Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 405. (Read 901520 times)

This thread is starting to fill up with nonsense again.

You should also consider this advice of mine. You're wasting your time with people such as BADecker.
This thread has been coming up on my watchlist quite often today and I had to take action considering that his posts were nonsense.

In case you've missed it, the guy said that the universe didn't exist before one was born. His words are true wisdom.  

It was just a 'let me google that for you' link that I've fixed. Notable genes.
I pretty much know as much as you do. Our design is flawed; why use less "wires" (can't figure out a correct analogy to computers/scaling) that have more functions, when you can use more?
More is less right?

If I had been some sort of superior creature that was doing the designing, I would have done a better job that this. However you should stop going off topic. If you want to discuss DNA, start your own thread.

Update: Corrections.

" The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way.", Go look into quantum physics.

" The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way."[/i], Go look into quantum physics.

Okay, point taken. I won't speak to him on this thread anymore.

Your explanations have little behind them. The things that are true regarding your explanations, have a whole lot of scientific manipulation regarding them. The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way.

Except that on a subatomic level, cause and effect works differently, there might not even be a cause. And all of that is irreleavnt, that's your view that because things are organized, then an "intelligent designer" must have designed it. That makes no sense as you can look at it in a multitude of ways(There being no "intelligent designer", everything happening by "chance"/coincidence, the math behind it, etc). That's why you can't use science to prove or disprove god.

So everything you've said there is irrelevant and proves nothing, to make it simple.

The dedicated scientist looks for two things. First he looks for something that happened. Then he looks for why/how.

Just to be a scientist, a scientist looks for cause and effect, even though he does it in reverse order, effect first. Once he finds the cause (he had already found the effect), then he turns the cause into another effect in his mind, and looks for the thing that caused it. This is the basic way scientific investigation operates.

The greater a scientist is, the more he looks for cause and effect.

The dreamer looks for what he wishes would exist. The dreamer dives into his science fiction.

Real science has even predicted and found organization in the pandemonium of an atomic blast. This organization involves the way matter and energy act upon each other inside the blast. There is no disorder. There is only extreme complexity. Everything operates by cause and effect in an atomic blast, even though there are countless trillions of causes that turn into reactions, reactions that themselves become causes that act on other "things" and turn them into reactions, that only become further causes, etc.

There is intelligent design in it all. This indicates Intelligent Designer, and when you have an Intelligent Designer that can design something this great, It falls into the classification of God.

Religion trails after science. So if science knows very little about the basics, then those religions know absolutely nothing at all.

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist. - Wrong
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed. -Wrong
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause. -Wrong

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

The information can be easily found.
Here

However, this discussion would require another thread. Some are claiming that a part of the "junk" DNA is actually DNA whose function is unknown, while other scientists are claiming that it is "biological wasteland".

Considering how useful some genes are and their functions, we can easily conclude that out "design" is very inefficient

What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

With religion comes too many different versions one thing says one thing another says another and find it all to lead to the same thing. I believe in what I believe and that is not religion in full. I believe in many different things but when it comes to this type of mumbo jumbo it makes no seance what so ever. You follow one then you look at another and says your in the wrong and their right and ever other is wrong. I do believe in some of it but not everything so does that make me atheists ? Must be.

The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials.  If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error.  Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow.  The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set.  The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.

And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound.  Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue.  But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.


Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine."  Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer.  In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.

Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic.  You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics?  From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions.  This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics.  What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics.  That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.

From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics.  One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium.  Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium.  Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0).  No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.

LOL I am theist and science is one of my favorite subjects. Atheist don't want to be generalized but then they generalize us.

Way to generalize.

I'm a theist.  I do not ignore science.

Here's a true generalization for you:  All scientists who believe it is necessarily silly to believe in something without physical evidence are hypocrites.

Excellent example. I've actually copied it to my archive, as such arguments are quite rare. The same example can be made with humans. Religious people tend to argue that evolution couldn't have made such perfect beings as humans.
However studies have shown that less than 10% of our DNA is being used and that the rest is junk. Meaning our design isn't efficient at all. Some sources are claiming 8.2% is being used, that's about 250 million DNA letters. However, more than 2 billion are junk.