CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[Fishlore]

Many folks conflate intelligence with narrative ego, the "I" that stars in the movie your imagination makes about yourself. Other species don't appear to have a narrative ego similar to ours and that difference is at the root of what most people think of as "intelligence," Equating the narrative ego with intelligence is an axiomatic assumption. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[sealybobo]

Many folks conflate intelligence with narrative ego, the "I" that stars in the movie your imagination makes about yourself. Other species don't appear to have a narrative ego similar to ours and that difference is at the root of what most people think of as "intelligence," Equating the narrative ego with intelligence is an axiomatic assumption. It doesn't prove anything.

If you are like me and didn't know what the narrative ego is:

The part of the ego that assumes that the events of your life are pieces of an extended narrative, with you as the focal point. You may assume that true love is out there for you. Or that there's some sort of battle for justice you must fight. Or even just that it is your lot in life to spiral into a pit of hurt and despair. Anything motivated partially by some sort of narrative precedence is a case of narrative ego. Is probably brought about by watching too much television/reading too many novels.

 

[Fishlore]

Many folks conflate intelligence with narrative ego, the "I" that stars in the movie your imagination makes about yourself. Other species don't appear to have a narrative ego similar to ours and that difference is at the root of what most people think of as "intelligence," Equating the narrative ego with intelligence is an axiomatic assumption. It doesn't prove anything.

If you are like me and didn't know what the narrative ego is:

The part of the ego that assumes that the events of your life are pieces of an extended narrative, with you as the focal point. You may assume that true love is out there for you. Or that there's some sort of battle for justice you must fight. Or even just that it is your lot in life to spiral into a pit of hurt and despair. Anything motivated partially by some sort of narrative precedence is a case of narrative ego. Is probably brought about by watching too much television/reading too many novels.

Psychologist use the term "narrative ego" without pejorative ascription to TV because every human has one or else there would be no first person singular to any verb.

 

[Never3ndr]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

 

[Iceweasel]

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

We also understand they may be proven wrong at a moments notice. I don't have faith that the big bang theory or evolution are real. It's just the best answer so far.

Do religious people believe what their religion says until better information comes along? No they do not. Do scientists believe the scientifically impossible? No they do not. So there is a difference.

A theist has to have faith god impregnated Mary. No scientist believes that scientifically speaking of course.

 

[Never3ndr]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW? It must be a matter of faith? On some level, it is. However, it requires more "faith" to believe there is a tin man inside my body operating me than it does to "believe" that my body operates like that of other human beings and contains the same structures and functions that our understanding of anatomy has given to us.

Likewise, I will acquiesce that there is a certain level of "belief" in trusting our current scientific consensus. In fact, I'd be the first to say that we are probably wrong and will gain a better understanding of the universe in the future. Yet, we live now...not in the future. Equating scientific consensus to the belief of a theist is absurd to the point of totally misrepresenting the points. They are not equal terms. One has a body of objective, fact driven work behind that is literally dedicated to PROVING ITSELF WRONG (that is the scientific process). Every day somebody tries to test or disprove the prevailing theory and come up with something better...this is how our knowledge advances. On the other hand religion assumes the opposite, that it is correct, and only works to prove itself right. It is a direct opposition in the actuation of those ideologies that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.

Edit: Just to keep count, this is the fourth time you have responded and failed to provide any facts for your "belief" basis. All you are really doing is trying to attack me (and failing) from an empty position. Do you stand for anything at all? If so, please give us the facts and reasons why.

 

[sealybobo]

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW? It must be a matter of faith? On some level, it is. However, it requires more "faith" to believe there is a tin man inside my body operating me than it does to "believe" that my body operates like that of other human beings and contains the same structures and functions that our understanding of anatomy has given to us.

Likewise, I will acquiesce that there is a certain level of "belief" in trusting our current scientific consensus. In fact, I'd be the first to say that we are probably wrong and will gain a better understanding of the universe in the future. Yet, we live now...not in the future. Equating scientific consensus to the belief of a theist is absurd to the point of totally misrepresenting the points. They are not equal terms. One has a body of objective, fact driven work behind that is literally dedicated to PROVING ITSELF WRONG (that is the scientific process). Every day somebody tries to test or disprove the prevailing theory and come up with something better...this is how our knowledge advances. On the other hand religion assumes the opposite, that it is correct, and only works to prove itself right. It is a direct opposition in the actuation of those ideologies that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.

Edit: Just to keep count, this is the fourth time you have responded and failed to provide any facts for your "belief" basis. All you are really doing is trying to attack me (and failing) from an empty position. Do you stand for anything at all? If so, please give us the facts and reasons why.

He won't tell you. His only point is you don't know either so you must have faith.

You explained the difference perfectly although I doubt he will acknowledge it. That's OK. I will.

 

[sakinago]

I'm an agnostic atheist about generic god but an atheist when it comes to virgin births. I can't prove a virgin didn't get knocked up by god and I'm sorry if all the reasons I don't believe it are scientific.

I just don't believe in magic.

Argument is being shut down here, I am opening a new post under religion

 

[Iceweasel]

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW? It must be a matter of faith? On some level, it is. However, it requires more "faith" to believe there is a tin man inside my body operating me than it does to "believe" that my body operates like that of other human beings and contains the same structures and functions that our understanding of anatomy has given to us.

Likewise, I will acquiesce that there is a certain level of "belief" in trusting our current scientific consensus. In fact, I'd be the first to say that we are probably wrong and will gain a better understanding of the universe in the future. Yet, we live now...not in the future. Equating scientific consensus to the belief of a theist is absurd to the point of totally misrepresenting the points. They are not equal terms. One has a body of objective, fact driven work behind that is literally dedicated to PROVING ITSELF WRONG (that is the scientific process). Every day somebody tries to test or disprove the prevailing theory and come up with something better...this is how our knowledge advances. On the other hand religion assumes the opposite, that it is correct, and only works to prove itself right. It is a direct opposition in the actuation of those ideologies that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.

Edit: Just to keep count, this is the fourth time you have responded and failed to provide any facts for your "belief" basis. All you are really doing is trying to attack me (and failing) from an empty position. Do you stand for anything at all? If so, please give us the facts and reasons why.

You have to prove something is false, simply making the claim doesn't work. I didn't equate scientific consensus to theism. The words were not big but apparently the concept was.

I have repeated answered your idiotic challenge. I can only prove I believe in a creator by saying so. I can't make you believe me, nor would I care to. The point is that you can't prove a secular cause so you too have faith. I'm honest about it, you aren't. Getting upset and lying about what I said won't work.

 

[Iceweasel]

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW? It must be a matter of faith? On some level, it is. However, it requires more "faith" to believe there is a tin man inside my body operating me than it does to "believe" that my body operates like that of other human beings and contains the same structures and functions that our understanding of anatomy has given to us.

Likewise, I will acquiesce that there is a certain level of "belief" in trusting our current scientific consensus. In fact, I'd be the first to say that we are probably wrong and will gain a better understanding of the universe in the future. Yet, we live now...not in the future. Equating scientific consensus to the belief of a theist is absurd to the point of totally misrepresenting the points. They are not equal terms. One has a body of objective, fact driven work behind that is literally dedicated to PROVING ITSELF WRONG (that is the scientific process). Every day somebody tries to test or disprove the prevailing theory and come up with something better...this is how our knowledge advances. On the other hand religion assumes the opposite, that it is correct, and only works to prove itself right. It is a direct opposition in the actuation of those ideologies that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.

Edit: Just to keep count, this is the fourth time you have responded and failed to provide any facts for your "belief" basis. All you are really doing is trying to attack me (and failing) from an empty position. Do you stand for anything at all? If so, please give us the facts and reasons why.

He won't tell you. His only point is you don't know either so you must have faith.

You explained the difference perfectly although I doubt he will acknowledge it. That's OK. I will.

I said what I believe and why. You both are liars. The difference is the theist and atheist have a belief by faith and the theist is honest, the atheist is a liar.

 

[sakinago]

Many folks conflate intelligence with narrative ego, the "I" that stars in the movie your imagination makes about yourself. Other species don't appear to have a narrative ego similar to ours and that difference is at the root of what most people think of as "intelligence," Equating the narrative ego with intelligence is an axiomatic assumption. It doesn't prove anything.

So when you put sunglasses that you can't see through on a chimp, so the chimp can't see, then you put those same sunglasses on yourself and the chimp still thinks you can see...that's some sort of unknown intelligence that we don't posses.

 

[Never3ndr]

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW? It must be a matter of faith? On some level, it is. However, it requires more "faith" to believe there is a tin man inside my body operating me than it does to "believe" that my body operates like that of other human beings and contains the same structures and functions that our understanding of anatomy has given to us.

Likewise, I will acquiesce that there is a certain level of "belief" in trusting our current scientific consensus. In fact, I'd be the first to say that we are probably wrong and will gain a better understanding of the universe in the future. Yet, we live now...not in the future. Equating scientific consensus to the belief of a theist is absurd to the point of totally misrepresenting the points. They are not equal terms. One has a body of objective, fact driven work behind that is literally dedicated to PROVING ITSELF WRONG (that is the scientific process). Every day somebody tries to test or disprove the prevailing theory and come up with something better...this is how our knowledge advances. On the other hand religion assumes the opposite, that it is correct, and only works to prove itself right. It is a direct opposition in the actuation of those ideologies that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.

Edit: Just to keep count, this is the fourth time you have responded and failed to provide any facts for your "belief" basis. All you are really doing is trying to attack me (and failing) from an empty position. Do you stand for anything at all? If so, please give us the facts and reasons why.

He won't tell you. His only point is you don't know either so you must have faith.

You explained the difference perfectly although I doubt he will acknowledge it. That's OK. I will.

I said what I believe and why. You both are liars. The difference is the theist and atheist have a belief by faith and the theist is honest, the atheist is a liar.

At this point you should probably stop digging your own grave. I never said I was either a theist or an atheist (by the way, I'm neither) and you are blatantly resorting to ad hominem attacks from your increasingly indefensible position. The only reason you have given us for your belief system is, "I can only prove I believe in a creator by saying so"...so you literally point towards yourself "saying so" as reason that you believe something.

I mean, with that in mind, "I am Superman."

 

[sealybobo]

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

That is correct, it is a theory. I'm not saying it is anything but a theory. However, it is the theory that our current scientific body lends the most credence to. This is the third time I'm asking you to lend some scientific weight to your argument. You have still failed to point out anything backing up your belief system. I have exactly zero faith. What I do have is trust. I trust that people more intelligent than me and more passionate than the subject about me that spend their entire lives trying to figure these things out know more than me. Thus, as their opinions shift and wane my follows. Since, you know, these guys kinda dedicate their lives to this stuff.

Just like the scientific consensus was once the steady state model of the universe. And then a mathematician Roman Catholic priest came up with the expanding model starting from a singularity. Which made them howl with laughter. I believe it was Hoyle that coined the derisive term "the Big Bang theory" claiming he was just making his theory fit the creation account.

I haven't seen a poll on how many scientists believe random chance is the explanation, last I checked about 40% were theists so a percentage of the remaining would be divided up into agnostics and atheists.

But it's just a theory, one that takes too much faith for me. You're welcome to it but I'll point out that you are at least as faithful as any theist.

This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW? It must be a matter of faith? On some level, it is. However, it requires more "faith" to believe there is a tin man inside my body operating me than it does to "believe" that my body operates like that of other human beings and contains the same structures and functions that our understanding of anatomy has given to us.

Likewise, I will acquiesce that there is a certain level of "belief" in trusting our current scientific consensus. In fact, I'd be the first to say that we are probably wrong and will gain a better understanding of the universe in the future. Yet, we live now...not in the future. Equating scientific consensus to the belief of a theist is absurd to the point of totally misrepresenting the points. They are not equal terms. One has a body of objective, fact driven work behind that is literally dedicated to PROVING ITSELF WRONG (that is the scientific process). Every day somebody tries to test or disprove the prevailing theory and come up with something better...this is how our knowledge advances. On the other hand religion assumes the opposite, that it is correct, and only works to prove itself right. It is a direct opposition in the actuation of those ideologies that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.

Edit: Just to keep count, this is the fourth time you have responded and failed to provide any facts for your "belief" basis. All you are really doing is trying to attack me (and failing) from an empty position. Do you stand for anything at all? If so, please give us the facts and reasons why.

He won't tell you. His only point is you don't know either so you must have faith.

You explained the difference perfectly although I doubt he will acknowledge it. That's OK. I will.

I said what I believe and why. You both are liars. The difference is the theist and atheist have a belief by faith and the theist is honest, the atheist is a liar.

Why is the theist honest?

 

[Iceweasel]

At this point you should probably stop digging your own grave. I never said I was either a theist or an atheist (by the way, I'm neither) and you are blatantly resorting to ad hominem attacks from your increasingly indefensible position. The only reason you have given us for your belief system is, "I can only prove I believe in a creator by saying so"...so you literally point towards yourself "saying so" as reason that you believe something.

I mean, with that in mind, "I am Superman."

You're a liar, you said "This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW?"

Now it's "I believe I am the reason I believe in a creator"? Those aren't my arguments. When did I say anything like that? The fact that you think you can get away with it while the words are still there demonstrates, not only your lack of integrity or intellectual honesty but a stupid thought process as well. You tried to put me in a cubby hole you could argue against and put words into my mouth. You and bobo both tried it and got nasty when you couldn't get away with it.

The point is that you need these dishonesty ways to uphold your beliefs. An honest person would examine what they thought and why instead of trying to twist someone else's words to feel better about their own.

No wonder your political outlook is so effed up.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why is the theist honest?

That was answered numerous times.

 

[Fishlore]

Many folks conflate intelligence with narrative ego, the "I" that stars in the movie your imagination makes about yourself. Other species don't appear to have a narrative ego similar to ours and that difference is at the root of what most people think of as "intelligence," Equating the narrative ego with intelligence is an axiomatic assumption. It doesn't prove anything.

So when you put sunglasses that you can't see through on a chimp, so the chimp can't see, then you put those same sunglasses on yourself and the chimp still thinks you can see...that's some sort of unknown intelligence that we don't posses.

Seriously, dude, the chimp has a better grasp of the epistemological issues in defining intelligence than your post displays. Ask the chimp, I don't have time for this stuff.

 

[Never3ndr]

At this point you should probably stop digging your own grave. I never said I was either a theist or an atheist (by the way, I'm neither) and you are blatantly resorting to ad hominem attacks from your increasingly indefensible position. The only reason you have given us for your belief system is, "I can only prove I believe in a creator by saying so"...so you literally point towards yourself "saying so" as reason that you believe something.

I mean, with that in mind, "I am Superman."

You're a liar, you said "This is verifiably false. I also "believe" that I am not operated by a miniature tin man inside my body telling me what to think and do. I mean I haven't cut my body open to check, in fact, nobody has, so until they do...HOW DO THEY REALLY KNOW?"

Now it's "I believe I am the reason I believe in a creator"? Those aren't my arguments. When did I say anything like that? The fact that you think you can get away with it while the words are still there demonstrates, not only your lack of integrity or intellectual honesty but a stupid thought process as well. You tried to put me in a cubby hole you could argue against and put words into my mouth. You and bobo both tried it and got nasty when you couldn't get away with it.

The point is that you need these dishonesty ways to uphold your beliefs. An honest person would examine what they thought and why instead of trying to twist someone else's words to feel better about their own.

No wonder your political outlook is so effed up.

I pulled a direct quote from your post, post number #230 in this thread which was...and I again DIRECTLY QUOTE, "I can only prove I believe in a creator by saying so." I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm not misrepresenting your words. I'm directly quoting what YOU TOLD US. If you cannot follow my logic chain on how your claim was obviously false, then you should probably stop replying. It would mean you either lack the basic intellect and knowledge required to follow my pretty straight forward line of reasoning or logic...or you are too emotionally attached to your absurd claims to even try to understand the basic point I've illustrated (in this case I've tried to simplify the philosophical concept that we all work off of assumptions, but that some claims are well founded based off of commonly held assumptions (like anatomy) while other claims (like the tin man) are held to be false by the vast majority of logic based thinkers...which would require a massive amount of "faith" to believe in).

Again, at this point you should probably stop digging your own grave. Your consistent ad hominem attacks (you aren't even trying to make a point based argument anymore) are indicative of the horrible position that you have put yourself in.

 

[Asclepias]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

Right place, right time, right conditions.

See number 1

Fire.

There are animals out there that are smarter than humans. You are being a human chauvinist. One may say that animals are all smarter than humans. Humans are the only animals that mess up their environment intentionally.

 

[sealybobo]

Why is the theist honest?

That was answered numerous times.

I don't recall you answering that and I'm not going to go back and re read everything.

You said, "The difference is the theist and atheist have a belief by faith and the theist is honest, the atheist is a liar.

Maybe you can explain this again. I understand what you are trying to say. You're trying to say both theists and atheists are going off of faith. BUT, what I don't understand is why are theists honest and athiests are liars?

Do you mean theists admit they are going off faith? Are you suggesting that theists admit they don't know for sure god exists? Because they claim to KNOW god exists. That's not honest. It doesn't even dawn on them that Mary was a whore who cheated on her husband and not a virgin.

And as far as us atheists are concerned, we admit you can't know for sure either way. So if I'm not mistaken, that would make us atheists right and theists liars. Because most of them claim this god character visited their ancestors and they claim to believe it as a fact.