Darwin

[wyly]

It was a tough read, but I could not put it down. Essentially in the post-human world, these virtual lives in the nexus (kind of like a huge computer for AIs) get together to form offspring AIs. Sometimes an orphan gets created without 'parents'. Now in terms of sci-fi, we are always wanting to look in to the virtual world being physical entities. This reverses it and the AI uploads itself to a robot to go about and explore the physical world. (yeah it blew my noodle as well)

actually I have no problem accepting that possibility...AI reaching the point of self awareness may not be that far off...

[wyly]

I assume you're seen the classic 'debate' between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright (Queen of the Creationists as of late). Painful. I bet Richard needed a stiff drink after that one.

I did and she probably believes she won that debate...it left me speechless where do you find common ground with someone with those beliefs, her blind denial was so silly even calling the exchange a debate is a stretch...

[betsy]

Darwin and Einstein are to me true scientists, simply because they questioned their own theories.

I have nothing against these men as scientists. Nor do I have anything against them as men. With this latest discussion, which is actually a spin-off from the thread Einstein, I am not talking about their theory.

I only pulled up this thread for the convenience of TruMetis....since she was bringing up evolution into the discussion in Einstein thread.

I've already said everything I want to say about evolution (and my position has not changed on that)....and I have no wish to re-visit and rehash the debate on evolution for I find it quite insignificant and stale now.

I am simply stating the grave implication of their belief, - being Agnostics - which they maintained until their death, how their belief pose a crucial question for Atheists.

On one hand Atheists have peer-reviewed theories....(theories which according to ToadBrother are not complete, therefore unproven. ToadBrother even goes further to say that no theories are complete. Since ToadBrother sounds like he does follow these peer-reviewed theories religiously, I therefore assume that he knows what he's talking about)...and on the other hand you have reknown scientists like Darwin and Einstein maintaining their Agnostic belief until death, not to mention other scientists from various fields (listed in the thread "Rejoice....") who converted from Atheism to Christianity.

To an Atheist, that is definitely a serious matter to think about.

Edited September 2, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

It could possibly happen (although the probability is quite low) that there is a God and he/she/it created it all, but if you consider Darwin and Einstein to essentially be agnostics, then they at least have an open mind to both possibilities as being true. To me this is true agnosticism and it's the category I consider myself to be in.

Yes, the possibility of God. That is a serious implication that does not lend support to Atheism....but actually throws question to it.

Open mind. Yes, I agree with you....that is what I hoped Atheists would have when I say that they have some serious thinking to do.

[Wild Bill]

I have nothing against these men as scientists. Nor do I have anything against them as men. With this latest discussion, which is actually a spin-off from the thread Einstein, I am not talking about their theory.

I only pulled up this thread for the convenience of TruMetis....since she was bringing up evolution into the discussion in Einstein thread.

I've already said everything I want to say about evolution (and my position has not changed on that)....and I have no wish to re-visit and rehash the debate on evolution for I find it quite insignificant and stale now.

I am simply stating the grave implication of their belief, - being Agnostics - which they maintained until their death, how their belief pose a crucial question for Atheists.

On one hand Atheists have peer-reviewed theories....(theories which according to ToadBrother are not complete, therefore unproven. ToadBrother even goes further to say that no theories are complete. Since ToadBrother sounds like he does follow these peer-reviewed theories religiously, I therefore assume that he knows what he's talking about)...and on the other hand you have reknown scientists like Darwin and Einstein maintaining their Agnostic belief until death, not to mention other scientists from various fields (listed in the thread "Rejoice....") who converted from Atheism to Christianity.

To an Atheist, that is definitely a serious matter to think about.

Just because you're an agnostic doesn't mean that your alternative is to believe fundamentalist Christianity, or even Christianity at all!

An agnostic is not sure if there is a God, period. If there is, what sort of being is God is a totally different question. He may be some Christian God that takes an active interest in each of us as individuals or he may be some Divine Principle so far advanced from us that as individuals we are not important.

You can believe in God while believing in evolution and/or all aspects of science. The only problem is when someone lets their faith come in conflict with what science discovers about the Universe.

In effect, if there is a God scientists are slowly discovering HOW he created everything and how it all works.

It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians have already made up their minds about all of that and in effect are telling GOD how he did everything!

What cheek! As Firesign Theater called them "The Church of the Presumptuous Assumption".

[betsy]

Just because you're an agnostic doesn't mean that your alternative is to believe fundamentalist Christianity, or even Christianity at all!

True.

The reason Christianity was mentioned in my post is because there were atheist scientists who converted from Atheism to Christianity. The list of names are in the thread "Rejoice On This Day."

I never did mean that Darwin and Einstein - being Agnostics - believed in the Christian God.

In effect, if there is a God scientists are slowly discovering HOW he created everything and how it all works.

Of course for me, there is never an "if" about it, but I agree with your statement. The latest one I heard was about quantum physics. Name and link on the thread "Rejoice..."

From the interview on tv, this scientist was saying that they were left with no other options but to arrive to that conclusion of Creation.

Edited September 2, 2010 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

i agree that atheists are presumptuous in thinking they know the true origin of the cosmos, just as all religious folk are.

That's why they only true doctrine is agnosticism. We are all just too f8cking stupid to know anything.

[DogOnPorch]

i agree that atheists are presumptuous in thinking they know the true origin of the cosmos, just as all religious folk are.

That's why they only true doctrine is agnosticism. We are all just too f8cking stupid to know anything.

Atheists don't claim to know the origin of the Universe...just where it didn't originate.

[Bonam]

Many folks can't name the nine planets in order let alone wrap their brains around the Milky Way...or the Local Group...or the Virgo Supercluster...or...(???)

Doesn't help that the IAU recently downgraded our solar system to having just eight planets.

However, we're finding planets by the hundreds in other solar systems now at a faster and faster rate, and the Kepler spacecraft results will be published soon and likely include multiple Earth-sized planets. I think within 10 or 20 years we will have identified at least several other planets that are Earth like, confirmed that they have liquid water, and nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres. Oxygen rich atmospheres will of course be proof of photosynthetic lifeforms.

[DogOnPorch]

Doesn't help that the IAU recently downgraded our solar system to having just eight planets.

However, we're finding planets by the hundreds in other solar systems now at a faster and faster rate, and the Kepler spacecraft results will be published soon and likely include multiple Earth-sized planets. I think within 10 or 20 years we will have identified at least several other planets that are Earth like, confirmed that they have liquid water, and nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres. Oxygen rich atmospheres will of course be proof of photosynthetic lifeforms.

Total agreement. Providing certain religious/political types don't pull a Galileo on the information, I expect within our lifetimes.

[betsy]

deleted. double posting.

Edited September 2, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

That's why they only true doctrine is agnosticism.

Spoken like a any true believer of his/her faith!

This is not meant as an insult but to me, Agnosticism is the ultimate "maybe" stance....or the "wait-and-see" stance....or the shrugging "I-don't-care" stance....or the "I-can't-be-bothered" stance...or the "sitting-on-the-fence" stance....or the "I'm-not-ready-yet" stance....or the neutral stance....or the "I-need-more-proof" stance....or the "I'm-halfway-there" stance....or the "I'm-just-not-sure" stance....or the "I-don't-want-to-be-wrong-so-better-play-it-safe" stance....or the "I-believe-in-God-but-cannot-really-commit-myself-to-that" stance....or the "hide-in-the-closet-not-ready-to-come-out" stance....or "I-believe-in-God-but-no-religion-suit-me" stance....or just the simple "no-stance" stance....

But hey, to each his own.

Edited September 2, 2010 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

betsy: But hey, to each his own.

Totally.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Universe, M64 (aka the Black Eyed Galaxy) finishes consuming another smaller galaxy.

Edited September 2, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[BubberMiley]

This is not meant as an insult but to me, Agnosticism is the ultimate "maybe" stance.

And that's the only reasonable stance to take when one isn't provided with convincing proof otherwise. Doesn't scientific thinking "awe" you?

[Wild Bill]

Spoken like a any true believer of his/her faith!

This is not meant as an insult but to me, Agnosticism is the ultimate "maybe" stance....or the "wait-and-see" stance....or the shrugging "I-don't-care" stance....or the "I-can't-be-bothered" stance...or the "sitting-on-the-fence" stance....or the "I'm-not-ready-yet" stance....or the neutral stance....or the "I-need-more-proof" stance....or the "I'm-halfway-there" stance....or the "I'm-just-not-sure" stance....or the "I-don't-want-to-be-wrong-so-better-play-it-safe" stance....or the "I-believe-in-God-but-cannot-really-commit-myself-to-that" stance....or the "hide-in-the-closet-not-ready-to-come-out" stance....or "I-believe-in-God-but-no-religion-suit-me" stance....or just the simple "no-stance" stance....

But hey, to each his own.

Well, that's your view and you're entitled to it!

Me, I could never be anything BUT an agnostic! After all, the theist has no more proof than the atheist! You cite opinion, such as someone finding some issue like an aspect of quantum physics difficult to understand or so profound and impressive that it prompts that someone to assume there must be a God. That is not proof at all. It is simply a limit to someone's knowledge.

I've seen this so often that years ago I gave it a name - "The Jehovah Witness Way of Arguing", after reading a stack of their magazines someone had left at a cottage my family had rented. Every issue had what was purported to be a "science" article. Even as a 12 year old I could see the absurdity of their reasoning. All the articles seemed to use the same "trick" to try to snare the reader. They would start with a statement like "The Moon goes around the Earth". This is something almost everyone knows so it would get their head to nod in agreement. Next would come "The Earth goes around the Sun", "The Sun goes around in the Milky Way galaxy" and so on, each statement getting the reader to agree and nod but the chain of argument getting "higher and higher" in its science until eventually the reader is beyond what he really knows but has been conditioned to just accept and keep nodding. Then WHAM! Once he's at that point the article writer hits him with a total non sequitur like "Therefore Jesus Christ MUST be our personal Savior!"

See the fallacy? The articles didn't actually PROVE anything! They simply gave the reader scientific point after point that he would agree with until they went beyond his level of understanding but because they had lulled him into being confident that the writer had been correct so far he would grant them his agreement from then on. By the time he was hit with a non sequitur he was likely to swallow anything!

Really, how the universe began and how it works really doesn't need any God or Intelligent Designer. It is what it is and it really doesn't matter how well any individual understands it. The concept of some Divine Principle taking an active interest in our personal welfare is a matter of faith. Faith needs no proof! So far, trying to come up with proof has only caused Faith problems.

[GostHacked]

Yes, the possibility of God. That is a serious implication that does not lend support to Atheism....but actually throws question to it.

Open mind. Yes, I agree with you....that is what I hoped Atheists would have when I say that they have some serious thinking to do.

If atheists have some serious thinking to do, I'd say so do the religious. Simply because both camps have made a decision and decided to believe in it. The only valid position left for me is agnostic. I do not know definitively if a god is real or not. There is only one way to find out, and that is death, and I won't be able to share my findings with anyone no matter the result.

[GostHacked]

I have nothing against these men as scientists. Nor do I have anything against them as men. With this latest discussion, which is actually a spin-off from the thread Einstein, I am not talking about their theory.

I only pulled up this thread for the convenience of TruMetis....since she was bringing up evolution into the discussion in Einstein thread.

I've already said everything I want to say about evolution (and my position has not changed on that)....and I have no wish to re-visit and rehash the debate on evolution for I find it quite insignificant and stale now.

Over 100 years of proof and evidence for evolution is very significant. If we did not evolve in any way shape or form, we would still be sitting around in caves hunkering over campfires roasting some meat from the last hunt. Or in terms of the bible, Adam and Eve would have never left the garden, and we would not be having this discussion.

I am simply stating the grave implication of their belief, - being Agnostics - which they maintained until their death, how their belief pose a crucial question for Atheists.

The grave implication of a belief? Like believing in a god?

On one hand Atheists have peer-reviewed theories....(theories which according to ToadBrother are not complete, therefore unproven. ToadBrother even goes further to say that no theories are complete. Since ToadBrother sounds like he does follow these peer-reviewed theories religiously, I therefore assume that he knows what he's talking about)...and on the other hand you have reknown scientists like Darwin and Einstein maintaining their Agnostic belief until death, not to mention other scientists from various fields (listed in the thread "Rejoice....") who converted from Atheism to Christianity.

Betsy, you just have no idea how the scientific method works. And you have no interest in actually finding that out. This is why you will say that the evolution theory is just a theory and nothing more. You essentially elude to being ignorant when it comes to science and it's findings and how those findings were discovered.

Can you say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is bunk? If so, why so?

And we reach an impasse again. The religious don't have the open mind for the possibility that a god does NOT exist, at the same time the Atheists don't have an open mind that a god possibly might exist.

Agnostic is the way to go for me. It's not a cop out and it does not pose 'grave implications' for me.

Edited September 2, 2010 by GostHacked

[ToadBrother]

If atheists have some serious thinking to do, I'd say so do the religious. Simply because both camps have made a decision and decided to believe in it. The only valid position left for me is agnostic. I do not know definitively if a god is real or not. There is only one way to find out, and that is death, and I won't be able to share my findings with anyone no matter the result.

Some atheists have some thinking to do. I fully admit that there's nothing about my atheism that's scientific. I think it's rational, but that's not the same thing.

[GostHacked]

Some atheists have some thinking to do. I fully admit that there's nothing about my atheism that's scientific. I think it's rational, but that's not the same thing.

I do agree that there is rational and logical thinking for an individual to become an Atheist. Since Betsy wants atheists to do some serious thinking, then she and the religious need to do some serious thinking as well. Because of the belief one holds essentially.

Religious use the bible as evidence that a god exists.

Atheists see the bible which is written by men evidence that it's all made up.

The position I like to take is agnostic, however I do lean towards the Atheist side because of the total lack of evidence of a so called sky-god other than a few books written eons ago by people.

Even if I did believe in a god, it might not match Christianity's conception of a god, or any other religion for that matter. The problem I see is what sky-god should I follow? In the end I am going to upset many people in the end simply because my version of god might not match anyone else's version of god.

I seem to be screwed either way.

[ToadBrother]

On one hand Atheists have peer-reviewed theories....

No, scientists have theories, peer-review is meant as a way to assure that the theories are rigorous in nature.

(theories which according to ToadBrother are not complete, therefore unproven.

Huh? Just because an explanation is incomplete doesn't mean it doesn't tell you anything.

For example. You have a body, you have a bullet hole through the forehead, and you have a smoking gun lying on the ground. You can immediately produce a fairly rigorous theory about how the dead body got there. You don't yet have the identity of the killer, and yet your theory still has plenty of explanatory power.

ToadBrother even goes further to say that no theories are complete.

It is the nature of science that new data is always possible, and since theories rest explicitly on the evidence, new evidence will necessarily either confirm, modify or possibly even falsify a theory or some aspect of it.

Since ToadBrother sounds like he does follow these peer-reviewed theories religiously,

I don't know why you feel it necessary to do these sorts of digs. Science is not my religion.

I therefore assume that he knows what he's talking about)...and on the other hand you have reknown scientists like Darwin and Einstein maintaining their Agnostic belief until death, not to mention other scientists from various fields (listed in the thread "Rejoice....") who converted from Atheism to Christianity.

And neither one intruded God as a causative factor in the theories they developed.

To an Atheist, that is definitely a serious matter to think about.

Not in the least.

[GostHacked]

Toadbrother, you might be interested in this!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

And regarding theory

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said.

[betsy]

If atheists have some serious thinking to do, I'd say so do the religious simply because both camps have made a decision and decided to believe in it.

But you see, true believers (and I am referring to Christians) do not rely or need science for spiritual comfort. We don't need proof. It's all about faith.

If it so happen that some scientists are proving our belief.....well, that's just a bonus, to say the least, as far as we're concerned. The attitude is something more like, "See? Like it sez in the Bible!"

..."That's not a surprise!" Mind you I am emphasizing about the attitudes of true believers....some may call us as fundamentalists or Bible-thumpers (but that's okay).

Atheists, on the other hand believes that there is no God....and most rely on science to prove that there is indeed no God. I suppose there are also true Atheists that will cling to their belief, whether science prove there is a God or not.

Agnostic scientists pose a serious question to Atheism. The possibility of a God.

All the more so when atheist scientists not only become simply Agnostic.....but go as far as outright converting to Christianity. Now, that's really knocking on the very foundation of their belief.

[wyly]

Atheists, on the other hand believes that there is no God....and most rely on science to prove that there is indeed no God. I suppose there are also true Atheists that will cling to their belief, whether science prove there is a God or not.

no, atheists know there is no god...we don't rely on science to prove there is no god that's absurd, what science experiments can you name that are devoted to proving there is no god?...how do you prove nothing? ...common sense/logic is all we need to demonstrate there is no god...

Agnostic scientists pose a serious question to Atheism. The possibility of a God.

All the more so when atheist scientists not only become simply Agnostic.....but go as far as outright converting to Christianity. Now, that's really knocking on the very foundation of their belief.

again what experiments by "agnostic scientists" pose serious questions about atheism?....atheism isn't a belief, it's knowledge...some 90+% of scientists are atheists that a few are torn by their religious upbringing poses no serious questions to those who see no value in religion...

[ToadBrother]

Atheists, on the other hand believes that there is no God....and most rely on science to prove that there is indeed no God. I suppose there are also true Atheists that will cling to their belief, whether science prove there is a God or not.

Anyone who knows anything about science knows full well that science cannot say anything on the nature or existence of God. I suggest to you right now that most atheists know that.

I wonder though, do you? Do you understand why science cannot confirm or deny the existence of God?

[GostHacked]

But you see, true believers (and I am referring to Christians) do not rely or need science for spiritual comfort. We don't need proof. It's all about faith.

Who is to say that atheists do not have spiritual comfort? Because god can be many things to people, even if it's not the classical definition of god. If you want to look at atheism as a faith, then you don't need proof (like the religious) that there is no god.

However atheism is the lack of any belief because beyond a book written a loooooong time ago, lacks evidence supporting the existence of a god.

Now when it comes to Darwin and his scientific theories, he had to base it all on science. He may not even realize he was using science when he theorized evolution. Now you did not answer my question about Einstien and his Theory of Relativity. Is this just a theory, or is it applied science? Can you use the Theory of Relativity for anything scientific? Or is it the word theory you really have a problem with?

If it so happen that some scientists are proving our belief.....well, that's just a bonus, to say the least, as far as we're concerned. The attitude is something more like, "See? Like it sez in the Bible!"

I don't believe anything in the bible has been scientifically validated at all. When the bible was written the human race did not have much of an understanding about the universe. So simplistic analogies were the word of the day. After a few thousand years of using the scientific method, we have moved beyond those simplistic analogies and stories to understand the universe.

..."That's not a surprise!" Mind you I am emphasizing about the attitudes of true believers....some may call us as fundamentalists or Bible-thumpers (but that's okay).

Other terms include, deluded, brainwashed, non-thinkers, and other terms. Kooks.

Atheists, on the other hand believes that there is no God....and most rely on science to prove that there is indeed no God. I suppose there are also true Atheists that will cling to their belief, whether science prove there is a God or not.

I am surprised you don't see the similarities in both 'faiths'.

Agnostic scientists pose a serious question to Atheism. The possibility of a God.

It also poses a real question to the religious, the possibility there is no god.

Since I am already in the agnostic camp, I am already ahead of the religious and the atheists. I know facetious at best.

All the more so when atheist scientists not only become simply Agnostic.....but go as far as outright converting to Christianity. Now, that's really knocking on the very foundation of their belief.

And on the flip side of that token, the religious eventually would move to the agnostic way of thinking. Because both stances are as you say on faith. I don't believe that being an atheist is a faith, because there is a total lack of evidence to support the existence of Leprechauns outside of some Irish stories, does not mean that saying there are no leprechauns is on faith. It is based on the total and complete lack of any evidence outside of a single book on the source.