• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll let my personal hero Carl Sagan take it from here, guys...
I've an interesting quote of Sagan to offer as well:
An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists…
We need not kid ourselves by inflating the stature of our sciences; we can never be certain on the matter of the existence of God. I encourage naturalistic science and its practice and believe that it can provide evidence that could, by process of elimination, point us toward the Creator, if we are willing to acknowledge that possibility.

Open-mindedness is important.
 

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
Sagan was wrong then. Atheism is divided into two broad catergories.

'Weak atheism' rejects the claims about [all] gods. It is the default position - the 'not guilty'.

'Strong Atheism' is makes the positive claim that gods do not exist which should be justified using logic, reason, or evidence, or a combination of such. It is the 'innocent' stance.
 

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
1) Very mature word switch.

2) It's not a 'profession'.

3) Belief in any sort of deity is just as hard if not harder to justify.
 
How is that? I believe in a Creator. I do not claim to know whether one should exist, or shouldn't. "Strong atheism" excludes the possibility. I fail to see how this isn't presumptuous.

And it is a profession: "an act of openly declaring or publicly claiming a belief, faith, or opinion or the object of such a declaration."
 
Last edited:

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
You're right, I mistook it for profession as in occupation. I've had very little exposure to native English this week, forgive me.

So why do you believe in a creator, if I may ask?
 

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
The presence of design in nature, as well as the fact that I never found the dysteleological argument terribly convincing.

And what about the natural world strikes you as being designed?

Also, so you think there is a final goal for the universe/earth/humanity?
 
Ah, while that question isn't loaded, your tone is, isn't it?

No. I can only hope that the future is more peaceful and full of liberty and happiness than is the world today.
 

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
Well, not in an accusatory tone, I just am curious as nothing in particular about nature strikes me as 'designed'.

And, we can all (and I think largely do) hope for that, I'm not sure that has to do with dysteleology though.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
PokeJustice said:
How is that? I believe in a Creator. I do not claim to know whether one should exist, or shouldn't. "Strong atheism" excludes the possibility. I fail to see how this isn't presumptuous.
Good thing most atheists aren't that extreme.
 
Well, not in an accusatory tone, I just am curious as nothing in particular about nature strikes me as 'designed'.
The human eye always struck me rather powerfully as the best example of specified complexity.

I'm not sure that has to do with dysteleology though.
It had nothing to do with dysteleology, old sport; you asked me if I thought that humanity had an ultimate purpose--I do not know, and see no reason to further entertain the notion, as it matters not a whit to us with what purpose the Divine started the chain of events that has led to this conversation. This much I know: I do not highly regard the notion that what is to come has been determined in advance.
 

GaZsTiC

Alternating
The eye is pretty basic really. It's just mirrors and nerves.
As well as sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue, but even if these had been included in your list, you would've still been guilty of a gross oversimplification.

I'll offer you a more accurate description of vision.

Dr. Michael J. Behe said:
When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin.
The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.
A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previouslyadded hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete.
There are eyes which are more complex than ours.
 

foxyman1167

From Zero To Hero
The cons of basing a culture off religion is that people take the ideas and interprete them, violence almost always is a result of difference in interpretation.
 

GaZsTiC

Alternating
As well as sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue, but even if these had been included in your list, you would've still been guilty of a gross oversimplification.

I'll offer you a more accurate description of vision.

There are eyes which are more complex than ours.

Gross oversimplification? Of course it was. But I obviously knew that you were filled in on the details...

It doesn't matter anyway. The brain is by far nature/God's greatest invention.
 

Mewtwo_soul

Servant of Mewtwo #1
Really? I'd say the opposite if anything. People spin bad verse into good verses all the time.


Personally, I think it's easier to all someone an idiot for stating something that isn't true than per se going "well at least you tried" in the same situation.

Maybe that's just me, but [if it wasn't obvious by the statement quoted] I'm cynical to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top