What's your favorite argument against religion? (experience, Holy Spirit, religions, charity)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you agree that it must begin with life. Debate over.
Yes, complex, aware life must begin with simple life. And life begins with chemistry. Let me explain that part yet again.
(chemistry (Simple life -> evolution -> complex life -> complex, aware life.))
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Any argument against religion is just argument against God.
Gods, plural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Unfortunately, they are two separate issues that get conflated all the time. Apparently, you do not grasp the simple-mindedness of such a superficial failure to engage the real issues underlying the quantum leap from dead processes to living ones.
OK, now I understand. Your superior intellect can not grasp the very simple distinction between the straw man life and none life as opposed to life as a subset of chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If we do not begin with life we cannot have life. If we do not begin with consciousness we cannot have consciousness. (Life(Consciousness(physics(chemistry))))
Physics and chemistry are a subset of life? Really? That's your argument? : smack::s mack:
Big news, physics and chemistry would exist whether life did or did not. How can someone with such a superior intellect not understand that? Or does your superior intellect not understand set theory?
well, these are represented in every human endeavor. so that rules out religion's fault.
Non sequitur. Religion also plays a role. Just because there are other factors does not rule out religion as one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I would point out that anti-religious socialism has harmed far more people, restricted far more freedom, and abused far more people mentally.
Mao, stalin, poh, lenin, and many others. And what ideology is trying to stop them? a cause greater than oneself?
The socialist aspect was not anti religious, that was just a none essential part of Marxism. And the reason the communist revolutions took place were because the people were being oppressed by the ruling elite (which included the churches), not because the people were anti religious.
By your criteria, the fact that atheists were killed meant your anti religious were actually religious. And who else were killed? People wearing spectacles (Pol Pot), students (Mao, Pol Pot), politicians and the military (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). This can not be explained on the basis of an anti religious outlook.
Your 'anti-religious socialists' were actually despots who were afraid of other sources of power. Just because they were atheists, or men, or had vowels in their names does not mean they killed people for any of those reasons, does it.
And just because there were more people killed under these regimes does not make atheism or socialism dangerous, it just means these regimes arose at a time, and in a place where there were larger populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
anti-religious do not empower the individual, but require subservience to the group. The fact that some atheist require people to deny everything to maintain an anti-religious war is exactly the same as religion. hey, wait a min, That goes on the religious atheist lists.
thank you.
i hink its number 13) anti-religious do not empower the individual, but require subservience to the group and the groups dogma of "deny everything".
If you must straw man to make your case, you have no case.
The universe has everything you have. In Fact, you have no trait that the universe doesn't have more of....that's what the science says.
This is a false claim. Science makes no such claim.
Science claims we barely know much of what the Universe is about...therefore it would make no sense for science to claim that we are everything the Universe is.
This is a false claim. Science makes no such claim.
Science claims we barely know much of what the Universe is about...therefore it would make no sense for science to claim that we are everything the Universe is.
I'm not sure you are correct. This short Neil deGrasse Tyson video says differently. From that perspective, we ARE everything the Universe is.
sorry, "Video Unavailable!. But i get the idea . we are star matter, and essentially what makes us work is what matter does.
But that doesn't mean all the processes are the same kind of process. Forming a snowflake is the same kind of process as crystallising salt or sugar, You say 'it'all the same. and you can see the same basic "Chemical" reaction is genetics, but they are not the same process as crystallisation. You have to put it in a different category. Thus while the process of consciousness is the same chemical and physic stuff as fusion in a star, you can't claim (without some evidence of it) that a star is alive and conscious in the way animals are. That where pantheists (apart from a sort of symbolic reverence for nature that any scientist has) or pan -enthists are indulging in a faith-claim, and the arguments we get for it are at best appeals to unknowns.
I love Neil but that's not accurate and he has been called out on it before. Also your video link is broken.
What Neil and other Astrophysicists say is that we are made up of stardust...exploding stars create the atoms that we find on earth and some of these atoms compose us. An exploding star is not the entire Universe. There is a ton that we don't know about the Universe...so to say that we have every trait the Universe has, is a false claim.
Right now as I type this...there are stars being born, planets colliding, galaxies rotating...when you look at the images from the Hubble telescope you can see how beautiful all of this looks. All of these processes occurring in the Universe have nothing to do with us.
I love Neil but that's not accurate and he has been called out on it before. Also your video link is broken.
What Neil and other Astrophysicists say is that we are made up of stardust...exploding stars create the atoms that we find on earth and some of these atoms compose us. An exploding star is not the entire Universe. There is a ton that we don't know about the Universe...so to say that we have every trait the Universe has, is a false claim.
Right now as I type this...there are stars being born, planets colliding, galaxies rotating...when you look at the images from the Hubble telescope you can see how beautiful all of this looks. All of these processes occurring in the Universe have nothing to do with us.
No idea what happened with the link. It worked one time, and then I get the not available message. Here it is on Vimeo:
What Neil is saying, and Krauss agrees with this, is that the basis of all elements come about as a result of what happened within stars. As our sun, our solar system, our galaxy etc. are all a result of these phenomena, we as humans are made up from those atoms which became molecules.
I would love to see where Neil has been called out on this. I have not heard that before.
What Neil is saying, and Krauss agrees with this, is that the basis of all elements come about as a result of what happened within stars. As our sun, our solar system, our galaxy etc. are all a result of these phenomena, we as humans are made up from those atoms which became molecules.
You are missing the big picture. When the Big Bang occurred Hydrogen and Helium was shot all over the Universe...however these elements were distributed unevenly and thus they formed giant pockets of gas clouds. These clouds eventually collapsed on themselves and formed stars. Inside of these stars the temperatures became hot enough to allow for fusion. Hydrogen and Helium were slamming into one another and out came other elements from these collisions. The first stars died off (exploded their contents all over the Universe )and a second generation of stars were born with the existing Hydrogen and Helium but also with sprinkles of the other formed elements such as Carbon and the process of fusion continued. This is how our star was formed and this is how the building blocks of life came about.
So yes we are not in the Universe...we are a part of the Universe and we were created from some of the elements that burst out of the dying stars.
When someone says we have the same traits as the Universe...no we don't...we are only composed of 25 elements: of those Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon are the most bountiful. These are very common elements in the Universe...like Neil states in one of his lectures...humans like to think we are so special...he said until we find a rare element in our makeup such as bismuth...we should not be thinking of ourselves as a special species. No doubt that life exists on other planets in the Universe and within our own galaxy....however those lifeforms will be different from ours because the conditions were and are different on other planets compared to ours. Heck just look at how different life was on this earth 3.8 Billion years ago! Look at how dinosaurs evolved before Homo sapiens and ruled this earth for 180 million years!
Thus far we know of 118 elements that are in the Periodic Table.
Look up biological trait...now apply this to saying humans have the same traits as the Universe...you see it does not make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
I would love to see where Neil has been called out on this. I have not heard that before.
I can't find it but he actually called himself out on misstating in one of his lectures inaccurate levels of the atoms in our bodies.
You are missing the big picture. When the Big Bang occurred Hydrogen and Helium was shot all over the Universe...however these elements were distributed unevenly and thus they formed giant pockets of gas clouds. These clouds eventually collapsed on themselves and formed stars. Inside of these stars the temperatures became hot enough to allow for fusion. Hydrogen and Helium were slamming into one another and out came other elements from these collisions. The first stars died off (exploded their contents all over the Universe )and a second generation of stars were born with the existing Hydrogen and Helium but also with sprinkles of the other formed elements such as Carbon and the process of fusion continued. This is how our star was formed and this is how the building blocks of life came about.
Yes, I am quite aware of this, and nothing you stated above contradicts what I said. Nor am I contradicting you.
Quote:
So yes we are not in the Universe...we are a part of the Universe and we were created from some of the elements that burst out of the dying stars.
It best be said the universe is in us, and we are in it. We are part of the whole, and the whole is part of us. That is not any sort of woo, it just is.
Quote:
When someone says we have the same traits as the Universe...no we don't...we are only composed of 25 elements: of those Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon are the most bountiful. These are very common elements in the Universe...like Neil states in one of his lectures...humans like to think we are so special...he said until we find a rare element in our makeup such as bismuth...we should not be thinking of ourselves as a special species. No doubt that life exists on other planets in the Universe and within our own galaxy....however those lifeforms will be different from ours because the conditions were and are different on other planets compared to ours. Heck just look at how different life was on this earth 3.8 Billion years ago! Look at how dinosaurs evolved before Homo sapiens and ruled this earth for 180 million years!
Again, we agree. However, I suspect you are well aware that there are hypothesis that suggest non-carbon based life forms could well exist outside of earth. Chlorine and sulfur are also possible elemental replacements for carbon. Sulfur is capable of forming long-chain molecules like carbon.
Are we humans blinded by our familiarity with carbon and Earth-like conditions? It is not beyond the realm of feasibility that our first encounter with extraterrestrial life will not be a solely carbon-based fete, based on the reality that some life forms here use what would have been considered exotic molecules like arsenic and sulpher.
Could carbon based life forms exist in other places in the universe? Of course they could, and probably do. But I suspect life forms that are not carbon based would be just as likely to be out there, but we need to look for them also. And if they do exist, they too are part of the universe, and the universe is part of them. No woo needed.
Yes, but we are getting into an area of the formation of the universe and speculation about other life in the universe. That's getting away from any arguments against religion.
As and irish skeptic put it in a you tube, Jesus god created the universe, galaxies, stars and planets, and then life and he looks at the primate that appears on one planet and says @I have really got to tell that fella to stop picking up sticks on a Saturday'. I mean, really, would a cosmic creator care about the piddling rules in the OT. It is all to do with the ritual minutiae of man -made religion, and we ought to have outgrown such nonsense by now.
So the hugeness of the universe is a sorta argument, but we seem to have drifted away from that and onto discussing....Science
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
