Any atheists on this board?

[crimson]

hmmm....
McNamara-
where is it exactly that these axioms exist in time and space? your language is vague. i don't buy it man. not at all. the very fact that you say time and space had a beginning is contradictory to a lot of what you are saying. there is no beginning in a undefinable reality.

or were you being metaphoric? i think you are mistaken to think that we have some kind of intrinic survival knowledge. what is your proof empirically for that? there is evidence to say quite the opposite...just wondering where you are coming from.

LTJGPayne-
I for one agree with you. we all need to READ all of the time. and not just philosophy or science. however, i consider myself a person who has delved into the sphere of many different types of books, east and west, one of the many responsibilities of an atheist or a non-believer is to make sure you are not ignorant of others and that you give other theories a chance. so, i am unsure of your exact point. most often be wary of anyone who uses a quote to demonstrate their argument. as you know texts are living documents that should not just be quoted. there is much those authors layed down. it is very unfair at times to just quote them. and emerson had eggs and toast brought to him every morning...by his wife...so much for that example of living by a philosophy...or do you disagree?

jester-
i really don't know where you are coming from by saying a "circle would have 180 degree" even if we did not define it that way. it is a circle, defined, by words, our words. human words. some may not recognize 180 degrees is part of the definition of a circle, but the abilty to do so, and that someone already did and like Archimedies attempted to measure that makes it a posteriori. do you think that is valid?

hmm....i am not sure what to say about the faith commments. not really my realm. but they were interesting comments. any more ideas?

AdJ

 

[McNamara]

Stop breaking my balls, Nash. Last time I checked, we defined a circle to have 360 degrees.

Just messing with you. You have a valid point, such abstract thoughts that seem to come from nowhere are in fact defined by human language, and a human system of mathematical symbols. Yet another case against a priori knowledge.

Also, in order for the postulates of Euclidean geometry to hold true, the figures must exist on a perfect two-dimensional plane. Is there such a thing in reality? If you drew a triangle on the surface of a sphere, the sum of the interior angles would not be 180 degrees. So while it is possible for us to come up with axioms and build a system around them, it is only consistent because WE define the axiom and decide what frame of reference it will exist within. But why, given the same initial conditions, why would two people on opposite sides of the globe be able to construct an identical theory? I'm not saying that it's because the rules exist in some metaphysical sphere, but because that's the nature of the universe - there is an underlying order (even if part of that order includes chaos) that governs every particle, and every point in space time. The physical laws are there for us to discover through experience. Science, math, and reason are tools we use in the study of the universe, not entities unto themselves. If math/logic/physics, etc. did exist on their own, that would constitute a priori knowledge. But they do not exist in any transcendental sense.

On the beginning of time and space - that really depends on whether you think there was a beginning to the universe, or whether our observable universe is part of a larger system that has always existed. We can't be sure.

Survival instincts - the need to eat, drink, sleep, breed, avoid predation, etc. has evolved into every higher form of life. We wouldn't be here otherwise. Humans have less of a need for the survival instinct because we don't have any natural predators left. The human genome project has finished mapping human DNA, but it will be a long time before we know what each chomosome's function is. Perhaps some empirical evidence for "survival genes" will be discovered in the future. For now, I will simply argue that the existence of such instincts are necessary for natural selection to work. We see it happen all the time in the animal kingdom, and we went through the same process while we were evolving. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some vestigial DNA left over from the time humans had to worry about basic survival needs on a daily basis.

 

[crimson]

McNamara-
hmmm..don't read to well i see. have PRT?
i said 180 degrees is a PART of the defintion of a circle...what is your point?
check out some of the economical models about cooperation before you so hastily decide upon the "survival of the fittest" design for homo sapien evolution.

you probably don't know the slightest about DNA do you??? hey...i am kidding. sorry i am pulling nerd rank on you there mr. aviator/engineer.

AdJ

 

[megan620]

I agree with LTJG Payne & nashmodeler's point about studying outside of one's own "comfort zone" of knowledge, which was why I brought up a non-mathematical/non-physics point of view. I felt like I could have easily rambled off my version of what had been already stated or gone off on another tangent (still math/physics based), but I was interested to see what people might say to an argument outside of their knowledge base.

But based on the only reply to my statements (by Nashmodeler, which I appreciate her at least noticing my post), I am guessing that no one else has much background in embryology/medical research to make any comments.

Mc Namara....As for the survival genes...that I don't know anything about, but what about the appendix? This is a remnant organ, that really holds no use (that we know of), which is why it is removed when it becomes inflammed. It is theorized that it is a remnant from "caveman" times when humans ate raw meat and much harsher food items, and that the toxins the appendix holds was a storage place in the cavemen intestines so that they could eat whatever they hunted/found growing.

Nashmodeler...you're not pulling nerd rank, you are probably just arguing outside of his knowledge base, so just call it med student rank!

 

[McNamara]

No **** she has nerd/medical student rank over me, just look at her profile. But seriously Megan, you have a point about the appendix. I think any survival genes we have in our code are like the appendix - we don't need them today, but they're evidence that there was a time in the past when we needed them to survive.

What makes humans so different from other animals with regard to evolution? As Nash pointed out, societal cooperation. We're not the only species that do this, but we've obviously taken it to the greatest extent. But the question is then: did Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolve into its current form before or after social cooperation became the greatest factor for survival? The answer is that we have had social cooperation well before we reached our current form. But that doesn't mean we don't retain a great deal of the genetic information from the time BEFORE human ancestors began cooperating for survival. We have alot of DNA in common with very early primates, and I'd be surprised if some of it didn't relate to survival instincts. The fact that beneficial mutations continued to drive our evolution even after early social structures became predominant lends credence to the idea that our species continued to progress through natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest.

Ergo. Concordantly. Vis a vis. You know what, I have no idea what I'm saying, I just thought that would make me sound cool.

 

[megan620]

McNamara...LOL, I did read her profile, that's why I made the comment!

 

[kevin]

"Perhaps some empirical evidence for "survival genes" will be discovered in the future. For now, I will simply argue that the existence of such instincts are necessary for natural selection to work. We see it happen all the time in the animal kingdom, and we went through the same process while we were evolving. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some vestigial DNA left over from the time humans had to worry about basic survival needs on a daily basis."
-well this is an area im aversed in. most of the dna/evolution/survival of the fittest is probably much more attributable to physical characteristics than to some instinct (case in point- monarch butterfly). and you mentioned that we had a lot in common with primates- guess what...we have a lot in common with earthworms, and plants. in fact, we are about 90 something percent (dont know exact number, but it could be as high as 99%) identical to earthworms (read any paper on c elegans) on a dna level. the proteomic level is really where the differential takes place, but this is purely based in differential dna/rna transcription/translation. but the thing here is (and one point that makes me feel there is further evidence of God) as intelligence goes to a higher and higher order (from plants up to humans) there is a pretty gradual grade- till you hit humans. the exponential jump from primates to humans is considerable, and really at least at this point, is difficult to compromise with proteomics or anatomy. not that this is definitive proof of course and perhaps in time an answer may be reached.

there is a lot of mathematical jargon here that i confess ive never studied, but the logic remains and i will go back to the argument of not knowing reality (one of you touched on it with the "brain in a vat" concept). no matter what, it is always possible that "reality" is part of a larger "reality" which is part of a larger "reality", etc, etc. neverending, something congruent with the possible infiniteness of space/time. but i feel as you get increasingly more "macroscopic" you lead to a oneness (God) and as you get increasingly microscopic (below quarks/antiquarks, etc) you get to a oneness (God). just a thought.

as to subjectivity, i dont believe there needs to be a certain number of parties to establish subjectivity. if i write a paper, and i deem it "good" but no one else ever reads that paper, my conclusion was still subjective.

 

[kevin]

nashmodeler: read you quote from edison "faith must be built on facts." im going to take contention with that. i would argue maybe that "faith must be built on a lack of antagonistic facts" perhaps, but nothing more. as several of us argued about earlier (i think it's on page 112!) faith and absolute truth are different entities (may be congruent, may not be), and facts dont necessarily fit in there. having said that, i could even say that science is based on facts, but those "facts" could be completely non-representative of reality and hence science is pure faith based on edison's definition.

 

[crimson]

kevin-
one could say that science is a type of faith, but it is not just a faith built upon non-contradiction, rather a faith built upon experience. i would contend then that faith would have to be defined as either experienceable or non-experienceable. experienceable? not sure if that is a word.

as far as "absolute truth" goes, please refer back to absolute space, time, and place argument. my contention is that there is no absolute anything. thus, the difference between your defined faith and absolute truth becomes very murky?

also, i like your ideas about DNA/RNA...yet, i feel like the argument was a little vague concerning the closeness of our DNA and earthworms. what was the exact thing you were aiming at. 90% is not that close if you think about the millions and perhaps billions of alleles we differ by, and then take into account crossover and such ideas as complexity theories in genetic translation. just a thought. what do you think?

 

[riley]

I thought the following would give all of our brains a little break - after this post, pleas feel free to continue the debate - I'm enjoying this....

From www.grose.us (Website Praxis listed)

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "accident of evolution" had created.

"What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear; right on top of him; reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out "Oh my God!"

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice.

The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

And then the bear dropped his right paw... brought both paws together... bowed his head and spoke:

"Lord, for this food that I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”

 

[austinfalnes]

Nash..

I respect that you believe there to be NO absolutes, but i see a logical fallacy in making that conclusion:

You are, in effect saying, "I absolutely believe that there are no absolutes."

The problem with relativism is that you must at some point say, "It's universally true that nothing is universally true."

Absolutism takes away the inherent perspective bias of any individual. By agreeing that truth exists, the only thing that can be relative is how people react to that truth.

 

[kevin]

You are, in effect saying, "I absolutely believe that there are no absolutes."
---yes, i brought that exact point up in another thread i think. it's a contradictory statement.

"as far as "absolute truth" goes, please refer back to absolute space, time, and place argument. my contention is that there is no absolute anything. thus, the difference between your defined faith and absolute truth becomes very murky?"
----that's kind of the point i was making regarding science being an absolute. but the difference between faith and absolute truth is that they are related, but not one in the same. to reiterate what i said 100 pages back, faith is a belief in truth, not truth itself. kind of like saying that cake and the pan it's in are the same thing.

"also, i like your ideas about DNA/RNA...yet, i feel like the argument was a little vague concerning the closeness of our DNA and earthworms. what was the exact thing you were aiming at. 90% is not that close if you think about the millions and perhaps billions of alleles we differ by, and then take into account crossover and such ideas as complexity theories in genetic translation. just a thought. what do you think?"
---- true and a good point. however, youre talking about the 10% (it's actually far less than this) that is different being quite differentiating (by varying replication, etc). im focusing on the 90+% that's conserved (which is, thus, exponentially greater than the < 10%). and yet those alleles and recombinations which can cause millions of possibilities (although i dont believe it's millions of alleles we differ by considering that the majority of dna is exonic)- as humans, and in the grand scheme of things, we are all similar to each other (compared to an earthworm for instance). but the main point here is still that the enormous gap between humans and any other organism is difficult to justify by means of genetics and anatomy.

 

[crimson]

"my contention is there is no absolute anything" to say something is a contention is quite different than saying "i believe" sorry if that is pedantic, but i think it is valid. i very rarely like to use belief statements.
though I see your point. yet, how is it any more contradictory than saying I believe in absolute truth because i believe ( i have faith) i have faith in an absolute truth, now we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. a person that is a true relativist would never start a sentence by saying "it is universally true". truth is relative, the "universe" is relative. i know, i know, this, but i can't help it. it seems plausible, very plausible, that everything is subjective.

kevin-
i don't buy the argument that the 10% we differ by is not enough to explain our anatomical and chemical differences between earthworms and humans. Here is a basic run down:

DNA is four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical.Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that a Maple was “one-quarter human”? The idea that a tree is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make a tree a human—except DNA.

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes. Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans.
If we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?

What do you think about that idea? Does anyone have other arguments to back up the idea that say we can not prove experimentally that we differ from earthworms or primates?

 

[NeoCortex]

is that kinda like
"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

?

Ben

 

[kevin]

"yet, how is it any more contradictory than saying I believe in absolute truth because i believe ( i have faith) i have faith in an absolute truth,"
--can you explain this a little more?

"a true relativist would never start a sentence by saying "it is universally true"
--actually he could still say "it is universally true that there is not universal truth", which could imply that there is a universal truth somewhere "else".

"i don't buy the argument that the 10% we differ by is not enough to explain our anatomical and chemical differences between earthworms and humans. Here is a basic run down:"
--i hope you dont buy that argument because that's not what i said. in fact the <10% DOES explain the anatomical chemical differences! what i contend is that all those things (genome, anatomics, etc) dont explain the intellectual and awareness gap.

--you 1/4 chance is misleading. that's like saying that out of 100,000,000 coin flips versus your 100,000,000 coin flips, there is a 1/2 chance that one of my coin flips will be identical to one of yours. so what? the point here is sequence, not random site. if your talking about the amount of dna nucleotides matching up, and i would say that yes, since there is an abundance of c and g in the genome of every living thing, there is a greater than 25% chance that the amount of c in a sunflower is equivalent to the amount of c in a human. but when sequences are taken into account, this number becomes astronomical immediately. ie, we i flip my coin 100,000,000 times and you do the same, the odds that we will line up is [1/2]^100,000,000. add to that the complexity of introns/exons, where one missense mutation or deletion/addition can throw off (technically speaking) everything after that, and this number goes up to a ridiculous amount. now that's all assuming that it is completely random. of course, evolution dictates that sequences are changed, added, etc through time and hence we arrived at humanity based on a conversion of the original sequence, rather than just thrown together. so you make my point when you say there is no biological way to say a maple is partly human except for dna....as a matter of fact you could say that the tree is entirely human chemically speaking (im talking quantum mechanics here) and is less human at the dna level, less even at the protein level, etc etc. so then where does the gap occur (better to look at it from primate to human). my initial point is that the differences are beyond biology (and science for that matter) when you reach a certain level.

--same argument pertains to the number of nucleotides. yes there are the differences in the genome that are different (80 million you stated)...and some plant genomes make the human genome look like a grain of sand. but as i said, consider the conserved part- 98-99% in that case. if 1% is that large, 99% is that much larger.