Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

sonicthebadger*

PDN wrote: »

Christians do not argue that the disciples being willing to die for their beliefs proves the validity of those beliefs. That would be a silly argument that, mercifully, doesn't exist outside of a strawman factory. They argue that being willing to die for something you knew fine well to be a lie would be much less plausible.

This sort of thing really gets up my nose.

"You're strawmanning my position! That's not my position, this identical situation using different words is my position!"

PDN

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

This sort of thing really gets up my nose.

"You're strawmanning my position! That's not my position, this identical situation using different words is my position!"

So it gets right up your nose when a Christian clarifies an inaccurate portrayal of their position.

So you'd prefer it if we let you strawman to your heart's content, lay down and rolled over for you?

Sorry bud, you don't get that kind of free ride - and it does you no credit to seek it.

MrPudding

kiffer wrote: »

Where does that leave poor a-mouse? Do you need to treat it as well as you treat a regular mouse?

Seems vaguely appropriate...

wrote:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

MrP

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

Also Joseph Smith faced jail and ultimately was beaten to death because of a supernatural event he professed.
This event is laughably transparent as a fraud.

However your logic indicates it must be true.

No, my logic indicates no such thing.

Firstly, if Smith died a similar death to any of the apostles, then my logic would indicate that it was implausible that he would willingly die rather than recant his story. That is not the same as saying his story was true.

However, Smith actually died in a gunfight in which he managed to pick off a couple of his attackers before they lynched him - not because of his stories, but because his followers practiced polygamy. I'm unaware of any recent developments in Church history that would indicate that any of Jesus' early disciples died similar deaths.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

No, my logic indicates no such thing.

Firstly, if Smith died a similar death to any of the apostles, then my logic would indicate that it was implausible that he would willingly die rather than recant his story. That is not the same as saying his story was true.

So how do you know that the apostles "willingly" died?
Beyond "the bible said so"?

PDN wrote: »

However, Smith actually died in a gunfight in which he managed to pick off a couple of his attackers before they lynched him - not because of his stories, but because his followers practiced polygamy. I'm unaware of any recent developments in Church history that would indicate that any of Jesus' early disciples died similar deaths.

Because they were told to practice polygamy by magically revealed golden tablets.

I like how the ultimatum "you can't explain this..." have can so much goalpost moving...

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'm unaware of any recent developments in Church history that would indicate that any of Jesus' early disciples died similar deaths.

If it's not too much trouble, could you give the bible verses which explain how each of the disciples died, and under what conditions, and how the story of each of the deaths was transmitted to the people who wrote it down?

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

So how do you know that the apostles "willingly" died?
Beyond "the bible said so"?

We have extrabiblical sources - namely the writings of the early Church fathers.

However, you are of course free to reject those historical sources that don't suit your purposes. You wouldn't be the first to do so by any means.

Because they were told to practice polygamy by magically revealed golden tablets.

And someone willingly died rather than recant their story of the golden tablets? Or he went down with all guns blazing?

I like how the ultimatum "you can't explain this..." have can so much goalpost moving...

Kindly link to where I made any such 'ultimatum'.

kiffer

... Torture, what does the torturer hope to achieve? To get the truth? To get answers? To get the victim to say a particular thing regardless of the truth...

My position on this issue was for some time, "No one holds up under competent torture" ... one might hold up under incompetent torture if only because you die before you crack but a competent torturer can keep you alive pretty much indefinitely until you crack...

BUT of course that might not be true... maybe people can hold up indefinitely under torture... lets assume that the disciples held up under torture and did not break and make the statement that they authorities wanted them to make, "Jesus is not God, He's dead, it's all just a pack of lies, what ever you want! Just put the forceps and needles away!"
What would the authorities do...?
They would lie.
Obviously that's not ideal for the authorities... Ideally you've left the diciples in good enough condition to stand up in font of a large crowd of believers and publicly denounce their prior "lies"... but if they don't crack and you end up killing them... well you just announce that they did...

Now their followers will not believe this... they'll say "they were tortured and under duress" so it doesn't count... or they would say "Ha! that's just not true! They would never crack! The Truth is the Truth! The power of God/Their faith would sustain Them!"


Rumor and Chinese whispers and by the time it's gotten back to the next community of followers what started as "They were arrested, taken away and tortured we assume, then the authorities claimed that they recanted before they died but we don't believe that" ends up recorded as "They were arrested and tortured but the holy spirit shone brightly round them and they endured! never did their faith waver!!!" People that say things like well that's not exactly what happened are ignored because frankly, Glorious shining martyrs are better for the cause than dull ones... and nay says just get ignored.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

We have extrabiblical sources - namely the writings of the early Church fathers.

However, you are of course free to reject those historical sources that don't suit your purposes. You wouldn't be the first to do so by any means.

Yep and as we all know the autobiographical writings of early Scientology leaders is 100% historically accurate....
It's obviously the US navy who is lying when they say L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a war hero...

What evidence do these writings actually have that the accounts of the martyrdoms are accurate?

PDN wrote: »

And someone willingly died rather than recant their story of the golden tablets? Or he went down with all guns blazing?

There is jack all evidence to support the idea that the apostles actually died willingly at all.

And the story of Joseph Smith shows that a fraud can be killed and that can be spun by believers into martyrdom.

Joseph Smith obviously died willingly in that firefight to spread the word of Mormonism

And what about the practitioners of Falun Gong who are actively, today, being captured and tortured by the Chinese government for their beliefs?
Why do they not count?

Or how about the Heaven Gate cult? Who all willingly killed themselves because of their beliefs?
Why do they not count.

Oh and btw these are just a few of the more recent examples, we can find hundreds of examples of people both enduring and committing horrible stuff because they believed in a supernatural event that you don't believe in.
Yet some none of them count.

PDN wrote: »

Kindly link to where I made any such 'ultimatum'.

Kindly link to where I said you did?

I specifically said that the ultimatum was made, not that you made it.

But you certainly have been doing a bang up job of moving those goalposts.

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

Yep and as we all know the autobiographical writings of early Scientology leaders is 100% historically accurate....
It's obviously the US navy who is lying when they say L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a war hero...

What evidence do these writings actually have that the accounts of the martyrdoms are accurate?

You don't have proof that any inscriptions , eye witness accounts, or any historical accounts of anything that happened prior to the invention of photography are accurate. Which means you are totally free to reject whatever doesn't suit your ideological position ....... of course the notion of anyone then giving any creedence to your opinion is another matter entirely.

There is jack all evidence to support the idea that the apostles actually died willingly at all.

Oh there's evidence alright, but it's evidence you choose to reject (in a quite unbiased manner and entirely coincidentally to it suiting your ideological position to do so of course).

And the story of Joseph Smith shows that a fraud can be killed and that can be spun by believers into martyrdom.

Joseph Smith obviously died willingly in that firefight to spread the word of Mormonism

Do you understand what 'die willingly' actually means? Smith was shooting back at his attackers. People usually do this because they're trying to stay alive.

And what about the practitioners of Falun Gong who are actively, today, being captured and tortured by the Chinese government for their beliefs?
Why do they not count?

Or how about the Heaven Gate cult? Who all willingly killed themselves because of their beliefs?
Why do they not count.

Oh and btw these are just a few of the more recent examples, we can find hundreds of examples of people both enduring and committing horrible stuff because they believed in a supernatural event that you don't believe in.
Yet some none of them count.

Are you genuinely unable to understand the difference (pointed out earlier in this thread) between people who die for their sincerely held beliefs and people who would die for something that they know to be a fraud?

Try to think really hard for a few minutes. I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.

Kindly link to where I said you did?

I specifically said that the ultimatum was made, not that you made it.

But you certainly have been doing a bang up job of moving those goalposts.

When someone is 'moving the goalposts' it usually refers to their having stated one position and then subsequently shifting their ground.

This quite surreal conversation I'm having with you is, as far as I can remember, the first time that I've ever been accused of moving the goal posts from a place where I never placed them in the first instance.

ColmDawson

PDN wrote: »

You don't have proof that any inscriptions , eye witness accounts, or any historical accounts of anything that happened prior to the invention of photography are accurate. Which means you are totally free to reject whatever doesn't suit your ideological position ....... of course the notion of anyone then giving any creedence to your opinion is another matter entirely.

We don't have photographic proof that the Battle of the Boyne happened, nor that the accounts of it are accurate.

We don't have photographic proof that the resurrection of Jesus happened, nor that the accounts of it are accurate.

However, one of these is a supernatural event. Surely we ought to be far more skeptical towards the accounts of that one.

kiffer

ColmDawson wrote: »

We don't have photographic proof that the Battle of the Boyne happened, nor that the accounts of it are accurate.

We don't have photographic proof that the resurrection of Jesus happened, nor that the accounts of it are accurate.

However, one of these is a supernatural event. Surely we ought to be far more skeptical towards the accounts of that one.

I'd have gone with "we don't have proof that Pythagoras existed... but the square of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle is still the sum of the squares of its other two sides..."

A good rational idea is a good rational idea regardless of who said it...

PDN

PDN wrote: »

You don't have proof that any inscriptions , eye witness accounts, or any historical accounts of anything that happened prior to the invention of photography are accurate. Which means you are totally free to reject whatever doesn't suit your ideological position ....... of course the notion of anyone then giving any creedence to your opinion is another matter entirely.

So do you accept the autobiographical claims of L. Ron Hubbard even thought they have no other supporting evidence and are something in conflict with such evidence?

PDN wrote: »

Oh there's evidence alright, but it's evidence you choose to reject (in a quite unbiased manner and entirely coincidentally to it suiting your ideological position to do so of course).

1) I never rejected it. Please show where I did.
2) I specifically asked you to state the evidence they provide to support the accounts of the martyrdoms.

However because they are by people who could have benefited from their interpretation, and that they are the only sources for the accounts, I'll treat them like I treat the autobiography of L Ron.
With extreme skepticism.

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand what 'die willingly' actually means? Smith was shooting back at his attackers. People usually do this because they're trying to stay alive.

And again, how do you know this wasn't what the apostles did?
Maybe they fought back and that fact was conveniently left of the accounts.

Or maybe Joseph Smith fought to a point, then gave up willingly.

Are you actually denying that people don't/can't interrupt his death as martyrdom?

PDN wrote: »

Are you genuinely unable to understand the difference (pointed out earlier in this thread) between people who die for their sincerely held beliefs and people who would die for something that they know to be a fraud?

Try to think really hard for a few minutes. I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.

So the leader of Heaven's Gate didn't know it was a fraud and that he was making it up?
Or the leaders of Falun Gong?

How about Jim Jones?
Or the guys at Waco?

Or are they just crazy? And that crazy people can inspire true belief in their followers and those followers can die for their beliefs?

PDN wrote: »

When someone is 'moving the goalposts' it usually refers to their having stated one position and then subsequently shifting their ground.

This quite surreal conversation I'm having with you is, as far as I can remember, the first time that I've ever been accused of moving the goal posts from a place where I never placed them in the first instance.

Well we've gone from "There's no other explanation for their devotion." to "why would they die for something they know is a fraud" (which is where you came in) to "why would they willingly die for something they know is a fraud."
But at each turn when we provide examples of each of these scenarios you've added on a reason why they don't count. I'd call that moving the goalposts.

kiffer

So... because some people might have died horribly for their faith roughly 2000 years ago, scratch built microbes wouldn't be counted as evidence that life can arise aboigenically from amino acids and lipids?

sonicthebadger*

PDN wrote: »

So it gets right up your nose when a Christian clarifies an inaccurate portrayal of their position.

So you'd prefer it if we let you strawman to your heart's content, lay down and rolled over for you?

Sorry bud, you don't get that kind of free ride - and it does you no credit to seek it.

No it gets up my nose when someone tries to pretend that their position is not their position because of semantics. It is goalpost moving.

If your position is that Jesus rose from the dead and your reason for believing that is the behaviour of his followers in dying for this belief then I am not strawmanning your position and accusing me of doing so because you can't convince me your claim contains some truth is petulant.

Being smug about it doesn't help either.

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

Well we've gone from "There's no other explanation for their devotion." to "why would they die for something they know is a fraud" (which is where you came in) to "why would they willingly die for something they know is a fraud."
But at each turn when we provide examples of each of these scenarios you've added on a reason why they don't count. I'd call that moving the goalposts.

What do you mean "we"? I haven't gone from "there's no other explanation" since I was never there in the first place.

How can I have moved the goalposts from somewhere I've never put them in the first place?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Christians do not argue that the disciples being willing to die for their beliefs proves the validity of those beliefs. That would be a silly argument that, mercifully, doesn't exist outside of a strawman factory.

Really? That sounds an awful lot like what Soul Winner is arguing

"If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian."

Of course "GOOD" explanations of these things is entirely subjective. He has been presented with plenty of potential explanations, but he has rejected all of them.

PDN

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

No it gets up my nose when someone tries to pretend that their position is not their position because of semantics. It is goalpost moving.

If your position is that Jesus rose from the dead and your reason for believing that is the behaviour of his followers in dying for this belief then I am not strawmanning your position and accusing me of doing so because you can't convince me your claim contains some truth is petulant.

Being smug about it doesn't help either.

It is not semantics.

We have two positions here:

a) People are often willing to die for something that they sincerely believe to be true.

b) People are much less likely to die for something that they know to be fiction.

So, if a Christian makes point (b) then it is clearly no rebuttal to present them with examples of (a). Even a child can see that.

So, if you continue to insist there is no difference between (a) and (b) then it is difficult to see where we can go from there. If you genuinely can't see the difference then there is an intellectual problem. If you do see the difference but insist that it doesn't exist then there is an integrity problem.

My only participation in this thread has been to point out that (a) and (b) are distinct positions and that therefore using examples of (a) to rebutt (b) is not a sensible manner of debate. I think, in my first post to Zillah, I did that politely and within the terms of this Forum's Charter.

For my pains I have now been accused of engaging in semantics, moving goalposts that I never put anywhere else in the first place, being smug, and being petulant. Which all leads me to conclude that it is probably pointless for me, or any other Christian for that matter, to engage in discussion here. Perhaps you want this forum to be a Christian-free zone where only like minded people can produce paradies of theists'positions to their hearts' content and without fear of correction? If so I congratulate you - you appear to be getting progressively closer to your goal.

I've made the one and only point I wanted to make in this thread. Have fun.


(Edit: Even as I have been typing this I see that Wicknight has posted and once again quite blatantly conflated (a) and (b). I give up with you guys. )

20goto10

monosharp wrote: »

Because your supposed god created life. Now humans have done it or are extremely close to doing it fully depending on how you view it.

Not really. Unless humans can create something from nothingness then God still wins.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

a) People are often willing to die for something that they sincerely believe to be true.

Could you give the bible verses (or other accounts) which explain the conditions under which each of the relevant disciples died, what they believed they were being killed for, how they came to be aware of the ideas for which they believed they were being killed, and how this information was gathered and transmitted to the people who wrote it down?

sonicthebadger*

PDN wrote: »

It is not semantics.

We have two positions here:

a) People are often willing to die for something that they sincerely believe to be true.

b) People are much less likely to die for something that they know to be fiction.

So, if a Christian makes point (b) then it is clearly no rebuttal to present them with examples of (a). Even a child can see that.

So, if you continue to insist there is no difference between (a) and (b) then it is difficult to see where we can go from there. If you genuinely can't see the difference then there is an intellectual problem. If you do see the difference but insist that it doesn't exist then there is an integrity problem.

My only participation in this thread has been to point out that (a) and (b) are distinct positions and that therefore using examples of (a) to rebutt (b) is not a sensible manner of debate. I think, in my first post to Zillah, I did that politely and within the terms of this Forum's Charter.

For my pains I have now been accused of engaging in semantics, moving goalposts that I never put anywhere else in the first place, being smug, and being petulant. Which all leads me to conclude that it is probably pointless for me, or any other Christian for that matter, to engage in discussion here. Perhaps you want this forum to be a Christian-free zone where only like minded people can produce paradies of theists'positions to their hearts' content and without fear of correction? If so I congratulate you - you appear to be getting progressively closer to your goal.

I've made the one and only point I wanted to make in this thread. Have fun.


(Edit: Even as I have been typing this I see that Wicknight has posted and once again quite blatantly conflated (a) and (b). I give up with you guys. )

Though having said all you said there and without conflating (a) or (b), neither (a) nor (b) makes the claims of said dead people true.

Sincerely believing something to be true does not make it true.

Suffering death to perpetuate a lie is not unheard of, particularly if that lie can somehow serve what the victim believes to be a greater purpose.

The disagreement here before your first post was that the willing death of the apostles was/was not strong evidence for the reserruction. They may well have sincerely believed what they were saying was true, they may have believed that the reserruction was an essential part of the message they were preaching, who knows. But their belief [(a) not to be conflated with (b), I am giving the apostles the benefit of the doubt] does not make it true.

smokingman

Did anyone catch the knuckle-draggers in rte reporting on this?
I nearly fell off my couch laughing at the "possible artificial forms of life escaping and terrorising local communities" as if they'd created something from John Carpenters "The Thing".....ah jaysus rte, thought the joe coleman thing was bad enough but you're adding fuel to a fire of those believing there's nothing but creationists running your station!

20goto10

smokingman wrote: »

Did anyone catch the knuckle-draggers in rte reporting on this?
I nearly fell off my couch laughing at the "possible artificial forms of life escaping and terrorising local communities" as if they'd created something from John Carpenters "The Thing".....ah jaysus rte, thought the joe coleman thing was bad enough but you're adding fuel to a fire of those believing there's nothing but creationists running your station!

Matt Cooper too, with his worried tone of voice and a sigh at the end of the sentence.

Dave!

I can only imagine Joe Duffy... I dread to think what his callers were saying

There really are alot of dickheads in the world

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

(Edit: Even as I have been typing this I see that Wicknight has posted and once again quite blatantly conflated (a) and (b). I give up with you guys. )

I appreciate you aren't Soul Winner and thus don't speak for him, but I quoted you what he said.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

What do you mean "we"? I haven't gone from "there's no other explanation" since I was never there in the first place.

How can I have moved the goalposts from somewhere I've never put them in the first place?

I said where you came in and how you moved the goalposts.

PDN wrote: »

It is not semantics.

We have two positions here:

a) People are often willing to die for something that they sincerely believe to be true.

b) People are much less likely to die for something that they know to be fiction.

So, if a Christian makes point (b) then it is clearly no rebuttal to present them with examples of (a). Even a child can see that.

I have provided you examples of both these scenarios but fro things you don't believe are true.

We've also pointed out that stories can be conflated, exaggerated and changed to suit a purpose.
I.e. Joseph Smith dying willingly.
We have also pointed out that you have not been able to show this isn't the case with the apostles.

PDN wrote: »

So, if you continue to insist there is no difference between (a) and (b) then it is difficult to see where we can go from there. If you genuinely can't see the difference then there is an intellectual problem. If you do see the difference but insist that it doesn't exist then there is an integrity problem.

For my pains I have now been accused of engaging in semantics, moving goalposts that I never put anywhere else in the first place, being smug, and being petulant. Which all leads me to conclude that it is probably pointless for me, or any other Christian for that matter, to engage in discussion here. Perhaps you want this forum to be a Christian-free zone where only like minded people can produce paradies of theists'positions to their hearts' content and without fear of correction? If so I congratulate you - you appear to be getting progressively closer to your goal.

I've made the one and only point I wanted to make in this thread. Have fun.

I've been addressing both of these points and why they aren't a defence or evidence of a supernatural event.

You however don't seem to want to address my points however, preferring to hide behind indignation.
So your whinging doesn't really ring true I'm afraid.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I appreciate you aren't Soul Winner and thus don't speak for him, but I quoted you what he said.

You quoted what I said about position (a) and then posted what Soul Winner said about position (b) as if they were talking about the same position. It's not for me to determine whether you're doing it deliberately or not.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

So your whinging doesn't really ring true I'm afraid.

Wags finger at the use of "whinging"...

Keep it nice, folks.

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

I said where you came in and how you moved the goalposts..

No you didn't. I merely came in to point out the difference between (a) and (b) and why it makes no sense to try to use one to refute the other. That is the only point I have made in this thread. Therefore my goalposts have remained where they were when I entered the thread.

I've been addressing both of these points and why they aren't a defence or evidence of a supernatural event.

You have, but I'm not sure why since I made the very same point in my first post.

I have confined myself to pointing out the very real difference between (a) and (b).

You however don't seem to want to address my points however, preferring to hide behind indignation

Why would I address your points when they have nothing to do with anything I posted? If you want to argue with Soul Winner then that's between the too of you.

So your whinging doesn't really ring true I'm afraid.

So, I point out the very real difference between (a) and (b), and then I get accused of moving the goalposts, being smug, being petulant, and of engaging in semantics. When, quite reasonably, I point out that such insults in response to a straightforward and polite post are hardly likely to encourage theists to engage with this forum, I now get accused of whinging.

Welcome to the A&A forum.

Undergod

To address the thread title: No.

Whether or not humans can create life is entirely irrelevant in the debate concerning the existence of a god or gods. As pointed out, it may in fact strengthen some creationist positions.

Us creating life =/= no-one created the universe.