Author
Topic: Militant Atheist?
(Read 6622 times)

highVOLtage · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2017, 05:02:28 PM »

Quote from: BrownCounty on November 06, 2017, 04:26:35 PM

Wasn't he shot by a resident in an exchange outside the church? (I haven't been keeping up)
So given no 2nd Amendment - the shooter still does the deed, and is still at large.

Yes. A law-abiding gun owner exercising his 2nd amendment rights shot and stopped an illegal gun owner who committed multiple acts of cold-blooded murder.

BrownCounty · « **Reply #15 on:** November 06, 2017, 05:24:38 PM »

Quote from: highVOLtage on November 06, 2017, 05:02:28 PM

Yes. A law-abiding gun owner exercising his 2nd amendment rights shot and stopped an illegal gun owner who committed multiple acts of cold-blooded murder.

I wouldn't recommend Texas as the ideal setting for these such acts. In my home, I have 3 shotguns, 2 rifles, and a handgun - and I am by no means an enthusiast in the least.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2017, 05:42:31 PM »

A AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

Tell me which is an assault rifle and why

A

or B

he AR in AR-15 actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company which designed and developed the first AR. In 1959, ArmaLite sold the rights to Colt, which continued to carry on the “AR” name. Colt modified the rifle, most notably by relocating the charging handle from under the carrying handle to the rear of the receiver. This redesigned rifle was marketed and adopted by the United States military as the fully automatic M16 rifle. Finding success in all of the ways the platform could be used, Colt developed a semi-automatic civilian version, better known as the AR-15. While the AR-15 and M16 are nearly identical in external appearance, they are internally different. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are designed differently, and the bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of the semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. The AR-15 can only switch between safe and fire functions.

There is a vast difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms. In order to fire a semi-automatic firearm, you must pull and release the trigger after each shot. You cannot hold the trigger for rapid fire. Semi-automatic firearms are functionally no different on any platform, whether it be a pistol, rifle or shotgun. Manufacturing of automatic firearms for the general public has been tightly regulated for 80 years and fully-automatic firearms have not been manufactured for the general public at all since the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act became law in 1986.

Today, the AR-15 has soared in popularity amongst gun owners, due to a wide-range of factors. It is customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate that can be used in sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations. Civilians can also modify and personalize their AR-15 from carbine-length, stocks, optics, barrels, etc. The AR-15s ability to be modified to your own personal taste is one of the things that makes it so unique.
"Assault Weapons" and "Large" Magazines
The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had no impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of gun murders.” (Urban Institute[1]) Rifles of any type are used in only two percent of murders. (FBI[2])

“Murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal [assault weapon] ban was in effect.”[3]
Americans own over fifteen million AR-15s and buy hundreds of thousands of new ones every year. (National Shooting Sports Foundation)

AR-15s are the most commonly used rifles in marksmanship competitions, training, and home defense.

Total violent crime has fallen to a 44-year low and murder to an all-time low, while ownership of the firearms and magazines that gun control supporters want banned has risen to all-time highs. (FBI,[5] ATF[6])

AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles are not the fully-automatic, military-grade firearms they are often claimed to be by gun control supporters and the media.

Ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are standard equipment for many handguns and rifles that Americans keep for self-defense.

The terrorist attacks in France and Belgium show that gun bans—including those on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines—don’t prevent crime. In both countries, the ownership of firearms, including semi-automatics, is severely restricted.

Gun control supporters are wrong to claim that “assault weapons” are used in most mass shootings. While the media focus on this false narrative, mass shootings have been committed with firearms of all types, and without firearms of any type.

Second Amendment – Firearms that gun control supporters call “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that they call “large” are among the arms protected by the Second Amendment. Because they’re among the arms that are most useful for the entire range of defensive purposes, they’re “in common use” for defensive purposes, a standard articulated by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).[7] This is true, regardless of which of gun control supporters’ ever-expanding definitions of “assault weapons” one uses.[8]
More “assault weapons” and “large” magazines, less crime – From 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, to 2014, the nation’s total violent crime rate decreased 52 percent, to a 44-year low, including a 54 percent decrease in the murder rate, to an all-time low.[9] Meanwhile, Americans bought 160 million new firearms,[10] including millions of so-called “assault weapons,” including more than fifteen million AR-15s, and so many tens of millions of “large” handgun and rifle magazines that it seems pointless to attempt a count.[11]
Different guns, same old tune – In the 1970s, gun control supporters predicted that crime would rise unless Congress banned all handguns.[12] In the 1980s, they said the same thing about compact, small-caliber handguns.[13] For a quarter-century, they’ve said the same thing about “assault weapons” and “large” magazines[14] and Right-to-Carry laws under which people carry semi-automatic handguns and “large” magazines for self-defense.[15]Every one of these predictions has been proven false.[16] Nevertheless, they have expanded their definition of “assault weapon” to include virtually all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, comparable handguns, and various fixed-magazine rifles, and continue to press for a ban on magazines.[17]
Study for Congress and follow-up studies – The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine “ban” concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.[18] A follow-up study concluded that “AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban,” “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”[19] Another follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds]” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”[20]

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2017, 06:01:18 PM »

Quote from: Drew4UTk on November 06, 2017, 04:52:59 PM

ya know, fuzz, if every single firearm on the planet, all ammunition, and the technology to replace them were all combined in a melded ball and launched into orbit as some perverse comet- yet never to return- i'd be cool with that. see ya!!!

Agreed.

but that is unrealistic. it ain't gonna happen. guns are everywhere. because of that, i will always and i mean always be armed.

Good for you.

so- the 'time' for your pie in the sky removal of lawful citizens GOD given right to own a firearm recognized by that ol' rag you types despise so called the Constitution is long since passed.

I just said I wasn't arguing to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and in fact, I'm not in favor of gun abolition. So, next time construct a straw man that can't answer you back.

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2017, 06:12:55 PM »

Quote from: BrownCounty on November 06, 2017, 04:55:02 PM

"Atheists are simply people who are not afraid to think for themselves, challenge communal dogma, and stand with the (growing) minority. They form their beliefs based on evidence rather than trusting in conformists pretending to know things that they don't."

And so here's what is foolish about the above thought process:

Suppose there *was* a Creator - that created ALL of this, not just man, not just earth, not just this universe, but this infinity within which we exist...

We assume a piss-ass little man is going to be able to *prove* the existence of said Creator?

Why would there be no evidence? Why can't we detect a soul leaving a body upon it's earthly death? Why would all the supposed "miracles" have happened before the days of youtube? Why is the Christian notion of accepting Jesus as their lord and savior for salvation any more or less valid than the Islamic notion of martyrdom?

This little nothing can disprove the Creator?

No one can disprove any of the gods ever imagined by mankind. Societies simply moved from one supernatural belief system to the next by political dictate. According to your flimsy logic, maybe the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack are still enjoying their 72 virgins in Heaven (although I doubt they're still virgins anymore).

Hilarious.

So again, only assuming there *was* a Creator, would it be laughable to contend that man could prove or disprove it.

It should be easily proven - there's no reason for a deity to conceal itself. Especially if eternal salvation is at stake. And again, obviously no supernatural claims could ever be disproven, no matter how preposterous they are.

So whether or not said Creator exists, man's "evidence" has nothing to say about it.

Religion is the only arena where evidence isn't required prior to forming beliefs. You've just carved out a convenient little space for yourself where anything you want to make up is perfectly valid, and if anyone wants to challenge you on it, it's "hilarious."

No adult with any intellectual integrity could possibly go along with that.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2017, 06:14:49 PM »

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Quote

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”¹

Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

Quote

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”²

However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism³ will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
y DO follow a religion.
Atheism creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.⁴ But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)⁵; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.
A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,⁶ commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.
The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the ‘secularisation’ of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.
1. Narrative
Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative.
Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

Quote

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”⁷

Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a parasite on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.⁸ There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.⁹ The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in ‘science’ reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.
2. Experiential

There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion (for example the Disciples physically saw and touched the bodily resurrected Jesus). It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).
he second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting.¹⁰ Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife,¹¹ then ultimately there is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships. Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.¹²
Smart also seems to include ‘faith’ as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.
3. Social
The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.
Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,

Quote

“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts ‘religious’ people to his worldview—exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.
Communist countries often made the state religion Atheism, often to the point of persecuting (other) religions.¹³ This followed from Karl Marx’s statement:

Quote

“It [religion] is the opiate of the masses. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”¹⁴

Marxists saw the removal of religion as a step toward true happiness for the common people, although in practice this did not occur, and contemporary critics see Marxism itself as a religion¹⁵. (I would contend that Marxism is a sect of a larger religion: Atheism).
Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)
Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.¹⁶
4. Doctrinal
Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.
Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, after the ‘enlightenment’. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20^th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.
The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.
In 1973 however, the Humanist Manifesto was updated because of the atrocities that humans inflicted upon other humans during the intervening years (specifically mentioned are Nazism and communist police states).
5. Ethical
Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.
Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.
Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.
A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognise this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.
6. Ritual
Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice ‘secular rituals’ such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some ‘churches’. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervour and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.
7. Material
The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.
There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:

Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:

Quote

“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.”

An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.
Conclusion
Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2017, 06:27:10 PM »

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form
galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life
white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry
parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry
parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry
parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result
parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis
parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life
parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life
if bluer: same result
H3⁺ production (23) (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life
parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life
distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too extreme for life
orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life
axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result
rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life
rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life
rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life
planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life
magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation
thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements
mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (p = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life
atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life
oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup
volcanic activity (26)
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life
frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result
gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions
drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface
atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms
iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth
mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production
quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from An organic compound made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.protein deficiency
biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect
quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
longevity requirements (estimate .00001)

Total Probability = 1:10⁹⁹

References

A little more for you

he Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"
What has been said so far shows the extraordinary balances among the forces that make human life possible in this universe. The speed of the Big Bang's explosion, the values of the four fundamental forces, and all the other variables that we will be examining in the chapters ahead and which are vital for existence have been arranged according to an extraordinary precision.
Let us now make a brief digression and consider the coincidence theory of materialism. Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let's do so.

THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in ₁₀10¹²³. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

	10000000000000000000000000000000
	00000000000000000000000000000000
	00000000000000000000000000000000
10	00000000000000000000000000000000

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of ₁₀10¹²³ to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10¹²³ means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10¹²³zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. ₁₀10³ is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10¹²³ zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10⁵⁰ means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in ₁₀10¹²³. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10¹²³ successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. (10)

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #21 on:** November 06, 2017, 06:38:01 PM »

Dante, I know you think the longer the post the righter you are, but if science confirmed the existence of any deity, then every educated person on Earth would believe in that deity. Instead, the opposite is true - the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in a deity.

Which deity one believes in is largely attributed to where they were born, and into which family. The only science at play here is social science - specifically the phenomenon of conformity.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #22 on:** November 06, 2017, 07:01:06 PM »

Quote from: fuzzynavol on November 06, 2017, 06:38:01 PM

Dante, I know you think the longer the post the righter you are, but if science confirmed the existence of any deity, then every educated person on Earth would believe in that deity. Instead, the opposite is true - the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in a deity.

Which deity one believes in is largely attributed to where they were born, and into which family. The only science at play here is social science - specifically the phenomenon of conformity.

and is to damn lazy to read what points to a creator. He would rather cling to the unscientific fable we came from a cosmic cesspool and respond with nothing to do with what I actually posted. Typical response of an arrogant ass!

Volsareback · « **Reply #23 on:** November 06, 2017, 07:17:50 PM »

Quote from: fuzzynavol on November 06, 2017, 06:38:01 PM

Dante, I know you think the longer the post the righter you are, but if science confirmed the existence of any deity, then every educated person on Earth would believe in that deity. Instead, the opposite is true - the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in a deity.

Which deity one believes in is largely attributed to where they were born, and into which family. The only science at play here is social science - specifically the phenomenon of conformity.

Try selling that to the maniac that just slaughtered innocents at a church. I bet he agreed with you about more than he disagreed with you both politically and philosophically.

That is a tough pill to swallow but it's called REALITY. There is NO WAY for you to spin this. Perhaps it's time for a Stephen Colbert animated gif.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #24 on:** November 06, 2017, 07:21:27 PM »

Quote from: Volsareback on November 06, 2017, 07:17:50 PM

Try selling that to the maniac that just slaughtered innocents at a church. I bet he agreed with you about more than he disagreed with you both politically and philosophically.

That is a tough pill to swallow but it's called REALITY.

Fuzz's beliefs and reality are two separate things.
Don't know about your church but in ours there are a lot of armed and competent people in attendance

Volsareback · « **Reply #25 on:** November 06, 2017, 07:22:39 PM »

Quote from: DunkingDan on November 06, 2017, 07:21:27 PM

Fuzz's beliefs and reality are two separate things.
Don't know about your church but in ours there are a lot of armed and competent people in attendance

At my church, I am one of many.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #26 on:** November 06, 2017, 07:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Volsareback on November 06, 2017, 07:22:39 PM

At my church, I am one of many.

I like the suggestions that have been made to churches across the land to consider being armed or having security. To many evil people about with no respect of others anymore.

Volsareback · « **Reply #27 on:** November 06, 2017, 07:42:17 PM »

Quote from: DunkingDan on November 06, 2017, 07:31:19 PM

I like the suggestions that have been made to churches across the land to consider being armed or having security. To many evil people about with no respect of others anymore.

Guys like fuzzy cannot understand. Their arrogance only serves to exemplify their ignorance.

They don't go to church and have never even owned or shot a gun (much less been on the wrong end of one).

Most of them grew up without fathers.

So sad.

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Militant Atheist?

highVOLtage

Re: Militant Atheist?

BrownCounty

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Well Fuzz A or B and Why

fuzzynavol

Re: Militant Atheist?

fuzzynavol

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Is Atheism a religion?

DunkingDan

Fuzz still denies science he claims to follow

fuzzynavol

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

The Fuzzkid continues to deny science

Volsareback

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

Volsareback

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

Volsareback

Re: Militant Atheist?