• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Drama Hariseldon’s World | Visits to this thread may adversely affect your faith in humanity

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
13,210
21,351
1,090
Canada


Have atheists made any progress on this question at all? You always hear that atheists don't blindly believe things without hard scientific proof or a good reason, but having no demonstrable mechanism for spontaneous life creation doesn't seem to be a problem for them. "It has to be true" sort of seems like blind belief to me.
 

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
11,893
3,152
800
I (unknowingly) posted a comment in r/kotakuinaction2 over on reddit, which tbh I didn't even know existed (just followed a link) and not a minute later I got an automated ban message from a different subreddit. They have a freaking ban bot watching a different subreddit to preemptively ban people lol. That's some next level wrongthink policing.
 

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
15,025
34,558
1,010
I (unknowingly) posted a comment in r/kotakuinaction2 over on reddit, which tbh I didn't even know existed (just followed a link) and not a minute later I got an automated ban message from a different subreddit. They have a freaking ban bot watching a different subreddit to preemptively ban people lol. That's some next level wrongthink policing.
This has been the case for awhile, maybe years. Before that people had something set up to highlight your name in a different color so they could brigade you, now it's automated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eot

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
4,956
7,428
705
Prague, Czech Republic


Have atheists made any progress on this question at all? You always hear that atheists don't blindly believe things without hard scientific proof or a good reason, but having no demonstrable mechanism for spontaneous life creation doesn't seem to be a problem for them. "It has to be true" sort of seems like blind belief to me.
Not sure if you are talking about new age atheist or those OGs like me, because than technically we are "atheist" but practically I don't even need some hard proof about anything, my message is I don't know and I don't attack people about god, what pisses me off is when someone talks about Bible, Qua'ran, etc as some seal of proof. One has that god has 3 forms, other that "sweet and salt water does not mix", so M-E-H. But by far the most cringy is faith in USA, where everything is followed by "thank you Jesus" or just fucking flat earthers....cuz in the Bible, etc.

But since basically scientific and religious explantion about begining of our life seems both hardly improbable for me. One is that "something cannot came from nothing....but god is somewhat eternal" and the second "there was not a time before big bang....it's starts when BB hapenned", so then why the fuck would it even start". So I guess I wait to my 10th life, after someone is going to find out : D
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Vier and TeezzyD

TeezzyD

Fantastik Tuna
Mar 18, 2020
3,070
6,545
755


Have atheists made any progress on this question at all? You always hear that atheists don't blindly believe things without hard scientific proof or a good reason, but having no demonstrable mechanism for spontaneous life creation doesn't seem to be a problem for them. "It has to be true" sort of seems like blind belief to me.
We couild just as easily ask, "Who created God?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: M1chl

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
13,210
21,351
1,090
Canada
We couild just as easily ask, "Who created God?"
Of course. The point is that atheists still have no real answer to the question of how life can be created from nothing and have no examples of how it can happen via natural processes, but believe it must be the case regardless. Most atheists even take it a step further and believe it has happened all over the universe. It's belief without evidence because the alternative is unthinkable to them.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
15,025
34,558
1,010
Of course. The point is that atheists still have no real answer to the question of how life can be created from nothing and have no examples of how it can happen via natural processes, but believe it must be the case regardless. Most atheists even take it a step further and believe it has happened all over the universe. It's belief without evidence because the alternative is unthinkable to them.
Most atheists are technically 'atheistic agnostic', in that they are logically agnostic but functionally atheist.

Atheists don't need an answer to 'how was life created' - the entire point is to figure that out, if they care at all. That is to say, atheism does not need to offer a solution to 'how was life created '. The atheist might have an opinion, and even argue that opinion... but is immaterial to atheism, thoroughly independent and alterable, just another theory. This is not 'belief' or 'faith' in the same way a particularly religous person has faith in a specific creation story of their religion.
 

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
13,210
21,351
1,090
Canada
Most atheists are technically 'atheistic agnostic', in that they are logically agnostic but functionally atheist.

Atheists don't need an answer to 'how was life created' - the entire point is to figure that out, if they care at all. That is to say, atheism does not need to offer a solution to 'how was life created '. The atheist might have an opinion, and even argue that opinion... but is immaterial to atheism, thoroughly independent and alterable, just another theory. This is not 'belief' or 'faith' in the same way a particularly religous person has faith in a specific creation story of their religion.
I don't see how you can say they don't need an answer to that question, if there is no way to explain it via natural processes, what are we to believe? I do believe that it's quite similar to hold the belief that a natural process can explain something that has remained unexplained for all of human history, despite there being no good reason why other than the refusal to believe in anything "supernatural"

To ask the question again, has there been any progress on that front from the non-theists? I don't know how people can be so certain that life just spontaneously originated from base elements, when afaik this has never been shown to be possible, even in ideal laboratory conditions that we can control.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MetalAlien

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie - 12Deflections
Mar 1, 2017
3,238
5,118
660
Of course. The point is that atheists still have no real answer to the question of how life can be created from nothing and have no examples of how it can happen via natural processes, but believe it must be the case regardless. Most atheists even take it a step further and believe it has happened all over the universe. It's belief without evidence because the alternative is unthinkable to them.
Yes, an atheist will tell you they don't have an answer; this is the fundamental difference

There is only verifiable evidence, is their argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
13,210
21,351
1,090
Canada
Yes, an atheist will tell you they don't have an answer; this is the fundamental difference

There is only verifiable evidence, is their argument.
Yes they will be honest that they don't have an answer, but they believe in abiogenesis regardless, and that it happened many times across the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MetalAlien

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
13,210
21,351
1,090
Canada
The don't believe in abiogenesis as much as they believe there is a theory of abiogenesis
Bullshit semantic sidestep, if you don't believe there was a creator, you believe it had to have happened naturally and this has never been shown to be possible. It should have by now I would think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MetalAlien

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
15,025
34,558
1,010
Bullshit semantic sidestep, if you don't believe there was a creator, you believe it had to have happened naturally and this has never been shown to be possible. It should have by now I would think.
I believe it happened, and I also believe I will never be the one to discover how, and wouldn't have the prerequisite knowledge base to verify someone else's claim they had. How it happened is literally irrelevant to me. Take the rise of sentience - I've heard everything from evolution to mushrooms on asteroids.

As for 'it should have happened by now'... eh... I don't see why. We don't negate future discoveries by insisting we'd already know it by now.

I think you are trying to force an atheist into a theist mindset.

I don't see how you can say they don't need an answer to that question, if there is no way to explain it via natural processes, what are we to believe?
I fundamentally accept I do not have all the answers, and never will. I recognize my expertise in certain areas, but know I am fallible even there, and that in some cases expertise can even hold one back from a truly novel solution. I am not adamant about how life was created, or why, or when. I have my ideas, my opinions, but they are subject to change at will.

“O Deep Thought computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to perform is this. We want you to tell us...." he paused, "The Answer."
"The Answer?" said Deep Thought. "The Answer to what?"
"Life!" urged Fook.
"The Universe!" said Lunkwill.
"Everything!" they said in chorus.
Deep Thought paused for a moment's reflection.
"Tricky," he said finally.
"But can you do it?"
Again, a significant pause.
"Yes," said Deep Thought, "I can do it."
"There is an answer?" said Fook with breathless excitement.
"Yes," said Deep Thought. "Life, the Universe, and Everything. There is an answer. But, I'll have to think about it."
...
Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.
“How long?” he said.
“Seven and a half million years,” said Deep Thought.
Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other.
“Seven and a half million years...!” they cried in chorus.
“Yes,” declaimed Deep Thought, “I said I’d have to think about it, didn’t I?"

[Seven and a half million years later.... Fook and Lunkwill are long gone, but their descendents continue what they started]

"We are the ones who will hear," said Phouchg, "the answer to the great question of Life....!"
"The Universe...!" said Loonquawl.
"And Everything...!"
"Shhh," said Loonquawl with a slight gesture. "I think Deep Thought is preparing to speak!"
There was a moment's expectant pause while panels slowly came to life on the front of the console. Lights flashed on and off experimentally and settled down into a businesslike pattern. A soft low hum came from the communication channel.

"Good Morning," said Deep Thought at last.
"Er..good morning, O Deep Thought" said Loonquawl nervously, "do you have...er, that is..."
"An Answer for you?" interrupted Deep Thought majestically. "Yes, I have."
The two men shivered with expectancy. Their waiting had not been in vain.
"There really is one?" breathed Phouchg.
"There really is one," confirmed Deep Thought.
"To Everything? To the great Question of Life, the Universe and everything?"
"Yes."
Both of the men had been trained for this moment, their lives had been a preparation for it, they had been selected at birth as those who would witness the answer, but even so they found themselves gasping and squirming like excited children.
"And you're ready to give it to us?" urged Loonsuawl.
"I am."
"Now?"
"Now," said Deep Thought.
They both licked their dry lips.
"Though I don't think," added Deep Thought. "that you're going to like it."
"Doesn't matter!" said Phouchg. "We must know it! Now!"
"Now?" inquired Deep Thought.
"Yes! Now..."
"All right," said the computer, and settled into silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable.
"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought.
"Tell us!"
"All right," said Deep Thought. "The Answer to the Great Question..."
"Yes..!"
"Of Life, the Universe and Everything..." said Deep Thought.
"Yes...!"
"Is..." said Deep Thought, and paused.
"Yes...!"
"Is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 

Ionian

Member
Apr 25, 2013
994
1,036
640
Never got around to reading those books, should do. I understand the reference though as it's been quoted so many times.
 

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
11,893
3,152
800


Have atheists made any progress on this question at all? You always hear that atheists don't blindly believe things without hard scientific proof or a good reason, but having no demonstrable mechanism for spontaneous life creation doesn't seem to be a problem for them. "It has to be true" sort of seems like blind belief to me.
An atheist / agnostic world view doesn't require the entire world to be explained at any one time. The absence of explanation is not proof of god. Science starts with the idea that we can explain things we do not yet understand, this has turned out to be true time and time again and it has gotten us very far, whereas supernatural explanations have not led us anywhere, or have ever been shown to be consistent. Why should we reject the idea that there's a scientific explanation for the origin of life, when science is so successful at explaining nature? Add to that arguments of time-reversibility.

There are lots of systems too complicated for us to model directly btw, most life is. We don't fully understand the human body even, that doesn't mean there's some miracle happen when your brain comes up with a shitty pun.
 

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
6,421
6,039
780
England
Of course. The point is that atheists still have no real answer to the question of how life can be created from nothing and have no examples of how it can happen via natural processes, but believe it must be the case regardless. Most atheists even take it a step further and believe it has happened all over the universe. It's belief without evidence because the alternative is unthinkable to them.
This is only half true.

We actually have a great deal of understanding of how biological life probably started, and all the biochemical components and freely available energy required for it is actually pretty common in the universe from what we've observed.

The issue is we weren't there to observe it originally (obviously), and the scales involved in creating it are both too massive and too small to be able to recreate in a lab, while any new occurance in the wild will also go unobserved, be minutely small and be born into an established ecosystem that would either be toxic to it or full of microscopic predators that would instantly consume it.

That doesn't mean it's based on pure faith though. The competing theories still have to work within the boundaries of the scientific method and use observable facts to base themselves on.

Admittedly this stuff is so far above what most people know about biochemistry and paleobiology (something I had a career in for over a decade and hold a degree in, respectively), that it may as well be a faith based argument.

But let's not start acting like 'this book tells me what happened and I want that to be true' is in any way comparable to 'we don't know for certain, but based on the observable facts this is most likely what happened'.
 

Greedings

Member
May 23, 2016
2,527
2,489
490
Why is abiogenesis held up by people as a concrete law?
Pasteur managed to show it over the course of what, a month?
Miller had a more complex set up, but still not a huge amount of time (and I believe he also showed the formation of amino acids in his mix).

abiogenesis is great on a human timescale, but the universe isn’t on a human timescale, and that can never be reproduced in laboratory settings.
 

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
2,606
6,426
550
Bullshit semantic sidestep, if you don't believe there was a creator, you believe it had to have happened naturally and this has never been shown to be possible. It should have by now I would think.
Surely even if there was "a creator" this would come under "happened naturally" since The Creator itself would be an aspect of Nature?

The biggest issue with Atheism vs Religion "debates" is that they almost always get stuck immediately at the stage of laying out definitions.

So if you are a Christian and are arguing with an Atheist over the concept of "a creator" then you aren't actually arguing for the existence of YOUR God but rather just the existence of something that could be described as "A God".

There's no good reason why life couldn't have been "created" by some kind of "creator".
However, there is still a huge distance between "something sentient deliberately created mankind" and "my specific idea of God is that something".

So it's just a stalemate.

Nobody really knows anything and it's really OK to look at all the options on the table and say "I don't really think any of these are the answer" and come up with other speculation that is just as valid.

I don't necessarily think that "it happened naturally" is a better explanation than "there was A Creator".
However it also isn't less valid as an explanation.
At best/worst they are equal.

It seems entirely possible that humanity will be extinct before we ever really understand where all of this came from.
So the Atheist vs Theist argument will probably go around and around until there's nobody left to argue.

Good to see The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy being referenced! autoduelist autoduelist

Considering how limited we are in a physical sense it is possible that we'd someday have to create a machine or some device that can perceive things about the universe that we simply cannot. Then it's also possible that we would not be able to understand any discoveries made by such a machine. Or we might not like them. Or the machine might be SO advanced that it's able to say "oh shit The Truth is going to break these poor bastards so I'd better tell the fuckers what they want to hear or else they'll go insane and/or destroy me".

Seems a bit off topic though. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stilton Disco

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
13,210
21,351
1,090
Canada
Probably should have started a thread for this.

The issue is we weren't there to observe it originally (obviously), and the scales involved in creating it are both too massive and too small to be able to recreate in a lab


It's both too big and small in scale to be able to be demonstrated in a lab? It was some sort of electrical/chemical process involving inanimate matter supposedly, but we can't recreate it at all with all of our knowledge and modern capabilities, or even explain how it is supposed to work? But most are certain this happened out in the wild randomly, many times over across the universe.

I believe it happened, and I also believe I will never be the one to discover how, and wouldn't have the prerequisite knowledge base to verify someone else's claim they had. How it happened is literally irrelevant to me
"I believe god created life and the universe, and I also believe I will never be able to understand how. How it happened is literally irrelevant to me"

I am not adamant about how life was created, or why, or when. I have my ideas, my opinions, but they are subject to change at will.
Sure, and one of those opinions presumably is that life was created via a natural process that is impossible to explain or demonstrate, yet that side of the argument is the one making fun of people who hold beliefs without evidence.

An atheist / agnostic world view doesn't require the entire world to be explained at any one time. The absence of explanation is not proof of god.
Didn't say it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OmegaSupreme

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,361
5,181
645
DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi has a good thread for discussion of Atheism/Theism that the arguments would probably fit well into here:


:messenger_beermugs:
 

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
6,421
6,039
780
England
Probably should have started a thread for this.





It's both too big and small in scale to be able to be demonstrated in a lab? It was some sort of electrical/chemical process involving inanimate matter supposedly, but we can't recreate it at all with all of our knowledge and modern capabilities, or even explain how it is supposed to work? But most are certain this happened out in the wild randomly, many times over across the universe.



"I believe god created life and the universe, and I also believe I will never be able to understand how. How it happened is literally irrelevant to me"



Sure, and one of those opinions presumably is that life was created via a natural process that is impossible to explain or demonstrate, yet that side of the argument is the one making fun of people who hold beliefs without evidence.



Didn't say it was.
We're talking about a chemical reaction that most likely happened by pure blind luck, after billions of years, with quite possibly more than our solar systems worth of resources, incredibly large and sustained amounts of energy over eons, and Christ knows what specific, completely alien conditions compared to modern day earth.

Even then, after a literally unimaginable amount of time, it resulted in the creation of a single self replicating organic collection of molecules so small it would be basically impossible for us to detect, even if it were somehow possible to distinguish them from uncountable number of such super basic forms of life that exist everywhere on earth

Really, the creation of life is no different than millions of other things we're pretty certain of based on the evidence available to us, but that we've been unable to observe naturally, and is simply too big or too small to recreate or detect in a lab with current technology.

The universe is infinite and billions of years old. There's plenty of amazing shit we're aware of that it's randomly created that we have no ability to replicate on our single planet in even the lifetime of our species, that we can nevertheless see exists and extrapolate the origins of from how it is now, and the more evidence we find and the better our tech gets, the more accurate our theories become and the more likely we are to be able to replicate it at some point.

That doesn't mean it's a form of belief, or creates explanations for observable fact no more valid than 'a god did it'

Hell, maybe a god did do it. No science could disprove a creator if they existed. It would just tell you how the creator did it.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Nymphae

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
9,143
25,262
1,165
Too much real talk. Not enough honking.

Let's fix that:


BBC said:
..Others said the image was sexually suggestive, as bananas and sports cars have often been seen as symbols of male lust.
I've rarely seen a statement ignore the elephant in the room as severely as this one does.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
15,770
28,744
870
39
Hell, maybe a god did do it. No science could disprove a creator if they existed. It would just tell you how the creator did it.
Theoretically. Anything past the Big Bang is as big a mystery as what God was doing before Creation. Even with all that science we are still looking back at a giant question mark that tells us really nothing that we didn’t know thousands of years ago. That the origin of life is “Hard if not impossible for a human to comprehend”
 

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
9,143
25,262
1,165
Clickbait headline:
Prominent LGBTQ Native American Anthropologist and Professor who died of covid-19 turns out to have never existed, created by award winning #metoo activist BethAnn McLaughlin

Deets:
For several years, academics and activists around the country interacted with the Twitter account @Sciencing_Bi, which was supposedly run by an LGBTQ Native American Anthropology professor at Arizona State University. They reacted with tributes and grief when a controversial former professor and anti-sexual harassment #metoo crusader named BethAnn McLaughlin announced on Twitter that @Sciencing_Bi had died of COVID-19, blaming the university where @Sciencing_Bi supposedly worked for making people teach on campus during the pandemic.

However, what unfolded next is a complex and bizarre tale of accusations and confusion, as academics and others on social media are now accusing McLaughlin herself of possibly being @Sciencing_Bi and masquerading as a fake Native American professor online, ASU is saying it can’t come up with a death of any professor from COVID-19 recently and believes the death report is a “hoax,” and Twitter has suspended both the accounts of McLaughlin and the now mysterious @Sciencing_Bi (as of the early morning hours of August 3).

Stunning and brave.
 

Aarbron

Member
Jul 21, 2020
66
109
220
Clickbait headline:
Prominent LGBTQ Native American Anthropologist and Professor who died of covid-19 turns out to have never existed, created by award winning #metoo activist BethAnn McLaughlin

Deets:



Stunning and brave.
OMG, that is hilarious.
 

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
8,098
7,151
670
Wait fuck is this real? : D Calvin Klein does not even have large sizes in my country, so I am not sure what the fuck am I am seeing.

Klein should keep it's size klein. If you know what I mean.
I think she's an indie rapper named Chika:


Looks as if they are pushing back against those traditional white western beauty standards.
 
Last edited:

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
4,956
7,428
705
Prague, Czech Republic
I think she's an indie rapper named Chika:


Looks as if they are pushing back against those traditional white western beauty standards.
I doubt this is a "beauty" in any culture. I guess that's in USA, where being fat is not embarassing. At best Gypsies due to wellfare is sometimes this fat, but even then it's really exceptions, this would be dubbed "sumo in here" and we are far from thin nation.

And well I had 136kg at one point and I was not comfortable to even go outside because I knew I am going to be biggest boy in sizeable radius. But I still was not this whale.

Even though I would be pushing bullshit saying that, she is bad musically. but still to promote this to "fuck with western beauty standards" is just stupid and not ok.
 

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
8,098
7,151
670
I doubt this is a "beauty" in any culture. I guess that's in USA, where being fat is not embarassing. At best Gypsies due to wellfare is sometimes this fat, but even then it's really exceptions, this would be dubbed "sumo in here" and we are far from thin nation.

And well I had 136kg at one point and I was not comfortable to even go outside because I knew I am going to be biggest boy in sizeable radius. But I still was not this whale.

Even though I would be pushing bullshit saying that, she is bad musically. but still to promote this to "fuck with western beauty standards" is just stupid and not ok.
Which country are you in? The promotion and celebration of fat women is increasingly popular in countries such as the US and UK.
 

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
4,956
7,428
705
Prague, Czech Republic
Which country are you in? The promotion and celebration of fat women is increasingly popular in countries such as the US and UK.
Czech republic, here is pretty much different. We are not into PC culture (that much). Also no high sugary soft drinks in basic schools.

I will help you with one picture, if you are not sure which country I am talking about:
 

hariseldon

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
7,305
15,086
805
I think she's an indie rapper named Chika:


Looks as if they are pushing back against those traditional white western beauty standards.
That's a whale - given the fear of covid and the linkage between obesity and covid deaths it really seems incongrous and irresponsible to promote such an image.
 

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
8,098
7,151
670
That's a whale - given the fear of covid and the linkage between obesity and covid deaths it really seems incongrous and irresponsible to promote such an image.
I think this campaign happened pre-Covid (in 2019), but yeah promoting someone this fat isn't a good idea. It's all part of the wider war on societal norms. Things previously undesirable and bad are now framed as desirable and good, better even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bombchelle