Christians are easily startled, but they'll soon be back. And in greater numbers 36:11

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Vdubs]

No. I honestly don’t know what sin is.

Ok, recurring things that you are tempted by, or tempted to do, and find hard to resist, and hard to eradicate the habit.
It could be anything that has adverse repercussions, even staying up late at night, missing sleep.
Is it just all about exercising self- control?

 

[Vdubs]

And what do you atheists think about the concept of sin that can lead many people to Christianity?
If it is man-made, and God is man-made, and Christianity directly helps converts with sin in their lives, is that not a win-win?

 

[Total Power]

Ok, recurring things that you are tempted by, or tempted to do, and find hard to resist, and hard to eradicate the habit.
It could be anything that has adverse repercussions, even staying up late at night, missing sleep.
Is it just all about exercising self- control?

A sin is defined as “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.”
There is no such thing as divine law. I have discussed this time and time again with you. Do you wish to get into again? Do you wish to know what the face of disobedience looks like in OT and NT? There is no such thing as sin. It’s a completely useless word in modern society with only disadvantages. It allows people to say “that’s wrong because my god says so” which isn’t a reason at all.

In Islam is a sin to consume pork, alcohol or convert into another religion. In Hinduism it's a sin to consume beef, or preaching your religion.

Actions can be judged good/right, bad/wrong, permisseable, irrelevant... based on certain principles and casuistry.
It´s not a quite absolutist term (bcs the idea of divine law is). Which doesn´t mean that when one drops the concept everything is permitted. Ethics requires careful analysis and nuance.

 

[Total Power]

And what do you atheists think about the concept of sin that can lead many people to Christianity?
If it is man-made, and God is man-made, and Christianity directly helps converts with sin in their lives, is that not a win-win?

Sin is mostly a behaviour tool for the wealthy and elite of the church to have a psychological advantage over the general population. They condition the believers to be passive for fear of eternal retribution over straight forward desires.

Lust = Sexual repression and strict enforcement of traditional family hierarchy,

Gluttony = Don't have ambitions that threaten the power structure,

Greed = Don't aspire to the wealth of your oppressor

Envy = Same as greed, don't desire more from life, be happy being a cog.

Wrath = Just be a passive little bitch and do what we tell you.

Sloth = Your morally obligated to be productive for the people profiting off of you. Can't donate to the church if your broke!

Pride = Don't you dare develop any self respect and push back on us.

Abrahamic religions are all about thought control. Satan is literally the knowledge giver in the Bible. Sins are designed to squash the parts of human nature that are inconvenient to someone seeking mass exploitation.

Now unchecked greed, lust etc is definitely bad. But everyone else is greedy but not me. Some of the greatest inventions came off those characteristics above. Read a bit into Steve Jobs, starting of Google or inventor technologies we use in everyday life. This is why socialism/Communism doesn't work cause it's against human nature. Without personal gain no one would risk their capital to invent anything. This is why government doesn't invent anything.

 

[sdfc]

Good ole Fred Hoyle's argument, it's long debunked, i found your source here:

The odds against evolving new proteins

critique of evolution

evolutionunderthemicroscope.com

This is clearly wrong. Hoyle is known as the father of junk science, who made the same argument as you.

Fred Hoyle didn't invent maths.

There is a difference between what is known as a non functional protein and a functioning one. A functioning protein does need an exactly correct sequence of amino acids to function correctly.

And that's the point. Animal proteins are made of 20 different amino acids. So for a protein chain of 200 amino acids there are 20^200 possible combinations, the odds of landing on the right sequence are pretty small.

Also Biological systems are not entirely random (this is the false assertion you make in every single post cause you use random mutation literally). There is always selection going on based on the constraints of its environment. The most successful biomolecules are the ones that reproduce better and more efficiently. But your a creationist so your going to look at this and just dismiss it and I’m OK with that, because I understand, because I was in your shoes at one point. It would take years for you to change your mind on this if your going to change your mind at all.

The selection comes after the mutation, it doesn't negate the randomness of the mutation.

Creationism and religion has noting to do with it. It's curiosity. If you're not curious about these things I don't care.

Indications of spontaneous formation of precursor proteins - Innovations Report

Scientists from the Institute of Organic Chemistry at the University of Stuttgart have determined that under certain conditions spontaneous reactions take...

www.innovations-report.com

Proteins are amino acid polymers. The simplest amino acids are abundant even in space. Amino acids can bond readily while losing a water molecule. Two amino acids, such as glycine, will bond readily in dehydrating conditions and even in other situations.

The answer, clearly, is 100%.

Now, that protein won’t do anything, but it is a protein.

More amino acids can tag along, of course, extending the molecule.

In the end, someone asked for it here and i will ask again, can you produce a peer reviewed paper from a 'Scientist' (which means not some YEC or a member of creationist society) which supports your hypothesis?

I've not mentioned the beginning of life. Although the experiment in your link skipped stage one.

In any case molecular evolution does a good job at explaining small variations but does a terrible job at explaining the emergence of new animal types.

It's funny how you think this has to be a religious question.

Maths isn't a hypothesis.

 

[Roylion]

Why do you Atheists NOT believe in SIN?

Isn't it obvious? Why should they?

As Total Power has already said, 'sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract on agreed behaviours. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

The nature of these social constructs varies hugely from place to place and over time within a place and they vary in every regard. For example at various times in human society marriage was for protecting property and blood lines and only truly benefited patriarchy - a very human construct.

Hence attaching divine law to the human institute of marriage by adding the concept of 'sin' to coerce participants to observe the construct gives the construct a sense of gravitas. That's why for example sexual relations outside of 'marriage' was regarded as a 'sin'?

But committing 'adultery' is only a 'sin' in the eyes who accept the social construct or who are forced to accept the social construct through social or physical coercion. 'Blasphemy' is a sin only because those in power decided it would be so, so as to preserve the gravitas of so-called 'divine law' laid down by those granted power by others as supposedly divine. It wouldn't do to be allowed to criticise that man-made 'divine law' because it weakens the coercive powers of the elite in that society to control the other members of said society.

 

[Roylion]

So are any of you atheists troubled by recurring sin?

No. Why on earth would they be, if sin doesn't exist?

 

[Roylion]

Ok, recurring things that you are tempted by, or tempted to do, and find hard to resist, and hard to eradicate the habit.

Why is that 'sin'?

It could be anything that has adverse repercussions, even staying up late at night, missing sleep.

Why is that 'sin'?

 

[Vdubs]

Isn't it obvious? Why should they?

As Total Power has already said, 'sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract on agreed behaviours. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

The nature of these social constructs varies hugely from place to place and over time within a place and they vary in every regard. For example at various times in human society marriage was for protecting property and blood lines and only truly benefited patriarchy - a very human construct.

Hence attaching divine law to the human institute of marriage by adding the concept of 'sin' to coerce participants to observe the construct gives the construct a sense of gravitas. That's why for example sexual relations outside of 'marriage' was regarded as a 'sin'?

But committing 'adultery' is only a 'sin' in the eyes who accept the social construct or who are forced to accept the social construct through social or physical coercion. 'Blasphemy' is a sin only because those in power decided it would be so, so as to preserve the gravitas of so-called 'divine law' laid down by those granted power by others as supposedly divine. It wouldn't do to be allowed to criticise that man-made 'divine law' because it weakens the coercive powers of the elite in that society to control the other members of said society.

So using adultery as an example- how is it not sin?
It hurts people and kids and can have a roll-on effect.
It is one of the 10 C's

 

[Roylion]

So using adultery as an example- how is it not sin?

I've explained this.

'Sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract on agreed behaviours. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

'Divine law' does not exist. God, if it exists, has not laid down law for human societies to live by. Man has done this and has attempted to label these constructs 'divine law'. The concept of 'sin' (transgression against so called 'divine law') to coerce participants to observe the construct gives the construct a sense of gravitas hence encouraging people to observe the law.

It hurts people and kids and can have a roll-on effect.

Polygamy which includes polygyny and polyandry is or has been a widespread custom around the world.

It was widely practiced in China, in Hinduism and of course Islam. It was widely practiced in the wider ancient world as well.

The Bible documents 40 polygamists (polygyny) including Abraham, Moses, Jacob, two of his sons Simeon and Issachar, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Manasseh, Ahab, Caleb, Ezra, Hosea and Zedakiah and mentions a few rules governing polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife and Deuteronomy 17:17, which states that the king shall not have too many wives. As a result Martin Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."

Is engaging in polygamy adultery? The patriarch Jacob had two wives and two concubines for example. Was he an adulterer?

 

[Total Power]

Fred Hoyle didn't invent maths.

You assume that a protein has to be in its current form to have any function at all, which is simply not true. Individual amino acids can have some minor catalytic activity, and short amino chains can too. You can read more here: https://ncse.ngo/new-proteins-without-gods-help

We have told them that new proteins could indeed form from the random ordering of amino acids. We have warned them that their calculations were based on faulty assumptions and soon someone would document the natural formation of a new protein from the random association of amino acids.

Now it has happened! Not one, but two, new proteins have been discovered. In all probability new proteins are forming by this process all the time, but this seems to be the first documentation of this phenomenon. The newly discovered proteins are enzymes that break down some of the byproducts produced during nylon manufacture. Since nylon first came into commercial production in 1940, we know that the new enzymes have formed since that time.

Which is i said in my last post, which you ignored completed and carried on with your math argument.

This is what i said:

Proteins are amino acid polymers. The simplest amino acids are abundant even in space. Amino acids can bond readily while losing a water molecule. Two amino acids, such as glycine, will bond readily in dehydrating conditions and even in other situations.

The answer, clearly, is 100%.

Now, that protein won’t do anything, but it is a protein.

More amino acids can tag along, of course, extending the molecule.

The above paper validates my argument and it has been observed. Probability of this forming is a 100% given a large enough timescale.

We already have multiple different proteins that do the same thing on a chemical level - which is what matters for life.
There may well be billions, trillions, or whatever number of possible proteins to do any single job that life needs. Evolution just happened to stumble across one of them and life rolled with it. The math you are referring to as proposed by Hoyle and Douglas Axe is nothing but another creationist attempt to discredit science..unfortunately that failed.

And that's the point. Animal proteins are made of 20 different amino acids. So for a protein chain of 200 amino acids there are 20^200 possible combinations, the odds of landing on the right sequence are pretty small.

I just literally explained it to you. It doesn't need to be arranged is a specific order for proteins to function!!! Also the probability argument is hopeless. What are the odds of you shuffling a deck of cards and ending up in a particular sequence?

This is not a chance. The probability is a 100%.

Creationists use these tiny probability argument to discredit science, it doesn't work like that.

Hence your premise and question is wrong. Repeating the same thing doesn't make it true. There is a difference between what is known as a non functional protein and a functioning one. A functioning protein does need an exactly correct sequence (which is your argument) of amino acids to function correctly. Not all sequences needs to be correctly in order, which is why there are non functional proteins as well. Even at 30% efficiency it can be a functional protein capable of divergence.

Produce a peer reviewed document proving what you are stating is right?

I see you conveniently dodged that question.

The selection comes after the mutation, it doesn't negate the randomness of the mutation.

This would be a great argument if amino acids randomly assembled, however, they do not, so the entire calculation is suspect. Also, amino acids aren't randomly substituted in mutations, and the population of amino acids is not evenly distributed (there are more common ones and less common ones.). Again this is why your premise is wrong.

Amino acids are placed in an order by a scaffold of RNA, which is in turn organized by DNA. There is some evidence that that RNA was the first in the organization of life, (but that's on-going research, and hard to say for sure.) It's the random changes in the DNA that result in protein evolution that is conserved over generations.

For DNA, you're only talking about 5 (maybe 8 depending on how you count things) choices, so that's far less. Also, mutations occur at a higher rate than you suspect, it's just that our biochemistry has some effective correction mechanisms that keep things in check.

Please refer to my link i posted in the last discussion.

Creationism and religion has noting to do with it. It's curiosity. If you're not curious about these things I don't care.

I've not mentioned the beginning of life. Although the experiment in your link skipped stage one.

In any case molecular evolution does a good job at explaining small variations but does a terrible job at explaining the emergence of new animal types.

It's funny how you think this has to be a religious question.

Maths isn't a hypothesis.

Dude,Macro and microevolution a totally arbitrary and artificial distinction. The same process happens for the same reasons, the only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is time. Scientists do not make a distinction between micro and macro evolutions, people do. From the creationist POV is an excuse to ignore the entire field of genetics and 4th grade math.

Heres are a few links on speciation, observed and explained:

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. [From: Evolution at different scales: micro to macro | berkeley.edu]

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

www.scientificamerican.com

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Everything that has ever lived is a transitional form. You are a transitional form. Mudskippers are a transitional form. Parrots are a transitional form. We have an excellent understanding of how whales evolved from land mammals, but then again you probably think whales are just giant fish.

Speciation has been observed. Again can you produce a paper proving your hypothesis? go to talkorigins and maybe understand the process a bit better? Not trying to insult you but previously you said microevolution is under doubt not macro evolution, now you're saying the reverse.

Again, produce a peer reviewed paper which i have done which you are unable to do.

 

[Total Power]

So using adultery as an example- how is it not sin?
It hurts people and kids and can have a roll-on effect.
It is one of the 10 C's

Is paedophilia wrong? why did God choose an underaged Mary (12 years to be exact) to impregnate?.

You are a scientist apparently, explain it to me, why is it dangerous for a 12 year old to be pregnant?

That is divine paedophilia without sex? how is that not adultery?

The answer to your question is simple. Do unto others...do you want your 12 year old daughter to be pregnant? the answer is definitely not. Similarly do you want your family members to be r*ped? the answer is no. Hence you don't want to be living in a society where rape is widespread. Hence adultery is wrong...based on the context. Is going to a brothel wrong? again , if i was a single unmarried male, why is it wrong?

Context!!!

 

[ManInTheArena]

Is there any such thing as an atheist (or agnostic, or Christian, or Buddhist etc.)?

Are you the words you use to describe you?

 

[carltonchelsea]

You assume that a protein has to be in its current form to have any function at all, which is simply not true. Individual amino acids can have some minor catalytic activity, and short amino chains can too. You can read more here: https://ncse.ngo/new-proteins-without-gods-help



Which is i said in my last post, which you ignored completed and carried on with your math argument.

This is what i said:


The above paper validates my argument and it has been observed. Probability of this forming is a 100% given a large enough timescale.

We already have multiple different proteins that do the same thing on a chemical level - which is what matters for life.
There may well be billions, trillions, or whatever number of possible proteins to do any single job that life needs. Evolution just happened to stumble across one of them and life rolled with it. The math you are referring to as proposed by Hoyle and Douglas Axe is nothing but another creationist attempt to discredit science..unfortunately that failed.


I just literally explained it to you. It doesn't need to be arranged is a specific order for proteins to function!!! Also the probability argument is hopeless. What are the odds of you shuffling a deck of cards and ending up in a particular sequence?

This is not a chance. The probability is a 100%.

Creationists use these tiny probability argument to discredit science, it doesn't work like that.

Hence your premise and question is wrong. Repeating the same thing doesn't make it true. There is a difference between what is known as a non functional protein and a functioning one. A functioning protein does need an exactly correct sequence (which is your argument) of amino acids to function correctly. Not all sequences needs to be correctly in order, which is why there are non functional proteins as well. Even at 30% efficiency it can be a functional protein capable of divergence.

Produce a peer reviewed document proving what you are stating is right?

I see you conveniently dodged that question.



This would be a great argument if amino acids randomly assembled, however, they do not, so the entire calculation is suspect. Also, amino acids aren't randomly substituted in mutations, and the population of amino acids is not evenly distributed (there are more common ones and less common ones.). Again this is why your premise is wrong.

Amino acids are placed in an order by a scaffold of RNA, which is in turn organized by DNA. There is some evidence that that RNA was the first in the organization of life, (but that's on-going research, and hard to say for sure.) It's the random changes in the DNA that result in protein evolution that is conserved over generations.

For DNA, you're only talking about 5 (maybe 8 depending on how you count things) choices, so that's far less. Also, mutations occur at a higher rate than you suspect, it's just that our biochemistry has some effective correction mechanisms that keep things in check.

Please refer to my link i posted in the last discussion.



Dude,Macro and microevolution a totally arbitrary and artificial distinction. The same process happens for the same reasons, the only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is time. Scientists do not make a distinction between micro and macro evolutions, people do. From the creationist POV is an excuse to ignore the entire field of genetics and 4th grade math.

Heres are a few links on speciation, observed and explained:

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. [From: Evolution at different scales: micro to macro | berkeley.edu]

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

www.scientificamerican.com

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Everything that has ever lived is a transitional form. You are a transitional form. Mudskippers are a transitional form. Parrots are a transitional form. We have an excellent understanding of how whales evolved from land mammals, but then again you probably think whales are just giant fish.

Speciation has been observed. Again can you produce a paper proving your hypothesis? go to talkorigins and maybe understand the process a bit better? Not trying to insult you but previously you said microevolution is under doubt not macro evolution, now you're saying the reverse.

Again, produce a peer reviewed paper which i have done which you are unable to do.

Yep, we only just recently learned that whales are directly related to Hippos if you wind the clock back, genetics proves this!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Ok, recurring things that you are tempted by, or tempted to do, and find hard to resist, and hard to eradicate the habit.
It could be anything that has adverse repercussions, even staying up late at night, missing sleep.
Is it just all about exercising self- control?

Yep, all about self-control (and I say that cheerfully admitting that is something sorely lacking at times in my life).

What you’ve described there are just ordinary human failings we are all prone to. No need to invest them with some sort of divine role.

 

[Cyclops]

Is there any such thing as an atheist (or agnostic, or Christian, or Buddhist etc.)?

Are you the words you use to describe you?

Tathagatta Buddha, the Father Buddha, said "with our thoughts we make thd world".

Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch. From it then came a stone monkey
The nature of monkey was irrepressible.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Is there any such thing as an atheist (or agnostic, or Christian, or Buddhist etc.)?

Are you the words you use to describe you?

Depends if you care or not.
For all intents and purposes, I’m an anti-theist, does it define me, no, do I care, only when attacking the theists position.
If I’m out surfing with my daughter, we are at one with the water and the forces of nature, my anti-theism doesn’t help me either way!

 

[Vdubs]

Depends if you care or not.
For all intents and purposes, I’m an anti-theist, does it define me, no, do I care, only when attacking the theists position.
If I’m out surfing with my daughter, we are at one with the water and the forces of nature, my anti-theism doesn’t help me either way!

How would you feel if your daughter, for some reason, found God and became Christian?

 

[Cyclops]

Depends if you care or not.
For all intents and purposes, I’m an anti-theist, does it define me, no, do I care, only when attacking the theists position.
If I’m out surfing with my daughter, we are at one with the water and the forces of nature, my anti-theism doesn’t help me either way!

That sounds like a healthy attitude.

I'm a daylight agnostic. I think I'm pretty smart but there's no way I can understand even a tiny fragment of how the universe works.

Anyone coming to me with a pamphlet that proves them right is going to come off second to my combined arrogance and ignorance.

I've studied the Bible formally for 5 years and informally for 40. I've studied other belief systems almost as long.

My only firm conclusion is expressed in the Rg Veda:

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

No. I honestly don’t know what sin is.

Sin the Bible comes from a Semitic word meaning debt. It later accrues a sense of a transgressive act.

There is not mention of sin in the Eden story, so the Christian story of original sin is a layer interpretation.

This isn't evil or invalidating, all religions reinterpret older stories to develop new truths.

A literal reading of Genesis shows God creates the world twice, God is intersex, God is dishonest and not all knowing (and a cruel prankster, happens again Kob)magic works, and heaven is full of water that leaks if the windows are opened.

These odd contradictions (the Bible as a whole contradicts itself as well as most Abraham's dogmas a bunch of times) aren't a sign of the Bible being "false".

They are the result of many thinkers in many cultures asking new questions of old stories, and adding new twists to the existing corpus.

 

[evolved2]

So are any of you atheists troubled by recurring sin?
Don't need it to be personal, but if not, great, and if so, how is it dealt with?

No, because sin is a religious concept. If you're talking about repetitive harmful behaviors or addictions, atheists are equally susceptible as religious people.

Therapy is the way to go in dealing with these things. I would advise against religious based therapy because it can often be harmful, especially if it's performed from a Bible / fundamentalist perspective.

Having an angry judge in Heaven isn't particularly conducive to good mental health.

 

[Total Power]

How would you feel if your daughter, for some reason, found God and became Christian?

She can became a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or whatever, that's her choice. It's highly unlikely in this day and age of education and science..which is why your religion is falling off the cliff basically.

 

[Vdubs]

She can became a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or whatever, that's her choice. It's highly unlikely in this day and age of education and science..which is why your religion is falling off the cliff basically.

So you are intimating that in 2024, very few educated people become Christian? We witnessed 3 very inspiring and real baptisms this morning, new Christians, and last month, 4, at a fairly mainstream church.

 

[Total Power]

So you are intimating that in 2024, very few educated people become Christian? We witnessed 3 very inspiring and real baptisms this morning, new Christians, and last month, 4, at a fairly mainstream church.

i am not saying anything, stats are. In Europe it's almost dead, in Australia almost half the populations irreligious and in the States it's on track to be the same by 2050. I am not saying everyone is..but data is clear on this. I have posted this data many times here.

 

[Vindicater]

How would you feel if your daughter, for some reason, found God and became Christian?

If my daughter did I would grudgingly accept it while also letting her know not to talk about it with me.

I would probably buy my future grandchildren science books for every gift however.

 

[Vdubs]

If my daughter did I would grudgingly accept it while also letting her know not to talk about it with me.

I would probably buy my future grandchildren science books for every gift however.

Along with Essendon memberships?