intellectual debate?

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kgp4life's picture
Please do not tell me someone

Please do not tell me someone thought these settings were good and refused to change them to be inline with every other forum I have ever seen....these are horrible settings

dogalmighty's picture


David Killens's picture
Getting close to a Monty

Getting close to a Monty Python skit. I just wonder if it will devolve into the Fish Slapping Dance, or the Argument Clinic

boomer47's picture


Why not both?

Perhaps the latter for apologists who come to an atheist forum to enlighten we ignorant Atheists.

The Fish Slapping Dance:

The Argument Clinic:

Calilasseia's picture
I'm late to this particular

I'm late to this particular party, but it's time to break out the ordnance again.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

I believe

And that's your big problem straight out of the gate. Which is a problem, because belief, as practised by mythology fanboys, consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. The observational data pointing to this is voluminous, and you're about to add to that body of data with your dribblings here. Apart from this being a direct contravention of the proper rules of discourse, it is also absurd. Which is the reason why those of us who paid attention in class, reject belief itself as purportedly constituting a source of genuine, substantive knowledge. It doesn't, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who spent time learning the proper approach to the validation of postulates.

any intellectually honest scientificlly [sic] based atheists understands random mutations creating anything useful is quite unlikely

There are several reasons why this assertion of yours is garbage from start to finish, Buckle up for the roller coaster ride.

First of all, every mouth on a stick mythology fanboy who comes here peddling this excremental nonsense, always leaves out selection. Namely, the processes that act within an ecosystem to weed out the deleterious mutations, and bring the advantageous mutations to prominence. Which has been demonstrated to occur not only in the wild, but in laboratory experiments aimed at testing the action of selection mechanisms - both have been documented in exquisite detail in relevant scientific papers. Those papers cover everything from the emergence of the nylonase gene in Japanese flavobacteria, to the emergence of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenoid fishes. Indeed, in the latter case, the process leading to the emergence of those antifreeze glycoproteins has documented the genetic history of said emergence, courtesy of duplication of a pancreatic trypsinogen gene in the ancestral fishes, followed by the acquisition of mutations in the duplicated copy, which, upon producing antifreeze glycoproteins, were then positively selected for in the cold water environment of the Antarctic.

Oh, and by the way, thanks to the work of Motoo Kimura and his research into neutral drift, we now have a molecular test that can be performed, to determine if a given DNA sequence arose from neutral drift, positive selection or purifying (negative) selection.

Second, whenever a mythology fanboy starts using the word "random", the alarm bells start ringing among those of us who paid attention in class, not least because we've see mythology fanboys peddle repeatedly, the myth that the word "random" means "by accident without rhyme or reason". Except that among scientists, this is NOT how the word "random" is used. Instead, scientists use the word "random" as a shorthand for two applicable processes.

With respect to "random" processes, first, scientists know that there exists a multiplicity of processes that can produce a particular outcome, with respect to the emergence of genetic change, but in the case of some of the observed changes in question, they lack the detailed genetic audit trail that tells them which of that multiplicity of well-defined processes actually took place in the given instance. As a corollary, scientists operate on the basis that the transition from state A to state B, is best modelled by a probability distribution governing that multiplicity of processes, and if you had paid attention in the requisite classes, you would know that probability distributions are well defined mathematical entities.

Second, scientists use the word "random" to describe processes that are modelled by Markov chains, which again are well-defined mathematical entities, based upon a probability distribution. Markov chains have demonstrated their utility value in modelling all manner of processes, and as a corollary, are pressed into service whenever a direct audit trail of deterministic interactions is lacking. Quite simply, they work.

Moving on ...

what is why we need billions of years

Poppycock. Relevant changes have been documented occurring in living organisms on human timescales. Examples from the voluminous literature include the changes in stickleback armour over a 40 year period in a Canadian lake, and the emergence of a range of morphological changes in a population of lizards living on a Croatian island. Furthermore, there exists within the literature, documentation of speciation events generated in the laboratory. I'm aware in particular of one experiment, that can be performed in a high school laboratory, and which, after it has elapsed for just three years, will generate a detectable speciation event.

also the fine tuning augument is a one time no do overs over balance of constants based on forces ie forces are balenced so atoms do not calapse or fly apart for example.

"Fine tuning" is a MYTH. Basically, we are here because the laws of physics permitted our appearance, and the relevant physically permitted interactions took place. That is IT. The "fine tuning" drivel was demolished by Douglas Adams.

These constant variables in physis are so exact that if they were off even slightly the universe/life would not exist.

Bullshit. I'm aware of two scientific papers, documenting that "fine tuning" is a canard. One of those papers demonstrates that stellar nucelosynthesis and organic chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if key parameters varied by as much as five orders of magnitude. The second paper demonstrates that we could remove the weak nuclear force altogether from the observable universe, and once again, stellar nucleosynthesis and organic chemistry would remain essentially unchanged.

Honest atheists have to fall back to parrallel [sic] universes or something because they understand how improbable that is

Poppycock. See above.

now for my argument.

Cue farcical apologetic fabrication in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Here is a "expanded from original Nick Bostrom simulation theory to be a theological aurgument" irrefutable proof of god.

This is going to be hilarious to observe ...

Simulation Argument 1 must be true (I have more don't worry)

Blind assertion, and discardable as such.

(1) all species are very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage and no species has gotten there before us.

Word salad.

Oh, and by the way, the mere fact that humans have reached the stage of being able to engage in abstract thought, refutes your assertion straight out of the gate.

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of games/simulations.

Video gamers the world over are now laughing at you.

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Blind assertion, and discardable as such.

So either all species kill themselves or at least 1 species has gotten to a state of advanced computer processing. With this computer processing power, they still run games/simulations like us running sims or world of Warcraft

Congratulations on refuting assertion [2] of yours above, saving me the bother.

(we already run billions of these but do not have the power to run them with real AI.)

And you've participated in exactly how much AI research of late?

If a race has gotten this kinda computer power there would be 1 "real" universe and billions of billions of these Games/Simulations. There would be no way for Pacman to really know he was in a simulation.

Now each simulated universe obviously has a creator

So what? Don't even bother trying to make the mistake of equating human design processes with supernatural magic design, because I've already destroyed that canard in the past.

which holds God's properties (outside of time/space/mater, existed before the universe, created the universe, has full power, can see everything, and join in if he likes).

Crap. What part of "both the human inventors of computer programs, and the hardware they run on, are embedded in spacetime" did you fail to learn in basic science classes?

A 'created universe' as most religions claim's modern English word is 'video game'.

Except that the hardware and software combination required to simulate properly numerous physical entities and interactions, ends up being a lot more complicated than the physical entities and interactions themselves. This should be telling you something important.

So in summary if any species ever got/gets the power to run such simulations there is a near 100% chance we are in one

Crap. Another discardable blind assertion.

which means a near 100% chance it is a creation which means it is a near 100% chance it was created which means it is a near 100% chance there is a creator which by default has 100% of God properties......

Blind assertion upon blind assertion. All discardable as such.

Anybody that has studied the subject understands the universe has been tested and found to be digital and not analog, smallest possible lengths for example also is also evidence of physics containing error fixing type code at a quantum level....

I see a lot of mythology fanboys using the word "quantum" without having the slightest idea what it means. Oh, and more discardable blind assertions are once again littering your output.

so question is why believe athisum [sic] when it is so improbable

Poppycock. you obviously don't know what atheism IS, or you wouldn't have typed this semi-literate garbage.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It doesn't involve constructing assertions of its own, it simply consists of proper suspicion of YOUR assertions. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Preferably with something other than "my mythology says so, therefore it's true", or lame apologetic fabrications pulled out of the rectal passage, such as the one you're peddling here.

and why reqect [sic] this argument that seems to me to be quite probable.

Blind assertions aren't "probable". Learn this elementary lesson quickly to spare yourself further embarrassment here.You might also try learning to spell, before posturing as being in a position to lecture people who spent decades learning about topics you're unaware of the existence of.

Kgp4life's picture
Well I have to go through 96

Well I have to go through 96 old posts now to find new stuff and present rebutal and catchup so "new" works....i will try to do that once I find time I am quite busy.....I already ser lots to comment on.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Kgp

@ Kgp

i will try to do that once I find time I am quite busy.....I already ser lots to comment on.

Then maybe you can find time (THIRD time of asking ) to answer these questions I posed in answer to your claims:

Which "top well known scientists"? I can't find any "Top Well Known Scientists" who claim this unpublished hypotheses is more accurate than any competing theory.

BTW Nick Bostrum is a Swedish philosopher....NOT a scientist.

Here is a quote from a well known philosopher (again NOT a scientist) (thanks to built in .com) New York University philosophy professor David Chalmers has described the being responsible for this hyper-realistic simulation we may or may not be in as a “programmer in the next universe up,” perhaps one we mortals might consider a god of some sort — though not necessarily in the traditional sense. “[H]e or she may just be a teenager,” Chalmers said, “hacking on a computer and running five universes in the background… But it might be someone who is nonetheless omniscient, all-knowing and all-powerful about our world.”

Note: NOT EVIDENCE FOR (A) GOD as I have already explained.

Elucidate please your comment that "observable experiments are quite inline with theory"
Also explain (this I would love to see and applaud you when you claim your Nobel for science) how it explains "quantum weirdness"

You already cherry picked part of this post to give a most unconvincing reply, but missed the request for "Top scientists" and more importantly how YOU explain "quantum weirdness" I am all agog.

Sheldon's picture
Sheldon "It should be obvious

Sheldon "It should be obvious that things we know are possible are more probable than those we don't know are possible."

Kgp4life "so what are you denying we can simulate real AI even if we simulate every neuron in the brain? If that is not what you are saying what Part of AI WOW do we know is impossible."

I have no clue what that means, and as far as I can see it doesn't remotely address my point, which is that we know natural phenomena are possible, yet you claim they are implausible, and in favour of unevidenced supernatural cause we don't have any evidence are even possible, which you imply are more probable.

Sheldon "So you seem to be denying an objectively evidenced scientific fact."

Kgp4life point is it is very very unlikely.

It is an objective scientific fact, so who cares if you think it is unlikely, especially when it clear you haven't even a basic grasp of the theory that evidences it, or the scientific method that established it as a scientific fact.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Kgp4life - "so what are you

Kgp4life - "so what are you denying we can simulate real AI even if we simulate every neuron in the brain? If that is not what you are saying what Part of AI WOW do we know is impossible."

How high were you when you wrote that? And where can I get some of what you are smoking?

LogicFTW's picture

Folks joining these boards with a grand unsupported assertions, then leaves as quickly as they came when they get demolished.

A song comes to mind:

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one bites the dust


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.