★★★★★★★★★★★★ [1 second conversion] Convert theist to atheist, in 1 sec

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
★★★★★★★★★★★★ [1 second conversion] Convert theist to atheist, in 1 sec

STATE PREMISE: Mankind observes things probabilistically, (empirical uncertainty principle. Also, recall that you “theists” see yourselves as NON-OMNISCIENT).

ASK: You claim to believe or know the existence of God to be TRUE/ABSOLUTE, BUT, how do you know truth/absoluteness is possible?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is the last post of this kind, amid my series: "Theists are probably trivially convertible."

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
This one must be better since

This one must be better since the time went from 4.3 seconds, to 1 second.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
Like "7 minute abs."

Like "7 minute abs."

ROYISM 's picture
That's why god belief does

That's why god belief does not rest on the scientific epistemology...

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Yes, but this one probably

Yes, but this one probably creates large doubt;
Theism is the belief that God's existence is true/absolute.

However, we aren't aware whether truth is possible, since we measure/observe events probabilistically.

This occurs on the horizon of theistic (and naturally, of non-theistic) non-omniscience.

MCD's picture
So, do you agree that god

So, do you agree that god belief rests on faith? If not, why not?

Do you also agree that faith is the excuse that theists give for believing in god or gods when their is no proof of the existence of gods.... and no good evidence to suggest that any gods exist? If not, why not.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
As the inventor of

@MCD

MCD QUOTE
So, do you agree that god belief rests on faith? If not, why not?

Do you also agree that faith is the excuse that theists give for believing in god or gods when their is no proof of the existence of gods.... and no good evidence to suggest that any gods exist? If not, why not.

As the inventor of 'non-beliefism' , I don't need certainty/faith/belief to observe probabilities.
(http://nonbeliefism.com)

As such, if we reduce the properties of the theistic God DESCRIPTION amidst science, we may see that god is any PROBABLY non-omniscient entity, with the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence. [ie mankind, particularly artificial intelligence researchers may become Gods, as defined above]

Scientific evidence of God, by an athiest:

https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f2...

MCD's picture
Your response is nonsensical.

Your response is nonsensical. Forget I asked

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
@MCD

@MCD

Your response is nonsensical. Forget I asked

This is the issue with atheism.

As as atheist myself, I invented 'nonbeliefism' as a framework for probably less bounded thought cycles.

Many atheists claim that God is not likely.

NOTE (1): My prior response does not define any empirical god, but INSTEAD, simply redefines theistic God DEFINITIONS, on the horizon of science.

NOTE (2): Science has for centuries, redefined theistic aligned nonsense, amidst sensible sequences. EG: Demonic possessions explainable as neuroscience aligned brain disorders

Whether you would care to observe, mankind is approaching particular theistic-God claimed characteristics, such as the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence. (where other features such as omniscience, omnipotence is scientifically UNFOUNDED)

ROYISM 's picture
All the stuff about

All the stuff about possibilities and probabilities are to do with the scientific epistemology. Faith simply doesn't work on that epistemology.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
@ valiya s sajjad

@ valiya s sajjad

All the stuff about possibilities and probabilities are to do with the scientific epistemology. Faith simply doesn't work on that epistemology.

Well, "theists" say they are NOT OMNISCIENT.

So, the original post ties in well with their non-omniscience.

chimp3's picture
PGJ : The unintended

PGJ : The unintended consequence of your repetitive posts is that believers are going to copy and paste your arguments and say :

"This is your brain on atheism".

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Atheism would be sufficient

@CHIMP3

CHIMP3 quote
PGJ : The unintended consequence of your repetitive posts is that believers are going to copy and paste your arguments and say :

"This is your brain on atheism".

Atheism would be sufficient to describe my 'condition'.
Nonbeliefism better describes it.

Anyway, this is the non-omniscient brain, rather than strictly my brain.

MCD's picture
Thanks. I thought it was

Thanks. I thought it was just me in connection with PG's bizarre responses

Alembé's picture
Hi PGJ,

Hi PGJ,

You state: "ASK: You claim to believe or know the existence of God to be TRUE/ABSOLUTE, BUT, how do you know truth/absoluteness is possible?"

Most of the theists that I know, really would not care about, worry about or understand your logical arguments. They just know god exists because that's what their mama, the pretty sunday school teacher and that nice preacher told them.

faith in God follower's picture
if there is no God who made

if there is no God who made male and female compatibly how does a child come into the world by senseless evolution mutations?i feel that there is more evidence for god then against.you know truth when something good works for you.Jesus said to pilate he is truth.like martin luther king once said the cycle of life bends to justice.He knew what truth is and was.

mykcob4's picture
@simply agnostic.

@simply agnostic.
Funny how you come to these absurd conclusions or that you could actually come to any conclusion at all. You can't even decide what YOU are! Pathetic!

MCD's picture
You're still making claims

You're still making claims about a god without providing any good evidence or proof that whatever god(s) you believe in actually exist.

Also, apparently you're back to being a theist again.

Calilasseia's picture
Let's take a look at this

Let's take a look at this shall we?

if there is no God who made male and female compatibly

You do realise that there is a burgeoning scientific literature on the subject of the evolution of sex? Which involves what we now categorise as 'male' and 'female' arising from simpler antecedents, such as the sexual differentiation system seen in yeasts. Here's your crash course in yeast sex.

Yeast cells can exist in two major forms, a haploid form (which can undergo mitosis and produce two daughter cells), and a diploid form (which can undergo meiosis during times of stress, and produce four haploid daughter cells). The haploid cells are the ones that can mate, and when haploid mating occurs, the participant mating cells fuse to form a stable diploid cell. Diploid cells can also undergo mitosis, producing two diploid daughters.

Now, in order to understand haploid mating, we need to look at the genes and how they affect the process. First, we need to locate a special locus on chromosome 3 called MAT. There are two alleles present on this locus, called MATa and MATα, for reasons I don't understand. These loci differentiate the cells into two types, a cells and α cells. Next, we need to locate two other loci on the same chromosome, called HML (Hidden MAT Left) and HMR (Hidden Mat Right). HML contains a silenced copy of the MATα allele, and HMR contains a silenced copy of the MATa allele. The names refer to their position relative to the MAT locus itself. Laying chromosome 3 out so that its short arms are to the left of the centromere, and the long arms to the right, HML is on the short arm, then MAT is on the long arm relatively close to the centromere, and HMR is on the long arm further away from the centromere. So, in effect, both a and α cells contain a copy of the MATa and MATα allele, but these copies are silenced. These come into play later. The active locus is the MAT locus itself, and this locus contains one of the two alleles, MATa or MATα.

Additionally, there is a separate gene called HO, which is activated specifically only in haploid cells, and which only then during the G1 phase of the cell cycle (the phase during which the cell absorbs nutrients and grows). It affects the identity of the cells, though the precise mechanism has yet to be fully elucidated. More on this later.

Now, let's return to the MAT locus. This contains either a MATa allele, or a MATα allele. These alleles contain two genes, viz:

MATa : contains genes a1 and a2

MATα : contains genes α1 and α2

These genes are the master control genes for a transcription sequence, involving some downstream regulation, whose ultimate products are a cell surface receptor and a substance released into the environment that can be thought of as a 'pheromone' of sorts. As you might guess at this stage, the 'pheromone' associated with the MATa genes is called a-factor, whilst that associated with the MATα genes is called α-factor. The cell receptors are named according to a different convention though - the cell surface receptor generated by the MATa genes is called the ste2 receptor, and the receptor generated by the MATα genes is called the ste3 receptor.

Basically, what happens is this. An a cell and an α cell, in close proximity and in condition for mating, release their respective 'pheromones'. When the ste2 receptor of the a cell detects the presence of α-factor, the a cell grows a projection in the direction of highest concentration of α-factor. Likewise, when the ste3 receptor of the α cell detects a-factor, the α cell grows a projection in the direction of highest concentration of a-factor. These two projections eventually meet, whereupon the two cells undergo fusion and become a diploid cell. This diploid cell has two sets of the 16 chromosomes of a haploid yeast cell, one with the MATa genes on its copy of chromosome 3, the other with the MATα genes on its copy of chromosome 3.

Now here's the clever bit. A cell that only has one copy of the MAT genes allows the HO gene to be active in those cells, whilst a cell with two copies (a diploid cell) suppresses the HO gene. The reverse is true for genes that are activated by diploid cells, such as IME1, but this is irrelevant here: it's included simply in order to alert the reader wishing to pursue yeast genetics further that some genes are haploid-active only, and some diploid-active only. Suppression of HO allows both diploid mitosis to take place, or meiosis to produce four haploid daughters under conditions of stress.

So, what happens to haploid cells between mitotic divisions? This is where HO, and those two silenced loci HML and HMR, come into their own. During the G1 phase of the cell cycle, HO becomes active, generates a DNA endonuclease that cleaves the DNA at the MAT locus, wherupon exonuclease enzymes are attracted to the site and degrade the DNA there. Now here's the crunch: having effectively deleted its active MAT genes, the haploid cell now copies one of the silent copies back into the MAT locus. The clever part is this: if the cell began as an a cell, it copies the silenced copy from the HML locus, and in doing so switches identity to that of an α cell. Likewise, an α cell, when it deletes its MAT genes, copies the contents of the HMR locus to the MAT locus, and thus undergoes an identity switch to an a cell. Why this happens is a part of the mating system that isn't fully understood, but it happens, and so, in between mitotic divisions, an a cell switches to become an α cell and vice versa. Thus, even if a yeast population is founded in a new location entirely from haploid cells of one type, that population can generate cells of the other type, and the now mixed population of cells can mate, produce diploid cells, and set about increasing the genetic variation within the new founder population via meiosis. Very clever, is it not?

Now it turns out that scientists can manipulate this system. Deletion of one of the copies of the MAT locus in a diploid cell will cause that cell to exhibit haploid behaviour, and the HO gene will be activated, resulting in type switching of the remaining undeleted MAT locus after each diploid mitosis. Addition of an extra active MAT locus to a haploid cell results in the cell exhibiting diploid behaviour, and suppressing the HO gene. This will prove fatal in times of stress, because the haploid cell will attempt to undergo meiosis, resulting in destruction of the cell.

In order to make the study of yeast genetics easier, scientists work with haploid strains that have had the HO gene knocked out, so that type switching never occurs, and such yeast cells cannot therefore produce the mixed populations required for mating and diploid formation.

how does a child come into the world by senseless evolution mutations?

Actually, the mutations in question aren't "senseless", they constitute whatever works in the current fitness landscape. It would be helpful if you actually bothered to learn what evolutionary biologists actually postulate, before posting nonsense of the above sort. And by finding out the actual postulates in question, I do NOT mean "visit creationist apologetics websites and lap up the lies contained therein on the subject". Try, for example, reading some actual scientific papers published by the relevant biologists, to learn about their actual work, along with the fact that evolutionary processes have been demonstrated to work time and time again in the biosphere. Indeed, those processes are now being harnessed by humans to perform "design" tasks of interest to us. I have several papers in the collection describing the requisite research.

i feel

What you "feel" is of no consequence, what matters is what data reality delivers to us.

that there is more evidence for god then against.

We've been waiting 5,000 years for supernaturalists to deliver this purported "evidence". All we've had thus far in lieu thereof, is apologetic fabrications. Time to start delivering some substance here methinks ...

you know truth when something good works for you.

No, you know what truth is when your postulates are supported by data.

Jesus said to pilate he is truth.

This is only asserted to have happened in the requisite mythology. Don't suppose you have external corroboration for this?

like martin luther king once said the cycle of life bends to justice.

Tell that to the raped Yazidi women who were taken as slaves by ISIS. None of whom will have their day in court.

He knew what truth is and was.

So ... that reliable evidence for your magic man again ... where is it?

faith in God follower's picture
@mykcob4.

@mykcob4. why don`t you rebut the arguments at hand, why the ad hominin attacks.don`t you have anything reasonable to parody?

Nyarlathotep's picture
simply agnostic - if there is

simply agnostic - if there is no God who made male and female compatibly

Loaded question. Notice how you slipped in the postulate that someone made males and females compatible, to a group of people you know don't accept that postulate? Dirty pool!

mykcob4's picture
@ simply agnostic

@ simply agnostic
You don't HAVE an argument. How do you explain asexual species?
http://education.seattlepi.com/five-examples-organisms-use-asexual-repro...
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just because humans mate to produce children doesn't in any way shape or form prove a god.

faith in God follower's picture
there is no hiding the fact

there is no hiding the fact that the world is mostly made up of straight people, the desires for the other gender are rampart.it is a proven fact by the population bearing that out over 6 billion people, the majority which are homosapiens heterosexual. tell me can homo sexuals breed children? I don`t think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nyarlathotep's picture
non sequitur

non sequitur

Algebe's picture
"the desires for the other

"the desires for the other gender are rampart"

I feel absolutely no desire for castle walls.

"the majority which are homosapiens heterosexual"

So what? The majority are also right-handed. Live and let live.

MCD's picture
Your comment is bizarre.

Your comment is bizarre. Most people are straight and some are gay. Thanks Captain obvious

Calilasseia's picture
Care to explain to us all why

Care to explain to us all why homosexual copulation has been documented in the scientific literature, taking place in insects?

Indeed, as a student of invertebrate zoology, I've encountered invertebrate species whose sex lives would make you blow an artery.

doG's picture
So, that's what your god

So, that's what your god thinks? They can't breed, so, kill them? LOL Nice God.LOL.

Did you know your buybull/god thinks that homosexuality is a choice? How is it a choice when sexual orientation is decided in utero, prior to birth. Why does your god not know genetics?

Kataclismic's picture
Some people are born with two

Some people are born with two heads, most aren't, so there is no god.

Cognostic's picture
@ ProgrammingGodJordan

@ ProgrammingGodJordan "theists” see yourselves as NON-OMNISCIENT"

I do not think this is a reasonable interpretation of the theist position. The theist claims to KNOW everything. "God did it and God works in mysterious ways." They may not understand why god did it but they do profess to know it all by asserting the CAUSE OF ALL is their GOD.

How do they know - faith and belief. Faith is what you have when you opt to believe something without any facts or evidence supporting it. If there were facts and evidence, faith would not be needed at all. First you believe the stupid stories you hear are true and then you believe them.

It's like someone telling you that if you go outside in the snowy winter with wet hair and no jacket, you will catch a cold. If you believe this, you are actually forgetting everything we have learned about the medical theory of disease. Colds are caused by virus. If you are not exposed to a virus, no matter how cold you get, you will not catch a cold. You just shut off all logic and simply believe.

Sheldon's picture
A timely reminder that the

A timely reminder that the absence of belief in A deity doesn't make you rational, or even sane.

When an atheist indulges the same kind of irrational verbiage religious apologetics produces, does it make Jusus cry?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.