Someone once asked why I dont believe in god.

Brak: Sorry, your're wrong. Atheism is not religion; there is nothing supernatural, sacred, or divine about the beliefs of atheists, which is the point.

Oh, and it is a secret to many people that religion is man-made.

How do you turn religion into something that's inherently good? The bible has to go, for example, since it contains quite a bit of evil. You really have to start from scratch. Good luck.

And in a world with no religion, there would be no religion; nobody would understand the concept of theism, except as a sort of delusion, but that's fine since there wouldn't be any theists in the first place.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='eldad9']Brak: Sorry, your're wrong. Atheism is not religion; there is nothing supernatural, sacred, or divine about the beliefs of atheists, which is the point.[/quote]

Again, you're not reading what I'm typing. Atheism can be like a religion, especially when it's in the hands of someone like you, where you belief is that there is no belief, and that others should have that belief. It's a ridiculous complex.

In my opinion, true "Atheists" - for the lack of a better term - don't align themselves with the label of "Atheist".

Bold enough to set themselves aside from the rest of the idiots, but not strong enough to not align themselves with another mass of people whom share the same belief.

[quote name='eldad9']How do you turn religion into something that's inherently good? The bible has to go, for example, since it contains quite a bit of evil. You really have to start from scratch. Good luck.[/QUOTE]

I never proposed to turn religions into something that's inherently good. Again, lying within that question, you're speaking in absolutes.

As I mentioned earlier, man, throughout the ages, ruin things -- especially if they have the power to do so. And what better way that to brainwash the masses through a religion? King James' version of the Bible, for instance. He edited the Bible and threw in some of his own ulterior motives. Not circumcised? See you in Hell, you bastard.

Not all religions are inherently good, but a lot of them, at their core, have a semblance of something good that once was. Throughout time, and through the hands of man, they've been sculpted to appease various motives.

[quote name='eldad9']And in a world with no religion, there would be no religion; nobody would understand the concept of theism, except as a sort of delusion, but that's fine since there wouldn't be any theists in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Erm... You do realize there has been a world with no religion, right? It's human nature, obviously, to be religious; to believe in a higher power, or to have a belief system, or else religion wouldn't be around today.

As I said before, a world with no religion is impossible, and you're frivolously battling in the most fruitless war I've ever seen.

I'm not one for the religious lifestyle, by any means... but I can't stand it when people try to punch the man in the mirror:

You strive for a world where everyone shares your mindset, just like - say - the Christians you're so eager to complain about. (Amongst other religions).
 
Sigh. When you tell an atheist that "Atheism is among the clump of religions you loathe" and "There's corruption in every form of religion, even yours" you're claiming that atheism is a religion. Not like a religion - a religion.

The world with no religion was an early one, with no science, no understanding of what rain or storm or lightning or life or growth or sickness or death are, so stories were told to explain these concepts to those who would otherwise be scared or confused. In a world with a rudimentary understanding of these concepts, there would be no need for religion any more.

And it's not like I'm spending my life trying to force everybody to stop deluding themselves. I'd prefer it, of course, for the reasons I've outlined earlier.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Sigh. When you tell an atheist that "Atheism is among the clump of religions you loathe"[/quote]

In context, here's what I said: "Atheism is among the clump of religions you loathe... or should be, anyway. Atheism can be as corrupt and ulterior as religions, themselves."

That clears that up.

[quote name='eldad9']and "There's corruption in every form of religion, even yours" you're claiming that atheism is a religion.[/quote]

You're clinging to the idea that I'm claiming Atheism is a religion, when that claim would be irrelevant to everything I'm trying to point out: Atheism is like a religion, sans-supernaturalism.

Read the paragraph before that line, which flows nicely into that statement, where I compare mainstream Atheism to religion, in that they both become sculpted into whatever one wants it to form.

[quote name='eldad9']The world with no religion was an early one, with no science, no understanding of what rain or storm or lightning or life or growth or sickness or death are, so stories were told to explain these concepts to those who would otherwise be scared or confused. In a world with a rudimentary understanding of these concepts, there would be no need for religion any more.[/quote]

And, yet again, your speaking solely in terms of the "magical" aspects of religion, and not the core moral beliefs. I'm tired of talking in circles, as much as I'm tired of you elaborating on the wrong points. As I mentioned earlier, in 17, or so, of my posts, you have misdirected angst towards religion. Do you dislike the unbelievable aspects of religion, or the moral guidelines? You're flipping between the two, whenever I try to discuss one of them.

[quote name='eldad9']And it's not like I'm spending my life trying to force everybody to stop deluding themselves. I'd prefer it, of course, for the reasons I've outlined earlier.[/QUOTE]
But I'm sure you'd nail any religion to the cross for wanting "non-believers" to see it their way, right? It's alright when you do it, though, because your belief system has no ties to a god, or higher power. That's what they call "free-thinking", right?
 
Fine. Let's dissect religion. Please help me by pointing out any errors or omissions. This is little more than stream-of-consciousness.

As far as I can see, most/all religions consist of:

* A moral code. This is as good - or bad - as code itself. It tends to become worse over time, since it's typically never updated. The bible, for instance, condones slavery and just places limit on the amount of physical abuse a slave may be subjected to.

* Claims about the nature of the universe. These are bad, since if taken literally they prevent people from seeking knowledge of the real nature, and if taken figuratively are meaningless.

* Other supernatural elements. While providing a sense of excitement and adventure, much like current sci-fi and fantasy, they may be dangerous if believed.

* Stories. These can be taken literally - which interferes with the study and science and history. They can also be taken as moral guidance, which is good if the stories are actually moral, but bad when they're not (I can cite dozens of biblical examples).

* Mechanisms to perpetuate the religion, including indoctrinating children practically since birth, threats to (the souls of) those who might consider disbelieving, banning mixed-religion marriages, etc. All rather horrible.

* Arbitrary rules and restrictions. Some might have had meaning at some point, but no longer. Fine when people choose to just limit themselves, but time and again we see people - especially in the majority religion - try to place these restrictions on others too.

...

Out of all of these, it's just the moral code that I see as potentially having any redeeming features, and at least in the "big three" monotheistic religions it's poisoned by the arbitrary rules and restrictions.
 
Sometimes people claim that without religion... humans will still find something to argue over and fight about. Although this may be somewhat true... I don't think people will ever take anything as seriously as they take religion. I mean... religious beliefs are based on things like an end to eternal suffering and stuff like that... the emotions that these ideas conjure up are so strong that well... people actually believe in them. People believe in stuff like heaven because it's a nice thought to have, and pretty much given the option would want to go to a place like heaven. Religious beliefs are so intrinsically tied to our vast array of emotions that wishful thinking is almost expected... for the less logical 90% of the population. Anyway.. I still think people would find something to fight over, but no sword will ever be raised higher than the one religion already has.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Many of those who call themselves Christians don't understand the religion very well, then.[/QUOTE]

I would agree with this wholeheartedly. Or at least agree with the fact that many are hypocrites.

[quote name='eldad9']And who is the church to label sex between two consenting adults as a sin?[/quote]

I don't follow you? Who are you to say mass murder is wrong? Huh? Are you criticizing them for having opinions?

[quote name='eldad9']This seems to me to fit the definition much better.[/QUOTE]

Wow, what a load of bullshit! How sad.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't follow you? Who are you to say mass murder is wrong? Huh? Are you criticizing them for having opinions?[/QUOTE]

Here's what's wrong: Hurting others.

I don't think anybody can really argue this, except for the sake or arguing. Mass murder is as bad as it gets.

What many christians believe is that they should be allowed to prevent other people from doing what their specific religion does not condone; therefore, they're the ones doing the hurting. It's that simple.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Here's what's wrong: Hurting others.[/quote]

Eldad9, I totally agree with 90% of what you say, and IMO you are one of the top ten smartest posters here.

However the devil in the details. I think the maxim that you should "treat others as you want to be treated" is better, because under your maxim things like euthanasia or disciplining a child for their own good would be immoral.
 
*blush*

One of the advantages of atheism is not having any devils to worry about; but I realize that's just an expression. So:

Euthanasia is not an act of hurting; it's preventing pain to others, often at considerable sacrifice to the self (guilt/etc). Sometimes we have to decide for others (as in the case of pets, who cannot make their wishes known to us and couldn't grasp the concept anyway). But there is certainly nothing wrong with helping to end the life or one who, in sound mind, has made the decision for himself.

I'd never hurt a child physically except to prevent a greater harm (like slapping a hand away from an open flame). I realize 80% of parents would tell me I'd change my mind once I had children of my own, though. I do not have a problem with discipline, as long as it is fair and the parent believes it is in the best long term interest of the child.

Perhaps what I'm looking for is "Treat others with fairness, kindness, and respect".
 
[quote name='eldad9']You too completely missed it. It's a probability problem, not a theory that claims to apply to the real world; math, not science.[/quote]

I still get lost in your reasoning. How can you state that it is simply "a probability problem," but neither a theory, math, nor science? By definition, probability is a mathematical theory which establishes the likelihood, that "almost surely" a chosen result will, or will not occur. This result must in turn be either zero or one. Again, I realize this goes back to an assumption that infinite is both possible and probable, with more weight given to the latter. However, given infinite possibilities and an infinite amount of time, the probability of both a monkey typing any chosen work of literature, and the existence of one god, gods, or My God must be one, as it cannot be zero. So while I agree you are right, as it is a probability problem. I have to disagree, because that must also, with congruence, be a mathematical theory. We can disagree on the results, but not the means. At any rate, feel free to rebut anything here. Though I would like to thank you for some of the best and most intellectual discourse I have enjoyed for quite some time. You seem like an intelligent individual, and I will put the rest aside. I will, as they say "Agree to Disagree." :applause:
 
I don't believe in God (or gods), but I don't think that's a valid reason to base your disbelief.

I mean, you are, of course, completely free to believe whatever for any reason or no reason at all, and I'm not going to judge you or anything. There's nothing that says you have to have a valid reason for anything. It's just that that's a line of thinking I can't agree with. It could easily be explained away that God exists and just doesn't monitor everyone's individual lives.
 
Sorry, you either missed the semicolon or thought it was a colon.
Probability is a mathematical concept, of course.

The word 'infinity' has quite a few meanings; I hope you're not confused by them.

Gods do not apply to the situation of the infinite monkeys, unless you believe at any moment there is a fixed probability for a certain type of god to be created or destroyed.

Let me state a rough equivalent to the infinite monkey theorem in slightly less mathematical terms:
If you have a row of dice, and keep rolling the entire line (while maintaining its order) forever, at some point you'll see every possible configuration of dice.

You must understand this intuitively for a single die. How about two? Five? Ten?

If instead of 6-sided dice you have 90 sided dice (an approximation of the number of characters a typewriter can produce) and the line contains several million characters - as long as the entire works of Shakespeare, it still holds.

That's it. That's all it is. An exercise in counter-intuitive mathematics.

It's difficult for me to agree to disagree - that either means a difference of opinions, which I can accept, or - as in this case - that I am not communicating clearly enough.



Edit: Good call, wikipedia - It is an excellent suggestion to post a link to Jorge Luis Borges' short story The Library of Babel. He wrote several other stories dealing with the infinite in several guises, but this applies best here (as does perhaps The Book of Sand).
 
[quote name='j_factor'] It could easily be explained away that God exists and just doesn't monitor everyone's individual lives.[/QUOTE]

I wonder what his workload is like. Does he monitor half of us? A fifth? How does he decide? Is it random?

Or maybe he doesn't affect anybody's life. In which case - what's the difference, practically speaking, between a god that exist and a god that does not?

Maybe there are four of them, but after creating the universe they went off to play five-dimensional twister and don't realize humans need them - or, indeed, that humans (or even their particular galaxy) exist.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Here's what's wrong: Hurting others.

I don't think anybody can really argue this, except for the sake or arguing. Mass murder is as bad as it gets.[/quote]

How did you come to this belief? Surely not by religion, so how? Do you think stealing is wrong? What about lying? I'm interested to know where you got your values (not being sarcastic).

[quote name='eldad9']What many christians believe is that they should be allowed to prevent other people from doing what their specific religion does not condone; therefore, they're the ones doing the hurting. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]

I guess it depends on your definition of "many," but I just don't see this as being true. Sure, some people want to make laws to make adultery, etc. illegal, but realize that we live in one of the most tolerant societies around, and most Western Christian societies are very tolerant of others. I don't see any European country passing laws that make non-Christians second-class citizens. So while your assertion may apply to a select few Christians, I think it's ludicrous to claim "many" Christians want to force people to follow their own rules.

OTOH, maybe you are referring to more substantial issues, like murder or rape or assault, for example. In that case, I'd bring the question back to my inquiry above. Surely, based on your own value system, you don't believe that abhorring these things constitutes Christian values only?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']How did you come to this belief? Surely not by religion, so how? Do you think stealing is wrong? What about lying? I'm interested to know where you got your values (not being sarcastic).[/quote]
I'm sorry, but hurting others being a bad thing is so basic, so profound, that I can't explain it well, other than say that you know being hurt is bad, and whenever somebody is hurt by someone, someone has to do the hurting. You may well have to see ask an actual philosopher about that one. Stealing is wrong because it hurts the victim. Lying may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances, chiefly the motive.

[quote name='elprincipe']I guess it depends on your definition of "many," but I just don't see this as being true. Sure, some people want to make laws to make adultery, etc. illegal, but realize that we live in one of the most tolerant societies around, and most Western Christian societies are very tolerant of others. I don't see any European country passing laws that make non-Christians second-class citizens. So while your assertion may apply to a select few Christians, I think it's ludicrous to claim "many" Christians want to force people to follow their own rules.

OTOH, maybe you are referring to more substantial issues, like murder or rape or assault, for example. In that case, I'd bring the question back to my inquiry above. Surely, based on your own value system, you don't believe that abhorring these things constitutes Christian values only?[/QUOTE]

This is not one of the most tolerant societies around. Some states are, but not all. Look at the attitudes towards religion, sex and sexuality, homosexuality, women, even free speech; while the laws may exist on paper, they're usually ignored. Same-sex marriage is hotly debated. Monotheism is advertised on currency. Cohabitation and interracial marriage only became legal in at least one state in the last few years. The president proclaims national prayer days; his father, also a president, once said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" and of course never apologized. Women are denied prescriptions based on the religious beliefs of pharmacists. The government uses loopholes to protect crosses on public land, but curiously no crescents or stars of david. Teenagers are taught sex is wrong instead of being prepared for it, leading to more teenage pregnancies than any other country in the western world. Nipples on television are a big deal - children must be protected from them at all costs. Medical research is in danger because of religious issues. Parents of school children demand kids should be taught anti-science as well as science. And this is just off the top of my head.

It's probably better in Europe; but here - this kind of thing wouldn't happen if most christians were of the benign kind.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't see any European country passing laws that make non-Christians second-class citizens. So while your assertion may apply to a select few Christians, I think it's ludicrous to claim "many" Christians want to force people to follow their own rules.[/quote]

Good one, El. You never cease to entertain :lol:

EUROPE'S MUSLIM communities increasingly are portrayed -- especially by European media -- as havens for religious intolerance that flourish thanks to the overly tolerant policies of liberal governments. It's true that until relatively recently, some Western European governments shrank from confronting clerics or others who promoted extremist ideology or encouraged terrorism. It's also true that some European artists and politicians have been threatened or even killed for criticizing or mocking Islam. But another important part of the dangerous increase in tensions between Europeans and Muslims is the blatant bigotry of many mainstream political leaders, journalists and other elites against Islam and its followers.
...
On Nov. 17, just five days before Wednesday's hard-fought general election in the Netherlands, the incumbent center-right government promised that, if reelected, it would introduce legislation to ban the wearing of burqas and other facial coverings in most public places, including courts, schools, trains and even streets. The ruling Christian Democratic Appeal party finished first in the voting, but the makeup of the next government remains unclear. If enacted, the prohibition would affect no more than a few dozen of the country's 1 million Muslims, who make up some 6 percent of the population. But the point is symbolic: A country famous for tolerating prostitution, drug use, euthanasia and public nudity considers Muslim veiling beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401112.html
 
[quote name='camoor']Good one, El. You never cease to entertain :lol:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401112.html[/quote]
I think that just about anyone that agrees with that Washing Post editorial isn't actually aware of the problem that the Muslim subculture causes in Europe. I'm from Europe (Eastern Europe) but I've spent a lot of time in Western countries and I can tell you first hand that Muslims are a huge source of grief for many Europeans. It's similar to what happens in regards to the US... Immigrants talk shit about the US but given an opportunity to come here, they swoop down on it and continue to talk shit all the way to the immigration office. Jealousy and biggotry go hand in hand.

btw, look at some of the comments on that same editorial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006112401112

Apparently many Europeans share my sentiments.
 
[quote name='PhrostByte']I think that just about anyone that agrees with that Washing Post editorial isn't actually aware of the problem that the Muslim subculture causes in Europe. I'm from Europe (Eastern Europe) but I've spent a lot of time in Western countries and I can tell you first hand that Muslims are a huge source of grief for many Europeans. It's similar to what happens in regards to the US... Immigrants talk shit about the US but given an opportunity to come here, they swoop down on it and continue to talk shit all the way to the immigration office. Jealousy and biggotry go hand in hand.

btw, look at some of the comments on that same editorial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006112401112

Apparently many Europeans share my sentiments.[/quote]

El said that he didn't "see any European country passing laws that make non-Christians second-class citizens".

I responded with a concrete example. If you want to look beyond law, Europeans also exhibit cultural prejudice to outsiders in both public policies and corporate behavior.

I don't see many immigrants to the USA insulting our way of life or looking to change the law of the land in the manner of the Christian fundementalist theocrats that recently hijacked the federal government.

I certainly think that the Muslim peoples are partially responsible for the recent backlash against them - their general intolerance to progressive ideals such as freedom and gender equality, their inability to police the radical element of their religion, and their muted reactions to atrocities committed by their bretheren have certainly been nothing but bad moves for a group that routinely attempts to portray itself as a religion of peace and love. However I also believe that "fighting fire with fire" is not a viable long-term strategy, however much truthiness it may make you feel.
 
[quote name='eldad9']I'm sorry, but hurting others being a bad thing is so basic, so profound, that I can't explain it well, other than say that you know being hurt is bad, and whenever somebody is hurt by someone, someone has to do the hurting. You may well have to see ask an actual philosopher about that one. Stealing is wrong because it hurts the victim. Lying may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances, chiefly the motive.[/quote]

Interesting. Are you of the opinion that there are universal human values built into our species that don't come from religion?

[quote name='eldad9']This is not one of the most tolerant societies around. Some states are, but not all. Look at the attitudes towards religion, sex and sexuality, homosexuality, women, even free speech; while the laws may exist on paper, they're usually ignored. Same-sex marriage is hotly debated. Monotheism is advertised on currency. Cohabitation and interracial marriage only became legal in at least one state in the last few years. The president proclaims national prayer days; his father, also a president, once said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" and of course never apologized. Women are denied prescriptions based on the religious beliefs of pharmacists. The government uses loopholes to protect crosses on public land, but curiously no crescents or stars of david. Teenagers are taught sex is wrong instead of being prepared for it, leading to more teenage pregnancies than any other country in the western world. Nipples on television are a big deal - children must be protected from them at all costs. Medical research is in danger because of religious issues. Parents of school children demand kids should be taught anti-science as well as science. And this is just off the top of my head.

It's probably better in Europe; but here - this kind of thing wouldn't happen if most christians were of the benign kind.[/QUOTE]

I challenge you to name a more tolerant society than Western society in today's world, in that case. This is not to say Western society is completely tolerant of this, that or the other, but merely that it is more tolerant of lifestyle choices (including choice of religion!) than other societies.

Strange you would point to Europe as being "better" in this regard when France has banned headscarves from schools, there are riots in the streets of Paris, Turks are not allowed to be German citizens, etc.

I also challenge your assertion that most Christians aren't benign. I think the vast majority of Christians don't want to push their religious beliefs on anyone, much less hurt anyone. I'd love to see any proof otherwise (not holding my breath because there is none).
 
[quote name='eldad9']The world is getting less primitive by the millennium. There are less scientists who are religious now than a thousand years ago; a thousand years from now there will be less than today. And it doesn't take a god to have make a person curious and intelligent and focused. There is good inherent in the human condition.[/QUOTE]

You're changing the course of the discussion because I vaporized the original point. Though I don't remember who said it (you?), the person I responded to had made the statement that the world would be better off without religion. My point is, whether you like it or not, the VAST majority of 'good' things we have in this world were invented/discovered/etc by people who were seeking to please God through their good deeds. It is a statistically verifiable fact of historical record - like it or not.

[quote name='eldad9']

You're tying communism and atheism unnecessarily.

[/QUOTE]

Very good, you went out and found someone who agreed with you and sent a link to their article. I can do that too. Or I could simply deduce reality from history. Communism is as close to an athiestic government as has ever been attempted. Though your article spoke only of Russia, let me remind you of the multiple nations who attempted it and failed to produce anything but misery and depravity EVERY TIME - while Western "religious" nations flourished. Take away a person's incentive and they wither.

There is good religion and bad religion. Bad religion inspires terrible deeds. Good religion inspires some of the most incredibly good acts the world has ever seen. The comment "the world would be better without religion" is like saying "the world would be better off without airplanes" based on the notion that removing airplanes would remove the possibility for air attacks by terrorists or enemies. "Oh, some people use them for bad so we're just better off without it". You're blinded by your personal bias against religion.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Sorry, you either missed the semicolon or thought it was a colon.
Probability is a mathematical concept, of course.

The word 'infinity' has quite a few meanings; I hope you're not confused by them.

Gods do not apply to the situation of the infinite monkeys, unless you believe at any moment there is a fixed probability for a certain type of god to be created or destroyed.

Let me state a rough equivalent to the infinite monkey theorem in slightly less mathematical terms:
If you have a row of dice, and keep rolling the entire line (while maintaining its order) forever, at some point you'll see every possible configuration of dice.

You must understand this intuitively for a single die. How about two? Five? Ten?

If instead of 6-sided dice you have 90 sided dice (an approximation of the number of characters a typewriter can produce) and the line contains several million characters - as long as the entire works of Shakespeare, it still holds.

That's it. That's all it is. An exercise in counter-intuitive mathematics.

[/QUOTE]

I understand your theory, I just don't think it's reasonable. If you have 90 of your 90-sided dice, and you leave the room for 5 minutes - then come back and all 90 are lined up next to each other numbered 1 through 90, you have two possibilities.

1) Somebody came in, tossed the dice for up to 5 minutes, and they just so happened to finally land in perfect order, 1 - 90, all lined up perfectly next to each other.

2) Somebody came in, grabbed the dice, and intentionally lined them all up.

The universe displays design - you surely know this from some philosophy class or paper your took/read. You also know that, given enough time, probabilities can mimic design. However, the amount of time necessary to stack all of those probabilities into a case where a reasonable person can look at the data and say "there is a reasonable likelihood this all happened by random chance" is so much greater than our current calculations of the universe it is inconsequential.

I can tell you from my own experience that God is real, that He loves every one of us, and that He actively works out good in the universe. I can show you form an educational standpoint why I can stand back from my emotions and challenge these beliefs with reason and logic as well.

But even for a person who refuses all of that testimony, you still are left with the following "decision", much like your 90-sided dice:

1) An infinite number of things happened perfectly to make what we have today:
Odds: 1 in 1 million (I'm being infinitely generous here, by the way)

2) There is a God who made everything:
Odds: 1 in 2
 
[quote name='chosen1s']1) An infinite number of things happened perfectly to make what we have today:
Odds: 1 in 1 million (I'm being infinitely generous here, by the way)

2) There is a God who made everything:
Odds: 1 in 2[/QUOTE]

Alright, explain the math here. If the latter is supposed to be that "well, God did it or didn't do it," then you're measuring a wholly different probability than the die hypothetical. You're comparing "event 1 happened" with "event 1 did not happen." To compare that with the die/coincidence hypothesis, you'll find that you have the same probability (if you want an apples to apples comparison, mind you). That the infinite number of things did happen, or they did not. The probability of that is 1 in 2.

Now, otherwise, I'd love to hear how the odds of it being "God" are 50-50. Billions of people have been waiting for billions of years for empirical proof (well, maybe 200-300 years - empiricism is just what the hip kids of the past 3 centuries are into).
 
I don't mean this to be offensive, but thats a typical backwards and self-centered religious way of thinking.

Why does the universe have to have formed perfectly to suit our every need and whim? Yes, I would say its quite convenient that our atmorphere contains both the perfect amount of oxygen and nitrogen for us to breath. Additionally, its nice that our atmosphere blocks out much of the suns radiation that is fatal to us. These are among millions of other slim probabilities that are awefully nice they happened together to make the world a perfect environment for us.

However, thats like asking how you got the jello mold to fit the jellow so perfectly.


IE, the world didn't just randomly happen to come together in the perfect way to sustain us, but instead, we evolved to tailor ourselves to our environment. I know evolution is a dirty, dirty word to someone arrogant enough to think the world was designed with them in mind, but if you look at the "facts" of our existance instead of the tales of simple minded peoples crafted to help them understand the world around them and not fear the futility of existance (in the metaphysical sense) that are long dead, you come to the conclusion that maybe religion isn't all its cracked up to be.





Woa... I really derailed here... read on at your own peril.

However, that is not to say religion is totally without merit. There are still a lot of simple, insecure people that feel they need their hands held through life. They aren't strong enough to accept the posiblity that maybe we only get one shot at this life thing and then we're done. That doesn't bode well with the human ego. "Everything of my oh so important life of taking advantage of others is going to waste!? This can't be!" However, this is only the more recent mind set.

Rewind about... 10,000 years? Nomadic tribes without the slightest ideas of the forces of nature wander the planet. No one knows that the sun heating the waters creates, among other things, rain, wind and oceanic currents. Every aspect of nature is given the persona of a god to make it understandable to their simple minds and to remove the fear of the unknown. "Thats not some dangerous unknown monster, thats just Jeff, our god of snowflakes!" I speculate that places like hell (or other places of eternal punishment) were just an early form of keeping people somewhat compliant. If you act like a total dick while you're alive, your soul is tortured for eternity. Makes a pretty effective crime deterent. It also makes a bit of sense seeing how a lot of leaders used to claim to be living dieties on earth. IE- listen to me or I'll torture you for eternity. While it could be played off to abuse the populace, it'd still help keep a lot of people in line.

Skipping to more modern things like Christianity... It lays down a moral code, perpetuates itself by requiring the indoctrination of the young, gives its clergy special rights/powers and damns its non-followers to an eternity of suffering.

Christianity is the one religion that should really give away the fact that its all BS. In the begining God was a bad mofo who would probably damn your soul for just about everything, unless you payed for your confession, gave regular donations and subscribed your kids to the same ideology. The church wanted everyone united under one ideology. While I can apreciate the goal, the means are deplorable. In the Dark Ages, higher education... like the 3rd grade... was reserved for nobility and clergy. Even if the commoners could read, clergy were the only ones God wanted to interpret the Bible.

The lower classes were there pretty much just to use for labor and discard Why would someone throw away their lives for such a pitiful existance? Dying fighting the system of ruler ship or working to death in fields wouldn't have been a very hard decision. However, the church backed the monarchy, and going against the church was heresy, so was not following the the church in general. So if you didn't believe, you converted or died. If you did believe you wouldn't want to risk eternal punishment over a little thing like a life a servatude.

I really don't doubt that the Church had a lot do to with the Dark Ages. The longer they could keep the masses complacent and indoctrinated, the easier the could be controlled.

This brings us to roughly now. People are, on average, smarter than ever. We are more critical of our environments and make bigger and more important decisions. People are leaving the churches and the church is losing its influence. The Catholic church hasn't changed much since its inception. Mass was still in latin until the middle of the 20th century. Most of their biggest changes have been in the last 50 years and its because they see people not vibing with the fire and brimstone act now that the church really cant burn you alive anymore. Now God loves everyone and is so forgiving, as long as you're really really sorry you were a heretic when you die, he'll forgive you.





[quote name='chosen1s']
1) An infinite number of things happened perfectly to make what we have today:
Odds: 1 in 1 million (I'm being infinitely generous here, by the way)

2) There is a God who made everything:
Odds: 1 in 2[/quote]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Interesting. Are you of the opinion that there are universal human values built into our species that don't come from religion?[/quote]
Again, this issue is so simple and basic that you need a philosopher. How do you explain that hurting others is wrong?

Of course there's a biological element in play here. Hurting others of your own species is not a positive trait from an evolutionary perspective.

[quote name='elprincipe']I challenge you to name a more tolerant society than Western society in today's world, in that case. This is not to say Western society is completely tolerant of this, that or the other, but merely that it is more tolerant of lifestyle choices (including choice of religion!) than other societies.

Strange you would point to Europe as being "better" in this regard when France has banned headscarves from schools, there are riots in the streets of Paris, Turks are not allowed to be German citizens, etc.

I also challenge your assertion that most Christians aren't benign. I think the vast majority of Christians don't want to push their religious beliefs on anyone, much less hurt anyone. I'd love to see any proof otherwise (not holding my breath because there is none).[/QUOTE]

You're switching from a discussion of the U.S. to the entire 'western society' which you of course equate with christianity and then proceed to claim causality. Correlation does not equal causality. You could just as well make the case that it's the roman alphabet, or maybe a racial factor which is the only decisive factor.

Canada would be a better candidate than (most?) european countries. I haven't really looked into it that much.

And again, you switch from 'many' to 'most'.

And where is the moral outrage of, say, benign christians in alabama when a rogue christian wants to publicly display his religion in his courtroom? Could it be that there aren't that many of them?
 
[quote name='chosen1s']You're changing the course of the discussion because I vaporized the original point. Though I don't remember who said it (you?), the person I responded to had made the statement that the world would be better off without religion. My point is, whether you like it or not, the VAST majority of 'good' things we have in this world were invented/discovered/etc by people who were seeking to please God through their good deeds. It is a statistically verifiable fact of historical record - like it or not.[/quote]
Ridiculous - and irrelevant even if true - most inventions were made by meat eaters; this discounts vegeterianism.

[quote name='chosen1s']Very good, you went out and found someone who agreed with you and sent a link to their article. I can do that too. Or I could simply deduce reality from history. Communism is as close to an athiestic government as has ever been attempted. Though your article spoke only of Russia, let me remind you of the multiple nations who attempted it and failed to produce anything but misery and depravity EVERY TIME - while Western "religious" nations flourished. Take away a person's incentive and they wither.

There is good religion and bad religion. Bad religion inspires terrible deeds. Good religion inspires some of the most incredibly good acts the world has ever seen. The comment "the world would be better without religion" is like saying "the world would be better off without airplanes" based on the notion that removing airplanes would remove the possibility for air attacks by terrorists or enemies. "Oh, some people use them for bad so we're just better off without it". You're blinded by your personal bias against religion.[/QUOTE]

You may not attack an argument based on its source. Please read up on logical fallacies.

And again, correlation/causality. People who were atheists did bad things; that proves atheism is bad. That's like "proving" video games are bad because teens who played video games went on a killing spree.

Doesn't christianity teach us to share any wealth rather than hoard it? Perhaps that explains Christian Communism.

Other required reading for you:
Atheism vs Communism
US recognizes USSR
Atheism myths
 
[quote name='chosen1s']I understand your theory, I just don't think it's reasonable. If you have 90 of your 90-sided dice, and you leave the room for 5 minutes - then come back and all 90 are lined up next to each other numbered 1 through 90, you have two possibilities.

1) Somebody came in, tossed the dice for up to 5 minutes, and they just so happened to finally land in perfect order, 1 - 90, all lined up perfectly next to each other.

2) Somebody came in, grabbed the dice, and intentionally lined them all up.

The universe displays design - you surely know this from some philosophy class or paper your took/read. You also know that, given enough time, probabilities can mimic design. However, the amount of time necessary to stack all of those probabilities into a case where a reasonable person can look at the data and say "there is a reasonable likelihood this all happened by random chance" is so much greater than our current calculations of the universe it is inconsequential.

I can tell you from my own experience that God is real, that He loves every one of us, and that He actively works out good in the universe. I can show you form an educational standpoint why I can stand back from my emotions and challenge these beliefs with reason and logic as well.

But even for a person who refuses all of that testimony, you still are left with the following "decision", much like your 90-sided dice:

1) An infinite number of things happened perfectly to make what we have today:
Odds: 1 in 1 million (I'm being infinitely generous here, by the way)

2) There is a God who made everything:
Odds: 1 in 2[/QUOTE]

You're being completely ridiculous.

You jump from a mathematical example to the origin of life. Dice do not breed; they do not mutate; they do not evolve.

The universe does not display design.

And there is no way you can prove your god is real - if you could do that, no faith would be required. If it makes you feel better to think that, go ahead - just don't mistake it for a fact.

Your final calculation, of course, is ridiculous. Either santa claus exists or he doesn't - the odds are 1 in 2. Not to mention at least he gets sighted, and all those presents don't wrap themselves.
 
I'm gonna avoid the whole god conversation, no one's ever swayed by anyone else's arguments/attacks.

I'm sorry, but hurting others being a bad thing is so basic, so profound, that I can't explain it well, other than say that you know being hurt is bad, and whenever somebody is hurt by someone, someone has to do the hurting. You may well have to see ask an actual philosopher about that one. Stealing is wrong because it hurts the victim. Lying may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances, chiefly the motive.
Click to expand...

The way that you state this is maybe a bit closer to what I would expect a religious philospher to say. The truth is, philosophically (from what I've read in books, not wikipedia(that's not a dig on you, I just think wikipedia is one of the worst things ever)) that hurting/stealing/lying/etc others is bad inasmuch as it promotes the same being done to you, so it's not worth taking the chance of doing it and hoping you don't get caught. General realization and acceptance of this fact leads to the social contract, which is all about trading some self-interests to protect as many others as possible. What's in the interest of evolution never enters into anyone's thoughts, either.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']1) Somebody came in, tossed the dice for up to 5 minutes, and they just so happened to finally land in perfect order, 1 - 90, all lined up perfectly next to each other.

2) Somebody came in, grabbed the dice, and intentionally lined them all up.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna go with:

3) Somebody came in, intentionally lined the dice up, and then made up a story about some invisible guy doing it to try and separate me from my money. :cool:
 
I love the probability arguments, they always sound so right.

Here, let's take an example. Many times people have talked about the amount of precision necessary for the Earth to support life and how improbable it is, and therefore god.

What this argument (and most probability arguments) lacks is perspective. There are a lot of things that have to go right to support life (as we know it) as far as the position of the planet relative to its star, etc. Ignoring the fact that even the seemingly random formation of planets and stars isn't left to purely chance, it would seem impossible for a planet resembling ours to come about randomly. Then you look around a the billions of stars and planets that could possibly be orbiting them and see that we haven't found any similar to ours (in our extremely limited ability). So maybe the chances are 1 in 10 billion for the Earth to form as it has, but why can't it be the 1?

When the argument is used for evolution everyone seems to forget the mechanisms that actually guide evolution, but it's even easier to forget that almost nothing happens purely by chance. One thing affects the other and makes it impossible for things to happen entirely randomly, but that doesn't necessitate intelligence.

I hope somebody actually reads this whole thing...
 
[quote name='eldad9']Again, this issue is so simple and basic that you need a philosopher. How do you explain that hurting others is wrong?

Of course there's a biological element in play here. Hurting others of your own species is not a positive trait from an evolutionary perspective.[/quote]

Hurting others can be quite beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, though. If you wound/kill your rivals, you are more likely to reproduce, thus pass on your genes, thus being successful from an evolutionary standpoint. Most species don't exhibit altruism, either.

[quote name='eldad9']You're switching from a discussion of the U.S. to the entire 'western society' which you of course equate with christianity and then proceed to claim causality. Correlation does not equal causality. You could just as well make the case that it's the roman alphabet, or maybe a racial factor which is the only decisive factor.

Canada would be a better candidate than (most?) european countries. I haven't really looked into it that much.[/quote]

Well, Western does not necessarily equal Christian. Ethiopia is a Christian country. So is Russia. Neither are Western for sure. Those examples can also be used to say Christianity in and of itself does not equal tolerance (witness Russia's religion laws).

I merely noted that Western societies are more tolerant than any other societies on our planet. It just so happens, not coincidentally, that most Westernized societies are majority-Christian...so do the math. You say correlation is not causality, yet there are dozens of examples of 90+% Christian countries that are VERY tolerant of other religions and people's postmodern lifestyle choices -- yes, shock, including those in direct conflict with basic principles of Christianity!

[quote name='eldad9']And where is the moral outrage of, say, benign christians in alabama when a rogue christian wants to publicly display his religion in his courtroom? Could it be that there aren't that many of them?[/QUOTE]

Legal questions over that particular case aside (we can discuss if you want, but I think the right decision (removal) was made, and I believe more Christians agree with that decision than disagree), why do you feel someone wanting to publicly display their religion need be frowned upon? Are you offended when you see Muslim women wearing headscarves, people wearing crucifixes or yamakas? What about, God forbid, Hindu women with red dots on their foreheads? Shame on them for "pushing their religion" on you!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hurting others can be quite beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, though. If you wound/kill your rivals, you are more likely to reproduce, thus pass on your genes, thus being successful from an evolutionary standpoint. Most species don't exhibit altruism, either.[/quote]
True to some extent... but animals do help others of the same species. Killing your kind may help the individual in the short term, but it's not a viable long term strategy for the species.


[quote name='elprincipe']Well, Western does not necessarily equal Christian. Ethiopia is a Christian country. So is Russia. Neither are Western for sure. Those examples can also be used to say Christianity in and of itself does not equal tolerance (witness Russia's religion laws).[/quote]

What do you mean by 'christian countries'? Those where christianity is the official religion? Those where over 50% of the citizens are christian?

Oh, and the CIA disagrees with you at least about Ethiopia:
Religions: Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%
And as for Russia:
Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.)
note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of Soviet rule.

[quote name='elprincipe']I merely noted that Western societies are more tolerant than any other societies on our planet. It just so happens, not coincidentally, that most Westernized societies are majority-Christian...so do the math. You say correlation is not causality, yet there are dozens of examples of 90+% Christian countries that are VERY tolerant of other religions and people's postmodern lifestyle choices -- yes, shock, including those in direct conflict with basic principles of Christianity![/quote]
Are you actually claiming that correlation is the same thing as causality? And is your argument that the correlation is strong in this case?

[quote name='elprincipe']Legal questions over that particular case aside (we can discuss if you want, but I think the right decision (removal) was made, and I believe more Christians agree with that decision than disagree), why do you feel someone wanting to publicly display their religion need be frowned upon? Are you offended when you see Muslim women wearing headscarves, people wearing crucifixes or yamakas? What about, God forbid, Hindu women with red dots on their foreheads? Shame on them for "pushing their religion" on you![/QUOTE]
You sound exactly like a troll. Do you really not understand the difference?
 
In response to elprincipe, with how very recently this tolerance has developed in western society I wouldn't attribute it to the Christianity that has existed throughout almost the entire span of western history.

It simply makes more sense to be more tolerant and it has been a very long and hard lesson learned in western society (or at least where it has been learned, since within the societies of course there are still many intolerant people) with Christianity being used both for and against tolerance.

I think religions are interpreted based on society more often than society is created based on religion (afterall, society had to have come about before any organized religion anyway). It is a very complicated mix though with society interpreting religion and religion affecting society.

It's obvious though, especially in the Old Testament of the Bible and Judaic law, that religion was used to enforce laws created more or less for social order, so it was more of a justification than a reason.
 
[quote name='eldad9']True to some extent... but animals do help others of the same species. Killing your kind may help the individual in the short term, but it's not a viable long term strategy for the species.[/quote]

Disagree. Many species gain advantage by eliminating rivals, usually by eating smaller rivals (satisfying hunger and preventing competition, two birds with one stone!).

[quote name='eldad9']What do you mean by 'christian countries'? Those where christianity is the official religion? Those where over 50% of the citizens are christian?

Oh, and the CIA disagrees with you at least about Ethiopia:
Religions: Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%
And as for Russia:
Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.)
note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of Soviet rule.[/quote]

Thanks for the stats. I thought offhand Ethiopia had a higher % of Christians. I'm sure most Russians would describe themselves as Orthodox, even if they don't attend church. I don't even think it's that much different than, for example, most Spanish describing themselves as Catholic while not attending church services. I'm sure that due to the Soviet history there are more Russians that don't attend, however.

[quote name='eldad9']Are you actually claiming that correlation is the same thing as causality? And is your argument that the correlation is strong in this case?[/quote]

No, and I never claimed causality. But I do claim that the tolerance that has developed in Western society has been able to come about in part due to a religious climate that allowed it, as opposed to Islamic societies would be the clearest contrast.

[quote name='eldad9']You sound exactly like a troll. Do you really not understand the difference?[/QUOTE]

You claim all Christians should decry someone for "publicly displaying" (your words) religion, claim they don't and therefore are intolerant, and then have the nerve to call ME a troll? I guess the real question is why are you afraid of someone publicly displaying their religion? Few get upset when you publicly display your atheism, I don't doubt. Unless you were referring only to the Roy Moore case, in which case I already commented on that.

[quote name='SpazX']In response to elprincipe, with how very recently this tolerance has developed in western society I wouldn't attribute it to the Christianity that has existed throughout almost the entire span of western history.

It simply makes more sense to be more tolerant and it has been a very long and hard lesson learned in western society (or at least where it has been learned, since within the societies of course there are still many intolerant people) with Christianity being used both for and against tolerance. [/quote]

Indeed I agree with this. As I say above, I did not claim Christianity caused tolerance, merely that it allowed it to come into being.
 
If I may interject ...

[quote name='elprincipe']Disagree. Many species gain advantage by eliminating rivals, usually by eating smaller rivals (satisfying hunger and preventing competition, two birds with one stone!).[/QUOTE]

Bees, wolves, lions, dolphins, apes, and all sorts of other social animals exhibit what could be considered altruism, if we're going to attribute such traits to animals. Hurting rivals IS often beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, but not to the extent of breaking the social compact that allows them to survive more efficiently over the long haul. It's "killing my rival now is beneficial to me, in the short term" versus "killing my rival is NOT beneficial to my whole group in the long term, because maybe he's a strong hunter, or he'll fight outside threats for us, or killing him and removing the useful things he provides the group will strip me of the protections I enjoy from said group."

[quote name='elprincipe']No, and I never claimed causality. But I do claim that the tolerance that has developed in Western society has been able to come about in part due to a religious climate that allowed it, as opposed to Islamic societies would be the clearest contrast.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here (ironically), but if we're willing to accept the "Tolerance coincides with Western (Christian) society" hypothesis as possible, one could just as easily sugggest that tolerance coincides with SECULAR western society. Surely it's no coincidence that as we've become less religious after the Industial Revolution, we've made the most progress with equality and brotherhood overall. And the fact that Islamic societies lag behind us her in some ways (though not as many as people think) is because they lag behing us developmentally, not because they're non-Christian.

Or rather, perhaps it IS a coincidence ... but not really more of one than what you suggest.

[quote name='elprincipe']Indeed I agree with this. As I say above, I did not claim Christianity caused tolerance, merely that it allowed it to come into being.[/QUOTE]

See above. I could also suggest that throughout the course of Western history, when societies have been at their most Christian, they've been at their least tolerant, so it wouldn't be Christianity allowing tolerance to come into being so much as tolerance popping up when Christianity wasn't around to smack it back down.

EDIT: I just realized I skipped a page of posts, so if I repeated points that have already been made, just ignore me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Disagree. Many species gain advantage by eliminating rivals, usually by eating smaller rivals (satisfying hunger and preventing competition, two birds with one stone!).
[/quote]
Again, there's a balance here. As an extreme example, if a male kills all other males of the species, the species will likely die out completely.

[quote name='elprincipe']
No, and I never claimed causality. But I do claim that the tolerance that has developed in Western society has been able to come about in part due to a religious climate that allowed it, as opposed to Islamic societies would be the clearest contrast.
[/quote]

"Allowed" it? This is the same religion that gave us the crusades and witch hunts. If you claim christianity is not incompatible with tolerance, I agree. But it doesn't guarantee it. Just as people today use it to argue against gay rights, it was used centuries ago as an argument for slavery.

[quote name='elprincipe']
You claim all Christians should decry someone for "publicly displaying" (your words) religion, claim they don't and therefore are intolerant, and then have the nerve to call ME a troll? I guess the real question is why are you afraid of someone publicly displaying their religion? Few get upset when you publicly display your atheism, I don't doubt. Unless you were referring only to the Roy Moore case, in which case I already commented on that.[/quote]

No... fine, I'll assume you really can't see the difference, so I'll explain it.

I was referring, as I thought was obvious from my post, to public displays on government property, such as that commandment case or the mount soledad cross. (By the way, who gets to decide which translation of the bible, and which of the two versions, should be used? There are multiple versions, which can be very, very different.

Oh, and how can I publicly display my atheism?
 
Long time troll, first time poster:

To the original poster: Nobody should tell you what you believe in, and nobody should have even asked you why you don't believe in God. It's your right to decide what you want to believe in, and your right alone. It doesn't make you any less to have a different opinion, and it certainly does not make you any better.

In the same way people should respect your convictions, it is only fair that you respect that of others. Believing in God does not make anybody stupid.

That said, I believe that reason you gave to start this vacuous thread is weak. You came to no scientific conclusion, you simply became bitter that the world wasn't fair to yourself and your friend. You want God to help you find your shoes in the morning but since he isn't there to do it for you, or wipe your ass and help you win the lottery, then he must not be there at all, and we're all stupid for believing in it. Right.

If you had said "I have thoroughly studied the human genome and the geological evolution of the earth and have concluded without shadow of a doubt that God does not exist", then MAYBE you'd have something worth listening. All in all your message is "I don't believe in God, because life is not fair. If you don't believe what i believe in, you're a fucking moron"

My problem is not with your beliefs, it's with your belittleing of others based on theirs. It doesn't bother me that you believe in something other than what I believe in, and it should not bother you that others have different ideas about life and the universe.

And let’s get into evolution. Why do people assume that people with faith in a higher power have none for science? I regard evolution as fact, I have high hopes for medical science and believe (with my limited understanding) in theoretical physics, which is almost faith based in many respects. Do you really believe that if you survived the atom splitting gravity of a black hole you would come out the other side unharmed into a parallel universe where things might be just a little bit different? I believe it is possible, since I don’t know what’s on the other side of a black hole to make an ass out of myself and deny it entirely.

In summation, Darwin and I do not conflict in the theory of evolution. The Galapagos finches he studied have already evolved in the past 20 years and adapted to environmental changes just within a few generation. Case closed.

And let’s talk about the atrocities committed by the church. I’ll agree, they are horrible and beyond compare, from the Crusades to the Spanish conquest of the Americas, and from the Inquisition to the cover up of the pedophilia scandal... just fucking terrible stuff. However, it is foolish to believe that religion is the source of all evil rather than a powerful tool to dumb down the masses and in it’s absence something else will take it’s place. Let’s not forget communist Russia was always secular and last time I checked, Stalin wasn’t the poster boy of rational though. Neither was Lenin, or Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot.

Being atheist is not wrong. Having faith is not wrong. Being an asshole of any denomination IS.
 
[quote name='WraTH']Lots of good stuff, boiling down to...

Being atheist is not wrong. Having faith is not wrong. Being an asshole of any denomination IS.[/QUOTE]

Well said.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Again, there's a balance here. As an extreme example, if a male kills all other males of the species, the species will likely die out completely.[/quote]

Obviously.

[quote name='eldad9']"Allowed" it? This is the same religion that gave us the crusades and witch hunts. If you claim christianity is not incompatible with tolerance, I agree. But it doesn't guarantee it. Just as people today use it to argue against gay rights, it was used centuries ago as an argument for slavery.[/quote]

Yes, allowed it. Again, you are reading things into my posts that I never typed. Did I ever say things like the Crusades or Salem (not to mention other far more ghastly things like the Inquisition) didn't happen? Every cause has people who take it to extremes and religion, as you well know, is hardly immune from that.

But in the third sentence above you are basically agreeing with what I was arguing, so I guess I shouldn't be arguing too much about it.

[quote name='eldad9']No... fine, I'll assume you really can't see the difference, so I'll explain it.

I was referring, as I thought was obvious from my post, to public displays on government property, such as that commandment case or the mount soledad cross. (By the way, who gets to decide which translation of the bible, and which of the two versions, should be used? There are multiple versions, which can be very, very different.[/quote]

Fine then, assuming by public displays you mean publicly-funded displays and not something like a government employee wearing a crucifix and the like.

[quote name='eldad9']Oh, and how can I publicly display my atheism?[/QUOTE]

Oh, very easily. You seem outspoken on the issue, so I'm sure you make no secret that you do not attend church services, think God does not exist, do not follow any religious traditions, wear religious clothing, pray, etc.
 
[quote name='WraTH']Long time troll, first time poster:[/quote]

Welcome.

[quote name='WraTH']And let’s get into evolution. Why do people assume that people with faith in a higher power have none for science? I regard evolution as fact,

In summation, Darwin and I do not conflict in the theory of evolution. The Galapagos finches he studied have already evolved in the past 20 years and adapted to environmental changes just within a few generation. Case closed.
[/QUOTE]

I may regret this, but...why do you regard the THEORY of evolution as a fact? No responsible scientist will claim that.

And the example you point to of the finches on the Galapagos is an example of natural selection, not evolution. There was no mutation involved, no changing of genetic material, just a selection of one trait present in genetic material over another trait. Until scientists can provide real-world evidence of beneficial mutations occurring in natural populations at a rate that would allow advanced animals like humans to evolve over the time allotted, the science of the random creation of life and evolution will be controversial at best.
 
[quote name='WraTH']Long time troll, first time poster:

To the original poster: Nobody should tell you what you believe in, and nobody should have even asked you why you don't believe in God. It's your right to decide what you want to believe in, and your right alone. It doesn't make you any less to have a different opinion, and it certainly does not make you any better.

In the same way people should respect your convictions, it is only fair that you respect that of others. Believing in God does not make anybody stupid. [/QUOTE]

Believing things with absolutely no factual basis, and despite clear evidence to the contrary, is stupid.

But stupidity isn't a crime. If it makes you feel safe and snug to imagine an invisible monster taking care of you... go right ahead. As long, that is, as your delusions don't hurt others.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I may regret this, but...why do you regard the THEORY of evolution as a fact? No responsible scientist will claim that.
[/QUOTE]

Oh dear.

I was going to just say that we've reached an understanding of sorts, and just suggest that you might be interested in this paper called Darwin on the Evolution of Morality, until I saw this.

The theory of evolution is every much a fact as gravitational theory (which I'm sure you agree with, because it does not clash with your religion, at least enough to not walk off the roof of a building); every reputable scientist will tell you as much. You are perhaps confused about the multiple meanings of the word "theory".

Claiming evolution is wrong is slightly less sane than claiming the moon landing never took place.

You should probably read the Talk.origins archive, specifically 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and An Index to Creationist Claims.
 
[quote name='WraTH']And let’s talk about the atrocities committed by the church. I’ll agree, they are horrible and beyond compare, from the Crusades to the Spanish conquest of the Americas, and from the Inquisition to the cover up of the pedophilia scandal... just fucking terrible stuff. However, it is foolish to believe that religion is the source of all evil rather than a powerful tool to dumb down the masses and in it’s absence something else will take it’s place. Let’s not forget communist Russia was always secular and last time I checked, Stalin wasn’t the poster boy of rational though. Neither was Lenin, or Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot.

Being atheist is not wrong. Having faith is not wrong. Being an asshole of any denomination IS.[/quote]

Don't sell Christianity short - that religion's powers to to dumb down the masses and use them as a blunt political instrument are much greater and more versatile then the tools utililized by Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot. It helps when your sacred and infallible text falls ambiguously on both sides of just about every issue - that way your religion's leaders can selectively quote to their hearts content, whether they are justifying slavery, burning people of other faiths, or just engaging in some good ol' timey sexual discrimination.
 
The "theory" of evolution isn't just like.. a guess.. It's scientific theory the same way the theory of relativity and gravity are. It's something that occurs, meaning, it doesn't need to really be proven, it's an observed mechanism of nature. Natural selection is one of "theories" of how evolution works. Evolution is what happens, and natural selection is science's best guess as to how it happens.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Oh dear.

I was going to just say that we've reached an understanding of sorts, and just suggest that you might be interested in this paper called Darwin on the Evolution of Morality, until I saw this.

The theory of evolution is every much a fact as gravitational theory (which I'm sure you agree with, because it does not clash with your religion, at least enough to not walk off the roof of a building); every reputable scientist will tell you as much. You are perhaps confused about the multiple meanings of the word "theory".

Claiming evolution is wrong is slightly less sane than claiming the moon landing never took place.

You should probably read the Talk.origins archive, specifically 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and An Index to Creationist Claims.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the links, very interesting.

1. Let me first be clear that I am not discussing and will not discuss personal religious views in this forum, so assuming you know my religious beliefs from a few arguments or questions I've raised on this topic is absurd. Please try to stick to the actual posts and not insult us all by infering that you know my religious beliefs.

But I will say that I have not and will not defend "creation science." Having problems and questions about the theory of evolution is not the same as supporting that, I expect you will agree.

2. I do take issue with claims that the theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity (BTW your moon landing statement is way over the top). And just because you say something is fact or a million people say something is fact doesn't make it so.

Gravity is a constant phenomenon that is the same at this point in time as it was 1 billion years ago and will be 1 billion years from now. Evolution is a historical theory that depends on interpreting historical records. Since I'm sure you will admit our methods and understanding of such historical records are, shall we say, incomplete at very best, it is not unreasonable to feel that the theory of evolution does not have enough supporting evidence at this point in time to consider it as basically "fact" like the theory of gravity.

3. Let me give you a couple of specific issues where large problems with the theory of evolution are glossed over by supporters of the theory (eager as they are for everything to fit into what they already believe):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html

Although I have to say those replies are meant for creationists, so perhaps there is a better answer for my questions than that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Thank you for the links, very interesting.
2. I do take issue with claims that the theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity (BTW your moon landing statement is way over the top). And just because you say something is fact or a million people say something is fact doesn't make it so.

Gravity is a constant phenomenon that is the same at this point in time as it was 1 billion years ago and will be 1 billion years from now. Evolution is a historical theory that depends on interpreting historical records. Since I'm sure you will admit our methods and understanding of such historical records are, shall we say, incomplete at very best, it is not unreasonable to feel that the theory of evolution does not have enough supporting evidence at this point in time to consider it as basically "fact" like the theory of gravity.
[/quote]
It is completely unreasonable to reject evolution. No real scientist will do so, especially since no other scientific theory exists, and microevolution has been observed directly (and, in fact, caused).

While evolution itself is well understood, our historical records are and will remain incomplete - an obvious problem when studying specific events that happened hundreds of millions of years ago is that evidence tends to be scarce.
[quote name='elprincipe']
3. Let me give you a couple of specific issues where large problems with the theory of evolution are glossed over by supporters of the theory (eager as they are for everything to fit into what they already believe):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html
[/QUOTE]

What's your issue with the answers provided?
And if you really seek answers from a certain scientific discipline, it's really fine to do the research yourself (books, etc) or talk to a scientist - they're a friendly bunch, for the most part.
 
elprincipe, I think you have it a little backwards as far as what is theory and fact, at least from what I understand.

Evolution, as a concept, is a fact. It means nothing more than change in population over time, which can be observed and would be hard to deny.

Natural Selection is the theory (along with other theories like sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. which can be thought of as kind of subordinates of natural selection, in a sense). It theorizes how things work, like the changes over time result in larger differences between animal species, etc. That is always up for debate, as there has for a long time been a debate between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium (or if the two are even mutually exclusive).

That things change is a fact, how that works is a theory and can be altered and modified as new facts come in.

The fossil record, though incomplete, is the most solid evidence against a spontaneous creation of everything at one point in time. The different species could have been created spontaneously separately at different points in time and be more consistent with the fossil record, but the similarities between different species and the intermediates that are readily available make evolution by natural selection seem to be much more plausible.

Gravity is actually good to bring up, since while gravity is observable and obviously exists, we actually know less about the mechanisms of gravity than we know about the mechanisms of natural selection, and the mechanisms behind gravity are harder to observe as well.

Also, if there's something about those talk origins explanations you don't find convincing then just point it out and I might be able to explain it a little better. I'm far from an expert, but it has been kind of a hobby of mine to read about evolution for the past few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top