The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[KS]

Buddhism does not concentrate on Karma or Moksha. It's concentrated on how to achieve Nirvana. It seems that most Indians believe Buddhism to be a mere fraction of Hinduism.
]

Unless ofcourse you consider Theravada school of thought as the only legitimate school of thought in Buddhism.

 

[HeinzGud]

Unless ofcourse you consider Theravada school of thought as the only legitimate school of thought in Buddhism.

No school of thought in Buddhism is correct 100%.............. though Mahayana is least correct.

 

[KS]

No school of thought in Buddhism is correct 100%.............. though Mahayana is least correct.

The people who practise Mahayana school of thought think otherwise.

 

[Param]

Talk to me about it when they create life out of it.

Scientists create artificial life in laboratory

Abrahamic religions holds nothing good for those who can do basic reasoning and logic. Hence, there is digression.

Atleast they don't have the evil caste system with divine justification.

 

[KS]

Atleast they don't have the evil caste system with divine justification.

They have had much worse especially Christianity & Islam. Lets not flagellate ourselves too much.

 

[p2prada]

How is that? You mentioned a maxim as if it is known fact.

Huh! you were the one who said it. I just replied using sarcasm, did you not get that?

I said you won't learn much about religion if you are talking about when man was an amoeba.

Talk to me about it when they create life out of it.

LOL. You don't even know what you are talking about now. Like I said a theist has no debating points. You are jumping to uselessness.

All because you have limited terminology, a baby cannot automatically fall into one or another category. Theism or Atheism happens when we are opinionated about the concept of God. The baby simply is un-opinionated.

Again. What terminology do you want? Make up one and present it in a journal with your findings, it will be disproved and thrown out simply because a baby as an atheist fits. A baby simply cannot be categorized as theist, hence atheist.

Abrahamic religions holds nothing good for those who can do basic reasoning and logic. Hence, there is digression.

Not really. There is no difference in India as well. Look at Shiv Sena and VHP. It is the extremists who cause trouble in all religions. There are plenty of theists who are capable of thought and reason in all aspects of life except religion.

I am not sure whether Japan was ever religiously or spiritually inclined nation.

Yes. They know for a fact there is no God. Hence they have a good and productive life and a small crime rate. They are highly intelligent as a race and don't use tripe as means for morals.

Japan's ex-PM made this statement when he was in power : I regard religion itself as quite unnecessary for a nation's life; science is far above superstition, and what is religion - Buddhism or Christianity - but superstition, and therefore a possible source of weakness to a nation? I do not regret the tendency to free thought and atheism, which is almost universal in Japan because I do not regard it as a source of danger to the community

Edit: During WW2, most Japanese were religious and the emperor was seen as a God like figure. They followed Shintoism. It was seen as a religious duty to conquer the world. After WW2 the emperor made a speech saying he was not a God and it was a fib. In the last 50 years religion declined to less than 15%. Today I guess only immigrants and settlers follow religion in Japan.

 

[civfanatic]

Talk to me about it when they create life out of it.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Take my advice and read a decent biology textbook, it will do you more good than any volume of religious literature. Among other things, you will learn what "life" is, which blind religious faith cannot explain or define (as evidenced by the ignorance in your posts) but science can.

 

[Vyom]

Huh! you were the one who said it. I just replied using sarcasm, did you not get that?

I said you won't learn much about religion if you are talking about when man was an amoeba.

When did I talked about religion's existence in context of amoeba? I was talking about the atheists taking the POV that we evolved from a single-celled creature. Now I am not sure whether you are at the level to proceed with this discussion. You need to first know the basics of the differences between theism and atheism.

LOL. You don't even know what you are talking about now. Like I said a theist has no debating points. You are jumping to uselessness.

Sure, only that I have the same opinion about you now.

Not really. There is no difference in India as well. Look at Shiv Sena and VHP. It is the extremists who cause trouble in all religions. There are plenty of theists who are capable of thought and reason in all aspects of life except religion.

You need to first be able to put things into the right perspective in order to discuss these things. Where do Shiv Sena and VHP come into this discussion? As far as I remember we were talking about atheists and not extremists.

Yes. They know for a fact there is no God. Hence they have a good and productive life and a small crime rate. They are highly intelligent as a race and don't use tripe as means for morals.

Your measure of good and productive life is fallacious. Material advancement is nothing to do with the fact that a nation is majorly theist, because science and religiosity are not necessarily exclusive.

 

[Vyom]

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Take my advice and read a decent biology textbook, it will do you more good than any volume of religious literature. Among other things, you will learn what "life" is, which blind religious faith cannot explain or define (as evidenced by the ignorance in your posts) but science can.

So we resort to personal nitpicking. Do you know what kinds of books I have read? What exactly can you tell me about life in biology books that I do not know?

 

[p2prada]

Your measure of good and productive life is fallacious. Material advancement is nothing to do with the fact that a nation is majorly theist, because science and religiosity are not necessarily exclusive.

Then you can explain what is a good life. Your method of achieving it not the same as an atheists though. Ultimately the end result is the same if you remove the superstitious stuff.

There is nothing much to debate here. See ya.

 

[civfanatic]

So we resort to personal nitpicking. Do you know what kinds of books I have read? What exactly can you tell me about life in biology books that I do not know?

I can tell you that the molecular foundations of life consist of proteins and nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), and I can tell you that these macromolecules can be created as a result of chemical reactions involving inorganic compounds like water and ammonia. As p2prada has stated, the Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment is the most famous instance where organic compounds were shown to form from inorganic compounds, and since then numerous other abiogenesis experiments have been conducted. All life on Earth originated from simple molecules based on RNA (which can self-replicate itself, hence forming the reproductive basis of life), and over many millions of years these simple organisms evolved into the complex lifeforms that exist today.

What I don't understand is why these basic points of biology are so offensive to theists? Again this shows the naturally regressive and harmful nature that religion poses to society at large.

 

[Vyom]

I can tell you that the molecular foundations of life consist of proteins and nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), and I can tell you that these macromolecules can be created as a result of chemical reactions involving inorganic compounds like water and ammonia. As p2prada has stated, the Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment is the most famous instance where organic compounds were shown to form from inorganic compounds, and since then numerous other abiogenesis experiments have been conducted. All life on Earth originated from simple molecules based on RNA (which can self-replicate itself, hence forming the reproductive basis of life), and over many millions of years these simple organisms evolved into the complex lifeforms that exist today.

Let me tell you the basic facts about DNA/RNA. They contain structures that regulates the creation and maintenance of a body. They are not the source of life. If that were the case, Miller-Urey would have not much of a problem in developing a live creature out of non-living materials. Is that the case?

What I don't understand is why these basic points of biology are so offensive to theists? Again this shows the naturally regressive and harmful nature that religion poses to society at large.

You have to level up. Why do you assume that it is offensive to me or any theist who also recognizes science.

 

[Vyom]

There is nothing much to debate here. See ya.

Buh bye!

 

[Daredevil]

Let me tell you the basic facts about DNA/RNA. They contain structures that regulates the creation and maintenance of a body. They are not the source of life. If that were the case, Miller-Urey would have not much of a problem in developing a live creature out of non-living materials. Is that the case?.

Life, as we know, is an accident which got created from the organic molecules through the process of biogenesis. What triggered the formation of life from these organic molecules can only be known by conducting billions of possible reactions in the lab to know, which I think is not feasible now. But who knows, there might be a time when life can be created out of nothing in the lab.

If you give the chance to evolution one more time, we may not exist as we are but the resultant of an accident which might happen only 1 in billion times.

Having said all this, Craig Ventor and his team did create a synthetic life-form.

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form | Science | The Guardian

 

[civfanatic]

Let me tell you the basic facts about DNA/RNA. They contain structures that regulates the creation and maintenance of a body. They are not the source of life. If that were the case, Miller-Urey would have not much of a problem in developing a live creature out of non-living materials. Is that the case?

Again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment was not to artificially create life but to show that organic compounds can arise from inorganic compounds; in this they succeeded. An amino acid is the building block of life, but not alive in itself. In order to form a living organism there needs to be a genome consisting of nucleic acid. The Miller-Urey experiment did not include nucleic acid, though subsequent abiogenesis experiments have shown that DNA and RNA, like proteins, can also arise from inorganic compounds.

As for the development of a live creature from non-living materials, it has already been done:
BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

 

[KS]

Then you can explain what is a good life. Your method of achieving it not the same as an atheists though. Ultimately the end result is the same if you remove the superstitious stuff.

There is nothing much to debate here. See ya.

This is the problem with the atheists. They lump everything together and lack the discerning capability between superstition and true faith.

Can't fault them though.If they had it they would not be atheists in the first place.

 

[Vyom]

Life, as we know, is an accident which got created from the organic molecules through the process of biogenesis. What triggered the formation of life from these organic molecules can only be known by conducting billions of possible reactions in the lab to know, which I think is not feasible now. But who knows, there might be a time when life can be created out of nothing in the lab.

If you give the chance to evolution one more time, we may not exist as we are the resultant of an accident which might happen only 1 in billion times.

Having said all this, Craig Ventor and his team did create a synthetic life-form.

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form | Science | The Guardian

IT'S ALIVE!!!Visions of Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster came to mind with the news yesterday that artificial life had been "created" in the laboratory. Unfortunately, for the mainstream media hypemeisters, a scientist has tossed cold water upon that bold assertion. And who was the killjoy scientist raining on the MSM parade hyping this event? Why, it was the scientist, J. Craig Ventner himself, who was being credited in the media for being a latter day Dr. Frankenstein as you can see in this San Diego Union-Tribune report:

J. Craig Venter, the La Jolla biologist who played a key role in decoding the human genome, said Thursday that his team has made the world's first "synthetic cell," an advance that eventually could help and hurt humanity.
Venter and his colleagues basically figured out how to design a bacterial cell on a computer. Then they used genetic engineering and chemicals that are essential for life to produce an entity that's novel but not yet a truly living version of anything that occurs naturally.
This "is the first self-replicating species that we have on the planet whose parent is a computer," said Venter, who was careful to add that he had not created new life from scratch.
​

Got that? Ventner himself was careful to note that new life had NOT been created.This is made clear when you read the actual details of most of the news stories with misleading headlines. An example is the BBC story with this headline:

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
​

The details of the actual story reveal that something much less than "artificial life" was created in the lab:

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
​

But who am I to ruin everyone's excitement over this overhyped "Frankenstein" story? Let us review a few of the misleading but fun headlines such as this from the UK Sun:

'Frankenstein' doc creates life
​

The UK Daily Mail gave us a special bonus of a doomsday headline:

Scientist accused of playing God after creating artificial life by making designer microbe from scratch - but could it wipe out humanity?
​

Vanity Fair ventured into the theological realm with a headline that seems to be a putdown of the Almighty:

Mankind Creates First Synthetic Genome, Officially Replaces God​

Yes, artificial hype was created in the newsrooms but it appears no artificial life in the laboratory. A Wired story by Carol Zimmer brings us down to earth on this subject:

...We are a long way from playing God. The scientists didn't assemble the fragments of DNA by themselves, nor did they program robots to do so. Instead, they injected the fragments into E. coli, and let the bacteria do the job themselves. Eventually, it turned out that E. coli could only build up a quarter of the genome. The scientists don't quite know why. So they injected those big chunks of Mycoplasma DNA into yeast. Lo and behold, the yeast were able to finish up the job for the scientists. They don't quite know how the yeast did their own biochemical magic either. I would assume that God would have this kind of stuff figured out.
​

So perhaps an updated Dr. Frankenstein could shout: "HYPE! HYPE! I'VE CREATED ARTIFICIAL HYPE!!!"

Artificial Hype...But Not Life...Created in MSM Laboratory | NewsBusters.org

 

[Vyom]

Life, as we know, is an accident which got created from the organic molecules through the process of biogenesis. What triggered the formation of life from these organic molecules can only be known by conducting billions of possible reactions in the lab to know, which I think is not feasible now. But who knows, there might be a time when life can be created out of nothing in the lab.

If you give the chance to evolution one more time, we may not exist as we are the resultant of an accident which might happen only 1 in billion times.

Having said all this, Craig Ventor and his team did create a synthetic life-form.

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form | Science | The Guardian

Artificial Hype...But Not Life...Created in MSM Laboratory | NewsBusters.org

IT'S ALIVE!!!
Visions of Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster came to mind with the news yesterday that artificial life had been "created" in the laboratory. Unfortunately, for the mainstream media hypemeisters, a scientist has tossed cold water upon that bold assertion. And who was the killjoy scientist raining on the MSM parade hyping this event? Why, it was the scientist, J. Craig Ventner himself, who was being credited in the media for being a latter day Dr. Frankenstein as you can see in this San Diego Union-Tribune report:

J. Craig Venter, the La Jolla biologist who played a key role in decoding the human genome, said Thursday that his team has made the world's first "synthetic cell," an advance that eventually could help and hurt humanity.
Venter and his colleagues basically figured out how to design a bacterial cell on a computer. Then they used genetic engineering and chemicals that are essential for life to produce an entity that's novel but not yet a truly living version of anything that occurs naturally.
This "is the first self-replicating species that we have on the planet whose parent is a computer," said Venter, who was careful to add that he had not created new life from scratch.
​

Got that? Ventner himself was careful to note that new life had NOT been created.This is made clear when you read the actual details of most of the news stories with misleading headlines. An example is the BBC story with this headline:

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
​

The details of the actual story reveal that something much less than "artificial life" was created in the lab:

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
​

But who am I to ruin everyone's excitement over this overhyped "Frankenstein" story? Let us review a few of the misleading but fun headlines such as this from the UK Sun:

'Frankenstein' doc creates life
​

The UK Daily Mail gave us a special bonus of a doomsday headline:

Scientist accused of playing God after creating artificial life by making designer microbe from scratch - but could it wipe out humanity?
​

Vanity Fair ventured into the theological realm with a headline that seems to be a putdown of the Almighty:

Mankind Creates First Synthetic Genome, Officially Replaces God​

Yes, artificial hype was created in the newsrooms but it appears no artificial life in the laboratory. A Wired story by Carol Zimmer brings us down to earth on this subject:

...We are a long way from playing God. The scientists didn't assemble the fragments of DNA by themselves, nor did they program robots to do so. Instead, they injected the fragments into E. coli, and let the bacteria do the job themselves. Eventually, it turned out that E. coli could only build up a quarter of the genome. The scientists don't quite know why. So they injected those big chunks of Mycoplasma DNA into yeast. Lo and behold, the yeast were able to finish up the job for the scientists. They don't quite know how the yeast did their own biochemical magic either. I would assume that God would have this kind of stuff figured out.
​

So perhaps an updated Dr. Frankenstein could shout: "HYPE! HYPE! I'VE CREATED ARTIFICIAL HYPE!!!"

 

[p2prada]

This is the problem with the atheists. They lump everything together and lack the discerning capability between superstition and true faith.

Hilarious. Superstition and faith lumped in as two separate entities.

Can you tell me what is faith and what is superstition?

 

[civfanatic]

I don't think there is any reason for me to stay and debate here. This "discussion" is becoming increasingly anti-intellectual thanks to theists, with everything from logical fallacies to rejection of established scientific fact. I respect the right of theists to continue believing in their imaginary deities, as it is part of free speech. As a departing message to theists I will show you this:

This is ribonucleic acid, commonly called RNA. It formed the original basis of life. Without ribonucleic acid there would no theists to peddle their religious nonsense and no atheists to retort. If you want to worship anything, worship this molecule, because without RNA there would be nothing.