Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

After reading most of the posts here, I think you guys and gals can handle it on your own. Don't look at me, I'm just a dumb atheist. Not that atheists are dumb, just me.

Anywho, I did read Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, and while I myself found some suspect logic several times, and I do think he's a bit hard on religion, I thought it was a good read.

But I'm dumb so why are you reading this?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It had to happen in numerous distinct stages. Not just once. So the probability of naturalistic explanations is instead an improbability.<!-/Quote-!>

Why? Care to elaborate? What are these stages? What do they entail?

If anything, breaking it down into several smaller, more simple stages argues in favour of life naturally occuring through chemical process, not against it.

If you'd like examples of rather complex spontaneous reactions in nature there are plenty to see - the NCO reaction in stars, for example. Is this "complexity" also "proof" of a deity?

I'm not really for or against the argument regarding a god. I'd just like something a little bit more substantial than the argument from design as proof. That has always felt like a cop out.

All I keep seeing as an argument for a creator is the Affirmation of the Con

Okay, okay. How does one "quote" from a post, please? I've run out of buttons to push.

Pope: Again. No one said random chance. Anyway, the fact that you (and serpent) think life arose first from amino acids betrays your ignorance of current leading proposals for a theory of abiogenesis. Currently, it is thought that the first replicating molecule (replication being the necessary and sufficient quality of life) was RNA-based, not protein based. Only at the protocell-cell stage would life require proteins. You are presenting a strawman arguement as well as demonstrating a misunderstanding of statistics.

Even though the question of proteins forming at random is irrelevant to abiogenesis, I present an analogy to demonstrate the flaw in your statistics only. Say, I am playing cards. I get dealt a hand of 10 cards. The probability of my being dealt that hand is 1 in 13^10 (number of possiblities to the power of the number of operations). You are saying that when I look at the hand and calculate the staggering odds

Thanks, Maxwell. Well put. Now... where's that "quote" button?

Oh, and as I've read much on Buddhism, I'm fairly certain Gotama was at least an agnostic given his lecture to Sarriputra. Those who don't know it can google it.

But here's a taste of it for those in need of extra fingers.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/bt-2.htm

The lecture I spoke of is not there but essentially Gotama told Sarriputra that he did not promise to speak about whether there is life after death, only about how to (psychologically) end suffering. In my opinion Buddha was a great psychoanalyst.

Despite many would not label Buddhism as a religion, but rather as a philosophy, mostly due to lack of (personal) God, it is hard to argue its teachings or ethics are not based on (religious) dogmas, just like any other religion.

To me anyone who claims to be in possession of ultimate truths, especially with regard to ethics and especially if such truths are based on dogmas, becomes a suspect of distrust.

Other elements of religion observeable in connection with Buddhism are "cultism" and "worshiping", which yet again makes Buddhism a suspect of distrust to me.

Lastly, from the little I know of Buddhism, Buddha seems like a "smartass" teaching truths on one hand, but when it comes to explaining them turning into vague phraseology of almost agnostic nature.

Well, read the link. There are many pages. What Gotama said, he said. What was written was written about 80 years after he died, so...

And if you know little about something, it is okay to speak or write of it and lack of knowledge thereof, but hardly worth discourse due to ignorance of at least what was written.

As I said, I have read and studied much of Buddhism. My opinion is that it is psychoanalysis circa 600 B.C.E.

What did anyone know much of in 600 B.C.E.? Not much. What do we know now? Not much.

Buddhism split cleverly from Hinduism. I doubt Gotama believed in a caste system, this much is certain from the writing "in my opinion" (which I have at least taken the time to think on). Why wasn't Gotama stoned to death? Indians love philosophy (okay, a great presumption... but read, study, you may agree). What do you think true Hinduism was? Certainly not about gods if one reads well (in

Yes, I am stupid and you bore me.

You are not stupid. And if I bore you, read good books. Read bad books too.

I am sure, Zdenek, that if Sesshu bores you then I bore you to death. I do not need comments such as the three directly above, they do not advance the discussion.

I regard buddists as atheists, but am highly skeptical of reincarnation or karma. Since these are supernatural things, I cannot see any reason why buddism is more likely that invisible pink unicorns who transfer souls between creatures based on a score system of goodness.

I recommend wikipedia. Not so long or dry and has neat pictures, and it is so easy to go accidentally find yourself on 'wet t shirt competions'.

Maxwell, I thank you for your comment and I apologize for the drivel from my mouth/keyboard in my previous post. I do not belive in reincarnation myself, and in my opinion I don't think Gotama did either. I view Buddhism as a psychological quest by Gotama. I personally do not consider it a religion, though most Buddhists do.

There are many offshoots of Buddhism and some, if not most, belive in reincarnation. I personally do not. I think that is why Gotama avoided such questions. I think he would not have lived as long a life as he did if he said otherwise, given the time, perhaps even this time.

As for the topic of discussion I will be most happy to give you my view if you desire so, although I think I have summed it up pretty much in my previous post.

I was rather venomous in some of my reply to Zdenek and I apoligize for that to both of you, and to the community as well.

I was raised as a Catholic and went to a Ca

Sesshu: Accounts of personal experiences are welcome. I find them interesting and enlightening. I myself have been an atheist since the day I was born. At one time or another i might have called myself a deist or a pantheist. Now, however, I find it much easier to call myself an atheist since it is the colloquialisn which most closely represents my views. Although more accurately I would call myself an agnostic atheist, but people dont tend to understand what that means.

As to Buddism, I was under the impression that reincarnation, karma and enlightenment were central to buddiest thinking. Can you call your self a buddist if you dont beleive in these things and instead follow only the teachings. Would it be accurate the characterise you as a philisophical buddist?

I think Dawkins is quite accurate when he describes religious upbringing as a form of child abuse. I know of no other ideology which is so readily assumed to pass from parent to

Oh, please come on. Tell me how to "quote" because I can't find the freaking button.

"I myself have been an atheist since the day I was born."

Let's get a bit realistic here. But then you may be Salinger's child so I don't know

"Although more accurately I would call myself an agnostic atheist..."

Given the uncertainty/possibility of this universe being in, say, another, bigger universe (and so on) I would say that I agree with you on that point. The biblical God, no, not for me, but a creator? Well, any technology that superceeds another by a lot looks like magic, as I'm sure you and many others are aware of. A real God in an infinite universe(s)? Okay, I concede the point. I do so because, although I love Mark Twain's (Sam Clemens') saying, (from what I recall),

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I do not, howver, think we should ban religion tomorrow.<!-/Quote-!>

That's mighty white of you to allow us poor ignorant knuckledraggers to maintain our own beliefs. Thank you.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I mean, several hundred years from now, after most politicians admit that atheism doesn't further their careers, well, you'll still have some "Brave New World" people clinging to their guns and their religions.<!-/Quote-!>

What a pompous, elitist, arrogant, ivory tower, liberal statement.

I think I better stop reading before I break my " No destroying people in game for political beliefs."

Pope: I can speak only for myself when I say I do not mean you offense. Although you certainly dont have a right to not be offended. Imo, there is nothing Sesshu or I have said which is offensive, especially in the quotes you have chosen. I do not, and have never, implied anyone is less intelligent because they hold religious beliefs. Besides, if you destory people in game because they offend you here than surely that is an example of overreactionary intolerance.

The fact is that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. That doesnt mean that religious people or not intelligent or intelligent people are not religious.

Also, would you care to comment about the statistical fallacy (card example, sample size from which conclusions are drawn) you commited earlier on?

Sesshu: I agree and disagree with you. I think that time is necessary but not sufficient. I think that education, principally science

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I think Dawkins is quite accurate when he describes religious upbringing as a form of child abuse.<!-/Quote-!>

Step back and think for a minute of who you are accusing of what in that statement.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I do not, howver, think we should ban religion tomorrow.<!-/Quote-!>

As though that is a civilized option?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

No "really moral way" to detach children from their parents and tell them they've been brainwashed. We would be shot dead on sight.<!-/Quote-!>

Kidnapping is considered a violent crime in my culture.

I don't wish to poison the waters, but I also believe that the best way to counter beliefs that one finds hostile or ignorant is not to ignore them, nor threaten violence or censorship, but simply to

Not a flippant question, Maxwell: how do you know that cats are atheists? Especially in light of your statement that there is a negative correlation betweeen religiosity and intelligence.

You said "I kindly ask you not to use quotes from scientists in your arguements. Not only is this an argument from authority, you have generally quote mined, which is to take a quote which suits your arguement wholely out of a context which is entirely opposed to your arguement."

Im sorry, but evolutionist themselves say that they cannot prove evolution.
Can DNA form without proteins?
And proteins depend on DNA to form.
So which came first the chicken or the egg?

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is

Actually if you need to know Maxwell 'Danger' Powers, yes you do bore me so does this discussion because it does not tell me anything new. That is why I stopped posting here long time ago.

Then Buddhism was mentioned, and I posted what I think of it. Then I was told I was stupid so I retaliated.

/me pets Tuco....

Jojo: I do not make my statement lightly. Think of a cultural practice which not only encourages but demands ignorance of reality. A practice which encourages a feeling of superiority to and hatred of the other causing division where there should be none. A practice which is free from serious criticism. This practice can only be religion. Why do we allow religion to do this when we would prevent it if it were anything else (for instance: racism).

I do not wish to ignore nor censor nor threaten violence. I do not believe I have ever done so. I wish to get people to think about the things they accept without thinking. If someone comes away from the dicussion with their faith strengthened then I think that is great: They have thought honestly about their beliefs and come to a conclusion which I dont happen to agree with, which is fine.

If someone teaches their children to edify ignorance I care only so far as it affects me. By raising

Serpent: I would also ask you not to copy whole paragraphs without citing sources. You should say: 'The following arguement which I found on usenet says what I mean...'.

Serpent: A few minutes of googling turned up this refutation of paragraph 29 of chapter 3 of a book called 'Creation'. Which matches the paragraph you wrote word for word. You should cite your sources instead of passing other's work of as your own.

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-4-transformation-of-species.html

C'mon, are you saying that everything you have 'learned', and have posted is of your own origin? It must be! Because it would be extremely unreasonable of you to expect me to cite all my sources and you not do the same! That would be hypocritical, and I'm sure that's not what you mean! I'm sorry I cannot name every place that I read some of the information. In fact some of the basic things I probably learned in elementary school, like cause and effect, and I do not remember all of my grade school instructors.

Some of the material I have found is in the book 'Creation', but it is by no means the only place.

What it all boils down to is you decide to put faith in random undirected chance, that things came about by something. And regardless of you refusing to admit that there are several creditable scientists that disagree on the theory of evolution, it does not change the fact. Just as there are many religio