Sunday, October 25, 2009

Above and Beyond the Call

I’m not sure that I can do atheists any longer. The last straw came when two atheists tried to say that intelligence was not required for complex design.

First, PZ Myers, idiot extra ordinaire showed a clip of a pile of drift wood lying on a beach as his refutation of the intelligence > design idea. He even compared the pile of sticks to a human cell and said, in effect, “See? God is not necessary for design.” Terribly sad, that one.

This was closely followed by an atheist who said that a can of paint thrown against a wall could create beautiful design and required no intelligence to bring this about.

Beside not having anything to do with the type of design spoken of in the fine tuning of the universe, to say that paint splashed against a wall was design without intelligence missed an important point.

I tried to show this by saying that the can of paint did not throw itself.

The atheist’s response was that it did not require any intelligence greater than the can of paint itself to throw the paint at the wall.

I asked if he thought that perhaps another can of paint threw the first can of paint.

The atheist, whose mind must have been almost completely starved for oxygen allowed that “an arm threw the paint.”

How desperate must one be to avoid the obvious, to even imagine that such a thing could pass for a sufficient explanation? Even if a machine had been invented to throw the can of paint at the wall, an intelligence would have been required to build the machine.

The fact is, intelligence IS required for both design and for information. We find design in the formation of the universe (without it the universe would not exist). And we find the need for intelligently designed information to be in place for one cell to reproduce or replicate itself.

Atheists, the same people who tell anyone who will listen that they only rely on the results of repeatable, observable, verifiable information, in the very next breath uphold their atheism with pure speculation. As an example, this same atheist said that he did indeed believe in eternal matter and the infinite regress of cause.

To openly ignore and / or deny accepted facts of science in order to preserve the absurd, illogical and incoherent concept of atheism leads to comments so profoundly stupid that I’m not sure I can continue commenting to the replies that I receive. My need to talk may override my weariness but seriously, how much can one person be expected to endure?

Of course I’ll continue to blog but as to answering comments - mmm, I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it.

25 comments:

SmartLX said...

I'm the paint can guy, and here's where it all went down. Since Mak doesn't seem likely to reply in there anymore, I invite folks to read the completed exchange for themselves.

Ginx said...

Have you ever looked at it the other way? There's all kinds of unintelligent things "designed" into not only nature, but humans.

Prurient urges, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the shape of our ears, even male nipples... none of it makes sense if we were designed.

Did He plant all this evidence for humans evolving from animals before or after He stuck dinosaur fossils into the ground? Is God just messing with us?

If complexity cannot arise from simplicity, how did God arise? Always was, always will be? God... universe... ah, semantics.

Hugo said...

@SmartLX
Isn't ironic that Makarios is wondering if he should continue replying to comments when he's the one who is not able to properlly adress them, whose putting straw man arguments forward, quote mining, etc... good thing you posted a link to your exchange under these circumstances!

@Ginx
I posted a comment similar to yours recently, concerning the fact that if we are designed, we would be a terrible design. It was funny because JD replied that it was my opinion. Well, duh, of course it's my opinion, but if anybody does not agree, they would make shitty engineers!!
Same hole for breathing and eating; playground next to waste managment, what a shame, lol

@Mak
It's funny, today at lunch time someone asked me if I am able to be mean with other people. Because you see, I can be direct and somewhat insulting on the net, but I am a very nice guy in "real" life, never talk against people, and always see the positive side of things.
But after reading the non-sense here on this blog and the constant undeserved insults toward Atheists who take the time to speak with you Makarios, I guess you deserve a rant, an unfriendly one...
I guess I'll take the time to do so, tonight perhaps :)

JD Curtis said...

Hugo, if 56% of all Catholic leaders were responsible for a MINIMUM of 20,000 non-martial murders of their subjects, what do you think would happen to the Catholic religion?

Hugo said...

@JD
I don't know, why? what are you trying to say?
I only suspect that people would stop following that kind of leaders...

JD Curtis said...

I asked what you think would happen to that religion. Insofar as "following these types of leaders", it's irrelevent. Maybe the could stage a coup d' etat if so inclined.

Gorth Satana said...

Hugo, if 56% of all Catholic leaders were responsible for a MINIMUM of 20,000 non-martial murders of their subjects, what do you think would happen to the Catholic religion?

I don't know where this question is coming from but I find it very interesting.

Maybe they could use the murders to consolidate power. Maybe it would make the leaders more likely to be followed.
It's interesting, I will think about it.

Hugo said...

@JD
I don't understand what you are asking me...

JD Curtis said...

Well...would people generally flock to such a religion or shun it?

JD Curtis said...

Maybe they could use the murders to consolidate power. Maybe it would make the leaders more likely to be followed.

I guess those are possibilities.

Gorth Satana said...

Well...would people generally flock to such a religion or shun it?

Ah, I understand. Well, looking back through world history, in my opinion, it could go either way.

Hugo said...

JD: "Well...would people generally flock to such a religion or shun it?"

Probably leave the religion of course... that's why I said "stop following the leaders"... they could still have the same beliefs but they would stop listening the leaders if they consider them as being bad people.

Is there something hidden under that question or it's just a general question out of the blue?

Hugo said...

Ya, actually as Gorth said, it could go both ways, because if the people killed by the leaders are the "bad" people, then the followers might be impressed and more likely to follow...

JD Curtis said...

looking back through world history, in my opinion, it could go either way.

I could agree witrh that. Being that I believe in freewill, I could believe that some people would want to follow a destructive belief system, Roman Catholicism or otherwise.

they could still have the same beliefs but they would stop listening the leaders if they consider them as being bad people

Yes. But what about the laity? Shouldnt the laity be encouraged to examine such a destructive religion and leave it behind due to the results of their having power over, say, an entire country?

Hugo said...

People associate themselves with each other because they feel that the people they associate with share common values and/or beliefs and/or "whatever you want"...

So anybody, of any group, would at some point feel uncomfortable to be associated with other people who they feel are not like them anymore.

Does that answer the question even if it's not using the same words? It's just more general...

JD Curtis said...

People associate themselves with each other because they feel that the people they associate with share common values

Yes I agree, they associate either because of common values as you say, or similar people may share in the reality that they lack "common value" or may even be nihilistic and consider little, if anything, is really of value. De accord?

Hugo said...

@JD

"De accord?" Was that supposed to be French? ;)

Oui je suis d'accord.

Yes I agree, because obviously, to use a group related to our discussions here... atheists are a group of people who share a non-belief, or even a denial of another belief depending on the people.

It's interesting that you brought nihilistic people as an example because I do consider myself a nihilist sometimes. My definition does not include the fact that nothing is important however, not at all, for me a nihilist is someone who consider humans as not being any more important than anything else. From a purely materialistic point of view, I agree with this. But don't take this the wrong way, I think that each and every human life is important and humans are much much more important than any other living things. I just accept the fact that we are all made of star stuff...

JD Curtis said...

"De accord?" Was that supposed to be French?

Oui, sometimes my wife's native language rubs off on me.

Now, if 56% of all atheist leaders were guilty of murdering (minimum) 20,000 of their own people, wouldnt such a belief system be "questionable" at best? Link

WARNING: Above link contains the quote...

"it must be kept in mind that the French Revolution was not a purely atheist enterprise; only two of the members of the Committee for Public Safety, d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne, were confirmed atheists. It is also true that the massacres may not have been a genocide proper, but rather the vicious aftermath of a civil war triggered by religious oppression and persecution by the Revolutionary French regime. But both the Committee and the Revolution were avowedly anti-clerical, and there is no question that the Revolutionary slaughter of 170,000 Vendéeans was primarily driven by anti-religious sentiment. So, the war in Vendée not only demonstrates the falsehood of the "religion causes war" theme, but also underlines the tendency of anti-religious regimes to commit large-scale atrocities."

Hugo said...

JD: "if 56% of all atheist leaders were guilty of murdering (minimum) 20,000 of their own people, wouldnt such a belief system be "questionable" at best? ..."

What's an atheist leader?

Look, let me cut you short because you're wasting your time. You are trying to give examples of atheists who did bad things. Who cares?

I judge people based on their actions, not their beliefs. But I do judge beliefs also. I can think you are a good person because of your good actions, and still think you're a douche for believing Jesus Christ, the only begoted son of God, and God himself through the flow of the trinity, was born from a virgin, performed miracles, died on a cross and resuscitated.

Thanks for the history lesson, I know very little about the French Revolution. I'll draw my own conclusions however, because yours suck.

"demonstrates the falsehood of the "religion causes war" theme "
you mean: demonstrates one example of a war not caused by religious fanatics

"underlines the tendency of anti-religious regimes to commit large-scale atrocities"
you mean: shows examples of regimes that commit large-scale atrocities

Overall, remember one thing, I don't care what they believed, if they killed 170,000 people, it's bad. If they did it because they believe in idea "X", well that does not mean that idea "X" is good, or bad, or anything!

JD Curtis said...

What's an atheist leader?

Head of State or member of oligarchy with sufficient power to directly order military forces into action without any limiting supervisor.

I judge people based on their actions, not their beliefs. But I do judge beliefs also. I can think you are a good person because of your good actions, and still think you're a douche for believing Jesus Christ, the only begoted son of God, and God himself through the flow of the trinity, was born from a virgin, performed miracles, died on a cross and resuscitated.

Right. Ony a very small percentage of any belief system have the propensity to commit murder or begin a war. However when confronted with the FACTS concerning this belief of yours than doesnt it at least make you the least curious as to why they are prone to commit such atrocites? Atheists constitute what? 3 or 4% of the population? Don't these numbers seem, a bit high proportionately?

Where's Gorth?

It's not a tendency? If I could provide even more numbers would you consider the folly of your belief system then?

Let me try and anticipate an objection here. A claim that atheism is a "belief" but a clear stement of non-belief. This is merely word play. It could just as easily be described as a belief that a presence is not there. Atheism isnt the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism.

Hugo said...

JD:Atheists constitute what? 3 or 4% of the population? Don't these numbers seem, a bit high proportionately?

What numbers are pretty high? You don't have stats saying that atheists in general do much worse things, and I would not care anyway even if you had some...

Plus can't you take 2 minutes of your precious time to go check? You were quite right for the USA:

USA : Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)

Canada : Roman Catholic 42.6%, Protestant 23.3% (including United Church 9.5%, Anglican 6.8%, Baptist 2.4%, Lutheran 2%), other Christian 4.4%, Muslim 1.9%, other and unspecified 11.8%, none 16% (2001 census)

UK : Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1%, other 1.6%, unspecified or none 23.1% (2001 census)

etc...

So what? It still does not matter. All the stats or tendencies you mention do not matter.
And you know there are stats that go they other way anyway... I won't bother go check all you wrote, anyway you did not put numbers but I know one is wrong. Prisons are not filled with atheists...

And no I would not object the way you anticipate it because I consider this discussion useless. Why don't you make correlations between age/birth place/gender/education level/income level instead of only with religion while you're at it?

I already made my point clear. I would only add this, to make it even "more" clear: People who do not believe in god, do not base their other beliefs on the fact that they don't believe in a god. So yes, you are correct, it's the opposite of theism, where people not only believe in a god, but also base a tremendous amount of beliefs on that, instead of going the other way around because they can't.
(Nothing absolute of course, for both theists and atheists; there are douche bags with all opinions...)

JD Curtis said...

All the stats or tendencies you mention do not matter.

No? Tell that to the insurance industry.

you know there are stats that go they other way anyway

No. I don't know that. I cited my numbers. What is the competeing claim?

Prisons are not filled with atheists

I wouldnt say that. Just 'very disproportionally represented"

People who do not believe in god, do not base their other beliefs on the fact that they don't believe in a god.

Compartmentalization: Look it up. Or perhaps Mak is nearby and could provide us with a good working definition of the word as it relates to Hugo.


Hugo. you are dismissing the moral code that is derived from the Judeo/Christian ethic and tradition. What does the atheist replace this with? Why is one competeing system better than another? Good luck with that.

Hugo said...

Tell that to the insurance industry.

lol, since when does religious beliefs constitute a factor when buying insurance?

I cited my numbers

huh? you did not make any valid point using a useful stats, you said there are 3-4% of atheists for example and said that the other "numbers" I don't know of were high compared to that...

Here's mine concerning prison, but I tell you, it's useless... lol

In "The New Criminology", Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10 of 1%.

W. T. Root, professor of psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said
"Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from penitentiariers or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendant of the NY State Reformatories, checked 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates.

In "Who's Who" 91% were college graduates, and he commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living" and that "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

Did you go to college by the way?

Compartmentalization

Nah, you just don't understand how I get to believe things. You don't ask anyway, you keep supposing you know what I believe :)

Hugo. you are dismissing the moral code that is derived from the Judeo/Christian ethic and tradition. What does the atheist replace this with? Why is one competeing system better than another? Good luck with that.

lol, I knew that would come at some point. You need to go watch the video I posted recently, and answer the question "Why don't you commit murder?". Then we can talk about that. But again, you just don't understand something so you thing it's bad. You cannot even imagine how I can be morale... it's pathetic, truly amazing and pathetic.

Tristan Vick said...

Intelligence is, in fact, not required for complex design. What could be more complex than DNA?

A recent study researchers have found that the genome adopts a "fractal globule" organization, enabling the cell to pack DNA incredibly tightly while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm

Gorth Satana said...

I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a visiting American lady.
She said something along the lines of:

"Most of the world's murderers are men. One hundred percent of the world's genocides were committed by men."