The Cell Theory of Organic Life is a Hoax

[Justin Isis]

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins isn't justified in being an evolutionary biologist, since his job is heavily dependent on the assumption that organic cells comprised of atoms exist in a way other than the purely notional. However, this is not the case.

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself. A gun cannot fire a bullet and hit itself. In the same way, human consciousness cannot get outside of itself in a way that would allow it to confirm the independent existence of matter. When it appears as if empirical evidence proves the independent existence of matter, what is actually happening is that the consciousness is looking at a form of itself, or sensory perception. Therefore, while it can be posited that "something" exists outside of the consciousness to give rise to sensory impressions, it cannot be assumed that this "something" is actually matter, or has any independent existence outside of the senses.

Richard Dawkins's error seems to be in taking the existence of matter at face value by trusting his senses. This makes him not a skeptic, but a credulous believer, a sort of theist of matter. Immaterialists who reject the existence of quarks, atoms, and covalent and ionic molecular bonds are the true skeptics. Don't get taken in by the "matter" hoax, or the so-called "Cell Theory of Organic Life." Evolutionary biologists are charlatans of the "True Believer" religious variety.

[SpeedOfSound]

This is a great post. Finally someone who truly understands. One week a ago I had a friend wrap me in several layers of aluminum foil. I had ear plugs and all of my sense were shut off. Then came rolls of duct tape. I started to pray. "God's will be done". I walked home in the middle lane of 35W during rush hour without getting a scratch. The cars simple parted around my great faith. Try this but be sure that you are completely naked underneath the foil and purified of sexual thoughts.
Also the reason I haven't posted for a few days is the police really suck and they are all atheists. So have a friend stand by (outside of the foil lol) with bail money.

[Calilasseia]

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins isn't justified in being an evolutionary biologist, since his job is heavily dependent on the assumption that organic cells comprised of atoms exist in a way other than the purely notional.

Ah, someone else who is unaware of the evidence that has been amassed over the years. Including the fact that any high school student in a suitably well equipped biology class can slice organismal tissue with a microtome, place it on a slide, stain it, and see the cells in question under a microscope. It's not as if we don't have evidence for their existence. Van Leeuwenhoek was looking at them as far back as 1647, when he examined the first single-celled organisms to be seen under a microscope by a human being. Indeed, much of Van Leeuwenhoek's original collection of slides still survives in the collection of the Royal Society, and is in sufficiently excellent condition to allow his specimens to be viewed by scientists today, who can confirm that what he saw, he did in fact see.

So, aside from a wish to deny reality, what was the point of the above?

However, this is not the case.

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself. A gun cannot fire a bullet and hit itself.

These are all manufactured entities. None of them are self reproducing. Therefore your analogy fails for the same reason as Paley's Watchmaker.

In the same way, human consciousness cannot get outside of itself in a way that would allow it to confirm the independent existence of matter.

I'm reminded here of Samuel Johnson, who when told that Bishop Berkeley disputed the existence of matter, kicked a large stone and said "I refute it thusly!"

Plus, I'm sure that the people who spent money on the Large Hadron Collider would love to hear your theory on how matter cannot be independently verified, since that is one of the purposes of the machine in question - to provide independent verification of the existence of fundamental particles.

When it appears as if empirical evidence proves the independent existence of matter, what is actually happening is that the consciousness is looking at a form of itself, or sensory perception.

So you're not actually typing on a real, material keyboard when you type your post? Your post isn't travelling along real, material wires to a real, material server that everyone else connects to in order to read it?

Excuse me a moment, but this notion is fatuous.

Therefore, while it can be posited that "something" exists outside of the consciousness to give rise to sensory impressions, it cannot be assumed that this "something" is actually matter, or has any independent existence outside of the senses.

Here's an experiment you can conduct. Stand under a very heavy weight suspended by a crane. Let your consciousness deny that it exists whilst someone pulls a lever and allows it to fall upon you. If you are alive at the end of this and can report back, then we will listen.

Richard Dawkins's error seems to be in taking the existence of matter at face value by trusting his senses. This makes him not a skeptic, but a credulous believer, a sort of theist of matter.

By your own reasoning. so are you when you believe that you type on a real, material keyboard in order to post your post here. So are you when you believe that your post is going to end up on a real, material server for the rest of us to read. So are you when you pick up food and eat it in the belief that you are doing so.

Tell me, what is it like functioning on a day to day basis with such a rampantly solipsistic world view as this?

Immaterialists who reject the existence of quarks, atoms, and covalent and ionic molecular bonds are the true skeptics.

Wrong. They are reality denialists and solipsists.

Don't get taken in by the "matter" hoax, or the so-called "Cell Theory of Organic Life."

The only hoax we see operating here is your assertion that your ideas possess sufficient merit to warrant being given credence by the critical thinkers here.

Evolutionary biologists are charlatans of the "True Believer" religious variety.

The only charlatans we see here are reality denialists.

[Justin Isis]

Hello, thank you for your replies.

Speed of Sound:

I'm glad you understood the seriousness of my post. However, I wouldn't worry about praying to God, since there is no such entity. If a God existed, that God, even if it existed on a "spiritual" plane, would still EXIST, and so would therefore be material, or a form of matter, if we take "material" to refer to things which exist. But since nothing exists, there can be neither God nor matter. There is neither Creationism nor Evolution. The entire thing is a gigantic hoax, and more credulous marks are getting taken in each day. The greatest trick Matter ever pulled was convincing the world that it existed.

Although, since everything is equally non-existent, it makes as much sense to pray to God as it does to be an evolutionary biologist. The important thing, I suppose, is to have fun.

Calilasseia:

Thanks for your detailed response. I will respond to some of your points now:

Indeed, much of Van Leeuwenhoek's original collection of slides still survives in the collection of the Royal Society, and is in sufficiently excellent condition to allow his specimens to be viewed by scientists today, who can confirm that what he saw, he did in fact see.

It seems to me that this "Van Leeuwenhoek" fellow was a con-man. I wouldn't take his little experiments too seriously. Let me put it this way: did he stand to profit financially from the existence of so-called "single-cell organisms" ? If so, I'd be careful with taking him or his work at face value.

I'm reminded here of Samuel Johnson, who when told that Bishop Berkeley disputed the existence of matter, kicked a large stone and said "I refute it thusly!"

It seems to me that this hardly refutes Immaterialism, it just demonstrates Johnson's sentimental attachment to matter. Taking part in the hoax (i.e. kicking a stone) is hardly the same as disproving it. Visual phenomena are merely symptoms.

Plus, I'm sure that the people who spent money on the Large Hadron Collider would love to hear your theory on how matter cannot be independently verified, since that is one of the purposes of the machine in question - to provide independent verification of the existence of fundamental particles.

I find the Large Hadron Collider too silly to seriously discuss. I do feel the money expended on it could have been put to better uses, though.

So you're not actually typing on a real, material keyboard when you type your post? Your post isn't travelling along real, material wires to a real, material server that everyone else connects to in order to read it?

Correct. I didn't type on the keyboard, and the post doesn't exist. The so-called "five senses" might say otherwise, but I'd trust them about as much as I'd trust a stage magician when he says he's going to cut someone in half.

Tell me, what is it like functioning on a day to day basis with such a rampantly solipsistic world view as this?

Solipsism is the belief that only one individual is real, in this case, me. But since I don't believe that I'm real either, how can I be a solipsist?

As for what it's like functioning...well, it's quite enjoyable, actually.

[Szymanowski]

Why this title, why this subforum? What does this have to do with "cell theory" or "creationism"?

[Hal9000]

Poe's Law?

Just in case the OP is serious, it seems to be questioning how anything can be taken as real when we have no method of assessing the accuracy of our objective reality.

I personally feel that one may as well assume that the data from the 5 senses is acturrate because if it isn't - nothing really matters anyway

[Pensioner]

Sounds like woo woo to me.

[gamerguy]

I think it's Poe, but I love the way Cali doesn't care and will eviscerate all nonsense he comes across.

anyway, welcome to the forum, Justin!

[Quentinscrisp]

I'm fully behind Justin Isis's assertions here and may write more fully on this later.

"I personally feel that one may as well assume that the data from the 5 senses is acturrate because if it isn't - nothing really matters anyway."

Well, we assume that sensual data is accurate only in the same way we assume the accuracy of any virtual reality environment, in order not to bump into virtual walls. And no, nothing matters. It really doesn't.

I've actually posted quite a lot about Richard Dawkins on my blog recently, and little of it, unfortunately, has been favourable. I mean, who would subtitle their own website, 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'? I really hope that's done with a sense of irony, or I fear for the man's sanity. It's just like the kind of cheesy, scary slogans used to try and get people to join cults and so on. "Come inside for a clean and shiny new future, with a brain washed spotlessly white." There's so much rational chauvinism of this kind around these days, propagated by those only capable of thinking in two dimensions, and somehow believing that makes them superior, it's wearisome.

[Szymanowski]

I personally feel that one may as well assume that the data from the 5 senses is acturrate because if it isn't - nothing really matters anyway.

Well, we assume that sensual data is accurate only in the same way we assume the accuracy of any virtual reality environment, in order not to bump into virtual walls. And no, nothing matters. It really doesn't.

If you agree that there is nothing wrong with that assumption, why do you support Justin Isis? In particular, his statement "It seems to me that Richard Dawkins isn't justified in being an evolutionary biologist"? What justification is needed?

[nuclear]

Solipsism is the belief that only one individual is real, in this case, me. But since I don't believe that I'm real either, how can I be a solipsist?

Metaphysical subjectivist, are you?

[Double Bass Atheist]

I'm fully behind Justin Isis's assertions here and may write more fully on this later.

"I personally feel that one may as well assume that the data from the 5 senses is acturrate because if it isn't - nothing really matters anyway."

Well, we assume that sensual data is accurate only in the same way we assume the accuracy of any virtual reality environment, in order not to bump into virtual walls. And no, nothing matters. It really doesn't.

I've actually posted quite a lot about Richard Dawkins on my blog recently, and little of it, unfortunately, has been favourable. I mean, who would subtitle their own website, 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'? I really hope that's done with a sense of irony, or I fear for the man's sanity. It's just like the kind of cheesy, scary slogans used to try and get people to join cults and so on. "Come inside for a clean and shiny new future, with a brain washed spotlessly white." There's so much rational chauvinism of this kind around these days, propagated by those only capable of thinking in two dimensions, and somehow believing that makes them superior, it's wearisome.

I call "Poe" on the OP, so I'm not even going to bother addressing it... just too silly.

Quentinscrisp -
It still amazes me how many theist noobs come here and want to acquate atheism with the only thing they know... brainwashing, religious institutions or cults. Since you just joined this forum about 15 minutes ago and obviously haven't spend any time reading it, please allow me enlighten you a bit.
This is an open forum. It's as simple as that. You can post anything you want... no matter how crazy your opinion is and your posts will never get deleted and, as long you follow the forum rules, you'll never get banned. Try posting atheistic opinions in christian forums and see how long you last!
These boards are all about science, atheism, and in general, I would say, increasing one's knowledge. We also have a hellava lot of fun in the Off-Topic threads!
I'm fairly knowledgeable individual in various scientific disciplines, but I personally have learned soooo much simply by reading the various posters here.
Read more, post less and stick around.... it shouldn't take you long to see just how ridiculous your first post is!

[Moridin]

The Infallibility of Sense Perception
In Support of Secular Foundationalism

The OP is contradicting himself, since he must presuppose the validity of the senses in order to argue that the senses are invalid with someone.

[Quentinscrisp]

"It still amazes me how many theist noobs come here and want to acquate atheism with the only thing they know... brainwashing, religious institutions or cults. Since you just joined this forum about 15 minutes ago and obviously haven't spend any time reading it, please allow me enlighten you a bit.
This is an open forum. It's as simple as that. You can post anything you want... no matter how crazy your opinion is and your posts will never get deleted and, as long you follow the forum rules, you'll never get banned. Try posting atheistic opinions in christian forums and see how long you last!
These boards are all about science, atheism, and in general, I would say, increasing one's knowledge. We also have a hellava lot of fun in the Off-Topic threads!
I'm fairly knowledgeable individual in various scientific disciplines, but I personally have learned soooo much simply by reading the various posters here.
Read more, post less and stick around.... it shouldn't take you long to see just how ridiculous your first post is!"

Well, while I haven't read everything on this site, I did read some stuff before posting. There may indeed be a lot of 'theist noobs' who come here, but I'm not one of them, thank you, and that's exactly the kind of rational chauvinism I'm talking about. Anyone who says anything you don't like is immediately a 'theist noob'. I don't berate Richard Dawkins or anyone here simply for existing - it's the implied superiority and intolerance that is annoying. Maybe there are groups of people that are less intolerant. Okay, there are. Fine. I still think it's okay to point out, with mere words, and not with any violence or particular aggression, though I realise I probably don't come across as particularly polite, the lack of self-examination, self-reflection etcetera, displayed in a phrase like 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'.

[Szymanowski]

"It still amazes me how many theist noobs come here and want to acquate atheism with the only thing they know... brainwashing, religious institutions or cults. Since you just joined this forum about 15 minutes ago and obviously haven't spend any time reading it, please allow me enlighten you a bit.
This is an open forum. It's as simple as that. You can post anything you want... no matter how crazy your opinion is and your posts will never get deleted and, as long you follow the forum rules, you'll never get banned. Try posting atheistic opinions in christian forums and see how long you last!
These boards are all about science, atheism, and in general, I would say, increasing one's knowledge. We also have a hellava lot of fun in the Off-Topic threads!
I'm fairly knowledgeable individual in various scientific disciplines, but I personally have learned soooo much simply by reading the various posters here.
Read more, post less and stick around.... it shouldn't take you long to see just how ridiculous your first post is!"

Well, while I haven't read everything on this site, I did read some stuff before posting. There may indeed be a lot of 'theist noobs' who come here, but I'm not one of them, thank you, and that's exactly the kind of rational chauvinism I'm talking about. Anyone who says anything you don't like is immediately a 'theist noob'. I don't berate Richard Dawkins or anyone here simply for existing - it's the implied superiority and intolerance that is annoying. Maybe there are groups of people that are less intolerant. Okay, there are. Fine. I still think it's okay to point out, with mere words, and not with any violence or particular aggression, though I realise I probably don't come across as particularly polite, the lack of self-examination, self-reflection etcetera, displayed in a phrase like 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'.

Mate, "noob" is not an insult. It means you're new to the forum, and that's evident from your user profile:

Joined: Sunday 4th May 2008 at 1.54pm (BST)

"Clear-thinking oasis" is mostly in reference to its place as a refuge from proselytising - people are not allowed to copy and paste the Bible and use circular reasoning therewith to "prove" that we're all going to hell.

Plus it doesn't refer to anyone in particular hence no "lack of self-examination", and it's about "thinking" hence no implied doctrine.

[Double Bass Atheist]

Quentinscrisp wrote:
Well, while I haven't read everything on this site, I did read some stuff before posting. There may indeed be a lot of 'theist noobs' who come here, but I'm not one of them, thank you, and that's exactly the kind of rational chauvinism I'm talking about. Anyone who says anything you don't like is immediately a 'theist noob'. I don't berate Richard Dawkins or anyone here simply for existing - it's the implied superiority and intolerance that is annoying. Maybe there are groups of people that are less intolerant. Okay, there are. Fine. I still think it's okay to point out, with mere words, and not with any violence or particular aggression, though I realise I probably don't come across as particularly polite, the lack of self-examination, self-reflection etcetera, displayed in a phrase like 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'.

What was clear to me is that within 15 minutes of joining the forum you post this:

Quentinscrisp wrote:
I've actually posted quite a lot about Richard Dawkins on my blog recently, and little of it, unfortunately, has been favourable.

Emphasis mine.

And this:

Quentinscrisp wrote:
I mean, who would subtitle their own website, 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'? I really hope that's done with a sense of irony, or I fear for the man's sanity. It's just like the kind of cheesy, scary slogans used to try and get people to join cults and so on. "Come inside for a clean and shiny new future, with a brain washed spotlessly white."

Emphasis mine.

I’ve yet to meet an atheist noob whose first post ever would be ripping one of the world’s eminent evolutionary biologists and popular science authors so aggressively AND sarcastically attacking our forum at the same time.

A little humility goes a long way around here.

BTW, when replying to someone, please use the Quote button... it will make your posts easier to read.

[Justin Isis]

The OP is contradicting himself, since he must presuppose the validity of the senses in order to argue that the senses are invalid with someone.

If I tried not to contradict myself, that would imply that I was following the principles of reason or rationalism. But I'm not. My statements are entirely non-rational, since incredulity at sense perception also implies incredulity at extrusions of those senses, including reason. How am I presupposing the validity of the senses? I'm not arguing that they don't exist, I'm stating it. As you're aware, this in itself is a contradiction.

"Foundationalism is the position that we need foundations for our use of rational thinking and methods. Without such foundations, there would be no basis for our reasoning, nothing to deduce it from. Thus all statements of knowledge would be, at best, arbitrary without some foundation to ground them in reality."

There is no basis for our reasoning. There is nothing.

"Existence—the fact that something is. Whatever we perceive, we know it exists, otherwise we would not perceive it. We also exist, otherwise we could not perceive anything. To deny the axiom of existence demands a disproof that exists and to ground that disproof on existing facts."

These statements seem bizarre to me. How do "we" know all this? Why should we trust what appears to appear from the senses? How do we even know that it appears to appear? Who or what is doing the perceiving here?

Why does it demand a disproof when there is no proof outside of the senses themselves? It seems that the Foundationalist here is also contradicting himself by taking the senses for granted when he can know nothing outside of them, and thus cannot know whether they are valid or not by using them.

Deductive reasoning is a game played with words which try to sort themselves into being consistent according to certain rules of language. These words are just figments, mental blips in a system that's less than a dream anyway. "Reason" and "logic" are the equivalent of the "faith" and "grace" of theists.

[Hal9000]

Most.ridiculous.thread.ever

I dont really understand why the OP has singled out Dawkin's status as a biologist as being unjustified or cell theory.

Here is a list of other things also unjustified if one makes the assuptions in the OP

Bananas
Eggs
Me thinking I am a financial regulator
You
Your cat
A leaf
A surprise
A lake
Kylie Minogue

I don’t know why Im bothering, Im just a brain in a jar

[Jackinbox]

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins isn't justified in being an evolutionary biologist, since his job is heavily dependent on the assumption that organic cells comprised of atoms exist in a way other than the purely notional. However, this is not the case.

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself. A gun cannot fire a bullet and hit itself. In the same way, human consciousness cannot get outside of itself in a way that would allow it to confirm the independent existence of matter. When it appears as if empirical evidence proves the independent existence of matter, what is actually happening is that the consciousness is looking at a form of itself, or sensory perception. Therefore, while it can be posited that "something" exists outside of the consciousness to give rise to sensory impressions, it cannot be assumed that this "something" is actually matter, or has any independent existence outside of the senses.

Richard Dawkins's error seems to be in taking the existence of matter at face value by trusting his senses. This makes him not a skeptic, but a credulous believer, a sort of theist of matter. Immaterialists who reject the existence of quarks, atoms, and covalent and ionic molecular bonds are the true skeptics. Don't get taken in by the "matter" hoax, or the so-called "Cell Theory of Organic Life." Evolutionary biologists are charlatans of the "True Believer" religious variety.

Justin, your post is fantastic! I'm sure it could be used to convince a lot of people. Do you give me the permission to reuse it?

[ashley]

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself.

Really? What about this one?

http://www.penseurope.com/uk/products.asp?UID=&prod=VEN-CL-E445

I submit that the bendy pencil is incontrovertible evidence that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist after all.

[Justin Isis]

Richard Dawkins can be an evolutionary biologist if he wants to be. I just wish he took his job less seriously in terms of its objective reality, or appended "Imaginary" before his title - "Imaginary Evolutionary Biologist." If he took cells and matter and evolution less seriously as being "true", I think he'd be less worried about Imaginary Christians with their Imaginary God and Imaginary Creationism. Then he could pursue his evolutionary biology research with a lot clearer head. He seems very desperate to prove himself "correct" or "rational." But he lives in a country where no one is seriously threatening his right to be an atheist or a scientist. I think at heart he suspects that matter isn't real and that so-called "protons" with positive charges and "electrons" with negative charges don't really exist. And this knowledge makes him nervous, so he feels he has to justify himself in public.

The reason I joined these forums is because I was watching my imaginary television set in my imaginary living room, and I saw a commercial for some Richard Dawkins show where he was going around trying to argue with religious types or "disprove" psychic powers or something like that. I just wondered why he took himself that seriously and felt the need to attack people all the time. Or tried to get converts to atheism, which makes him seem no different from a Christian seeking converts. If he didn't believe that biological cells were real but were just elements in a collective psychosis shared by him and all other scientists, he could exist in this psychosis happily without needing to attack psychotic patients in the other ward labelled "Religious."

As for the bendy pencil, its independent existence cannot be verified either.

[Double Bass Atheist]

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins isn't justified in being an evolutionary biologist, since his job is heavily dependent on the assumption that organic cells comprised of atoms exist in a way other than the purely notional. However, this is not the case.

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself. A gun cannot fire a bullet and hit itself. In the same way, human consciousness cannot get outside of itself in a way that would allow it to confirm the independent existence of matter. When it appears as if empirical evidence proves the independent existence of matter, what is actually happening is that the consciousness is looking at a form of itself, or sensory perception. Therefore, while it can be posited that "something" exists outside of the consciousness to give rise to sensory impressions, it cannot be assumed that this "something" is actually matter, or has any independent existence outside of the senses.

Richard Dawkins's error seems to be in taking the existence of matter at face value by trusting his senses. This makes him not a skeptic, but a credulous believer, a sort of theist of matter. Immaterialists who reject the existence of quarks, atoms, and covalent and ionic molecular bonds are the true skeptics. Don't get taken in by the "matter" hoax, or the so-called "Cell Theory of Organic Life." Evolutionary biologists are charlatans of the "True Believer" religious variety.

Justin, your post is fantastic! I'm sure it could be used to convince a lot of people. Do you give me the permission to reuse it?

Jack - as a submission to FSTDT?

[Hal9000]

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself.

Really? What about this one?

http://www.penseurope.com/uk/products.asp?UID=&prod=VEN-CL-E445

I submit that the bendy pencil is incontrovertible evidence that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist after all.

Oh yea - like evidence from the internet counts as objective reality. That pen probably is Richard Dawkins trying to trick you into thinking that cells are real. Honestly, the Matrix is going to have to do better than that to get one over on me.

I need a lie down

[Szymanowski]

Richard Dawkins can be an evolutionary biologist if he wants to be. I just wish he took his job less seriously in terms of its objective reality, or appended "Imaginary" before his title - "Imaginary Evolutionary Biologist." If he took cells and matter and evolution less seriously as being "true", I think he'd be less worried about Imaginary Christians with their Imaginary God and Imaginary Creationism. Then he could pursue his evolutionary biology research with a lot clearer head. He seems very desperate to prove himself "correct" or "rational." But he lives in a country where no one is seriously threatening his right to be an atheist or a scientist. I think at heart he suspects that matter isn't real and that so-called "protons" with positive charges and "electrons" with negative charges don't really exist. And this knowledge makes him nervous, so he feels he has to justify himself in public.

The reason I joined these forums is because I was watching my imaginary television set in my imaginary living room, and I saw a commercial for some Richard Dawkins show where he was going around trying to argue with religious types or "disprove" psychic powers or something like that. I just wondered why he took himself that seriously and felt the need to attack people all the time. Or tried to get converts to atheism, which makes him seem no different from a Christian seeking converts. If he didn't believe that biological cells were real but were just elements in a collective psychosis shared by him and all other scientists, he could exist in this psychosis happily without needing to attack psychotic patients in the other ward labelled "Religious."

As for the bendy pencil, its independent existence cannot be verified either.

Heehee, fair enough.

I just wondered why he took himself that seriously and felt the need to attack people all the time

He doesn't.

[ficklefiend]

To use an analogy: a pencil cannot write on itself.

Really? What about this one?

http://www.penseurope.com/uk/products.asp?UID=&prod=VEN-CL-E445

I submit that the bendy pencil is incontrovertible evidence that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist after all.

Win.