Has nature ever created a code?

744 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
https://www.amazon.co.uk/God

https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B0031RSA2...

To claim Dawkins isn't an atheist is beyond asinine.

"Neil deGrasse Tyson, Without Saying “Atheist,” Told CBS Why He Doesn’t Believe in a Creator"

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2017/05/01/neil-degrasse-tyson-witho...

Though again I am at a loss as to why you care?

Senta Christine's picture
And no one is born an atheist

And no one is born an atheist. I should know - I was raised by atheists (now dead and agnostic) and I have believed in God my entire life with earliest memories of believing in God at ages 3 and 4. Atheism is a choice, and it is the most illogical choice anyone can make.

Algebe's picture
@Senta Christine: I have

@Senta Christine: I have believed in God my entire life with earliest memories of believing in God at ages 3 and 4.

Did you grow up in isolation from culture, other children? My early childhood environment (Yorkshire, England) was awash with Christian influences and images. I seem to have had an innate immunity to the virus, but it looks like you were infected.

Sheldon's picture
Of course every is born an

Of course every is born an atheist how can a newborn baby believe in a deity, that's absurd.

"with earliest memories of believing in God at ages 3 and 4. "

So not when you were born. it appears your grasp of the arguments and concepts hasn't progressed either.

"Atheism is a choice, and it is the most illogical choice anyone can make."

No it isn't a choice, anyone who had never heard or known about the concept of a deity would axiomatically be an atheist and of course not made a choice. You keep inserting the word logical into your vapid claims, but it is abundantly clear you haven't the vaguest concept of what makes something rational. almost everything you post you manage to use an informal fallacy, it's just too funny to hear you incite rationality in this way, and not realise it's fallacious.

arakish's picture
I am one. I have ALWAYS been

I am one. I have ALWAYS been a convinced atheist. Tyson says if he is anything, he is a "scientist." Basically, I could say the same thing. If I am any kind "ist" I am a Scientist. I just also happen to the be an Anti-Religionist. The only "ist you are is a Religious Absolutist. And just as self-retarded.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Fallacies in informal logic

Fallacies in informal logic have been understood since ancient Greece, if you wish yo pretend they don't exist that's your choice of course, but it is you who insulting everyone else's intelligence by doing so. Your question is a specious fallacy, and again delude yourself all you want, but you have come to the wrong shop to sell your hokum superstitions. ]

Here, educate yourself a little.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

"that all came to be along with electricity, oil and every other useful material and resource on this planet "

You're kidding right? Fossil fuels like oil are called fossil fuels for a reason, are you seriously suggesting a deity spent hundreds of millions of years evolving dinosaurs and then wiped them out with a cataclysmic event, so it could create oil and coal from their fossilised remains to provide humans with a finite resource that is rapidly causing catastrophic climate change?

You're either barking mad, or a simpleton.

"And you wonder why 93% of the world disagrees with you."

Wow, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, a made up stat, and too stupid to grasp that they all disagree with each other as well.

I'm cutting this one loose. Too stupid to bother with...

Senta Christine's picture
Said the strawman.

Said the strawman. And not a made up stat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism 73 cited scholarly sources. And you are the only stupid one in this conversation.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Senta Christine - https://en

Senta Christine - ...73 cited scholarly sources.

I never realized The Huffington Post was a scholarly source!

:P

Senta Christine's picture
ok, 72 scholarly cited

ok, 72 scholarly cited sources. And : P = ditto

Sheldon's picture
"I never realized The

"I never realized The Huffington Post was a scholarly source!"

I can see how she might think it appeared scholarly.

Sheldon's picture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

"Accurate demographics of atheism are difficult to obtain "

If you can't be bothered to even read the first sentence of your own link, then you will of course inevitably end looking a bit of a twat. You also seem to have missed the facts that most of those people disagree with each other and you, I'm guessing deliberately missed it as well.
-----------------------------------------

"Said the strawman. And not a made up stat. And you are the only stupid one in this conversation."

Again funny as fuck, though I am starting to get that uneasy feeling I'm kicking a puppy. A particularly stupid, and illiterate puppy of course.

Senta Christine's picture
They were difficult to obtain

They were difficult to obtain and the article explains why and the lengths they went to in order to assure accuracy. Sorry, practically no one in the world agrees with you.

Sheldon's picture
"no one in the world agrees

"no one in the world agrees with you."

7% of the worlds population was 490,0000000 people in 2011.

Christ you're dumb.

Also atheism isn't a belief or a claim, so atheists don't agree with each other, they simply lack the single belief that any deity or deities exists, as I said you don't even know what the word means.

Senta Christine's picture
I said practically no one and

I said practically no one and yes that is true and it is like the ape thing. The percentage sounds small but the amount is actually huge. However, clumped into that percentage are buddhist atheists who believe in karma and reincarnation but not God, AND agnostics who simply say I don't know if God exists, which leaves only a tiny percentage of the world who are convinced atheists and I am pretty sure they are not really that convinced.

Sheldon's picture
The number of atheists is

The number of atheists is irrelevant, as you have been told you are using a bare appeal to numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

However it is manifestly cretinous to claim that 490 million people, is "practically no one". Almost as cretinous a claim as you now denying (without evidence) the stats in your own link, priceless.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Senta Christine's picture
It is manifestly cretinous to

It is manifestly cretinous to claim that 10 to 15 billion differences in DNA are a small amount of differences, but ppl still did.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Senta Christine - ...to claim

Senta Christine - ...to claim that 10 to 15 billion differences in DNA are a small amount of differences...

Do you have a source for that claim? Skeptic alarm at 9/10. Could you maybe give us some more details about the claim?

Sheldon's picture
Risible evasion, you claimed

Risible evasion, you claimed 490 million people was "practically no one", pretending it didn't happen won't make the claim less stupid.

You also ignored my question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Laughably pointing at everything and mumbling evidence is absurdly meaningless.

arakish's picture
Senta Christine: "Said the

Senta Christine: "Said the strawman. And not a made up stat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism 73 cited scholarly sources. And you are the only stupid one in this conversation."

Talking about stupid. Senta you never even checked all those references did you.

Your 73 "scholarly" references is actuall less than 60.

Many are from the Pew Research Center. A proven religious apologist organization not to be trusted with ANY information they publish.
More are from the Pew Forum on Religion. Another proven religious apologist organization not to be trusted with ANY information they publish.
Huffington Post is listed two or three times.
And a coupld of other religious apologist organizations are listed: Christian Science Monitor and World Wide Religious News.

ALL scientists know that anything published by any religious organization is nothing more than lies in order to make religion look true.

Try again stupid little child.

rmfr

Senta Christine's picture
Pew Research Center is not

Pew Research Center is not the least bit religious and is the most trusted research center in the world by everyone. You live in a delusional and lost world of atheist brainwashing. Hope you find your way out some day.

arakish's picture
Pew Research Center is NOT a

Pew Research Center is NOT a trusted research center by any scientists I know. And I know quite a few. PRC is a religious apologist organization. Dig deeper into their reason for existence. Look at how their research is biased towards politics and NOT true scientific research.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"Pew Research Center is not

"Pew Research Center is not the least bit religious and is the most trusted research center in the world by everyone. You live in a delusional and lost world of atheist brainwashing. Hope you find your way out some day."

Anyone else think that is the funniest post ever? It's so funny I am dubious she's being sincere.

Senta Christine's picture
Provide proof that Pew

Provide proof that Pew Research Center, full of highly qualified statisticians, is biased toward religion in any way in the work they. do,

arakish's picture
Read their work. rmfr

Read their work.

rmfr

CyberLN's picture
Follow the money.

Follow the money.

Cognostic's picture
Seriously? "According to

Seriously? "According to you atheists." Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about? Atheists are people who do not believe in Gods. (THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY DO BELIEVE IN.)

The only person strawmaning anything is you. "
1. " just state that you really think it was sheer luck " Glad you can read minds. (Strawman #1)

2. "Say you think that on top of all the functions of the human body giving us eyesight, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling (statistically impossible they would :"just happen" w/o intelligence)"

Do you have evidence for intelligence? We would love to see it? More mind reading and an outright false assertion. "statistically impossible they would :"just happen" w/o intelligence." The statistic that all the above "WOULD" happen without intelligence is exactly 1 to whatever. It already happened. If you assert there is intellignece causing it all, you have to prove it. Well? We are waiting.

3. (Second Strawman) According to you atheists that all came to be along with electricity, oil and every other useful material and resource on this planet because we are just that darn lucky.

Nice of you to make all our assumptions for us so you can try and knock them down. So you make your own stupid assumptions and then, because you do not have the rational or critical thinking skills of a three year old, you attempt to debunk your own assertion with a Logical Fallacy. "And you wonder why 93% of the world disagrees with you." Argumentum ad Populum. Does your inane ignorance know no boundaries?

David Killens's picture
So you concede that RNA

So you concede that RNA carries "code" in the same manner DNA does?

LogicFTW's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens
Oh he does, he conceded every point with his short one sentence response that avoided most or all of your excellent point/question. The guy thought he read something clever online, and realized it is not clever at all real quick here.

Senta Christine's picture
In order for there to even be

In order for there to even be hit or miss, an intelligent agent would be required. The fact that a bunch of mold spores, plants, bugs and some other animals went extinct means nothing. It all probably happened for a very good reason that we are simply unaware of. Again, because you are unaware of the reasoning of the intelligence behind RNA, you are pretending it doesn't exist. That is a logical fallacy.

arakish's picture
Senta: In order for there to

Senta: In order for there to even be hit or miss, an intelligent agent would be required. The fact that a bunch of mold spores, plants, bugs and some other animals went extinct means nothing. It all probably happened for a very good reason that we are simply unaware of. Again, because you are unaware of the reasoning of the intelligence behind RNA, you are pretending it doesn't exist. That is a logical fallacy.

What do you think the diarrhea you just spewed is? ^^^^^^^^

rmfr

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.