Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnaritas | Hacker News Reader

> There is nothing natural about a dung learning to navigate using the stars.

Yes there is, it's perfectly natural as was just explained to you above. No magic required, simple evolution.

> An incredibly complex network of structures is more proof of a higher order.

No, it isn't. It's well established that very simple rules can create incredibly complex network of structures with no higher order whatsoever.

> Enjoy your belief in a perpetually self-correcting field of science and a perception of the world that never ceases to change. By definition, you'll never find peace.

Nonsense. If you require iron age superstition to achieve peace, that's you; others don't have that requirement.

View on HN

I honestly wished you made better backup points to your arguments. I'm left with nothing to go on as it is now.

Not natural does not imply magic. Nature by my reasoning is magical though. Simple rules fail in the subject of the Heisenberg principle.

Heisenberg principle is not magical, it's not just the way you are used to looking at the world.

CPU designers on the other hand really do need to pay attention as it's a significant real world issue for them. Past that, Quantium computing actually uses the Heisenberg principle while producing very consistent results.

I wasn't alluding to magic. And I meant to point out ToE as a formula that is not simple by any means, rarely referred to as God formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

> I honestly wished you made better backup points to your arguments. I'm left with nothing to go on as it is now.

I don't need to, you either understand evolution or you don't; it's not an opinion to be argued, it is how the world works. There's nothing you can refute, any refutation is simply evidence you do not understand the facts of reality. You can't argue with someone who denies evolution, their mind doesn't value facts.

> Nature by my reasoning is magical though.

Then your reasoning is flawed. Magic is that which breaks the rules of nature, like your god for example. Nature is not magical, the natural world is the very definition of not magic.

> Simple rules fail in the subject of the Heisenberg principle.

You don't understand evolution, you're nowhere near ready to approach the topic of quantum mechanics.

I give up. An atheist is not an atheist by logic. But rather by arrogance and ignorance. And the nature of your tone seems to prove it. My only advice is to tone down your hate and aversion to all things theological and reduce your pride in the explanation of science. Because when it gets old and stale and the excitement wears off, you will see things in a more "connected sense." Like theology is just another version of science kind of thing.

No, that's an opinion, just as religion is. Please do give up.

> Because when it gets old and stale and the excitement wears off, you will see things in a more "connected sense."

No, reason and logic don't get old or stale, and they prevent me from thinking how I "see things" has anything to do with reality. Nature is what it is, it doesn't care about your beliefs and fears and need for an afterlife. Never mind the humor in the one with an imaginary friend he's trying to push on others calling others arrogant and ignorant, lol, don't project your flaws on me. People are here talking about a dung beetle story and you're prothletising, it's disgusting; keep that shit to yourself.

You can easily be agnostic from logic which can be functionally identical to atheist.

After all you have zero evidence what you believe is more true than the flying spaghetti monster, Thor, or any other past religion real or imagined. Thus logically any of your beliefs are vastly more likely to be false than true and are thus safely ignored.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com