Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[MustafaMc]

You don't become more fit because you don't die of Malaria when you still have sickle cell and can very well die of that in a number of ways.. sickle cell trait can also convert in high altitude to sickle cell & suffer such things as isosthenuria.

Assalamu alaikum, Sister. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was thinking that the sickle cell gene conveys an advantage against malaria only in the heterozygous state because an individual homozygous for the mutation has blood cells that are not optimal for normal function. This fact prevents the gene from becoming dominant in a population even in the presence of mosquitos and malaria and, since the heterozygote is mostly at a neutral position in the abscence of malaria, it is likewise not eliminated from the population. So much for the 'Selfish Gene', huh?

 

[MustafaMc]

Many scientists who are experts on evolution disagree. I actually have yet to meet a secular scientist who sees a "micro" and "macro" distinction.

I actually have yet to meet a single scientist who accepts macro-evolution in its entirety. You should substitute 'atheist' or 'agnostic' where you have 'secular' because there are theistic (believe in God) people who are also irreligious (don't adhere to an established religion).

 

[MustafaMc]

The good news is that we as a species have evolved brains that can rise above it. I think that may be what is most unique and special about humanity.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Rape of Nanking, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Rwandan Genocide, the Sierra Leone Civil War, etc which goes to show just how highly evolved the human brain actually is. If this is an example of evolution, I wonder how long it will take for us to evolve to the point of extinction! This reminds me of ayat 2:30 where the angels replied to Allah's (swt) announcement that He was going to place mankind on earth, "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You."

 

[جوري]

Assalamu alaikum, Sister. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was thinking that the sickle cell gene conveys an advantage against malaria only in the heterozygous state because an individual homozygous for the mutation has blood cells that are not optimal for normal function. This fact prevents the gene from becoming dominant in a population even in the presence of mosquitos and malaria and, since the heterozygote is mostly at a neutral position in the absence of malaria, it is likewise not eliminated from the population. So much for the 'Selfish Gene', huh?

You're absolutely correct- but why would I waste my breath getting into the mechanics of it? It is the same analogy with spherocytosis not in terms of conferring benefit but in this case why the structure itself is the problem not the function the fact that it is shaped oddly gets singled out and congests everywhere. It isn't usually what people are thinking about as the obvious reason for disease or benefit that makes the case they're looking to make-- If you post too detailed they complain, if you post too little they complain. If you post too technical they complain if you post too simplistic (well that's their favorite to showcase how stupid the theistic mind is compared to their brilliant one) It is a lose lose situation, as such I don't really write for the sake of this drawn out discourse.. In a way every now and then we actually learn something new and someone else who maybe lurking learns something new as well, but inevitably it descends down to word play and somehow I am to blame because they can't keep up but then on other threads they're militant defenders of 'free speech'-- free speech to echo their opinion and make out to be the 'civilized guy'

 

[MustafaMc]

I think folks are under some impression that mutations are going to cause them to be like the fantastic four, unfortunately that is NOT the case at all..

I beg to differ as it made one of our brothers here green and super strong. He was even in a movie where he squashed tanks like they were garbage cans!

 

[جوري]

I beg to differ as it made one of our brothers here green and super strong. He was even in a movie where he squashed tanks like they were garbage cans!

lols.. I honestly always chuckle to myself whenever they mention SSD/SST or appendices as their iron clad proof of anything.. some of them are so dated they don't even bother with the latest research before the bravado with which they wield some of these topics.. Sad when the touche fizzles like that!

 

[MustafaMc]

I'm also surprised you haven't mentioned that to develop sickle cell anaemia both parents need to be carriers (and even then it only gives a 25% chance).

Actually, that is not 100% true. If both parents have sickle cell anemia (homozygous not just heterozygous carriers), then all of their children would have the problem as well. If one parent was a carrier and the other had sickle cell anemia, then 50% of their children would have the problem as well.

 

[جوري]

Actually, that is not 100% true. If both parents have sickle cell anemia (homozygous not just heterozygous carriers), then all of their children would have the problem as well. If one parent was a carrier and the other had sickle cell anemia, then 50% of their children would have the problem as well.

Sad too that simple mandelian and the Hardy–Weinberg principle is so elusive to these paragons of science when it is in fact taught around the fifth or sixth grade if not younger I was just teaching my eldest niece about this a year or so ago...

 

[CosmicPathos]

Ill be honest, I understood punnett squares somewhere in grade 10/11, and even that was not thorough understanding of probability. I guess I was not into studies back then but into imaginary worlds.

 

[CosmicPathos]

since the heterozygote is mostly at a neutral position in the abscence of malaria, it is likewise not eliminated from the population. So much for the 'Selfish Gene', huh?

the heterozygote still does not optimally function in cases of increased demands of oxygen such as exercise, pregnancy, so on and so forth, not just malarial infection.

 

[Hulk]

I beg to differ as it made one of our brothers here green and super strong. He was even in a movie where he squashed tanks like they were garbage cans!

Whoa brother that is the old me!

I am a changed man now!

 

[MustafaMc]

Ill be honest, I understood punnett squares somewhere in grade 10/11, and even that was not thorough understanding of probability.

To be honest, I didn't encounter Punnett Square until Genetics 101 in college. My favorite example is illustrating the genetics for feather coloration in my favorite chicken breed, the Blue-laced Red Wyandotte, as shown in the attached link. Notice that the BLRW does not 'breed true' and that it can be produced by mating parents of different colors, for example 1) white X black > 100% blue, white x blue & black X blue > 50% blue, and blue X blue > 50% blue chicks. Pretty cool, huh?

http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/73357/color-genes-punnett-squares#post_777412

 

[MustafaMc]

Whoa brother that is the old me!

I am a changed man now!

Alhamdulillah, for the change so noted, but I think if you got angry you could still peel a tank like a banana and make the barrel into a pretzel. Seems like I remember hearing the phrase, "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

 

[MustafaMc]

The simple incredulity of why one should even worry about a belief stemming from a book that was written by backwards people some long time ago in a different culture, is much more of a problem. Why should such a book be regarded as anything more than a collection of metaphorical stories and legends, like any other similar book? If there was one all powerful god revealing himself to humanity why choose some people in a desert on one place at one time out of the blue. It would be more credible to be the revelation of a one true god if the same revelation appeared independently on different places to different cultures. One single source of missionaries can just as likely be a catchy idea of some very human person. Not a reason to take it anymore seriously than all the other things.
For theist their holy book is holy and rarely Atheist even bother arguing against it (except for short onliners). Yet to the Atheist that is still one of the bigger problems especially with abrahamic religions which hold such a claim to absolute truth.

This is actually a very good point from an atheist's or agnostic's perspective. Others may disagree with me, but I believe one's faith, or lack thereof, most often comes from indoctrination, or lack thereof, by their parents at an early age and that deviation from the belief system of one's parents later on is quite rare. Interestingly, this deviant child is often ostracized to one level or another.

My parents were good theistic people of the Christian faith, but they were not particularly religious. As a preteen I was exposed more to Christianity by an uncle who was a Baptist minister and by my grandparents when I would visit for a few weeks during the summer. For some reason that seed of faith was planted in my heart despite an unlikely home setting. As a Christian I believed in God, Jesus as the Son of God, Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, and the Bible as the word of God. It was a simple matter for me to make the transition to the Islamic faith upon reading the Quran for the very first time. Mostly, this change entailed modifying my beliefs about Jesus and accepting a few ones that Muhammad was a Messenger of God and that the Quran is the revealed Word of God.

From reading your post, I can see how one without faith would see these books as collections of mythical stories from the past and fanciful and imaginary dreams about what is beyond death. I can see how you may perceive people of faith as being backward and lacking in intellectual capacity, but I assure you this is not the case. It is more of a matter of an intangible element, faith, that is present in some hearts and lacking in others.

 

[جوري]

The simple incredulity of why one should even worry about a belief stemming from a book that was written by backwards people some long time ago in a different culture

This is actually a very good point from an atheist's or agnostic's perspective

I have felt the same about western Ideology. It is far inferior to all the cultures of the east and in fact western theology as we know it finds its roots in the east but with a funny spin to it. If left to their own devices without our aid they'd be praying to Thor and Odin, but then they too a highly spiritual Middle Eastern philosophy and brought it down to the lowest common denominator animalizing it in fact.
Their constitutions were written by men with poor hygiene sporting women pantyhose and funny wigs to hide their lice. So I am beyond flabbergasted as to why they wish to export that to us, impose it on us and under some intellectual bullying because they'd rated themselves civilized. I haven't read anything by any western scholar that compares in richness and imagination to anything written by ours (and I am not just talking about religion) To this day regular literature like Robayaat Al'khyaam has them confused.

 

[dusk]

From reading your post, I can see how one without faith would see these books as collections of mythical stories from the past and fanciful and imaginary dreams about what is beyond death. I can see how you may perceive people of faith as being backward and lacking in intellectual capacity, but I assure you this is not the case. It is more of a matter of an intangible element, faith, that is present in some hearts and lacking in others.

My dad is a Christian theologian and works for the catholic church. I always had a great deal of interest in all things philosophy. When I was very young I had to go to church, later I was 4 years in a catholic private school (mostly just like any other school except for some mandatory ceremonies). I always refused to assume my dad is just an idiot fool and spent the better part of 15 years trying to get to the bottom of why do people take some stories so seriously and how does it make any sense.
My dad is definitely very religious and very well read. We got half a library of theological books and philosophical books at my parents house. My mom was always the counter weight as a secular humanist and a big fan of russian literature and all things politics. My fathers family is also very religious but traditional and theologically quite on a different level than my father.

For me one big interest has always been how one can people even start to have such strong faith in stories that seem so illogical. Why don't they expect more from a revelatory god than one book so indistinguishable form all similar books? The answers I found are quite complex. In short the basic concept of theistic absolutism doesn't work for me as in requires axioms I would yield and thus no abrahamic faith makes any sense.
For me one big problem has primarily always been the having faith in it part and actually believing it in the first place. Because I never did. Despite going to church until I was old enough to stay at home without a babysitter, I never actually believed any of it. I thought those grown ups are weird they must know something they aren't telling me.
You believed in Jesus before. That he is the son of god and simply revised it and apparently concluded that incorporating Mohammed makes more sense. The Mormons add their third book.

Indoctrination just didn't happen. I had two parents which I used to think where both religious when I was young, many religion teachers and just too much liberal influence. I was only indoctrinated into humanism if anything. (BTW humanism isn't atheistic but used to be a Christian thing for those that to make the wrong connections.)

I wouldn't say religious people are lacking in intellectual capacity. Some certainly do but so is it with many non-theists. Oftentimes I would argue there is a lack of intellectual honesty when one has faith in absolutist philosophies. I read some books and the proofs and thinking patterns of people that start out really smart end up with many short cuts the closer they get to proving what they are aiming at. At some point they throw all skepticism over board or simplify alternatives just to rule them out. Or like Hans Küng go by I like this more and 150 pages back I sort of proved that absolutist morals are necessary so these are the ones. Now they are absolut. :hiding:
Faith imo isn't good enough when one makes certain claims. Many people have faith in different opposing things. It is imo fine if religion stays a private non judging matter.

Some tribe in the desert some millenia ago is backwards by a simple civilization view point. I understand many Atheists are seen as arrogant and elitist because there is probably some truth to it (concerning those that actually express it and don't just keep it quite) but the "backwards" referred to the folks of that time and meant to imply that they had simpler problems, different problems and a different level of knowledge and development. It is a very arbitrary point in time and place to infuse a revelation and strange that an all powerful god cannot get more done than send 2-3 messenger in the same place and leave the rest of the world (if they even hear from them) to decide how much the hearsay that reaches them is to be trusted. Remember much of Christianities mission was never related to the bible. Most people couldn't read it all they got was preachers and missionaries until Luther came. Somehow it is the biggest religion in numbers today. Is it because of a trustworthy source of because of an appealing simple message? Or because of aggressive missionaries?

 

[جوري]

People who gave us Canaan, Phoenicia, Paranoiac Egypt, Samaria, the ancient wonders some unparalleled today even for it took the Egyptians 30 days to erect a perfectly mathematical obelisk which took your civilized folks three months to drag across central park, people who gave us water clocks like Harun Ar'Rachid which sent the court men of Charlemagne affright naming it sorcery, volumes of literature, art and architecture, and religion aren't simpletons, they're actually the pioneers!!!
What you study in your classrooms today from art to mathematics to literature is their work. We're yet to see yours. In fact we've a generation of those who value input but put out nothing! Everything comes to them from some source with no time at all for them to imagine to solve to contribute!
Problems weren't simpler, they were more complex and they were more apt at solving them and being resourceful, for necessity is the mother of invention.
Having an Ipod and a TV which you use to watch naked women gyrate doesn't make you civilized nor them simpletons. Also the universe is built upon seven themes a man today is no different in feelings or aspirations than a man five thousand years ago. Difficulties however didn't make them effete whiners- it made them inventors.
The problem people have with atheists isn't that they think their arrogant or that they're intimidated by their so-called intellect. The problem is obvious and this very thread is a testament to it. They make blind statements out of faith a fickle faith of the self and pass it off as science and then question other people's level of indoctrination!

best,

 

[dusk]

id just like to point out that most of my ramblings are just to show that the mechanism of evolution that is widely used is AT LEAST more complicated than it seems.
it really is chance upon chance and then some, genetic, social, environmental and everything in between.

if there is order in the chaos then it does point to a creator.

Lets assume that is valid conclusion. What makes a creator?
What is its intent?
A pantheistic god that is immanent in the order of the universe?
A deistic god that engulfs everything in a panentheistic way?
A personal human centric one seems odd given the scale of the universe and the time it existed, will exist with the short time span we will be around in our current form. Would be a narcissist's first choice obviously.
Is there a sentient god with other intentions and us being just the stepping stone. Maybe it is all about the cyborgs that come after us.
A creator thing responsible for order is a very generic thing.

 

[جوري]

Lets assume that is valid conclusion. What makes a creator?
What is its intent?
A pantheistic god that is immanent in the order of the universe?
A deistic god that engulfs everything in a panentheistic way?
A personal human centric one seems odd given the scale of the universe and the time it existed, will exist with the short time span we will be around in our current form. Would be a narcissist's first choice obviously.
Is there a sentient god with other intentions and us being just the stepping stone. Maybe it is all about the cyborgs that come after us.
A creator thing responsible for order is a very generic thing.

You can't solve a problem with the same level of consciousness that created it. Those are questions that you've concocted and thus need to personally resolve for yourself on your own private time. It is a solo journey not a communal effort.

 

[Independent]

Others may disagree with me, but I believe one's faith, or lack thereof, most often comes from indoctrination, or lack thereof, by their parents at an early age and that deviation from the belief system of one's parents later on is quite rare.

I agree. The environment you grow up in is decisive for all but a brave few. But I’ve never understood how this can be reconciled with the claim that a particular religion provides the only sure access to heaven.

A child growing up in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly become a Muslim, whereas a child in Argentina will probably be Christian. This isn't due to any virtue or lack of virtue in either child, it's just fate.

Is this a test? If so, it seems a very skewed one. It’s like setting an examination for entry to heaven where all the questions are about Islam, but where most of the students have been taught a completely different subject.