Why atheism? · Religion Forum

Alfheim Junior Member

Originally posted by ThePittman
You were not talking about multiple bacteria combine to complete more complex tasks but talking about a single cell organism, to break it down all that we are and all life on this planet is single cell organisms’ combining that is a different situation entirely.

Well I was talking about bacteria common sense dictates that does not exclude bacteria in a group. 🙄

The fact of the matter is even if bacteria does not show intelligence individually they still show intelligence in a group. Bacteria can be considered to be intelligent.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Fair enough, but as far as I know scientists also belive in other dimenisons.

Other dimensions/spacetimes do figure prominently in many current theories (eg, unification).

Since aliens SHOULD exist the likely conclusion is that by a stroke a chance they do not exist in this universe. Another possibility is that they are here already and we are in a matrix situation.

Or Men in Black (remember the ending to the first one? 😱 )

Alfheim Junior Member

Originally posted by Mindship

Or Men in Black (remember the ending to the first one? 😱 )

Yeah I know that was crazy!

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well I was talking about bacteria common sense dictates that does not exclude bacteria in a group. 🙄
The fact of the matter is even if bacteria does not show intelligence individually they still show intelligence in a group. Bacteria can be considered to be intelligent.

No it doesn’t, when you talk a about a human you don’t mean the human race or any other group of animals. Even is a group they show a form or intelligence but not intelligence, just because something can show a behavior of something doesn’t necessarily mean that they posses this.

Alfheim Junior Member

Originally posted by ThePittman
No it doesn’t, when you talk a about a human you don’t mean the human race or any other group of animals.

Well I should have elaborated, anyway I do mean bacteria as a group.

Originally posted by ThePittman

Even is a group they show a form or intelligence but not intelligence, just because something can show a behavior of something doesn’t necessarily mean that they posses this.

Well I dont know about that. If bacteria had no intelligence they should not even be able to have intelligence in a group.

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

I can’t remember my Biology class that well (been like 16 years) but if I remember right when they do work together they become something else like a super organism which is greater as a whole and not treated as the same.

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by Atlantis001
But what kind of evidence were these ? Was this evidence not empirical you say ?

Empirical
ADJECTIVE:
[list=1][*]a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
[*]Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.[/list]

Given this definition, my evidence is relying on or derived from personal observation. If when defining experiment, you include any premeditated act that had assumed a specific type of result, then it could be said that it was an experiment. Using the term practical, yes, my actions were based on, and guided by, previous experience. So, given the definition of empirical the evidence is empirical. Is the evidence such that it is beyond doubt? For me, yes, is it beyond the ability of another, that was not present at the time of the event, to doubt, no. Is the experience replicable? Yes and no, the experience is not adequately controlled as many variables involved (particularly the God aspect) are beyond the scope of any control.

Have I responded adequately to your question?

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by ThePittman
No it doesn’t, when you talk a about a human you don’t mean the human race or any other group of animals. Even is a group they show a form or intelligence but not intelligence, just because something can show a behavior of something doesn’t necessarily mean that they posses this.

You would need to define intelligence to rule out intelligence in minute organism. Salmonella bacteria compare concentrations of desirable "food" sources at their "head" and "tail". These bacteria will then "follow" a trail of food once found. This, imo, could be defined as intelligence, albeit minuscule in degree compared to any more complex organism.

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Regret
You would need to define intelligence to rule out intelligence in minute organism. Salmonella bacteria compare concentrations of desirable "food" sources at their "head" and "tail". These bacteria will then "follow" a trail of food once found. This, imo, could be defined as intelligence, albeit minuscule in degree compared to any more complex organism.

That is more instinct and reaction then intelligence.

intelligence
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.

Mr. Sandman Sintastic

Why atheism?

Because I felt like it.

When Jesus comes down from heaven and says "Yo, I'm real." and then goes back to heaven, then I will believe with no doubts at all.

debbiejo Dreamer

If children were never told about gods and such I do not believe they would be atheists. They would experience things and know that there is something bigger....Possibly they would become Agnostic.

lord xyz Restricted

Originally posted by debbiejo
If children were never told about gods and such I do not believe they would be atheists. They would experience things and know that there is something bigger....Possibly they would become Agnostic.

What? 😆 You can't be serious.

Storm Black belt BJJ

Why does there have to be something bigger?

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by Storm
Why does there have to be something bigger?

I think it is a comforting thing.

Mr. Sandman Sintastic

Originally posted by Storm
Why does there have to be something bigger?

I agree

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by ThePittman
That is more instinct and reaction then intelligence.
intelligence
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.

And, how is such measured?

I apologize to you, but even extremely well versed psychologists have difficulty defining what intelligence is, let alone measuring and quantifying the subject. Your definition is broad and avoids the fact that everything you do is based on the response/consequence relationship of all your actions since your initial response and/or external effect in your mother's womb. It could all be merely instinct and reaction, your perspective is the only thing that states it is otherwise.

Definition 1 - How is such measured? Would you apply the same type of test to the: Blind, Deaf, Maimed, etc.? No, the test is tailored to the subject, so much so that those in black minorities, especially those in ghetto type neighborhoods, are measured and scored differently than other individuals. Thus, an intelligence test of the bacteria must be tailored to the bacteria's capability to respond and "hear".

Definition 2 - Manifestation of high mental capacity. Measurement of this is also tailored to the subject.

Definition 3 - Understanding is observed through some behavior, if I make a trail of "food" and the bacteria follows it, it understands where I want it to go.

Definition 4 - knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted. If I place the trail of "food", and the bacteria follows it, it has shown knowledge received.

Definition 5 is in reference to groups such as CIA.

Bacteria are showing intelligence given the only means by which such a concept can be measured, observation of behavior.

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by lord xyz
What? 😆 You can't be serious.

Given the concept that all religion and concepts are completely man-made, Man is not inherently atheist. An inherently atheist entity would not inherently create religion and accompanying concepts. So, it must be assumed that man is not inherently atheist. This is not logically stating that man is inherently theist, only that man cannot be inherently atheist.

Alliance Enforcer of the Republic

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes but you know it and I know it aliens should exist. It is not improbable that we may meet aliens in the future. There are alot of things in science that they say we will never discover but we do.

I realize most of these have been answered.

Like what? Intersteller communication is exceedingly unprobable for us...there is a reason sci-fi gets around that by breaking the laws of physics and using strange devices.

Originally posted by Alfheim
As far as I know scientists belive in other dimensions. It could simply be in this universe we are the most advanced beings.

Well, since you apparently know so much about dimension, you'd knwo that a dimension does not equal a universe.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Bacteria are alive. An extremely intelligent lifeform could think the same about us.

Not likely. Bacteria have no brains. They cannot think. Humans can act against instinct. Thats obvious to anyone that studies us for awhile.

Originally posted by Alfheim
So that doesnt look anything like a Solar System?

That model of the atom died in 1927 (see Heisenberg). Get over it. Real atoms look nothing like solar systems, aside form the fact that there is a lot of mass at the center.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The fact of the matter is even if bacteria does not show intelligence individually they still show intelligence in a group. Bacteria can be considered to be intelligent.

This is bullshit. Intelligence needs to be expressed at the base level. Its like saying two cogs demonstrate intelligence because they can work together. Clearly wrong. No biologist considers bacteria to be intelligent.

This leads us too...

Originally posted by Regret
You would need to define intelligence to rule out intelligence in minute organism. Salmonella bacteria compare concentrations of desirable "food" sources at their "head" and "tail". These bacteria will then "follow" a trail of food once found. This, imo, could be defined as intelligence, albeit minuscule in degree compared to any more complex organism.

No, this is nto intellignece, this is a programmed biological response. The cell cannot decide not to chacse the food. It HAS to chase it. If the cell could change its mind of its OWN free will and say "I will starve myself to death," then it would exibit intelligence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is a comforting thing.

Yes, and heavan forbid you weren't comfortable.

Originally posted by Regret
And, how is such measured?
I apologize to you, but even extremely well versed psychologists have difficulty defining what intelligence is, let alone measuring and quantifying the subject. Your definition is broad and avoids the fact that everything you do is based on the response/consequence relationship of all your actions since your initial response and/or external effect in your mother's womb. It could all be merely instinct and reaction, your perspective is the only thing that states it is otherwise.

No offence, psychologists may have a tough time defining intelligence, but when it comes down to the biochemistry of the cell, its damn easy. The defenition becomes mroe complex when you move into more complex structures.

I think my defintion of the ability to over-ride instinct is a good defention for this biological problem.

ThePittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Regret
And, how is such measured?
I apologize to you, but even extremely well versed psychologists have difficulty defining what intelligence is, let alone measuring and quantifying the subject. Your definition is broad and avoids the fact that everything you do is based on the response/consequence relationship of all your actions since your initial response and/or external effect in your mother's womb. It could all be merely instinct and reaction, your perspective is the only thing that states it is otherwise.
Definition 1 - How is such measured? Would you apply the same type of test to the: Blind, Deaf, Maimed, etc.? No, the test is tailored to the subject, so much so that those in black minorities, especially those in ghetto type neighborhoods, are measured and scored differently than other individuals. Thus, an intelligence test of the bacteria must be tailored to the bacteria's capability to respond and "hear".
Definition 2 - Manifestation of high mental capacity. Measurement of this is also tailored to the subject.
Definition 3 - Understanding is observed through some behavior, if I make a trail of "food" and the bacteria follows it, it understands where I want it to go.
Definition 4 - knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted. If I place the trail of "food", and the bacteria follows it, it has shown knowledge received.
Definition 5 is in reference to groups such as CIA.
Bacteria are showing intelligence given the only means by which such a concept can be measured, observation of behavior.

Intelligence can be measured in many things based on behavior and responses to stimuli. If bacteria learned then no amount of drugs or medicine would fight them because they would learn to avoid such chemicals, they will evolve or become immune to such things but they do not learn or have the capacity too.

However the test for intellect is not based on the type of person or what or who they are but can they. The measure of intelligence is a different matter and is not testing if they have intelligence but how much and this is where other environmental factors will come into play.

debbiejo Dreamer

Originally posted by Storm
Why does there have to be something bigger?

Only because with the new sciences that have discovered that things are out side of our reality and not yet known............and why not something much bigger than us?.............That would be just Agnostic..............