Euphoric atheists

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
marisa # said:
Been a long time since I've looked into it, but the best theory I've seen laid out by Science™️ was the "Primordial Soup" theory: The idea was that if various lightweight elements that could be generated within a star found its way into early earth's oceans (the aforementioned soup), and enough energy was introduced to the system (like from a lightning strike), it  could produce RNA, the basic building block of life. Despite how extremely unlikely it all sounds, the theory states that as long as it's technically possible, given the vastness of the cosmos, it could happen. However, this theory would still require bridging the gap from RNA to single cell organisms, which I don't recall it explaining.

When an experiment was formed to test this in a laboratory setting, with elements that could theoretically have been there, they were able to produce RNA. However I recall that it also produced carcinogens as a byproduct (which would mutate RNA). So I'm not certain you can call that a success.
Click to expand...
The more you learn about cellular biology the more BS abiogenesis seems. There's so much that needs to be aligned just right to get self-replication going.
The worst part is if you ask many people they act like it's been proven when the opposite has been shown: life has never been created in a lab abiogenetically, nor have even the precursors been synthesized, except for a few chemicals under tightly controlled conditions (i.e. nothing like the alleged "primordial soup").
 
Neat. Creationists a-logging in this thread and matching the redditors with the egg.

Shame too, because the egg comment is hilariously dumb and kino fedora tipping. Doubly so given that odds are good that euphoric does support abortion and that makes it funnier.

For those wondering, abiogenesis is not actually a part of the evolutionary model, and is itself asking a different question. They're connected partially, but using one to try and own the other is a fairly dishonest take. It'd be like trying to shit on relativistic mechanics with chaos theory or vice versa; both are also connected to each other in a way. At least mathematically speaking. But both cover different things.

It's like complaining that the cardiologist couldn't operate on the brain tumor.
 
Last edited:
I personally love it when YouTube atheist "intellectuals" brag on and on about how free-thinking they are, only to then claim free will doesn't exist. Latter is a particularly weird position for them to have and I'm 100% sure they are just espousing it to be contrarian. It's like, "Christians believe in free will, so we mustn't" type of thing.
 
Free will doesn't exist is one of the dumbest take you can have, but they like to say it because it makes them seem more intelligent and privy to deeper concepts like "determinism & materialism."

Then when asked about it, they can start spouting new terms and jargons to make it sound complicated without saying anything substantial.

But if it doesn't exist, then you can't even begin to imagine, think nor claim about it.... because it "doesn't exist". It's like me asking you to imagine a color spectrum outside the existing spectrum...... you can't because it doesn't exist.

Like some euphoric like to claim that good & evil don't really exist, but if it doesn't exist then we won't even be talking about it because we cannot even begin to conceptualize it.

The very fact that you can question the existence of free will just proves it's existence.
 
Weeby Catto said:
The very fact that you can question the existence of free will just proves it's existence.
Click to expand...
If the universe is deterministic all the way down to the quantum level, I don't see how free will could exist if randomness doesn't.

That's actually an open question, although quantum mechanics says atomic decay actually is random. So far, from our perspective, events like thatare entirely random and unpredictable, to the point that "true" random number generators usually employ it. You can even buy them: https://www.imagesco.com/kits/random-number-generator.html

Since some people need "lots" of randomness and these devices can only provide a fixed amount of it, they will take the supposedly truly random numbers and use them as a seed for pseudo-random number generators like Mersenne Twister. Since the PRNG's output is unpredictable if you don't know the seed (with currently known methods) and tied to the input (which is truly random), it's considered "good enough."

Big poker sites usually use something like this. I think some smaller sites might need little enough random numbers they just actually use the output of the truly random number generator directly.

Anyway, whether free will exists (or can exist) would seem to me to depend on whether absolutely everything is predetermined. That raises the question of God's existence and nature directly, because if some things are fundamentally unpredictable, then God can't be omniscient. His existence would be a logical absurdity.

But then there's the whole "being God" thing.

As Tertullian is reputed to have said (but didn't actually say): credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). It's an inaccurate paraphrase of something he actually did say.

In short, though, it seems randomness does actually exist, and therefore so must free will. (I have a proof of this but it is too long to put in this post.)
 
AnOminous said:
If the universe is deterministic all the way down to the quantum level, I don't see how free will could exist if randomness doesn't.

That's actually an open question, although quantum mechanics says atomic decay actually is random. So far, from our perspective, events like thatare entirely random and unpredictable, to the point that "true" random number generators usually employ it. You can even buy them: https://www.imagesco.com/kits/random-number-generator.html

Since some people need "lots" of randomness and these devices can only provide a fixed amount of it, they will take the supposedly truly random numbers and use them as a seed for pseudo-random number generators like Mersenne Twister. Since the PRNG's output is unpredictable if you don't know the seed (with currently known methods) and tied to the input (which is truly random), it's considered "good enough."

Big poker sites usually use something like this. I think some smaller sites might need little enough random numbers they just actually use the output of the truly random number generator directly.

Anyway, whether free will exists (or can exist) would seem to me to depend on whether absolutely everything is predetermined. That raises the question of God's existence and nature directly, because if some things are fundamentally unpredictable, then God can't be omniscient. His existence would be a logical absurdity.

But then there's the whole "being God" thing.

As Tertullian is reputed to have said (but didn't actually say): credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). It's an inaccurate paraphrase of something he actually did say.

In short, though, it seems randomness does actually exist, and therefore so must free will. (I have a proof of this but it is too long to put in this post.)
Click to expand...
You are conflating your capacity to do something about it and your free will, the two are separate. We "absolutely cannot" be "aware of absolute predeterminism" when free will doesn't exist.

If free will doesn't exist, then today everything that you typed, think and talk about are already predetermined, even your capacity to understand the concept is already predetermined, as well as my explanation here. Every single kid in school that got shot is already set, and the shooter is predestined to be one. Every single pedo degenerate is destined, and we are also destined to be hypocrites claiming them to be bad. Which sounds really ridiculous to me.

But if somewhere along reading those lines you think to yourself "hmm, that's cannot true" or something similar, then that's your "free will", deciding for yourself. But whether you have the capacity to change all that is another issue.

We cannot change the law of the universe, but the catch is, we have free will, that is not predetermined. And with free will, we can sometimes choose to pick a rock and throw it to somebody, even if the rock will obey all laws of physics. (and that rock is considered the randomness by those unfortunate to get hit etc)

And if we are sticking to the thread on god and atheist, free will is needed because of love, love requires free will. God chose to love us and we can choose not too.
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
If the universe is deterministic all the way down to the quantum level, I don't see how free will could exist if randomness doesn't.

That's actually an open question, although quantum mechanics says atomic decay actually is random. So far, from our perspective, events like thatare entirely random and unpredictable, to the point that "true" random number generators usually employ it. You can even buy them: https://www.imagesco.com/kits/random-number-generator.html

Since some people need "lots" of randomness and these devices can only provide a fixed amount of it, they will take the supposedly truly random numbers and use them as a seed for pseudo-random number generators like Mersenne Twister. Since the PRNG's output is unpredictable if you don't know the seed (with currently known methods) and tied to the input (which is truly random), it's considered "good enough."

Big poker sites usually use something like this. I think some smaller sites might need little enough random numbers they just actually use the output of the truly random number generator directly.

Anyway, whether free will exists (or can exist) would seem to me to depend on whether absolutely everything is predetermined. That raises the question of God's existence and nature directly, because if some things are fundamentally unpredictable, then God can't be omniscient. His existence would be a logical absurdity.

But then there's the whole "being God" thing.

As Tertullian is reputed to have said (but didn't actually say): credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). It's an inaccurate paraphrase of something he actually did say.

In short, though, it seems randomness does actually exist, and therefore so must free will. (I have a proof of this but it is too long to put in this post.)
Click to expand...
I don't see how randomness would lead to free will. If I do something because an electron in my brain had a 50% chance of causing me to do it, that's no more free on my end then if the electron was deterministically following the laws of nature. A roll of the dice is fundamentally a different than a free choice. I'd say the existence of free will is evidence for an immaterial soul, as neither classical nor quantum physics would allow free will. Perhaps whatever physics underlies quantum mechanics would permit it, though it seems unlikely.
 
Lurking no more said:
I don't see how randomness would lead to free will.
Click to expand...
It doesn't necessarily lead to free will. It's necessary to it, though.

If there is no randomness, and everything is deterministic, then obviously there can't be free will because everything that happens and everything you do is predetermined. You have no choice.

Randomness doesn't necessarily lead to free will, because you could then simply be enslaved to random happenings. It at least allows the possibility of something like free will, although even in a random universe, free will could simply be an illusion.
Weeby Catto said:
If free will doesn't exist, then today everything that you typed, think and talk about are already predetermined, even your capacity to understand the concept is already predetermined, as well as my explanation here.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yeah. That's kind of the point.
 
ABE LINN COHN said:
The more you learn about cellular biology the more BS abiogenesis seems. There's so much that needs to be aligned just right to get self-replication going.
The worst part is if you ask many people they act like it's been proven when the opposite has been shown: life has never been created in a lab abiogenetically, nor have even the precursors been synthesized, except for a few chemicals under tightly controlled conditions (i.e. nothing like the alleged "primordial soup").
Click to expand...
Personally I subscribe to the notion that earth was used as a roadside toilet by some aliens and in reality we all evolved from some ayyylmao stopping by to take a shit in a ditch named Earth.
 
Last edited:
Adamska said:
Neat. Creationists a-logging in this thread and matching the redditors with the egg.

Shame too, because the egg comment is hilariously dumb and kino fedora tipping. Doubly so given that odds are good that euphoric does support abortion and that makes it funnier.

For those wondering, abiogenesis is not actually a part of the evolutionary model, and is itself asking a different question. They're connected partially, but using one to try and own the other is a fairly dishonest take. It'd be like trying to shit on relativistic mechanics with chaos theory or vice versa; both are also connected to each other in a way. At least mathematically speaking. But both cover different things.

It's like complaining that the cardiologist couldn't operate on the brain tumor.
Click to expand...
We really need a cringey christian thread to match this one and the crazy pagan one.
 
Flaming Insignias said:
Euphoria? SJWism? A new thread about pro-abortion morons? Don't know, but this is cringy and a massive false comparison.

View attachment 5030352
Click to expand...
Actually eggs used to be forbidden, too. It wasn't until like the 15th Century or so when the Church said "Yeah, people are talking this a little insane during Lent." Easter Eggs supposedly comes from that tradition because otherwise they'd be pickling eggs during winter and you could finally have a freshly boiled egg at easter.

Lent and the Friday meat fast used to be a lot more restrictive.
 
Last edited:
1684074773041.png

1684074804049.png


Euphoric man fails to understand Honest Hearts.
 
BeepBoopBeepBoop said:
Actually eggs used to be forbidden, too. It wasn't until like the 15th Century or so when the Church said "Yeah, people are talking this a little insane during Lent." Easter Eggs supposedly comes from that tradition because otherwise they'd be pickling eggs during winter and you could finally have a freshly boiled egg at easter.
Click to expand...
I'd have to go look it up to find the source but one of the people Jack Chick was friends with talked about how Lent was a Catholic conspiracy to get people to eat fish since they controlled all the fishing boats at the time.

Euphoric atheists and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists just together makin' weird shit up.
 
Tried watching the recent debate between Dave Farina, atheist boomer tuber, and Dr. James Tour, messianic Jew biochemist. Debate was about the Origins of Life. Farina says it was all natural, Tour specifically says nobody knows how life came about, though he thinks we may know some day, though right now all the research about it is heavily flawed.
Anyways, I was waiting for that shit since they announced it, but hot damn I did not expect such a ridiculous shitfest lol
I only managed to scourge myself though the first hour, skipping shit, until I had a cringe attack. But from what I saw, Tour nailed that faggot Farina to a plank and threw him in the ocean.
It started out really nice, Tour gave Farina this carbon paper laser tag poster in a frame as a gift, then gave his first 10 minutes, a solid start for a guy who never had a debate before.
Then Farina steps in for his 10 minutes.
Fucking piece of shit spent his time showing meme slides and calling Tour a liar, cultist, fraud, boogeyman.
Throughout the debate retard Farina kept pulling his stupid articles as if they were solid stone truth while Tour, who has read it all, kept shredding Farina all with literal facts and logic lol
Eventually Farina started freaking out, even called the audience retards who did not understand what the debaters were talking about, telling them to deal with it lol
Supposedly he used f-bombs too at some point. Real class act of a debater.
Then I see niggers in the comments complaining about Tour shouting over Felina's bullshit speeches. No fucking shit, some halfwit youtuber steps up and calls you, a world leading biochemist, a lunatic liar, quotes or misquotes scientists, many of whom in the long run sided with Tour's side, then acts as if he's a fucking expert while a literal chemist professor is a worthless dummie. Fuck.
Anyone who wants to go into the twilight zone for a while can search for Farina Tour debate. It's about 2 hours long. I refuse to post that trash here.
 
CAPTAIN MATI said:
Farina says it was all natural, Tour specifically says nobody knows how life came about, though he thinks we may know some day, though right now all the research about it is heavily flawed.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the standard view of science currently. We have a pretty good idea how we got from the Archaeans to here, we know complex hydrocarbons can occur in water especially with electricity added (and are even found in comets), but we have no idea how we got from complex hydrocarbons to anything self-replicating.

Life actually arriving from an extraterrestrial object is even a reasonable speculation.

Even an atheist scientist would have to admit we don't know yet.

Mr. I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE should crack open a book some time.

Always funny to see the "pro-science" guy go on a Gish gallop against an actual scientist.
 
So I watched the debate. Dave Farina accepted Dr. James Tour's fight me IRL invitation and went to Rice University for an academic debate. It went about as well as we all would expect if you understand the beef the two have. I almost died of cringe at Farina's display of how much he doesn't know about what he doesn't know and his non-stop ad hominen attacks. Farina told the audience to go fuck themselves (in the snippet vid) and they don't understand how he is an expert somehow in this field. Every time Tour demanded Farina showed he actually understood and could explain on the board what in the papers proved his point, he refused and just read off the title again as if that explained anything. He is such a fucking massive faggot and I am starting to wonder if he needs his own thread.

Here is a small snippet if you haven't seen it yet:


The whole 'debate':


Edit: What also kills me is that you don't even need to understand chemistry to get Tour's point. It is that scientists want to make pre-biotic compounds to explore origin of life. They have claimed to have done that, but it isn't true because they used a bunch of manmade reactants/solutions/environments/etc that didn't exist on a pre-biotic Earth, so it is basically cheating if you aren't using what would have been available then. Then there is the whole charality thing where all the atoms have to spin a certain direction for everything to work and scientists can't figure that out either in this application. Every time Tour brings the reagents and co argument up, Farina literally doesn't seem to understand this basic point Tour is arguing or doesn't want to.
 
Last edited:
Blobby's Murder Knife said:
So I watched the debate. Dave Farina accepted Dr. James Tour's fight me IRL invitation and went to Rice University for an academic debate. It went about as well as we all would expect if you understand the beef the two have. I almost died of cringe at Farina's display of how much he doesn't know about what he doesn't know and his non-stop ad hominen attacks. Farina told the audience to go fuck themselves (in the snippet vid) and they don't understand how he is an expert somehow in this field. Every time Tour demanded Farina showed he actually understood and could explain on the board what in the papers proved his point, he refused and just read off the title again as if that explained anything. He is such a fucking massive faggot and I am starting to wonder if he needs his own thread.

Here is a small snippet if you haven't seen it yet:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VyGRTn1d0TA
The whole 'debate':

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI
Edit: What also kills me is that you don't even need to understand chemistry to get Tour's point. It is that scientists want to make pre-biotic compounds to explore origin of life. They have claimed to have done that, but it isn't true because they used a bunch of manmade reactants/solutions/environments/etc that didn't exist on a pre-biotic Earth, so it is basically cheating if you aren't using what would have been available then. Then there is the whole charality thing where all the atoms have to spin a certain direction for everything to work and scientists can't figure that out either in this application. Every time Tour brings the reagents and co argument up, Farina literally doesn't seem to understand this basic point Tour is arguing or doesn't want to.
Click to expand...
I think if Dr. Tour held his temper in check a little better he would've come out as the unambiguous winner of that debate. Farina just comes right out of the gate with ad hominems, and every one of his responses is laden with that euphoric smugness. "You're all too dumb to understand this," he cries, as he quotes paper titles and abstracts. He doesn't understand the actual science behind those papers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom