A serious situation has erupted as Prime Minister Bhutto was assassinated. I feel bad even writing an alliteration in the title. There are only a few “Good” Muslims out there — those who risk their lives to fix their religion, or in this case save their religion — from barbarism. We lost one today.RIP, Prime Minister.
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
Wow this certainly got OT!
and I am watching the many trolls “debating” back and forth on a website for people they dislike. I’d think that they had something better to do with their time…..
Although I save a LOT of reading time by scrolling past posts that have no interest for me as NOTHING that I could ever say would cause them to admit my right to not-believe.
[blockquote]
Comment from: GodFree&Glad [Member]
I wish somebody would go back and count the number of comments by xian trolls. I’m beginning to wonder if this is an atheist blog for atheists anymore or if the trolls have banned together to take over. For my money it’s getting a bit over the top with xians.
12/29/07 [end blockquote]
Once again, sympathy to Pakastanis and Ms. Bhuttos family.
Peace.
Peace.
HeathNZ:
However, that process has been demonstrated to have significant limitations in producing new genetic information?so much so as to cast serious doubt on its viability as a workable theory.
That sounds odd in that if evolution is ?undirected,? but has proceeded from the simple to the complex then how do you account for the course it has taken? Moreover, if human cognition is unequaled in the animal kingdom, then are we not the ?result? of this process that has run from merely being alive to our present state of consciousness and cognitive abilities?
JCC
You are an idiot. Get a freaking education.
That;s assuming that something designed (the refrigerator) is amoungst something that isn’t designed. (the environment.)
jcc,
I would dispute that evolution always requires an increase in complexity. If environmental pressures change to the point where an organism can shed an “expensive” adaptation, it will often do so. think about birds that have discarded flight, cave fish, that have discarded their eyes, etc. For sure these attributes are still coded in their DNA, just no longer activated. However, in general organisms will become more complex simply because their environment and their competition becomes more complex. It’s an arms race.
In as much as every organism is the current “result” of the process. Yes, the level of human cognition is unequaled in the animal kingdom, but so is the longevity of the tortoise, the land speed of the cheetah, the flying speed of the falcon, the environmental adaptability of the roach, the sheer proliferation of the beetle, etc, etc.
And looking at the microworld we should be humbled into realizing that our species’ grip on life is incredibly tenuous. We are a very young species that is totally dependent on microorganism for our minute to minute existence. Microorganisms on the other hand do not need us to survive.
Humanity could cease to be in a geological blink of an eye (by our own hand, by internal events such as super volcanoes, or by extraterrestrial events such as asteroid hits) and micro organisms would hardly skip a beat.
To assume that cognition is anything more than an unproven aberration of evolution is to invite egotistical anthropomorphism. Something that comes very easily to us, but that we should by now have learned to be very weary of accepting.
sorry to bust up the evolution fight but regarding the pakistan issue.is it legal to be atheist in pakistan is current constitution more conservative or liberal than past one/ones.given the multiethnic nature of pakistan can a democratic republic based on rule of law develop there.
Krystalline Apostate:
Me? Joke with you? Surely you jest.
Well, given that the oldest known fossils are of cyanobacteria that lived in colonial stromatolites, and coupled with the fact that they apparently possessed some form of sequenced RNA (i.e. what they used to replicate their protein structures, and themselves), I?d say that that?s pretty good evidence that ?the same level of replication that we see today? was also going on 3.5 billion years ago?but that brings us back to the original question of how were they able to encode their RNA to be able to do all that reproduction in the first place?
Did?and didn?t see any relevance of it to the discussion here.
Again, what ?little voice? are you talking about?
I take that to mean that that you are ashamed of your faith in atheism?
Apologies again, my remark should?ve read: ?Your accusation of my using tu quoque would indicate that I was trying to argue against its religiosity as well.? I really shouldn?t respond so late at night?
Yes, to borrow one of your favorite words, hubris tends to carry that unfortunate side effect.
Do ya ever happen to glance back at your responses to me?
Now that?s tu quoque!
Yes, and it shows at times?particularly in regard to your abject lack of simple respect for others. What a pity; a formal education can have quite a humbling effect on those who finally realize that what they don?t know will always exceed what they do?
Hey, apparently unlike you, I was fully aware of and prepared for that possibility prior to coming here.
HeatheNZ:
That sounds like you?re saying that the organism can itself ?direct? it?s own evolution?wouldn?t that require a conscious volition to affect that change?
But that?s based on the presupposition that flightless birds, at some previous time, did have the ability to fly. Given the morphology of penguins, I rather think that that was never the case.
But that?s only the case if your presupposition is correct.
But that assertion makes it sound like the environment is becoming more hostile to life all the time. I?d say that given the relative stability of the entire biosphere since the Cambrian, the environment has become, if anything, more hospitable to life.
What about the ones in our digestive tracts?
I?d say that it invites justified consideration of the Anthropic Principal. And besides, that doesn?t seem to square with our universal perception of our spiritual natures.
Why? Why is it so hard to accept the fact that we are the highest form of life known in the universe? That?s not being arrogant; it?s accepting the objective reality of the situation.
Phreedm,
That Yahweh character is a sociopath…he received prayers for rain in Georgia and decided to kill thousands in the southern Mexican state of Tabasco with massive floods…Yahweh needs a lesson in basic geography…
http://tinyurl.com/3xyu9u
No – that’s not what I am saying – nor is it what evolution proposes. So no.
But that’s based on the presupposition that and intelligence created life in its current form. If this is the starting position we have nowhere to go in terms of an evidence based discussion.
Competition is part of the environment. No matter how favorable of unfavorable conditions are to life there will come a time when resources are scarce and competition will increase.
Well, first we are certainly dependent on them, but I doubt this is what you meant. Obviously microorganisms that dependent on specialized environments with either adapt or expire. The point is that microorganisms are literally everywhere and even if 99% were somehow eliminated they would quickly adapt and recover.
Because it’s an egotistical metric. Why should cognition be chosen as the metric for “highest life form”? I say call it as it is: We are the life form (that we know of) with the most developed cognitive ability. On what objective basis can anyone generalize that ability to be the highest?
And come to that what do you actually mean by highest? Higher in what respect? Surely not hight?
jcc:
That?s an excellent question, & pretty cool info to look up. Thanks. It?s still a far cry from ?goddidit!?.
The phrase adequately explains why you keep insisting on there being a ?designer?. A little imagination is a wonderful thing.
So the relationship you claim to have w/this supernatural critter who you can?t touch, see, hear, or process any other way than say, getting goosepimples when you put your palms together, doesn?t talk to you?
Wow, always thought communication was key in any relationship. Oopsie.
Sometimes allegory is such a flimsy excuse for a thought process.
Yeah, & you wonder why I don?t ?behave? as you?d like. Thought you knew what it meant? Obviously not.
Hey, I?ve severed discussion w/you several times. You keep chatting me up.
Religious folks are so narcisstic.
So let?s see?if I were to pound on any other faith than your own, you?d be okay w/that? Face it, JC, your epistemology is a load of bullocks. This design you?re so hot on is a farce. I can point out a # of issues that no engineer worth his/her salt would build into it. It?s pure ego to insistently claim that there must be some supernatural motivating force behind it all. Your ?faith? fails on all counts. It fails the lab: it goes belly-up under closer scrutiny. It hides behind a thin tapestry of sophistry. It builds a fortress of paper against the rising flames of reason. It treats w/an untouchable being that goes unprovable. It retreats behind empty rhetoric. Predicated on lies, it preys vulpinely on empty inspiration.
It is worthless, blind superstition.
You believe what you want to believe. You will anyway. I discovered that long ago.
I?m all thru explaining myself to you.
Jcc,
This is a strange statement since, if you go back far enough in evolutionary history, it is believed that all modern flightless birds evolved from a common ancestor that could fly. But, if you?re talking specific branches of the evolutionary tree, then yes, some modern flightless birds did evolve from earlier flightless birds.
Ironically, penguins actually DID evolve from birds that could fly. You should maybe have chosen the modern-day ostrich for your example, as it is known to have evolved from a flightless bird.
Actually that’s not true. Evolutionary theory predicts that there should be massive quantities of “junk” DNA (pseudogenes, introns, transposons and retroposons) in modern organisms ? especially in complex organisms. This, of course, is the case. Please explain how “junk” DNA came to be using your “Designer” theory and please make a prediction based on your theory.
HeathNZ was making a generalization about the survivability of billions of different microorganisms. He was not specifically addressing microorganisms that exist in niche environments, such as those that exist through symbiotic relationships. But of course, you knew that.
This of course isn?t necessarily true and is nothing more than your opinion. Just as you deny evolution, you also appear to deny evolutionary psychology, no matter what the evidence.
Again, nothing more than your opinion. By what standards are we to judge the ?highest? form of life? It would seem to me that survivability would be the greatest attribute by which to judge a life form ? not cognition. It hasn?t been proven that our cognitive abilities will ensure our survival as a species. In fact, it may actually have the opposite effect. And if you?re extinct, that?s a pretty good indication you weren?t the ?highest? form of life.
HeatheNZ:
Would that be because there is no consensus on what qualifies as a design among atheists and Christians?
I was responding to your assertion that the environment is becoming more complex:
If anything, at the present time when there appear to be no new species that are appearing to replace those that have, and are going, extinct, I?d say that that?s a pretty good argument for the environment becoming less complex?
Wow. What other ?metric? would you use??the ability to photosynthesize, or maybe the ability to lick one?s butt?
Ok, how ?bout for argument?s sake we confine this to life as we know it here on earth? What would you consider to be the most advanced and significant attribute a life form can exhibit?
I must confess I?m at a loss?and confused. I was under the impression that atheism was akin to humanism?the doctrine that elevates the study of the human condition to be the most revered and noble of intellectual pursuits yet, by that question, you appear to reduce the purpose of that endeavor to what amounts to be a meaningless pursuit.
Wow, this thread is full of some insane xian rambling. It stuns me how you trolls can turn a thread about the prime minister of Pakistan into an evolution vs. intelligent design argument.
My problem you non-thinking religious freaks is you fail to see what a huge leap there is from saying “perhaps there was an intelligence behind human evolution” to proclaiming you know exactly who this designer was and if you pray to him and let him into your otherwise shriveled heart he will grant wishes.
There are thousands of friggin religions and hypothesis over who this “designer” was and what he wanted and only an ignorant fool would proclaim he knows the answer. The only thing these religions have in common is they want your money SUCKER!
You point your fingers at science and say well they don’t have enough evidence of the origin of man, yeah well neither do you dumbass; the difference is we don’t go around PROCLAIMING A MYTHOLOGICAL FIGURE TALKS TO US AND THEREFORE WE KNOW THE TRUTH.
You guys are just such egotistical idiots I laugh my ass off every time you regurgitate the same old crappy arguments you made last week and the week before. Take your butt to the library and try reading an actual book before speaking.
IMO xianity offers the least likely explanation and is riddled with holes and fairy tales. There is no way an omnipotent being wrote that junk unless he has the IQ of a rock.
Your religion is based on the belief of magic, in angels who help people change tires, gods image in cornflakes, in god granting wishes, of immortality granted to chosen people, apocalypse ponies with horns and seals that are gonna kill everyone, witches and sorcery, spiky tailed demons.
You are as dumb as a pile of rocks too for believing this trash, but hey keep making fun of science the ONLY thing that has ever made your life better.
Awful ungrateful jackasses.
Why don’t you xians stop taking from science since your god will grant you everything you need, otherwise you are nothing but a hypocrit.
Evidence, you have no right to even have a computer after saying this:
You think science has ruined our world? Put your money where your mouth is then fool and stop using it.
Ask your god to heal you instead of running to the scientists for help. Give up that electricty that a scientist gave you.
I’m sorry but how dare your spit on the people who have made your life what it is today? Without the scientists who dedicated their lives to research you would still be sitting in the dirt burning witches for fun.
I am sure you have cured a disease or invented the electric car with your blessed life which you proclaim makes the world so much better than the scientists who ruined it.
Most of the scientists that made and continue to make technological advances are atheists, so why do you xians run to them every time you have a problem?
I think an xian boycott of science is in order and I fully support it. It’s amish time for for you guys, leave the technology to us heathens the ones who invented it and love it. Go eat the body of christ and drink some more blood.
Sorry for the long rant everyone! I love technology and gay people and can’t stand to read such ignorance.
Now that I have had some coffee I feel the need to address the homosexuality/AIDS issue.
I really would love for an xian to explain to me WHY homosexuality is “immoral”. Why would placing a penis in different orifices or hands for that matter to ejaculate be immoral or wrong? What is the difference? A female with a female mouth to vagina, what’s the problem?
The only possible explanation I can come up with is that you guys would say homosexuality is unnatural because it cannot produce offspring.
Well neither can masturbbbation, oral sex, or heterosexual anal sex. So why do you only single out homosexuals as being guilty of this hell bound immorality for having “unnatural” sex? You mean you have never masturbated or had oral sex??????
Please allow me to illuminate the obvious reason you only single out homosexual sex as immoral…could it be, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, that you yourself are GUILTY of the other forms of “unnatural” sex and have told yourself your god doesn’t think that is immoral and is not going to damn you to hell to burn for eternity only the homosexuals?
Basically even though the bible says it is a sin to let your “seed” hit the ground you have decided he didn’t mean that right? Pick & choose, pick & choose. Either god will burn you for unnatural sex or he won’t, either it’s immoral or it isn’t.
Now perhaps next time you should ask yourself how many times YOU have engaged in immoral sex before you disparage homosexuals for their choices and maybe keep you hypocritical opinions to yourselves.
As for AIDS, a disease about 30 years old, being some kind of punishment from god specifically designed to kill homosexuals I would ask you why your god would wait thousands and thousands of years to punish them? Yet that entire time us heterosexuals have been catching and spreading all kinds of STDs.
So either your god has designed diseases as a mysterious punishment to torture and kill people or he didn’t, don’t just pull one disease outta the lot and proclaim it’s a punishment but the others aren’t.
Seriously, who won’t be afflicted by some disease or another in their lifetime, even if it’s only gum disease. So basically your god is punishing everyone on the planet.
So why do you believe in treating disease at all? Aren’t you usurping god’s will by not taking your punishment he assigned.
The earthquakes, the hurricanes all god punishing people for misbehavior?
You can maybe see why you might seem like a bigot to someone like me when you point your finger at homosexuals to announce god’s will and punishment system while ignoring your own behavior.
I had to intentionally mispell masturbbation sorry.
Regarding the origin of life and one of the best hypothesis to date imo.
http://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_hydrothermal.htm
This is a nasa link that touches on deep sea underwater vents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
I would hope the xians on this blog who repeatedly demand specific information about scientific theories actually do some research on their own and stop repeating identical posts every week. This theory is excellent and I personally think this is the one we will replicate in a lab, but there are more theories in the scientific each one more plausible than anything you guys assert about a mythological being.
I am sure this will affect you xians like kryptonite, but I hope all the atheists enjoy it and bookmark some sites for next week when the xians bring up the same subject again.
This is a public apology to phreedm.
I am happy to say that Phreedm has taken the time and effort to back up the figures quoted in the Washington Post article that I and others took him to task on.
We have, offline, together, I believe discovered the alluded to 2.4% non-believer figure. These are the details:
The 2.4% finally matches with the quoted figure. This is exactly what I was looking for in order to be able to assess what the results might actually mean. I’ll happily admit that my aspersions of reporting errors were not well founded. I am happy to see that at least the figure is correctly reported.
I will however highlight that the literal question is a very poor one, and would not reliably elicit or reflect the value of the “Don’t Believe” category.
The question presupposes that the respondent is a believer not only in gods, but in a specific god (presumably the Xian god).
I also note that the question had only a 20% rate of valid responses. I’m fairly sure that makes any conclusions dubious.
However I will happily apologize and withdraw my frustration toward Phreedm and trust that he will accept my apology in the spirit intended (honest and open).
Just to add my two cents: efficient use of available rescources. If we can accept that metabolism and replication are the highest priorities of any living organism, I think we can agree the any organism which displays an inordinate efficiency in said biological processes, would be the most advanced. Therefore, I submit that viroids are the most advanced organisms in the universe.
Birth increases the risk of death one hundred percent. Obviously we should stop procreating; it merely places children in harms way.
Theology addresses smoking and drugs? Please post me those verses.
Alcohol is a drug as is aspirin and a zillion other things.
Methinks someone made that up and thought by claiming it was theology it would make their opinion appear factual.