Citizens Opposed to Bureaucratic Bullying and Excessive Regulation

[Kiwi303]

To not believe in something does not require a belief system at all, it can simply be the absence of belief.

Agnosticism is the absence of Belief, Atheism is the opposite of belief.

 

while Mriya takes it a bit more considered and wordy than I was in a quick reply, it is pretty accurate.

 

 

[octave]

Agnosticism is the absence of Belief, Atheism is the opposite of belief.

atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. From a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

 

agnostic - A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. From a- 'not' + gnostic known.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Mriya , I don't want to argue about the sort of god you are describing as an unlikely but possible first cause. It is the god of the Biblical and Koran stories, the one who made the firmament as a navigation hazard for Jabirus, who sends earthquakes and stuff, who I want to dispute. And why shouldn't I make fun of somebody who says the earth is flat? These people have a dreadful record. Those who believe absurdities can commit atrocities.

 

 

[skeptic36]

And why shouldn't I make fun of somebody who says the earth is flat?

Because this thread is about bureaurocratic bullying and over regulation.....

 

 

[terryc]

Mriya , I don't want to argue about the sort of god you are describing as an unlikely but possible first cause. It is the god of the Biblical and Koran stories, the one who made the firmament as a navigation hazard for Jabirus, who sends earthquakes and stuff, who I want to dispute. And why shouldn't I make fun of somebody who says the earth is flat? These people have a dreadful record. Those who believe absurdities can commit atrocities.

Your knowledge of who said what was flat and when needs some upgrading

 

 

[Mriya]

And why shouldn't I make fun of somebody who says the earth is flat?

If you are looking for 'flat-earth' creationists to tease you will be in for a long wait.

There was a period in time when both science and religion believed in a flat earth, however the overwhelming evidence brought about change of both of these groups. Interestingly the bible actually has references to a round earth suspended in space! I am not about to defend 'flat-earthers' who used religion to further their own empires/purposes. History rightly judges them harshly for their actions and choices.

 

 

[Soleair]

The erudite Mr Fry said on his excellent QI programme that there is no evidence to suggest anyone ever supposed the earth to be flat.

 

It was on the BBC, so it must be true.

 

Bruce

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

There was a period in time when both science and religion believed in a flat earth

Yeah this is a very common myth, you were probably taught it at school. The myth appears to stem from the false assumption that our ancestors were in general quite dim-witted.

 

 

[Litespeed]

I do not really want to get into the flat earth stuff but it was actually a commonly held belief for a very long time. It was thought that if you kept sailing you would literally fall off the end of the Earth. Many successful explorers disproved this notion.

 

I do however insist on my right to call any "GOD" a "sky fairie". It is not more demeaning than to say your God is wrong or does not exist but my version of a God does. Many faiths have included animals as gods, rivers as gods, demons as gods etc. To lump them together as Sky fairies is merely a collective term for a imagined deity. A fairy is simply a mythical creature. So is Medusa, Thor, the Rainbow Serpent and many others.

 

AS a side note my brother thinks we are dyslexic and are actually worshiping "DOG". To insist that a "GOD" is Human like to the exclusion of any other is also demeaning to all the other creatures in the known universe and belief systems.

 

As for the inabilty to know what happened with evolution, DNA, star formation- the big bang etc- Science has no real problem at all here.

 

Life is a complex thing as is Astrophysics. As a casual observer- just because you fail to grasp the science does not mean it is wrong.

 

Scientific methods are sound, are constantly being backed up with more evidence and further refined.

 

Creationism on the other hand has no scientific merit at all, and has no evidence. Just because someone sees life as very complex and thinks the odds are infinitely small we have gotten to this complexity- does not mean creationism is the answer. It is simply the action of massive time and evolution. Natural systems lead towards entrophy and life is a constant struggle against this. Some survive and others do not. Over time life has gotten more complex from Archeabacteria (extremely simple single cell) to Humans- but that has taken 4.5 billion or so years. The odds are not that amazing, we are talking trillions of generations for bacteria to be affected by the environment to mutate and become more complex. We have lots of evidence for this and can track the development of all species known on the planet. This is done with DNA, RNA, fossils and biochemistry. We even have considerable knowledge of the species that did not manage to survive the environmental pressure they experienced.

 

That you are able to respond on this forum is because of evolution- the very cells that make up your body have Mitochondria as a power source. Exactly the same as all other living creatures- a common ancestor, it is in fact a ancient type of bacteria, that is now part of us all.

 

To say you can not understand the "logic" of people who dismiss the creationist view, is inherently a falsehood. "logic" has at its roots scientific method.

 

 

[Litespeed]

I am not about to defend 'flat-earthers' who used religion to further their own empires/purposes. History rightly judges them harshly for their actions and choices.

As opposed to what?

 

So does that mean only religions that are flat earthers use it to further their empires/ purposes?

 

History is full of religions doing some really bad stuff and justifying it based on their belief system. The crusades had nothing to do with flat earthers, nor did the inquisitions and many other atrocities done under the name of religion.

 

I am yet to see any evidence of someone doing such things purely on the basis of well tested scientific method.

 

I have however seen much bureaucratic bullying and over regulation that is based on religion or a inability to understand science.

 

 

[poteroo]

I have however seen much bureaucratic bullying and over regulation that is based on religion or a inability to understand science

Present day Western society is reverting to the old fundamentalist, religious beliefs of the dark past. A well fed, comfortable, over-educated society, with too much time on its' hands - which opposes scientific progress. University courses slanted so that students can avoid the basics of maths, physics and chemistry. Not worth the paper they're printed on! The over-regulation reflects the poorly founded fears of our society in respect of science - as well as the over-supply of law graduates. happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

Earlier civilisations had little knowledge to rely on so gave their god credit for many things. As our knowledge increases we can accept that most things have explainable causes. The crane falling on the roof at Mecca killing over 100 was caused by a sandstorm according to local reports. No doubt there will be many who see it as a warning for not killing enough infidels, or such cause.

 

Many religions could be regarded as bullying and excessive regulation. some times in the extreme.

 

How old is the universe? If you say less than 10,000 years, I would have great difficulty with that, but many do. A majority of the republican party do.

 

Intelligent design? Well just think how that would be done. Is it from some kind of blueprint.? How does the design get from the concept to the final product? Biologists see many aspects of animal design that isn't the best it could have been It's obvious creatures are mutating constantly, even now. How does that fit in with intelligent design?

 

 

[Mriya]

History is full of religions doing some really bad stuff and justifying it based on their belief system.

History is full of all types of people doing really bad stuff. In just one lifetime between Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot atheists decimated millions of people. Others like Hitler did likewise, claiming religious endorsement, yet finding themselves at odds with some very brave christians who opposed him and paid with their lives at the hands of nazi 'justice'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

 

Bottom line is that people will use all types of excuses to justify their actions, but ultimately it is their actions that reveal them as frauds.

 

Yes, I claim to be a christian, however I reject many things that evil people have done in the name of christianity over two millenia. Their actions reveal them at best to be mistaken and at worst to be deliberately acting with evil intent. Jesus is quoted as teaching people to love their enemies. Crusades, massacres, oppression of the poor, religiously motivated executions all flow from a mindset that is decidedly antichristian.

 

It is interesting to note that during the period of 'The Reformation' in Europe, one of the most dangerous professions was to be a bible-believing christian. People such as Luther, Tyndale and Wycliffe who had the gall to translate the bible into the local language of the people found themselves as 'enemies of the church'. I reject this corruption, which people are so prone to given when given religious or political power and opportunity. Many have abused religion, but many have managed to be just as evil while denying God altogether.

 

 

[Mriya]

biologists see many aspects of animal design that isn't the best it could have been It's obvious creatures are mutating constantly, even now. How does that fit in with intelligent design?

You are confusing natural selection with macro-evolution!

 

Natural selection within a species is an observable process where individuals within the species adapt to their local environment based on variation in genetics. Darwin observed and documented this during his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands. Individuals within a species had adapted to the individual circumstances. Birds from the same species had shorter or longer beaks depending upon the local food source. However this didn't mean they were no longer from the same species. Natural selection within a species is a process understood and accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike. Natural selection is also known as micro-evolution, however this process is driven largely by the natural genetic variation that already exists within a species, not by genetic mutation as you suggest.

 

Macro-evolution is theory which has never been scientifically observed in action. I know this is a big claim, but if you think I am wrong show me one observed and scientifically documented example of one species actually mutating into another species. It has never been seen and proven, therefore ultimately remains a theory.

 

For that matter, creationism has not been scientifically seen or documented either, so it too is a theory.

 

All we can do is look at the observable world and consider the possibilities.

 

Speaking of mutations (which are to my understanding an essential aspect of evolution), we are very aware of the effect of mutations as they are pretty much universally equated with a corruption in the genetic programming of previously healthy DNA. Cancer is an example of this. As a species, dispite our all too common experience of genetic mutation, I have never heard someone speak of a 'good' mutation that added genetic complexity and value. Yet the very premise of evolution is that these 'good' mutations are required. Simple scientific observation that is possible within the time constraints of our lifetime paint a picture of a world in genetic decay, not advance.

 

Our fossil record is rich in examples of the many species that have roamed on Earth, including many variations brought about by natural selection, yet a simple google search reveals that even in 2015 people keep referring to new finds as a possible 'missing-link'. For people to keep using this term implies that it remains just that. Despite a very complete record of the individual species a fossil record of the millions of required transitions remains missing...

 

In the world that surrounds us we see progress brought about when intelligent design is applied to a problem. Aviation is a classic example of this. I have spent several years now expanding my knowledge from my mechanical background and training, to now include avionics. There are some seriously clever people designing and building the avonics that we now take for granted in our machines, however this advance is the direct result of intelligent design. It certainly didn't happen by a random process in the Dynon design office.

 

The theory of intelligent design in relation to the origin of the universe uses a similar approach. It looks at the complexity of design and order needed for even the simplest lifeforms to exist. It observes the natural decay of systems when intelligent design and input is witheld and concludes that an intelligent designer played a part in the establishment and sustaining of our universe.

 

I trust that this helps answer your question regarding intelligent design. As I see it, a lot of 'faith' is needed to conclude that our world came about without the input of a designer. The complexity required within DNA is exponentially greater than a Skyview. It is ludicrous to suggest that a 'mutation' or accident saw this technology arise. I propose it is equally unlikely that our world and life spontaneously burst into being and developed in complexity without a designer.

 

I am satisfied that sufficient evidence exists to believe in more than a sky-fairy. If others feel no evidence can be observed, that is most certainly their right, however atheists are a minority global group, with many people being convinced that a spiritual dimension does exist. Many different worldviews, however logically only one can ultimately be correct. In the meantime I guess we all need to find a way to respect diversity and as much as it is possible live at peace with one another.

 

 

[2tonne]

Having studied molecular genetics and molecular evolution (and natural selection) as part of a biological science degree (then followed by a PhD in molecular biology) I find some pretty rare theories being put forward here...

 

 

[Mriya]

The odds are not that amazing, we are talking trillions of generations for bacteria to be affected by the environment to mutate and become more complex.

Dawkins himself is on record acknowledging that the odds are not in his favour, resulting in him voicing the need for what I understand to be a theory of many parallel universes. One universe and given timescale would simply not have the required odds for our world to evolve as we know it.

Dawkins, as an atheist however has completely ruled out any explanations involving God. It is actually quite sad to hear him utterly discount God in one breath, then propose in all seriousness the possibility of aliens seeding life on our planet. This is all in an effort to explain the otherwise doubtful odds of life starting spontaneously.

 

Our world and life is obviously here though, and one possibility for explaining that is involvement of a deity. Naturally an athiest will reject this option. Theists however can keep this option open. This results in a diversity of opinion (at least in christian circles with which I am familiar). Some christians will hold to belief in short-earth creation and believe that significant geological evidence exists for a catastrophic flood event. Others hold a 'theistic-evolution' position and believe that God acted as an intelligent designer, adding to the genetic diversity over a long timeframe.

 

I have deliberately withheld my hand and not revealed which of these two groups I belong to. Ultimately each person needs to be comfortable with the position they hold. A range of options exists and each of them will have consequences on how we live now. Some of these choices are:

 

-Atheism - Believe that no god exists and natural processes only, brought about life.

 

-Theistic Evolutionist - Believe God brought about evolutionary changes.

 

-Creationist - Believe God worked in a supernatural way to create life.

 

-Buddhist- Life is a repeating cycle, come back as a higher/lower form based on this life.

 

-Agnostic - Sit on the fence and wait for convincing evidence one way or other.

 

And on the list goes...

 

Although atheists often accuse christians of not being able to follow a scientific method, they too by nature of their worldview have ruled out any possibility of Theistic involvement in life. The experience of billions of people is that a spiritual dimension exists, yet an atheist closes their mind to the concept, refusing to consider that a realm my exist beyond what they can touch or measure physically.

 

An Atheist is ultimately just as bound by their worldview as a Christian or someone from another religion.

 

Further to this a Christian can still recognise and study the amazing complexity of the world that surrounds us and be just a scientific in their approach to studying the world and our interactions with it.

 

Everyone ultimately brings their worldview and compares it with the evidence. You are entitled to believe in the improbable spontaneous start of life through natural processes if you wish, however for me, I am very comfortable with recognising the creative handiwork and complexity was influenced and initiated by God (as improbable as you think his existence is).

 

 

[Mriya]

Having studied molecular genetics and molecular evolution (and natural selection) as part of a biological science degree (then followed by a PhD in molecular biology) I find some pretty rare theories being put forward here...

Care to elaborate? With your studies, you will obviously be very familiar with the complexity of DNA/RNA that I speak of. You will also be aware of the atrophy of this chemical coding over time which is in opposition to direction required for natural evolution (though not a problem for theistic evolution).

You would also be well aware of the difference between natural selection within a species, vs macro evolution resulting in a change from one species to another. You would also understand the gaps in the fossil record where a lack of transitory fossils exists.

 

Finally, you would be aware of the negative impact of observed mutations, which result in more disorder and harm.

 

I can't claim any PhD's and am but an average Joe who looks around at this world and marvels at the complexity in every direction. Whether it is marvelling at how some ingenious soul designed the GPS system, or how incredibly complex the chemical programming and communications are within a single living cell I will never cease to be amazed. Some people may be able to discount all this as able to occur via a natural evolutionary process, but I find this doubtful in the extreme.

 

I understand that if one is to remain an atheist, they have little option but to hold to naturalistic evolution (I haven't heard of any other theories that don't involve a deity).

 

Please elaborate on where this amateur is so badly askew in their thinking...

 

 

[octave]

So many points to make here but lets just start with a few

 

You would also understand the gaps in the fossil record where a lack of transitory fossils exists.

This is simply not true

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

Dawkins himself is on record acknowledging that the odds are not in his favour, resulting in him voicing the need for what I understand to be a theory of many parallel universes. One universe and given timescale would simply not have the required odds for our world to evolve as we know it.

Can you provide references? I have read most of Dawkins books and I don't recall him saying that.

 

Finally, you would be aware of the negative impact of observed mutations, which result in more disorder and harm.

Sickle cell anemia? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL;%20?%3E/mutations_06

 

But this has all been debated elsewhere on this forum and it is probably pointless and annoying to others.

 

I am quite interested in the notion of intelligent design. If I understand it correctly it is based on the idea that the universe and the processes in it are so complex that they must have been designed. I would presume that such a complex task would require a designer that is also complex, which does rather beg the question, where did the designer come from? I don't really see the point in explaining one unknown with another unknown.

 

What if I am wrong and it does turn out that the universe was created by a designer/builder? So what, other than being interesting, what difference does it make what I believe? Unless of course this cosmic architect somehow requires some kind of acknowledgement from me.

 

Given the number of stars in the observable universe http://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html it is hard to understand why this designer would be so interested in this particular solar system and indeed one particular life form on one planet.

 

You would be rather disappointed if you were able to convince me that there is a creator, I would be just as likely to say "yes now I believe, praise be to Allah" or Prometheus.

 

The intelligent design hypothesis is an argument for there being a creator, but I suspect that users of this argument have a particular creator in mind.

 

Anyway, I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs as long as they are not imposed on non-believers or people who have other beliefs. I do have a problem with the subverting or misquoting science in order to maintain a pre-existing belief or the use of an ancient text to control people.

 

Cheers

 

Graham

 

 

[2tonne]

Care to elaborate? With your studies, you will obviously be very familiar with the complexity of DNA/RNA that I speak of. You will also be aware of the atrophy of this chemical coding over time which is in opposition to direction required for natural evolution (though not a problem for theistic evolution).You would also be well aware of the difference between natural selection within a species, vs macro evolution resulting in a change from one species to another. You would also understand the gaps in the fossil record where a lack of transitory fossils exists.

Finally, you would be aware of the negative impact of observed mutations, which result in more disorder and harm.

 

I can't claim any PhD's and am but an average Joe who looks around at this world and marvels at the complexity in every direction. Whether it is marvelling at how some ingenious soul designed the GPS system, or how incredibly complex the chemical programming and communications are within a single living cell I will never cease to be amazed. Some people may be able to discount all this as able to occur via a natural evolutionary process, but I find this doubtful in the extreme.

 

I understand that if one is to remain an atheist, they have little option but to hold to naturalistic evolution (I haven't heard of any other theories that don't involve a deity).

 

Please elaborate on where this amateur is so badly askew in their thinking...

Where to start... I agree that DNA and RNA are pretty amazing and that the life is complex. But, when it comes to 'atrophy of this chemical coding' I have no idea what you are talking about. DNA and RNA genomes accrue mutations through the process of molecular evolution. This can be slow, eg by accruing single point mutations over long periods of time, or it can be fast, eg by horizontal gene transfer (especially think of microorganism here). Any mutation may be neutral (no effect on phenotypic trait), positive (gives some selection advantage) or negative (is deleterious). The study of population genetics is basically the mathematical study (probabilities) than any given genotype will persist in a population and become either more or less prevalent within the population, causing genetic drift over time (usually very long periods of time, but as mentioned before, you can get a relatively rapid change in some circumstances such as through horizontal transfer or a mutation of larger size, eg Deletion of a gene function, or substantial modification of protein function).

I think part of your problem is trying to draw a line between natural selection and this so called macro evolution. What you don't seem to appreciate is that within the scientific community, it is not always clear what distinguishes one species from another. For example, one definition is that different species cannot interbreed. But this does not always hold true, look for example at the wolf and domestic dog. They were once considered different species, but now the domestic dog is considered a subspecies of the wolf (Canis lupus familiaris) and genetic studies indicate that the domestic dog diverged from the wolf around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. Think also of the mule. Taxonomists are often arguing about whether a particular organism is a certain species, or if it should be allocated a new species. Hence, I don't understand what the 'transitionals' are supposed to be. Maybe the 'fronkey'?, the famed half frog half monkey that is supposedly missing from the fossil record.

 

Essentially, genetic evolution is a function of biochemistry, which in turn is driven by physical processes (the physicists say that everything comes down to physics) over time. Intelligent design to me is a way of saying "I don't understand these processes, they are too complex, therefore someone smarter than us must have done this". Bit of a cop out and not what science is all about.

 

 

[Mriya]

I think part of your problem is trying to draw a line between natural selection and this so called macro evolution

Thanks 2T for the response. You give this amateur some homework and as I mull over your points (and those of Octave) it may take a little time for a considered response to the points raised.

On the issue of natural selection though, the distinction come via the fact that the genetic variation already existed in the base population. No new code is added, but rather particular aspects of existing code provide a natural advantage to individuals in the population. Natural selection is a process which occurs and is acknowledged by all, however it does not prove evolution as the required shift from one species to another has not occurred.

 

My understanding of natural selection can be seen in human skin colour. Before the age of transport and mass migration that we are in people groups remained isolated from one another by and large. In some areas of the world dark skin colour provides natural advantage, while in other areas this was not so. A divergence occurred, however the fundamental genetics that classes us all as human remain. Interbreeding (for want of a better term) is fully viable and ultimately the genetic code for dark skin vs white skin was not created through the process, but rather became common through the natural advantage they gave the individual.

 

Natural selection is often touted as evidence for evolution, however it does not demonstrate an ability for the change in genetic code required to shift from one species to another.

 

Regards,

 

Justin

 

 

[Soleair]

If God made man then he also made cancer.

 

I find it untenable that Christians can praise God for 'saving' someone from death from some ghastly affliction (which presumably he had the ability to inflict in the first place), but if the sufferer dies, that too is God's will.

 

This sounds suspiciously like having one's cake and eating it too.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

What?The complete lack of any evidence of god existing does not to me require a belief system rather a scientific outlook that in the absence of any evidence at all, the inability to prove his/her existence even in a theoretical way indicates a lack of a god. Atheism does not require a belief system at all- rather a scientific approach to the whole sky fairie thing.

 

To not believe in something does not require a belief system at all, it can simply be the absence of belief.

Litespeed: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. That's called false logic and is used by those backing climate denialism all the time.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

I would much rather people offer logical arguments to defend their own worldview and ask probing questions regarding other worldviews where they feel things don't compute.

If a debate was framed in that way, it would be more likely that a creationist or two may be flushed out

Mriya:

There's the problem in a nutshell. Arguing logic or facts with beliefs is a contradiction in terms. Beliefs don't hinge upon facts and are therefore not testable in a logical, factual manner.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Belief in a "creator" (whatever is your own mental image of that) is not the same as subscription to religion. There is a third option which not many people talk about, Deism. That is that a deist believes in a "creator" but rejects man-made religion as "Priestcraft".

 

Personally, I think that we have gone a long way to understanding life the universe and everything, but we are about as far along that path as an amoeba would be trying to understand a 747.

 

 

[Yenn]

This forum is heading towards where I stand. of course there is a creator and if there is a god, then that god was created by the creator. I like to think that the creator is what e call nature. Over the millenia, nature has created and evolved all the life forms we have, including any gods that there may be.

 

What really pisses me off is that those gods have to be worshipped and also run massive insurance scams.