₦airaland Forum

And what's the point of your trolling?

Donzman:

Occam's Razor does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary.

Are you being a plain idiot now?. . .

Maybe I learn from the master

Donzman:
How does Occam's razor explain the beginning of things?

You introduce a creator as explanatory factor. That factor should answer more questions than it raises. It does exactly the opposite, because now you need to explain that creator. Do not unnecessary multiply entities!

Donzman:
I stopped taking you seriously when you claimed science has nothing to do with proofs.

Maybe you'll take these people seriously:
From http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html (emphasis mine):

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are [b]not [/b]about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html :

", in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. , This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

Donzman:
In the Economics debt. here in my school, they're trying to get more 'scientific'. What do they do?. . .They teach graduate students a bunch of proofs upon proofs of several theories and Lemmas. I wonder why they'll lay so much emphasis on proof if it has nothing to do with science. . .

As a social scientist myself, I always deplored the ill advised application of the scientific method in the social sciences. Economics is probably the worst offender, as it regularly hides behind smokescreens of complex mathematical formulas that are based on shaky premisses.

Donzman:
Take your atheistic ass out of here. At the end of the road, I have nothing to lose while being a believer in God, that is the dominant strategy.

I hear a Pascal's Wager is coming our way. Second rate philosophy.

Donzman:
You on the other hand have chosen to play the dominated strategy in this game of life i.e. choosing to ignore God.

I usually ignore imaginary beings. I wish I could also ignore imaginary intelligence

Donzman:

You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms).

Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today. Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is.

And that's your attempt at theorising. You're even more clueless than I thought, Donzman

Donzman:

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified.

Why do evolutionists think they have something against Creationism? Why do scientists have something against the flat Earthers?.

I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river!

Strawmen gallore. Come and see, made out of the finest straw. They may not look like the real thing at all, but we've got lots of them.

Donzman:
Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR. If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. . .Am I going nuts here?

Tha's a new one. Ever heard of Kenneth R. Miller?
Maybe you're really going nuts.

Donzman:
If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary.

Donzman:
Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't deal in unnecessary entities like creators that have zero explanatory power. If you need the comfort of a skydaddy watching over you, well, that's just you.

Donzman:
It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire.

Apt analogy, maybe you've touched too many live wire's already. By the way, how do you [i]measure [/i]and [i]detect [/i]your creator?

Donzman:
Proof is not for science?. . .A scientist should help this guy out please!

Great comeback. Trying asking a scientist, any scientist for that matter, and he'll explain you quite clearly that science is built on evidence, not proof. Unfortunately, your skull seems to be too thick to let anything pass through that doesn't already fit your preconceived notions of reality

Donzman:

Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible.

Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? . . .You look like Mike Tyson, a supposed heavyweight giving up before the fights has even started.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Obviously it isn't on par with your rhetorical skills. Where did I say that Macroevolution doesn't occur?

Donzman:
Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs".

Maybe you can sit through an introductory course in philosophy of science and learn a little about the scientific method. Pick up a good book by Popper, learn something about falsifiability, testable predictions, parsimony and other concepts that are at the core of scientific reasoning. But then again, why would you read anything that might upset your prejudices?

Donzman:

Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory

All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument?

And what predictions does creation make? How can creation [/i]be falsified? What exactly does the [i]scientific [/i]theory of [i]creation [/i]say?
You're just talking out of your photonically challenged rear-end.

Donzman:
So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?

Because someone here was speaking about [i]Creation Theory, a gross misnomer for religiously biased ignorance.

Donzman:
. . .I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging.

It is, indeed.

Donzman:
You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started

Why should it? Do you ask your car mechanic to give you a double bypass?

Donzman:
and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today.

In your extremely limited imagination, maybe. just a hint, read The Ancestor's Tale or even better still, get yourself a copy of The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll

Donzman:
Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. . .

It can be made to fit the facts (barely and with a lot of mental gymnastics), but it isn't science in the slightest. Putting it as an alternative to evolutionary biology is dishonest braindead idiocy.

Donzman:
A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator.

A creationist can argue anything he likes, as creation is so plastic that it can be rationalised into anything he pleases, therefore it couldn't possibly be further removed from science than any other kind of neurological activity.

kellorah:
Nferyn, is that 'sion' thing real?

Of course not. It's a forgery that inspired generations of anti-semites, most recently in the Arab world.
see:
http://skepdic.com/protocols.html
http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/protocols.shtml
http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/zion-protocols/
A good book on the protocols is Warrant for Genocide [/i]by [i]Norman Cohn

Donzman:

Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults.

Is Evolutionary theory not connected to how we all have common ancestors?

Yes, common ancestory is a central claim of evolutionary theory

Donzman:
. . .Coming from one unicellular organism that changed over a trillion years for all I care?. . .

Not exactly. Not all life is cellular and many organisms that make up our common ancestory were non-cellular life. The endosymbiotic origin of mytochondria and chloroplasts is well supported by the evidence. The molecular evidence is actuallly the strongest line of evidence for common ancestory. The predictions from mutation rates in non-coding DNA (especially in mitochondrial DNA) match exactly the philogenetic trees that have been created from other lines of evidence (such as radiometric dating of fossils). Something that can only be explained by assuming common ancestory.
The for all I care part is really telling. It indicates your unwillingness to learn about what evolutionary theory actually says. You rather make unsubstantiated claims about the TOE, which then - in your view - beg for an explanation, and behold, your God-of-the-gaps provides that explanation (or at least you think it does)

Donzman:
How then do you claim that Evolutionary theory does not predict that a specie will change into something entirely new after sometime?

No, it does not make that claim. In the absence of selective pressure, natural selection does not work and genetic drift alone does not explain adaptations. Many organisms hardly undergo any phenotypical change, as their selective environment doesn't change. Take for example the Coelacanth, an order of fish that didn't change significantly over the last few millions of years.
Something changing into something entirely new over sometime [/i]is indeed a predicition one can make, but [i]something entirely new and sometime can be narrowed down consideralbly.
Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible.
Concerning the sometime part, for most species generational spans are too long to observe speciation, but for some others with ver short lifespans (such as fruit flies), speciation has been observed on multiple occasions. The demand for an experiment whereby a dog changes into a cat only comes from a faulty understanding of the TOE.

Donzman:
In the link you gave me, the guy was talking about intermediates. If Evolution theory does not predict a specie changing over time into something ENTIRELY different, why are we talking about intermediates?

Again, see my reply above. The problem is that for each objection the creationisist brings against the TOE, once that objection is refuted, the creationist changes goalposts and starts to redifine concepts. That's also why I ask you to define the terminology precisely: it's pretty hard to chase ghosts when their nature constantly changes.

Donzman:
A National Geographic report awhile ago states precisely that proving the theory of evolution using fossils is like watching a movie of 1000 parts with 999 parts missing.

Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory

Donzman:
There is no solid proof of these intermediates and when exactly a bird lost its wings,

Actually proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science, but there is sufficient solid evidece of intermediate species. Unfortunately a new intermediate found is an answer to the creationist's prayer (pun intended), as before there was only one gap and now there are two.

Donzman:
it's all speculation based on fossils that could have undergone a million chemical reactions while buried underground.

So does your creationist sources tell you. Maybe you could check out what biologists, geologists and paleontropologists say.

Donzman:

As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand

Listen to yourself talk. . .A theory that tries to explain the beginning of things cannot tell us how things began?

Could you point me to the version of the TOE that tries to explain the beginning of things. I'm not familiar with that theory.

Donzman:
. . .What use is it then?

None, but then again, it does not make such claims.

Donzman:
. . .If it is to be used as something to explain how life started and developed on earth, it should be able to tell us when and how exactly life started. How does a chemical get life?. . .

The TOE explains the origin of biodiversity, starting from the first self-replication organic molecules. The origin of those self-replicating molecules can be explained by the different abiogenesis hypotheses. You must realise that, even though there are credible explanations for the origin of life, there is currently no smoking gun.
Whatever the outcome, your god-of-the-gaps argument from personal incredulity doesn't cut the chase. It's not because your limited imagination fails to give you insight, that an inscrutible, overly complex creator is an alternative explanation.

Donzman:
Ask yourself this question Mr. Nferyn. . .What in this world will give a chemical life and turn it into a unicellular organism that will develop to what we call human beings or you call Homo Sapiens( ) today?

And when did you stop beating your girlfriend? Come on now, stop putting up strawmen based on faulty assumptions and a lack of understanding of the TOE

Donzman:
. . .Till evolutionary theory can explain that, you haven't taken off yet.

Why? Untill you start explaining why sociology doesn't explain the origin of quarks, sociology hasn't taken off yet; get a grip, or better, get an understanding.

Donzman:
Where did LIFE come from?

I don't know and neither do you, but that has nothing to do with the TOE

Donzman:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

There is nothing informative in that link, only created to confuse those who do not know. Try again!

Probably not. Would the paper describing exactly how a frame shift mutation caused the bacterium to synthesise a protein that enables it to metabolise nylon, a compound that did not exist before 1935 be sufficient? New information: check. Mutation increasing fitness of organism: check. New species: check. Now would be the time to shift goalposts and define information in such a way that it doesn't fit the bill, wouldn't it?

In your mind probably only a dog turning into a cat in a few generations would be evidence for evolution, while that actually would be a falsification of evolutionary theory, but then again, I never expected a creationist to do the hard labour of actually learning some science and studying the evidence.

Donzman:
How is telling us how life started in the first place relevant?

As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand

Donzman:

Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize

It's nothing special, scientists have been creating mutated organisms now for over a century,

Have they now? Maybe that happened in Lysenko's laboratory in the good old USSR. Try looking up that name, Lysenko. You might actually learn something new - evil Commie Russia was actually really evil .
While you're visiting the cold dark places of the north, maybe you could take a look at Fox taming experiment in Siberia. Wolves are a different [i]kind [/i]than dogs in biblespeak, aren't they?

Donzman:
they haven't been able to transform a bird into a lizard. Ok, till someone is able to use mutation to turn a fish into a frog, STFU!

Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults.

Donzman:

What is a new organism and what separates it from an existing organism?

As an evolutionist who claims that new organisms appear through mutation, you should be telling me. As a creationist, I believe that there cannot be an entirely new organism.

I really thought you were talking about species. I am most definitely a different organism than you, although we are of the same species. Just tell me how you can separate different species in a consistent way. I know of no method, because all life is connected in different degrees. Could you tell me when exactly the water stopped being cold and started being hot. When I put my hand in boiling water though, I'll bloody well know that it is hot. The timespan needed for evolutionary changes to result in speciation for "higher" organisms, such as tetrapods is too large to be observed in the lifespan of a human being. Unless you would take the extremely rare case of very high selective pressure under near extinction conditions in order for genetic drift to lead to sufficient phenotypical differences between populations to prevent interbreeding, resulting in speciation.

Maybe you're just suffering from the tyranny of the discontinuous mind (just read question 8 and the answer to that question) and are unable to comprehend things in a non-essentialist framework (I know you like philosophy, so maybe that will make you ponder over the issue )

Donzman:

It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess

Metabolism turns chemical compounds into living organisms?. . .No wonder you think with your stomach, too much eating has turned your stomach into a mini-brain via. metabolism. Ha!

Well, at least I realise that what we consider rationality is, in most cases, just rationalisation. Your answer definitely is witty. Smart on the other hand, it is not.

Donzman:
Listen:

Stop giving me stupid links, I've done enough research on evolution on my own to know that it's SHIT.

Obviously you've used more credible sources than Berkeley University.
You could be right of course, but why don't you present us your irrefutible falsification of evolutionary theory. Tell us which concept of evolutionary theory has been falsified by what finding?

Donzman:
It has no well defined beginning.

And how is that relevant?

Donzman:
You claim it's scientific, how come nobody has been able to show up until this day how chemical compounds can turn into a living organism?

It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess
1. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary theory - confounding the two is standard practice among creationists
2. Let me copy a definition of evolution I used in another thread:

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that in the past there were countless life forms that are no longer here. It is a fact that these lifeforms differed depending on the time they lived on our planet.
The theory of evolution offfers a scientific explanation for that fact. It explains that all current life forms originated from a common ancestor and diverged and evolved over time. The processes that caused these changes are:

* natural selection
* sexual selection
* gene drift

All these processes work from the natural genetic variations witin the populations that stem from sexual recombination, mutations and DNA copying errors.

Donzman:
. . .There is no model that has been put forward to explain this face but yet I'm expected to believe it.

Of course I can still take follow your diversion into abiogenesis, so, there are models, several actually. You should know by now that Google is your friend, even if you only pay him a visit for 1 minute:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?&submit.y=0&submit.x=0&submit=GO&fulltext=%22Origin+of+life%22&sortspecbrief=date&sortspec=date
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/bkup_of_RNA.html
http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_life.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738204935/thesecularweb
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis

Donzman:
Oh, you don't know what a specie is now? *hiss*

Most biologists would have some trouble defining a specie, as there is no clear dividing line between different species (ring species would be a good example to show just that). When you go to species that do not sexually reproduce, the differences between species even become murkier.

Donzman:
. . .Ok. A goat with 2 noses is still a goat, mutation has not been able to transform a goat into a cow.

Your attempt at humour hasn't yet reached full maturity, but carry on, you'll get there eventually

Donzman:
Mutation has not been able to transform a corn into something entirely new.

You mean like a cat evolving into a dog? Which idiot would even come up with these kind of predictions anyway. Ah, I know: someone who hasn't got a freaking clue what evolutionary biology is about.

Donzman:
Haven't you been learning?. . .When mutations occur and occur, there's some sort of boundary that limits the mutation that can take place.

Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize

Donzman:
After sometime, the same type of mutations continue to occur AND we do not get a new specie of plant/animal.

Says who? Donzman the Great?

Donzman:
Mutation does not do it my friend. After almost a century of laboratory induced mutations, intelligent scientists have not been able to produce a new specie of plants/animal.

They have actually been able to produce/find countless new species. Maybe this example would tickle your fancy?

Donzman:
Selection does not produce new organisms. It helps existing organisms adapt to their environment.

What is a [i]new [/i]organism and what separates it from an [i]existing [/i]organism?

Donzman:
Why is it that after so many years of mutations artificially, scientists have not been able to create a new specie of a well defined plant/animal.

Define your terms concretely and we can discuss. Vague assertions based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology don't do the trick. You're definitely smart enough to learn about the subject if you're willing to open up your mind. Go to the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley University and familiarise yourself with the basics. If you still have doubts, be precise in your objections and we can talk

Donzman:
In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species.

Where did you pick up that bizarre idea?

Donzman:
So I ask, how did evolution occur?

Go to the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley University and familiarise yourself with the basics.

KAG:
Meh!

Why don't you bring the first piece of evidence for your idiotic assertions, dblock. And no, the [i]Protocols of the Elders of Sion [/i]does not count as evidence, dear dblock. If you're nice I'll even tell you why

kellorah:
u sound like one, like my teacher!!

I hope you like your teacher

kellorah:
Nferyn, r u a Marxist?

No, why would you think that?

agent0:
Enjoy your life as an accidental species of animal with no purpose in life,

I'm extremely happy that the wonderful accident of being alive befel on me. Out of the trillions of possible people to be born, I was the lucky one. I'm quite capable of creating my own purpose in life without having to fool myself into believing in some kind of skydaddy that's there to take care of me.

agent0:
For me? I will serve the Lord with a glad heart and enjoy the fruits of my faith and obedience

All you need is a carrot and a stick to walk whichever path your delusion send you on

agent0:
and will happily accept my eternal reward for not buying into the lies of humanists, atheists and secularists,

Can you expand that malicious slur a little. As it stands, it only highlights your inability to think, but I could be wrong of course. Maybe your are capable of synaptic activities that go a little beyond your reptilian brain and include your neocortex as well.

agent0:
Not to appear skeptical or anything, but shouldn't a fact be something that has evidence to support it?

You're pretty vague here. Which fact are you talking about? The fact of evolution?
here's a link that shows a reasonable amount of evidence for macroevolution

agent0:
Since, by your own admission, there was no life 4 billion years ago, how could you know how old the earth is and when life began?

Radiometric dating gives a reliable picture on the age of fossils

agent0:
And who is gaia? Earth goddess?

I definitely don't buy the gaia idea. It's a symplistic antropocentric way of reasoning projecting intent and purpose in an entity that shows no such thing. Quite similar to the man-god ideas of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Projection of human limitations and characteristics to give sense and meaning to what is basically meaningless is an intellectually impoverished mode of thinking and not my thing.

agent0:
And yet you condemn others for having faith in the Bible and God

I condemn faith in principle. Belief without evidence really isn't something to boast about.

agent0:
when they have clearly saved and changed lives? Stunning!

That's no argument. A false belief that has got positive side effects is and remains a false belief.
Anyway, maybe you could try that line on the millions that were butchered in the name of God, I guess the'll wholeheartedly agree that it did [i]change [/i]their life

Bobbyaf:
@ nferyn


Is that why you're trying so hard to brainwash others with your false notions? Its no wonder Solomon says too much studying makes one mad.

Bobyaf, you really need to get off your ganja. It's confusing the hell out of you. Take care and don't go cold turkey

agent0:
Can you prove that gaia is real?

I think you're a little confused. What does gaia have to do with this discussion? The whole of nature as a living entitiy isn't exactly established science and if it were, it still wouldn't have any connection to the TOE

Bobbyaf:
Sorry I will not be decieved by your frivolous theories, and their apparantly logical explanations. I have moved beyond the 3rd grade years ago.

If that's really how you perceive things, I just feel so sorry for all these poor children that have to pass through the sorry excuse for an educational system you were exposed to

shahan:
Okay, I get you. I've learnt not to assume positions without first asking why people say what they do - that's why I asked. However, your personal message was for Bobbyaf. Cheers.

If PM was still active, I wouldn't have bothered the board with that message. Anyway, enjoy the thread

shahan:
nferyn,

How do you mean 'Lying for Jesus' and 'a happy lying new year'?

Sorry that I wanted to insert a personal message to Bobbyaf here. If you read the whole thread, you will understand that Bobbyaf is continuously using less than honest tactics to get his message accross. He puts up strawmen, ignores other people's arguments, misrepresents arguments and when corrected continues to use that refuted argument, etc.
He wants to get his message accross by any means necessary, even if that includes dishonesty. After all, he's doing it for a good cause (or so he thinks)

Bobbyaf,

You have now officially been promoted to fountainhead of the "Lying for Jesus" society. Congratulations and a happy lying new year to you.

I do. Once had an automatic, absolutely hated it. Automatic doesn't give you the level of control that manual gives you. When you know how to shift properly, take advantage of the clutch and use engine braking, the car almost becomes an extension of yourself. Also, fuel consumption goes down with manual, unless you've got a very heavy car with a matching engine.
No more auto for me

Olorididan:

I'd say so, but it depends on how you apply the word and its implication in a sentence. For example, when belief is used in atheism, it is akin to: I believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist in pretty much the same way I believe my chair won't become animated and run off with me.

@KAG
nferyn has already stated that "it is simply a lack of belief in Gods"

Yes and that definition also includes many agnostics. I would call myself an agnostic atheist, i.e. I do not believe in God(s), but I cannot obtain knowledge of that fact.

Olorididan:
what I'm trying to see if possible is whether it is possible to take a body of non belief and give it some sort of central coherence. Many people feel that Atheism suffers from the "anything goes" syndrome.

That's just prejudice. How many atheists do you know for whom anything goes. I do not know a single one.

Olorididan:
That if you don't believe in something you'll believe in anything.

It's not because you don't believe in God that you don't believe in anything. I believe in Love, compassion, equality, human dignity and a lot of things besides that.

Olorididan:
I want to see if any coherent body of thought can come out of the vastness of the belief in "anything" or "nothing".

just like theism, atheism doesn't have a coherent body of thought. Many atheists are secular humanists though and that [b]is [/b]a coherent body of thought

Olorididan:
There aren't many atheists around

Maybe not in Nigeria, but that's hardly universal.

Olorididan:
but I'd like to know their thoughts and whether we can give these thoughts any sort of collective direction and maybe form something out of it.

I have many thoughts about many subjects, but these are only peripherally informed by my atheism. There's a huge variety of thought among atheists.

Olorididan:
One common denominator found among many atheists is the belief that there is no existence before and after life. Note I did not say no existence of a God. Further to this is the belief that there is no existence of a God before, during and after life. Which leaves life as we know it. It is within this realm that most atheists base their beliefs.

You're mixing up things here. Believing God doesn't exist does not follow out of the belief that there's no life after death. Most atheists indeed have naturalistic tendencies though

Olorididan:
But if we do not exist before and do not exist after, then could it be argued that we really do not exist presently.

There's no connection between the two

Olorididan:
We are simple physical manifestations of nothingness.

Why? I don't think we're manifestations of anything. Our existence just is without external reference.

Olorididan:
If we are not the manifestations of a greater being, we are the manifestation of nothing are we not?

That's what I would call a leap of faith.

Olorididan:
If so we need to ask is it possible for nothingness to become something without a "God" or soem force or the other making it so and if so how?

If you assume God, you're assuming an argument from inifinite regress: you still need to explain God because God is complex and anything but self explanatory.

It is neither a belief, nor a religion. It's simply the lack of belief in God(s).
Most religious people are atheist about practically all of the thousands of deities except for the one they happen to believe in. Atheists just take it one God further.

Donzman:
So the idea that there is no God is supposed to be what to atheists?, An "unabsolute" truth?

Only 'strong' or gnostic atheists hold the belief that they know there is no God, most atheists just think there is no compelling evidence to believe in God. Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist: even though I believe there to be no God, it is something you cannot obtain conclusive knowledge about. Only when God is specified can he be put to the test. The abstract, ethereal God is unfalsifiable, but the God of the Bible definitely does not exist.

Donzman:
Are you kidding?, Atheists claim superiority without a doubt and you're already proving the point. Ironic, isn't it?

Is this a substitute for argument? Most religions hold claims to the absolute truth, while atheism, i.e. the lack of belief in God(s), does no such thing.