Why Atheism?

[The Storm]

You could easily argue the opposite. Why do humans have fingers? Or arms for that matter? What about the eyes? If the appendix is no longer useful, why is it still there (shouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it over time)?

One of the many misconceptions about evolution. It allows organisms to adapt to changing environments, but it doesn't necessarily iron out mistakes or things that are no longer needed, unless they inhibit a species' ability to survive.

Two kidneys are indeed better than one. But that's as much an argument for evolution as it is for God.

Here's something you might want to consider about the "intelligent designer": most animals are able to synthesise their own vitamin C in their bodies, but primates (including humans) lack this ability. We still have the gene for it, but it's not "switched on". So is this intelligent designer being mean or just incompetent?

Air, water, food, shelter--all human necessities are fulfilled, this "coincidence" of a world didn't forget about any of them.

You've got it a bit backwards. It's not that the world is perfectly suited for us, but rather, it is we who are adapted to survive in this world. We evolved to breathe Earth's air. If the air had been different, then evolution would have thrown up creatures that could survive in that kind of atmosphere instead. And of course, if there wasn't any water and energy, then we would never evolved in the first place, but it's not like they're uncommon- all you need is a star to supply energy and the right temperature for liquid water to exist. Given that pretty much every star is likely to have at least one planet in orbit, that gives plenty of chances.

Oh? How come we haven't had any more stars getting the exact amount of energy at the right temperature spashing water on earth? The earth has its own water cycle, perfectly suited for human beings. Human beings did not invent this convenient system, especially since it's IMpossible.

Are there any organisms living on other planets that we know of for sure? Life is only suitable on Earth for humans and anything living for that matter. If we find something living on another planet, it would grow due to its capability to obtain the oxygen from its surroundings, not because it has evolved so that it can absorb the gases in which it is surrounded by. Not to mention, the first organisms in these types of environments, having not gone through evolution, would have died out due to failure to breathe. Let's talk about the earth while we're on this topic:

The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast.

The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if it had not been so tilted, vapours from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away.

If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere.

Because of these, and a host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Ok... So... In light of everything you just said... On a few points... You did in fact contradict yourself a bit. First off, our planet cannot be the only one that has life on it. That is one of the stupidest and most egotistical thoughts in human history. How self centered do we look to ourselves to think that in this universe, as wide and as endless as it is, that we are the only living beings, and that our planet is the best in the cosmos? Completely self centered as a thought in my opinion.

Second, we only say that life cannot exist on other planets bc they have no oxygen or water, the basic components of life, am i correct? That is a false statement. Who said all living things needed water and oxygen to survive? We did, bc we are self centered. It is a true statement to say that everything on OUR planet needs water and oxygen to survive, but this does not need to be true for every other living being. We think this cheifly bc the way we classify something as living is if it breaths oxygen and has water in the environment.

Third, adaptation and evolution overules everything you said about the earth completely. The earth was not always tilted the way it is, it did not even always have a moon, and im sure after billions of years it has shifted either a bit closer or farther away from the sun. And yes, these seemingly perfect conditions that you pointed out are valid, but noone said it was made for us to live in. We adapted to survive in this environment through billions of years of trial and error, just as I stated previously. At this point in time, yes, conditions are completely suitable for us to live, but if everything was perfect, then why do scientists say that sometime in the next few billion years that we will either drift further or farther away from the sun and cease to exist? Its entirely possible. However, what will happen then is that we will ADAPT once again to survive. Look at the dinosaurs, they were around for millions of years, and now they are only a vague memory. And yet we evolved from them, the conditions during their lives changed, and they were no longer able to survive in the environment, so they adapted and evolved. The same will happen to uis when conditions become unacceptable to live in.

And fourth, trying to bring this conversation back to Atheism, there is no one being controlling all of this. And if there were, obviously he is not this great and merciful protector the Christians make him out to be, bc if god created everything, then he created the dinosaurs. And look what happened, he wiped their asses out... Whos to say he didnt care as much about the dinos as he cares about us? If their is no god, which is what I believe anyways, then one day we will have to adapt and change bc the living conditions on the earth will change and be unsuitable for humans to survive. And if their is a god, then the same thing will happen on day anyways, bc he will wipe us out just as he has done to every living thing before us.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Oh? How come we haven't had any more stars getting the exact amount of energy at the right temperature spashing water on earth? The earth has its own water cycle, perfectly suited for human beings. Human beings did not invent this convenient system, especially since it's IMpossible.

...Huh?

Are there any organisms living on other planets that we know of for sure? Life is only suitable on Earth for humans and anything living for that matter. If we find something living on another planet, it would grow due to its capability to obtain the oxygen from its surroundings, not because it has evolved so that it can absorb the gases in which it is surrounded by. Not to mention, the first organisms in these types of environments, having not gone through evolution, would have died out due to failure to breathe.

The first organisms on Earth would presumably have come about in an enivornment which was favourable to them. And they wouldn't have breathed at all- they were anaerobic, so oxygen would have been poisonous to them (fortunately for them, there wasn't much oxygen around then).

There's no reason to think that if life can't come about once, it can do so again on other planets.

Let's talk about the earth while we're on this topic:

The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast.

The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if it had not been so tilted, vapours from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away.

If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere.

Err... the depth of the crust and the oceans varies across the globe already, so it wouldn't make a difference if they were a few feet thicker.

Because of these, and a host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Alright, let's play numbers, shall we?

-In the observable universe there are approximately 10 sextillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars, and it's reasonable to assume almost all of them have planets.
-Let's assume that life can only exist on planets orbiting "Sun-like" stars, which would be something like 1% of the total.
-Now we want planetary systems with a nice big gas giant in a wide enough orbit (like in our solar system), so there'll be less asteroid impacts on any life-bearing worlds in the same system. The percentage of systems like this is unknown, so let's go with a conservative figure of about 10%.
-We want a rocky planet in the star's "habitable zone" (the area around the star where it's not too hot or cold). For a star like the Sun, the habitable zone is roughly in the area around 1 AU. Again, no one knows the figure for this, so let's just say 10% again.
-Now we need this rocky planet to have a large moon to stabilise its rotation. In our solar system one of the four rocky planets has a large moon, so let's say that's 25%.

So using these figures, we can estimate there are very roughly about 2.5 x 10^17 planets in the observable universe that are vaguely Earth-like (my estimates are by no means great, but at least it illustrates the kind of numbers we're dealing with here).

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Ok fine we can continue the discussion more strictly based on "atheism" itself, rather than proving theirs God on a theist's part (but it's acceptable in this situation for an atheist to try and prove otherwise, I'm not being sarcastic).

I will make another thread concerning the proof that God does indeed exist, and that he DOES in fact care for HIS creations. We can continue the debate as to whether God exists or not there.

 

[PrinceLink]

-In the observable universe there are approximately 10 sextillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars, and it's reasonable to assume almost all of them have planets.
-Let's assume that life can only exist on planets orbiting "Sun-like" stars, which would be something like 1% of the total.
-Now we want planetary systems with a nice big gas giant in a wide enough orbit (like in our solar system), so there'll be less asteroid impacts on any life-bearing worlds in the same system. The percentage of systems like this is unknown, so let's go with a conservative figure of about 10%.
-We want a rocky planet in the star's "habitalble zone" (the area around the star where it's not too hot or cold). For a star like the Sun, the habitable zone is roughly in the area around 1 AU. Again, no one knws the figure for this, so let's just say 10% again.
-Now we need this rocky planet to have a large moon to stabilise its rotation. In our solar system one of the four rocky planets has a large moon, so let's say that's 25%.

So using these figures, we can estimate there are very roughly about 2.5 x 10^17 planets in the observable universe that are vaguely Earth-like (my estimates are by no means great, but at least it illustrates the kind of numbers we're dealing with here).

Frist off is that some form of Drakes equation?

and Second. WTF?!?!?! Napalm are you high or drunk?!?

You misspelled: stabilize, knows, and habitable. And the used there'll.

So much for being a grammar Nazi. I'm disappointed.




Also I was going to express my beliefs but it seems that Turk has made yet another thread...

 

[Napalmbrain]

Frist off is that some form of Drakes equation?

Sorta, although it's not the Drake equation itself. I just considered what factors you'd probably need to have an Earth-like planet, and threw in some estimates.

and Second. WTF?!?!?! Napalm are you high or drunk?!?

You misspelled: stabilize, knows, and habitable. And the used there'll.

So much for being a grammar Nazi. I'm disappointed.

I didn't misspell "stabilise". I used the British spelling.

And what's wrong with "there'll"?

 

[PrinceLink]

I didn't mispell "stabilise". I used the British spelling.

you misspelled- "misspell" you said "mispell"

Your losing yourself.....

 

[Napalmbrain]

I didn't mispell "stabilise". I used the British spelling.

you misspelled- "misspell" you said "mispell"

Your losing yourself.....

That's "you're".

Now can we please shut up about spelling mistakes and get back to the point of this thread?

 

[metal134]

LEMMY IS GOD!!

YES! You clearly know what's what!

 

[PrinceLink]

I didn't mispell "stabilise". I used the British spelling.

you misspelled- "misspell" you said "mispell"

Your losing yourself.....

That's "you're".

Now can we please shut up about spelling mistakes and get back to the point of this thread?

Touche.

Fine I guess we can.... Nice little break though lol.


So ya, dipping sauces for babies. Puppy tears or soy sauce?

 

[Napalmbrain]

So ya, dipping sauces for babies. Puppy tears or soy sauce?

Puppy tears? Come on, even we baby-eating godless heathens have standards.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

So, who believes that if you throw a glob of paint trillions of times at a wall, you will eventually form the Mona Lisa? To whom does this sound reasonable, I wonder.

 

[Napalmbrain]

So, who believes that if you throw a glob of paint trillions of times at a wall, you will eventually form the Mona Lisa? To whom does this sound reasonable, I wonder.

Statistically speaking you would indeed eventually come up with the Mona Lisa if you kept throwing paint at random at a big enough wall, but that's not really the point. In the Universe, we have things like gravity to keep the stars and planets in their orbits, electromagnetism to keep molecules bonded together, thermodynamics to determine the flow of energy, evolution to lead to more complex life forms, etc. It's not just some random mess which happened to bring up a masterpiece on one particular backwater planet. Then of course you'll probably ask, "Where did those laws of nature come from?", to which I have to admit, I don't know. But that's why we should do science, to find out these things.

 

[PrinceLink]

Puppy tears? Come on, even we baby-eating godless heathens have standards.

I guess you do. But explain the Koreans then. lol

So, who believes that if you throw a glob of paint trillions of times at a wall, you will eventually form the Mona Lisa? To whom does this sound reasonable, I wonder.

Actually that could happen.

If you study enough physics you realize that anything is really possible its just improbable.

See the probability of getting the Mona Lisa is still there but very very very very very very slim. But say you do this to 1 million walls, with 1 million people for 10 million years. Your chances of getting the Mona Lisa will rise and it might actually happen then.


Again I pity your argument. Not a very stable or a good one. Please try again.

 

[metal134]

of course you'll probably ask, "Where did those laws of nature come from?", to which I have to admit, I don't know. But that's why we should do science, to find out these things.

But that question would, of course, lead to Plato's famous Euthyphro dialect. If laws of nature were created by God, then they are arbitrary and any system he would have created would work equally as well and they really is nothing systematic and "too perfect to be coincidence' about it. If God followed the laws of the Universe, then that means those laws supercede God and he is no longer the Supreme, omniscient being of the Universe. Actually, Plato was referring to issues of morality, but the same principle applies.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Puppy tears? Come on, even we baby-eating godless heathens have standards.

I guess you do. But explain the Koreans then. lol

So, who believes that if you throw a glob of paint trillions of times at a wall, you will eventually form the Mona Lisa? To whom does this sound reasonable, I wonder.

Actually that could happen.

If you study enough physics you realize that anything is really possible its just improbable.

See the probability of getting the Mona Lisa is still there but very very very very very very slim. But say you do this to 1 million walls, with 1 million people for 10 million years. Your chances of getting the Mona Lisa will rise and it might actually happen then.


Again I pity your argument. Not a very stable or a good one. Please try again.

Yes, I agree with you that the probability is there. But, even in the course of 4.5 billion years of this earth being in existence, that is not NEARLY enough time for even a basic painting to be purely imitated. It is, in fact, completely improbable. The more you throw the paint at the wall, you aren't more likely to get the image. However, the more you throw it, the closer you get to copying the image. For instance, if you throw a two-sided coin in the air a thousand times, the chances of landing a heads even once isn't 50%; the % gets closer and closer to 100%, in this case, at a rate of 50. There's a 25% chance that you will get the same side twice in a row, and so on and so forth.

With the painting example, even if you throw it quadrillions upon quadrillions of times, the chance is completely improbable and STILL only a tiny fraction of a percent, almost increasing at a logarithmic rate lol.