Atheism is DEAD!

[GostHacked]

You missed the posts earlier where I stated that my "system" for discussion of a diety include possibility of alternate planes/universes that we could not perceive.

How can you know that it is even possible if you can't even perceive it?

Not all science can proceed based on mathematical analyses. Biology is a science where math outside of statistical analyses has little role in developing theories. You can't use the lack of math as a basis to reject a hypothesis.

True, but math is involved in some fashion. And when it comes to mutliverse, you will need the math to support it. Nature is very mathematical through algorithms.

I am not claiming a deity can be proven to exist. I am saying the existence of a deity could be inferred by developing testable hypotheses based on the presumption that one does exist. This is a valid scientific approach that is used all of the time.

This sounds more like suggestive thought to me, and how susceptible people are to it. You create bias by assuming the deity exists.

No more than one needs to prove the existance of dark matter before one can surmise about its effects.

Dark matter was theorized after looking at the universe. It is still a work in progress.

The device was finished in 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3683267.stm

In 2009, they picked up something interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8420089.stm , buuuuut

The scientists were keen to stress that they could not confirm that what they had seen was definitely dark matter.

It's still a hypothesis, and still yet to be substantially proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Observational evidence

The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[5] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

[GostHacked]

Oh, I agree with you, believe me.

All I'm saying--using multiple gods or malevolent gods or what have you--is that those arguing against your position are failing by their OWN standards.

But yes, it's a side-issue.

OK, I get what you are saying now. That is something I had not really thought of!

[Shwa]

you're being selective in your starting date for humanity....Neanderthals? why not homo erectus or homo habilus?...if god made man in his own image was it homo habilus?...if someone wants to presume that even animals/hominids with no or little frontal lobe development can concieve of a god how do those who believe in god justify killing and eating those animals?...

an abstract conception such as gods and demons can only come after the development of a frontal lobe...man created god, god/s did not create men...

I am using Neanderthal as an example of "early man."

I am not sure what is compelling you to think - even for a moment - that hominids had "no or little frontal lobe development" which is quite incorrect. Add this to the fact that you have yet to produce anything credible to back up your point, I presume you are just TOOYA.

Try this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/221/4615/1072

Or this: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/brain.html (explains things nicely)

Or this perhaps: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/61/bbs00000461-00/bbs.wilkins.html

Here this one is neuroscience for kids: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/front.html

[ToadBrother]

How? In the absence of an alternate hypothesis it is the only hypothesis and therefore no matter what evidence is found it will be still be presumed to be true and therefore unfalsifiable.

I come across Phenomona X. I declare "Odin causes Phenomon X". You're saying this is a rational and useful epistemological framework?

The hypothesis I described would be falsified. Perhaps I could come up with another hypothesis involving a deity, perhaps not. But that would not alter the fact that the original hypothesis was falsified.

How could it be falsified? Even if you came up with a more parsimonious explanation, nothing has been falsified.

It is meaningful if you clearly define the constraints as I did. I did not leave wiggle room that would have allowed me to move the goal posts. I stated an effect which I believe exists and described how it could be tested experimentally.

But your experiment would not demonstrate anything supernatural. It would demonstrate an effect, but labeling it "God" does not mean God did it, or anything supernatural did it.

God-in-the-gaps argument is no different from the a purely physical-explanation-will-eventually-be-found argument. They can be both invoked in a scientific or in a dogmatic way. The athetist position that only physical hypothesis can be considered is a dogmatic and non-scientific position.

I openly challenge you right now to provide a citation to a single scientific paper that says "God did it" as a causative effect.

As you spend the next twenty or thirty years not finding such a paper, you might ponder just how wrong you are. Here's a hint. Science's other name, as I gave above, is *methodological naturalism*.

[ToadBrother]

You missed the posts earlier where I stated that my "system" for discussion of a diety include possibility of alternate planes/universes that we could not perceive.

Not all science can proceed based on mathematical analyses. Biology is a science where math outside of statistical analyses has little role in developing theories. You can't use the lack of math as a basis to reject a hypothesis.

Huh? You know pretty damned little about biology. Population dynamics, genetics, evolution all use a large amount of mathematics.

I am not claiming a deity can be proven to exist. I am saying the existence of a deity could be inferred by developing testable hypotheses based on the presumption that one does exist. This is a valid scientific approach that is used all of the time.

Not the way your using it. It's no different than me saying "The reason Riverwind types posts is because the invisible massless faeries in his left arm pit tell him to". Even if I find some biochemical explanation that is far more parsimonious, I can't in fact falsify the other, simply because the entities I've described are beyond any means of testing.

No more than one needs to prove the existance of dark matter before one can surmise about its effects.

But dark matter does in fact leave a very obvious effect that, unless our knowledge of gravity is utterly loopy, means something massive is there. Your hypothesis assumes its conclusion. They ain't the same thing.

[cybercoma]

I really enjoy reading posts when people talk about things they're entirely clueless about.

[BubberMiley]

Quite correct. But a diety is important to any binding ethical system. Theoretically it isn't but without one everything becomes relative.

This from the guy who thinks the biggest god-cult of all is out to kill everybody.

But I would say that, given all the abuse and wars and killing in the name of religion, I don't think it's possible to have a pure ethical system and subscribe to any of the big religions. Everything becomes relative, and subject to what the mullah/rabbi/priest decides is okay that particular day.

Edited December 23, 2009 by BubberMiley

[bloodyminded]

This from the guy who thinks the biggest god-cult of all is out to kill everybody.

But I would say that, given all the abuse and wars and killing in the name of religion, I don't think it's possible to have a pure ethical system and subscribe to any of the big religions. Everything becomes relative, and subject to what the mullah/rabbi/priest decides is okay that particular day.

Right, that's what I was saying, but yours is a little more clear. Religion IS full of relativism, including within specific denominations.

[wyly]

I am using Neanderthal as an example of "early man."

I am not sure what is compelling you to think - even for a moment - that hominids had "no or little frontal lobe development" which is quite incorrect. Add this to the fact that you have yet to produce anything credible to back up your point, I presume you are just TOOYA.

Try this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/221/4615/1072

Or this: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/brain.html (explains things nicely)

Or this perhaps: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/61/bbs00000461-00/bbs.wilkins.html

Here this one is neuroscience for kids: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/front.html

you should try improve your reading comprehension maybe some kids books, something simple...

my quote "animals/hominids with no or little frontal lobe development" you made the leap hominids had no frontal development...and no early man did not have any more ability to conceive god than a chimp does...

[Guest TrueMetis]

You guys do know that by just stating Hominids you are just going with the great apes? Which would include all of are ancestors in the Homo Genus (and us) some of which must have had a developed frontal lobe.

[Shwa]

You guys do know that by just stating Hominids you are just going with the great apes? Which would include all of are ancestors in the Homo Genus (and us) some of which must have had a developed frontal lobe.

Yep. Which is why I supplied the kids link to that artful dodger wyly.

and no early man did not have any more ability to conceive god than a chimp does

I am sure this is based on sound and widely accepted evidence that you will no doubt have plenty of cites for. I can wait.

[wyly]

You guys do know that by just stating Hominids you are just going with the great apes? Which would include all of are ancestors in the Homo Genus (and us) some of which must have had a developed frontal lobe.

the early hominids were on par with apes for intelligence...

there was not sufficient brain development for the invention of abstract concepts like god...have you seen any chimps or gorillas building shrines to their deity?...Orangutans joining the priesthood?...Gibbons offering grave goods?...move up the tree of hominid evolution to Homo Erectus and try link to a homo erectus a single grave which is an indicator of a death ritual and a belief in an afterlife, there are none ...it's questionable if homo erectus could even manage basic speech which is essential to convey a concept as abstract as a god...

the first hominid to bury their dead and with grave goods were Neanderthals...

[ToadBrother]

the early hominids were on par with apes for intelligence...

there was not sufficient brain development for the invention of abstract concepts like god...have you seen any chimps or gorillas building shrines to their deity?...Orangutans joining the priesthood?...Gibbons offering grave goods?...move up the tree of hominid evolution to Homo Erectus and try link to a homo erectus a single grave which is an indicator of a death ritual and a belief in an afterlife, there are none ...it's questionable if homo erectus could even manage basic speech which is essential to convey a concept as abstract as a god...

the first hominid to bury their dead and with grave goods were Neanderthals...

Which were not, at least so far as we can yet tell, our ancestors.

You are missing one key point to this, however, and that's that even after H. sapiens first appeared between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago, and yet even the first hints of symbolism and abstract thinking don't occur for some 50,000 years, until 100,000, and with the major shifts and advances in behavior happening until some 50,000 years ago, some 100,000 to 150,000 years after H. sapiens first appeared. Prior to 100,000 it largely appears that H. sapiens was following the same extremely slow progression that had typified all previous members of genus Homo; slowly advancing tool kits and behaviors with innovation taking periods of time measured in millennia.

What this means is that brain size alone cannot account for the rise of behaviorally modern humans. What's more, the discovery of H. floresiensis suggests that some fairly sophisticated and typical activities of genus Homo could occur with exceptionally small near-chimp sized brains.

[wyly]

Which were not, at least so far as we can yet tell, our ancestors.

are you refering to Neanderthals? at this point in time the main thought is no we are not decendants(hotly disputed though)...but as of now they were the first hominid to bury their dead and have grave goods...so even that is not 100% conclusive it is more than likely they believed in an afterlife...if that is the case they reached that level sooner than Homo Sapiens based on the evidence so far...

You are missing one key point to this, however, and that's that even after H. sapiens first appeared between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago, and yet even the first hints of symbolism and abstract thinking don't occur for some 50,000 years, until 100,000, and with the major shifts and advances in behavior happening until some 50,000 years ago, some 100,000 to 150,000 years after H. sapiens first appeared. Prior to 100,000 it largely appears that H. sapiens was following the same extremely slow progression that had typified all previous members of genus Homo; slowly advancing tool kits and behaviors with innovation taking periods of time measured in millennia.

that could be but Neanderthal at this time has the edge on early abstract thought, that may change with new evidence...

What this means is that brain size alone cannot account for the rise of behaviorally modern humans. What's more, the discovery of H. floresiensis suggests that some fairly sophisticated and typical activities of genus Homo could occur with exceptionally small near-chimp sized brains.

and that homo floresiensis which from I gather is still being classified as an H Erectus discovered deep water transportation 1st, something a more sophisticated Neanderthal never appeared to develop...

as far as brains go size is important but not the complete answer development is crucial without a well developed frontal lobe really sophisticated thoughts just don't happen and there is no evidence of them in the archeological record until Neandertthals start burying there dead and leaving evidence of rituals.....

extra tidbit if your interested...I get news of some of latest archeological findings from my oldest(an archeologist)before they're even published...the first evidence of man harvesting cereal grains is to be pushed back from Neolithic farmers of Mesopotamia 10,000 yrs Bp to 100,000 BP in Mozambique...that should shake up a few cherished beliefs on the cradle of civilization, africans may have farmed first...

Edited December 24, 2009 by wyly

[jbg]

Everything becomes relative....

Including that statement?

[Shwa]

it's questionable if homo erectus could even manage basic speech which is essential to convey a concept as abstract as a god...

I wonder if the Dolphins can conceive of a deity? There is quite a bit being made of dolphins communicating through a language of sound. Or speech if you prefer.

I wonder if H. Erectus, if they didn't have basic speech, had a sophisticted gestural or sign language that they used to convey abstract concepts.

I wonder if H. Erectus made shrines and buried their dead in organic materials that have completely disappeared over time.

The point is that your view is completely anthropocentric and unless your real name is Doctor Doolittle, I doubt you can speak on the behalf of the animals nor whether hominids could/can think in the abstract which even chimps and baboons can. Your problem is you expect the evidence from early man to mimic the present evidence of deity worship in modern humans when technically it should be the other way around. As if H. Erectus needed to assemble stone shrines despite a more abundant and easily worked material was available - wood.

As for frontal lobe requirements, well I am still waiting for you to post some conclusive link or cite something other than your opinion that shows that only deities can be conceived of with the modern human brain.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Shwa

[eyeball]

I wonder if the Dolphins can conceive of a deity?

I don't know but they may hold to cultural beliefs that may have roots in similarly minded conceptions.

Apparently the resident Orca whales, a species of dolphin, that live around Puget Sound and Georgia Straight and Gulf Islands don't or won't eat anything but chinook salmon. I'm not aware of any biological reason why they couldn't eat other relatively abundant salmon but they don't, seemingly by choice which suggests a social or cultural reason is the cause. A researcher I know reported that even peanut-heads, as starving orca are called, have been observed literally spitting out coho salmon. I can't help but wonder if this is the result of a dietary taboo, perhaps one that stems from a belief that might be associated with a deity belief. I also have to wonder if they're as intelligent as we think because they risk extinction due to disappearing chinook if they don't adapt.

Perhaps only the heretic blasphemer orca that switch to halibut or pink salmon will survive and pass their genes onto to the future. Apparently resident orca that call Johnstone Straight home have been observed eating seals even though they were commonly once thought to also be strict salmon eaters. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Riverwind]

I can't help but wonder if this is the result of a dietary taboo, perhaps one that stems from a belief that might be associated with a deity belief.

Or maybe it is because the coho salmon figured our how to secret chemicals which humans don't notice but a taste really nasty to an Orca. There are other examples in nature where evolving a bad taste protects species from predators.

[jbg]

I wonder if the Dolphins can conceive of a deity? There is quite a bit being made of dolphins communicating through a language of sound. Or speech if you prefer.

Apparently Jack London, in White Fang thought that wolf-dog crosses believed in G-d(s).

[Shwa]

Apparently Jack London, in White Fang thought that wolf-dog crosses believed in G-d(s).

I swear my German Shepherd worships me and sometimes brings me an offering of the sacred bouncy ball and every once in a while will dig me a little hole-shrine in the back yard.

[eyeball]

Or maybe it is because the coho salmon figured our how to secret chemicals which humans don't notice but a taste really nasty to an Orca. There are other examples in nature where evolving a bad taste protects species from predators.

Its clear orca can eat coho...

Despite the diversity of fish species taken, resident whales have a clear preference for salmon prey. In field observations of feeding, 96% of fish taken were salmonids. Six species of salmonids were identified from prey fragments, with chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) being the most common. The stomach contents of stranded residents also indicated a preference for chinook salmon.

Source

I think it's just one distinct pod - J-pod that is fixated on targeting chinook and I think I may have overstated the case a little as it appears even j-pod eats other salmon species. I guess chinook must taste better. All the same it does seem like there are other things they could be eating and it makes me wonder why they don't.

Yet, the range of potential prey for orcas as a species is vast, making it hard to conceive of a situation where free-roving orcas would starve to death-even the Southern Resident Community with their apparent "addiction" to salmon.

Source

[jbg]

I swear my German Shepherd worships me and sometimes brings me an offering of the sacred bouncy ball and every once in a while will dig me a little hole-shrine in the back yard.

Does he hit you with his tail as well?

[davidmabus0202]

Merry X-MAS, my little atheists!

these little insignificant fools try to use science to destroy every mystery in the universe...

but not this one!

First of all: Nostradamus demolishes "atheism"

__________________________________________________ __

wait, wait...

I forgot something...

you little shits even talk about me....

GOATS ON FIRE....

LIBERATION!

Sing from the rooftops:

"Atheism is dead!"

http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-ap...

BYE BYE ATHEISM

_____________________________________________________

Let's hear what "SNOPES" and "DAVID EMERY" have to say about NOSTRADAMUS & 9.11

http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/nostradamus.htm

and

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nostradamus.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/nostradamus_2.htm

"Once again, a very few words actually written by Nostradamus — individual lines drawn from two disparate quatrains, in fact — have been taken out of context, rearranged, and supplemented with made-up lines by person(s) unknown to make them seem pertinent to the event. The result, as before, is pure bunk. Not even Nostradamus would want to take credit for this "prediction." Anyone else want to have a go?"

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

[GostHacked]

Merry X-MAS, my little atheists!

And happy holidays from this 'atheist' (I am actually agnostic)

these little insignificant fools try to use science to destroy every mystery in the universe...

We are a knowledge hungry species. This is the main drive to discover those answers to those mysteries. We can go back to the stone age if you really want to keep going on about those insignificant fools.

but not this one!

What is the mystery exactly?

First of all: Nostradamus demolishes "atheism"

Nostradamus is dead. And atheism is still alive. You already posted the rest of this stuff. But nice drive by post however.

[Shwa]

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

Perhaps you should take a shot instead? A shot of paliperidone palmitate I mean...