LOL @ Bill O

[KAWDUP]

:ugh:


the more intelligent end of the "curve" will be more naturally inquisitive and to some varying degree skeptical.

This is just tacitly untrue, I know a quite a number of idiots who are skeptical and atheists. "Curve" isn't even close to reality.

On the other hand, I look at Red and Byco as higher than your silly "average to above average" statement, and while they do exhibit a certain degree of skepticism, they most certainly DO NOT fit your mold.

. . . and in my opinion and experience, they aren't the exception to your rule. SO, your argument falls apart just based on that.

. . . and BTW you sure seem bitter. Your statement that you aren't rings a bit hollow to me.

Agnostic is the wrong word then, "bitter atheist" would be a much better description.

So I once again state the question to Tinsel. Can I play the bitter atheist? We will still go with the stunt doubles on the fall from grace, but I think we still need to negotiate those residuals.

 

[Michchamp]

yeah, I guess there are some dumb atheists. The Goth kids that post videos of them slamming religion on youtube seem pretty bitter, and not particularly intelligent. I guess you could add a third factor to the equation of intelligence, skepticism (born of some event that leads to questioning)... a simple desire to set oneself apart by not conforming.

I don't like the term either; it's long been a perjorative, (it even sounds like one to my ears). I really wish cave men had our modern scientific understanding of the world around us so that they never would've had to invent god, gods, angels, spirits and religions and all this to explain it... so there never would be a need to identify someone by their beliefs or lack thereof, but I'll never get that wish.

 

[redandguilty]

yeah, I guess there are some dumb atheists. The Goth kids that post videos of them slamming religion on youtube seem pretty bitter, and not particularly intelligent. I guess you could add a third factor to the equation of intelligence, skepticism (born of some event that leads to questioning)... a simple desire to set oneself apart by not conforming.

I don't like the term either; it's long been a perjorative, (it even sounds like one to my ears). I really wish cave men had our modern scientific understanding of the world around us so that they never would've had to invent god, gods, angels, spirits and religions and all this to explain it... so there never would be a need to identify someone by their beliefs or lack thereof, but I'll never get that wish.

I don't think that would do it. Avoiding a "god of the gaps" means filling in all the gaps and we just keep discovering more gaps. The mind-brain interface/consciousness/free will perception gap doesn't require modern science to understand. Religions would be different, but we'd still have them.

 

[redandguilty]

Cave men might have been smarter that we are. Some recent-ish research has suggested that evolutionary pressure favors intellect less today than in the very distant past and that early human brains were bigger than brains today.

 

[KAWDUP]

I've now had that very wish about Henry Ford not existing for days.

No Ford - no Atlanta traffic.

I'm sorry - Detroit and Chicago traffic can't hold a candle to the crap they have around here. The last city I was in that had this bad of traffic as a normal occurence was LA. Boston is just crazy, but their traffic isn't worse. :*)

We had a few sprinkles of rain, no accidents, but it still took 1.5 hours to go ~25 miles - and I work just inside the perimeter. This happens way more than I ever thought would happen. It is even Spring break for one of the Atlanta counties. Only have permission to work from home 1 day a week, I may have to test that rule. :*)

Sorry, rant off. I do understand what you are saying Champ, I was just giving you shit.

 

[redandguilty]

I've now had that very wish about Henry Ford not existing for days.

No Ford - no Atlanta traffic.

I'm sorry - Detroit and Chicago traffic can't hold a candle to the crap they have around here. The last city I was in that had this bad of traffic as a normal occurence was LA. Boston is just crazy, but their traffic isn't worse. :*)

We had a few sprinkles of rain, no accidents, but it still took 1.5 hours to go ~25 miles - and I work just inside the perimeter. This happens way more than I ever thought would happen. It is even Spring break for one of the Atlanta counties. Only have permission to work from home 1 day a week, I may have to test that rule. :*)

Sorry, rant off. I do understand what you are saying Champ, I was just giving you shit.

I wouldn't stay in Atlanta. Atlanta needs water. I think desalination might be a good field to get into at some point. I think someday we'll have a huge water pipeline running to Atlanta.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think that would do it. Avoiding a "god of the gaps" means filling in all the gaps and we just keep discovering more gaps. ...

right... because for example, we still use mysticism to explain the unknown. Like when something goes wrong with one of NASA's probes, they come out and say "God must've done that to punish our trespass on His Heavenly domain." Or when we encounter a new disease... the CDC announces it could only be a biblical plague and calls on everyone to repent and whip themselves to appease angry spirits. so you're right it'll always be the same... ugh.

If I wasn't a reasonable person, your post would make me upset, and I would call you a bad name.

 

[Michchamp]

I wouldn't stay in Atlanta. Atlanta needs water. I think desalination might be a good field to get into at some point. I think someday we'll have a huge water pipeline running to Atlanta.

let's hope the free market can find some way to make that happen... cause otherwise it ain't getting done in tea party land.

 

[redandguilty]

right... because for example, we still use mysticism to explain the unknown. Like when something goes wrong with one of NASA's probes, they come out and say "God must've done that to punish our trespass on His Heavenly domain." Or when we encounter a new disease... the CDC announces it could only be a biblical plague and calls on everyone to repent and whip themselves to appease angry spirits. so you're right it'll always be the same... ugh.

If I wasn't a reasonable person, your post would make me upset, and I would call you a bad name.

You can usually find a way to twist what I say into a scenario that sounds silly, but by now you should know that's not what I meant. I gave an example of what I did mean.

 

[KAWDUP]

I wouldn't stay in Atlanta. Atlanta needs water. I think desalination might be a good field to get into at some point. I think someday we'll have a huge water pipeline running to Atlanta.

Havent you heard - the drought is over. Lake Lanier (main source of water) is only a few feet under normal. Most of the areas still under drought-like conditions are well outside of the Atlanta metropolitan area.

. . . desalination could still use some of the technological advances going on today, so you might be right there about a good field.

 

[KAWDUP]

let's hope the free market can find some way to make that happen... cause otherwise it ain't getting done in tea party land.

If anything, I would say that Atlanta proper represents one of the major pockets in the entire south of "non-teapartiness". I can tell you many of the businesses might actually favor a pipeline, although I have no real emprical evidence of that. :*)

 

[redandguilty]

Havent you heard - the drought is over. Lake Lanier (main source of water) is only a few feet under normal. Most of the areas still under drought-like conditions are well outside of the Atlanta metropolitan area.

. . . desalination could still use some of the technological advances going on today, so you might be right there about a good field.

I think they have a long-term problem. But not as bad as Albuquerque. The Atlanta drought was a low point in a fairly constant amount of rain over the past 100 years. I think Atlanta is going to see that little water every decade or so. Albuquerque developed during and unusually wet 50 year period. If they ever go back to normal, they're in trouble.

 

[Michchamp]

I've read Phoenix is going to be in even worse shape than either. their rights in the Colorado River are subordinate to California's; if it continues to dry out, they're be paying through the ear for more. and the electricity demands to cool that massive asphalt-enhanced heat island in the desert are only going to grow.

Glad I live next to the greatest source of fresh water on planet Earth, and in a temperate climate to boot! Smart.

 

[Michchamp]

You can usually find a way to twist what I say into a scenario that sounds silly, but by now you should know that's not what I meant. I gave an example of what I did mean.

I guess you're right that there will always be people out there that need to turn to fortune tellers, soothsayers, faith healers, shamans, priests, etc. for "answers." Would rather it wasn't that way; I'd hope people could simply acknowledge that gaps in our knowledge or understanding are just that, and don't require leaps of "faith" to fill in, that there is no "meaning" to life beyond existing and passing on your DNA, and both are OKAY.

 

[redandguilty]

there is no "meaning" to life beyond existing and passing on your DNA, and both are OKAY.

Are you sure passing on DNA counts as a meaning from your world view? ...since a lot of people intentionally refrain from doing so that would sort of imply they're all doing it wrong.

I haven't read much serious philosophy, but I've read that if you do, atheist philosophy all points to nihilism and you can end your sentence at the word "life". Not from people attacking atheism, from atheist blogs. Maybe not the best source, but it is difficult to treat any atheist meaning of life any more seriously than religious meanings from an atheist worldview. It's difficult to differentiate the validity of the meanings based on anything objective.

Isn't the ultimate justification for atheist humanism (as opposed to just atheism) that it doesn't really matter but it feels good?

 

[Michchamp]

Are you sure passing on DNA counts as a meaning from your world view? ...since a lot of people intentionally refrain from doing so that would sort of imply they're all doing it wrong.

I haven't read much serious philosophy, but I've read that if you do, atheist philosophy all points to nihilism and you can end your sentence at the word "life". Not from people attacking atheism, from atheist blogs. Maybe not the best source, but it is difficult to treat any atheist meaning of life any more seriously than religious meanings from an atheist worldview. It's difficult to differentiate the validity of the meanings based on anything objective.

Isn't the ultimate justification for atheist humanism (as opposed to just atheism) that it doesn't really matter but it feels good?

my view is based on the most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of life: chains of amino acids that existed naturally in the primordial seas became more complex proteins, which were self-replicating; these self-replicating proteins (precursor to modern DNA) evolved in complexity as certain features of some (cell walls, photosynthesis, etc.) gave them advantages over others, and lead to their prevalence. a few billion years of that gets us to where we are now.

So the strict meaning of life (life as in "life on earth") is to survive, pass on genes, and die. what we make of it beyond that is up to us, although presumably some paths are more appealing than others.

to me, a religious path is only possible if you do not understand the nature of life on earth.

 

[redandguilty]

my view is based on the most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of life: chains of amino acids that existed naturally in the primordial seas became more complex proteins, which were self-replicating; these self-replicating proteins (precursor to modern DNA) evolved in complexity as certain features of some (cell walls, photosynthesis, etc.) gave them advantages over others, and lead to their prevalence. a few billion years of that gets us to where we are now.

So the strict meaning of life (life as in "life on earth") is to survive, pass on genes, and die. what we make of it beyond that is up to us, although presumably some paths are more appealing than others.

to me, a religious path is only possible if you do not understand the nature of life on earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "meaning". It's something that happens or doesn't happens. Meaning implies purpose. Is the meaning of an asteroid to crash into other asteroids and the ones that fail didn't achieve their purpose? How do you assign any special meaning to the passing on of DNA? What's the significance of it? I know some of us perceive a desire to do it, but that's not really any different that saying "it feels good".

Regarding abiogenesis research, I've read some. It sound plausible and doesn't challenge my feelings regarding my religion.

 

[redandguilty]

Plus, I saw this picture from the space station.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not sure what you mean by "meaning". It's something that happens or doesn't happens. Meaning implies purpose. ...

that's it... to reproduce and die. that's the meaning. on a more macro level, among species, the meaning is to survive... and I suppose evolve to survive changes in the environment.

asteroids - inanimate objects - don't have a meaning, they just are. life does. it's not essentially a very complicated meaning though.

people that remain celibate, or at least don't want to have kids don't disprove the essential meaning. they can be explained by factors consistent with the theory.

 

[redandguilty]

that's it... to reproduce and die. that's the meaning. on a more macro level, among species, the meaning is to survive... and I suppose evolve to survive changes in the environment.

asteroids - inanimate objects - don't have a meaning, they just are. life does. it's not essentially a very complicated meaning though.

people that remain celibate, or at least don't want to have kids don't disprove the essential meaning. they can be explained by factors consistent with the theory.

I don't follow. Why is that the goal? What is the significance of offspring vs extinction? It's still just matter that exists. Is it just for people, or animals, or plants, of fungi, or bacterial, or viruses...or chemical reactions? When in the course of abiogenesis did it get a meaning?