Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
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.
Donating = Loving
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Wasn’t your argument that the E Coli experiment is an example of evolution because it produced increase in complexity?"
Creatures can involve without increasing complexity. For example a deletions or redaction does not increase information, but they do cause a genetic change, which can be selected for.
You are the one that said evolution needed an increase in complexity, so i offered you can example that had it. You asked for my argument, not yours.
This whole formalization business started because of your definition of complexity. I was trying to prove that your definition ill fits the example for evolution... and you were trying to prove the contrary. THerefore, complexity was at the center of our discussion.
And lo! Now you are saying that complexity is irrelevant to prove evolution. How conveniently you shift your goal posts.
I have to say at this point that you have been a bundle of contradictions throughout this discussion.
You were accusing me of using ill-defined terms initially, and when it was convenient, you had no compunction to use am ill-defined term (Traits).
At another instance, when you hit a wall, you suddenly began to philosophize saying that nothing at all in the world can be proved or disproved, neither God nor Evolution. And then you go on to argue vociferously in favor of evolution.
You were persistently asking for definition of complexity, and even provided your definition for it. But when I presented a strong case to show that it doesn't work in the example of the E coli experiment, you rambled into formalization and other jargons. At the end, here you pull yet another rabit from your hat: complexity is of no consequence for evolution...
I had explained in a detailed manner why genetic variation that gets selected, but loses complexity, only explains for devolution, and not evolution. You did not even touch that point. Instead, you continue your assertions blindly. By your own admission Ecoli experiment shows loss of specificity in the enzym ... yet you continue stressing, without explaining, that it's a good example for evolution.
It really doesn't make any sense to continue this argument, because you are extremely inconsistent.
Valiya - “This whole formalization business started because of your definition of complexity. I was trying to prove that your definition ill fits the example for evolution... and you were trying to prove the contrary. THerefore, complexity was at the center of our discussion.
And lo! Now you are saying that complexity is irrelevant to prove evolution. How conveniently you shift your goal posts.”
I never said an increase in complexity was required for evolution, that was your argument. I tried to show you that evolution CAN lead to an increase in complexity (but that it is not required).
---
Valiya - “You were accusing me of using ill-defined terms initially, and when it was convenient, you had no compunction to use am ill-defined term (Traits).”
You were the one who introduced the term trait to the conversation: 11/22/2014 - 13:41, 11/24/2014 – 07:28, 11/26/2014 – 22:16, 11/26/2014 – 22:49, 11/26/2014 – 23:46
---
Valiya - “But when I presented a strong case to show that it doesn't work in the example of the E coli experiment, you rambled into formalization and other jargons.“
You made the illogical argument, I made one post about the form of your argument showing it was doomed from the start. The rest of my posts involving formal arguments were at your request!
---
Valiya - “I had explained in a detailed manner why genetic variation that gets selected, but loses complexity, only explains for devolution, and not evolution. You did not even touch that point.“
I had no idea what “devolution” is. I looked it up and it has something to do with laws and government. I don't see how it pertains to the conversation.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Evolution doesn't distinguish between progressive genetic mutations or regressive ones, it considers them equal. While it may not be exceedingly common for things to evolve a regressive mutation or trait, it still happens and is part of evolution by natural selection by its definition, there is nothing at all in evolution that states things must progressively evolve if a regressive mutation better suits the environment and improves survival. The fact that it does occur is actually BETTER evidence for evolution than if it never did, because it demonstrates natural selection and population mechanics and how it accounts better for changes in allele frequency over generations. I think there are some fundamental misconceptions about what evolution is at play here, and I am not sure if the conversation could possibly progress until it is dealt with. So let us deal with that first:
Evolution is a change in allele frequency over successive generations, these changes cause biological changes in a population or species, and these changes accumulate over very many generations to produce biological diversity. Nearly nobody, even creationists will be willing to argue that the first two do not occur, because it is an an obvious phenomena that we can see in a short period of time. It is the last that is being argued, and that is like saying you can crawl but never run, without solid reason to believe that an accumulation of such changes could not produce profound change we have no reason to doubt it. However, instead of dealing with that specific problem, they merely state that it can't be observed in a short time so it didn't happen. Their real proposal is that the Earth, and even the universe, is very young and just appears to be old, as if some cosmic practical joke has occurred.
While it is true that we cannot prove that the universe and everyone in it wasn't created five seconds ago, with everything just the way it is and our false memories of a nonexistent past, that is no good reason to believe that it is so. That makes it unreasonable, and while it could be possible, it isn't a possibility worth consideration by any rational being. The universe and our planet appear old, evolution appears to occur, and instead of admitting it they deny it appealing to stories written by primitive people a millennia and a half or more past. It is ridiculous, and abortion of all reason, and no matter how one justifies it, a heresy against the reality we do happen to live in. It is not, particularly, that I hate your religion of choice; but that I accept the reality I live in without hammering it into a presupposition framework that reinforces a failed belief.
You SAID: “I never said an increase in complexity was required for evolution, that was your argument. I tried to show you that evolution CAN lead to an increase in complexity (but that it is not required).”
The last leg of our discussion was of course centered on complexity. The main point of my contention was that the E Coli experiment can’t be an example of evolution because it loses complexity. And that’s what you were trying to refute so hard. Even coming up with a definition for complexity. And in that context when I ask you to present the formalization of your argument, it is basic common sense that you have to factor ‘complexity’ in your formalization. But you just threw it out conveniently. That’s because your definition of complexity was such a misfit for evolution.
YOU SAID: “You were the one who introduced the term trait to the conversation.”
I didn’t say no. But what was your response when I was using that term. You accused me of using ill-defined terms, and dismissed my argument. And then you throw your own principle out of the window and use the “ill-defined” term. This only shows that you knew all along what I meant by trait, but you were only creating smoke screens to duck the real question. When you used the term ‘trait’ although I could have rejected your argument showing your principle, I was gracious enough to answer it logically, instead of ducking it.
YOU SAID: “You made the illogical argument, I made one post about the form of your argument showing it was doomed from the start.”
I showed to you how your formalization doesn’t answer the moot question, that E Coli is a member of evolution. And then you said that it was my argument you were formalizing. So I asked you to present a formalization of your argument. That’s when you came up with the formalization without factoring complexity in it. That was dishonest, because as I had explained, complexity was at the center of both our argument in that phase of the discussion. In fact, we got into formalization because you defined complexity.
YOU SAID: “I had no idea what “devolution” is. I looked it up and it has something to do with laws and government. I don't see how it pertains to the conversation.”
This demonstrates your dishonesty again. I had explained what I mean by devolution, in the following way: “...it would mean that organisms were devolving to become more and more primitive.” You just need basic common sense to understand what i mean by that. You have once again demonstrated your tactic of ducking the real question by taking cover behind ambiguity when there is none.
Hi TRAVIS
Firstly, I want to appreciate you because unlike NYARLATHOTEP you don’t pretend that you didn’t understand my argument of ‘devolution’ and you have beautifully explained it as ‘regressive mutation.’ Now, let me explain my position.
It’s actually very simple and commonsensical.
What we are observing in nature is massive biological diversity. Evolution is an attempt at explaining this diversity.
What it says is that life began from very primitive forms and progressed to higher and higher forms of complexity to the levels that we see today.
This direction of progress is very important. If someone explained to you that man came first, and from him apes, and then lower and lower beings until we have amebas, would you accept that explanation? I am sure you wouldn’t. Keeping that logic in mind, let’s proceed.
Now, I want you to show me a proof for evolution. So, you come along and show me a genetic variation with selective advantage caused by mutation. But when I scrutinize it, I see that instead of becoming more complex, the new mutant shows a loss in complexity. In other words, you show me an example of evolution in the reverse direction (man to ape).
Now, am I not justified in rejecting this genetic variation as a viable example for evolution?
If you can show me examples where genetic variation produces more complexity, and in their midst you also have variations that lose complexity and get selected... I wouldn’t have a problem. I can accept your claim.
But please note: there is not a single example of a mutation (from all the observed mutations in the world) which produces complexity. NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE. Isn’t that some issue to think about? If you have any example, please produce them.
It’s really simple.
Valiya,
Now we may be getting somewhere. If someone had told me that ape had evolved from man, and could produce fossil and genetic evidence, I would likely believe them. Why? Because evolution does not happen in a straight line. There is no goal or necessary conclusion to evolution, our intelligence is no more valued by evolution than an apes strength. Given the right condition, like the need for greater strength and jaw muscle, we would likely adapt over many generation to appear very apelike. It was an adaptation away from jaw strength that actually allowed for a larger brain, hence our intelligence, in the first place. I can talk more about this if you wish.
Now, on to your question. Can I show examples of mutations/variations that produce greater complexity? Perhaps some peer reviewed examples and sources would do:
How about increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)?
What about increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)?
Perhaps novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)?
Maybe novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)?
I mean, how are you defining complexity? If it some ever-shifting thing that one can redefine as it suits them, then I am not sure any example I could give would be enough. I mean, no living being will likely see any great genetic change in their lifetime unless they live thousands of years, because that is how long it takes for large-scale changes to occur. We have proven the process of mutation and selection can increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000). I am just not sure exactly what you want. Perhaps a single step mutation?
http://aem.asm.org/content/61/5/2020.long
Nope, it isn't Nylonase, it actually did inherit a frameshift mutation. It couldn't be any clearer that it CAN occur, that new complexity can emerge, I just don't see how you haven't heard of it by now.
Interesting arguments Travis.
I will get back by tomorrow.
Valiya - This demonstrates your dishonesty again. I had explained what I mean by devolution, in the following way: “...it would mean that organisms were devolving to become more and more primitive.”
This issue with "primitive" and complexity is a common misconception about evolution. Some people seem to feel that evolution requires that creatures get bigger, stronger, more complex, smarter, or something like that. This is not a requirement, In fact it contradicts observation. The most prolific form of life on this planet is bacteria. For billions of years it has been the most prolific form of life, and will be the most prolific form in any foreseeable future. Large multi-cellular life forms are an outlier produced by a drunkard's walk.
Nyarlathotep
Evolution, whether you agree or not, is indeed trying to explain why organisms got bigger, stronger, smarter etc. It is not just trying to explain why certain species are more prolific than others... because to explain this you just need selection. But we know that the main engines of evolution are ‘Mutation’ and ‘Selection.’ Mutation is the engine that causes change (bigger, stronger etc.) and ‘Selection’ is the engine cause them to become prolific.
"From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes."
"Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution."
-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-human-race-evolvin/
Nyarlathotep
In this latest post you have not answered any of my points. You have just repeated your argument with quotations from god knows who? WHy should i buy any of these quotations? If i quote theist scientist bashing evolution, would you accept it? You have to provide logical arguments.
There is nothing to answer at this point. You started off with the lie "so far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide", and you won't even admit that is wrong. Until you admit that was a lie, there can be no more conversation.
This is another tactic you use other than shifting goal posts when you hit a blank wall. Going back to arguments that have been already answered, done and dusted...
I am not even going to answer this... as I have done it many times in this thread. If there's nothing new to add... I think we will end it here.
TRAVIS
I must say that all your posts are very thought provoking. And whether we would agree or not with each other at the end of this discussion, I am sure I will have learnt some useful stuff from you.
Now, let me give you my opinions on your points.
YOU SAID: “If someone had told me that ape had evolved from man, and could produce fossil and genetic evidence, I would likely believe them....”
I agree with you 100%. However, if someone showed you only this example, and from this he extrapolates that therefore species evolved from primitive ones to more complex ones... would you buy that argument?
I wouldn’t buy it, for the simple reason that the extrapolation goes in the opposite direction to what is observed. I would only accept the argument to the extent that primitive forms can emerge from complex ones.
But is this explanation something you can rest easy on? No. Because evolution says that things started from the most primitive of organisms, a unicellular bacteria may be. And then it progressed in stages, becoming more and more complex at each level. Therefore at each level, there essentially must have been a ‘Progressive Mutation’ one that added complexity. This is a must. There could have been ‘Regressive Mutations’, one that reduces complexity… but that doesn’t add any value to the theory. Take out regressive mutations, and the theory still stands. Take out progressive mutations, and the theory falls.
That is why I insist on seeing examples of mutations that add complexity.
To show a regressive mutation and trying to explain evolution is like showing the example of a person who loses weight by dieting on healthy food, and extrapolating that people in Somalia are thin because they eat a lot of healthy food.
YOU SAID: “Why? Because evolution does not happen in a straight line. There is no goal or necessary conclusion to evolution, our intelligence is no more valued by evolution than an apes strength.”
If evolution is not happening in a straight line, there should be examples of both kinds of mutations – ones that reduce complexity and ones that add complexity. If you show me only one type, then why should I even consider that it happened in the other way also?
YOU SAID: “How about increased genetic variety in a population.”
You will have to explain it in more detail, only then I can comment on this. In fact I have heard similar arguments but they all turned out to be an already existing trait taking over the population. Like the black moth during London’s industrial revolution. May be I am quoting a wrong example here. Therefore, I need more explanation please.
YOU SAID: “Perhaps novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)?”
That definitely sounds interesting. If it is indeed talking about a novel trait, something that was hitherto not existing, then that would be something to consider. Please explain.
YOU SAID: “I mean, how are you defining complexity? If it some ever-shifting thing that one can redefine as it suits them, then I am not sure any example I could give would be enough.”
This is a valid point... and as you must have found out from my discussions with Nyarlathotep... it was also a point that we strongly differed over.
But I am sure you would agree that it is a bit tricky to explain, because it involves a lot of things – gene content, traits and so on. We know of mutations that increase genetic content, but harms the organism. We know mutations that deletes genetic content, but gives an advantage to organism. So, how put this in some perspective?
Moreover, here we are stepping into realms of scholarship. I don’t know what your level of knowledge is, but I am nowhere near scholarship on this issue. I have been reading up as much as I can, and I absorb as much as I can understand. Therefore, forgive me if what I am going to say below falls short of your expectation.
I wouldn’t venture to define Complexity, but I will only explain what I think we need to consider while discussing complexity. To put it simply, I would like to see a new trait emerge in the organism. Now, you would ask me what is a trait? I would consider any new functional ability or physical feature in the organism produced by mutation as a new trait. But bear in mind one thing. It cannot be the result of a reduction in an already existing trait.
What do I mean? Say, an organism has ‘yellow’ and ‘blue’ pigments in its skin. A combination of these two pigments will make it look ‘green.’ If a mutation destroys the ‘yellow’ pigment, the organism will appear to be ‘blue.’ Say, the organism lives in a ‘blue’ environment, and this would enhance its camouflage abilities. Now, that would definitely be perceived as a new trait (both in physical feature and function). However, we know that it is actually not a new trait. The ‘blue’ was always there. This is ‘regressive mutation’ clearly.
Therefore, I think we only go case by case. You will have to present your example, and I will want to assess it to see if it passes the requirements for ‘progressive’ mutation. I will give you logical explanations for my argument… and not blindly dismiss any example.
Valiya,
You asked if someone showed me only the example I provided, and from this he extrapolated that therefore all species evolved from primitive ones to more complex ones If I would buy that argument. I would say that wouldn't settle the matter, but it would definitely prove that evolution can add genetic information, as that is the example I provided. From there it still requires study, a great deal of study, to understand how it occurs. I will try to answer your questions as well as I can, and hopefully provide useful links to help you understand my argument, even if you still don't agree with it afterward. Let's get started.
You asked for an explanation of genetic variety in populations to understand why it points to evolution, or if it is actually an example of increasing complexity. The reason why I asked if it would count is because it is an example of genotypical evolution, genotypes vary across multiple bacterial strains in the lab to produce a testable marker for fitness when introduced into new substrates. The reason why and what bacteria are chosen is because bacteria can reproduce rapidly, and some of them are more adaptive than others, so we generally do most of our research on bacteria so we can observe change over a great number of generations. I will link the article below that I cited originally, though it is a bit long winded, I mainly threw it up there to see if anyone was paying attention. The article is actually about your earlier argument about E. Coli, and was a rather good thesis on why we don't actually consider it a relevant example of microbial evolution, because some of the procedures are rather sloppy by modern standards.
http://lenski.mmg.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1995,%20ARES,%20Sniegowski%20&%20Le...
I laughed when no one caught it, but I did provide the Pseudomonas Aeruginosa example, because it actually IS a relevant example. It was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation, this is important for two reasons. It means that bacteria can mutate entirely new enzyme chains(new traits) to metabolize such xenobiotic compounds, and carry them across cell membranes, which shouldn't be possible outside of extreme genetic change. Think of it like lions suddenly eating and metabolizing plastic, it is just as strange, and just as mind-blowing. The other reason it is important is that it means that with enough time and funding, we may be able to find beautiful microbial solutions to ugly environmental problems. Think of it as a bonus we can all get behind.
I am not sure I have the time to go into everything, but I think I will go ahead and try to give you an example of increasing genetic material, and novel replications anyway. Many bacteria are capable of taking up DNA from their environment. This was the basis of the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment which was an important step in our understanding of molecular biology. Some of these small circular pieces of DNA have their own origin of replication and encode the means for their transfer from organism to organism, a hair-like projection called a pilus. This is not that far removed from virus particle which can detach from the host cell. Viruses can insert some of their DNA into the genome of the host cell, and there is evidence that the genomes of organisms contain many chunks of inserted viral DNA, and the distribution across species indicates that many of these events were ancient.
Going back to replication as a mode of increasing genetic information, we have one of the most useful means of seeing increases. Normally, both daughter cells get equal halves of the doubled genome. Occasionally the information is not evenly balanced. One of the first observed speciation events was the appearance of a tetraploid (four copies of each chromosome) primrose. Tetraploidy is common in plants and a past doubling of the genome of baker's/brewer's yeast has been shown. One of the best examples of gene formation was the addition of three copies of a novel gene sequence for a sugar uptake protein in yeast grown in very low sugar medium for many generations.
I would type more, but I am tired, I need some rest.
Hi Travis,
Fascinating stuff!
Question from a non-scientist (hope you don't mind):
You said that viruses can insert some of their DNA into a host cell. Does that inserted DNA then get passed to succeeding generations?
Yes, they are call Heritable Enogenous Retroviruses. They compose approximately 1% of our DNA, and we share a number of them with other primates, both primates and us share these HERV's with other mammals as well. I will link an article that you can read that will explain the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/
There is also a search bar at the top of the page, if you enter HERV or ERV you will find eight or nine hundred pages of papers on the subject.
Thx!
Hi TRAVIS
You are making me work really hard now. I have been reading up a lot of nerdy stuff after your post. I am making progress. The thing is there are so many conflicting opinions by experts and they touch upon really technical details that it's making it hard. I am still stuck with nylonase... and I am yet to even begin on your other points.
I have been trying to get some answers. If you can help me, it will be great:
1. How many generations did it take for the mutation to occur? And how long was that?
2. Did the mutation occur in one single bacterium, or was it in a certain percentage of the bacteria population?
3. What have you to say to arguments about the mutation not being a frame-shift type?
nb4: not 'new' information
From what I have read up so far... it is new information. But the question I am after is the randomness of the mutation. While there are some scientific papers that I have been reading which also suggest that the new enzyme was produced by preexisting esterases. So, I am at it. Let's see.
1. They weren't concerned with generations, specifically, but time. It says that after 20 hours they observed the strain, it takes P. aeruginosa about 20 minutes to undergo binary fission, so let us see. Twenty hours, or 1200 minutes divided by 20, is 60 separate fission events. Cells are produced geometrically, so are generations, to illustrate I will recount seven fission events and show the mathematical result.
1st. 1. This is the emergence, the first of the new strain.
2nd. 2. The new bacterium undergoes binary fission to reproduce, doubling its number.
3rd. 4. It doubles again.
4th. 8. And again.
5th. 16.
6th. 32.
7th. 64. So in just 140 minutes we have 64 generations.
2. It occurred in a single individual, as all mutations do, and the fitter individual geometrically reproduces until they take over the culture.
3. People don't seem to understand what a frameshift mutation is. If an organism gets new information in the 626th out of 1200 genes, all 574 after that are sequentially changed as well, that is what it is. Here is a small example, let us say that you have an organism with this genome:
CTTACGCATTCGATC
It gains two new bits:
CTTACGC AG ATTCGATC
We use triplet reading to define the frame, so when a change occurs that isn't a multiple of three, it shifts the frame like so:
|CTT|ACG|CAT|TCG|ATC|
|CTT|ACG|CAG|ATT|CGA|TC
This effects far more than simply how we read it, but how it is transcribed and activated as well, effectively changing the entire DNA sequence of the organism.
Almost any day of the week in the media,there are stories of pure evil and the most depraved acts.Whether it be extremism in The Middle East or yet more children being abused by priests in The West,i've yet to hear of an Atheist group or individual being identified as perpetrators.
If you really believe atheism creates a moral vacuum then surely it can only be better than any offering from religious groups,i find it ironic that the OP states "the powerful is always going to find a justification to exploit the weak" which is exactly what religions have been doing since man fell out of the trees.
The only time I know in history when atheists formed institutionalized groups was during the communist era. And look what happened in Stalinist Russia, Polpot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China… on a conservative estimate about 21 million non-combatants were killed under these regimes. Even today, China ranks high on the list of human rights violators.
And most of those countries have either disintegrated or changed their political systems. So, when there are no atheist groups that are identifiable, asking me to name a group that indulges in crime, is an impossible task. Secondly, talking about individuals, say one Mr John does a crime. He is identified as a Christian, even if he might be an atheist in his persuasions. The religion of a criminal is never given any preference during crime reporting… we just make conclusions based on the person’s name. And there is no way to tell an atheist. Therefore that’s impossible too.
That’s why I feel engaging in such talks as to who is doing more crime and such stuff is quite irrelevant. If a person calls himself a believer (believing that God is watching him and that he is accountable for his actions) and he goes around committing these crimes, it would only mean that he is really not a believer.
Will any thief steal if he knows that the security cameras are watching him and that he is surely going to be convicted for his crime?
Whereas an atheist, remaining a true atheist, can commit crimes, because he doesn’t have fear of accountability. He has got no principles to live by. All his values are only relativistic. This is the reason I feel an atheist lives in a moral vacuum.
"Whereas an atheist, remaining a true atheist, can commit crimes, because he doesn’t have fear of accountability. He has got no principles to live by. All his values are only relativistic. This is the reason I feel an atheist lives in a moral vacuum."
Well, you're just wrong on this. Just wrong. You do not accept that a person who identifies as atheist has morals because you do not want to. Your arguements are wearisome and baseless. That you think a a person who identifies as atheist has no sense of accountability or principles by which to live is rude, egotistical, and ignorant at a minimum.
Do you think accountability is, or should be the primary driver for behaving well? I don't. If you want to venture into this "holier than thou" arena, then my moral compass is loftier than yours.
This latest post of yours has eroded any respect I may have held for you. From the start of it, through to the end, it is wrong.
CYBER... nice to hear from you again
I didn’t mean to offend anybody. And I didn’t mean to say that atheists are bad guys. I am only looking at it from a logical point of view.
You may have principles that you live by. And you may be a very nice guy. But what I am asking is why should you be a nice guy?
If you only had enough food to quell your hunger, why should you share it with a poor man who is hungry?
Let’s say a poor man is shopping in a super market. He gets an opportunity to steal a packet of chocolates, which his little son has been craving for, but he has been unable to buy for him because of poverty. By stealing that chocolate, the owner of the super-market, who probably made all that money through bad means, wouldn’t lose anything at all. Why shouldn’t this man steal those chocolates? As a believer, I will tell him it’s because stealing is a sin in the eyes of God, whom he is accountable to.
What reason will you give him?
"I am only looking at it from a logical point of view....By stealing that chocolate, the owner of the super-market, who probably made all that money through bad means, wouldn’t lose anything at all."
You say you want to "look at it from a logical point of view" then offer the following story:
1) Person A stole X from Person B.
2) Person B didn't "lose anything at all".
Clearly Person B lost X, so your statements form a contradiction. Not very logical.
Oh Nyrlathotep.... i couldn't stop laughing after reading your post.
If i told you that 100 dollars is nothing for Bill Gates and you came along and said that is a logical fallacy because a 100 dollar bill is a real thing in the material world... I would seriously think that you belong to a mental asylum. Your logic on top is nothing different from this.
When I said that the supermarket owner didn't lose anything, I only meant that for a man so rich, a packet of chocolates would be nothing. But whereas for the thief, it means a lot. Yet, stealing is stealing. Can you justify stealing a 100 dollars from Bill Gates just because it means nothing to him.
Yet, again, you are ducking behind ambiguities to avoid the real question. My question was simple and straight. What is your rational behind saying that this poor man should not steal chocolates?
"I didn’t mean to offend anybody."
And yet you did.
"And I didn’t mean to say that atheists are bad guys."
And yet you did.
"I am only looking at it from a logical point of view."
You are not, in fact using logic, you are showing profound bias.
"You may have principles that you live by. And you may be a very nice guy. But what I am asking is why should you be a nice guy?"
There is no should or shouldn't. I am what I am and do what I do because I choose to. That is true of everyone who does not suffer from mental defect.
"If you only had enough food to quell your hunger, why should you share it with a poor man who is hungry?"
There are people all over the world who are, at this moment, very hungry. With your lofty morals, are you giving them your food? Stop, already, with your pretend situations. They do not indicate, in any way, shape, or form if a person is moral or not. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Answers to hypothetical situations mean nothing.
"Let’s say a poor man is shopping in a super market. He gets an opportunity to steal a packet of chocolates, which his little son has been craving for, but he has been unable to buy for him because of poverty. By stealing that chocolate, the owner of the super-market, who probably made all that money through bad means, wouldn’t lose anything at all. Why shouldn’t this man steal those chocolates? As a believer, I will tell him it’s because stealing is a sin in the eyes of God, whom he is accountable to."
Feel free to tell them whatever you like. Telling them that your god would not like that theft does not mean you exist in a moral realm that is any less vacuous than the one in which I live.
"What reason will you give him?"
I may or may not tell him a damn thing.
Pages