Deludedgod's essay.
Offline [i](I'm helping deludedgod to try to get some theists to respond to this.)[/i]
A few days ago I started a thread where a requested people to give me stupid myths of evolution. It was great and we assembled 30 things. Now, I realize that there are many theists who do not attack evolution, but the ones who do always beat the same dead horses. therefore, I have collated some of my evolution posts on this site as well as some old articles on evolutionary genetics I wrote, and assembled them into The fundamental axioms of evolution.
Theists, your challenge is to debunk this:
The axioms of Evolution
The statements of the average theist regarding evolution make it immediately clear to me that their understanding of evolution is roughly equivalent to a fish’s understanding of the game of chess. Therefore, to understand why they are completely wrong, you must first understand the axioms of evolution.
The first one is that organisms adapt to their environment through natural selection, meaning that the environmental factors both cull the herd and remove organisms with unfavorable traits, and propagate those with favorable traits. The mechanism for this is the second axiom: Evolution is brought about by genetic mutation. An organism cannot adapt to its environment per se. It is the genes that must adapt, and that process takes millions of years. The next axiom is that the determinate of what constitutes an advantage is the environment. The rest of it is really simple, Evolutionary models study this axiom because it is complex. An environment includes lots of factors like other animals, temperature, gas concentration, climate etc. etc. This axiom is the driver of evolution, the guide, Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Genetic mutation is random. It is up to the environment to nurture useful genes and ensure they get passed on, and to eliminate poor genes. This is the fundamental axiom of natural selection mechanisms. It is something that no theist I have yet encountered understands.
Therefore, we must understand the mechanisms of mutation and the functions of DNA.
DNA is made up of polymerated strings of bases, which are nucleotides bound to sugar-phosphate backbones. DNA has two functions:
Holds the code to create various proteins from amino acids
Regulating the rate of producing proteins: By definition, one gene is a string of nucleotides that codes for one protein
The language of DNA is base-pairs. DNA is entirely comprised of four molecules. Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and Thymine. These are the nucleotides. The nucleotides are complementary. Like magnets, they will only fit to a certain opposite. G fits with C and A fits with T (A also fits with U, Uracil, but that is an RNA base). So there are only four possible base-pairs: CG, GC, TA and AT. But these four pairs will dictate every single protein imaginable.
There are four ways that DNA can innovate.
Intragenic mutation: Errors during mitosis can swap base-pairs around, creating new strings of bases, and a new gene
Segment Shuffling: Two different genes can recombine and form two new hybrids
Duplication error: Sometimes during mitosis, a parent cell will by accident only pass part of it’s genome to the daughter cell, thus it retains a redundant copy of a gene string. This copy is completely free to mutate based on random frequency probability.
Horizontal Transfer: During sexual reproduction, organisms exchange genes. If the organism is a diploid meaning that it’s offspring has the code of two parents, then it’s offspring will have a completely new genome, combing both parents. This is the most successful method of innovation.
There are two types of genes. Introns and exons, which have these separate functions. Exons code for proteins. Introns are mostly junk or redundant, but they flank all the exons. Sometimes they are just punctuation, dictating where a gene starts and stops, but their most important function by far is to regulate the speed of protein transcription, a mechanism we will look at it more detail later. Exons dictate how a protein will be assembled. They do this because a protein is essentially a string of amino acids or a polypeptide. Therefore, exons dictate the order of amino acids in a protein. They do this by representing each amino acid with a codon. A codon is three nucleotides. Three nucleotides make up an amino acid. There are 20 possible amino acids, but 64 possible codons, therefore, exons are highly sensitive. They are also sensitive because they are ordered very precisely. For instance, let’s look at a simple string of three codons in a gene: AGG CTT GCC. Now let’s assume that an extra base is accidentally inserted (Like a G for example). The new string would be totally different, it would look like this. GAG GCT TTG CC, so every base would be shifted down one, and the entire gene would change. This would be completely devastating. This is why DNA repair mechanisms quickly target such errors. On the other hand, Introns, which are not so sensitive or precisely executed, or are sometimes just junk or redundant, mutate based solely on random frequency. As there are 44 codons that don't correspond to an amino acid, these are used in introns. Therefore, the next axiom of evolution is that evolution is driven by the Introns. Obviously it is more complicated, Introns can become exons during shuffling/shifting, and exons can become Introns, and sometimes exons can be mutated harmlessly, so long as the mutation changes only a tiny chunk of the gene, but this axiom still applies.
Genetic drift drives evolution. Some mutations are good, some are bad, most do nothing, but through the endless cycles, organisms evolve. The analogy I like to use is the telemarketer. About 90% of people hang up on them, but the 10% who say yes make the enterprise quite profitable.
Genes which only have a regulatory role (like a mass of old paper, our genomes retain a lot of junk code) will mutate based on the random frequency probability. But a gene that codes for an essential amino acid will not mutate. When errors occur they are quickly repaired. Thus, throughout evolution, about 400 genes critical to all life have remained unchanged in three billion years. Such genes are called highly conserved genes. This is the common descent.
We now must look at the mechanisms of DNA innovation, and how they affect evolution. At the heart of evolution is mitosis. Every time a cell divides, its genetic material lines up and splits. As the DNA base pairs replicate, 6 billion bases have to go into the right place (at least for humans), this is really hard, the only way a nucleotide can recognize it’s counterpart is that the activation energy needed for them to bond is less than if incorrect nucleotides bonded, so if it takes place with an abundance of adenosine triphosphate, it is guaranteed some will end up in the wrong slots on the ribose-phosphate ring, thus forming new strings of genes. DNA controls protein synthesis. The proteins carry out every cellular function. When a protein is needed, the transcriptase enzyme for that protein is secreted, as this enters the cell’s nucleolus, it causes the chromosome containing the DNA to unwind, where a piece of single helix containing a particular string of base pairs is “cut” from the double helix by the enzyme. This piece is identical to the code of the protein. Using templated polymerization, free bases (a nucleotide bound to a sugar-phosphate) make the mirror image of this code, where the correct nucleotides are slotted in, A to T and C to G. Then the strand is peeled apart and the template is returned to the genetic code, where the new strand is ejected from the nucleus where RNA (differs only in one nucleotide and ribose instead of D-Ribose for the backing) called messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is assembled from a second round of polymerization, the mRNA binds to a ribosome (a ribosome is a giant macromolecular protein assembling machine that just trundles along) in the endoplasmic reticulum, where it is run through it like a conveyer belt, as different tRNAs (transfer RNA) line up with the codons in order, bound to a specific amino acid, stitching them together before leaving the ribosome, creating the protein necessary for whatever function the cell needs to perform.
The next axiom we must understand is that phenotype depends on genotype and the genotype does not change very much. When I hear creationists talk of the incredible diversity of life, I laugh. What makes life remarkable is how similar it is. The greatest diversity in life is seen among the prokaryotes, the humble single celled bacteria. We have more in common with a mouse than an Escheria coli has in common with Mycoplasmodium genetalium. The phenotype refers to the trait. This is determined by external features and internal anatomy. Of course, today we understand that phenotype depends on genotype. The speciation variable is not that huge. A human shares 99% of his DNA with a chimpanzee. That means that 1% (5,000 genes) produces 5,000 proteins that the chimps do not have, or transcribes them at a different rate. We only differ in 2 amino acids (out of 22 known to life) but these two can create vast combinations of proteins. These proteins control advanced neurogenesis, hair follicle growth, skin collagen makeup, eye colour variables, hormone-stimulated growth, all the ways in which we differ from chimps. Evolution works with scaffolding. The vast majority of genes in all mammals are the same, the genes that control enzymatic response, angio and vasculogenesis, the genes that control immunological responses and stem cell arrangements, they control basic development of brain functions that all mammals have, they control metabolism, mitosis, apoptosis, sensory development, the development of spermatogenesis in male mammals and mammary glands in females. By far and large, the genome across the mammalian class is identical. Massive changes in phenotype are caused by a few changes in genes. Even with the simple banana, 50% of our genotype is identical. This groundbreaking work was done by Richard Dawkins, who wrote about the crucial part of the genotype in his book The Selfish Gene.
This axiom has a logical follow up: Small genetic changes can make massive phenotype changes. This is why the constant claims that “sometimes fossils are found in the wrong striations” is an idiot idea. In phenotype it may appear to be very different and cannot fit in the taxonomy, but now with recent advances in genetics, we can track tiny mutations with huge consequences, comparing genotypes with a keystroke. If the mutated gene in question sits atop a master chain, then a single mutation can make a huge change. For instance, in a petal flower, if a single protein is changed on the master chain, then a stem will grow in place of a flower.
Now that we understand the genetic mutation mechanisms, we must look at the next axiom. The mechanism of natural selection will nurture good genes and get rid of bad ones depending on how they affect reproductive capacity. Simply put, a useful trait will increase an organism’s survival chance, therefore it will reproduce more, therefore, the gene will become more prominent in the pool through generations. A bad gene on the other hand, will make it more likely for an organism to die out quickly without the chance to reproduce, and the gene will wane from the pool. This brings us to a mathematical axiom. The time taken for a gene to establish itself or die out depends on the Trait Advantage Gradient. Simply put, the more advantageous the trait, the more reproductive capacity and survival odds it bestows on it’s carrier, the fewer generations it takes to establish itself.
There is a good example of this for contemporary society. The survival advantage of trait is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes. It is relatively easy to observe genotype transition today. For instance, in parts of Africa where malaria is most prevalent, the allele containing the single copy of sickle-cell anemia can be found in almost 100% of the population. Another good instance of this is common lawn grass. Consider dandelions, a totally nuisance type of weed. As people of suburbia ruthlessly take their lawnmowers to the grass, the dandelions that happens to have genetic combinations that inhibit it’s Auxin growth factors find it useful because they are far more likely to survive, too short to be cut by the blades. These pass their genotype to their children who in turn will be unusually short and survive the lawnmower blades while their tall counterparts perish and in time, a new species, the lawnlion, may arise.
This brings us to the next axiom: Natural selection has two necessary mechanisms
Mechanism 1: Darwinism: This means that individuals who have unsuccessful traits will not survive to reproduce and therefore be eliminated from the pool. This leaves only the advantageous genes.
Mechanism 2: Genetic Innovation: At the same time, organisms obviously must improve because if there was nothing to improve, there would be nothing to cull. Therefore, organisms can experience advantage mutations, and this is how we evolve.
Mechanism one is definitely favored by evolution. It is easier to destroy than create. Mechanism two takes vastly more free energy from the environment, but it is absolutely necessary, otherwise, we would all be little single celled organisms.
This brings us to the final set of axioms: Evolution works on individuals not species. This is one so many people don’t understand. For instance, I often hear theists say synchronized random mutations do not exist in nature, then they uphold this as proof of intelligent design/creationsim. They do not understand the fundamental axiom of genetic mutation every mutation has a prototype. We’ve been through this already. An organism has an advantageous mutation. It reproduces more than the other organisms because of this. The mutation gets passed to his children, they reproduce more because of it, they pass it to their children…mutations are not synchronized. With each generation, it will become more and more prominent in the pool, until it is universal. This gives the illusion of genetic synchronicity.
This brings us to another stupid theistic argument: I often hear the argument, “if humans evolved from chimps, why are they still here”. A foolish argument. We can apply the previous axioms to this. Evolution by gene drift works on individuals, not species. If the new combination is successful, the individual will have a greater survival chance and reproduce more, passing the new gene to his children. As long as a gene exists in the pool, the individual and his offspring have the chance for further advantageous mutations to occur (and occur they will, for mutation happens during every single undergoing of mitosis, which happens millions of time per day). The survival of an organism matters little so long as s/he had reproduced, is the gene that matters. An old species does not “disappear” if a new one arises. It might disappear only if the new species is superior and destroys its predecessors (early humans most certainly undertook genocide against the Neanderthals).
This brings us to final axiom speciative divergence occurs when a mutation prototype’s offspring differ so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the prototype’s species. This can happen quickly or very slowly, it depends on karyotype.
And, finally, the difference between micro and macroevolution. Theists often say: I believe in microevolution, I can see small changes in an organism, but I refuse to believe in macroevolution, the idea that organisms can completely change. This is an idiotic argument which uses subjective wordplay. At what point do we decide whether the cumulative mutation has been so much that it is macroevolution? If the organism changes color? During a speciation split? If it grows another eye?
In fact, macroevolution as so many successful mutations occurring within a pool that the phenotype of the organism is totally altered. This is essentially the same as microevolution, just over a longer time frame. DNA changes are not a microevolution topic. This is an extremely common misconception. Genes are very powerful, and they can easily massively alter the phenotype of an organism. You seemed to define macroevolution as speciation. That is, that the cumulative genetic change in an individual and their descendants has been large enough that the gametes no longer match with the original species of the prototype, that is the very first organism of a species that carried a mutation with a slight advantage, which over many hundreds of thousands of years and generations, eventually became so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the original species, if it still exists.
The trick to macroevolution is a probability function called cumulative mutation. A prototype organism is bestowed with an advantageous mutation. He has increased survival probability and passes it on to his children. He reproduces more than the other organisms of the same species because of this advantage. So do his children, and the gene becomes more and more prominent in the pool. Since there are more of this mutated version of the organism of the sample, the probability function states that there is a higher likelihood that one of the mutated children will chance upon an advantage mutation, and then...the cycle continues. Go through this 200 times, and the organism will be unrecognizable. This is macroevolution.
The next axiom of evolution is that all functions must be autoregulatory. Interestingly enough, this is more than enough proof to debunk the idea that God created life. Any engineer would snicker at the sloppiness and inefficiency of the biosystem. Adenosine triphosphate synthesis during respiration takes about 200 steps, when it could reasonably be done in about one third that. There are major nerves which for some reason take huge wasteful loops before reaching their destination. The reason for all this is that biomechanisms are autoregulatory. That means they produce molecules that will automatically perform the necessary functions. A good example is the amphipathic bilayer of the cell membrane. This is not a very well designed structure, it has poor integrity. A designer would laugh at it. But evolution utilizes it because amphipathic molecules will automatically form a membrane. Try it yourself. Get a hydrocarbon chain like oil, mix it with a water soluble phosphorylate, add water and...it should form an impermeable ring. That is a eukaryotic cell membrane (if you are interested, the substance that makes it is cholesterol). The molecules automatically arrange themselves correctly. Every biological functions does the same thing.
A designer would choose far better materials. Evolution has no foresight, no objective. It is a driving force that reeks of impatience. A benefit now may be worthless in a million years. Intelligent Design (The idea that life was too complex to arise by evolution) likes to use the Watchmaker analogy, that if you found a watch, you wouldn’t assume it assembled itself. But evolution is a blind watchmaker. It cannot see what it is assembling, it tries different parts, but if it hears the tick, it knows it works.
Another example of the autoregulatory process is the fundamental autocatalytic cycle of life:
What makes life remarkable is that it needs no designer, it is an autocatalytic cycle, bound to happen by the laws of chemistry, fixed in the nature of molecular interaction. It’s processes are self assembling, it’s mechanisms self-regulating. The autocatalytic cycle looks like this
DNA replicates through templated polymerization, assembling polynucleotides out of free nucleotides
The polynucleotides are used to assemble polypeptides out of amino acids
The polypeptides catalytic function are used to replicate DNA through templated polymerization
And the cycle continues
This concludes my piece on evolution.
[i]
[b]Note:[/b] You can also check out [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/4756]Myths about evolution.[/url][/i]
I 'know' that I didn't because the evidence suggests thus. To postulate otherwise would severly violate Ockham's Razor. Secondly, God's claim cannot qualify as knowledge without significant proof of God's existence, so using it as a point in a debate is somewhat circular and self-supporting.
Asking how I know I exist is somewhat strange. Knowing requires existing. Anything at all requires existing. The ery fact that I can question whether I exist proves I exist.
That depends on how you define an ethical system. If you define an ethical system as something which is inherently true, then yes, arbitrariness is bad. However, if you define it as a system you accept to promote order(which is why legal systems are good counter-parts, so long as their influence only extends insofar as their information reach extends)
I agree as far as inconsistancy goes, I never questioned that point.
The reason atheists as a group may seem inconsistent is because we have no common belief, just you can say nothing about what Christians and atheists have in common despite the fact that they share a lack of belief in magic elves.
Again, self-attesting is like saying I'm right because I say I'm right and I'm not going to listen *sticks fingers in ears* nyanyanyah i'm right you're wrong because the bible says so because everything in the bible is true including the part where it says it's true.
[quote]Again, self-attesting is like saying I'm right because I say I'm right and I'm not going to listen *sticks fingers in ears* nyanyanyah i'm right you're wrong because the bible says so because everything in the bible is true including the part where it says it's true.[/quote]
You more or less have the whole concept of self-deception down pat. The problem we have is that [i]we all do this[/i] whether we say we do or not.
I have admitted about Biblical errors that there are logical problems with the Bible we have presently. I have also (somewhat more embarasingly) admitted that in order to retain the functionality of my worldview, I am compelled to assume that there are reasonable explainations: mistranslations, burned originals, improper canonical definition (the books that were declared canon were declared by a council of men, not by God, so some non-canonical books may be in the Bible) etc.
I have even seen some Christians go so far as to argue that the fact that there are errors in the Bible proves the Bible Code because the errors were needed. I think that that begs the question a bit too much.
But, like I said, we all decieve ourselves (not just the theists, thank you.)
[quote]That depends on how you define an ethical system. If you define an ethical system as something which is inherently true, then yes, arbitrariness is bad. However, if you define it as a system you accept to promote order(which is why legal systems are good counter-parts, so long as their influence only extends insofar as their information reach extends)[/quote]
I have already delt with the concept of non-absolute ethical systems arguing with noor, so I will post a link and not reiterate. Sufice to say, there are legal, personal, political, and philosophical implications that, by necessity, accompany the non-absolute ethical assumption, which I doubt you are prepared to accept.
http://www.freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/freethinkers_debate/2737
i'm not going to get involved into this argument, because i am on spring break, and i am enjoying the beach.
but i just want to say, that deludedgod is probably one of the smartest people i have read their arguments on this site.
so is p-dunn.
some people just don't know what they are talking about, and ignore most of the argument that they know they can't prove wrong or part of it wrong. like egann. and timbobway.
but other than that, i am glad for the intellectual debates, it is great for the expansion of the mind.
thank you everyone.
p.s. deludedgod, that has to be the best userpic ever. lol
[quote]some people just don't know what they are talking about, and ignore most of the argument that they know they can't prove wrong or part of it wrong. like egann. and timbobway.[/quote]
I resent that, but can sort of see what you mean.
The argument form that I use (Presuppositionalism or Trancendentalism, it has been called both) it is by far the most abstract argument that any religion has ever devised.
Also, is not universally accepted as an argument by people who have not been put under it's scrutiny. Not many people like the idea that they must borrow from another worldview to function.
[quote=Egann]
You more or less have the whole concept of self-deception down pat. The problem we have is that [i]we all do this[/i] whether we say we do or not.[/quote]
[quote]I have admitted about Biblical errors that there are logical problems with the Bible we have presently. I have also (somewhat more embarasingly) admitted that in order to retain the functionality of my worldview, I am compelled to assume that there are reasonable explainations: mistranslations, burned originals, improper canonical definition (the books that were declared canon were declared by a council of men, not by God, so some non-canonical books may be in the Bible) etc. [/quote]
Then how do you know what is an error and what isn't? What's the original and not?
[quote]I have even seen some Christians go so far as to argue that the fact that there are errors in the Bible proves the Bible Code because the errors were needed. I think that that begs the question a bit too much.[/quote]
It's almost as bad as the "Satan went back in time and made similar myths to confuse us" argument
[quote]
I have already delt with the concept of non-absolute ethical systems arguing with noor, so I will post a link and not reiterate. Sufice to say, there are legal, personal, political, and philosophical implications that, by necessity, accompany the non-absolute ethical assumption, which I doubt you are prepared to accept.[/quote]
I have copied the implications here
[quote]1. The value of the individual ethical system. It is nothing more than remnant traditions and an individual handicap[/quote]
Why? A society which addresses the needs of the individual is far more efficient in creating happiness.[/quote]
[quote]2. The value of the individual. The ethical assumption that a person is valuable is meaningless if it need not universally apply.[/quote]
Just because atheists do not have the same ethic does not mean that a society cannot through consensus.
[quote]3. All hope of freedom. Society is absolute, be it anarchy or fascism, there is nothing better about it than a democratic-republic or any other form of government.[/quote]
That's if you apply ethics to all things. Of course, if you get ethics completely out of private life, and make it simply related to the actions which are effected directly on others, then freedom is protected.
[quote]4. The assumption that pain (human or otherwise) should be avoided. This has been the foundations of many ethical systems. In order for it to be the case, it must be universally applied. As I said earlier, Atheism is incapable of applying a universal ethic.[/quote]
Why? Happiness is a good thing. Unhappiness is a bad thing. Is that...rocket science? I often wonder at the people who say morality apart from God is impossible. Do not the basics of what is good simply ring obvious? If you don't just inherently know that killing is most likely worse than better, that's a problem with you, not with your belief systems. A religious book will no more teach you that than a math book will teach you that 3=3, or 1+1=2. Fine, I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and going lalalalalalala. I just fail to see how a jump is necessary from happy to good. The two words are synonymous(so long as you look at total happiness, not just that of one person, which is what any unregulated situation will tend to create in the long term).
[quote]5. The value of governmental laws. All laws created by men can be ignored by men, political office or not.[/quote]
Yes, and the harsher penalties, the less they will be ignored. People will ignore laws of God as well, which is obivous, otherwise largely Christian America would not haev such crime problems.
[quote]6. Any concept of value at all. If ethics are not absolute, no value can be universally justified, even if it is universally upheld.[/quote]
Again, consensus. Just keep a few basics: life & equality, and from there keep it up to people. That is why constitutions are so handy.
[quote]What someone does in the name of ethics is irrelavent for ethical logic. How they justify it is the question. The saying "the ends justify the means" cannot apply to ethical logic.[/quote]
What if the ends are a more viable system of laws and ethics?
[quote] Then how do you know what is an error and what isn't? What's the original and not?[/quote]
Easy. The Bible is large enough to have multiple references for just about every topic. We can look over the Bible as a whole, determine what the reference consensus is, and use it.
We can also usually derrive doctrine when there is little Biblical matterial by combining verses and using logic to make the position logically consistant. Generally, given a few premises, we can deduce an entire doctrine, so a few verses that conflict with the majority, the docrinial analysis, and may even have alternative explainations, are no problem.
for your refutations of my points
1. arbitrary. you assume that happiness is a good thing, why?
2. Consensus view, see my latest response in our other running debate.
3-6 see previous two
[quote]What if the ends are a more viable system of laws and ethics?[/quote]
If the ends are a more viable system, then we really should, as Camus said, all commit suicide. The end (according to your own position) is that the universe will end up being a bunch of electrons, quarks, and neutrinos in a space with a net temperature imperceptively above absolute zero. The future is thourogly hopeless.
[quote=Egann]
Easy. The Bible is large enough to have multiple references for just about every topic. We can look over the Bible as a whole, determine what the reference consensus is, and use it.
We can also usually derrive doctrine when there is little Biblical matterial by combining verses and using logic to make the position logically consistant. Generally, given a few premises, we can deduce an entire doctrine, so a few verses that conflict with the majority, the docrinial analysis, and may even have alternative explainations, are no problem.[/quote]
What if it's the opposite, that the small points you don't like are actually the important part, and that doctrine has imply been mangled beyond recognizability?
[quote]for your refutations of my points
1. arbitrary. you assume that happiness is a good thing, why?
2. Consensus view, see my latest response in our other running debate.
3-6 see previous two[/quote]
It's funny, only theists have a problem seeing that happiness is a good thing without help from God. I guess that just means atheists are naturally more in tune with what's right and wrong.
[quote]
If the ends are a more viable system, then we really should, as Camus said, all commit suicide. The end (according to your own position) is that the universe will end up being a bunch of electrons, quarks, and neutrinos in a space with a net temperature imperceptively above absolute zero. The future is thourogly hopeless. [/quote]
His shortsighted statement imply that the ends are only the final product. The ends can also be a process, a system if you will. For example, ethics is a process, the ends being the creation of a stable and equal society. It is not perfect, and probably never will be, but the process of making it more and more perfect is desirable, as it increases the total happiness, as well as protecting the happiness of the individual.
And again, this appeal to ethics, even if true, would not say that atheism can't be true, only that you wouldn't like it to be so.
Rebuttals point by point
1. That is what the logic sorter is for. The two function together (plus the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that almost all of the Bible has been properly retained for most of the last 2,500 years (which is the age of most Old Testament Books according to the dates they give us from the reigning kings recorded and the events explained.
2. I never said that I have a problem with happiness, just that your assumption that happiness is good is arbitrary and hedonistic.
3. First of all, I am not arguing that Atheism is false. My post a while back explained that I wanted to point out that Atheists do not either think, or act according to the implications of their own worldview.
In other news, I will refute your ends statement with an analogy.
Ends are to System as Means are to what?
Means of obtaining System? Revolution, vote, court precedent etc...
You haven't done much in the way of analagies, have you. What I am describing here is that what you are claiming to be an end is really an unachieved means. My point is that, from your perspective, all of this is really an exercise in futility anyway, but, as always, you (as an atheist) neither think nor act consistantly with your worldview.
I, conversely, can say "I believe in God, therefore I have faith in the future."
Conclusion: If we both were totally consistant with our own beliefs, I would be an optomist because there is no way an omnipotent God can be defeated, and you would be a pessimist because there is no way that a chaotic and empty universe can be avoided.
Again, faith in God and thus the future is no more logically tenable than faith in the future itself. Both postulate something which we cannot know.
Everything is an exercise in futility. Everybody treats life as an exercise in futility. That's why we cry at funerals. Everyone knows death will happen to everyone. Let's play it your way with consistency. If you were consistent within your beliefs, you would not be sad at funerals.
Why is a chaotic and empty universe sad? I certainly won't be there. Nobody, by definition will. Nothing is not a tragic event. People never being born is not a sad event. THat's exactly what the end of the universe will be. Why is that a sad thing?
No, my point is that you have nothing to look forward to but death. Your "end" system will eventually crumble and all done by humanity would be meaningless.
So while the universe itself would not be sad (despite the immense negative charge because of proton half-life) you ought to be.
[quote=Egann]No, my point is that you have nothing to look forward to but death. Your "end" system will eventually crumble and all done by humanity would be meaningless.[/quote]
Do you think it's much better to have something to look forward to when we die?
no, I have life to look forward to. There is no point in looking forward to or fearing... nothingness. it's nothingness, and unexperiencable, especially as I will be dead. Your thing about anything being pointless is like saying you shouldn't eat because you're going to die anyways.
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
I fail to see what is so "good" about your perspective of life for you to be optomistic. The future is determined by impersonal forces of nature that may or may not destroy religion or that your "ends" will ever come about. Such is why you ought to be a pessimist, whether you admit it or not.
Pessimism is a life view, not what you think will happen. A pessimist prepares for the worst because of the way his mentality is. And in a sense, I am doing that, as I know ethics systems will fail, and attribute law to that effect. Assuming the world will exist is not optimistic, I can tell whether it will in accordance with the laws I know. Of course, I shall have no delusions about it if a meteor is heading for earth, but for now, I am certain the future will be. That is all I can ask. Anything else I wish is up to me. Call that pessimistic if you will, it makes no difference.
[quote=Egann][quote]some people just don't know what they are talking about, and ignore most of the argument that they know they can't prove wrong or part of it wrong. like egann. and timbobway.[/quote]
I resent that, but can sort of see what you mean.
The argument form that I use (Presuppositionalism or Trancendentalism, it has been called both) it is by far the most abstract argument that any religion has ever devised.
Also, is not universally accepted as an argument by people who have not been put under it's scrutiny. Not many people like the idea that they must borrow from another worldview to function.[/quote]
i was not involved in the argument, i did not have time to read the full argument, nor did i want to get involved. i was just stating a personal opinion, not becoming part of a debate
In response to Agnostic Atheist:
No, what you are defining is over-preparedness or a form of paranoia. Pessimism is derrived from the French [i]pessimisme[/i] (superlative of worst.) So it is the belief that everything tends toward evil or that evil cannot be overpowered by good. As that we cannot aggree on either the definitions for evil or good, I will let this stand.
BUT, this means that pessimism is, by nature, a derrivative from the pessimist's worldview to assert something as metaphysically fundamental as that.
So, given such laws of nature as entropy (which, even if you hold to the temperature definition still by implication and actual effect means that disorder is an inevetable result) you should be a pessimist. Chaos will eventually reign supreme.
Not to say that you are, just that it is an inevetable result of the belief, so you're optomism is fabricated rather than derrived from your metaphysical understanding of existance.
No, because I shall not be around for that. Nobody, by definition, shall be around for that. You're assuming that nothingness and chaos are bad things. They are simply the way the world are. This is not social chaos, this is just the bonding of various elements. Secnodly, if that outcome is what WILL happen, it's not pessimism. For example, it is not pessimistic to assume that a rock will fall, or that I will not win the lottery. Pessimism implies a choice of tall the worst possible options. The end state of the world is also the most possible optimistic viewpoint. There are no alternatives, so to speak of pessimism is silly.
In other words, atheism can have neither pessimism nor optomism, or it has both at the same time, depending on how you look at the universe. Interesting idea, but it still doesn't work.
Given entropy as a law of thermodynamics, it logically follows that all systems will be affected by the entropy rise, whether they are chemical or social (because the one is nothing but the mechanical extenuation of the one.)
So your assertion that social chaos does not equal physical chaos contradicts the idea that man (humanity, whatever you choose to call it) is just a machine. Social chaos is innevitable, and social chaos obviously contradictory to your ethical system, which is dependant on a consensus view of society. If society is in chaos, there can be no consensus.
Also, I am not the only one who can put this ethical dilemma to atheism. Michael Novak in [i]Lonely Atheists of the Global Village[/i] (National Review, March 19) says:
[quote]
(in reference to atheists disowning the atheistic regimes of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler)
In other words, delusional atheists are not really atheists. Would Harris (Sam Harris in [i]Letter to a Christian Nation[/i]) accept a claim by Christians that Christian evil-doers are not really Christian? (an assertion of Harris' delt with earlier in the paper.) The real problem is not only tyrants reject the "dogma" of religion, but that they splash around in the bloodshed permitted by the ultimate relativism of all things. And they are comforted by the "natural law" that [i]they[/i] imbibe from old-fashoined Darwinism: that the strongest must survive, and the weak must perish.
(note: Deludedgog would immediately call this the "social darwinism fallacy." I would like to interject here that applying your theory of origins to create a system of ethics is not a fallacy, but a logical must for all consistant worldviews.)
Our authors may dismiss the argument that atheism is associated with relativism. Nonetheless, the most commom argument against placing trust in atheists os Dostoevsky's "If there is no God, everything is permitted." There will be no Judge of deeds and conscience; in the end, it is each each man for himself....[/quote]
Novak said this so much more clearly than I ever could, but we use the same argument.