Bridge of Size

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Logic

@ Logic

Yep, they are super heavy gauge wrought iron and steel versions. Brass fittings and analogue dials. I also have some steam powered Irony meters that I am restoring, they are self propelled and weight in excess of 8 tonnes. Not very accurate but lovely to watch operate. That coal fire and steam smell....aaaaaahhhhhh

Vochensmut's picture
Born of sin ? The Christian

Born of sin ? The Christian holds that Jesus" death bears the guilt of the guilty rendering them guilt-free .

Sheldon's picture
Vochensmut "Born of sin ?

Vochensmut "Born of sin ? The Christian holds that Jesus" death bears the guilt of the guilty rendering them guilt-free ."

Yes, vicarious redemption through the torture and murder of a blood sacrifice. A truly repulsive idea, thank fuck it's completely unevidenced fantasy.

Sheldon's picture
Argumenum ad ignorantiam

Argumenum ad ignorantiam fallacy, argument from incredulity fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy. So I counted three common logical fallacies, in one post. Is this a new record?

We seem to have a troll infestation of late as well.

Cognostic's picture
@Vochensmut: Things that

@Vochensmut: Things that are created are created and things that occur naturally occur naturally. How are you confused. We know created things by contrasting them with things that occur naturally.

RE: "all living subjects were randomly chanced into existence "
What chance? WTF are you talking about. What do you mean "Random." There is nothing random about chemical or atomic interactions. Please demonstrate this chance and randomness you speak of.

RE: "Atheism is not consistent with the way the world actually is." HUH? Atheism makes no claims about how the world actually is. What in the fuck are you talking about? Please cite one single claim "not believing in a god' makes about the world.

RE: "The chasm from non-existence to existence ,non-life to life , non-intelligence to intelligence is far too wide for my blind leap of faith to bridge"

Complete agreement here. So why use faith for anything. Faith is not, nor has it ever been a path to truth or understanding. That's why most skeptics don't rely on faith at all. There is no position at all that can not be held based on faith. Leave faith to the theists. It is not a part of that which is useful in the world.

RE: I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist ?

Me either. "Did you think that was a zinger?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha .... Atheism is a potion of lack of faith. You "loose your faith" to become an atheist. Atheism is a position of non-belief. (If you can call that a position. The word 'Atheist' should probably not even exist.) What do you call a non-coin collector? What do you call a non-basketball player? What do you call a non-surfer? But suddenly when there is a non-believer, we gotta make up a special word for it, "ATHEIST." Woooooo mysterious!

You seem to be a fish swimming in the waters of faith. You are so surrounded by your faith that you can not even imagine a fish crawling out of the waters and onto land. A fish absent faith. And beyond that, an entire world absent this faith thing you refer to. Open your eyes! There is a real world out there beyond the little pond you are living in.

Vochensmut's picture
I referenced the "real world"

I referenced the "real world" as a place where the fantasy for grown-ups known as Darwinian evolution is a process
that does not exist in the real world , at least not on a macro level .

LogicFTW's picture
Are you saying all adults

Are you saying all adults that believe/study darwinian evolution (why not just evolution theory in general?) are living in fantasy and that evolution does not exist in the real world on a macro level?

They are wrong, and you (with your particular god idea) is right? Despite the fact you do not have even a little bit of evidence to back this enormous claim of yours?

If you did actually have compelling evidence, I will look for you at the next nobel prize award ceremony. Even I would applaud you for turning such a well established and tested theory on its head with a better alternative.

What does this have to do with atheist or even your god idea? First you have zero evidence to your claim, 2nd you have zero evidence that your particular god idea is correct replacing theory for "evolution" and how we came to be.

You have nothing at all, how is this conversation even worth your or my time? We might as well be talking about cats dressed as clowns for all the good it will do.

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"I referenced the "real world" as a place where the fantasy for grown-ups known as Darwinian evolution is a process
that does not exist in the real world , at least not on a macro level ."

The term Darwinian evolution" is one used by apologists. You paint it as a cult which it is not. Darwin was the first to propose this theory, but those in the scientific world and those with a proper education of evolution just call it "evolution".

Evolution is based on the real world because the theory of evolution originated because of real world observations. The Theory of Evolution is well supported by many observations and other disciplines such as genetics and geology.

There is no macro-evolution, that is just a term invented by apologists to deny that man came from other species. There is no macro-evolution and there is no micro-evolution, there is just "evolution".

Cognostic's picture
@Vochensmut: There is no

@Vochensmut: There is no MACRO level of evolution. WTF are you talking about. Mud sucking slugs do not give birth to Vochensmuts regardless of any possible similarities or shared DNA. Evolution is small changes over time. At no point in the evolutionary process has any mud sucking slug given birth to anything but a mud sucking slug. It is only through billions of years of evolution that a Vochensmut occurs. And when the Vochensmut occurs, it is because it had Vochensmut parents and they have Vochensmut parents and so on and so on with minute little changes over time. Macro Evolution is a CREATIONIST STRAW MAN FALLACY.

Cognostic's picture
@ALL: I reference the real

@ALL: I reference the real world as a place where Vochensmut is utterly and completely lost.

Sheldon's picture
Vochensmut I referenced the

Vochensmut I referenced the "real world" as a place where the fantasy for grown-ups known as Darwinian evolution is a process
that does not exist in the real world , at least not on a macro level .

Well it's obvious you hold your own opinion quite highly, but I am afraid I will continue to accept the objective fact based scientific evidence over the unevidenced superstitious fantasy of creationist propaganda lies, like the one you have used here.

Species evolution though natural selection is a scientific fact, supported by the evidence of a scientific theory derived from multiple scientific disciplines, from over 160 years of global scientific research.

You in contrast can't offer even one piece of objective evidence for any deity, despite my asking repeatedly. I don't think we need Sherlock Holmes to work out why either.

Algebe's picture
@Vochensmut:

@Vochensmut:

Cars , computers ,toys etc.

Before these items could be created, it took evolution several billion years to create brains complex enough to achieve intelligence and self-awareness. Before that it took the universe several more billion years to create the atoms needed for star and planet formation and complex biology.

You seem to believe either that these processes were magically completed in a week, or that some invisible sky-fairy guided creation from outside of the universe.

First, if a god created the universe for us, why is most of it deadly for us, including the majority of the surface area of this planet?
Second, if a perfect being created life, why does every single species go extinct? Detroit in the 1960s had a better defect ratio.

Tin-Man's picture
@Vochensmut Re: "I just don

@Vochensmut Re: "I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist ?"

I'm with you, brother. Except, I don't have ANY faith to be an atheist.

cranky47's picture
Wot, ANOTHER dickhead arguing

Wot, ANOTHER dickhead arguing intelligent design? AND another one too arrogant or too stupid to bother to find out what the word 'atheist' actually means.----IE Atheism is NOT a religion, NOT a philosophical position and NOT a political idea.

An atheist is only a person who does not believe in god(s).Period. .

When will these ignoramuses realise that there is no debate about intelligent design ,it's mainstream science . The only ones who don't seem to get it are the wilfully ignorant literalists.

HEAVEN FORFEND they ever actually READ A BOOK ON EVOLUTION . If they did so, they might understand that evolution is a lousy engineer . That 'good enough' is actually 'good enough' for evolution. The outcome only has to work, not look elegant.

Sheldon's picture
So as usual we have yet

So as usual we have yet another example of a religious apologist putting his clapped out asthmatic pit pony behind his cart.

So let's separate facts from religious fiction yet again for him.

The natural physical universe exists as an objective fact.

Living things exist as an objective fact.

Evolution explains and evidences the diversity of living things as a fact.

Natural phenomena (like evolution) exist as an objective fact.

No objective evidence has ever been demonstrated for any deity or anything supernatural.

So since the author of the op is inserting his unevidenced belief into a gap in our current knowledge, what objective evidence can he demonstrate in place of this fallacious argument? I think we already know the answer to that one.

The author claims he can't believe life emerged by chance. Yet offers no credible reason why. Worse still is happy to believe an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition did it all using magic, and the real irony is he thinks this is a more probable scenario than natural events, which we know exist as an objective fact, producing life?

You have to marvel at the sheer idiocy of that thought process, but then anyone whose superstition has lauded faith as the best approach to belief, and then denigrated faith, well what can one say really.

As Tinman so eloquently put it, I agree with the op author on that at least, and I have no faith to be an atheist.

Anymore than I need faith to disbelieve in dragons and unicorns, both of which are in the bible of course.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I am never sure which I find more amusing, your elderly dyspepsia or Tin Man's satires. So, 5,000 agrees to each you.

Vochensmut's picture
The evidence is built into

The evidence is built into the statement (read it again) and renders the statement self -explanatory and obvious . To deny the obvious is not safe .
You said "no credible reason why " .
Evolution must have the incredible umph to show HOW from absolutely nothing (non -existence) everything popped into existence.
Boing , snap goes my faith in a godless universe as the " Nothing by Chance with a little Luck created everything " atheistic account of creation collides with the more plausible
theistic account of origins . If I see a car I think carmaker , when I see a universe I think universe maker . The maker of a space, time, matter/energy universe must be a spaceless , timeless , uncreated being who is unbelievably powerful . Oops , I think I just described the God of the bible . By the way, a wild ox qualifies as a unicorn ? And there is nothing wrong with an authors use of
fantasy imagery to make invisible entities visible to his readers .

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"Evolution must have the incredible umph to show HOW from absolutely nothing (non -existence) everything popped into existence."

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of this known universe. Your confused thinking and lack of knowledge is alarming.

You are the only one claiming that "everything popped into existence", and you must prove that claim. You tried to sneak that little item in before.

LogicFTW's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

It is becoming increasingly clear you do not even know what evolution theory is.

The evolution theory never attempts to explain how life first arose, only how life evolves.

This is not a class of impressionable little children in sunday school. You will claims will be checked. And so far they have all failed. Additionally you argue about things that you apparently never even bothered to try to understand. Typical theist apologist behavior, assume god exists, then try to point "evidence" towards it, when it is not even evidence for a god idea at all.

Cognostic's picture
RE: Evolution must have the

RE: Evolution must have the incredible umph to show HOW from absolutely nothing (non -existence) everything popped into existence.

OH FUCK _ Not only are you clueless about Atheism, you are also clueless about Evolution. Evolution happens AFTER LIFE EXISTS. EVOLUTION says nothing at all about the ORIGINS OF LIFE. To discuss the ORIGIN OF LIFE you must look at Cosmology, Abiogenisis, or Panspermia, or some such theory. There are about 7 popular theories with Abiogenisis leading the pack with the most observable facts backing it up. I think Panspermia is a close second. EVOLUTION IS NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!.

LostLocke's picture
Oops , I think I just

Oops , I think I just described the God of the bible .

Actually, you've described a number of gods. You saying that it is a specific god, Jehovah/Yahweh, is called presumption.

Evolution must have the incredible umph to show HOW from absolutely nothing

Again, as others have said, evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life. Evolution comes into play only after life has started.
If you want to know about the origin of life, you have to get into other fields of biology.
If you want to know about the origin of the universe, you have to get into astronomy and astrophysics.

xenoview's picture
@vochensmut

@vochensmut
What objective evidence do you have that any god is real. Evidence that can be tested an get the same results for anyone.

Algebe's picture
@Vochensmut: Evolution must

@Vochensmut: Evolution must have the incredible umph to show HOW from absolutely nothing (non -existence) everything popped into existence.

Your religion is the source of this strange notion about everything "popping into existence". I've never heard any atheist put forward that argument.

Our universe came into existence as a result of a cosmic event commonly referred to as the "Big Bang". As the universe cooled, various sub-atomic particles and then atoms were able to form. These coalesced to form galaxies and stars, which in turn produced the heavier elements needed to form planets. Life then emerged (at least once) from various chemical processes. Only after that did biological evolution begin.

Science has not yet fully explained the Big Bang or abiogenesis. But that's not evidence for intervention by your god or any other supernatural being. It's simply evidence that our science hasn't progressed far enough YET. I'm guessing that you don't know why the sky is blue or the sea is salty, or where gold came from. Are you happy to conclude that your god did all these things, or are you curious enough to do some research?

NeverHappened's picture
If the existence of something

If the existence of something requires a creator, who created god(s)?

There is the additional problem, suppose we accept that life and us are created. Which god? If a space traveler landed and asked where humans came from, and talked to a variety of cultures and heard a variety of creation stories.....how could you prove that YOUR favorite deity is the one responsible?

xenoview's picture
@vochensmut

@vochensmut
You seem to have a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is about a lack of belief in gods. Do you believe a god created everything?

Calilasseia's picture
Oh, dear, it's this tiresome

Oh, dear, it's this tiresome drivel yet again ...

How is it possible that all non-living mechanically engineered objects (cars , computers ,toys etc.) were intelligently designed by living subjects ( rational beings ) yet somehow all living subjects were randomly chanced into existence by non-intelligent non-living objects (molecules, swirling gases ,quarks, nothing at all ) .

Here's a clue for you, sunshine. Your inability to understand how testable natural processes work, doesn't mean for one moment that an invisible magic man from mythology was responsible. Indeed, that's the first lesson you need to learn here, namely that scientists don't postulate the fatuous caricature of events you've presented above, and if you had paid attention in your science classes, you would have learned this from the outset. Instead, as in my second sentence above in this paragraph, what scientists actually postulate, is that testable natural processeswere responsible for all observed entities around us, said testable natural processes involving well-defined interactions acting upon well-defined entities. In case you failed to notice this in any of your science classes, such testable natural processes are not only abundant, and operating around us right now, but enjoy both documentation and empirical testing on a large scale, again documented in the relevant literature. I suggest you read some of it, and learn how difficult questions are properly answered.

Plus, whenever I see the words "random" or "chance" being peddled by the usual suspects, with respect to various scientific hypotheses, I know from long past experience, in dealing with the requisite duplicitous apologetics served up by the usual suspects, that I'm going to be seeing yet more ignorant drivel. Prepare for some schooling, which you obviously need.

When scientists use the word "random", particularly in a peer reviewed paper, the term has a rigorous definition. Namely, that the interaction in question is known to be the result of any of numerous documented processes from prior literature, but that we don't have the audit trail of data telling us which of those processes was actually responsible in this instance. As a result of that absence of an observational audit trail, the interaction is treated as if it were the product of a Markov process. Markov processes are rigorously defined in the mathematical statistics literature, and were formulated precisely for the purpose of analysing the evolution over time, of processes for which a deterministic cause is either unknown, or for which, as above, a multiplicity of causal agents could have acted, but data informing us of the actual identity thereof is missing.

Now it transpires, as a result of decades of relevant research and inquiry, that Markov processes are exquisitely suited to the analysis of interactions, and sequences thereof, about which we have insufficient data to assign a named causal agent. Furthermore, in the case where multiple possible causal agents were involved, scientists can construct models, based upon a Markov chain analysis, which provide insight into the likely sequence of events resulting in a particular outcome, given those multiple choices of causal agent. Even better, in the modern age, said models can be constructed within a computer, and subject to "what if" testing, by varying key parameters of the models, with modern computers delivering the answers in minutes or hours, instead of weeks, as was the case in the past. As a corollary, it is possible to explore vast swathes of the solution space of those models, and see which parts of the solution space are in accord with observational data. Once those constraints are found, reasons for the choice of parameters for the model can then be sought.

Atheism is not consistent with the way the world actually is

And at this point, it's obvious that you don't know what atheism actually IS, otherwise you wouldn't have posted this manifest gibberish.

Quite simply, atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. Atheism concerns itself solely with the matter of asking whether or not supernaturalist assertions are something other than the product of the rectal passages of said supernaturalists. It doesn't involve presenting assertions of its own, and leaves the business of supplying potential or actual postulates about the world, to those disciplines for which said presentation of postulates is within their remit.

As a corollary, questions such as the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, aren't part of the remit of atheism. The assertion that these questions are part of the remit of atheism, is merely another of those tiresome supernaturalist lies we've been dealing with for a long time here. If you want to know what postulates are being presented with respect to the origin of the universe, then the proper discipline to consult is cosmological physics. If you want to know what postulates are being presented with respect to the origin of life, then the proper discipline to consult is prebiotic chemistry.

The chasm from non-existence to existence ,non-life to life , non-intelligence to intelligence is far too wide for my blind leap of faith to bridge.

Except that as I've expounded above, this isn't a matter of "faith" in the realm of the relevant scientific disciplines, it's a matter of active research, involving the testing of relevant postulates. As a corollary, what you're exposing here with your comment isn't any purported "deficiency" in the actual science, but instead a severe deficiency in your understanding thereof.

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist ?

See my exposition above on what atheism actually IS, and realise as a corollary, why this statement of yours is complete and utter drivel. Because, wait for it, being suspicious of unsupported assertions is the very antithesis of "faith".

Vochensmut's picture
"scientists actually

"scientists actually postulate, is that testable natural processeswere responsible for all observed entities around us, said testable natural processes involving well-defined interactions acting upon well-defined entities. "

I'm not playing "science says" and bowing down to the wishful thinking of other fallible human beings .That "testable natural processes were responsible ( how are natural processes "responsible" for anything ) for all " is a statement of faith based firmly in thin air . What sort of test equipment was set up several billion years ago to observe these natural processes hard at work forming entities and being "responsible " ? I also could say " Oh boy here we go again with the natural vs supernatural argument again? " but that is what it boils down to isn't it ? But the process that brought the visible and invisible world into existence was either of natural or supernatural origins and both require faith based on evidence and I am convinced that the evidence points to the supernatural .

Algebe's picture
@Vochensmut: What sort of

@Vochensmut: What sort of test equipment was set up several billion years ago to observe these natural processes hard at work forming entities

This is the "were you there" argument often hauled out by creationists. If you adopt that stance, you'd have to conclude that no crime could ever be solved unless there was a reliable eye witness. Ever heard of fingerprints, DNA, paraffin tests...?

The processes that began back then are still continuing. We are expanding our understanding by observing those processes and the evidence they've left behind in the fossil record and DNA. Where in the world are the traces of supernatural intervention? All I see is a god of the gaps dreamed up by people of little imagination to explain their own ignorance.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
And here we are again,

And here we are again, debating with another fucking idiot who can't differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution.
Does not know, or cannot differentiate between a Scientific Theory, and a 'mere theory"
Uses phrases copied from creationist websites and claims veracity for them.

And now the classic, and childish, "were you there?" killer question. No, I was not there, "were you? " is the equally childish but immediate response expected by these dribbling purveyors of secondhand phrases.

Do these people even graduate grade school, or know how to google effectively? Fuck me with a dead Galah but this kind of conversation gets more tiresome with each iteration.

And for the love of whatever moronic deity you hold dear, look up the definition of 'atheism' before demonstrating your fucking abysmal stupidity to the forums.

Cognostic's picture
RE: ALL: OH FUCK!

RE: ALL: OH FUCK! Someone cite the Dunning Kruger effect before I have to.

There is no "Natural vs Supernatural" argument. There is "Natural" and made up stories.

The "Invisible world" was brought into existence.

If I ever had a child that was able to assert such things while honestly believing them, I would put him in a burlap bag with a couple of bricks, tie the top so he could not get out, and toss him off a bridge into a raging river. Then, because of the embarrassment that something so fucking stupid could have come from my loins, I would castrate myself, and spend the rest of my life as a eunuch.

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.