The Antichristian Phenomenon
No, son, there’s no bogeyman in the closet, just an atheist
Posted by: Vampy_Ra in debate, SocioPolitical, World EventsAnother attention grabbing cheesy title.
Yeah, well. I was reading this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/atheists-launch-campaign-to-get-unbelievers-to-come-out/2011/11/22/gIQApf8glN_story.html, and I have to say the whole idea seems alien to me. I find it mind-boggling that there are places in the so called western world where being an atheist is something you may feel obliged to hide.
I live in a rather religious country – yet it never crossed my mind that it may not be ok to speak out as a non-believer. In fact, other than a few surprised reactions from when I was in school and the whole thing probably seemed weird to other 14-15 year olds, saying I am an atheist has often prompted a, rather silly and quite paradoxical, it’s true, sense to others that I must be really knowledgeable or something – certainly never any sort of hostility.
I can understand why it may not be in a politician’s best interest to “come out” as an atheist – or why someone may not feel like discussing it with religious family members, even keeping it a secret in the hillbilly fortresses of the deep south. But that there should need to be a nation-wide effort in the USA, or elsewhere, for people to dare and declare their lack of belief, or that there is an actual chance for the average atheist to have some kind of social problem because of it, is beyond me – is it really so bad in the US or is the whole thing a bit of an overreaction?
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am - Edit
Adolfo, I’m not sure I follow the relevance of these claims.
Firstly you claim that you have mathematics and science backing you up. You responded with science only, there was no mathematics in anything you posted. I am hoping that upon your return of consulting your “notes” you will provide adequate mathematical proofs.
Secondly, I’m assuming your trying to make an argument by “fine tuning”. Is it supposed to sound amazing that the things you present happen at “jet engine speeds”? What if I were to say “well, I think that’s pretty slow”…. when compared with something like the speed of light for example. From my point of view fine tuning is merely an illusion that looks like a very convenient argument. Of course it seems “perfect’ since life evolved for THIS planet. You could have had arsenic based life that grew up on this planet and then make the same claim if the conditions were right for it. I don’t think the claim holds up to logical scrutiny.
December 1st, 2011 at 8:15 pm - Edit
This is in no way overreacting?!? Most of the world's population is under the influence of man made cults, controlled by men. Until our lives are not resting in the hands of a mind raped populous, things like this are extremely necessary. When we look around and see only a couple other people accepting what seems to be the truth, its easy to fold and accept that [religion] must be right. However when a movement takes shape, its easier to get/stay on board. This is true for most any collection of people. The "Athiest" movement just happens to have Common Sense, Mathematics, and Science backing it up…
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:38 am - Edit
I'm not talking about the necessity of an organised atheist movement. Personally I think that organised religion is already failing and will gradually shrink anyway – though likely at a slower pace than hoped. What I find strange is people who are already non-believers needing the movement as some sort of protection against their local society.
On the other hand, if people are discriminated based on their sexuality, I shouldn't find it weird that atheists are treated as some sort of religious gays. But since I never had any such experience (rather the opposite), I can only wonder.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:34 pm - Edit
Really? Mathematics and science backing up athiesm? How so? I am a believer and also have mathematics and science backing what I believe. We should compare our notes and see if we come to the same conclusion in a non biased way, because biases have no place in any kind of debate.
December 12th, 2011 at 5:14 pm - Edit
I'll play along. Sure, go first.
December 14th, 2011 at 8:44 pm - Edit
In a press release, ILL physicist Mark Johnson said, "We are essentially measuring the speed of sound in DNA which gives you a direct measurement of its structural flexibility."1 His team found that DNA has "a force constant of 83 N/m," close to that of nylon.2
December 14th, 2011 at 8:44 pm - Edit
This fundamental property enables DNA to be manipulated by proteins in multiple vital processes. For example, when DNA is copied, protein complexes race down its length, splitting the DNA double-helix like a zipper so that each resulting single strand can be quickly formed into a new double-stranded molecule. This occurs at jet-engine speeds, requiring DNA to have significant strength!3 If copying occurred much slower, then cells would not survive the wait.
Similarly, DNA is forcefully and rapidly unwound and scanned when RNA is manufactured. The protein complex that makes RNA molecules using DNA sequences as templates was referred to as a "molecular juggernaut" in a recent report in the journal Cell.4 Yet DNA is strong and flexible enough to withstand these hourly rigors.
The elasticity of DNA must fall within a limited range. If it were too stretchy, it would deform so much that essential proteins would not be able to latch on to or even recognize it. If it were too brittle, it would snap under the constant stresses of cellular life.
December 14th, 2011 at 9:01 pm - Edit
http://www.heraldmag.org/1998/98ja_3.htm.
Sorry just posted what a creatiion sciencist posted. Trying to find my own notes and studies still. Usually sleeping due to illness of a nerve disorder. but when I find my own studies I will post them.
you can email me your notes or just post them on here. imnothere_806@yahoo.com
p.s. it's mum-ra the everliving
December 14th, 2011 at 10:16 pm - Edit
Regarding the link you posted, it is a simple case where a creationist grabs onto a term and doesn't let go. It was probably a silly idea to name this common female ancestor mitochondrial Eve, as it was bound to cause misunderstandings. For example, it's funny how the author accepts this idea so far as it suits him, but forgets to mention all the rest of it which goes against creationist ideas (like that she lived 200000 years ago, when they think the world is 6000 years old). Here's a quick answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Co…
As for the first part, I don't know the accuracy of this statement, but it doesn't matter; from what I understand, it's a variation of the anthropic principle – only weaker. I take it that what you mean is "If X (DNA) didn't have property Y, things wouldn't work, life wouldn't exist", etc. In the case of cosmology, the anthropic principle is an interesting philosophical question, though of little scientific value. In biology though, it's not even that as it doesn't even require chance – it's like saying we wouldn't be here today if our pulse was 10 times faster. Sure it may be true, but proves nothing.
edit: Mumm-ra, yes, I know. It's a pun, albeit not a very good one.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:05 pm - Edit
Actually there's a lot more wrong with the article you linked than simply latching onto a term. Here's my rebuttal:
"Three successive theories of evolution? Oh if only they had taught me the truth during my Evilutionist brainwashing!
There have been a lot more varieties than three, and none of them “die out”, but contribute to the theory in different ways as aspects of them are proven to be true or false. That is to say, remnants of what the authors list as “Variation Theory” are still there in the form of natural selection. Remnants of what the authors list as “Mutation Theory” are still there because mutation is the mechanism of natural selection. The article misses Dawkins’ contributions to the field that contrast with Gould as well. Punctuated equilibrium has been historically opposed by Gradualism (Selfish Gene), though that story is much more complicated and less antagonistic than it appears. Also, I don’t know what Gould the author has been reading but those “fundamental assumptions of Darwin”: evolution is progressive, species competing are still part of Gould, and the only change in the “constant rate” is to allow for the uneven realities of nature discovered in the century after Darwin. And this list fails to mention Lamarck for historical claims, or Gradualism and Evo-Devo for current claims (among others!), so how can we expect it to be accurate if it doesn’t even attempt to be semi-comprehensive?
One can’t start with a disturbingly incomplete and error filled premise and hope to reach a reasonable conclusion, but let’s pretend that we can make a valid step from the glaringly incorrect three-successive-theories claim.
First, I would love to hear a paleontologist in real life claim that their findings or predictions look anything like Creationism. They have their own timeline of evolutionary history compared to Genesis, and none of it correlates–especially no flood. Even the various extinction events do not line up with a flood. If we can’t rationalize the most fundamental Genesis claim, then there is no grounds to claim that they are even close to agreement.
I am not familiar the findings of Dorit et al., but these findings have most certainly been outdated by more recent studies (post 2001). Current research does claim that there was a Y-Chromosomal Adam, but the date has been calculated to about 60,000 years, and includes variation within the Y chromosome called “Y haplogroups” which are distributed regionally and in agreement with the “Out of Africa” theory of human migration.
Response to endnote 5:
“human creation somewhat before BC 4100” Sure, if before BC 4100 they mean at least 200,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been found with certainty in this period and before, with the oldest approximated at 600,000 years.
“the Flood about BC 2472” They may trot out Dorit et al. to claim a bottleneck in human evolution, but there is no genetic bottleneck in any other species around this time frame. So even if Dorit et al. had correct findings, the flood would have only effected humans, which seems odd.
“The solar-day creative-week concept is difficult to harmonize with anything happening before about BC 4129.” Too bad, because vertebrate life alone can be tracked up to 500,000,000 years. Its not even necessary discuss bacteria or other microorganisms which dwarf such numbers."
And as for the final bit, I don’t have a problem challenging the Genesis account with my collection of data. Bring out your notes and I will happily correct them.
February 7th, 2012 at 10:19 pm - Edit
Where is your math? Why do you believe what you believe? Do you believe in the big bang? Who is your big banger? Do you believe in the multiverse? who created the multiverse? The math implies that the chance of earth randomly being formed in the exact conditions it needed is 1 thousandth of a trillionth. Watch the priviledged planet. If you found a watch in a field, you would assume it had a designer. A watch is far too complicated to just appear. How much more complicated is the universe? So could you just tell me exactly what you believe in regards to "the beginning"? And please, stay away from infinite regression, and try not to break the laws of thermodynamics. Remember, something can't come from nothing. As the Kalam Cosmological Argument says, anything that starts has a beginning.
February 8th, 2012 at 12:51 pm - Edit
This is not the chance of earth "randomly" (it's not exactly random but let's leave that) being formed where it was. You also seem to have the impression the conditions back then were the same as now.
I hoped the watchmaker argument wouldn't still be around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#C…
I'm suspecting you don't have the slightest idea about thermodynamics and what its laws are used for. Come on, tell me the 2nd law and then try to explain how you think it applies.
Lastly, stop using the phrase "what do you believe". The only one of your questions where it can be used is the one about the multiverse, as it is currently not a verifiable scenario.
PS: unrelated to the rest, but since the posts here rarely follow a logical order, I'll say it anyway. I assume christians (/jews/muslims) believe humans are the only life in the universe (not that they wouldn't find a silly way to override that if needed). If so, what the hell is the use of an abnormally enormous universe?