I am an atheist thread 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter _A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Minnie31 said:
In humans, the fetus is the development of a human life that takes place inside a woman’s body. The fetus is a part of the woman until birth, when it is detached from her.

…

You’re missing the point here. At the time of birth, a new life exists. The fetus is no longer physically attached to, or a part of a host (the mother).

…

This abortion issue has been addressed on the last thread and quite frankly it’s getting old and no longer very interesting.
Click to expand...
Actually the abortion discussion is far from complete and I am sad to see that you are finding it uninteresting.

Your terminology is disturbing. Calling the mother of an unborn infant “a host” is problematic to say the least. This is an insult to women and humanity in general. Moreover, it reduces the human being within her to a parasite. These terms are completely mis-applied and are not congruent with the truth of science. They do not belong in the discussion.

Let’s look at your argument and all of the typical arguments by abortionists when it comes to the unborn baby. The proponents argue that the unborn child is not a person based on the following:

Size, level of development, environment, and dependency.

You have already alluded to several of these elements. Now let’s look at them in order.

Size is really irrelevant because it is obvious to all of us that a one year old child is much smaller than a full grown adult. Likewise, some people are simply bigger than others. Size in human beings does not determine whether thay are persons or not.

The level of development is likewise irrelevant. No one would argue that a newborn is less of a person than an adult. If we use this kind of criteria for personhood, we could kill even pre-pubescent adolescents because they are not fully developed.

Environment does not determine personhood either. A man sitting in an airport is the same person he was before he left his home. Likewise, he is the same person once he is on the plane and flying at 30,0000 feet.

Dependency does not determine personhood either. If a person is in ICU at a hospital because of an illness or accident, that person is totally dependent on the medical staff. During that person’s two weeks in the ICU, he/she is the same person as before and after the medical stay.

None of the arguments proposed by pro-abortionists support their position. The unborn child is the same person inside the womb as he/she will be as an adult. Science tells us that life begins at conception. Human life and personhood begins at conception.

I hope that you will carefully consider these points.
 
_A said:
I think I can do it with dice.
Say you have 10 dice, and you have a target number of 5,6,4,1,2,3,1,6,4,3; it will be a long time indeed, rolling dice until this random sequence happens to come up.
I think without even calculating the odds (which I am not really qualified to do ) carefully, it is easy to see that if you are able to roll all 10, keep whatever matches your target, then roll the remainder, it would take considerably fewer rolls to achieve your ‘target’. …
Click to expand...
Yes, i’ve been thinking much about codes and probabilities. For example, binary code is just ones and zeros. Lets say the first byte of a line of code was 1001001. You want to achieve this result completely randomly, so you take a permanent marker and a silver dollar. On the heads side of the coin you write a zero with the permanent marker. On the tails side of the coin you write a one. You start flipping the coin eight times at a time, writing down the results as you do.

Now, the chances of getting the first number correct with the first flip of the coin is 1:2 (to the 1st power), or 50%, of course. The chances of getting the first two flips of the coin right are lower, as the possible outcomes are:

0,0 (heads, heads)0,1 (heads, tails)1,0 (tails, heads)

or

1,1 (tails, tails)
In other words, your chances of getting the first two flips of the coin correct are 1:2 (to the 2nd power), or 1:4, or 25%.

Now, to get all eight numbers correct in the first byte of binary code, your chances would be 1:2 (to the 8th power), or 1:1,024, or 0.09765625% or less than one tenth of one percent. Were i to write out all the possible combinations of ones and zeros for just one byte of of binary code, it would take up 1,024 lines of text, and require many, many replies to post.

That’s the chance of getting just the first byte of information of binary code right. How many times do you think you would have to flip the coin to get the binary number 1001001, A?

Looking at our example of a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system, there are 16,106,127,360 bytes. That would mean the odds of getting all the ones and zeros correct would be 1:2 (to the 8th power x 16,106,127,360) or 1:2 (to the 128,849,018,880th power). I need not calculate the percent chance, as it is so low as to obviously be an impossibility.
 
_A said:
… Selection pressure favored the changes which improved survival, such as a simple eye evolving over a long time into a complex one. Kind of like ‘keeping the dice’ and rolling again.
I am just learning, too. I recommend ‘Growing Up In The Universe’ a series of children’s lectures by Richard Dawkins. That is a good jumping off point, anyway.
Click to expand...
I see. In other words, you appear to be using the term selection pressure as synonymous to Darwin’s natural selection. I’m wondering one thing, however: Does not selection pressure, or natural selection, or “survival of the fittest” apply only to living organisms?

What we are discussing, here, is the probability that non-living, or inanimate, chemicals will combine to form the DNA of living, or animate creatures. I do not see how survival of the fittest applies to a mix of chemicals in a primordial sea.

For a quick study on the basics of DNA, i found this link helpful:

science.howstuffworks.com/dna.htm

Check it out, if you like, before answering my question of how selection pressure applies to the creation of animate beings from inanimate chemicals.

🙂
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
… Now, to get all eight numbers correct in the first byte of binary code, your chances would be 1:2 (to the 8th power), or 1:1,024, or 0.09765625% or less than one tenth of one percent. Were i to write out all the possible combinations of ones and zeros for just one byte of of binary code, it would take up 1,024 lines of text, and require many, many replies to post.
… .
Click to expand...
My mistake! It’s 1:2 (to the 8th power) or 1:512, or 0.1953125%.

:o
 
Thank you to everyone who is maintaining their charitablility on this very heated topic.

Please remember to keep the discussion on topic!

God bless-

Rachel
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
My mistake! It’s 1:2 (to the 8th power) or 1:512, or 0.1953125%.

:o
Click to expand...
I think the same selection pressures apply, but I have not looked deeply into how life began.
We were talking about how a code could organize itself into complex forms, and for that, selection pressure would definitely help.
How it started is still unknown to me.
I would not try to hide your god there, though. Biologists are uncovering mysteries all the time!
 
c659smith said:
A,

I do have a queston and that is do you consider yourself a moral person?
Click to expand...
I try to live by a set of morals, is that what you mean?
c659smith said:
Do you care anything about future generations?
Click to expand...
Yes! Especially my children.
c659smith said:
Do you consider yourself a person who basis decisions on science and common sense?
Click to expand...
Not always science (I don’t know that much science). I do try to use my senses, though ‘common sense’ seems to me either less than common, or less than sensible.🙂
 
Rachel_Malloy said:
Thank you to everyone who is maintaining their charitablility on this very heated topic.

Please remember to keep the discussion on topic!

God bless-

Rachel
Click to expand...
Thank you, Rachel.
While I don’t mind so much where the conversation may wander around my being an atheist, I would like to keep the temperature down.
Anyone know any jokes?

Anyone ever hear of the dyslexic atheist who couldn’t believe in dog?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
My mistake! It’s 1:2 (to the 8th power) or 1:512, or 0.1953125%.

:o
Click to expand...
There are a few things you’re not considering. Your basic strategy is to assign a probability to The Event (whether getting 8 heads in a row, or randomly generating Windows Vista), and then look at that probability and say, “See, it’s way too unlikely, therefore God.”

First problem, which I alluded to in my previous post on thread 2, is that you’re assuming all the trials are sequential, which is definitely not the case. Take your 1:512 scenario above. If you’ve got one guy flipping coins, it will take a pretty long time to come up with 8 heads, right? Figure T(8 coin flips) x 256. Each set of 8 coin flips might take 30 seconds, so 128 minutes.
But what if you have a few hundred people flipping coins at once? It’s easy to see that you will hit that 8 head sequence a lot faster. 128 / n. If *n * is really big, you can statistically expect to hit 8 heads in no time flat.

Same reasoning applies to forming a self-replicator in the ocean. Gotta remember, it’s a very big ocean, with lots of molecules floating around.

Second point is that the probability of a self-replicator forming from random amino acids may not be as remote as you’re thinking. No scientist since Lamarck (early 1800’s) has proposed entire modern organisms arising spontaneously out of chemical sludge. Hypotheses of abiogenesis assume that the first self-replicators were much, much simpler than modern organisms.

Natural selection would apply to any self-replicators, even if they’re not living organisms per se. So once a self-replicator is loose, A’s selection pressures come into effect, and your argument is out the window.

I’m a little bit confused by the theology behind your position. I think you’re saying that God created life on Earth in such a way that an honest examination will prove His existence. That seems odd to me. In the first place, God has always valued faith over proof. In the second place, wouldn’t that give 20th+ century biologists a pretty big theological advantage?

Don’t get me wrong. If you look at molecular biology and see God, good for you. Me, I see God more on the macro level - sunbeams and rainclouds and so forth. But I don’t think any of it will prove God to an impartial observer.

God bless!
 
_A said:
Anyone ever hear of the dyslexic atheist who couldn’t believe in dog?
Click to expand...
I always heard it as the dyslexic insomniac agnostic who’d lie awake at night wondering if there really was a dog 🙂
 
Way back when, A asked for evidence. Let’s give it a shot.

Assertion 1: Jesus was real.
Evidence: Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianium. Granted that there is no scholarly consensus about the TF. The text shows evidence of having been doctored, either maliciously or accidentally. But, given the Agapius quote from Josephus (quoting from an Arabic translation, which does not contain the pro-Christian extrapolations), it seems to me that Josephus’ original writings probably validated my assertion. Namely, that there was a man named Jesus, who was a religious teacher, and was crucified.

Proof? No. Corraborating evidence? Certainly. Furthermore, I would say that Josephus’s reference to Jesus is exactly as much neutral support as we can reasonably expect for a first-century religious leader in the boondocks of the Roman Empire. If it was a reference to anybody besides Jesus, there would be no dispute.

Assertion 2. Jesus was a religious teacher.
Evidence: Josephus’ TF, as above.
Tacitus’ Annals, which confirm that there are Christians in Rome around 55 AD.
Pliny - talks about Christians in Asia Minor around 100 AD.
Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, which talks about Jewish followers of “Chrestus”. Some say it’s a mis-spelling of Christus, some say it’s some other guy with a similar name. Not much here, I’ll admit. But I thought I’d include it for completeness’ sake.
Plus, there’s an obscure religion that still exists, which claims that Jesus was indeed a religious teacher. 😉

So far so good? I’ve got to go offline for a while.

Peace!
 
Pax said:
Let’s look at your argument and all of the typical arguments by abortionists when it comes to the unborn baby. The proponents argue that the unborn child is not a person based on the following:

Size, level of development, environment, and dependency.

You have already alluded to several of these elements. Now let’s look at them in order.

Size is really irrelevant because it is obvious to all of us that a one year old child is much smaller than a full grown adult. Likewise, some people are simply bigger than others. Size in human beings does not determine whether thay are persons or not.

The level of development is likewise irrelevant. No one would argue that a newborn is less of a person than an adult. If we use this kind of criteria for personhood, we could kill even pre-pubescent adolescents because they are not fully developed.

Environment does not determine personhood either. A man sitting in an airport is the same person he was before he left his home. Likewise, he is the same person once he is on the plane and flying at 30,0000 feet.

Dependency does not determine personhood either. If a person is in ICU at a hospital because of an illness or accident, that person is totally dependent on the medical staff. During that person’s two weeks in the ICU, he/she is the same person as before and after the medical stay.

None of the arguments proposed by pro-abortionists support their position. The unborn child is the same person inside the womb as he/she will be as an adult. Science tells us that life begins at conception. Human life and personhood begins at conception.

I hope that you will carefully consider these points.
Click to expand...
Here’s the difference, plain and simple: You see the fetus as a baby, a person, an individual. I see it as the *potential to be an *individual. Until it’s born, it does not exist independently of the mother. So comparing the fetus to an infant, man at the airport, etc. is like comparing apples and oranges.

If it makes you feel any better, I personally would choose abortion as a last resort. First of all, I’m married and my spouse & I would happily welcome a pregnancy. However, if I was in a situation where I became pregnant and it wouldn’t be the best thing for me to have a baby, I would opt for adoption. The only time I can imagine having an abortion is if my health was at risk.

Let me ask you this, do you approve of ending tubal pregnancies where the mother’s life is at risk?
 
Little_Mary said:
No, I am asking you what makes it wrong, if, in fact, you think murder is wrong to do.

Many non-believers agree that murder is wrong. My question to them, and to you is Why? Why is it wrong?
Click to expand...
If there is no afterlife, that means that this is the only one that myself or anybody else will get. As with most things, rarity only increases its value. This life is a wonderful thing, in and of itself.

I don’t need the temptation of eternal heaven to motivate me to do the right thing, I don’t need the threat of eternal hell to stop me from doing the wrong thing. Do you?

It’s in this life that you will be judged if you wrong somebody, and this life is the only one we have evidence for, so this is the only kind of judgement that can really be demonstrated as being important.

Are you running around killing people and stealing? I also am assuming you aren’t. Would you though, if you thought God was telling you to?
 
Why are there now two threads with the same title? Can we delete one or merge them somehow?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top