Conclusive evidence for Design!

[zro_x]

I’m interested to know what you consider the null hypothesis to be.

The idea that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof rests with the theists.

When scaled up, quantum mechanics resembles a good approximation of Newtonian Physics. Quantum mechanics does not predict the affects of General Relativity (mathematically incompatible with quantum mechanics; many physicists believe any Grand Unified Theory will require significant modification of general relativity).

The main difference between quantum mechanics and the Newtonian physics it approximates is that in sufficiently complex inter-linked systems, small quantum effects can have large outputs that differ from the predictions of classical physics. Some might call this an effect of Chaos Theory; I consider that term over-used. Regardless, there are situations where small quantum effects can result in large output effects.

For an example, consider the following:

A Geiger counter is placed in a radiation-proofed room with a radioactive material that has a 50% chance of emitting a radioactive particle that will be picked up by the Geiger counter. The output of the Geiger counter is connected to the trigger of a nuclear bomb. Unlike Schodinger’s Cat, this system is observed so there is no superposition.

The probabilistically governed quantum effect of the single atom decaying to create the particle that hits the Geiger counter is completely unpredicted by classical mechanics. The tiny quantum effect has the huge effect of setting off a nuclear weapon.

Do you see what I mean? Single-particle quantum effects can have large real-world consequences, given the right conditions.

Hmmm, I see what you mean. I had never considered the implications of chaos theory… nonetheless, it would still be physical processes that give rise to the mind, not the other way around. and if it isn’t the other way around, then there can’t be free will. the quantum states of your mind are as random and unpredictable and as unaffected by the mind as the quantum states of your average rock.

We don’t know enough about the nature of consciousness to say whether or not other animals are also conscious. But we can talk about intelligence. It is clear that Homo Neanderthalensis were intelligent, having art, culture, tools, fire, they buried their dead with flowers and tokens… So was Homo Habilis. Crows exhibit immense problem-solving ability. Dolphins exhibit intelligence as well.

Intelligence is considered a major part of what makes humans special, yes? But it doesn’t appear so special after all. I consider the consciousness of other animals undecided, but leaning toward probable.

technically, we don’t know enough about the nature of consciousness to determine whether or not other people have it! My point stands: if naturalism is true, than the mind is caused by physical processes, and any time this process occurs in nature, even if it is a single chemical reaction, consciousness occurs to some degree.

 

[Doxus]

The idea that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof rests with the theists.

Well, let’s take your example of two worlds where one is entirely naturalistic, and the other is both naturalistic and supernatural, but you cannot demonstrate the supernatural.

Let’s say you don’t know which one you’re on. Naturalism is demonstrated to be essentially correct, but there are still gaps in its knowledge where the supernatural could be.

Is it then reasonable to assume the existence of a god with a multitude of attributes ascribed to it, a heaven, a hell, angels, demons, and so on?

Or is it more reasonable to wield Occam’s Razer and limit your number of entities until they are required?

Hmmm, I see what you mean. I had never considered the implications of chaos theory… nonetheless, it would still be physical processes that give rise to the mind, not the other way around. and if it isn’t the other way around, then there can’t be free will. the quantum states of your mind are as random and unpredictable and as unaffected by the mind as the quantum states of your average rock.

The hypothesis is that there is something about the human brain that alters the probability of a given output arising from a given set of quantum effects.

This is all assuming that determinism is a bad thing. When it comes right down to it, there’s no way (that we know of) to tell a wholly deterministic world from one in which there is free will. You could be living in a deterministic world right now, and you’ll never know.

technically, we don’t know enough about the nature of consciousness to determine whether or not other people have it! My point stands: if naturalism is true, than the mind is caused by physical processes, and any time this process occurs in nature, even if it is a single chemical reaction, consciousness occurs to some degree.

No one believes that it’s a single chemical reaction. Over-simplifying it in that fashion is like saying that if a computer can simulate the early universe then so can a single resistor. and battery. The things are wildly different in degree, a single chemical reaction and a brain.

 

[Candide_West]

The shuffling was neither complex or specified.

Well, it was clearly complex enough to exceed the UPB. And I can specify the outcome after it has occurred and calculate the odds against it (1x10^166).

So again the UPB has failed.

 

[zro_x]

Well, let’s take your example of two worlds where one is entirely naturalistic, and the other is both naturalistic and supernatural, but you cannot demonstrate the supernatural.

Let’s say you don’t know which one you’re on. Naturalism is demonstrated to be essentially correct, but there are still gaps in its knowledge where the supernatural could be.

Is it then reasonable to assume the existence of a god with a multitude of attributes ascribed to it, a heaven, a hell, angels, demons, and so on?

Or is it more reasonable to wield Occam’s Razer and limit your number of entities until they are required?

I really think that to answer this question would bring the thread off topic. However, I’ve created a new thread called, “Null hypothesis: valid or invalid?” on the first page of the philosophy forum if you would like to continue that discussion.

The hypothesis is that there is something about the human brain that alters the probability of a given output arising from a given set of quantum effects.

Right, but ultimately, the brain, itself governed by quantum effects, changes those probablilities, not the mind.

This is all assuming that determinism is a bad thing. When it comes right down to it, there’s no way (that we know of) to tell a wholly deterministic world from one in which there is free will. You could be living in a deterministic world right now, and you’ll never know.

That’s true, but I find that possibility very bleak and depressing.

No one believes that it’s a single chemical reaction. Over-simplifying it in that fashion is like saying that if a computer can simulate the early universe then so can a single resistor. and battery. The things are wildly different in degree, a single chemical reaction and a brain.

good analogy. You may have a point there.

 

[tonyrey]

The idea that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof rests with the theists.

1. The default position is that **all **interpretations of reality are equally possible.
2. The possibility that materialism is true is not worth considering because it is self-refuting.
3. A purposeless hypothesis is not only worthless but meaningless.

 

[tonyrey]

The issue is whether any type of computer, biological or not, can be rational in any valid sense of the term. Rationality presupposes insight and understanding. There is not one jot of evidence that computers know what they are doing or understand anything.

Solipsism is indeed a possibility but if it were true you wouldn’t participate in this discussion! There would be no point in bothering to waste your time and energy pretending to communicate with figments of your imagination…

There is still not one jot of evidence that computers know what they are doing or understand anything.

No rational conclusion can be based solely on a negation! That is why the absence of a scientific explanation is a red herring which leads nowhere. The fact that science has explained some things doesn’t imply that it can explain everything. I don’t conclude that thoughts are designed solely because there is no scientific explanation but because there is a cogent explanation that corresponds to our personal experience and, ironically, to the success of science.

Not exactly. Science can be successful without a directive mind.

An unsupported hypothesis!

Besides, that idea could be applied to everything. a couple centuries ago, I could have said," I don’t conclude that snowflakes are designed solely because there is no scientific explanation but also because there is a different cogent explanation.

1. You are assuming snowflakes are not designed.
2. It doesn’t follow that science is the sole explanation.
3. It doesn’t follow that science can explain everything.

(How exactly is this a case of mistaken identity?)

(Attributing another person’s post to me!)

If you adopted that view about life you would never do anything!

only if any two possibilities were exactly equally probable in any situation, which is what I believe to be the case here. The only way that Theism becomes more probable is by looking at miraculous and other explanations not generally attributed to science.

You are assuming that science is also metascience, i.e. that it can explain itself.

“may” has no scientific value. It is merely a supposition which confuses the issue.

This is not the case. We don’t know if robots will ever reach this state, but we can’t suppose that they won’t from our current knowledge.

Three negatives prove nothing!

…and if they do it would show that human behavior is possible without a mind.

Not at all. Robots are created by minds!

If you believed things cause your choices and decisions you would never make any! Don’t you rely on yourself rather than inanimate objects?

That isn’t true. Atheists make choices and decisions all the time, and they don’t believe that they are freely making those decisions.

What people do, what they believe and what they don’t believe are not necessarily consistent.

And I don’t know whether I rely on myself rather than inanimate objects. I can’t.

You would soon find out in a court of law!

“our” again presupposes an indivisible entity, i.e. a person, whereas natural objects consist of parts. How can you regard the brain which consists of countless events as one being? In addition to all its other flaws materialism infringes the principle of economy.

My guess for how atheists explain this sort of thing is that the brain contains itself in closed electrochemical interactions.

“contains” is not an explanation.

But I’m not an expert on this. Trurl, doxus, or candide west are probably better able to answer this question.

That remains to be seen… :ehh:

and anyway, you’ve come right back to your starting point. Not God of the Gaps, persay, but something like it. Here’s your basic idea, as I understand it:

We don’t know, and science can’t explain right now, how a series of atoms can give rise any single conscious experience and rationality. Religion provides a way to explain the phenomena of the mind. We don’t really know whether or not science will be able to explain these phenomena with future discoveries, but we have to live right now as if either theism or naturalism is true, and since theism has an explanation, I’m going to go with them.

All knowledge stems from intangible minds which are beyond the scope of science. The onus is on the devotee of science to justify faith in the ability of science to reduce minds to tangible objects, i.e. brains. In the meantime theism remains a superior explanation in every way.

I agree that we have to live as if one or the other is true, but I don’t think we can determine from science which of the two are more probable, because science has provided explanations for things previously directly attributed to a deity in the past. We have to turn to other methods: philosophical proofs, miracles, etc.

“things” is the key word. Science is restricted to impersonal objects without explaining truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty or love - all of which presuppose personal existence

The other problem is that religion doesn’t provide us with all the answers.

An impossible demand that leads nowhere! Religion provides us with the most valuable and significant answers.

It can’t explain how a mind can cause physical events, which is just as amazing and unexplainable as physical events causing a mind.

We have direct evidence of **our **power but none for mindless things. It is more logical, reasonable and civilised to give persons priority and respect in every respect!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, let’s take your example of two worlds where one is entirely naturalistic, and the other is both naturalistic and supernatural, but you cannot demonstrate the supernatural.

You are assuming the mind is a natural object.

Let’s say you don’t know which one you’re on. Naturalism is demonstrated to be essentially correct, but there are still gaps in its knowledge where the supernatural could be.

“essentially” begs the question. The most valuable and significant aspects of reality like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are intangible.

Is it then reasonable to assume the existence of a god with a multitude of attributes ascribed to it, a heaven, a hell, angels, demons, and so on?

Or is it more reasonable to wield Occam’s Razor and limit your number of entities until they are required?

One Supreme Being is infinitely more economical than a countless multitude of atomic particles.

The hypothesis is that there is something about the human brain that alters the probability of a given output arising from a given set of quantum effects.

A physicalist hypothesis which again begs the question…

This is all assuming that determinism is a bad thing. When it comes right down to it, there’s no way (that we know of) to tell a wholly deterministic world from one in which there is free will. You could be living in a deterministic world right now, and you’ll never know.

If you cannot choose what to think none of your conclusions are trustworthy!

 

[tonyrey]

You are a much better debater than Toneyrey, and don’t make the same sophomoric mistakes, assumptions, and fallacies he does. I’d like to continue with you, instead of having to teach basic science.

A false, discourteous and unsubstantiated allegation which infringes the forum conduct rules, does precisely nothing to further the discussion and reveals more about your character than anything else. It is highly significant that you have failed to produce one jot of evidence to support your supercilious statements…

 

[Candide_West]

So, quick question for anyone on this thread. Does anyone know of any evidence for rational design (other that those produced by humans)? If so what is it?

Thanks

 

[tonyrey]

I am being inundated with bad arguments.

Then you should cease producing them!

As though Science of the Gaps doesn’t exist!

Not that I’m aware of, unless you count saying “Give science time to figure out what’s there or isn’t there” as being “Science of the Gaps”. In that case you’re missing the whole point of the God of the Gaps argument, which is not that religion tries to explain things that science doesn’t, but rather that religion relies on ignorance and lack of information to bolster itself, and is weakened when science illuminates facts about reality that contradict it.

Gratuitous assertions which presuppose that science can explain not only itself but also the scientist and all the aspects of reality that are more valuable and significant than the things you can see, hear, touch, taste and smell… On what are your moral, personal and social values based?

A vice for the theist and a virtue for the atheist!
Your faith in the power of science is hardly justified by the absence of one synthetic cell after decades of research and experimentation by teams of highly qualified scientists working worldwide with the most up-to-date equipment in the finest laboratories. If fortuitous combinations of molecules can create it so easily why should it prove such a formidable task for the inventors of atomic weapons of destruction?

Heard of the phrase, “Moving the goalposts”?

That’s precisely what the materialist does when confronted with new discoveries - as in modern medicine which has discarded the atomistic in favour of the holistic approach to both physical and mental disorders: treat the person.

We don’t have the technology to build a cell from scratch yet. Know what’s cool though? We have discovered alternatives to DNA, that is nucleic acid that can store and encode genetic information just like DNA, but uses different molecules. There are a number of different varieties, collectively called XNA. They are entirely synthetic, non-natural molecules which have had actual DNA genetic information transferred onto them, then transferred back to DNA, then back to XNA, then back to DNA…

Oh yeah, reminds me. We also have synthetic DNA, synthetic genes–Michelin tires is experimenting with using bacteria that have a synthetic gene that allows them to turn carbon into rubber, for the production of tires.

No doubt there will be also synthetic persons in the not too distant future…

A synthetic cell is a ways off, but not as far as you might think.

Your faith is touching but a matter of speculation…

For how long? The rest of your life?

Like with god, I don’t believe in seeing the future.

Your faith in future scientific progress suggests otherwise…

A dogmatic assertion for which there is not one jot of evidence in addition to the fact that it would undermine your status as a rational being by depriving you of your ability to think for yourself…
Dogma implies it cannot be questioned.

Which is precisely what your reverence for the power of science implies!

You can overturn current thinking on neurology just by demonstrating with one well-constructed experiment that there is some aspect of consciousness that cannot not reside in the brain.

The onus is on the materialist to do the opposite given that our sole certainty and source of knowledge is our mind.

As is, we have a great deal of evidence demonstrating that it is based in the brain:

False deduction. It merely demonstrates that the brain is the **instrument **with which we control the body and communicate with others.

Brain damage can cause memory loss, change of personality, loss of the ability to speak, and completely vegetative states.
A blow to the head or too much of a psychoactive compound can cause one to loose consciousness
Researchers have found that they can roughly reconstruct what you “see” in your head when envisioning, say, a movie trailer, by using an fMRI scanner
Stimulating various regions of the brain can cause emotions, can invoke the feeling of being in god’s presence, can cause you to recall various memories, even specific ones like the scent of apple pie at your grandmother’s house.
People with various psychoses demonstrate varied brain chemistry from those who are “normal”; also, taking chemical drugs can alter your state of mind, whether it be LSD or Adderall.

All of those things seem to point to consciousness being based in the brain, don’t you think?

They merely point to the fact that the mind interacts

with the brain.
What would you prefer to have - a bodiless mind or a mindless body?

 

[tonyrey]

Faith is belief in things without evidence and in spite of all evidence to the contrary.I have tentative acceptance of the ability of science and physical evidence and reasoned logic to determine facts about our world because it has shown a remarkable ability to do so thus far. After all, it wasn’t theologians who created the transistor or the car or the air conditioner or the computer or the phone or the Haber process that feeds 2 billion people or the method by which high quality glass or plastic or can be mass produced or aspirin or penicillin or morphine or sanitation or modern plumbing or rockets to the moon or radio or the internal combustion engine or electric windmills or solar cells or blood transfusions or organ transplants or affordable, durable clothing made of synthetic materials or the modern chemical industry that allows the manufacturing of virtually any substance given time, or the modern manufacturing industry that allows almost any thing to be created, or don’t forget cameras and headphones and cellphones and microphones and cheap electrical power and batteries, or magnets or MRI scans or knowledge of how to treat, and in some cases cure cancer, oh and the eradication of smallpox…

And bad things as well, before you call me biased. Explosives for war and poisonous gases and nuclear bombs and pollution are results of science as well.

Science concerns itself with what is true.

Science concerns itself with what is true about physical reality. It tells us precisely nothing about truth, freedom, justice or love.

Unlike religion, it tests its predictions to FIND OUT if they ARE true. If they aren’t true, it looks for the truth, rather than dogmatically denying the evidence.

A distortion of the truth! The way you live isn’t based primarily or even mainly on scientific knowledge but on the cultural heritage of mankind.

The religious will assert that science does deny evidence, because they don’t understand what evidence is. There are standards that have to be met. Something as unreliable as a fuzzy feeling you get in church, or seeing a ghost out of the corner of your eye, or a crowd of people whipping themselves into a religious frenzy and all claiming to see Jesus at once. That’s not reliable enough to be evidence. Evidence must be repeatable. It must be substantiated. Preferably it should be measurable. Religious claims have yet to meet those criteria. I’m sorry. Maybe try praying really hard for Jesus to come down without killing everyone.

Those remarks sound as if they come from a fanatical atheist possessed by irrational hatred for religion and for Christianity in particular… This is supposed to be a philosophical forum not a psychiatric clinic!

Yes, actually. Indirectly, in the case of the UDHR which was somewhat politically motivated by the US. But yes, there is a scientific basis for ethics. Humans have a shared sense of empathy, and a sense of justice. Ethics is the balancing of those two things to come up with solutions to problems to the greater good of all.

The bloodstained history of the human race amply demonstrates the total inadequacy of empathy as a basis for morality. “the greater good of all” presupposes the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which are not to be found in any scientific textbook. A “scientific basis for ethics” is a fantasy which does not correspond to reality and has already led to numerous atrocities in so-called civilised nations.

Just because you’re made of star stuff does not mean you aren’t a person, with emotions and opinions and senses and thoughts. It doesn’t mean you lack free will. It doesn’t mean you aren’t entitled to dignity and the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. And that is what secular ethics are based on.

An illogical leap from science to philosophy!

The confusion of atheism with nihilism is something I addressed in my “Misconceptions about Atheism” thread, which was unfortunately deleted due to the rather inane rule that atheism is not allowed in that section.

But suffice to say, atheism and nihilism are not the same thing, and if you cannot grasp that then I cannot help you

Your false assumption about my “ignorance” is totally unjustified and reveals more about your character than anything else…

 

[tonyrey]

What would you prefer to have - a bodiless mind or a mindless body?

It may be more accurate to ask:

If you had to choose would you prefer to be out of your body or out of your mind?

 

[buffalo]

How have you managed to put up with these people for a year and a half? Jesus Christ on a bike.

Atheist girl is a civil poster…usually.

 

[buffalo]

I am not aware of any scientific conclusions to that effect. The multiverse hypothesis, and membrane hypothesis, and several others quite clearly allow for the existence of an eternal, infinite “universe” that contains ours. Researchers are currently investigating methods in which these hypotheses may be tested; unfortunately it will be decades before we know for sure.

/quote]

Most of them think it impossible to test.

In any case, the multiverse escape poses a few interesting things: there are fake universes, there is one with a God, and God forbid, one where you actually believe in Him.

It really only pushes back the question and materialists can escape reality for a few more years.

 

[buffalo]

The information comes from me to you. Where did I get it from is the what you have to decide, provided, of course that you have a working DOM. Did it come from a random process? Or did it come from a conscious designer?

You assume that you see a “message”. That is your first problem. Why would it have to be a message? It could be, of course, but then again it may not be. I could have transcribed the sand patterns on the beach, for all you know. Or I could have grabbed the results of consecutive roulette spins (and encoded them). Or maybe I looked at an EXE file under UNIX, and took a sample from that. This last one would be a designed example.

You claim that there is a difference between something complex and designed, and something complex and undesigned. As such you can find out if something is “designed” or not. Well, when push comes to shove - everything is information. I gave you information. You go and analyze it. When you can calibrate your DOM, then you will be in good shape, and then you can start to argue. But not until then. Of course you do not have any DOM. It is all smoke and mirrors.

Let’s go back to this:

The answer lies in how we process recognition of design.

Which of these two are designed and why?

http://www.svalbard-adventure.com/comp.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...ScZ-p3kTNX-J1xQU6WwmujVTnlGfkNmotEvPcYjDlVmKw

 

[buffalo]

Well, it was clearly complex enough to exceed the UPB. And I can specify the outcome after it has occurred and calculate the odds against it (1x10^166).

So again the UPB has failed.

You are still missing/denying the point about specified complexity.

 

[Candide_West]

You are still missing/denying the point about specified complexity.

What point? I’ve met the conditions you specified.

Quite obviously the outcome is of sufficient complexity as it far exceeds the UPB. And as soon as you’ve done a shuffle you can specify the result.

If you have more requirements than that then how about you say what they are?

 

[Trurl]

Let’s go back to this:

The answer lies in how we process recognition of design.

No, let’s don’t. I gave you all the necessary information of a well-defined problem. Apply whatever “process recognition of design” you wish, and separate the wheat from the chaff. I am simply not interested in evasions. You can either tell which one of those is designed (if any!), or you cannot. If you cannot, then I called your bluff.

 

[JDaniel]

Faith is belief in things without evidence and in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Doxus:

Not so. Faith is belief in things that aren’t immediately present to our senses. How many tests did Walter Reed have to perform, i.e., how man otherwise healthy people did he have to infect to be sure his thesis, that yellow fever is transmitted by mosquitoes, was true? How many people did he kill? Did he stand trial for those murders? It’s amazing: you cite the dogma without question and tell theists they’re nuts for doing the same!

I have tentative acceptance of the ability of science and physical evidence and reasoned logic to determine facts about our world because it has shown a remarkable ability to do so thus far. After all, it wasn’t theologians who created the transistor or the car or the air conditioner or the computer or the phone or the Haber process that feeds 2 billion people or the method by which high quality glass or plastic or can be mass produced or aspirin or penicillin or morphine or sanitation or modern plumbing or rockets to the moon or radio or the internal combustion engine or electric windmills or solar cells or blood transfusions or organ transplants or affordable, durable clothing made of synthetic materials or the modern chemical industry that allows the manufacturing of virtually any substance given time, or the modern manufacturing industry that allows almost any thing to be created, or don’t forget cameras and headphones and cellphones and microphones and cheap electrical power and batteries, or magnets or MRI scans or knowledge of how to treat, and in some cases cure cancer, oh and the eradication of smallpox…

No theist would disagree with science’s success. In fact, many of us know them only too well. My background was that of a biologist and biology teacher - it aided me in being atheistic. Now, a much wider view has enabled me to be a theist, and sometime scientist. To get back to the point, there are limitations to things. Lions don’t eat raw tree leaves and fruits. Giraffes don’t eat muscle, sinews and viscera. There are limitations. Religion, per se, does not say that it has scientific credentials, even though there are religious people who practice science, and there are science people who practice religion. But we are all mere human beings. Therefore our knowledge and intellectual acuities are limited - particularly in favor of our work, and in disfavor of those things that are not our work. Like Dirty Harry used to say, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.” And most don’t.

Science concerns itself with what is true. Unlike religion, it tests its predictions to FIND OUT if they ARE true. If they aren’t true, it looks for the truth, rather than dogmatically denying the evidence.

This is an assumption that is often touted, but, in reality, is not necessarily true. Take the example of Walter Reed given above. I’m sure he didn’t purposely infect hundreds of healthy people to test the various hypotheses for yellow fever’s transmission. That was done by dialectical induction. Surprisingly so was St. Thomas Aquinas’ methods.

The religious will assert that science does deny evidence, because they don’t understand what evidence is.

Sort of like how a fool denies that religious don’t understand what evidence is? Hmmm?

There are standards that have to be met.

Go to work in a scientific setting and report back on that! I have. Years ago, when the environmentalists weren’t as powerful, we used lots of rats and mice to test things. It was so haphazard, and our findings were so loosely verified. I had to leave it, but, found myself teaching biology, zoology and botany instead.

Something as unreliable as a fuzzy feeling you get in church, or seeing a ghost out of the corner of your eye, or a crowd of people whipping themselves into a religious frenzy and all claiming to see Jesus at once.

Seriously? Are you sure you want to leave this ridiculous assertion out there for the public to see? (How old are you?)

That’s not reliable enough to be evidence. Evidence must be repeatable.

No it does not, as I provided an example of above.

It must be substantiated.

No it does not, as I provided an example of above.

Preferably it should be measurable.

In some cases, but only those where measurability is important to the results.

Religious claims have yet to meet those criteria.

However, religious claims - at least those of the Catholic Church - meet other, equally reliable criteria, such as rigorous dialectic and valid inductions.

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Yes, actually. Indirectly, in the case of the UDHR which was somewhat politically motivated by the US. But yes, there is a scientific basis for ethics.

No there isn’t. Otherwise, pre-science era mankind would not have had any sense of ethics. Your statement is ridiculous, can’t you see that?

Humans have a shared sense of empathy, and a sense of justice.

Let’s you and I go tell that to a mafia don, shall we? Or, better yet, why don’t we go explain that to the myriads of bankers and politicians who are systematically pillaging the American people of their homes and futures?

Ethics is the balancing of those two things to come up with solutions to problems to the greater good of all.

And the bank fraudsters and their crony political friends have bilked American families out of billions - perhaps, trillions. Come on, use some common sense.

Just because you’re made of star stuff does not mean you aren’t a person,

Actually, we’re made of Space and about .000000001 % star stuff.

with emotions and opinions and senses and thoughts.

And, space and that tiny little bit of star stuff just, by sheer chance, configured itself, then re-configured itself perhaps billions and trillions of times into patterned, useful and purposeful things? Go ahead, answer this in the affirmative. I dare you!

The confusion of atheism with nihilism is something I addressed in my “Misconceptions about Atheism” thread, which was unfortunately deleted due to the rather inane rule that atheism is not allowed in that section.

Inane is as inane does, I always say.

But suffice to say, atheism and nihilism are not the same thing, and if you cannot grasp that then I cannot help you.

But they are: atheism is nihilism. There is no future in atheism. In the end, everything will return to it’s pre-configured state. So, all of this was for nought. Just a flash in the pan. Just a spark in the dark. Right? So, tell me how that denies nihilism?

God bless,
jd