Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Apr 9, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Religion Dispatched

Sparked by a Richard Dawkins tweet , in which he drew a parallel between Islamists and Nazis, Nathan Lean recently suggested on Salon.com that the most famous representatives of the new atheism "flirt with" Islamophobia [echoing Chris Stedman's prescient warning to fellow atheists on RD this past August]. As the article explains, Dawkins, Hitchens ... (more)

Comments
2,201 - 2,220 of 3,766 Comments Last updated Nov 22, 2013

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2238
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence is the fine toning of the constants of the universe. The design in the universe must be investigated as any other natural phenomena and not simply dismissed.
And the first step in figuring out whether something is designed is to first understand what nature alone can do without intelligent intervention.

For example, perfect rectangular solids with open insides are rare to non-existent in nature, so we can know that certain types of buildings are designed simply by their construction.

Or, if we got a signal from space that included a progressing sequence of primes, we would know that an intelligence was behind it since there is no way to produce such signals naturally (that we know of).

Another example can be found in archeology, when we are attempting to determine whether a given rock was modified by intelligence. Do determine that requires knowing how rocks split naturally and finding a difference in the sample from the naturally produced effects.

Now, it is not the complexity of a thing that determines whether it is designed enough. There are many complex phenomena that are perfectly natural and many things that are designed are very simple (example: a paper clip).

So now we come to the universe. First, we know of natural processes acting via gravity that would produce the spiral galaxies, the stars, and the planets. We know there are a wide variety of planets and stars, so it is not at all surprising that a combination like our earth and sun could happen. Once you get a planet in the habitable zone, life is probably fairly easy to get started because the basic materials are well distributed in galaxies. Any 'fine tuning' for the earth specifically is more like the water in a puddle commenting how the earth around it was perfectly designed for the shape of the water. We are a product of our environment, so it isn't surprising that we fit into it. Again, that aspect is perfectly natural.

Now you bring up the 'tuned constants'. It is a good bet that most people who bring up this argument can't say even one of those tuned constants. They are simply parroting what someone else said. But much more relevant is that we do not know how or whether those constants can be different. We simply do not know what nature can do alone. In fact, in a multiverse scenario (and un-verified possibility), it is quite likely that *all* different combinations are found *somewhere*. We just happen to be in a spot that works well for the development of life.

So, your conclusion of design is at least premature until we know what is possible in terms of changing 'constants'. It is even possible that there is some sort of feedback mechanism that forces the constants to be certain values. We simply do not know. And, in some of the theories we have built, it is even the case that all possible combinations happen somewhere, eliminating the design hypothesis from consideration.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2239
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a hater of all those who don't subscribe to your mindless triune god: random, chance and time.
So you really do not understand any of the science and are not interested in learning it?
You need to conjure up your god of the gaps, multiverse,
A multiverse scenario follows naturally from the known inflation stage of the Big Bang. It also appears naturally in many quantum gravity theories.
in order to deny the evidence, anthropic principle, for God.
And why do you think the Anthropic principle is evidence for a God?
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2240
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the first step in figuring out whether something is designed is to first understand what nature alone can do without intelligent intervention.
For example, perfect rectangular solids with open insides are rare to non-existent in nature, so we can know that certain types of buildings are designed simply by their construction.
Or, if we got a signal from space that included a progressing sequence of primes, we would know that an intelligence was behind it since there is no way to produce such signals naturally (that we know of).
Another example can be found in archeology, when we are attempting to determine whether a given rock was modified by intelligence. Do determine that requires knowing how rocks split naturally and finding a difference in the sample from the naturally produced effects.
Now, it is not the complexity of a thing that determines whether it is designed enough. There are many complex phenomena that are perfectly natural and many things that are designed are very simple (example: a paper clip).
So now we come to the universe. First, we know of natural processes acting via gravity that would produce the spiral galaxies, the stars, and the planets. We know there are a wide variety of planets and stars, so it is not at all surprising that a combination like our earth and sun could happen. Once you get a planet in the habitable zone, life is probably fairly easy to get started because the basic materials are well distributed in galaxies. Any 'fine tuning' for the earth specifically is more like the water in a puddle commenting how the earth around it was perfectly designed for the shape of the water. We are a product of our environment, so it isn't surprising that we fit into it. Again, that aspect is perfectly natural.
Now you bring up the 'tuned constants'. It is a good bet that most people who bring up this argument can't say even one of those tuned constants. They are simply parroting what someone else said. But much more relevant is that we do not know how or whether those constants can be different. We simply do not know what nature can do alone. In fact, in a multiverse scenario (and un-verified possibility), it is quite likely that *all* different combinations are found *somewhere*. We just happen to be in a spot that works well for the development of life.
So, your conclusion of design is at least premature until we know what is possible in terms of changing 'constants'. It is even possible that there is some sort of feedback mechanism that forces the constants to be certain values. We simply do not know. And, in some of the theories we have built, it is even the case that all possible combinations happen somewhere, eliminating the design hypothesis from consideration.
If life is so easy to develop from the raw materials why hasn't life been created in a petri dish? Oh, if we leave the ingredients in the dish long enough life will develop on its own.

Science has not been able to prove life can rise from chemicals and energy alone. It is only speculation.

Has there ever been any indication of life beyond the earth? How long have they been searching for signals from extra terrestrial life?

Your claims are based on your faith in materialism and not fact.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2241
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you really do not understand any of the science and are not interested in learning it?
<quoted text>
A multiverse scenario follows naturally from the known inflation stage of the Big Bang. It also appears naturally in many quantum gravity theories.
<quoted text>
And why do you think the Anthropic principle is evidence for a God?
It is evidence of an intelligent designer and not random chance and time.

Your claims are based on the improbable happening as an every day occurrence.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2242
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>'
That is one of the stupidest things I have read on here.
You can't refute it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2243
Jun 16, 2013
 
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
If life is so easy to develop from the raw materials why hasn't life been created in a petri dish? Oh, if we leave the ingredients in the dish long enough life will develop on its own.
Science has not been able to prove life can rise from chemicals and energy alone. It is only speculation.
Has there ever been any indication of life beyond the earth? How long have they been searching for signals from extra terrestrial life?
Your claims are based on your faith in materialism and not fact.
You're a liar with no proof of god. Try proving your god before criticising science - the very thing that sh*ts on your stupid beliefs every single day.

Take some responsiblity for your chosen hallucinations.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2244
Jun 16, 2013
 
Lincoln LCN wrote:
<quoted text>
Hope that you are feeling better from the operation.
Peace
Poor defeated creationist with nothing of worth to say. Evolution's evidence crushing your pathetic cult day in and day out.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2245
Jun 16, 2013
 
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't refute it.
You can't even prove your delusion, so what the f*ck are you talking about?
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2246
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence?
The evidence is in the world around you. Science has yet to produce life in a petri dish. If life is so easy to create that it occurs throughout the universe by accident, why can't they produce it in a petri dish?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2247
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
If life is so easy to develop from the raw materials why hasn't life been created in a petri dish? Oh, if we leave the ingredients in the dish long enough life will develop on its own.
First of all, I didn't say it was easy. I said it is probably common in the universe.

It doesn't spontaneously form in a petri dish because of several factors, one of which is that there is oxygen in our atmosphere. Another is that there is not methane and ammonia in our atmosphere.
Science has not been able to prove life can rise from chemicals and energy alone. It is only speculation.
Actually, life *is* made out of chemicals and energy alone. That is not speculation. YOU are a complex collection of chemical reactions. So is all other life.
Has there ever been any indication of life beyond the earth? How long have they been searching for signals from extra terrestrial life?
Your claims are based on your faith in materialism and not fact.
And I would not expect there to be signals of extra-terrestrial life. But I do expect such life to be common and mostly bacterial (which tends to not send out signals).

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2248
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence is in the world around you. Science has yet to produce life in a petri dish. If life is so easy to create that it occurs throughout the universe by accident, why can't they produce it in a petri dish?
So then gold coins are evidence that leprechauns exist.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2249
Jun 16, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar with no proof of god. Try proving your god before criticising science - the very thing that sh*ts on your stupid beliefs every single day.
Take some responsiblity for your chosen hallucinations.
Still waiting for science to create life in a petri dish. Once they do that they have to prove it can happen in nature by 'accident'. Frist they may want to prove the fine tuning of the universe constants were accidents. How are they trying to answer this? Oh yes, by creating and infinite number of other universe that we just happen not to be able to see or measure.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2250
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, I didn't say it was easy. I said it is probably common in the universe.
It doesn't spontaneously form in a petri dish because of several factors, one of which is that there is oxygen in our atmosphere. Another is that there is not methane and ammonia in our atmosphere.
<quoted text>
Actually, life *is* made out of chemicals and energy alone. That is not speculation. YOU are a complex collection of chemical reactions. So is all other life.
<quoted text>
And I would not expect there to be signals of extra-terrestrial life. But I do expect such life to be common and mostly bacterial (which tends to not send out signals).
Duh, they can place the petri dish in an chamber with an atmosphere of methane and ammonia or any other gas they please.

Prove life is just made of chemicals and energy. Even if man creates life in a petri dish, using chemicals and energy, it took intelligent design to do it.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2251
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, I didn't say it was easy. I said it is probably common in the universe.
It doesn't spontaneously form in a petri dish because of several factors, one of which is that there is oxygen in our atmosphere. Another is that there is not methane and ammonia in our atmosphere.
<quoted text>
Actually, life *is* made out of chemicals and energy alone. That is not speculation. YOU are a complex collection of chemical reactions. So is all other life.
<quoted text>
And I would not expect there to be signals of extra-terrestrial life. But I do expect such life to be common and mostly bacterial (which tends to not send out signals).
We are told by scientists that the early earth atmosphere contained methane and ammonia. Did it?

" http://www.livescience.com/10668-thick-haze-p... ;

" http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1112/01atmo... ;

Putting methane and ammonia in the early atmosphere is nice for creating life on earth; but was it really there as claimed? What proof do they have the early earth's atmosphere contained ammonia and methane?
Dak-Original

Pontefract, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2253
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for science to create life in a petri dish. Once they do that they have to prove it can happen in nature by 'accident'. Frist they may want to prove the fine tuning of the universe constants were accidents. How are they trying to answer this? Oh yes, by creating and infinite number of other universe that we just happen not to be able to see or measure.
Basic life is created even today next to some of the volcanic vents in the ocean floor. In time and in given circumstances it will evolve over million of years.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2254
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh, they can place the petri dish in an chamber with an atmosphere of methane and ammonia or any other gas they please.
And when they have done so, the basic components of life have been produced: amino acids, nucleic acids, etc. They will also spontaneously form cell-like structures and produce catalysts for many of the reactions required for life.

We know that life is a chemical process. The question is what the conditions and environment were where life first arose. That is one aspect that we do not know. Even on the early earth, there were a large variety of different environments with different chemical compositions, different temperatures, different conditions of drying and wetting, etc. We do not know the exact conditions or combination of conditions that event existed, let alone which ones were required for encouraging the chemical reactions for life. But progress is being made and we know much more than we did even a couple of decades ago and the results consistently point to it being a process that is possible, even if it took more than the couple of decades we have been working at it.
Prove life is just made of chemicals and energy.
Look at any biochemistry book. Every aspect of life is chemical. There is nothing different about the atoms in your body that those same types of atoms anywhere else.
Even if man creates life in a petri dish, using chemicals and energy, it took intelligent design to do it.
Not necessarily. If we set up conditions similar to the early earth, with the variety of required environments, and life is formed, that would show that intelligent intervention is NOT required. Even if the first life we produce is made via intelligent intervention, we may well learn what conditions are required for it to happen spontaneously.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2255
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
We are told by scientists that the early earth atmosphere contained methane and ammonia. Did it?
" http://www.livescience.com/10668-thick-haze-p... ;
" http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1112/01atmo... ;
Putting methane and ammonia in the early atmosphere is nice for creating life on earth; but was it really there as claimed? What proof do they have the early earth's atmosphere contained ammonia and methane?
We know, even with these studies, that the atmosphere did not have elemental oxygen then as it does today. Ammonia is very common in the universe, as is methane. Even if the carbon was trapped inside of carbon monoxide or even carbon dioxide, it would still have been a good basis for the reactions leading to the basic chemicals for life.

If anything, your post points to one of the biggest problems we have: we do not know exactly what the conditions were on the early earth. There was a wide variety of chemical, temperature, and physical environments and we are not 100% certain about the composition of the atmosphere (but we do know the amount of oxygen was way lower than it is today, meaning a much more reducing atmosphere than it is now). But we *do* know that a wide range of starting materials can lead to the amino acids and nucleic acids required for life (as well as the lipids, etc). We know that, once formed, those basic chemicals will spontaneously polymerize to form things like RNA and small proteins. We know that those materials will spontaneously congregate into cell-like structures and catalyze the reactions we know are important for life.

One big problem is that even if we manage to produce life in the lab (not likely to be in a test-tube), we will not know if that was the exact process of the early earth. We simply don't have the data to say what that process was. And most likely, the relevant data was destroyed billions of years ago. So we do what we can based on what we know about life and chemistry.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2256
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't understand how statistics work or what trends are. ;)
Yes.

One of the most common things about True Believers™(apart from their nearly universal hate), is that they are really bad a math.

Especially statistics.

Proof? The number of True Believers™ who buy lottery tickets each week... with money they typically can ill afford to lose, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2257
Jun 16, 2013
 
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in your self deluded mind. You are a Christophobe. Better put on your tin foil cap to keep off those evil Christians.
What on **earth** is a "christophobe"?

Do you actually think I am **afraid** of you hate-cultists?

I'm not-- the US constitution guarantees that I do not need to be.
More to the point? Your "christ" is just a myth anyway.

There is **no** historical records of him, that date to his alleged lifetime.

None.

Not even your ugly bible; the oldest is a generation too late to be useful in the historical sense. And those are not even any of the so-called "gospels"....! They are from the heretic Paul (who may also be completely fictional-- unknown, really).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2258
Jun 16, 2013
 
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a hater of all those who don't subscribe to your mindless triune god: random, chance and time. You need to conjure up your god of the gaps, multiverse, in order to deny the evidence, anthropic principle, for God.
What on **earth** is a "christophobe"?

Do you actually think I am **afraid** of you hate-cultists?

I'm not-- the US constitution guarantees that I do not need to be.
More to the point? Your "christ" is just a myth anyway.

There is **no** historical records of him, that date to his alleged lifetime.

None.

Not even your ugly bible; the oldest is a generation too late to be useful in the historical sense. And those are not even any of the so-called "gospels"....! They are from the heretic Paul (who may also be completely fictional-- unknown, really).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

15 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 min Dave Nelson 224,508
What does "Atheism" mean? 2 hr Patrick 34
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 2 hr Patrick 395
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 4 hr religionisillness 19
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Growupchildren 21,401
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr Growupchildren 245
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... Mon Liam R 21
•••
•••