Religions are....

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

i just don't want to end  up with a theocracy running the USA.  All these politicians citing God's will, God's laws, Bible this and that are fucking lunatics.  All the initiatives to take money from public schools to give to these nutbags to fund religious schools is crazy.  you want to increase your child's chance getting raped by a priest, do it on your own dime. you want your child to learn how to dehumanize people that are different from them because a few lines in the Bible say God is probably against that behavior, do it on your own dime.

Now, if we had more Bible lessons on the prophet Elisha, who after getting insulted by 'youths' called him bald and then called down the wrath of God in the form of two she-bears who proceeded to rampage said youths and racked up an impressive 42 fatalities, then count me in.  

We don't see God's wrath in today's world.  Only human's stupidly and cruelty trying to inflict pain on those they think God hates.  Crazy.  So this has turned me against basically all religion.  I don't really care how great your church is.  i hope it fails so religion can influence fewer people.

[nbmishoid 930]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:38 AM, hpslugga said:

Personally I think Gnosticism in either direction is absolute insanity. How the hell can anyone say they “know” that there either is or isn’t a deity? That kind of assertion is a positive statement, and those require positive evidence. And this particular kind of statement would be extraordinary so it would therefore require extraordinary evidence.

Math is pretty much the only field of study we have that produces the kind of absolute certainty that believers talk about.

Science is different than math on that front. Science is basically a game of King of the Hill. The very best explanations of certain phenomenon, which have to pass through a rigorous process, occupy the top of that hill until a better explanation knocks it off. Once it’s knocked off, it very likely will never return, which is why we haven’t heard much about vitalism or phlogiston lately.

In terms of going from “belief” to “knowledge,” yeah it’s bullshit. You don’t acquire knowledge simply by “believing hard enough” as some theists contend. Knowledge has to do with facts, and facts are defined as points of data that are exclusively indicative of or concordant with one particular explanation above all others. That has shit to do with confidence.

 

A great series of posts.  
A difference between science, with its uncertainty, and mathematics, with that certainty, is that science is strictly about the world.  Math is not about the world, it is about abstractions.   A bit of it is useful in the world.   Luck.

[Nivek 16807]

You're like the fat fuck playing World of Warcraft all day and calling the rest of the people in his dungeon group nerds.
I don't understand how some people can be so sanctimonious and so self [un]aware at the same time.

Whew, if you said StarCraft I would have had been shamed.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

2 hours ago, gyroprotagonist said:

i just don't want to end  up with a theocracy running the USA.  All these politicians citing God's will, God's laws, Bible this and that are fucking lunatics.  All the initiatives to take money from public schools to give to these nutbags to fund religious schools is crazy.  you want to increase your child's chance getting raped by a priest, do it on your own dime. you want your child to learn how to dehumanize people that are different from them because a few lines in the Bible say God is probably against that behavior, do it on your own dime.

Now, if we had more Bible lessons on the prophet Elisha, who after getting insulted by 'youths' called him bald and then called down the wrath of God in the form of two she-bears who proceeded to rampage said youths and racked up an impressive 42 fatalities, then count me in.  

We don't see God's wrath in today's world.  Only human's stupidly and cruelty trying to inflict pain on those they think God hates.  Crazy.  So this has turned me against basically all religion.  I don't really care how great your church is.  i hope it fails so religion can influence fewer people.

This is…yeah. This is what I think. Well said. 

[CooterBrown 17874]

Fucking incels are hitting high schools now.

My kid took this pic from the bus headed to a game. It’s at McCallum HS.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

9 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Fucking incels are hitting high schools now.

My kid took this pic from the bus headed to a game. It’s at McCallum HS.

They look like the general 6th street religious degenerates. Or bourbon street. Are they incels now too?

[CooterBrown 17874]

Here’s a better pic. They were protesting women’s rights and LGBT.

On the Mac parents Facebook page, a parent said the incels were calling the boys fags.

[Anastasis 23375]

18 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're like the fat fuck playing World of Warcraft all day and calling the rest of the people in his dungeon group nerds

You are welcome to joy me anytime too. 
 

You are free to think that the people on your modernized fwd:fwd:fwd chains and the three incels picketing McCallum are broadly representative of anything, or you could contextualize. But that would require you to come out of your WoW world to smell rain. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Anastasis

[NWBuck 8543]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:38 AM, hpslugga said:

In terms of going from “belief” to “knowledge,” yeah it’s bullshit. You don’t acquire knowledge simply by “believing hard enough” as some theists contend. Knowledge has to do with facts, and facts are defined as points of data that are exclusively indicative of or concordant with one particular explanation above all others. That has shit to do with confidence.

Along those lines, found this book both helpful and challenging: The Sin Of Certainty 

[Mole 4318]

13 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Fucking incels are hitting high schools now.

My kid took this pic from the bus headed to a game. It’s at McCallum HS.

The yellow shirt reminds me of the King James Version of Psalm 139:8.

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Theology types will talk about the ever-evolving idea of Sheol vs. our modern concept of hell when it comes to Psalm 139, but if you’re out in the rain angrily protesting school children because of a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, it’s worth considering if Psalm 139 simply says what it says.

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

These cunts need to start getting the ever-living shit kicked out of them.  It's the only thing they understand. 

[Guest]

If God doesn’t exist, then He has a lot of questions to answer.  Number one, why do you feel compelled to violate the principle of sufficient reason?  Also, how do you make something that exists necessarily not exist, especially considering when that thing is you?

[Brisketexan 104463]

17 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You are welcome to joy me anytime too. 
 

You are free to think that the people on your modernized fwd:fwd:fwd chains and the three incels picketing McCallum are broadly representative of anything, or you could contextualize. But that would require you to come out of your WoW world to smell rain. 

They are terrorists.  Created and fomented by the larger "conservative Christian" movement.  Just like the guy who murdered a woman for having a pride flag up last week.  Or the Tree of Life shooter.

American Christian dogma is tossing lit matches out the window every 10 feet.  Everyone knows that fatal fires will follow.  Yet when the fire happens, American Christianity says "don't blame me, I didn't kill anyone, the fire did [yeah, the fire that we set...but ignore that part]."  American Christianity differs from islamofascism in two respects: 1) Jesus, instead of Mohammed, and 2) the dinner spread at the islamofascist houses is better than the shitty casseroles at the American Christian houses.

[Samson's Wig 3168]

3 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

These cunts need to start getting the ever-living shit kicked out of them.  It's the only thing they understand. 

My kids will be in that school in a couple of years.  I'm not sure one of these fucks will have a functioning knee left if they're still pulling this shit at that time. A couple of dads and a couple of bats and those candy-ass pieces of shit will have to protest from wheelchairs next time.  There's almost a zero percent chance that at least one of those pussies isn't carrying a firearm when they're out there spreading hate right next to a school, so wtf are the cops doing?  Can you carry right next to a school now (I honestly have no idea)?

Mostly I just hope those pathetic losers haven't procreated.  Holy shit the world is nuts.

[Pescado_Rojo 19327]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They are terrorists.  Created and fomented by the larger "conservative Christian" movement.  Just like the guy who murdered a woman for having a pride flag up last week.  Or the Tree of Life shooter.

American Christian dogma is tossing lit matches out the window every 10 feet.  Everyone knows that fatal fires will follow.  Yet when the fire happens, American Christianity says "don't blame me, I didn't kill anyone, the fire did [yeah, the fire that we set...but ignore that part]."  American Christianity differs from islamofascism in two respects: 1) Jesus, instead of Mohammed, and 2) the dinner spread at the islamofascist houses is better than the shitty casseroles at the American Christian houses.

Damn it, now I'm hungry for Tahdig and Shawarma.

[Magus Ossis 2773]

Spoiler

As those who wade through scientific literature will attest, a common benchmark for assigning statistical significance is 95% probability; if the null hypothesis (chance occurrence alone) explains the phenomenon of interest with less than 5% likelihood, we say that the event was most likely due to some cause or constellation of causes. Few who claim scientifically to believe that life on earth arose spontaneously have bothered to look at the reasonability of the null hypothesis of this occurrence with even marginal rigor. We could start with some extremely favorable (for random generation of life) assumptions:

1. All of the earth’s carbon has been in a physical and chemical state amenable to reactions with other elements or chemicals for the entirety of earth’s existence. Let us ballpark the the number of carbon atoms at 2E45 and the age of the earth at 1E17s.
2. 100% of all the earth’s carbon has always existed as nucleotides or chains thereof, resulting in ballpark 2E44 nucleotides
3. The genome of the ultimate progenitor cell was less than 5% the size of the shortest known genome of an independent archaebacterium, so circa 2E4bp
4. Each nucleotide was in such a fortuitous environment that it joined a stable, unbranched nucleotide chain every microsecond, only to disassemble immediately and completely upon reaching length of 2E4 if the resulting chain did not encode the desired proto-cellular genome. Thus the average chain length at any given time was 1E4, and the average number of chains growing at a given time was 2E40. Each chain grew for 2E-2 seconds, meaning that a new chain started roughly 1E42 times per second. This results in 1E59 candidate chains since earth coalesced (ignoring that life actually arose far earlier).
5. There are as many micro-genomes of the length selected that would result in viable outcomes (100 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion = 1E80) as there are estimated to be atoms in the entire universe, despite none that short which fit the description ever having been found or suggested.
6. The randomly assembled proto-genome did not degrade before causing the ongoing existence of a reproducing organism. Ribosomes and other cellular machinery necessary to protect, package, copy, interpret, and maintain the genome are unnecessary or magically provided; merely having the “instruction book” with no reader to follow the instructions is adequate to create a viable cell.

 

Of all the assumptions made above, it is #6 that may be the most problematic. Expecting a project to build itself because a set of instructions appears without any tools or materials would be unimaginable, and yet that is what #6 grants. Nevertheless, with all these unrealistic assumptions granted arguendo, we fall a bit short of the 95% probability needed to say that our thought experiment supports the null hypothesis, viz. the random appearance of primitive cellular life. The chance we reach is about (1 - (1 - 1E-13300)^1E59). This number is so small that scientific calculators will simply report it as zero. The calculated probability of the null hypothesis is not only less than 5%, it is almost unimaginably less than one trillionth of one percent.

 

In science and in endeavors that lean on common tools of scientific study, we do not offer absolute proof. We evaluate (leaning on our reason) whether data support a given hypothesis. It is always possible for our worldview to lead us to reject what the data seem to suggest. The above thought experiment is not irrefutable proof that life on earth did not arise by chance. Following, however, the usual criteria, one would reject the null hypothesis. Depending on which definition of deity one means (distinguishing, e.g, between Aristotle’s and Brigham Young’s), one might consider the implausibility of stochastic forces’ leading to life as we know it as a reason to consider an external cause.

A brief thought experiment regarding spontaneous versus caused origin of life on earth.

[Guest]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:33 AM, hpslugga said:

He most certainly is an atheist, and it’s by the very description you give in the first sentence.

The problem is that religious people have succeeded for decades, if not centuries, in launching perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign in the history of human discourse: Lying to Atheists About What Atheism Is. 

Here’s the thing:

A/Theism pertains only to belief
A/Gnosticism pertains only to knowledge

It’s not this sliding scale from one to another based on “degree of certainty.” That’s just made up bullshit. The problem with the “god question,” is that it’s not really a question; it’s two questions. 

The first is “do you think it’s even possible to know?” and the second is “do you believe?” I’m gonna summarize the combinations of each answer according to the label that accurately describes the person:

Agnostic Atheism: I do not know if there is a god, but I do not believe there is. 

Gnostic Atheism: I know there is no god, so I do not believe there is.

Agnostic Theism: I do not know if there is a god, but I do believe there is.

Gnostic Theism: I know there is a god, so I believe there is.

Believers like to separate agnosticism from atheism on dubious grounds because it creates division, which is the whole point of this creation of confusion.

When Neil DeGrasse Tyson says “I’m agnostic but not an atheist,” he’s revealing his own confusion. He’s been conditioned since childhood, as many have (including myself) to execrate “atheism,” and adopt the “agnostic” label for several reasons, mostly because it seeks to undermine their position. That’s part of the game: pretend the two concepts are mutually exclusive and push towards the “less threatening” label. But if you ask Tyson “do you personally believe there is a god,” and he says “no, I personally do not believe there is a god,” that’s literally an identification as an atheist.

And you should know full well that’s how he’d answer that question. Back in 2006, during a panel discussion with Krauss and Schermer, Tyson remarked:

“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this.”

Like I say, he’s certainly not the only one. I myself was a victim of this scam. I started identifying as “agnostic-but-not-atheist” in 2004, and it’s been only within the last 4 or so years that I’ve been identifying as atheist…and the thing is, I never actually changed my position on the topic. In 2004, I did not believe there was a god. That meant I was atheist, but I just didn’t realize it. The fact that I didn’t embrace the label was irrelevant. What I’ve always believed and said about it is exactly what Christopher Hitchens said and what AronRa has said about it:

Hitchens “It may not be said that we absolutely know to a certainty that there is no god, but it may be said we have no reason to believe that there is one.”

AronRa: “A belief is a conviction. A lack of belief is a lack of conviction. So if you’re not convinced that an actual deity really exists, you’re atheist.”

You think the distinction between ontological claims and epistemological claims is some religious conspiracy to create confusion?     

You missed a category in your fabricated definition overview - people who do not know if God exists and who have no belief on the topic.  We call these people "agnostic."  Not every agnostic is an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.  

[Nivek 16807]

On 8/23/2023 at 11:45 AM, axiom of foundation said:

If God doesn’t exist, then He has a lot of questions to answer.  Number one, why do you feel compelled to violate the principle of sufficient reason?  Also, how do you make something that exists necessarily not exist, especially considering when that thing is you?

if God/Jesus exists, I am going to kick his lily ass.

[AnTiM 1656]

Interesting that all religions tell us to love one another while they kill members of a different religion without mercy.  Then there is Islam, in which Sunnis and Shiites massacre each other in the name of Allah.

[elfenix 34168]

Interesting that all religions tell us to love one another while they kill members of a different religion without mercy.  Then there is Islam, in which Sunnis and Shiites massacre each other in the name of Allah.

If you go back to ~600 AD the Arab world was split between those allied with Byzantium and those allied with Persia. Fast forward 1500 years....

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

if God/Jesus exists, I am going to kick his lily ass.

That’s a good way to get your hip wrenched. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

if God/Jesus exists, I am going to kick his lily ass.

Many years ago there was an embarrassingly terribly named grappling apparel company called “Jesus Didn’t Tap”. I would see their mercy table at tournaments. I didn’t go up to the owner and say “maybe, but he sure as hell got pinned”. I figured he had heard it a hundred times.

[hobbes2702 12771]

2 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Many years ago there was an embarrassingly terribly named grappling apparel company called “Jesus Didn’t Tap”. I would see their mercy table at tournaments. I didn’t go up to the owner and say “maybe, but he sure as hell got pinned”. I figured he had heard it a hundred times.

Completely off topic but in MMA the idea that not tapping makes you “tough” is so god damned stupid. Don’t tap and get your arm broken and possibly end your career. But hey, you’re a tough guy.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Completely off topic but in MMA the idea that not tapping makes you “tough” is so god damned stupid. Don’t tap and get your arm broken and possibly end your career. But hey, you’re a tough guy.

Correct. It is stupid and not tough. I think many mma fans agree.

[hobbes2702 12771]

11 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Correct. It is stupid and not tough. I think many mma fans agree.

Last part of the derail. That helps restore my faith (not in god) then. I only really watch mma around a few forced friends and needless to say they are not the best representation. We referred to them as Tapout bros in college. No idea of the modern nomenclature.
 

 

[wildcat09 29187]

On 8/22/2023 at 6:31 PM, Anastasis said:

You are welcome to joy me anytime too. 
 

You are free to think that the people on your modernized fwd:fwd:fwd chains and the three incels picketing McCallum are broadly representative of anything, or you could contextualize. But that would require you to come out of your WoW world to smell rain. 

You're doing a real bang-up job of recruiting.

In other religion news:

 

This guy's alright. Most American Catholics? Not so much.

[Satchel 6908]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You're doing a real bang-up job of recruiting.

In other religion news:

 

This guy's alright. Most American Catholics? Not so much.

I applaud Francis for dragging American Catholicism. Much of my spiritual formation occurred during my 12 years in Catholic schools. I learned about the social teachings of the Church. I don’t think they teach much of that anymore.

Quick story. A relative approached the pastor of St. Anne in Coppell after Mass yesterday to inquire about why there was no mention of the Jacksonville race motivated shooting during the Prayer of the Faithful. She said the pastor looked confused and flustered before finally offering that he would get with the other priests and “ see what they can do,” 

If it doesn’t have to do with abortion, these people don’t give a rat’s ass.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

On 8/25/2023 at 12:05 PM, axiom of foundation said:

You think the distinction between ontological claims and epistemological claims is some religious conspiracy to create confusion?     

You missed a category in your fabricated definition overview - people who do not know if God exists and who have no belief on the topic.  We call these people "agnostic."  Not every agnostic is an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.  

Reg : Listen, the only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

Francis : And the Judean Popular People's Front.

Stan : And the People's Front of Judea!

[Mach 1 1676]

On 8/26/2023 at 4:44 PM, AnTiM said:

Interesting that all religions tell us to love one another while they kill members of a different religion without mercy.  Then there is Islam, in which Sunnis and Shiites massacre each other in the name of Allah.

Timely. I'm listening to a Conflicted podcast about just this.  Mohammed really was a peaceful and pious guy ... other than those times he raided caravans for money.  But putting that aside Islam really was a religion of peas until he died, then the shit hit the fan between is son-in-law (Shia) and his favorite wife (Sunni).   All his pious and peaceful teachings were thrown out the window for pure base human desire for power and revenge, mostly from his wife.  Hypocrites to the extreme.

Oh shit, did I just start a fatwa? 

[ohchaucer 1443]

Apropos of nothing, Brisket, anyone have a good King Ranch chicken casserole recipe? It’s been decades and for some reason I have a hankerin’

Oh, also, God is nature and music and selflessness. (Might have been Jesus, too, but we have no way to know and I’d rather not wager civilization on it). And either way, religion sucks.

[elfenix 34168]

19 hours ago, Mach 1 said:

Timely. I'm listening to a Conflicted podcast about just this.  Mohammed really was a peaceful and pious guy ... other than those times he raided caravans for money.  But putting that aside Islam really was a religion of peas until he died, then the shit hit the fan between is son-in-law (Shia) and his favorite wife (Sunni).   All his pious and peaceful teachings were thrown out the window for pure base human desire for power and revenge, mostly from his wife.  Hypocrites to the extreme.

Oh shit, did I just start a fatwa? 

no, that's a fitna.

[Brisketexan 104463]

20 hours ago, ohchaucer said:

Apropos of nothing, Brisket, anyone have a good King Ranch chicken casserole recipe? It’s been decades and for some reason I have a hankerin’

I like a good King Ranch casserole every now and then, but truly, not a big casserole guy.

We have long attended a pretty white-bread urban PCUSA Presbyterian church.  Nice folks, thoughtful and smart.  But church potlucks....man, they need a visit from the flavorizing fairy.  Many moons ago, we did a joint MLK Day service and potluck with Ebenezer Baptist (a historically black congregation).  Man, that potluck table was something.  A bunch of shitty white people casseroles and desserts....and then a magnificent array of tasty goodness.  FFS, there were like 5 different kinds of grits provided by our friends from the other side of I-35.  It was glorious.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

22 hours ago, ohchaucer said:

Apropos of nothing, Brisket, anyone have a good King Ranch chicken casserole recipe? It’s been decades and for some reason I have a hankerin’

the old hornfans cookbook had a pretty decent one. I think I still have that in my files somewhere if you're actually interested

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Quick and easy one my mom gave me decades ago. I like to use the spicy RO-TEL mixed cheese. Also, this assumes you know how to season and cook chicken.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

.

Edited August 29, 2023 by MC Fresh Breath
nm

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:22 AM, gyroprotagonist said:

i just don't want to end  up with a theocracy running the USA.  All these politicians citing God's will, God's laws, Bible this and that are fucking lunatics.  All the initiatives to take money from public schools to give to these nutbags to fund religious schools is crazy.  you want to increase your child's chance getting raped by a priest, do it on your own dime. you want your child to learn how to dehumanize people that are different from them because a few lines in the Bible say God is probably against that behavior, do it on your own dime.

Now, if we had more Bible lessons on the prophet Elisha, who after getting insulted by 'youths' called him bald and then called down the wrath of God in the form of two she-bears who proceeded to rampage said youths and racked up an impressive 42 fatalities, then count me in.  

We don't see God's wrath in today's world.  Only human's stupidly and cruelty trying to inflict pain on those they think God hates.  Crazy.  So this has turned me against basically all religion.  I don't really care how great your church is.  i hope it fails so religion can influence fewer people.

I would add that  somewhere around the time we get back to taxing the wealthy properly like we used to please go ahead and tax all churches. 

[Stilicho 1397]

2 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I would add that  somewhere around the time we get back to taxing the wealthy properly like we used to please go ahead and tax all churches. 

Agreed. I know the Best High Court Money Can Buy has been goosing the religious liberty side of their First Amendment equations, but that doesn't make it any less insidious. 

Zealots will continue to use "muh religious liberty" as a shield for their shitty behavior until that shield gets removed.

Punching asshole Christians is apparently frowned upon, so yeah, I'm all for turning the tax man loose on these fuckers and watching them run.

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

16 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I would add that  somewhere around the time we get back to taxing the wealthy properly like we used to please go ahead and tax all churches. 

that's about the only thing 'make america like it was before civil rights again' does not want to mirror.  91% tax rate on the top bracket.  lol

it was 70% until 1982

[chainsaw 9831]

Religion of Peace...

https://apnews.com/article/satanic-temple-massachusetts-explosive-device-ac1214044f06ed2421b6eb3a8ef47d16

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Religion of Peace...

https://apnews.com/article/satanic-temple-massachusetts-explosive-device-ac1214044f06ed2421b6eb3a8ef47d16

2016?

[SydneyCarton 47809]

Without skipping back to the inception of the thread, the answer is "a crutch," right?

[safe sex 11659]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

2016?

The headline pic is from 2016. Byline is from April of this year

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

Just now, safe sex said:

The headline pic is from 2016. Byline is from April of this year

thank you. I was confused bc even the article had an updated date so I was unsure when the incident occurred

[Satchel 6908]

On 5/2/2022 at 1:59 PM, Hermanator said:

Vatican city wasn't built by it not being a business. It's been a business since the beginning. 

Richard Rohr is a bad ass.

[Satchel 6908]

Here’s what he said about Religions: they are the fingers that point us to the moon.They are not the moon themselves.

[Sheep Have Wool 1053]

On 8/23/2023 at 2:06 PM, Magus Ossis said:

  Hide contents

As those who wade through scientific literature will attest, a common benchmark for assigning statistical significance is 95% probability; if the null hypothesis (chance occurrence alone) explains the phenomenon of interest with less than 5% likelihood, we say that the event was most likely due to some cause or constellation of causes. Few who claim scientifically to believe that life on earth arose spontaneously have bothered to look at the reasonability of the null hypothesis of this occurrence with even marginal rigor. We could start with some extremely favorable (for random generation of life) assumptions:

1. All of the earth’s carbon has been in a physical and chemical state amenable to reactions with other elements or chemicals for the entirety of earth’s existence. Let us ballpark the the number of carbon atoms at 2E45 and the age of the earth at 1E17s.
2. 100% of all the earth’s carbon has always existed as nucleotides or chains thereof, resulting in ballpark 2E44 nucleotides
3. The genome of the ultimate progenitor cell was less than 5% the size of the shortest known genome of an independent archaebacterium, so circa 2E4bp
4. Each nucleotide was in such a fortuitous environment that it joined a stable, unbranched nucleotide chain every microsecond, only to disassemble immediately and completely upon reaching length of 2E4 if the resulting chain did not encode the desired proto-cellular genome. Thus the average chain length at any given time was 1E4, and the average number of chains growing at a given time was 2E40. Each chain grew for 2E-2 seconds, meaning that a new chain started roughly 1E42 times per second. This results in 1E59 candidate chains since earth coalesced (ignoring that life actually arose far earlier).
5. There are as many micro-genomes of the length selected that would result in viable outcomes (100 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion = 1E80) as there are estimated to be atoms in the entire universe, despite none that short which fit the description ever having been found or suggested.
6. The randomly assembled proto-genome did not degrade before causing the ongoing existence of a reproducing organism. Ribosomes and other cellular machinery necessary to protect, package, copy, interpret, and maintain the genome are unnecessary or magically provided; merely having the “instruction book” with no reader to follow the instructions is adequate to create a viable cell.

 

Of all the assumptions made above, it is #6 that may be the most problematic. Expecting a project to build itself because a set of instructions appears without any tools or materials would be unimaginable, and yet that is what #6 grants. Nevertheless, with all these unrealistic assumptions granted arguendo, we fall a bit short of the 95% probability needed to say that our thought experiment supports the null hypothesis, viz. the random appearance of primitive cellular life. The chance we reach is about (1 - (1 - 1E-13300)^1E59). This number is so small that scientific calculators will simply report it as zero. The calculated probability of the null hypothesis is not only less than 5%, it is almost unimaginably less than one trillionth of one percent.

 

In science and in endeavors that lean on common tools of scientific study, we do not offer absolute proof. We evaluate (leaning on our reason) whether data support a given hypothesis. It is always possible for our worldview to lead us to reject what the data seem to suggest. The above thought experiment is not irrefutable proof that life on earth did not arise by chance. Following, however, the usual criteria, one would reject the null hypothesis. Depending on which definition of deity one means (distinguishing, e.g, between Aristotle’s and Brigham Young’s), one might consider the implausibility of stochastic forces’ leading to life as we know it as a reason to consider an external cause.

A brief thought experiment regarding spontaneous versus caused origin of life on earth.

I noticed no one had commented on this "thought experiment" - presumably because they were told there would be no math - but it's such a good example of its ilk that I couldn't pass by without comment. They're easy to make: start with conclusion that conforms to your worldview, construct a straw man that misconstrues what climatologists/immunologists/biologists/real scientists actually say, and then use science words and math and *chef's kiss* Latin to demolish it. Afterwards, monetize it with a YouTube video, podcast, and your choice of religion/cult/political party.

Good scientists work really hard to disprove their hypotheses. If after trying as hard as you can to disprove an idea your hypothesis still makes sense, then maybe you're onto something. Probably not, though.

In this specific case, the argument is basically that because it's spectacularly, unbelievably unlikely that even a "micro-genome" could be created randomly, abiogenesis is essentially impossible. The math is correct-ish, it's just that biologists don't actually think that basic chemicals spontaneously came together to produce anything that remotely resembled a modern organism. Without diving too far down the biology rabbit hole, there are lots of intermediate steps that scientists think happened along the way, and those things are extremely likely to have happened. For one thing, biochemistry isn't something that just happens randomly, and you can generate self-replicators in very short time scales. This argument is the rough equivalent of saying that humans could never make helicopters because all they started off with were rocks and sticks and fire.

Has science solved the origin of life? Nope. There are still some tricky bits left - it's just that those bits seem likely to fall into the "shit we just haven't figured out yet" category rather than the "supernatural causes" category, just like every other time we've run into something that we thought could only be explained by the presence of a deity. A helpful heuristic? When you see an argument on the internet that says something as ridiculous as "Few who claim scientifically to believe that life on earth arose spontaneously have bothered to look at the reasonability of the null hypothesis of this occurrence with even marginal rigor", it's probably bullshit.

[chainsaw 9831]

14 minutes ago, Sheep Have Wool said:

I noticed no one had commented on this "thought experiment" - presumably because they were told there would be no math - but it's such a good example of its ilk that I couldn't pass by without comment. They're easy to make: start with conclusion that conforms to your worldview, construct a straw man that misconstrues what climatologists/immunologists/biologists/real scientists actually say, and then use science words and math and *chef's kiss* Latin to demolish it. Afterwards, monetize it with a YouTube video, podcast, and your choice of religion/cult/political party.

Good scientists work really hard to disprove their hypotheses. If after trying as hard as you can to disprove an idea your hypothesis still makes sense, then maybe you're onto something. Probably not, though.

In this specific case, the argument is basically that because it's spectacularly, unbelievably unlikely that even a "micro-genome" could be created randomly, abiogenesis is essentially impossible. The math is correct-ish, it's just that biologists don't actually think that basic chemicals spontaneously came together to produce anything that remotely resembled a modern organism. Without diving too far down the biology rabbit hole, there are lots of intermediate steps that scientists think happened along the way, and those things are extremely likely to have happened. For one thing, biochemistry isn't something that just happens randomly, and you can generate self-replicators in very short time scales. This argument is the rough equivalent of saying that humans could never make helicopters because all they started off with were rocks and sticks and fire.

Has science solved the origin of life? Nope. There are still some tricky bits left - it's just that those bits seem likely to fall into the "shit we just haven't figured out yet" category rather than the "supernatural causes" category, just like every other time we've run into something that we thought could only be explained by the presence of a deity. A helpful heuristic? When you see an argument on the internet that says something as ridiculous as "Few who claim scientifically to believe that life on earth arose spontaneously have bothered to look at the reasonability of the null hypothesis of this occurrence with even marginal rigor", it's probably bullshit.

The Miller Experiment

[Magus Ossis 2773]

The problem to which I referred was that for cells with a nucleic acid genome to occur, it suffices neither to have nucleic acids which would encode an extremely simple organism nor the amino acid-based construct(s) that distinguish a cell from a transient lipid pocket. Rather, a proto-cell requires both. Modern theories do propose that either the mechanisms of cellular function developed reproducibility or that self-replicating codes developed function. The Miller experiment demonstrated that the building blocks I granted plentifully arguendo in my experiment can form, not that life can. Nucleic acids not connected to an organism do not evolve, and simple cells without a genome would be coincidental mini-reactors unable to transmit their design for the sake of future models. We have self-propagating processes in nature, e.g. crystallization, but that process differs in important ways.

[chainsaw 9831]

Apropos of nothing

https://ffrf.org/uncategorized/new-wash-post-expose-discloses-huge-cost-of-religious-school-voucher-schemes/

Quote

A recent Washington Post story highlights the growing and exorbitant cost to taxpayers subsidizing vouchers paying for private — nearly always religious —  schools. In addition to reporting on the dramatic expansion of voucher programs in states throughout the country, and the eroding line between state and church, the Washington Post article documents the astronomical sums going to religious schools.

Vouchers — subsidies provided by taxpayers to parents to send children to private schools — were initially proposed under the pretext of giving children from poor families more “school choice.” The underlying assumption that private schools would enhance educational outcomes for low-income children has largely proven to be false. Now, the dubious promise of allowing poor families more opportunities has morphed into widespread programs subsidizing the education of rich students who were already attending private schools.

It’s unconscionable that one-fifth of all states today have made most or all children, regardless of family income, eligible to receive vouchers to attend private, mostly religious schools. The 10 states are Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia, with some other states offering more limited subsidies regardless of income.

Arizona has exceeded its voucher budget by $625 million and the cost is expected to balloon to exceed the budgeted amount by $780 million by the end of the fiscal year. In Arizona, which was the first state to allow any family to receive public funding for private schools (or homeschooling), the majority of families applying for the funds (about $7,000 per student) were not even recently enrolled in the public school system.

In Ohio, more than half of students in 2022 choosing EdChoice, their state’s voucher scheme, were already attending private schools. Likewise, in Florida, only 13 percent of the 123,000 students added to the state’s expanded school-choice program in 2022 had switched from public schools. Students who were already enrolled in private schools — who were paying for it themselves, or who were utilizing private  scholarships — now get to rely on public handouts. This directs public money to those who already have the means — and enriches religious schools.

Nationally, roughly 77 percent of students who go to private schools attend religious private schools. In some states, that number is much higher, according to the Washington Post article. In FFRF’s home state of Wisconsin, the Post piece found that a staggering 96 percent of the state’s 55,000 vouchers were used at religious schools. And in Arizona, a state whose voucher scheme has been littered with controversy, more than 75,000 students are benefiting from their state’s voucher program. In 2022 – 2023, most of the $229 million spent on private schools in Arizona went for tuition and 87 percent of that tuition went to religious schools.

Vouchers, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation has long warned, are an exploitation of public funds by private, mostly religious schools that are draining the coffers of public schools. The voucher programs offer so much public money that it often incentivizes private schools to raise tuition or cut back on scholarships. The Washington Post article confirms FFRF’s concerns that religious schools are exploiting these programs to pad their coffers at taxpayer expense. Some voucher schools, such as St. Brendan’s the Navigator in Hilliard, Ohio, are effectively threatening to withhold supplemental aid if the families do not seek public funds first. The principal at Holy Family School in Poland, Ohio, admitted to forcing families to apply for public funds. Without irony, the principal at Holy Family noted that it has not yet raised tuition because it “didn’t want to take advantage of the situation.” That hasn’t always been the case generally, however.

FFRF and its advocacy arm, the FFRF Action Fund, have criticized religious schools in Iowa for taking advantage of the state’s universal voucher program by increasing tuition fees. For example, St. Francis Catholic Schools in Marshalltown intends to incrementally raise tuition over the next three years, reaching approximately $7,500, coinciding with the availability of $7,600 in Education Savings Account funds for everyone. This move is a blatant and greedy attempt to compel all citizens to bear the maximum cost for religious education.

“The Washington Post article shines light on how well-funded religious schools are milking taxpayers,” says FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. “The erosion of our vaunted wall of separation between state and church is endangering our public schools. We’ll continue vigorously fighting to strengthen that wall.”