Then you might consider becoming an agnostic instead. Atheism is moreso the strict claim that there is no God.

Atheism gains more traction because it's a more infamous(historically) title and gathers more attention.



Religion by itself can't really accomplish this, IMO. War, violence, and any kind of dogmatic actions are all well within the scope of human nature with or without a religious reason.

It's similar to the people kill people, not guns argument. Billions of people practice religion peacefully without any incident. A very select few use it for evil intentions. That doesn't make religion bad, it makes those few people bad.

If even a slim majority of people that practice religion were as you described, then perhaps we could consider the idea that religion is this horrible influence that causes people to do bad things. It seems evident to me that most people are not reading religion in that light, given their actions.

I just feel a lot of it can be contradictive, especially with people you find who are making choices without understand why they are making them.

It really bothers me to see people who believe in God just because their great great great grandfather was a deacon in a Church in that's just the way they were raised. They know nothing about their personal choice and it's that's all the know. To me it is just as bad for those who discount God because of some scientific evidence or what they heard. Overall, you are still making a choice based off something you have, or probably, will never prove. You are still taking something you saw, read, heard, etc. and believed in it.

For those who really have a belief and a reason why, regardless of the level of sophistication, that speaks a lot to me. But when someone comes up to me and says "How can you believe in God, when scientist know (or have proven) this or that?" To me that's just no good. Who knows if they were right or wrong, science is overturned everyday and the degree of certainity to make these experience accurate are unfathomable.

I always liked the saying, "It takes as much faith to not believe in God as it does to believe."

It's completely fine if you don't, it's America, and a true Christian would or should never judge or shove it down you face. However, I just wanted to point out that whatever you believe or do not believe in, I have a lot of respect for those who really personally know why. I would just like to see a time where we respected each other's freedom and attempted to strive for what is best for our kids and the future of humanity.

Morality and values do not make you religious but those who are religious should display both. Overall it's going to be the kindness and consideration exemplify to everyone around us that will make the difference in someone's life and have a positive impact on our future.

I would daresay that even the most devout follower of the scientific method does not walk around looking at every absurd claim and assertion and fret that he can't "disprove" every crazy thing the tabloids say. I'm sure even Einstein said, "No, that's just silly." now and then.

Really, if you want to start invoking scientific method and principle when discussing a topic, at least make sure the topic holds SOME substance first, because...

It's one thing to say:

"Well, you may not agree with the theory of the Higgs Ocean, but you cannot disprove the existance of a Higgs Ocean, and there's strong suggestive evidence and solid theory pointing to it."

And another altogether to say:

"Well, I say there's an invisible guy around and he says stuff and if you don't listen you go to a firey pit somewhere and get burned forever, and you can't disprove it!!!"

Like I said, the burden of proof lies with the religious folks. If they want to try making some assertions about biblical stories that have some foundation in the real world, great. But just saying whatever you want about anything doesn't somehow make other people "wrong" when they disagree.

I totally agree with Bovinity.

There's nothing to fret over, it's merely a question of how to describe it. More absurd is to unilaterally rule something out just because it sounds more complete. One can remain perfectly confident with regard to their position on something without eliminating every possibility for their being incorrect.



Whether or not there's evidence for something makes little difference in whether or not you can eliminate the possibility of something.

There's absolutely a difference between the two: it is the manner of degree in which the evidence supports the claim. The point remains that you cannot disprove it with mere evidence. Evidence is suggestive. Fact is fact.



Again, no argument that the burden of proof lies with the religious folks, assuming they seek to get you to believe it. But, it is also a fantastical claim to say factually that their invisible creature does not exist without proof of your own. I'm not sure that I would qualify that as saying other people are "wrong", but rather that they are not being factual nor thorough in their claims.

Just to add: The burden of proof lies with anyone that suggests something factual. If you are to say that God does not exist, then you need proof to back it up. If you are to say that God probably does not exist, then you merely need evidence. That goes for people who state that God exists, and for people that state God does not exist. Both are absolute claims.

And yeah, on this topic...I was raised in a religious family, church and all. (Well, that's not 100% accurate, I sort of had two families. My mother and my grandparents.)

I would say that there wasn't really any "pressure" for me to follow in their footsteps and become a religious person as well, but it was clear they would certainly like me to be. But whatever I chose they were ok with.

But I was always a curious child, took an interest in nearly any sort of learning I could get my hands on. Math, science, etc etc. And I guess at some point, I really don't know when, I realized that the concept of a "God" just made no sense to me.

It happened at a fairly young age, so I'm not entirely sure of exactly what I was thinking at the time. But for the most part I saw this world that made so much sense. Everything had a reason, a method, a structure, an explanation...and what humanity didn't know yet, we were certainly striving to discover. Nature grew and evolved around us everyday, and in ways we could observe, predict and understand.

So where did this "God" fit in? This supernatural being that no one had ever seen, that followed no rules, disobeyed all the structure and laws of the universe, and operated and existed in a way contrary to everything. It just made no sense.

So, in short, I rejected the ideas that my family had presented to me. But I never rejected the lessons about just being a "good person". Despite what people want you to think, being an atheist doesn't mean you cannot be moral or just or good.

So I get to say that you need evidence and proof to refute my claim of the water-gun carrying invisible elephant, or else you are making a fantastical claim at best, or are just wrong at worst?

Really? I'm sure you can see where this is going.

Edit: I'm running out of ways to put it into words, but in short we as logical beings have to be able to discern between a claim that warrants investigation and logical refutation and one that is simply words from someone's mouth with no weight, substance or foundation in reality but resides only in the realm of absurdity and fantasy.

I guess, from my stances, you can imagine which category

One thing I have noticed with some other atheists is that a large chunk of them never really believed in a god.

I was not "raised" in the church, though I did go occasionally, and was in boy scouts .. my wife was raised in the church - a very conservative church. They made the women wear dresses, have long hair, couldn't own a TV, etc....

We are both atheists. Neither of us really ever believed in god, beyond how it was fashionable to do so as a kid. You don't want to be the weird kid with no soul, so you kinda go along with it. Honestly though, both of us never believed in god any more than a kid would believe in santa clause.

I heard about a study showing brainwaves of believers vs. non believers - but I haven't been able to dig anything up on it.

And Venen, about your gun analogy: I think it might be flawed. Religion is enabled by believers. Gun owners are just gun owners. I understand what you are trying to say - "It is the suicide bombers action as it is the one madman with a guns action" - The difference, to me being that the suicide bomber has been brainwashed his entire life to believe that yummy god goodness awaits him in the afterlife if he dies in his name by a huge social group that says irrationality and belief in superstition is normal, healthy and honorable. After all, the stronger you believe in "X" god the better a follower you are. That's a big difference.

Now, if there was a group like the NRA that was the massive social majority and they taught kids that school shootings were awesome, then you might have a point.

_________________

as a believer, i don't think an atheist is "wrong," we just disagree in what we choose to believe. when an atheist tells me i'm wrong is when i think they are wrong.

_________________

I have no idea what I think on these issues these days. A huge part of me wants to believe in a God, and another huge part of me does not.

But like I said - not speaking for all atheists, just what I think are the majority - it's not that we are saying "there absolutely is no god" we are saying "there probably isn't a god, but if you can prove one, I will gladly say you are correct".

In fact, I don't think I have every met an atheist that would not accept that there was a god if proof was offered. Dawkins says he's only 99.9% sure there is no god, and he is like, "super-atheist guy".

That is the difference - a believer knows there is a god, and is willing to die for it. An atheists can reserve the right to just say "it probably doesn't exist".

Venen: As for me, I am 99.9% sure there is no supreme supernatural being that gives a shit about millions of people's daily moral decisions and demands to be worshiped. And in addition to that, the argument can easily be made that religions and religious institutions are a detriment to society and people in general.

So, being that I am 99.9% sure there is probably not a "god", and being a very strong believer that religions as a whole are a detriment to the world, I don't think I would take on the title of "agnostic".

_________________

Believe in what you want to believe in. Not because of what society tells you, or because the trend is to go this way or believe in that way. Independent thinking leads to an independent choice- which is the right way.

I am Catholic. That is what I believe in. It does not make me right, nor does it make me wrong. It makes me... me. I personally choose that, and it is my choice of religion. And I associate with others who believe in my viewpoints at a Church every Sunday to worship and discuss our beliefs. And outside of that hour, I try and live my life the way my religion asks of me to do. And I encounter many people who share my beliefs... and many who don't. Either way we are all human beings on this planet, and we all gotta work and live together.

_________________

I guess, for me, I'm 100% sure that there is not a god, but I would simply say, "I was wrong." if proof were somehow offered to me. I don't harbor a doubt in the fear that proof might exist.

I want to believe in shit that probably doesn't exist too. =P

As for church, it is easy for someone who needs that social stimulation to be drawn in, even if they don't necessarily believe. Some folks wish they could be a part of a church or community group, but would just feel like a big ass hypocrite if they started showing up.

I personally find church just as obnoxious and annoying as star-trek (or eq) conventions (or what I think they would be like). So I don't go. I have a low threshold for nonsense.

_________________

What I'm trying to get across is that my entire childhood was deeply religious, and by admitting I have my doubts I feel like I am betraying the core of my cultural upbringing.

I don't know if I can explain how difficult that is for me.

Or, to illustrate it a different way, when I read this thread (and others like it) my emotional response is to immediately be defensive of religious ideas. Your earlier asshole oriented statements, for example, immediately piss me off, even when there's a chance I am on your side of the fence.

I'm agnostic, with heavy atheistic leanings. And yet, I go to church. I sing in the choir, I learn the psalms and teach my kids the beatitudes. I know, in the deepest recesses of my being, there is no Judeo-Christian "God". And yet I attend mass. Why?

Because Jesus' teachings are how I want my children to live. I think that he had some great ideas, ideas which can make you a better person and feel good about it. (And before anyone else harps on the church, please go back and read my earlier postings on how I disagree with the Paulist teachings, etc.)

And, since this seems to be the thread for uncomfortable truths, I fear death, being the ultimate unknown. I wish I had the comfort of believing in a life after this one, as I rather enjoy existing.

Agreed.



This I can respect. Ideas are one thing. Dogma is another.

I think most of my...ill feelings...for religion really stem from my personal experiences. My time in Bosnia, and the shit I saw, most of it was a result of this...blind extremism. What's really fucking sad, is that it just wasn't a select few durka durka jihad terrorist types. Don't get me wrong, the insane fuckheads were the ones in charge, but you'd be amazed at the folks who followed. Now, a lot of this on the Serb side was a nationalist frenzy, but look at what really separates those cultures beyond geography. This area of the world is but a snapshot of where it is everywhere else.

The one common thread for most all of these religions? As an athiest, they all agree on one thing. I'm going to their hell. Just think about that for a minute, and then understand why I think the world would be a better place without it, in spite of what (for me at least) false hope it brings people.

*Need* evidence and proof? Only if I want to say that it doesn't exist in some capacity. If I was to rule it out, yes, I would be making a fantastical claim because I have no proof.

You only *need* those things if you consider it to be a worthwhile thing to go about proving. But it's a still a leap to dismiss it without proof.

I know we like to be absolute about things to feel like we're right, but in science, absolute fact is an extremely serious declaration that is at the very top of the ladder. There's still plenty of room for your dismissal of something as worthy of investigation, but there's no room to suggest that something does not exist without proof. There is no 99.9% with scientific fact, there is only 100%.



The question of whether it needs investigation/logical refutation is something else entirely. I addressed this when I suggested that I probably wouldn't turn around to check if there was a large pink elephant behind me. It's not something I would bother with, because it has such a high chance of not existing. But, I also would not dismiss it without turning around and checking for myself. But, do I really need to do that? Probably not. And while I'm sure for many people it's the same way for God, they also cannot credibly say that he does not exist without turning around - or, in this case, checking the entire universe for such evidence.

Isn't Heisenberg fun?

And yet, if it is so glorious for mr. suicide bomber to die in the name of his group, why aren't the rest of the billion+ Muslims doing it? My suggestion is that it is not merely the religion that pushes them over the edge. Religion is one of perhaps a million different excuses for humans to behave so horribly. And it, like most other things - can be used for good and bad. In the case of the bad, it is often twisted from its original intent to fit the needs of a crazy person.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with the NRA... humans have a natural violent tendency, but it doesn't always come out and most people keep it at bay. Are most violent people religious? Highly unlikely. Insert any number of references to atheist-leaning regimes(USSR, China, Cambodia) who killed millions. There's your larger NRA.

I was looking around for it earlier and found it, Dawkins actually sums it up(check around 3:08):



"It's not reasonable for a scientist to say I absolutely know anything like that. I'm an agnostic about faeries, and so are you, but we don't really seperate ourselves from somebody who doesn't believe in faeries. In practice we don't believe in faeries."

Wow, another atheism thread. I guess I'll pitch in my two cents on the agnosticism vs. atheism question.

Atheists make the positive claim that no gods exist.
Agnostics decline to make a judgement on the existence of any gods due to lack of evidence.

Functionally, atheists and agnostics tend to behave quite similarly. The reason for this, of course, is Occam's Razor -- although agnostics remain open to the existence of gods, they typically choose to adopt the simplest point of view, i.e. that these rather fanciful, anthropomorphic entities do not exist.

I hear many more people (in RL conversations, and on these boards) call themselves atheists than agnostics. Part of this is no doubt due to a difference in definitions of atheism and agnosticism. I think the other part is due to the reputation that atheism has as a 'hard' stance, while agnosticism is seen as 'soft.' It's nice to be perceived as confident, sure and certain; it's not so nice to be seen as on the fence.

I call myself agnostic, since I'm not convinced that there is no god. I am a physicist working my way through graduate school, so I consider myself conversant in modern scientific ideas. However, there are fundamental questions that science has no answers for, questions that some may interpret as pointing to the existence of some force we do not at present understand. I'd like to hear the atheist contingent comment on:

1) How the universe began; i.e. how something arose from nothing
2) How self-replicating life arose, in seeming contradiction of the law of increase of entropy
3) How self-aware consciousness arose in neural networks

Until we can explain these things scientifically (and attempts are being made to do so), I remain unconvinced as to the absolute nonexistence of some force that we do not understand.

By saying, "If there there is proof that god exists I'll accept his existence." doesn't make me agnostic. It just noting that I am willing to be proven wrong on my stance, which is that I find it highly unlikely that god exists. I don't leave room open for 'maybes' or 'ifs', because there is nothing leading me to believe in 'maybes' or 'ifs', so it'd be a waste of time for me to even consider that.

Same way I'll never completely claim that no invisible dragon is sitting behind me, yet that doesn't mean that in my mind I'm leaving room for 'maybeee he is there'. However, if there was proof that the invisible dragon was behind me, I'd have no reason to deny it's existence.

As for everything else, I'm perfectly fine with an answer that simply states, "I don't know." rather than jump to conclusions based on nothing just because said conclusions make us feel better. Because yeah, there's a fuckton of shit we don't know. And a lot of the shit we do know about can be proven wrong with better strong evidence. And that's another thing, to seek or claim absolute knowledge about everything is probably not the best approach to have. So, I don't, nor do I seek it. That however doesn't make me agnostic.

Actually Fribur, I get you - completely (I think).

My mother is religious and I have a religious background. I don't come from zealots or anything like that. I had a simple "normal" Methodist background. We go to church on Sundays, believe in God, and do our best to be decent.

I think doubts are natural. On one hand, I WANT to believe. I REALLY REALLY want to believe. I have a lot of trouble believing because the whole thing is so unbelievable. I feel like investigating or challenging it is sacriligious. On the flipside, I have to believe there is SOMETHING more than simple science. Big bang, evolution, etc... I get it. But, time and existence had to start SOMEWHERE. Maybe it all boils down to science. I don't know... and I'm now rambling.

On this topic, I have a solid hunch you and I have mirrored feelings, heh.

As for the topic of Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas... I could care less about either. I guess if I were Islamic, I would care more... and does saying "Merry Christmas" trample rights? I dunno.

Some force doesn't necessarily have to mean an old man in the sky hurling lightning bolts at those who worship Mooby the Golden Calf. But to say "you remain unconvinced as to the absolute nonexistence" is downright silly (no matter how you choose to take it). It would be better to say that we have not yet reached the scientific limits of our understanding of the universe and there are many things yet to be explained. Until they are explained, we will operate within the confines of our current knowledge.

The beauty of science is that it can change when new ideas are presented and facts are uncovered. Religion? Unflappable. They already have their answer, they just need to make it fit the facts...or just ignore it altogether.

I find it hard to see that as silly, even when looking at it from an anti-religious perspective. Old man(or multiple people, or entities) in the sky happens to be one of the more popular beliefs, so it's only natural it would be one which you might address when considering uncertainty.

Operate within the confines of our current knowledge, while also not ruling anything out due to the fact that we have not reached the scientific limits of our understanding, and there are many things yet to be explained.

Christ, is it that time of year already?

Yeah, well, if we don't know something it is quite better to simply say and accept a, "I don't know." than to start assuming. We can make a huge list of what could be behind of the unknowns, that doesn't get us anywhere closer to actually figuring out what is actually behind them. That is why it comes of as silly to credit a god or a mythical unseen force to some. Because based on the evidence we have of either, an extremely fluffy pink invisible and never before seen bunny is as likely of a candidate.

That is why I just find comfort in, "I don't know".

That's my point. Instead of saying "I KNOW a god does not exist", you should be saying "I don't know whether or not one exists".

The better way to say it is that it's EXTREMELY unlikely that an all knowing benevolent God exists. The entire "Well, you can't say he doesn't, so HA!" argument is just so fucking tiresome. Personally, I think it's mass delusion so the populace can accept their own mortality and justify their bigotry in the name of "morality".

Want to be a part of something greater than yourself? Want a legacy? Contribute, in whatever way you deem necessary, and you will. Either via act or progeny. Morals don't come from religion, they come from society. And like science, they are flexible as we learn more about ourselves. Funny how being flexible works for the betterment of the species yes?

Just be true to yourself Fribur. I think most people that struggle with religion feel like yourself, me included. Even Mother Teresa it turns out had moments of doubt, so I think you are in good company =)

Find people who you consider to be intelligent, knowledgeable on the subject, and see what they think about religion.

This is a flashpoint debate, and people get very heated about it, on both sides. Both sides have very intelligent people, and very stupid people, professing reasons X, Y, and Z why they are right, and the other side is wrong.

The key (as is to almost any subject) is to learn from smart people, and ignore stupid ones. Do you really need to know why some guy who got straight C's in high school and went to some junior college, if that, doesn't believe or does believe in God?

"Hi, I could barely manage a 3.0 GPA at my public high school, I struggled with basic calculus, but I do (or don't) know God exists, and here's why."

Please.

Find intelligent people who are knowledgeable about the subject, and hopefully they can steer you in the right direction, for yourself, in a topic that has no right or wrong answers.

Seriously, it does.

I can say, without a doubt, God does not exist. It simply does not fit into my view of the universe at all, just like wizards and dragons don't.

Want to attack the "scientific validity" of my logic, ok, that's fine. I don't know if the religious community is really one that wants to really throw that stone, given the house they live in though.



1) We don't know that "something arose from nothing", that's just a nice way for the religious folks to put a common-sense-sounding strawman up to support creationism. It lets them say, "How can something come from nothing?!" and people just nod their heads and say, "Yeah!"

Other than that, it's hard to address that particular topic because, frankly, we don't know. Even if you want to cling to God as the alpha and omega, you still have to ask where HE came from.

2) Self-replicating life does not violate the second law. Even within your own body, you require absolutely massive amounts of ordered fuels to be constantly be broken down into heat and energy, greatly increasing entropy, just to try to stave off entropy in your own system for a short time, and even then you eventually break down and die, becoming completely disordered.

As Stephen Hawking put it in one of his books (And I do not quote), "As you read this book you increased the order in your brain by a certain amount, but you also increased your local entropy by a vastly greater amount in the form of heat and energy released as your body consumed fuel."

3) Self-aware consciousness...I guess I'll assume you mean how did human brains evolve and become self-aware? Do we know that other animals are not self-aware? There are plenty of smart, crafty animals out there, I don't see why it is totally unbelievable that over a long period the brains of certain species evolved and continued to grow in ability.

And, to add my own point...the argument of, "Science dosen't know this yet, it must support the existance of god." is another one that is getting terribly old. Yes, we know that we don't know things. That's ok, that's the path that science takes, constantly discovering and learning. And religion has been pushing back that line of, "Well, science doesn't go past HERE, so that means God exists!" for centuries now. Just give it up already.

Case in point.

Here you have someone who doesn't even have a proper understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, arguing about how the creation of life doesn't violate it?

My guess is someone who doesn't have a fundamental grasp on neurology or neuroanatomy....suddenly able to orate about how neurological function is consistent with self-awareness?

Someone who has difficulty understanding what it means to be a casual player in a video game, suddenly able to say with 100% certainty that God does not exist?

Do you think if it wasn't for the Lanys boards, anybody outside of his family would give two shits and listen to what Bovinity thought about the topic of God?

Again, seek out intelligent people to discourse with. If you ever think you are on the right side of an argument, it's when people you consider intelligent agree with you, and people you consider stupid share the opposite viewpoint.

Sure, Nek, Sure.

Don't type anything of your own, just back up your views with "Everyone else is a retard."

Actually, I've stated over and over there are smart people and stupid people.

Learn from smart people.
Ignore stupid people.

Well when you're ready to actually discuss a topic in a thread with your own views and input, let us know. I was actually happy that the thread hadn't degenerated into "Ur dumb" yet, and now you've gone and ruined it.

I still don't get what the point of, "Ignore everyone here, no one here is smart enough to have this discussion, their points are invalid." in the middle of the discussion. Heh.

*takes out some popcorn*

As far as contribution, I have written many times before on the existence or non-existence of God before, mainly in threads about evolution, so I won't bore people with it again, maybe you can look them up, maybe they were purged, I don't know.

On your meandering personal views of the laws of entropy that have no basis in scientific reality though, maybe you want to rethink your position, or at least proffer a reason why reproduction does not violate the laws of entropy.

I will even point you in the right direction - evolution can often be though of as the biological equivalent of the laws of entropy, meaning that because matter continues to be recombined in various permutations, that this results in an increased randomness in the universe.

However - and this goes to your post - it does not explain how the creation of lifeforms fits into entropic theories. Your description of body heat has nothing to do with Noonjen's postulation. It's that in a universe where everything tends towards disorder, how does creation of life fit in?

Your car can sit on your driveway, and in a million years, it will become dust and then atoms. In a million years though, the dust and atoms in your driveway will never become a car.

But not so with lifeforms. In a million (or more) years, the dust and atoms in your driveway did become amoeba, then higher orders of life after that.

So now Bovinity, how is that consistent with the law of entropy?

This isn't a scholarly or academic community. That doesn't mean that all conversation is fruitless.

Coming from you skycrasher, that's rich.

But I'll play along.

Reread Bovinity's post, and point me to the part that was fruitful. What did you learn, if anything from his post? Did it increase your knowledge base in some way? Would you consider his post more fruitful, or more fruitless, to use your vernacular?

First off, there is a lot more to entropy and the second law than just "Everything falls apart." Especially when you start talking about complex systems. It's very important to consider the type of system, how isolated or open they are, and other factors when saying that all things tend toward entropy.

Debunking that alone is enough to lead me to believe that your initial assessment of my other post as being stupid and useless was an assessment with little or no basis.

Seriously, that's your answer? A copout?

The only thing I can deduce from your post is that you don't really understand this discussion surrounding the physics and science behind the law of entropy. If I had to venture a guess, the last time you took any sort of biochem was high school, which in itself is OK if you actually learned it the first time around, but something tells me that's not even the case. Your answer seems extremely Wikipedian, considering your use of larger words which I'm not accustomed to seeing from you. In other words, you can mimic what you read, but you can't understand it.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You're saying you can't give an answer because I haven't described the type of system to evaluate (which in itself is the main reason I know you don't understand what you are typing).....
You want a system? Ok, its THE UNIVERSE. It's the perfect system to ascribe the features of entropy, but you would know this.

So in this super-large, ginormous system called the universe, where the seemingly inviolate laws of entropy apply......

In a trillion years, a pile of atoms will never become a car. This is consistent with the laws of entropy.

In a trillion years, a pile of atoms will become an amoeba, and then eventually (supposedly) a human being, some far more complex and orderly than a car. This is not consistent with the laws of entropy.

So now Bovinity, how is that consistent with the law of entropy? I'm asking again because you so deftly dodged it with your non-sensical rebuttal.

(Oh bonus points for you skycrasher! Can you find the fruitful part of Bovinity's last post? The part where he tells me how the laws of entropy apply to creation? Maybe supplying his own system and model instead of copping out that I haven't given one to him? You know, since he understands how that applies to physics and all?)

Incorrect. It's HIGHLY improbable. Never is such a strong word.

Again, you're trying to hide the fact that you're leaving out HUGE amounts of the details of the second law behind your condescending attitude and self-professed intellectual superiority.

If you're still clinging to, "Everything has to fall apart, nothing can form together!" as the basis of your argument and your limit of understanding of thermodynamics, and opting to fill in the gaps with insults, your presence here in this discussion is pretty useless.

And I'm not sure where the "big words" were in my last post. Maybe "assessment"?

Still dodging I see.

Ok, forget everything I've posted, and let me ask you a question, intellectual to intellectual:



How does the laws of entropy apply to the creation of lifeforms?



Please include any of the HUGE amounts of details of the second law that haven't been discussed that you think apply. Like I've said before, you can always learn something from smart people, and I'm more than willing to learn from you.

Yay, a question!

I would imagine that the first place to start is by pointing out that the amount of entropy in a system can be greatly affected by the environment in which it resides and other forces in the area.

It is also worth pointing out that the second law covers a lot more than things simply coming together and falling apart. I know I said that before, but it is worth mentioning now.

To use an example (And no, this does not directly answer your question, we'll get there!) a baby does not simply form itself. The process is long and requires an absolutely enormous amount of energy to maintain the small amount of order contained within it. Food and water, things that the baby takes from the environment around it and converts from an ordered state into a disordered state in order to maintain an amount of order within itself. Energy is lost in the conversion, fulfilling

That in itself is the first step in seeing that life does not violate that part of the second law. Entropy can be overcome in a system for a time, given an expenditure of energy or a loss of overall order from outside the system.

But to the second part, the actual *creation* of the initial life and the fact that things do not simply create themselves in the universe. Obviously this is vastly more complex of an issue to attack directly. It actually goes further back than any known organism, we really have to think about the creation of the very first cell, or even further back than that. And then I have to find a way to express it in terms of the second law.

It should come as no surprise to anyone versed in basic chemistry that X compound and Y compound can mix and form a new, more ordered, compound, often with the addition of external evergy. It would stand to reason that, at certain times in earths' history and/or in certain environments, we could have seen the very first amino acids, proteins or other building blocks of life form from the raw materials, all of which were present on early earth.

This would not violate the second law because such a combination and creation could require an amount of external energy to facilitate the chemical reactions and combinations that increased the order within the system.

The details, yes, I will be fuzzy on. I'm not going to go out and find all the details on exactly how much heat/energy/chance was desired/not desired for these reactions, nor can I tell you what combinations were/were not possible. But the fact remains that the second law does not exclude - indeed, it has provisions allowing - the combination and higher ordering of individual systems.

That, in a nutshell is my understanding of how the creation of initial life, and the further procreation of life, does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. I'd like to think the general idea is sound, even if the details are horrifically flawed. It makes sense to me at least!

(I'm sure I just left myself REALLY open for more knowledgable people to totally tear me apart. It's ok, I can learn things too!)

EDIT: Oops...the end of the third paragraph should read, "Fulfilling the requirements of the second law in regard to heat/energy efficiency and loss."

EDIT 2: Also, please let me say that the concept of the origin of life is obviously beyond the scope of this discussion and any of our knowledge, I'm sure. I'm not proclaiming to have the answers to the puzzle, nor to have any new insights on the issue.

My only purpose was was to demonstrate that the second law didn't completely exclude the creation of life.

I wouldn't raise a finger in protest if you said that "it's EXTREMELY unlikely", at least from a purely non-religious point of view. Like I said, it's not really an argument in favor of religion at all, it's simply the contradiction that strong atheists must harness a belief in order to suggest that a god does not exist, while at the same time they babble about how horrible it is to have faith in something not grounded in fact.



Then you have a belief of which you have no doubt.



The irony here is that the religious community is ABLE to throw that stone when they are the ones blamed for harboring a belief not based on fact. If people who held those beliefs would simply move towards agnositicism by saying "I don't know", there wouldn't be anything to dissect about it.

Believe me, I tire of the argument too, I would much rather everyone simply move towards agnosticism than claim absolutes under the guise of being "more scientific" or "rooted in fact" =p

The issue I have is that the religious side basically created something that cannot be proven/disproved scientifically and then said, "Well, we can't prove or disprove it, so I think its there, you think it's not, so we're even, right?"

They're not even. At the very least the religious side has to give up some ground on that scale on account of having made the unprovable assertion.

There is NO contradiction here, chief. Deists claim their belief as if it were fact. Atheists claim what IS fact. Right now, to our knowledge, there is NO proof of god. None, zero, absolutely nada. I consider myself an athiest. That said, if there were proof presented that God exists (and thus bringing forward a valid theist hypothesis), I would most definitely consider it. I'M not the one here who's delusional.



Circular douchebaggery. With the knowledge we have currently, he's correct.



Wrong. We just hold that an grand idea without basis in fact, observation or evidence is in fact NOT true. I know pink unicorns do not exist. Until evidence is presented otherwise, this is true. So as of right now, not believing in God IS rooted in fact. God is just as valid as pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.

If you tire of the argument then admit you find comfort in your delusion and don't pretend that it has ANY validity whatsoever outside of your own mind. I have no issue with this, and if more you silly bastards kept to that, there wouldn't really need to be any discussion on the matter.

It depends on how you define "even". If by even you mean, cannot be proven or disproven, absolutely it is even in that it cannot be. If by even you speak of evidence for or against, certainly a case could be made and that's very unlikely to be even.



Again, there is no proof against either. No, that is not an argument FOR the existence. The delusion sets in when, as an atheist, a person who BELIEVES(<<-- key word here) there is no god/gods, makes an absolute claim without absolute proof.



Then point to me to the proof of nonexistence.



This is precisely what I mean by it being contradictory. You have spoken of fact with a basis in observation and evidence, but at the same time make a claim without proof. You say that pink unicorns do not exist without pointing to a map of the universe with every location as having been searched(on top of potential parallel universes and so forth!). Evidence does not need to present itself for a truth in order for you to allow a possibility.



I'm not suggesting that religion has validity on a scientific basis. I'm merely suggesting that the stance of traditional atheism is contradictory and flawed in that it requires a belief without the fact which it espouses to be above all else.

See, this is why it gets annoying. You guys literally just *made up* something and then demand proof that it's wrong, and then say:



So basically you literally make up something, and then call other people flawed when they say that it is...well...made up?

Sure, why not? Your logical fallacy is independent of anything I say or do. I could make up anything, and it may or may not be true with infinitely many holes in my suggestion - but, if you make a counter-claim that has no basis in fact, that is your own fallacy regardless of the legitimacy of the original claim.

Also, I would only demand proof that it's wrong under the circumstance that you make an absolute, factual claim.

It may be an annoying line of argument, but remember, it can all end in one fell swoop with your conversion to agnosticism!

This thread has a serious case of X Factor, IF U NO WUT I MEEN IN TEH RAIN IPSE DIXIT

I adjust my monocle in approval.

Are you guys going to move onto a debate of whether existence can be proven next? Pretty please?