieve).
WRONG. Faith isn't required. They only have to have kids. Evolution does the rest, assuming those kids reproduce.
jesterhawk wrote:
This is the macro evolution concept that overarchs the micro evolution concept. So, just to state that because it takes one step to walk a mile does not rebut the issue. And this is where Intelligent Design comes in. It claims that on the macro scale, at the very least, there was a creator who had, at the least, a general plan of how to order the steps of those at the micro level. Of course, Kirk, Ray and myself take the concept of Intelligent Design much further, but that is the basis.
Are you a friend of Cameron and Comfort? Anyway, "macro-evolution" is a logical progression from "microevolution". Our DNA changes from generation to generation. Therefore, is it not logical that in millions of years, assuming the DNA continues to change (and it does, and will) a new species will emerge from at least one line?
Am I a friend, no but that would be cool Smiling Anyone want to introduce me to them Smiling As for the rest, I do not doubt the concept of it, I am merely stating the odds are so great against it that probability states it would be considered statistically impossible.
BenfromCanada wrote:
jesterhawk wrote:
7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible? JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.
If you need to use faith to believe something, you haven't proven it.
But evolution takes faith. The concept of how life began on this earth is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which we have some but not all at this time of the pieces. If we say that perhaps we have half of the pieces and of them we will assume that everyone of those pieces are in their correct place, we are still missing half of the puzzle. For example, my wife has a puzzle of a castle in the mountains in the snow. If we take half of the pieces away then seeing what it was is a bit more difficult. If we take the center half away (since we assumed all the rest are in place exactly), we will in this puzzle miss the castle and just assume the picture was of the mountains in the snow. This is what evolution is like. We have many many pieces and definitely not all of them and to say we have half is really generous. Anyway, with half the pieces, we could still be missing things and could redefine the concept of evolution. So, you have to have faith that what you have and what you believe today (even though it has changed over the years) is reasonably close enough to make your assertion true. So, in fact, your belief is supported by evidence, but not completely proven and therefore even an evolutionist uses faith to prove their complete point.
BenfromCanada wrote:
simple theist wrote:
4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.
You don't understand your own religion.
Clarification, was this to me?
BenfromCanada wrote:
simple theist wrote:
7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god.
I certainly hope you're right, but I highly doubt it, based on the specific use of "the Bible".
No, for the sack of understanding where you are coming from, I asked in the general terms of a god.
Vessel wrote:
Quote:
2) Are you Agnostic? JH) Following from at least the debate standpoint, you seemed to believe that the existence of God is not provable. Would that make you an Agnostic? (webster's says of agnostic, "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and it does expand a bit on this)
That depends. I could possibly be agnostic on some god concepts. I would first need to hear of a god concept that was coherent. Could you tell me what exactly your god is supposed to be? Just simple things like what he exists as, where he exists, that sort of stuff.
Not sure what answer you want. As stated, I am a christian and do you really want to to tell you what I believe because it comes out of the Bible. Let me know and I can elaborate.
Vessel wrote:
First off, I don't choose what to believe and what not to believe. I think this is one of the oddest things that I hear theists say. I believe something when I have good reason to believe it. It is a natural occurence of receiving information that provides an answer to some unknown and does so in a way that is coherent and that I can understand. I can not understand why theists seem to think one canchoose to believe something. Go to the top of the nearest building and choose to believe you can fly. Now, are you going to jump?
Well, that is not exactly true. For example, atheist choose to believe there is not a God despite what in my mind is overwhelming proof he exists. Then again, people can say I choose to believe in God despite overwhelming proof he does not exist. At the core of what you said there is a truth. Facts are facts regardless of what we believe. The fact that gravity will bring you to the ground if you jump off a building will not change based on what you believe about it. However, the question then it what is truth. As a Christian, I believe not because I am mindless or blinded, but because I have seen the truth and that truth set me free.
Vessel wrote:
Secondly, There are many theists that understand the evolutionary process and accept the obvious fact that it is the only reasonable explanation for a means by which we have arrived at the diversity of life we see on the planet today. The vast majority of theists fall into this category (though by a sample of the ones which frequent this site you would never know that).
I agree.
Vessel wrote:
Thirdly, what it would take for me to believe in god is for someone to define god as a possibly existing entity and then to show me solid evidence of its existence. Its really as simple as that.
I then ask what would classify as solid evidence? I ask because I have a blog where I post testimonies of the power of God of things that I have seen with my own eyes and experienced with my own senses. Would that be what you are looking for or something else. Feel free to read my blog if you like. You can find it at http://blog.fireknights.net.
Vessel wrote:
I agree that, in my opinion, the whole universe factory thing is not a very strong point against the inference of creator by creation, but your blackhawk analogy sucks for reasons that should be obvious. You can go to the factory whether it is allowed or not. It is physically possible. The fact is that trying to infer a creator by the presence of a creation is circular, because one is referring to a creation from the outset, and it misses a fundamental difference between what it is to create as a human does and what it would be to create as a 'god' would have to do. A human simply rearranges existing physical matter to form a new 'shape'. A god, who is not bound by nature, would need to create the matter, the laws that govern it, where it exists, every parameter of existence. In order to infer a god from this type of creation we would need to have something that was not this type of creation to contrast with. It simply makes no sense to try and equate a painting painter relationship and what would be a creator/everything relationship.
However, just because we do not have God's point of reference, we can not use this argument to deny a creator either. In fact, it is arrogance to state that the only way I will believe God created this universe is if I can have his view on everything and then deny that everything that does not fit into our human view. What I mean is that if we were a god and could see as God sees, then we could visit his physical factor like we as humans could visit the helicopter factory (although I suggest you don't try because you really can not get there). However, we do not have a god view and yet define what that god view must be by our human view. Totally illogical all the way around. However, it is interesting that you see it as irrational in reference to the helicopter but not to creation. It is the same thing.
Vessel wrote:
There is so much incorrect in this comment that you should really open a new thread just to discuss this one point.
Really.
Vessel wrote:
Evolution is not random in the sense you use here (unguided).
Then what is guiding it?
Vessel wrote:
Even if I walk a mile in a circle I have still walked a mile on step at a time. Evolution has no destination so it makes no difference in what direction it wlaks. It will go where the environment pushes it.
Except you are wrong. It does have a destination and that is according to evolutionist to create a new species. To evolve to a new state and that is a specific destination given the potential hazards to arrive there even over a very long period of time.
Vessel wrote:
There are different meanings for the word faith. Religious faith is belief without, or in spite of contrary, evidence.
Now this is wrong. Faith is trusting in something. Now, I agree that something does not have to be a truth. But I have faith in my God because of the truth I have seen and can trust it in.
Vessel wrote:
Intelligent design is simply god of the gaps. It makes no coherent claims. It simply says that evolution has areas that aren't completely filled in therefor creator. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
No. It states that the level of complexity of what exists around us is too great for it to have happened by chance. And this is supported in nature by the fact that nothing goes from a state of simplicity to a state of complexity, but in fact happen the other way. However, someone things that were simple somehow got complex according to evolution.
Vessel wrote:
Quote:
7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible? JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.
No science points to the existence of a god. That is simply untrue to claim that science can lead to such a thing. When you say you have to use faith what you mean is ou have to at some point abandon the science and just suddenly insert god. If you are going to do this you might as well do it from the start and avoid the science all together.
No. Faith is trusting in something. Faith in God, as I have experienced, is trusting in the truth. So, when presented with truth, one has to put faith to it to believe themselves. And science does point to the fact that there must have been a creator because everything is just too complex to have happened by chance. In fact, the odds are statistically against it and to believe it requires faith.
Vessel wrote:
It is faith and faith alone that leads to a belief in a god. As can be easily shown, faith is not a reliable means to arrive at truth. In fact, the use of faith alone makes it impossible to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Faith is not a reliable means to arrive a truth is not exactly true. Because faith is believing and trusting in something. In this case, faith would be believing in the truth. It could be used to prove a truth because the one with faith is willing to put that truth to the test because they believe in it. An example, I believe in concept that when I sit on a chair it will hold me and not fall over. I put my faith into it when I sit in the chair. I wish I had more time, but I don't. I will try to get to the rest in the next day or so. JH



simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Jesterhawk I am a Christian

Jesterhawk I am a Christian Theist by the way. 

 

jesterhawk wrote:

simple theist wrote:
1&2) The RSS defines the terms differently and ignore webster's dictionary. (Probably because Webster was a Christain)
Ok, but by this day and age, most of his Christian views have been removed. But ok. Then the question would be do you really define Atheist as one who lacks a belief? That is so broad that you would lose your own identity. Just a note.

 

Honestly the Webster thing was ment to be funny, at least not serious.  

Quote:
 

simple theist wrote:
4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.
Normally I would agree with that except that they are using it to make their point.
 

I'm not so sure any serious person pays attention to them. Perhaps someone should do a study on if it has changed anyone's mind about anything. What would be credible is if they asked people to actually give reasons for their belief. 

 

Quote:

simple theist wrote:
5)Yep they didn't...Creation requires a creator. The way I see it the only reasonable way to go about that is to argue that "creation" isn't really a "creation" since it always existed.
Except that the creation in question is the universe and we know that in at least its present form it has not always existed. And even under creationism, it has not always existed because the creator created it at one point.

I agree. YOur going to end up back to where did the universe come from, which is why I said that the only way to argue was from the point of view that the universe and the matter inside it has always existed. 

Quote:
 

simple theist wrote:
6)Ok, so what is that reason?
I thought I stated my question and then I read this and am lost. Please explain what you mean so I can better answer.

you said "that got me looking at the debate was a friend sent me a one minute clip where Brian says, in relation to micro and macro evolution, that you have to take one step before you can walk a mile. Kelly added to this and as much as I wanted to see the Christian response, because there is one, Kirk did dodge the question. " I was curious as to the Christian respone that you mentioned.

Quote:
 

simple theist wrote:
7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god.
For understand, yes. If we said that some supreme being used evolution to create life on earth, then would you believe in a god? Or does it not matter, you just don't believe in a god period. The question is asking is the concept of evolution the reason you do not believe in God. And I saw later that someone posted that they did not know many people who did not believe in God because of evolution. I agree that I do not know many, but I do know three.
I do believe in God. I just believe that with blind faith there is no reason to believe in any specific God. Why believe in Yaweh over Allah or for the RRS the flying speghetti monster.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Vessel wrote:That

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
That depends. I could possibly be agnostic on some god concepts. I would first need to hear of a god concept that was coherent. Could you tell me what exactly your god is supposed to be? Just simple things like what he exists as, where he exists, that sort of stuff.

Not sure what answer you want. As stated, I am a christian and do you really want to to tell you what I believe because it comes out of the Bible. Let me know and I can elaborate.

 I have read The Bible. It does not tell one what a 'god' is. It tells one what a god can supposedly do, if you ignore the contradictions created by the omni-traits, but it does not say what a 'god' is.

When a Christian, or any other theist, says they believe in 'god' what they are saying is that they believe in an undefined and, by the fact that incoherent terms are used to reference it (i.e. supernatural, immaterial) , an incoherent existence. It is impossible to believe in any particular 'thing' if one does not know what said 'thing' actually is. What one must do is believe in what amounts to nothing more than an undefined token. It is nothing more than a 'belief' in a term that is inserted at convenient places such as the present boundaries of scientific knowledge. The term itself has no real meaning.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
First off, I don't choose what to believe and what not to believe. I think this is one of the oddest things that I hear theists say. I believe something when I have good reason to believe it. It is a natural occurence of receiving information that provides an answer to some unknown and does so in a way that is coherent and that I can understand. I can not understand why theists seem to think one canchoose to believe something. Go to the top of the nearest building and choose to believe you can fly. Now, are you going to jump?

Well, that is not exactly true. For example, atheist choose to believe there is not a God despite what in my mind is overwhelming proof he exists. Then again, people can say I choose to believe in God despite overwhelming proof he does not exist.

I would say neither, as neither is true. There is no proof, overwhelming or otherwise, which I have seen, that a god either does or does not exist. There is simply no reason to ever begin to consider the possibility of one to begin with as there is no evidence that should lead one to posit a 'god'. Add this to the fact that almost all 'god' concepts are fundamentally incoherent and, well, you can see the problem we have.

 

Quote:
At the core of what you said there is a truth. Facts are facts regardless of what we believe.

This is true but irrelevant to what I am saying. 

 

Quote:
The fact that gravity will bring you to the ground if you jump off a building will not change based on what you believe about it. However, the question then it what is truth. As a Christian, I believe not because I am mindless or blinded, but because I have seen the truth and that truth set me free.

Hallelujah. It just seemed to fit at the end there.

Anyway, whether or not facts change based on beliefs is not what is being discussed. Of course they don't, but this is irrelevant to whether or not one has the ability to choose beliefs. 

You, like many theists I've encountered, seem to think you can choose what you believe. If this is true you should be able to believe that you can stop a speeding bus by standing in front of it like Superman, or that you can fly when you jump from a one hundred story building. I contend that you can not choose to  believe you can do these things.

 Beliefs are not matters of choice but matters of knowledge and understanding of reality. You can hold false or true beliefs but you do not choose which ones you hold. You hold the one's dictated by your knowledge and understanding. I know I can not fly therefor I can not believe I can fly no matter how much I may try and choose to believe I can. 

 

Quote:
I agree.

It was bound to happen somewhere. 

 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Thirdly, what it would take for me to believe in god is for someone to define god as a possibly existing entity and then to show me solid evidence of its existence. Its really as simple as that.

I then ask what would classify as solid evidence? I ask because I have a blog where I post testimonies of the power of God of things that I have seen with my own eyes and experienced with my own senses. Would that be what you are looking for or something else. Feel free to read my blog if you like. You can find it at http://blog.fireknights.net.

I have not looked at your blog, but I will. Just so you know, though, one can not consider the subjective personal experiences of others as evidence. There are people whose personal experience would then have to be considered reliable evidence that aliens anally probed their cows.

Evidence is data that leads one to a very specific conclusion which is supported by the data. For instance, if I believe that there are holes in the theory of evolution this is not evidence of 'god'. Evidence of a 'god' would be to see something and say, "You see the lines on this rock. It is known that the method by which a creator god creates would cause these type of lines on a rock therfor this is evidence of a creator god having created this rock." Of course, this would require that one has something to contrast a created object to to be able to determine between created and non-created objects. That there could be no such thing in an ex nihilo creation scenario makes it fundamentally impossible to infer a creator from everything, or anything, that exists. If this is not true explain to me the difference between a created and non-created thing so that I can look at something and see evidence of creation.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I agree that, in my opinion, the whole universe factory thing is not a very strong point against the inference of creator by creation, but your blackhawk analogy sucks for reasons that should be obvious. You can go to the factory whether it is allowed or not. It is physically possible. The fact is that trying to infer a creator by the presence of a creation is circular, because one is referring to a creation from the outset, and it misses a fundamental difference between what it is to create as a human does and what it would be to create as a 'god' would have to do. A human simply rearranges existing physical matter to form a new 'shape'. A god, who is not bound by nature, would need to create the matter, the laws that govern it, where it exists, every parameter of existence. In order to infer a god from this type of creation we would need to have something that was not this type of creation to contrast with. It simply makes no sense to try and equate a painting painter relationship and what would be a creator/everything relationship.

However, just because we do not have God's point of reference, we can not use this argument to deny a creator either.

Without evidence to support a creator one does not need to deny one. One simply doesn't ever bring forth the question as there is no good reason to. 

 

Quote:
In fact, it is arrogance to state that the only way I will believe God created this universe is if I can have his view on everything and then deny that everything that does not fit into our human view.

The only way I will believe a 'god' created the universe is if there is reason to believe a 'god' created the universe, which would require evidence. Otherwise there is no reason to ever bring forth the question. Being a human, the only view I can ever have is a human view. If I can not see from a human view that a god created everything, then as a human I can not see that god created everything and therefor have no reason to believe such a thing. 

 

Quote:
What I mean is that if we were a god and could see as God sees, then we could visit his physical factor like we as humans could visit the helicopter factory (although I suggest you don't try because you really can not get there). However, we do not have a god view and yet define what that god view must be by our human view. Totally illogical all the way around. However, it is interesting that you see it as irrational in reference to the helicopter but not to creation. It is the same thing.

I can look at a helicopter and see the evidence that humans constructed it as I know what constitues evidence of human construction. I know of human construction methods and practices. It is impossible for me, or anyone else, to do the same in looking for evidence of a 'god' as a creator. It is impossible to infer (reasonably, rationally) a creator god from the existence of the universe. Its not my fault that this is so. It is simply a matter of the fact that there is no point of reference from which to make a reasonable inference. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
There is so much incorrect in this comment that you should really open a new thread just to discuss this one point.

Really.

Yes, but since you didn't, I will respond here.

Quote:
 
Vessel wrote:
Evolution is not random in the sense you use here (unguided).

Then what is guiding it?

Natural selection. 

 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Even if I walk a mile in a circle I have still walked a mile on step at a time. Evolution has no destination so it makes no difference in what direction it wlaks. It will go where the environment pushes it.

Except you are wrong. It does have a destination and that is according to evolutionist to create a new species. To evolve to a new state and that is a specific destination given the potential hazards to arrive there even over a very long period of time.

No, a new species is not evolution's destination. It is where evolution leads but not a destination. There is no intent on the part of evolution to produce a new species. New species are simply the outcome of numerous small changes across long periods of time. Just as in the fact that no matter what direction I walk, without any destination, if I walk a mile's worth of steps I will walk a mile. No matter what change evolution makes, if it makes enough changes, it will result in a new species. It needs no destination. The outcome is simply the inevitable result of the process.

 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
There are different meanings for the word faith. Religious faith is belief without, or in spite of contrary, evidence.

Now this is wrong. Faith is trusting in something. Now, I agree that something does not have to be a truth. But I have faith in my God because of the truth I have seen and can trust it in.

That is faith in the sense of trust, but you can not have trust that something exists. You would first need to know something existed in order to be able to trust it. This is why faith, as used in the religious sense (for belief in the existence of a 'god' ) is of the other type; blind. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Intelligent design is simply god of the gaps. It makes no coherent claims. It simply says that evolution has areas that aren't completely filled in therefor creator. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

No. It states that the level of complexity of what exists around us is too great for it to have happened by chance. And this is supported in nature by the fact that nothing goes from a state of simplicity to a state of complexity, but in fact happen the other way. However, someone things that were simple somehow got complex according to evolution.

On what do you base this? Why should this lead us to insert a 'god' as an explanation? Does inserting the term 'god' provide any coherent information to solve what you see as a problem with evolution?

Anyway, your assertion is untrue to begin with. From what we see exactly the opposite of what you say is true. Things go from a state of simplicity to a state of complexity through the expending of energy.  

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Quote:
7) Can you prove the existence of God without the Bible? JH) Yes. However, you do need to use faith. While science can point towards God, in the end you need to use your faith. So, the debate was a bit mute from the start.

No science points to the existence of a god. That is simply untrue to claim that science can lead to such a thing. When you say you have to use faith what you mean is ou have to at some point abandon the science and just suddenly insert god. If you are going to do this you might as well do it from the start and avoid the science all together.

No. Faith is trusting in something. Faith in God, as I have experienced, is trusting in the truth. So, when presented with truth, one has to put faith to it to believe themselves. And science does point to the fact that there must have been a creator because everything is just too complex to have happened by chance. In fact, the odds are statistically against it and to believe it requires faith.

As I stated above you can not have trust in something existing. You first must have blind faith that a 'god' exists and only then can you put trust in it. This is why at some point in getting to the existence of a 'god' blind faith must be employed. Since it must you might as well start with it as it is just as reasonable and reliable as a starting point as it is anywhere along the line of reasoning.

Science does not require faith. Science employs reason. Reason is not faith. That is why they are two different terms. Science is simply the fact that if there is true evidence and it is true that the evidence leads to a certain conclusion, then the conclusion is true. We accept these conclusions to reasonable expectations, always ready to adjust for new evidence. No faith required.

 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
It is faith and faith alone that leads to a belief in a god. As can be easily shown, faith is not a reliable means to arrive at truth. In fact, the use of faith alone makes it impossible to differentiate between fact and fiction.

Faith is not a reliable means to arrive a truth is not exactly true. Because faith is believing and trusting in something. In this case, faith would be believing in the truth. It could be used to prove a truth because the one with faith is willing to put that truth to the test because they believe in it. An example, I believe in concept that when I sit on a chair it will hold me and not fall over. I put my faith into it when I sit in the chair. I wish I had more time, but I don't. I will try to get to the rest in the next day or so. JH

Does it require faith to believe the chair exists? Of course not. You have trust that the chair will support you because you know that the chair exists and because other objects similar to this xchair have supported you in the past. There is absolutely no similarity between this and having faith that a 'god' exists. If there is one analogy theists should try and avoid this is it as it shows a fundamental lack in the understanding of the difference between faith and trust and expectation and belief. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

simple theist wrote:
I think that it is wrong to alter definitions of words.

Ugh. I detest prescriptionists.

I'm more worried about how the guy giving me my medicine can read them. I'm curious LosingStreak06, what religion do you belong to?

I don't belong to any religion, actually. I worship a fruit Smoothie.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Two quick thoughts on

Two quick thoughts on recent points...

Re: Faith in God = Faith in Chairs - please go to YouTube and watch Infidelguy's recent videos "The Power of Faith" and "Faith Part Deux." He addresses this exact question. http://www.youtube.com/user/infidelguy

Re: simple things becoming more complex - I'm a regular ol' broad without the benefit of higher education, so without reading a bunch of biology research papers I can't give you examples simplicity to complexity in genetic terms. However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I see evidence in support of evolution in my own back yard (literally) every day. Last weekend I put some seeds (simple) into a planting bed, and this week they've become small plants with a stem and some leaves. Seeds of the same type that I planted 6 weeks ago now have buds, blossoms and flowers, which are far more complex than the seed they came from.

And now I'm off to my chosen houses of worship (or at least the central repository of my tithes): Lowe's and the nursery, where I'll pick up a few things to enhance the little ecosystem I'm creating. Smiling

{edit for typo} 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Li Yuki

Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:

If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence.

I know this is an odd little think to nitpick about, but the above statement isn't true at all.

Wait if you think zeus(or whoever you all were talking about) is mythological then wouldn't that mean by definition that you think he isn't real.

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

Anyways, how is the community doing today?

 

Somebody clue me in on how a fictitious imaginary being can be real.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: The

simple theist wrote:

The Webster thing wasn't suppose to be serious. However I think that it is wrong to alter definitions of words. Also literally it means No God...This doesn't allow the possibility of maybe there is a God or There is no proof there is a God. It means there is No God, period.

It means we have no god. And I don't have a god. You do.

simple theist wrote:
You don't understand your own religion.
Funny, I've never heard a Christian agree with the RRS in reguards to the unforgivable sin. The RRS hasn't reasurched what it really means.

Funny, I have.You just have to run in the circles that take the bible seriously.

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I know this is an odd little think to nitpick about, but the above statement isn't true at all.

What the flying shitfuck are you on, dude? HOW is that statement not true?

jesterhawk wrote:
American Atheist wrote:
FROM SIGNATURE: "God can be presumed false until proven true." -Deludedgod
Interesting. However, and this was not what this thread was about, since you can not prove he is false, then you can also state that "God can be presumed true until proven false." The fact is that it takes faith to believe in something even atheism and it is faith that proves God. No matter how many evidences that point to a creator, in the end, you have to have faith that it was God and not some superior alien race or overlapping string theories, etc.
There is no reason to not apply this to all things. UFOs filled with grey aliens are true until proven false, then, as are all deities that we don't believe in anymore (from Quetzaqatl to Enki and Enlil to Anansi to younameit) as well as those that only a few deluded dumbasses believe in (Zeus, Odin, Thor, L. Ron Hubbard) to those that are more mainstream. True, also, would be fairies, leprechauns, Sasquatch, Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, the Wendigo, werewolves, vampires (all variations), ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, healthy fast food outlets and honest lawyers.

Now, it takes NO faith to believe in atheism. Why? Simple.  Without credible evidence for something (take anything you disbelieve based on lack of evidence) disbelief requires no faith. Add to this evidence to the contrary of said belief (contradictions in the holy book, evidence the deity was plagiarized from an earlier one, etc.) and it requires more faith to believe than not to. 

jesterhawk wrote:
My point was that I believe in the facts of his place in Greek mythology and that a large group of people worshipped him. I even understand the concepts that state he was a man at one time and then kind of ascended to deity. What I do not believe is that he was in fact a god. So, I believe the facts of what he meant to greek mythology.
Well, based on your ludicrously liberal interpretation of this, we all believe in all deities. But I'm not about to join the Unitarian church.
BenfromCanada wrote:
Sorry, being new I have not had time to read everything here. There is just too much and too little time to do that. So you will have to forgive me if I bring up something that has been addressed or already beaten to death.
Understood, that's why I politely pointed you to the section.

jesterhawk wrote:
Agreed that not many, but I do know three.
It's possible. After all, if one has no real reason to believe in a personal deity, and understands the science behind cosmology (specifically, the part about the origins of the cosmos), abiogenesis and evolution, one can see no need for a deity at all. However, simply believing in the most easily proven of the three, evolution, does nothing to destroy the notion of a creator god, only a creative creator god. It takes no creativity to set in motion the events that will eventually  shape the world, but it takes creativity to shape the world.
jesterhawk wrote:
Except that you dismiss it because you can not see the creator and yet believe that the helicopters have been created and yet you have not seen their creator. Just because a human did not make the world does not mean that it was not manufactured. However, my point was that Brian stated that when God takes him (and as many as want to go) to his "Universe Factory" where he can observe the process then he will believe. Therefore, we follow his logic as applied to other elements. Spec Ops Helicopters are manufactured by people, but Brian will not be given access to their factory to observe therefore they must not have a creator. His logic falls apart when you apply it to other items which one would have to if it is his defining statement of what he will believe in.
You obviously misunderstand. We know that helicopters, by their definition, are MAN MADE. You can go through the steps of finding out exactly how, but their very definition makes them manufactured by people. The world is not, by its definition, "creation" unless you wish to set the question up unfairly. By saying "creation requires a creator" and applying "creation" to "the universe/planet earth" you are saying "you can't prove me wrong because earth is a creation, therefore, it needs a creator". No, earth is NOT necessarily a creation. You must remove this preconception if you wish to discuss this honestly. Realize that you do not know if earth is a creation of an intelligent being or not.
jesterhawk wrote:
However the odds are against those few positive ones effecting the change of a species over time. In the above example, the person walking would have to be in a sandstorm with high winds and blindfolded and told to walk from where they were to a specific point.
I don't think you get it. We've seen subspecies emerge over time, since humans have been observing such things. A sub-species is only a step away from a full species. You will accept that we "micro-evolve" from generation to generation, right? If this continues for a long enough time, is it not logical that a new species will emerge? Odds are actually in favour of this, given enough time.
jesterhawk wrote:
Am I a friend, no but that would be cool Smiling Anyone want to introduce me to them Smiling As for the rest, I do not doubt the concept of it, I am merely stating the odds are so great against it that probability states it would be considered statistically impossible.
And I'm telling you, once you overcome the highly improbable but not impossible odds of being born and surviving long enough to reproduce, the odds are in your favour. 

I'd never wish to befriend Cameron and Comfort.  They seem far too abrasive, and not smart enough to talk to me. I could see being acquaintances, though. Todd Friel is the scum of the earth, I hate that fuckshit so very much.

jesterhawk wrote:
But evolution takes faith. The concept of how life began on this earth is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which we have some but not all at this time of the pieces.
This shows an excessive amount of ignorance about evolution, which is common amongst christians and muslims, and really most faiths that have a creation story. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution only occurs once life begins.
jesterhawk wrote:
If we say that perhaps we have half of the pieces and of them we will assume that everyone of those pieces are in their correct place, we are still missing half of the puzzle. For example, my wife has a puzzle of a castle in the mountains in the snow. If we take half of the pieces away then seeing what it was is a bit more difficult. If we take the center half away (since we assumed all the rest are in place exactly), we will in this puzzle miss the castle and just assume the picture was of the mountains in the snow. This is what evolution is like. We have many many pieces and definitely not all of them and to say we have half is really generous. Anyway, with half the pieces, we could still be missing things and could redefine the concept of evolution. So, you have to have faith that what you have and what you believe today (even though it has changed over the years) is reasonably close enough to make your assertion true. So, in fact, your belief is supported by evidence, but not completely proven and therefore even an evolutionist uses faith to prove their complete point.
Using your example, creationism is taking all of the pieces away, storing them somewhere out of reach, putting a label on them that says "the pieces in this puzzle are just theory, not actually proven to display a real picture" and then telling you that the picture is actually the Planters Peanut man. (here I am referring to that ridiculous notion of a perfect design, which is NOT what the reality is, but what Creationists use as their main proof). Now, you do have an accurate view of science, sort of. Any theory, when supported by evidence, is believed as far as the evidence takes it. We know that we evolve, based on evidence. We don't take it any further than that, and if it is found that our evidence is false, then we abandon the theory and replace it with what we now have.

jesterhawk wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
simple theist wrote:
4) They have been told that several times as posted several times. I don't think they try to find out what passages really mean to those who practice the religion they claim is false.
You don't understand your own religion.
Clarification, was this to me?
Given that it was a reply to simple theist, no.
jesterhawk wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
simple theist wrote:
7)I'm going to assume you mean a god and not any specific god.
I certainly hope you're right, but I highly doubt it, based on the specific use of "the Bible".
No, for the sack of understanding where you are coming from, I asked in the general terms of a god.
Except you used the words "the bible". If you were looking for a general god, you'd have said "holy book(s)" or something like that. 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Somebody

Sapient wrote:

Somebody clue me in on how a fictitious imaginary being can be real.

The same way three beings can be one single being.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Li Yuki

Sapient wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:

If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence.

I know this is an odd little think to nitpick about, but the above statement isn't true at all.

Wait if you think zeus(or whoever you all were talking about) is mythological then wouldn't that mean by definition that you think he isn't real.

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

Anyways, how is the community doing today?

 

Somebody clue me in on how a fictitious imaginary being can be real.

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: Clue

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Fiction, by definition, is fictitious, or "not true" which means "false". Myth, by definition, is fiction.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Myth, by definition, is fiction.

Equivocation. 


Li Yuki
Li Yuki's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Myth, by definition, is fiction.

Equivocation.

 

So, hey I don't get it.  Are you trying to argue that mythology is true.

Also, how are we trying to mislead you.  We are giving you the definitions of the words you call into question, and yes imaginary means 'not real'.

By the way you still haven't answered my question on what you think mythological means. 

Warning the following post may be offensive to certain people. Theist are not advised to read unless they are prepared to debate!
Side effects include possible deconversion, rational thought, and the lack of fear in the easter bunny.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Li Yuki

Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Myth, by definition, is fiction.

Equivocation.

 

So, hey I don't get it. Are you trying to argue that mythology is true.

Also, how are we trying to mislead you. We are giving you the definitions of the words you call into question, and yes imaginary means 'not real'.

By the way you still haven't answered my question on what you think mythological means.

If we are going to use dictionary definitions, then "mythological" means "pertaining to mythology," and "mythology" can be described as "a collection of myths." "myths," of course, are described by dictionary.com as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."


Li Yuki
Li Yuki's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: Li

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Myth, by definition, is fiction.

Equivocation.

 

So, hey I don't get it. Are you trying to argue that mythology is true.

Also, how are we trying to mislead you. We are giving you the definitions of the words you call into question, and yes imaginary means 'not real'.

By the way you still haven't answered my question on what you think mythological means.

If we are going to use dictionary definitions, then "mythological" means "pertaining to mythology," and "mythology" can be described as "a collection of myths." "myths," of course, are described by dictionary.com as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

The other definitions for myth are(from dictionary.com):

2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 

Anyways if you don't agree with dictionary.com then we realy need to find another dictionary to argue about or better yet settle apon one definition of mythology and research the origins of the words: myth,mythology,mythological.

 

Warning the following post may be offensive to certain people. Theist are not advised to read unless they are prepared to debate!
Side effects include possible deconversion, rational thought, and the lack of fear in the easter bunny.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Li Yuki

Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Myth, by definition, is fiction.

Equivocation.

 

So, hey I don't get it. Are you trying to argue that mythology is true.

Also, how are we trying to mislead you. We are giving you the definitions of the words you call into question, and yes imaginary means 'not real'.

By the way you still haven't answered my question on what you think mythological means.

If we are going to use dictionary definitions, then "mythological" means "pertaining to mythology," and "mythology" can be described as "a collection of myths." "myths," of course, are described by dictionary.com as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

The other definitions for myth are(from dictionary.com):

2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 

Anyways if you don't agree with dictionary.com then we realy need to find another dictionary to argue about or better yet settle apon one definition of mythology and research the origins of the words: myth,mythology,mythological.

 

Why on earth should there be only one definition of mythology? Your equivocation is not the fault of the word. Instead of trying to box language into your own little specified compartments, you should learn not to be so clumsy with it. 


Li Yuki
Li Yuki's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: Li

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

Myth, by definition, is fiction.

Equivocation.

 

So, hey I don't get it. Are you trying to argue that mythology is true.

Also, how are we trying to mislead you. We are giving you the definitions of the words you call into question, and yes imaginary means 'not real'.

By the way you still haven't answered my question on what you think mythological means.

If we are going to use dictionary definitions, then "mythological" means "pertaining to mythology," and "mythology" can be described as "a collection of myths." "myths," of course, are described by dictionary.com as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

The other definitions for myth are(from dictionary.com):

2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 

Anyways if you don't agree with dictionary.com then we realy need to find another dictionary to argue about or better yet settle apon one definition of mythology and research the origins of the words: myth,mythology,mythological.

 

Why on earth should there be only one definition of mythology? Your equivocation is not the fault of the word. Instead of trying to box language into your own little specified compartments, you should learn not to be so clumsy with it.

answer part 1: 

Hey i think we got off on the wrong foot here.

Hello LosingStreak06 my name is Li Yuki.

I am an Atheist what do you beleive in?

I am currently a High Schooler, how about you?

Answer part 2:

I am not completely sure what the word equivocation is, but the reason i started talking to you was because i was unsure what you were trying to argue about.

Answer part 3:

I am haveing great trouble in understanding how my post before this one showed equivocation, all i stated was all the other definitions and said we needed to choose a particular one to argue about. I am also confused about at what point i said their was only one definition for everything.  

 Answer part 4:

I stated the original definition that i planned on using but you obviously disliked it.

Answer part 5:

Do you think mythology is real.........just curious.

Answer part 6:

The definitions of legend are(from dictionary.com)

1.a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.
2.the body of stories of this kind, esp. as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend.
3.an inscription, esp. on a coat of arms, on a monument, under a picture, or the like.
4.a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used. Compare key1 (def. Cool.
5.Numismatics. inscription (def. Cool.
6.a collection of stories about an admirable person.
7.a person who is the center of such stories: She became a legend in her own lifetime.
8.Archaic. a story of the life of a saint, esp. one stressing the miraculous or unrecorded deeds of the saint.
9.Obsolete. a collection of such stories or stories like them.

[Origin: 1300–50; 1900–05 for def. 4; ME legende written account of a saint's life < ML legenda lit., (lesson) to be read, n. use of fem. of L legendus, ger. of legere to read; so called because appointed to be read on respective saints' days]
1. Legend, fable, myth refer to fictitious stories, usually handed down by tradition (although some fables are modern). Legend, originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint, is applied to any fictitious story, sometimes involving the supernatural, and usually concerned with a real person, place, or other subject: the legend of the Holy Grail. A fable is specifically a fictitious story (often with animals or inanimate things as speakers or actors) designed to teach a moral: a fable about industrious bees. A myth is one of a class of stories, usually concerning gods, semidivine heroes, etc., current since primitive times, the purpose of which is to attempt to explain some belief or natural phenomenon: the Greek myth about Demeter. 1. fact.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
leg·end       (lěj'ənd)  Pronunciation Key 
n.  
    1. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
    2. A body or collection of such stories.
    3. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
    4. An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
    5. An explanatory caption accompanying an illustration.
    6. An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.
  1. One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.
    1. An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
    2. An explanatory caption accompanying an illustration.
    3. An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.


[Middle English, from Old French legende, from Medieval Latin (lēctiō) legenda, (lesson) to be read, from Latin, feminine gerundive of legere, to read; see leg- in Indo-European roots.]

Usage Note: Legend comes from the Latin adjective legenda, "for reading, to be read," which referred only to written stories, not to traditional stories transmitted orally from generation to generation. This restriction also applied to the English word legend when it was first used in the late 14th century in reference to written accounts of saints' lives, but ever since the 15th century legend has been used to refer to traditional stories as well. Today a legend can also be a person or achievement worthy of inspiring such a story—anyone or anything whose fame promises to be enduring, even if the renown is created more by the media than by oral tradition. Thus we speak of the legendary accomplishments of a major-league baseball star or the legendary voice of a famous opera singer. This usage is common journalistic hyperbole, and 55 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it.

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
legend 
c.1340, from O.Fr. legende (12c.), from M.L. legenda "legend, story," lit. "(things) to be read," on certain days in church, etc., from neuter plural gerundive of L. legere "to read, gather, select" (see lecture). Used originally of saints' lives; extended sense of "nonhistorical or mythical story" first recorded 1613. Meaning "writing or inscription" (especially on a coin or medal) is from 1611; on a map, illustration, etc., from 1903.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source
legend
noun
1. a story about mythical or supernatural beings or events 
2. brief description accompanying an illustration [syn: caption

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
legend [ˈledʒənd] noun a myth or traditional story, handed down from one generation to another
Example: the legend of St George
Arabic: اُسْطورَه
Chinese (Simplified): 传奇
Chinese (Traditional): 傳奇
Czech: legenda
Danish: legende; sagn
Dutch: legende
Estonian: legend
Finnish: legenda
French: légende
German: die Sage
Greek: θρύλος
Hungarian: legenda
Icelandic: þjóðsaga
Indonesian: hikayat
Italian: leggenda
Japanese: 伝説
Korean: 전설
Latvian: leģenda
Lithuanian: legenda
Norwegian: legende, (folke)sagn
Polish: legenda
Portuguese (Brazil): lenda
Portuguese (Portugal): lenda
Romanian: legendă
Russian: легенда
Slovak: legenda
Slovenian: legenda
Spanish: leyenda
Swedish: legend, folksaga
Turkish: efsane, destan
 
See also: legendary
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
Investopedia - Cite This Source

Legend
A notification placed on certain stock certificates describing the terms and conditions of sale and ownership.

Investopedia Commentary

The main purpose of a legend is to notify owners of the restrictions placed on certain stocks. Sometimes, however, the legend may not be included on the certificate, so there may be restrictions on some stocks that have no legends. Generally, these restrictions occur when the initial owner enters into a shareholder agreement.

Related Links

Uncovering Insider Trading

See also: Authorized Stock, Insider, Restricted Stock

Answer part 7:

It has been very fun talking to you and i do hope that we can keep name calling out of our conversation and continue to talk like more mature adults.

 

 

 

 

Warning the following post may be offensive to certain people. Theist are not advised to read unless they are prepared to debate!
Side effects include possible deconversion, rational thought, and the lack of fear in the easter bunny.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
OK, let's forget this

OK, let's forget this dumbass. It's derailing the thread.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Lost track of this thread

Lost track of this thread (oops).. but to reply to the above.
First "tree" came from a seed, of course.  Somewhere on the long billion year ramp up from simpler plants and slight mutations.  These have never required builders at all.   (unless you're cheeky and count those disguised cell phone towers and fake pine trees as rea trees...  but again, you can clearly go find where those are made.)


While we may not know the real origin of the universe just yet, early humans certainly invented/created gods.  If man invented the concept of god, that concept has the same probablity of creating the universe as other fantastical creations of man: Mr. Spock, the Easter Bunny, Spider-Man, and so on.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Lost

stuntgibbon wrote:
Lost track of this thread (oops).. but to reply to the above.
First "tree" came from a seed, of course. Somewhere on the long billion year ramp up from simpler plants and slight mutations. These have never required builders at all. (unless you're cheeky and count those disguised cell phone towers and fake pine trees as rea trees... but again, you can clearly go find where those are made.)


While we may not know the real origin of the universe just yet, early humans certainly invented/created gods. If man invented the concept of god, that concept has the same probablity of creating the universe as other fantastical creations of man: Mr. Spock, the Easter Bunny, Spider-Man, and so on.

Of course man didn't create God, God created man. And of course, where did the first seed come from...then where did that come from...and then where did that come from...which ends us at me asking where did the universe come from and you asking where did God come from. 

If man certainly invented/created gods, prove it. If you can't prove it, then it can't be certain. Unless you have faith that man created gods. 


Spirax
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
What about the cargo cults?

What about the cargo cults?   In the 1930s, natives of Melanesia and New Guinea didn't understand where the missionaries got their goods.  The missionaries didn't make them themselves.  They would radio for them and they would be delivered by plane.  The local people, who had never seen a factory, assumed gods must be responsible. They made 'radios' out of coconuts and built landing strips to lure the gods from the sky so that they would have a share of the cargo. Isn't this an example of man creating gods to explain something he didn't understand?

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
The cargo cults are a good

The cargo cults are a good example of men creating a god concept.   To me, I look at the various plausible reasons that are consistant with men creating god concepts.  If you're the leader of a people, and you want to instill order..  you probably need at least a couple of things.   First, a big scary reason for them to obey the rules you've given them. (you know, something like... damnation?)    Also, you probably find that as the group's leader/elder/king, etc. you get a lot of questions that demand answers.  In place of having the tools to reach sensible explanations, "goddidit" would suffice.

 

Without knowing about planetary movement, it's probably easier to except that gods of light and dark were responsible. (if it's happening in the sky, whatever controls it must also be... in the sky)  Without knowledge about natural disasters, plate movements , volcanos or weather patterns it was easier to tell people god's anger was responsible. 

 

To set aside the reasons one would want to construct a god concept, everything written ever has had a human behind it.  Magic doesn't write books, animals do not write books, it's been people.  (even if you point to a computer program that could assemble language, the people had to program that too)  Without solid evidence to back up the assertion, people claim the writings are simply "god inspired."  (which is apparently enough for some folks to believe myths are true)  

 

I'd recently listened back to a show from (if i remember right) February with Richard Spencer and Richard Carrier, a discussion on how not to argue the mythicist position.   (basically the debate between the existance of a real Jesus in history vs. a contructed mythological Jesus that was never a real person.)  The research that's been put into this stuff is really interesting, and I'm fascinated by the process that went into creating those works.  Combinations of borrowed older traditions, translation/scribe additions/errors, analyzing writing styles, and so on.  We get glipses at how a lot of these writings were fabricated and how they progressed to what we have now.

 

 

Carrier admitted going into it suspecting the mythicist position was incorrect, given some sloppy research and work that had gone into it.  However as he started to study the pieces and redoing the research, he's now starting to agree with the mythicist side, but on different grounds.   This type of thing, to me, is exactly why the scientific method is so important.  You can systematically find out that you're wrong, retrace steps, retest a hypothesis and even when you're wrong... it's completely fine.   If this type of research wasn't now commonplace, maybe we'd still be trying to turn various things into gold.

 

 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Li Yuki wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:

If you think he was mythological, that means you think he is nonexistent, and you lack belief in his existence.

I know this is an odd little think to nitpick about, but the above statement isn't true at all.

Wait if you think zeus(or whoever you all were talking about) is mythological then wouldn't that mean by definition that you think he isn't real.

Definition of mythological-

imaginary; fictitious.

Anyways, how is the community doing today?

 

Somebody clue me in on how a fictitious imaginary being can be real.

Clue yourself in, oh wise one. "Myth" is not necessarily synonymous with "false."

errr...it is in the english language. A myth is a fiction (false) by definition of the word. I think you may be confused with legend - a legend is supposed to have a base in reality, even if exagerated somewhat.

For example, there is a myth about a greek fellow who flew the sun across the sky...or a christian myth about a fellow that put two of each kind of animal on the earth into a boat and sustained them for a year... both of these stories are mythical (fiction) and this can be determined due to the contents of the story. Not all myths are so obvious, but if something is called a myth, it is fiction, otherwise it's not a myth.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.