The Atheism Thread

[weed_G]

mokum do you believe in the science of dna, what I mean is if you underwent a paternity test that showed you were the father of a child..would you believe the test to be accurate and the science sound

[ratdog]

definitely pointless, if someone is prepared to believe a story, based only on "faith", then there's no point disagreeing with them. they know they're right, even if they're wrong.

[weed_G]

same question for you ratdog...

[ratdog]

Depends.

E2a, If i was in love and wanted to have kids then yes i`d buy it, but if i maybe got someone pregnant that i wish i hadn`t then no!

Edited September 13, 2009 by ratdog

[weed_G]

say you get 10 different tests at 10 different unrelated labs ..and they all come back the same

[ratdog]

I would believe it, what`s your reason for this question W?

[weed_G]

im not trying to make anyone look stupid, just trying to clarify my point..

but your not a geneticist ...you didn't make the tests yourself ..other people did, who understand the science and informed you that's its true ...you have taken them on their word without seeing any evidence ..iow blind faith .or as mokum puts it ' if someone is prepared to believe a story, based only on "faith", then there's no point disagreeing with them. they know they're right, even if they're wrong' ..if you trained for 6 years and did the tests yourself that would be better, even then..assuming your a proper scientist you must admit some degree of blind faith that genetic theory is right ..as scraglor pointed out there are no absolutes all scientific theory is disprovable ...nothing is set in stone otherwise there could be no progress ..to recap a lot of people side with science as they see it as being better than blind faith, but in reality with the exception of a few 'high priests' physicists etc that can actually do the math ..everyone else is left take their word for it ...much like what happens in religion or 'blind faith'

Edited September 13, 2009 by weed_G

[themanbearpig]

Long time athiest, went to catholic school, it sickens me how a "secular" state can pass laws on religeous tolerance which limit the freedom of the conscious. I have dawkin's book here (from a friend), but i must stress that you shouldn't need a book to show you what only requires a bit of deep thought.

[mokum777]

dna isn't 100% infallible, but for most purposes its good enough. and if a dna result has been peer reviewed by 10 separate labs, then it pretty much rules out a lab error. so then its a case of determining how many markers have been identified, calculating the probability that arises, and then deciding. depending on the quality of the dna sample retrieved, whether its reliable enough to be legally held as definitive. a very poor quality sample can narrow the results down to a percentage group, similar to the sort of evidence provided by a particular blood group, a very good quality sample can determine the probability down to figures like 1 in a few billion. if it was a paternity case, you would expect an excellent quality sample, since it has been retrieved under perfect controlled conditions, unlike, say at a murder scene. so its obviously going to be possible to match enough markers to be taken as definitive. so, yes, i would believe it. even if there hadn't been any sex involved, there have been cases where it was alleged that a woman had recovered a used condom after sex and used the contents to impregnate herself, maybe true, maybe urban legend, but not impossible.

but thats pretty irrelevant really. it really does seem to me that you argue these tenuous points more for the sake of enjoying a good argument, rather than anything else. in this and other threads, there always seems to be an air of superiority in your posts, an arrogance maybe, ridiculing anything posted by anyone else that has the audacity to disagree with you, regardless of whether you know anything about the subject or not. if anyone posts a reply to yours that shows your points to be wrong, no further mention of that is made in your subsequent posts.rather you find another point to argue, without even conceding that what the other person has said has some merit. a few weeks ago you started arguing some point about basic electrical theory, a subject that i studied at school physics, at college as an electrician, at college during hnd, and now at university as i'm finishing the degree. that doesnt mean i know everything about the subject, but i know enough. i also would accept that there are a few other posters on here that might know more about the subject, i would include scraglor here, some of the posts he's made about the circuit analysis characterisics of ballasts have been an education to me, and i'm sure there's some other things i could still learn on this. but if i knew nothing or little about the subject, i wouldn't argue it, or try to make anyone disagreeing look stupid. whats the point? anyone can google or check wiki to confirm/deny whats said, and on subjects not covered this way, its unlikely that a definitive answer exists. only opinions, some educated, others not so. and my opinion is every bit as valid as yours, i see answering a post as explaining what i meant, not as an oppotunity to prove i'm better/more clever/bigger cock than anyone else. but maybe i read the wrong newspaper? must mean i'm thick as shit.

it is possible to convey your point of view without having to ridicule, belittle or otherwise put down anyone disagreeing. lifes too short to get annoyed about someone disagreeing with you online, it really doesn't matter, and is no reason to try and make other posters look like fools.

[weed_G]

dna isn't 100% infallible, but for most purposes its good enough. and if a dna result has been peer reviewed by 10 separate labs, then it pretty much rules out a lab error. so then its a case of determining how many markers have been identified, calculating the probability that arises, and then deciding. depending on the quality of the dna sample retrieved, whether its reliable enough to be legally held as definitive. a very poor quality sample can narrow the results down to a percentage group, similar to the sort of evidence provided by a particular blood group, a very good quality sample can determine the probability down to figures like 1 in a few billion. if it was a paternity case, you would expect an excellent quality sample, since it has been retrieved under perfect controlled conditions, unlike, say at a murder scene. so its obviously going to be possible to match enough markers to be taken as definitive. so, yes, i would believe it. even if there hadn't been any sex involved, there have been cases where it was alleged that a woman had recovered a used condom after sex and used the contents to impregnate herself, maybe true, maybe urban legend, but not impossible.

blind faith

[mokum777]

i see you ignored the rest of my post then? theres a surprise

[weed_G]

mockum, you seem completely blind to the fact ...that you ignore the vast majority of the my replies to you...you dont answer any of the points ...you never ask 'what do you mean by ' ..instead you spend your time grumbling ..and making ludicrous comments as to what my intentions might be ...this is classic behavior in discussions when someone feels they are losing an arguement ..they will frequently descend to insult ..to distract away from the content of the discussion ..I'v noticed you doing this frequently ..and as you keep coming back repeating the same thing ...but not quoting any responses etc ..I can only assume that most of it is over your head or maybe you are quite an insecure person who knows ...I don't really care I'm only interested in content ..like I said before it's easier if you do you and I do me ..and we get on with the discussion

it is possible to convey your point of view without having to ridicule, belittle or otherwise put down anyone disagreeing.

can you quote me on that?...you keep banging on about evidence but I notice you never supply any yourself ..or are you trying to indoctrinate others into your 'blind faith' club

Edited September 13, 2009 by weed_G

[ratdog]

im not trying to make anyone look stupid, just trying to clarify my point..

but your not a geneticist ...you didn't make the tests yourself ..other people did, who understand the science and informed you that's its true ...you have taken them on their word without seeing any evidence ..iow blind faith .or as mokum puts it ' if someone is prepared to believe a story, based only on "faith", then there's no point disagreeing with them. they know they're right, even if they're wrong' ..if you trained for 6 years and did the tests yourself that would be better, even then..assuming your a proper scientist you must admit some degree of blind faith that genetic theory is right ..as scraglor pointed out there are no absolutes all scientific theory is disprovable ...nothing is set in stone otherwise there could be no progress ..to recap a lot of people side with science as they see it as being better than blind faith, but in reality with the exception of a few 'high priests' physicists etc that can actually do the math ..everyone else is left take their word for it ...much like what happens in religion or 'blind faith'

But surely by haveing 10 independent tests i have questioned the outcome enough to not be blindly believeing?

[scraglor]

i'd say it is to an extent down to having faith in another human beings honesty. it's a bit different when the people trying to convince you ADMIT they have no evidence though

[scraglor]

obviously you have to have some faith just to get by day to day, you can't learn everything! but at least when questioned a scientist will show you the evidence whether or not you understand it, and will try and give you an explanation in laymens terms. a religious man will just say, here's a book of stories put together by a roman emperor several hundred years ago, compiled of stories written thousands of years ago, believe it. and then 10 other religious men will give you 10 other totally different stories, then they'll all argue about which one's right, then they'll kill eachother