Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, you aren't reading my posts and you offer superfluous debate on facts which I have already addressed or stipulated to.
Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
Its not that I don't read your posts when I respond to them. I just edit out all the superfluous stuff you introduce when I mske a reply.
Well whatever their field of science, coupled with a view that "god is outside of the remit of science" would confirm there is no overlap and humans are capable of holding (or compartmentlise) features of their life so that one does not contaminate the other
speak about that which they don't know
When theist venture into the realm of KNOWING ie - I know I will go to heaven - I know god loves me - etc etc - in my experience they always fail the HOW DO YOU KNOW question
Reason? HOW requires evidence and if pressed you get touchy feely answers or the IS manta of you know who
Similarly if the atheist talks about something they don't know...?
Sure nonsense can appear, and can be vanquished with the wand of Better Explanations
Wands of Touchy Feely or IS do not vanquish Religious Nonsense
Interesting. I understood the surface of clay contains minute pockets of their atom bonds which helped life chemicals to sit together in a formation conducive to becoming self-replication units
Been done, frequently
All that happens - squabbles over meanings increase
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Absolutely, but at that scale, the more pockets the more surface area, which if spread out would cover the area of a tennis court with a molecular chemical surface.
1 cm^3 clay = surface area of a tennis court. Made available by the smallest bio-molecules contained in a sugar cube sized piece of clay. That just opened a whole new perspective of chemistry, to me. It is the size of the constituent particles which provide surface area on which chemical reactions can take place. Surface area extends both horizontally and vertically down into the earth's substrate. Biomolecules already form deep in the earth's mantle. It's almost imaginable...
This is why Dr. Hazen extrapolated the possible chemical reaction that could take place on earth during it's lifetime, would approach 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions.
It's a really neat presentation on the probability of life occurring on an earth-like planet.
(start at 25:25 to avoid a lengthy introduction)
Last edited:
Thanks
Been there done that
As a matter of interest I asked (in a debate) how much clay was used to make Adam? How tall and a few other details like left or right handed, colour of eyes etc etc
As suspected no answers
You would think the specifications of the first human would be of interest but the main story seems to be
Oops no female, hang on while I grab a rib
What? Run out of clay already?
Indeed.
Again, no dispute in that - at least to me - theists are unable to convince me that they do know what they claim to know.
Again, no dispute. My point is that religious nonsense is not limited to theists but open to anyone to talk about religion / religious claims without knowing what they are talking about.
One is quite capable of advocating for a proposition. If that proposition happens to be the non-existence of something...
But I do understand what you are advocating. I (tend to) share the same. But that does not prevent atheists, or more specifically you, from talking religious nonsense... i.e. nonsense about religion.
And this may be due to ambiguity of "religious nonsense"... For example, if you don't know anything about Catholicism and start talking about how they don't believe in transubstantiation, then you're talking nonsense. It is of a religious nature, thus religious nonsense. The fact that you might think that the very notion of transubstantiation is nonsense, and thus consider it to be part of the "religious nonsense" of that religion, is neither here nor there to whether you are capable of talking religious nonsense.
Just to remind the honourable gentleman of the claims made:Please accept the sweeping generality that sweeping generalisations are generally not to be taken as sweeping generalisations but should be considered to contain exceptions unless probably preceded by ALL
Generally
"This is your mistake, atheists do not advocate for non-gods or non-religions."
This was followed by:
"Atheists, if advocating for a dynamical creative aspect to the universe, always do so..."
The use of the explicit absolute in the second is more than enough to suggest the otherwise apparent generalisation in the first was also intended as the explicit absolute written.
But it's not worth derailing anything for. I understand W4U's points, I am just calling out that atheists are just as capable of talking **** as theists, and about religion (thus "religious nonsense") as well. Consider it me just trying to bring some sense of balance into proceedings rather than continuing down the "theists are all stupid, atheists are all intelligent" type argument that seems to flow under most threads here.
Always good to see that my posts are held in such high regard.
Analysis of the various stories: plagues, floods, etc.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I thank the gentleman for his cautionary stance. And perhaps I have come across a little fervent if not dismissive. I know several theists whom I respect very much. They are honorable people. Far from me to dismiss a large portion of humanity as being stupid or unworthy in some way.
Perhaps undeserved, I see religious nonsense as tantamount to mythological nonsense. i.e. the subject matter itself is non-sensical, except from a theist's or mythological adherent's perspective. I see no difference between a "talking bush" in scripture or a "talking fox" in a fable. And I usually recognize the metaphorical nature of scripture, as I do in fables.
That this may offend some is not my problem. As I said before, I or no other atheist I know have ever harmed anyone in the name of atheism, but I have been exposed to physical harm by religious zealots in the name of theism.
In this case, personal experience does count in my book. I have a valid claim for justification.
Last edited:
I would contend such nominated examples would be examined more as history with some science content to confirm (eg the flood did / did not happen) but I would say, floods not being exclusively religious, floods are not examples of something pertaining just to religion worthy of study by science
As I put somewhere in a post somewhere religion can pick any science subject and follow the explanations down to as much detail as they wish
What, I contend, religion should be looking for is something to which they can point the religion finger and pronounce "There, that point there, that reaction, transformation (or whatever term choosen) THAT could not happen without god"
When religion finds THAT point and science does decide to throw its resources (and sticks religion for the bill) into explaining THAT point but is unable to explain THEN religion has a win (I would contend temporary) ON THAT POINT ONLY
Of course religion's answer "god did it" is piss poor and science would still ask "please explain how"
Don't think it will happen
Care to nominate another contender for a religious subject worthy of science study?
Always good to see that my posts are held in such high regard.
Just so no misunderstanding, as I re read stuff at 2:30 in the morning, the no great loss was me referring to my replies. If I didn't get back to make comments my missing comments would be "the no great loss"
Sure.
As "capable".
But they don't do it as often or on anything like the theistic scale.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I agree with what Sarkus wrote in post #630.
People, whether theists or atheists, seem to advocate for the truth of propositions.
When he or she is making existence claims, the theist is advocating for the truth of the proposition 'God exists'. From the point of view of the atheist, the proposition 'God exists' is false. So from the point of view of the atheist, the theist is advocating for the truth of a false proposition.
Atheists appear to advocate for the truth of the proposition '~(God exists)', or 'God doesn't exist'. From the point of view of the theist, '~(God exists)' is false, so the atheist would seem to be advocating for a false proposition too.
I don't see any big logical difference. Both sides are advocating for the truth of propositions that their opponents think are false.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ok, in that context I can accept the definition of "advocating", reluctantly.
It just feels awkward. It still seems that "advocating for" something is different than "arguing against" something.
Can't very well "advocate against" something, can one?
?????????
Last edited:
The ones who advocate a reactionary position relative to the Abrahamic God sometimes do that. Most others don't.
There's a much wider variety of assumed or implicit propositions on the atheist side of the boundary. The proposition that "God is not what theists think it is", for example, differs in key respects from "God does not exist".
- Status