NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

One of the world's most famous and intelligant atheists now believes in God. Take that you non-believers! :p Anyways considering science and how it was always anti-god do you guys think that Science will ironicly be responsible for reviving the belief in a God?

Common sense is believed to justify the claim that the Bible is horseshit. Big blow to Christianity.

In all seriousness, the dude is 81, probably senile or afraid of death. It doesn't matter either way. Science and God are compatible if you believe God is responsible for the way the world works.

I think science will aid in providing the understanding that creation and evolution go hand in hand. I believe God created us to evolve.

Oh, and if it mattered, more Christians have probably become atheists than vice versa. Whether or not someone believes something has no bearing on its validity.

personnaly i dont believe in any god, but im damn sure that if a god did create us, then hes certainly not around today.
i mean, if you tried something, and it screwed up badly, wouldnt you just cut your losses, learn from your mistakes, and try again somewhere else? seems sensible to me...

i agree with Valdyr, science and religion are not mutuly exclusive, i am a practicing wicca yet i keep up to date with most of the majour developments in the sciences.
All it takes is for one to look at tyhe biger picture and realise that nothing this pritty could have occurred by random chance.

A PHILOSOPHER states that DNA is too complex for it to have arisen naturally. Real convincing. Mutation and natural selection are more than enough to explain complexity.

I agree that it took intelligence to create life at the very least. How could a random occurance come up with something so advanced that "intelligent" humans can't even reproduce it?

oh the poor man is 81, hes obviously gone senile

besides that "there has to be a god to create the universe but i dont have any other opinion of god" is so close to atheism/agnosticism that he may as well be considered a member of the unbelievers club. it just not right up there will accepting jesus as his personal lord and savior now is it?

I agree that it took intelligence to create life at the very least. How could a random occurance come up with somethign so advanced that "intelligent" humans can't even reproduce?

The Earth is over 4 billion years old. A lot can happen in 4 billion years.

exactly, give something billions of years, why cant it happen by random chance?

This is just so wrong it's funny.

1) Oh, big news, some guy now believes in God. Don't you think it's funny that the title was "ABC NEWS: Atheist Now Belives in God" as if this is important? :D
2) What the hell is "take that you non-believers!" meant to mean?! This is about as big a blow to atheism as finding someone who believes in God. Oh wait, that's what this article is about.
3) Science anti-god? Right, so science has created the computer you're typing at - by using it, you're "anti-God". By using medicine, you're anti-God. By getting on a bus, you're anti-God. In fact, by your reasoning, using any tool, or using trial and error, or logical thought, is "anti-God".

You make it sound as though the ground just started crapping out humans for no reason. It took millions of years of evolution to get where we are today. Besides that, argument from "oh everything is so complex and pretty" proves nothing, because beauty and complexity are subjective.

That argument just doesn't hold water.

a fly is pretty complex but not complexy pretty... :D

with all of our human intelligence we cant even create the simplest life form let alone create something that can evolve.

That argument just doesn't hold water.

Most likely because you don't understand it.
At the most basic level, 'life' is just a series of chemical reactions.

Most likely because you don't understand it.
At the most basic level, 'life' is just a series of chemical reactions.
\
then with all of your understanding of chemistry and life... get some chemicals together and create a single celled organism.

with all of our human intelligence we cant even create the simplest life form let alone create something that can evolve.
Computer programs that evolve have been created.

with all of our human intelligence we cant even create the simplest life form let alone create something that can evolve.

Why should we be able to create something that took random chance billions of years to accomplish?
We don't even know the exact conditions life first spawned in, so how can we recreate it?

\
then with all of your understanding of chemistry and life... get some chemicals together and create a single celled organism.
First show me your invisible man in the sky.

\
then with all of your understanding of chemistry and life... get some chemicals together and create a single celled organism.

This just further proves my point.

also please explain what makes those chemical reactions work the way they do and how this chemical reaction all of a sudden has consciousness and the ability to find food and retreat from poison or hostile environments and how it knows how to reproduce itself.

Oh, and if it mattered, more Christians have probably become atheists than vice versa. Whether or not someone believes something has no bearing on its validity.

Where did i specifically mention Christianity? I said a belief in God not any specific religon.

Computer programs that evolve have been created.

really? show me

the conditions in which life would have first started simply dont exist today - sulphuric clouds, constant lightning, boiling seas, constant meteor impact...etc, etc. its pretty hard to recreate these conditions in a lab

Not knowing the exact process by which life happens doesn't entitle you to jump to the conclusion that an invisible sky wizard did it. You can't even demonstrate that an invisible sky wizard exists. I can demonstrate that chemicals exist, and that they react with one another.

really? show me
What do you want me to do? Pull one out of my ass? Stop being lazy and search Google (pbuh).

This just further proves my point.

your point being that I don't understand how life is merely chemical reations? that is true which is why I aske dyou to explain. which youc an't because there is no explanation as science doesnt have one.

What do you want me to do? Pull one out of my ass? Stop being lazy and search Google (pbuh).


no thats nasty. I've looked and follow artificial intelligence closely. there just isn't anythign out there that I have found. so you will need to point me to it. just give me a name. A.L.I.C.E is about the best I have seen and it is total crap. it cannot evolve and it cannot reproduce.

your point being that I don't understand how life is merely chemical reations? that is true which is why I aske dyou to explain. which youc an't because there is no explanation as science doesnt have one.

neither does religion, it just conveniently 'happened' because the big guy said so

your point being that I don't understand how life is merely chemical reations? that is true which is why I aske dyou to explain. which youc an't because there is no explanation as science doesnt have one.
No, it's common knowledge to anyone who has looked even remotely into this that abiogenesis did not form cells. It formed self-replicating molecules. I believe I've stated this in every anti-evolution thread in the past 3 months.

also please explain what makes those chemical reactions work the way they do
The laws of physics. If they didn't work the way they do, we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

and how this chemical reaction all of a sudden
Yes. 2 billion years is very sudden, isn't it?

has consciousness
Just a random fluke in genetics. A fluke that proved sucessful, so natural selection meant conscious animals had an edge and were able to pass on their genes.

and the ability to find food and retreat from poison or hostile environments
Because an animal that couldn't do this wouldn't live long enough to reproduce and pass on its genes.

and how it knows how to reproduce itself.
Again, evolution. An animal that didn't know how to reproduce wouldn't survive long as a species.

you merely need to look inside at your true self to see "God" if that is what you wish to call it. I never mention ed a sky wizard. I did mention intelligence which is what i "believe" it takes to create something so complex as life.

Drunk Commies do you care to take up teh task of explaining how chemicals form intelligent life?

neither does religion, it just conveniently 'happened' because the big guy said so


I dont follow any religion

I dont follow any religion
i neva said that you did... :confused:

Haha, this made me laugh:
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.
Anyway, one person moving from atheism to a belief is not a blow to science, no matter how long it took him, or how famous he is. :)

welll then you have it all figured out. bravo on you. although you havent explained it well enough to be a valid argument in my mind but thanks for trying.

your point being that I don't understand how life is merely chemical reations? that is true which is why I aske dyou to explain. which youc an't because there is no explanation as science doesnt have one.

Everything to do with life revolves around chemical reactions. What, you think that what we eat just magically turns into energy?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

One of the world's most famous and intelligant atheists now believes in God. Take that you non-believers! :p Anyways considering science and how it was always anti-god do you guys think that Science will ironicly be responsible for reviving the belief in a God?
The man is getting old. He no longer cares what people think, and in his age, it is comforting to think that he'll have another life after this.

The man is getting old. He no longer cares what people think, and in his age, it is comforting to think that he'll have another life after this.
So only young people should convert!

Everything to do with life revolves around chemical reactions. What, you think that what we eat just magically turns into energy?

i never said it doesnt involve chemical reactions did I? I did say it takes intelligence to produce life though... that doesnt say that this intelligence cant use chemicals

Amazing how quickly we are to call people senile or stupid when we disagree with them. Sometimes I think the phrase "Thou protesteth too much" applies. As in, people are fighting themselves by hurling epithets at people who say things they are afraid might be true...

i hate to point this out, but does any of this even matter? if some mysterious omnipotent 'thing' decided to make us on a barmy summer afternoon in his garage, and then not leave any REAL, SOLID evidence, then so what? if we are simply a random collection of chemicals and nerve impulses, formed over the past 4 billion years, then so what?
if someone knows a real reason why this thread is important, please tell me. (nothing about ''human curiosity'' or any cr*p like that please!)

i hate to point this out, but does any of this even matter? if some mysterious omnipotent 'thing' decided to make us on a barmy summer afternoon in his garage, and then not leave any REAL, SOLID evidence, then so what? if we are simply a random collection of chemicals and nerve impulses, formed over the past 4 billion years, then so what?
if someone knows a real reason why this thread is important, please tell me. (nothing about ''human curiosity'' or any cr*p like that please!)

i think it comes down to what comes after death. will there be a "God" and do we have souls and all that jibber jabber. if we are random then there is nothing after death... i would suppose and if there is a God that created us then I would guess that perhaps there possibly could be life after death

no thats nasty. I've looked and follow artificial intelligence closely. there just isn't anythign out there that I have found. so you will need to point me to it. just give me a name. A.L.I.C.E is about the best I have seen and it is total crap. it cannot evolve and it cannot reproduce.
Did I say artificial intelligence? No. I said programs that evolve.

Did I say artificial intelligence? No. I said programs that evolve.

it would take artificial intelligence for a program to evolve no? if not then I apologize but could you provide a link or are you pulling this out of your ass too?

i think it comes down to what comes after death. will there be a "God" and do we have souls and all that jibber jabber. if we are random then there is nothing after death... i would suppose and if there is a God that created us then I would guess that perhaps there possibly could be life after death

well in that case, shouldnt we just wait? some of us have about 70-80 years left maximum, most probably less...i dont like pointing out that fact, but humans have a very short lifespan, even with all our technology an medicine...

um moron he dosent belive in "god" he belives in the existenc of a higher being which even i a non god beliver will acnollege a possibility no one rely knows haw the universe began so we tend to make thing up to justify our existence in an un forgivivg world.

From the article - "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian"

I guess thats a massive blow to christians....

Take that believer.

you merely need to look inside at your true self to see "God" if that is what you wish to call it. I never mention ed a sky wizard. I did mention intelligence which is what i "believe" it takes to create something so complex as life.

Drunk Commies do you care to take up teh task of explaining how chemicals form intelligent life?
I can't explain the exact process whereby chemicals form cells. I can explain how evolution can evolve intelligence. First you must understand that human intelligence is not qualitatively different than intelligence in other animals. Only qantitatively different. a dumb animal is at a disadvantage in terms of competing for resources with one that's smart enough to develop strategies. The smart ones live longer on average. That means that more of them reach breeding age, and therefore the next generation is larger.

it would take artificial intelligence for a program to evolve no? if not then I apologize but could you provide a link or are you pulling this out of your ass too?

No, it doesn't take intelligence for things to evolve. Microscopic organisms have been doing it for billions of years without being all that smart.

i dont think the human race is that patient as a whole. plus all those theologists out there that do nothing but talk about this crap. true its all just rhetoric until the end when we ultimate find out... or dont.

but I like to think about metaphysical things because its fun. I personally believe in there being more than the eyes can see because I have had dreams where I have seen the exact future as it would happen in real life after I awoke.

I've also seen UFO's which dont seem like they could possibly be of this earth and so believe in life on other planets and that if life is so random then wow thats some common randomality

I am a scientiest and I believe wholly in God (the Christian one if I have to label Him.) and if atheists would take a moment and stop being so narrowminded (sorry to be stereotypical if you aren't) and listen to the Creationist stand point and consider it, they too would believe in God. Note: I haven't always believed in God (just a recent thing) and the more I listen to atheist perspectives, the more bogus it is whereas the Christian arguments make a lot of sense. Give it a change? Consider? I considered your point of view.

I've also seen UFO's which dont seem like they could possibly be of this earth and so believe in life on other planets and that if life is so random then wow thats some common randomality

Maybe that would simply point to the fact that life isn't all that hard to create, when you have billions of years over which an 'accident' can occur?

i never said it doesnt involve chemical reactions did I? I did say it takes intelligence to produce life though... that doesnt say that this intelligence cant use chemicals
Why do you say it takes intelligence to create life? Care to back up that statement?

Why do you say it takes intelligence to create life? Care to back up that statement?

I already shared my belief that life is too complex for it to have been something random. WAY too complex. way too advanced.

something even human intelligence cant even reproduce

i think it comes down to what comes after death. will there be a "God" and do we have souls and all that jibber jabber. if we are random then there is nothing after death... i would suppose and if there is a God that created us then I would guess that perhaps there possibly could be life after death


The other thing it provides is meaning to life. If we are only a random managerie of atoms, then life has no inherent, objective value and what does it matter if I rape, pillage and destroy the earth. If we are created, we have inherent, objective value to the Creator and value in our relationship to the rest of creation.

I am a scientiest and I believe wholly in God (the Christian one if I have to label Him.) and if atheists would take a moment and stop being so narrowminded (sorry to be stereotypical if you aren't) and listen to the Creationist stand point and consider it, they too would believe in God.

apology accepted.......

Years ago it was believed that a group of gods lived on Mt. Olympus. These days we call those beliefs mythology. By now we're pretty sure Zeus doesn't throw lightning down at us.

Religious-types, why do you believe your faith is the correct path? People have thought that about past religions and have apprently been wrong.

So why do you believe? Well, that's the essence of faith. You follow your religion without anything to truly show it's real. Does that make you wrong? Not neccesarily. It doesn't make you right either.

So then why are you here debating this? You've got nothing to back you up except flimsy negation theories. You cite things science cannot yet explain as 'proof.'

Here are a few things past civilizations have considered signs of a higher power: fire, the movement of the sun, gravity, and disease. We now know what these are all actually caused by thanks to physics and chemistry.

What am I saying? Believe in your faith if you will but trying to prove its accuracy is pointless.

And for the love of God, stop trying to convert me!

it would take artificial intelligence for a program to evolve no? if not then I apologize but could you provide a link or are you pulling this out of your ass too?
No, it wouldn't take AI for a program to evolve. www.arch.columbia.edu/DDL/cad/A4513/s2001/r7/

The man is getting old. He no longer cares what people think, and in his age, it is comforting to think that he'll have another life after this.


In all seriousness, the dude is 81, probably senile or afraid of death.

Point out to me where he says he believes in life after death, would you?

Point out to me where he says he believes in life after death, would you?

Point out to me how it matters, would you? Reporters routinely omit information when they compose a story. I'm sure they didn't include everything he said in that article.

I already shared my belief that life is too complex for it to have been something random. WAY too complex. way too advanced.

something even human intelligence cant even reproduce
Right, you shared your beleif that it's too complex. Not facts to indicate that it's too complex. Yet you credit it's beginning to a god who you can't even provide evidence for. If you can provide hard evidence, you win. I'll beleive and I'll proclaim you to be a prophet. Until then, the Lucky Charms Leprechaun is as likely a candidate as god.

The other thing it provides is meaning to life. If we are only a random managerie of atoms, then life has no inherent, objective value and what does it matter if I rape, pillage and destroy the earth. If we are created, we have inherent, objective value to the Creator and value in our relationship to the rest of creation.

the reason we cant destroy the Earth is because its the only one we have. where else are you going to live? Alpha centauri?
why cant people see that the garden is beautiful without there having to be fairies at the bottom of it?

The other thing it provides is meaning to life. If we are only a random managerie of atoms, then life has no inherent, objective value and what does it matter if I rape, pillage and destroy the earth. If we are created, we have inherent, objective value to the Creator and value in our relationship to the rest of creation.
That's why you should never question your beleifs. If your beleif in god is the only thing that keeps you from raping others, don't stop beleiving. For those of us who have a personal ethos that allows us to respect and love our fellow humans, we don't need a fairytale to keep us in line.

Years ago it was believed that a group of gods lived on Mt. Olympus. These days we call those beliefs mythology. By now we're pretty sure Zeus doesn't throw lightning down at us.

Religious-types, why do you believe your faith is the correct path? People have thought that about past religions and have apprently been wrong.

So why do you believe? Well, that's the essence of faith. You follow your religion without anything to truly show it's real. Does that make you wrong? Not neccesarily. It doesn't make you right either.

So then why are you here debating this? You've got nothing to back you up except flimsy negation theories. You cite things science cannot yet explain as 'proof.'

Here are a few things past civilizations have considered signs of a higher power: fire, the movement of the sun, gravity, and disease. We now know what these are all actually caused by thanks to physics and chemistry.

What am I saying? Believe in your faith if you will but trying to prove its accuracy is pointless.

And for the love of God, stop trying to convert me!

But one of the tenents of my faith is to convert the whole world :p . I'll try not to beat you up with my faith, but I'm also not going to be silent about it anymore that you will be about things that you believe strongly in and value personally. BTW, it is impossible to prove much of anything including gravity. You can provide evidence that suggests our current BELIEFS about science (which change all the time) are accurate, but it is impossible to prove them without objective truth, which none of us possess in any kind of absolute terms.

No, it wouldn't take AI for a program to evolve. www.arch.columbia.edu/DDL/cad/A4513/s2001/r7/

page not found

You can provide evidence that suggests our current BELIEFS about science (which change all the time) are accurate, but it is impossible to prove them without objective truth, which none of us possess in any kind of absolute terms.

I think a major difference between Science and Religion is that Science seeks to prove itself wrong, whereas Religion seeks to prove itself right.

page not found
Just use google and type in programs that evolve. It's the first link.

Right, you shared your beleif that it's too complex. Not facts to indicate that it's too complex. Yet you credit it's beginning to a god who you can't even provide evidence for. If you can provide hard evidence, you win. I'll beleive and I'll proclaim you to be a prophet. Until then, the Lucky Charms Elf is as likely a candidate as god.

The Lucky Charms Elf is God, didn't you get the memo? Better update yoru spam filters.

Also, if I could provide evidence beyond my own beliefs that there is a higher intelligence that created life then I would just as a scientist would show evidence to the contrary if possible.

This is merely a discussion about beliefs. No need to be condecending. I am not tryign to convert you or anyone else over to my particular and personal idea of spirituality. I am merely conveying my thoughts on the matter of where life came from.

I am grateful that there are others who believe differently and are willing to discuss other ideas. How boring life would be if we all believed the same thing.

I think a major difference between Science and Religion is that Science seeks to prove itself wrong, whereas Religion seeks to prove itself right.
That's a point the religious never seem to understand. The only way to get close to the truth is to try to falsify your ideas. If you can't, they are probably right. If you just try to put together evidence and arguments in support of your idea, you will neglect all the evidence and all the arguments that disprove it, and you could end up beleiving in anything.

The Lucky Charms Elf is God, didn't you get the memo? Better update yoru spam filters.

Also, if I could provide evidence beyond my own beliefs that there is a higher intelligence that created life then I would just as a scientist would show evidence to the contrary if possible.

This is merely a discussion about beliefs. No need to be condecending. I am not tryign to convert you or anyone else over to my particular and personal idea of spirituality. I am merely conveying my thoughts on the matter of where life came from.

I am grateful that there are others who believe differently and are willing to discuss other ideas. How boring life would be if we all believed the same thing.
Actually, I think it would be great if we all beleived the same thing. Then we could all work together toward shared goals, like a race of super-intellegent ants. There would be nothing we couldn't achieve.

heres some food for thought: how many wars have been started (thats STARTED, not influenced-by) because of scientific beliefs? none.
how many have been started because of differing religious beliefs? most of them!
more recently of course, most wars are about Earth's 'precious black gold' (oil), but i thought it worth mentioning...

heres some food for thought: how many wars have been started (thats STARTED, not influenced-by) because of scientific beliefs? none.
how many have been started because of differing religious beliefs? most of them!
more recently of course, most wars are about Earth's 'precious black gold' (oil), but i thought it worth mentioning...

I agree that religion is a plague upon this earth

That's a point the religious never seem to understand. The only way to get close to the truth is to try to falsify your ideas. If you can't, they are probably right. If you just try to put together evidence and arguments in support of your idea, you will neglect all the evidence and all the arguments that disprove it, and you could end up beleiving in anything.

Just adding to what I've said:
Scientists will seek to prove things wrong, therefore, they will always seek to question whether a God exists... it's the natural, scientific thing. And if possible, they'll try to prove that he doesn't.

Religious types (Religitists didn't sound right), on the other hand, will try to prove that they are right, and will find things that they believe will 'prove' that a God exists.

Of course, there isn't really any way to tell whether there is one or not. All the people of the Universe could believe in a God, but that doesn't mean there is one. (Unless Black & White was close to the mark ;-))

heres some food for thought: how many wars have been started (thats STARTED, not influenced-by) because of scientific beliefs? none.
how many have been started because of differing religious beliefs? most of them!
more recently of course, most wars are about Earth's 'precious black gold' (oil), but i thought it worth mentioning...

I expect that the war against the evil Islamic Empire is in there somewhere, too, Bush being the Christian he is.

heres some food for thought: how many wars have been started (thats STARTED, not influenced-by) because of scientific beliefs? none.
how many have been started because of differing religious beliefs? most of them!
more recently of course, most wars are about Earth's 'precious black gold' (oil), but i thought it worth mentioning...

All who think this are truely ignorrent. Wars are started because it is simply human nature(it has been around even before christianity was even discovered) also wars are fought for expansion(living space) and natural resources....religon is often used as an excuse however it has never truely been the cause for war.

the reason we cant destroy the Earth is because its the only one we have. where else are you going to live? Alpha centauri?
why cant people see that the garden is beautiful without there having to be fairies at the bottom of it?

If life has no meaning who cares if we live or die or if there is a future? There is no purpose for benevolence, except as it might serve my perceived personal benefit. Why should I care about anyone or anything but what ever my whim suggests I care about? This is the worst reality if God does not exist.

I agree that it took intelligence to create life at the very least. How could a random occurance come up with something so advanced that "intelligent" humans can't even reproduce it?
Like myrth said, a lot can happen in 4 billion years. The conditions under which life first emerged are no longer present on earth, and you ask why the process can't be reproduced?
Just because we're "intelligent" doesn't mean we can know and do everything.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

One of the world's most famous and intelligant atheists now believes in God. Take that you non-believers! :p Anyways considering science and how it was always anti-god do you guys think that Science will ironicly be responsible for reviving the belief in a God?

Science has never been "anti-God," so it is silly to make this statement.

That's why you should never question your beleifs. If your beleif in god is the only thing that keeps you from raping others, don't stop beleiving. For those of us who have a personal ethos that allows us to respect and love our fellow humans, we don't need a fairytale to keep us in line.

With out God, what is the purpose for staying in line and why is it more valid than not staying in line. Everything would then be relative and subjective wouldn't it?

I agree that religion is a plague upon this earth
dont get me wrong, religion has been a very constructive force is some cultures (hmm, examples have escaped me for now...).
i just feel that it has been a more DEconstructive force overall in humanities history, and has been the cause of inumerable human deaths (sacrifice, crusades, etc)

If life has no meaning who cares if we live or die or if there is a future? There is no purpose for benevolence, except as it might serve my perceived personal benefit. Why should I care about anyone or anything but what ever my whim suggests I care about? This is the worst reality if God does not exist.

I've already thought about it. It's pretty scary, and suicidal thoughts lead from it. But then you have to realise that 'who cares if there's a meaning given to me by a 'God' or not?'. Life already has a meaning, and that is to be the best that you can be. You may aswell lead as fulfilling a life as you can, since you won't be getting another one.
Maybe people in the future will remember you, and you will have offspring (Unless there's something wrong in that area... just another part of evolution), who will continue your legacy.

I think a major difference between Science and Religion is that Science seeks to prove itself wrong, whereas Religion seeks to prove itself right.

So Darwin and Dawkins went out to prove that Evolution didn't exist and wasn't a relavent way to look at the world? Please....

So Darwin and Dawkins went out to prove that Evolution didn't exist and wasn't a relavent way to look at the world? Please....

Maybe not, but many scientists strive to do this today... or have you not noticed? O.o

Science has never been "anti-God," so it is silly to make this statement.

Then why have most atheists used science as a reference to protest the idea that there is a god? Scientists were persecuted in medival Europe for a reason you know....

With out God, what is the purpose for staying in line and why is it more valid than not staying in line. Everything would then be relative and subjective wouldn't it?


You should ask all the atheists and non religious people in hellhole anarchist cesspools like Japan, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Switzerland.

heres some food for thought: how many wars have been started (thats STARTED, not influenced-by) because of scientific beliefs? none.
how many have been started because of differing religious beliefs? most of them!
more recently of course, most wars are about Earth's 'precious black gold' (oil), but i thought it worth mentioning...

Excuse me, but ever look at the idea of eugenics (a "scientfic" idea based on the evolution of a "superior" race) and its role in WW2?? It actually still has support, though very limited due to its role in WW2, in the scientific community today...

So Darwin and Dawkins went out to prove that Evolution didn't exist and wasn't a relavent way to look at the world? Please....

Darwin looked at all the evidence and came to the conclusion that natural selection must have occurred.

Scientists since then have provided hypotheses based on natural selection. Those that have been shown to be wrong have modified the theory. When the hypothesis is *not* disproved, it becomes part of the theory until something *does* disprove it.

I know that science is hard and all, but you may want to look into how it works *just a little* before you try and argue against it.

Of course, there isn't really any way to tell whether there is one or not. All the people of the Universe could believe in a God, but that doesn't mean there is one. (Unless Black & White was close to the mark ;-))
if Black and White IS close to the mark, then im sure that most human gods will have a dark spiky temple somewhere...
(players of this game will know what i mean ;) )

Then why have most atheists used science as a reference to protest the idea that there is a god? Scientists were persecuted in medival Europe for a reason you know....


Science simply seeks to discover the patterns and causes in phenomena.

Incidentally, much of what science disocvers runs contrary to what different religions and superstitions claim about these things.

For science to be "anti-god," it would need to have a stated objective of "destroying the belief in god." This simply isnt the case.

Point out to me where he says he believes in life after death, would you?

Point out to me how it matters, would you? Reporters routinely omit information when they compose a story. I'm sure they didn't include everything he said in that article.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

So, what do we have Flew saying here? - that he believes in an intelligence or first cause, which is not actively involved in individual people's lives, and then shies away from comparisons to Islam or Christianity.

I think the evidence we are given in the article points only to an Aristotelian prime mover, not an interventionist god, or the trappings of life after death, no?

Then why have most atheists used science as a reference to protest the idea that there is a god?

Because such atheists don't know any more about science than you do.

Scientists were persecuted in medival Europe for a reason you know....

Yeah, the church was scared that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe and that there might be craters on the moon. This would disprove their "everything in the heavens is perfect" idea, which had become dogma in the church.

Not all us atheists are the fiery sorts who can't sleep at night if we haven't converted six confirmed Catholics to an empty, nihilistic worldview before Sunday. (Like what? This proof of God thing is going to make my empty soulless worldview somehow more empty and soulless?) I think there are a few of us who are like the apathetic non-voters of the spiritual world who don't really care much for what the major religions are selling. Science says there's a God? Good on 'em, can they radio the Big Guy and tell him I'm not too keen on what folks are doing in his name down here? Copacetic.

Science has never been "anti-God," so it is silly to make this statement.

Then why would a world renouned scientist do so?

Everything to do with life revolves around chemical reactions. What, you think that what we eat just magically turns into energy?
The energy faerie

Excuse me, but ever look at the idea of eugenics (a "scientfic" idea based on the evolution of a "superior" race) and its role in WW2?? It actually still has support, though very limited due to its role in WW2, in the scientific community today...

The experiments on eugenics in humans were unconscionable, and we all know it.

That said, such experiments (in animals, or the horrible things that were done in Nazi Germany) *disproved* the idea that changes made to an animal in life will necessarily be passed on to its offspring. Thus, it is not part of evolutionary theory.

Then why would a world renouned scientist do so?
Because besides being a scientist he/she is also a person

People have viewpoints that are not always backed up

So, what do we have Flew saying here? - that he believes in an intelligence or first cause, which is not actively involved in individual people's lives, and then shies away from comparisons to Islam or Christianity.

I think the evidence we are given in the article points only to an Aristotelian prime mover, not an interventionist god, or the trappings of life after death, no?

Ah, here we go: Flew himself describing his belief in terms of Aristotle:

http://www.blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=274

Then why would a world renouned scientist do so?

Any scientist who says "science is anti-God" is full of shit.

And guess what, this guy said "science convinced me of the existence of God," not "science is anti-God."

Then why would a world renouned scientist do so?


Have you asked the dutch, danes, norse, swedes and swiss about the whole "why do good things without god" business yet?

I've already thought about it. It's pretty scary, and suicidal thoughts lead from it. But then you have to realise that 'who cares if there's a meaning given to me by a 'God' or not?'. Life already has a meaning, and that is to be the best that you can be. You may aswell lead as fulfilling a life as you can, since you won't be getting another one.
Maybe people in the future will remember you, and you will have offspring (Unless there's something wrong in that area... just another part of evolution), who will continue your legacy.

But why should I care about my legacy or being the best that I can be if nothing means anything. Why should I be anything other than a completely selfish hedonist?

But why should I care about my legacy or being the best that I can be if nothing means anything. Why should I be anything other than a completely selfish hedonist?

If God is your only reason for being the best that you can be and not being completely selfish, you won't be seeing God anyways.

Have you asked the dutch, danes, norse, swedes and swiss about the whole "why do good things without god" business yet?

The likely answer is because they believe there is more to existance than performing the screwed up whim of some obscure deity. And that those who -do- believe in him, can't really agree on what he wants.

Here's a question. Once they prove God, will atheists be protected from persecution under freedom of religion?

But why should I care about my legacy or being the best that I can be if nothing means anything. Why should I be anything other than a completely selfish hedonist?

The people of Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Norway and Switzerland have figured it out. Maybe you should ask them?

Any scientist who says "science is anti-God" is full of shit.

And guess what, this guy said "science convinced me of the existence of God," not "science is anti-God."
Why don’t people understand that

Atheism != belief in science


Not all atheists build their belief on such

Atheism is a RELIGION it is a belief structure all its own … it takes faith to believe there is nothing when the evidence does not say exactly that

And it takes faith to believe that there IS something without direct evidence too

Here's a question. Once they prove God, will atheists be protected from persecution under freedom of religion?

When the prove the toaster fairy is in fact the source of all life on earth, will non-believers in the toaster fairy be protected by freedom of religion?

Here's a question. Once they prove God, will atheists be protected from persecution under freedom of religion?
Yup because atheism is a religion (that is assuming it CAN be proved)

Here's a question. Once they prove God, will atheists be protected from persecution under freedom of religion?

Once who "proves God"?

Belief in the existence or non-existence of God (if you believe said God to be the creator of the Universe or all-powerful) is a purely axiomatic statement. It can be neither proven nor disproven by science.

Why don’t people understand that

Atheism != belief in science


Not all atheists build their belief on such

Atheism is a RELIGION it is a belief structure all its own … it takes faith to believe there is nothing when the evidence does not say exactly that

And it takes faith to believe that there IS something without direct evidence too


Actually, the english word "religion" does not include lack of a belief in god.

You see, religion means specifically "belief IN god"

Not "beliefs about god"
or "a system of beliefs."

When the word "religion" is used to refer to ferverent belief in something, its use is metaphoric because it is only used so as to compare the ferverence held with the ferverence generally observed in religious people.

When the prove the toaster fairy is in fact the source of all life on earth, will non-believers in the toaster fairy be protected by freedom of religion?

How dare you blaspheme against my Most Holy Toaster Fairy. If we were in Scotland . . .

If life has no meaning who cares if we live or die or if there is a future? There is no purpose for benevolence, except as it might serve my perceived personal benefit. Why should I care about anyone or anything but what ever my whim suggests I care about? This is the worst reality if God does not exist.
Benevolence is, some people beleive, genetically hard wired into us. Even if it isn't, Empathy seems to be an artifact of intelligence. We help others because making them feel good makes us feel good. Also having intelligence means that we can choose to be more than mere animals. We can strive for greater things, like leaving our children a better society. No need for god.

The experiments on eugenics in humans were unconscionable, and we all know it.

That said, such experiments (in animals, or the horrible things that were done in Nazi Germany) *disproved* the idea that changes made to an animal in life will necessarily be passed on to its offspring. Thus, it is not part of evolutionary theory.

The point though was that science and a popularly believed theory that some "scientists" still advocate as accurate had a major role in causing WW2. Science was just a tool to generate the impetus for war in much the way religion has been use as a tool to be the impetus for war. Neither actually caused the wars in history, they were used by those who desired to go to war to accomplish an evil end.

Actually, the english word "religion" does not include lack of a belief in god.

You see, religion means specifically "belief IN god"

Not "beliefs about god"
or "a system of beliefs."

When the word "religion" is used to refer to ferverent belief in something, its use is metaphoric because it is only used so as to compare the ferverence held with the ferverence generally observed in religious people.
re•li•gion P Pronunciation Key (r -l j n)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Seems to me it could be 4 for sure


Also Webster definition

Main Entry: re•li•gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re•li•gion•less adjective

Also number 4 … being that there is no real proof for or against a diety … it takes faith

Hmmm
Intresting

no thats nasty. I've looked and follow artificial intelligence closely. there just isn't anythign out there that I have found. so you will need to point me to it. just give me a name. A.L.I.C.E is about the best I have seen and it is total crap. it cannot evolve and it cannot reproduce.

:rolleyes:

If ALICE is the best you've seen then you clearly don't follow artificial intelligence very closely at all. ALICE isn't an AI, it's just an automated response bot.

Having spent all of thursday writing an essay about neural networks and multi-layer perceptrons, I've come to the conclusion that the human brain could not possibly have been designed; it's such a random nonsensical mess, it could only have come into existance through trial and error.

The Toaster Fairy commands me to issue a fatwa on New Grenada. Expect a fleet of AfterDark-style flying toasters to start crashing into your stuff . . . now.

Actually, the english word "religion" does not include lack of a belief in god.

You see, religion means specifically "belief IN god"

Not "beliefs about god"
or "a system of beliefs."

When the word "religion" is used to refer to ferverent belief in something, its use is metaphoric because it is only used so as to compare the ferverence held with the ferverence generally observed in religious people.

So, Buddhism isn't a religion then?

How can you prove something anyway? If "god" came down on earth with thunderbolts around him and told me he was god, how do I know he isnt gods twin brother, or any number of other excuses. When you say prove, most people say its more likely. So what if you say its more likely that god or an intelligent being created the world. Thats your opinion. If you can find a rock that says god ws here, and I can verify its not a forgery then fine.

The point though was that science and a popularly believed theory that some "scientists" still advocate as accurate had a major role in causing WW2. Science was just a tool to generate the impetus for war in much the way religion has been use as a tool to be the impetus for war. Neither actually caused the wars in history, they were used by those who desired to go to war to accomplish an evil end.

Eugenics had nothing to do with *starting* WW2, it *did* have to do with the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, but the purpose of the war was the same as any war - power and territory.

So, Buddhism isn't a religion then?


Philosophical buddhism isnt, by strict standards.


However, many buddhists around the world do indeed consider there to be a god or gods.

Any scientist who says "science is anti-God" is full of shit.

And guess what, this guy said "science convinced me of the existence of God," not "science is anti-God."

Then, I've met as many scientists that are full of something less than truth as I have creationists who believe something less than truth.

Upward, that number 4 kind of explains why atheism is usually linked to science. In the absence of a deity, the belief or system that the atheist adheres to is most likely science.

But one of the tenents of my faith is to convert the whole world :p . I'll try not to beat you up with my faith, but I'm also not going to be silent about it anymore that you will be about things that you believe strongly in and value personally. BTW, it is impossible to prove much of anything including gravity. You can provide evidence that suggests our current BELIEFS about science (which change all the time) are accurate, but it is impossible to prove them without objective truth, which none of us possess in any kind of absolute terms.

You're right, what's commonly believed scientifically is often later proven to be wrong or at least slightly off the mark. However, while it is impossible to definitively prove much of anything, test results can show definite patterns which strongly supports scientific theories.

But then again, in the case of gravity one could just say 'it falls because God made it fall, and He does so every time' and it would follow the test results as well.

So I guess that's just a rambling way of me saying 'I agree.' :p

With out God, what is the purpose for staying in line and why is it more valid than not staying in line. Everything would then be relative and subjective wouldn't it?
No, everything wouldn't. You choose to beleive in a god to define right and wrong. You do so without any evidence of his existance. I beleive in the promise of a better America and a better world. My reason for not being a criminal. Also, I empathize with other people. Hurting them unnecessarily would not sit well with me. My right and wrong are no more subjective than yours considering that other people's gods have different values than your god.

Then, I've met as many scientists that are full of something less than truth as I have creationists who believe something less than truth.

Personal beliefs and scientific evidence are not necessarily the same.

My *personal* belief is that there is a God. However, from a *scientific* view, I know that there is no evidence for this (or against it).

If someone says that science has convinced *them* that there is no God, they are speaking from personal experience, and thus are right.

If someone says that science has convinced *them* that there is a God, they are speaking from personal experience, and thus are right.

If someone says that science is "pro-God" or "anti-God," they do not understand science and are talking out of their asses. Science presumes nothing about God, as any Creator or all-powerful being would, by definition, exist outside the realm of science. As far as science is concerned, there may be a God and there may not, but it doesn't matter to the study at hand.

So Darwin and Dawkins went out to prove that Evolution didn't exist and wasn't a relavent way to look at the world? Please....
Darwin and Dawkins looked at all the available evidence and tried to see if any of it would disprove evolution. Since all the available evidence supported evolution, they beleived in it.

Upward, that number 4 kind of explains why atheism is usually linked to science. In the absence of a deity, the belief or system that the atheist adheres to is most likely science.
But currently science does not DISPROVE a god … (does not prove it either) so they are using faith to extend beyond sheer info.

Only thing science can currently disprove is specific events (such as an actual flood … so on so fort (oh yeah and don’t go off on citing sources on how the flood is real I was only giving an example of something that could/couldn’t be disproved))

Benevolence is, some people beleive, genetically hard wired into us. Even if it isn't, Empathy seems to be an artifact of intelligence. We help others because making them feel good makes us feel good. Also having intelligence means that we can choose to be more than mere animals. We can strive for greater things, like leaving our children a better society. No need for god.

With out God, what exactly = a better reality? According to whom or what? And, why is the converse of that person or sources idea any more or less true? Aside from something greater than us defining reality, each of us defines reality as we see fit unless you claim that some of us are inferior to others, but even then how are you going to prove it?

Then why would a world renouned scientist do so?
Even world renoun scientists can be silly. Science doesn't take anyone's word based on his respected reputaiton or his authority. It relies on evidence, testing, and repeatability.

With out God, what exactly = a better reality? According to whom or what? And, why is the converse of that person or sources idea any more or less true? Aside from something greater than us defining reality, each of us defines reality as we see fit unless you claim that some of us are inferior to others, but even then how are you going to prove it?

Not inferior, just different.

re•li•gion P Pronunciation Key (r -l j n)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Seems to me it could be 4 for sure


Also Webster definition

Main Entry: re•li•gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re•li•gion•less adjective

Also number 4 … being that there is no real proof for or against a diety … it takes faith

Hmmm
Intresting



The problem with your reasoning is this:

"religion" is then broken into two compltetely different meanings.
One refers to god and the spiritual, specifically belief *in* god or the spiritual.

The second refers to devotion to an idea, completely divorced in denotation and connotation from the first.

If we are to commit the fallacy of equivocation and decide that things which fit the second definition can be compared to things that fit the first definition as though the distinction did not exist, a great many problems would arise.

Not the least of which would be legal, as the first amendment would no longer merely cover what we now consider 'religions', but instead anything which anyone decided they would 'pursue with zeal' or 'have faith in.'

I could claim, using your fallacy of equivocation, that my finances were untaxable because i pursued my work with zeal or had faith that my work was productive.

But why should I care about my legacy or being the best that I can be if nothing means anything. Why should I be anything other than a completely selfish hedonist?
Plenty of people who beleive in god are selfish hedonists. Beleif in god keeps only the weakest minds in line.

Plenty of people who beleive in god are selfish hedonists. Beleif in god keeps only the weakest minds in line.
Yup I agree ... I be nice because I like being nice to people ... I think it is a good thing to do (agnostic)

Here's a question. Once they prove God, will atheists be protected from persecution under freedom of religion?
If god can be proven to exist, there probably won't be many atheists left. I know I'd change my position.

Eugenics had nothing to do with *starting* WW2, it *did* have to do with the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, but the purpose of the war was the same as any war - power and territory.

Same as religion in oh, say the Dark Ages or the Crusades etc...

If god can be proven to exist, there probably won't be many atheists left. I know I'd change my position.
being agnostic is kind of covering my bases for me :) proof one way or another would tip me

Why don’t people understand that

Atheism != belief in science


Not all atheists build their belief on such

Atheism is a RELIGION it is a belief structure all its own … it takes faith to believe there is nothing when the evidence does not say exactly that

And it takes faith to believe that there IS something without direct evidence too
Not true. Everyone is born an atheist. It's the default position. It requres no faith because it is by definition a lack of beleif.

Yup because atheism is a religion (that is assuming it CAN be proved)
Atheism is no more a religion than disbeleif in dragons is a religion.

@Drunkcommies. Yeah, that's the impression I got from Left Behind, only with more machine guns, a little self-righteousness, and some rivers of blood. I'll take my chances that if there is a higher being, it is in fact a higher being, and not a petty, vengeful crittur like our friend, the OT god.

But currently science does not DISPROVE a god … (does not prove it either) so they are using faith to extend beyond sheer info.

Only thing science can currently disprove is specific events (such as an actual flood … so on so fort (oh yeah and don’t go off on citing sources on how the flood is real I was only giving an example of something that could/couldn’t be disproved))


Generally, lack of belief in something is considered default and not an act of faith.

It is taken for granted that people do not believe in millions of nonsensical ideas such as:

Cats control the moon.
The cats are themselves controlled by a horse that lives at the center of the sun.
The sun is controlled by six invisible ants that life behind the eyes of the British Prime Minister
The ants are controlled by six invisible squirrels that inhabit the great pyramid.

&c. &c.


One does not say that people actively deny such things, rather, the lack of reasonable evidence for them puts them below serious consideration. The same is true for many people of gods.

Not true. Everyone is born an atheist. It's the default position. It requres no faith because it is by definition a lack of beleif.
No it requires a belief in a LACK of god

Agnostic is more of a belief of “don’t know” or can’t be proved. You have to have faith (unless you are confusing soft atheism with agnosticism … they get kind of blurry around there)

How can you prove something anyway? If "god" came down on earth with thunderbolts around him and told me he was god, how do I know he isnt gods twin brother, or any number of other excuses. When you say prove, most people say its more likely. So what if you say its more likely that god or an intelligent being created the world. Thats your opinion. If you can find a rock that says god ws here, and I can verify its not a forgery then fine.
I would accept a reasonable ammount of hard evidence. I don't require absolute proof.

With out God, what exactly = a better reality? According to whom or what? And, why is the converse of that person or sources idea any more or less true? Aside from something greater than us defining reality, each of us defines reality as we see fit unless you claim that some of us are inferior to others, but even then how are you going to prove it?

People like you amaze me.

If the carrot-stick mentality is all that is keeping you "in line", I seriously hope we breed your kind out of the human race.

And I will repeat: If the only reason that you wish to be kind to others, etc. is "because God said so," I doubt very seriously that you will actually get a chance to meet God.

You're right, what's commonly believed scientifically is often later proven to be wrong or at least slightly off the mark. However, while it is impossible to definitively prove much of anything, test results can show definite patterns which strongly supports scientific theories.

But then again, in the case of gravity one could just say 'it falls because God made it fall, and He does so every time' and it would follow the test results as well.

So I guess that's just a rambling way of me saying 'I agree.' :p

uh be still my beating heart. Some one here has actually agreed with something I said that doesn't subscribe to my belief system.. It must be a miracle. See there is a God... :rolleyes: ;) Okay that was a little over done and I hope, not insulting or too faith based to be stomached. This place and everyone demanding that others believe the same way they do or calling whoever doesn't agree names is just getting to me a little.

No it requires a belief in a LACK of god

Agnostic is more of a belief of “don’t know” or can’t be proved. You have to have faith (unless you are confusing soft atheism with agnosticism … they get kind of blurry around there)


There is a subtle distinction between "belief in a lack of god" and "lack of belief in a god"

Atheism breakes down to a-theism, without-belief in god.

Antitheism would be more along the lines of "belief in lack of a god."

Agnosticism is really a subset of atheism.

look, I don't see where the debate came from here. Earth was created by the big bang. Out of the primordial ooze crawled our ancestors. There are gods or a single god up there, but they did not create the universe, they were created themselves out of the neccessity to maintain it. Humans being dominant in the world, we would have wiped our selves out through simple human nature already with bombs if morality had not intervened. Where does morality come from? religion.

and there you have it.

There is nothing that can create, all of the universe was already there, just at the size of a pinprick, it expanded at the speed of light and now there is a god. Stop arguing and use commons sense! :headbang:

Generally, lack of belief in something is considered default and not an act of faith.

It is taken for granted that people do not believe in millions of nonsensical ideas such as:

Cats control the moon.
The cats are themselves controlled by a horse that lives at the center of the sun.
The sun is controlled by six invisible ants that life behind the eyes of the British Prime Minister
The ants are controlled by six invisible squirrels that inhabit the great pyramid.

&c. &c.


One does not say that people actively deny such things, rather, the lack of reasonable evidence for them puts them below serious consideration. The same is true for many people of gods.

But like others the term atheism is being used incorrectly (soft atheism is the blurry one) with agnosticism

Agnosticism is more the lack of belief because of lack of proof

To be atheist you have to have a belief in NO deity (not unsure … you have to be SURE there is nothing there) anything else can be classified into different categories agnosticism and such

Same as religion in oh, say the Dark Ages or the Crusades etc...

And those were about power and territory as well. Religion was an excuse, as true exercise of the religions involved wouldn't cause war anyways. People are often so insecure in their faith that they have to defeat someone else to "prove" that their God is the "right" God.

But currently science does not DISPROVE a god … (does not prove it either) so they are using faith to extend beyond sheer info.

Only thing science can currently disprove is specific events (such as an actual flood … so on so fort (oh yeah and don’t go off on citing sources on how the flood is real I was only giving an example of something that could/couldn’t be disproved))
Science doesn't disprove unicorns either. Or ghosts, or bigfoot, or invisible birds, or any number of things you would care to imagine. Shoud people beleive in all of those infinite things? No. It would be absurd. God is no different. Without evidence it is reasonable not to beleive. In fact, we are born not beleiving. It requires no faith whatsoever. Atheism is lack of faith by definintion.

Plenty of people who beleive in god are selfish hedonists. Beleif in god keeps only the weakest minds in line.

Is there anything wrong with belief keeping the 'weakest minds in line'?

Even if that's true, perhaps the strongest minds are overthinking science. We have test results and theories based on those results, but the theories could be wrong. Maybe it really is God that makes things the way they are. Can you, or any of the strongest minds, really prove otherwise?

In the end each of us only knows this: I exist and there may be something happening around me.

No, everything wouldn't. You choose to beleive in a god to define right and wrong. You do so without any evidence of his existance. I beleive in the promise of a better America and a better world. My reason for not being a criminal. Also, I empathize with other people. Hurting them unnecessarily would not sit well with me. My right and wrong are no more subjective than yours considering that other people's gods have different values than your god.

And mine would be entirely subjective if God does not exist, making them equally valid to anyone elses. Not more so or less so. However, if God exists, and some portion of my conception of Him is accurate, then whatever portion that is would have a higher level of validity than your or my subjective opinions no?

New Grenada, you are so asking for it. First you take the name of the Toaster Fairy in vain, now the six invisible squirrels? Better pack your sun screen.

And mine would be entirely subjective if God does not exist, making them equally valid to anyone elses. Not more so or less so. However, if God exists, and some portion of my conception of Him is accurate, then whatever portion that is would have a higher level of validity than your or my subjective opinions no?

So what makes God wrong or right?

As far as I'm aware, some person that we now refer to as "Jesus" created the Christian faith... and we believe that he is the son of a deity... because he said he was?

So, some of the arguments I've read:

"He's afraid of death"-It specifically mentions that he still doesn't believe in the afterlife, so this isn't the reason. I still don't agree with him, but I want the arguments to be good.

"Life is too complexly perfect."-I give you the appendix(sp). Figure that out in intellegent design. Or what the other 80% or so of what the brain is for...Really I go to Sagan on this, statistically speaking given the size of the universe not only should life have happened, it should have happened a few times. Given the size again, it is not statistically practical to think we'll run into each other.

"If there is no God, then why don't I just start hitting you?"-Because you don't want me to hit you. Or anyone else. You accept the social contract because you don't want anyone else to do those things to you. We are pack animals and have always relied on each other for survival. A pack of wolves or a herd of gazelles don't need a god to have them look after each other. As far as concerns for the future, they are tied into your inbuilt desire to reproduce. Sex is great for a reason. (I am certainly not saying that is the only reason you should, I'm saying it's the only reason you 'want to' so badly. Yeah reason, I can get that jolly and not have a kid. Woo hoo!)

"Create an organism."-Why in hell would this be an argument? Well, anyway-we tried. What we discovered is we'd need a biosphere the size of, say-a planet and a few thousand or so years. So get comfortable. Programs that evolve are called "Artificial Life" programs, not "Artificial Intellegence," and it is an important distinction.

Here's a catalog of a few Artificial Life programs (http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/ALHome.html), as well as a cheap page trying to explain AL (http://necrobones.com/alife/), and then a set of AL links (http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~rob/links/artificial-life.html), or you could just look at the google page yourself. (http://www.google.com/search?q=artificial+life+programs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8).

This has probably progressed way past my arguments by the time I actually post this, so....

But like others the term atheism is being used incorrectly (soft atheism is the blurry one) with agnosticism

Agnosticism is more the lack of belief because of lack of proof

To be atheist you have to have a belief in NO deity (not unsure … you have to be SURE there is nothing there) anything else can be classified into different categories agnosticism and such

The real problem is that words like atheist and agnostic do not have a long usage and great precedent to determine what they mean.

Technically speaking (Oxford English), an agnostic is somone who believes that "nothing can possibly be known about god." An agnostic is not 'waiting for evidence' or 'open to evidence,' rather an agnostic is convinced that evidence about god is fundementally impossible.

The OED defines atheism as "the belief that there is no god." Listing the etymology as a-theos, without god.

Note that neither of these words, defined strictly, is sufficient to describe the great variance among peoples beliefs with regard to god, or lack of belief therein.

Because of this, new words have to be coined like "soft atheim," and when the fallacy of equivocation is made by equating the new words with the old ones, great and insoluble problems arise.

No it requires a belief in a LACK of god

Agnostic is more of a belief of “don’t know” or can’t be proved. You have to have faith (unless you are confusing soft atheism with agnosticism … they get kind of blurry around there)
Are you agnostic about people living on the surface of distant stars? Humans who somehow are miraculously protected from extremes of gravity, heat and radiation?

Personal beliefs and scientific evidence are not necessarily the same.

My *personal* belief is that there is a God. However, from a *scientific* view, I know that there is no evidence for this (or against it).

If someone says that science has convinced *them* that there is no God, they are speaking from personal experience, and thus are right.

If someone says that science has convinced *them* that there is a God, they are speaking from personal experience, and thus are right.

If someone says that science is "pro-God" or "anti-God," they do not understand science and are talking out of their asses. Science presumes nothing about God, as any Creator or all-powerful being would, by definition, exist outside the realm of science. As far as science is concerned, there may be a God and there may not, but it doesn't matter to the study at hand.

Your last paragraph is correct, but in my experience, the majority of people who claim to be "scientists" seem to believe that "science" has proved that God does not exist. Yes, this is a gross mis-statement for a "scientist", but it is still something that much of the "scientific" community professes as truth.

As for the statements about belief being "right". The only way to define "right" is in objective reality. If God does not exist and has not defined and revealed objective reality, "right" does not exist.

New Grenada, you are so asking for it. First you take the name of the Toaster Fairy in vain, now the six invisible squirrels? Better pack your sun screen.


I have my six sided cross of burned and honey-covered mimosa wood you son of a bitch, you cant touch me.

wait, so one old dude decides that he thinks God does exist after all, and that's supposed to be a big blow to atheism? do we really need to post the statistics showing that Christianity is collapsing about as quickly as secularism is increasing? do we really need to start listing the number of people who used to believe in God but became atheists or agnostics? why should anybody give a hoot that one particular person decides that he needs to believe in God as he nears death?

But like others the term atheism is being used incorrectly (soft atheism is the blurry one) with agnosticism

Agnosticism is more the lack of belief because of lack of proof

To be atheist you have to have a belief in NO deity (not unsure … you have to be SURE there is nothing there) anything else can be classified into different categories agnosticism and such
There's weak atheist and strong atheist. Strong atheist says god is impossible. Weak atheist says I can't beleive it's there without evidence. I'm a weak atheist. I have no faith.

Your last paragraph is correct, but in my experience, the majority of people who claim to be "scientists" seem to believe that "science" has proved that God does not exist. Yes, this is a gross mis-statement for a "scientist", but it is still something that much of the "scientific" community professes as truth.

As for the statements about belief being "right". The only way to define "right" is in objective reality. If God does not exist and has not defined and revealed objective reality, "right" does not exist.


You may be making the fallacy of equivocation by pretending that the assertion "the judeo-christian-muslim god, if his existence is to be tested by testing the literal truth of events in the bible/torah/koran, does not seem to exist" is the same as "there is no god at all."

Darwin and Dawkins looked at all the available evidence and tried to see if any of it would disprove evolution. Since all the available evidence supported evolution, they beleived in it.

Words like "all" in this context are gross over-generalizations. I don't actually know that much about Dawkins, but I do know that Darwin went specifically looking to disprove the existance of God, after having been clergy and having his daughter die. This challenge to his faith led him to search for a way to destroy his faith rather than confront the reality of the awefulness of sin.

And mine would be entirely subjective if God does not exist, making them equally valid to anyone elses. Not more so or less so. However, if God exists, and some portion of my conception of Him is accurate, then whatever portion that is would have a higher level of validity than your or my subjective opinions no?
Only IF god exists, and IF some specific portion of your concept of him is accurate. Two big ifs. The first if has no evidentiary support. Neither does the second. In that case, mine has a higher level of validity because although it's based on something smaller than a god would be, it's based on something that can be demonstrated to exist.

Even world renoun scientists can be silly. Science doesn't take anyone's word based on his respected reputaiton or his authority. It relies on evidence, testing, and repeatability.

I'd say scientists that say science has disproved the existance of God is are a pretty repeatable commodity.

Plenty of people who beleive in god are selfish hedonists. Beleif in god keeps only the weakest minds in line.

Why thank you for the complement. :) I should add that you are correct about there being selfish, hedonistic "christians". It is a very unfortunate reality, but perhaps they are in the early stages of growth in their experience. It isn't my place to condemn.

Words like "all" in this context are gross over-generalizations. I don't actually know that much about Dawkins, but I do know that Darwin went specifically looking to disprove the existance of God, after having been clergy and having his daughter die. This challenge to his faith led him to search for a way to destroy his faith rather than confront the reality of the awefulness of sin.


Would you kindly cite that claim?

I have my six sided cross of burned and honey-covered mimosa wood you son of a bitch, you cant touch me.

Frak, I forgot about the honey-drizzled sexagram of singed mimosa. Call off the fatwah, guys, that thing really stings.

Coincidentally, if you're intrigued by the ideas contained in this post, I have pamphlets and tracts.

Words like "all" in this context are gross over-generalizations. I don't actually know that much about Dawkins, but I do know that Darwin went specifically looking to disprove the existance of God, after having been clergy and having his daughter die. This challenge to his faith led him to search for a way to destroy his faith rather than confront the reality of the awefulness of sin.
I never heard that about Darwin. I had heard that he went out with the beleif that god created everything as it is now, and based on what he observed changed his mind.

Is'nt it clear to most everyone that language is a construct of man, who is foulable, even to those who belive in God. How easy it is to be lied to? Is'nt it also easy to beieve any lie especially if you want to if it explains the unexplainable and the frightening. There are countless lies told in history most told to settle the average mind. Is'nt it true that all governments lie to their masses in order to control and protect them. I guess religon is'nt that big of a mystery its a comfort for those who are afraid there may be no reason other than chance that we exist. The whole discussion is rather silly don't ya think?

This article suggests that due to the extreme improbabilty of anything as complex as living matter existing, god (an intelligent being who could have created all this finery) must exist.

But we must remember that if the universe is infinite, it means anything is almost certain to happen. We just happened to be the speck in it all that it happened to.

The big science/god thing might be worked out if the scienctists at CERN discover the Higgs Boson, the ultra mysterious sub atomic particle (it's nicknamed the god particle) when they finish building the Large Hadron Collider in 2007.

I'd say scientists that say science has disproved the existance of God is are a pretty repeatable commodity.
What's that mean? Do you mean to say that a lot of scientists say science has disproved god? I seriously doubt that a majority, or even a small minority would say that, although there are idiots even in the sciences. They may say it has disproved the bible, because it has disproved some parts, creation myth, geocentric universe, etc.

This article suggests that due to the extreme improbabilty of anything as complex as living matter existing, god (an intelligent being who could have created all this finery) must exist.

But we must remember that if the universe is infinite, it means anything is almost certain to happen. We just happened to be the speck in it all that it happened to.

The big science/god thing might be worked out if the scienctists at CERN discover the Higgs Boson, the ultra mysterious sub atomic particle (it's nicknamed the god particle) when they finish building the Large Hadron Collider in 2007.

You aren't saying god is really small, are you? Cause I kind of like that. I might use it in my new religion.

You know, cause people like small stuff. I could be all like "Could I get you a tiny god to go with your new Cooper Mini?" And they could be like, "Sure, here's some money, Deacon Poland."

So what makes God wrong or right?

As far as I'm aware, some person that we now refer to as "Jesus" created the Christian faith... and we believe that he is the son of a deity... because he said he was?

If God has revealed Himself in the Bible as I believe, His claim to be the only self-existant, infinite being in the universe that has no beginning or end and that He has created and sustains all that is in existance, as He claims, there is no frame of reference beyond Him that could be more right.

If God has revealed Himself in the Bible as I believe, His claim to be the only self-existant, infinite being in the universe that has no beginning or end and that He has created and sustains all that is in existance, as He claims, there is no frame of reference beyond Him that could be more right.

An, er, what form would this God take? (If you say 'any he chooses', I will shoot you).

So, some of the arguments I've read:

"He's afraid of death"-It specifically mentions that he still doesn't believe in the afterlife, so this isn't the reason. I still don't agree with him, but I want the arguments to be good.

"Life is too complexly perfect."-I give you the appendix(sp). Figure that out in intellegent design. Or what the other 80% or so of what the brain is for...Really I go to Sagan on this, statistically speaking given the size of the universe not only should life have happened, it should have happened a few times. Given the size again, it is not statistically practical to think we'll run into each other.



However, per current scientific knowledge there is insufficient, carbon based material in the Universe to explain any random combination that could result in the complex system of proteins necessary for life to begin, let alone the presense of so much of it in our galaxy, solar system and planet.

wait, so one old dude decides that he thinks God does exist after all, and that's supposed to be a big blow to atheism? do we really need to post the statistics showing that Christianity is collapsing about as quickly as secularism is increasing? do we really need to start listing the number of people who used to believe in God but became atheists or agnostics? why should anybody give a hoot that one particular person decides that he needs to believe in God as he nears death?
I believe the idea is (mind you I don't buy it) is that he is a famous Athiest, an athiestic 'leader' so it's supposed to be like the Pope went athiest. It provides so many fundemental misunderstandings it's hard to find where to start.....ah well.....

Your last paragraph is correct, but in my experience, the majority of people who claim to be "scientists" seem to believe that "science" has proved that God does not exist. Yes, this is a gross mis-statement for a "scientist", but it is still something that much of the "scientific" community professes as truth.

I am in the scientific community, and I have only seen one such claim in my entire life.

Only IF god exists, and IF some specific portion of your concept of him is accurate. Two big ifs. The first if has no evidentiary support. Neither does the second. In that case, mine has a higher level of validity because although it's based on something smaller than a god would be, it's based on something that can be demonstrated to exist.

Actually there is significant evidence, just not proof. The problem is you don't like my interpretation of the evidence, just as I disagree with yours. Does that make you right or wrong? No. Neither does it make me right or wrong. It just means you chose to interpret the evidence based on your beliefs and I chose to interpret it based on mine.

There is no evidence that God exists in any way either. Why is it not so acceptable to just find comfort in the fact that we will not know either way what really caused esistance, Isn't it possible that we are incapable of finding this information? Why must we explain it? Why do we have to spend time finding this out rather than discrediting both and finding ways to exist in a rational manner now?

Belief System, BS, ficticious constructs of the human mind, personal BS, am I rediculous to say its all a construct of comfort?

Belief System, BS, ficticious constructs of the human mind, personal BS, am I rediculous to say its all a construct of comfort?

Comfort and control, I'd agree with.

I'd say scientists that say science has disproved the existance of God is are a pretty repeatable commodity.

I work in science, and I have met *one* scientist who claimed that he *could* (not that he *had*) disproved the existence of God and, as I have pointed out, he was full of shit.

Again, someone saying "science has convinced me that there is no God" is not the same as saying "science has disproved the existence of God." The former I have heard, the latter I have never heard.

Would you kindly cite that claim?

fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/essays/biography.html - 14k The first part is here. I'll have to do a little reseach to get you the rest another day.

Why thank you for the complement. :) I should add that you are correct about there being selfish, hedonistic "christians". It is a very unfortunate reality, but perhaps they are in the early stages of growth in their experience. It isn't my place to condemn.

Considering that you are still stuck in the "carrot-stick" mentality, I would say that you are most likely in the very early stages of spiritual growth - or maybe just got stuck there early on.

Neither are accepatble grounds to base existance on other than comfort correct?

However, per current scientific knowledge there is insufficient, carbon based material in the Universe to explain any random combination that could result in the complex system of proteins necessary for life to begin, let alone the presense of so much of it in our galaxy, solar system and planet.
Where ya gettin' that? I'm not saying you are wrong, just want to know the source.

However, per current scientific knowledge there is insufficient, carbon based material in the Universe to explain any random combination that could result in the complex system of proteins necessary for life to begin, let alone the presense of so much of it in our galaxy, solar system and planet.
Um, no. There's plenty of carbon in the universe. Shit, they've found amino acids in debris from comets.

Actually there is significant evidence, just not proof. The problem is you don't like my interpretation of the evidence, just as I disagree with yours. Does that make you right or wrong? No. Neither does it make me right or wrong. It just means you chose to interpret the evidence based on your beliefs and I chose to interpret it based on mine.
I haven't seen any evidence. If you've got some, I'm willing to listen.

I just find it funny that, despite going deist, he said up yours to Judeo-Christianity and related faiths.

Also, since when is this guy that big a deal?

I never heard of him on the atheist forums.

Actually there is significant evidence, just not proof. The problem is you don't like my interpretation of the evidence, just as I disagree with yours. Does that make you right or wrong? No. Neither does it make me right or wrong. It just means you chose to interpret the evidence based on your beliefs and I chose to interpret it based on mine.

Exactly.

You come from the axiom that there is a God, therefore you interpret all evidence in that frame.

Atheists come from the axiom that there is not, therefore they interpret all evidence in that frame.

This particular axiom is irrelevant to science, so there the frame is that the existence or non-existence of a God is irrelevant to the task at hand - studying and describing the workings of the universe in order to make predictions and use them to humanity's purposes.

An, er, what form would this God take? (If you say 'any he chooses', I will shoot you).

Fire away... The closest anyone's been was Moses and He had to be sheilded so he wouldn't be destroyed.

Fire away... The closest anyone's been was Moses and He had to be sheilded so he wouldn't be destroyed.

And what makes you believe that Moses actually happened? I'm not a big believer in faith, I'm afraid. Like I've already said, believing in something doesn't make it real.

Having to be shielded from something isn't a big deal... we have to be shielded from the sun, so we don't get cancer. Nuclear explosions hurt a bit, too.

Considering that you are still stuck in the "carrot-stick" mentality, I would say that you are most likely in the very early stages of spiritual growth - or maybe just got stuck there early on.


I'm not chasing a carrot stick. I'm in love with the God who created me, is showing me a better way to live, and who I'd love to spend eternity with.

I'm not chasing a carrot stick. I'm in love with the God who created me, is showing me a better way to live, and who I'd love to spend eternity with.

Sounds an awful lot like your mother and father, to be honest. ;) You don't need a God for that.

Where ya gettin' that? I'm not saying you are wrong, just want to know the source.

I'll have to pull my Chem. prof's. notes on the subject. Might take a few days or a week. Willing to wait that long?

I'm not chasing a carrot stick. I'm in love with the God who created me, is showing me a better way to live, and who I'd love to spend eternity with.

According to you, the *only* reason to be kind to other people is God. This is the epitomy of the carrot-stick mentality. "If I don't do it, God will punish me."

Exactly.

You come from the axiom that there is a God, therefore you interpret all evidence in that frame.

Atheists come from the axiom that there is not, therefore they interpret all evidence in that frame.

This particular axiom is irrelevant to science, so there the frame is that the existence or non-existence of a God is irrelevant to the task at hand - studying and describing the workings of the universe in order to make predictions and use them to humanity's purposes.


True, I just wish more scientists saw it that way.

Sounds an awful lot like your mother and father, to be honest. ;) You don't need a God for that.

Father is accurate, at least in a Biblical sense. :p ;) :rolleyes:

True, I just wish more scientists saw it that way.

The vast majority of us do.

Some feel very strongly about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and don't understand the viewpoint of the other. However, any scientist worth anything keeps religion out of the lab.

According to you, the *only* reason to be kind to other people is God. This is the epitomy of the carrot-stick mentality. "If I don't do it, God will punish me."

No, I do it because I love God and since He suggested it was a good idea and in both my and the rest of creations' best interest I have agreed to do my best to act in a manner consistant with that love.

Father is accurate, at least in a Biblical sense. :p ;) :rolleyes:

The bible... heh... the best-selling piece of fiction ever...

Ah... the old god vs. science argument.l
Well I guess I should start by stateing my beliefs. I believe that there is a god, but I also believe in science. Basically I believe that god created the entire universe by causing the big bang, or whatever the beginning is. He also laid out the laws of science and what not and just let is role, coming in where he desired. I do not believe that we were created in god's image or any of that stuff, or that we were even created by god. We were created by the laws that god set forth within biology. That is the basic explantion of I believe, I will not tire you with a drawn out answer.
Anyway for anyone who says that biological matter can not come from inorganic matter are just wrong. It has already been proven that this is possible. Now you dont have proto-beings popping out of every crevice because oxygen breaks up a lot of things on the molecular level as it is highly reactive. Early earth had no oxygen, but lots of other stuff. Through sheer luck and a couple billion years the first simply procaryotic cells were born. From there well more complex things evolved. Now, scientists have created small test chambers with early earth conditions in them and after a few days, yes days, simple proteins, RNA, and other simple organic matter was floating around.
Also for those who say there is no chance look at it this way. Lets say the chance of life is say 1 in a googleplex to the googleplex power. Now that is a low chance. No multiply that by the amount of time that has past and will come to pass which is infinity. Well the answer ends up being infinity!
Uh yea just a few things I wanted to say.

Some points...

1: It is fundamentally impossible to prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. The best you can do is show that you couldn't find it when you went looking.

2: You can't prove God exists. Even if some guy shows up, calls himself God, then levels a few mountains with his thought, evaperates a city or two on a whim, etc. it wouldn't prove he's God. Just that he's incredibly impressive.

3: Science doesn't actually prove much of anything, at least not technically. The scientific method operates on the concept of inductive reasoning, which is inheratly fallable. The best it can do is say "this is how things work, as far as we can tell".

4: Most arguments against god are generally actually arguments against a particular depiction of god. They may claim to be against the existance of any god, but the vast majority of them really just saying "if he's there, he's not what you think he is".

5: Most arguments in favor of God, work fairly well for ANY god.

Ultimately, discussions about the existance of God(s), while fun, will never actually get anywhere.

The vast majority of us do.

Some feel very strongly about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and don't understand the viewpoint of the other. However, any scientist worth anything keeps religion out of the lab.

I guess that may depend on what disipline you subscribe to. I would agree that more of you in the "hard sciences" tend to believe that way, but start getting into Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology and the like that get going that direction.

The bible... heh... the best-selling piece of fiction ever...


Prove it... :p :rolleyes: ;)

Some points...

1: It is fundamentally impossible to prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. The best you can do is show that you couldn't find it when you went looking.

2: You can't prove God exists. Even if some guy shows up, calls himself God, then levels a few mountains with his thought, evaperates a city or two on a whim, etc. it wouldn't prove he's God. Just that he's incredibly impressive.

3: Science doesn't actually prove much of anything, at least not technically. The scientific method operates on the concept of inductive reasoning, which is inheratly fallable. The best it can do is say "this is how things work, as far as we can tell".

4: Most arguments against god are generally actually arguments against a particular depiction of god. They may claim to be against the existance of any god, but the vast majority of them really just saying "if he's there, he's not what you think he is".

5: Most arguments in favor of God, work fairly well for ANY god.

Ultimately, discussions about the existance of God(s), while fun, will never actually get anywhere.

Which leaves us about where we are now, correct?

I guess that may depend on what disipline you subscribe to. I would agree that more of you in the "hard sciences" tend to believe that way, but start getting into Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology and the like that get going that direction.

No. Psychology defines the workings of the psyche - while God *may* influence this, there is no proof of that, and psychologists are simply looking at the way people act.

Sociologists have absolutely no reason to claim anything about the existence of God, although they will look at how religion develops.

Anthropology, see above.

Archeology, see above.

You only think these disciplines are "anti-God," because they seem to disprove some idea you have about God. This says nothing about the *existence* of God.

I'll have to pull my Chem. prof's. notes on the subject. Might take a few days or a week. Willing to wait that long?
I'll need something, you'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

The bible... heh... the best-selling piece of fiction ever...

I think the Communist Manifesto beats the Bible in terms of lying and being completely inaccurate. Though it might not be the best selling piece of fiction.

P.S: I got my Bible for free....as did most other christians :rolleyes:

I think the Communist Manifesto beats the Bible in terms of lying and being completely inaccurate. Though it might not be the best selling piece of fiction.

P.S: I got my Bible for free....as did most other christians :rolleyes:

The Bible by far beats The Communist Manifesto in lies and distortion. The Manifesto has truth, and even those who think it has no truth must admit that it is more reasonable and rational than a bunch of fantasy and make-believe.

God doesn't exist. I have an very good explanation for how we exist. I may post it somewhere later.

Ahem ... most of the issue of the post got covered pretty early on but there's enough to keep one occupied after ...
in a new tradition of mine, in reading all & posting after ....
for what it's worth.
Post #8 - Pick up this month's Scientific American. Compare & contrast w/your definitions here.
Post # 15 - My cat used to find flies pretty and attractive 'til he sheared their wings off with nimble teeth, then they weren't so much anymore ... considering subjectivity. Now as for the altered-DNA segmentation experiments w/flies (resulting in legs sprouting out eyesockets) .... there's more subjectivity ;)
#16 - Try paying a little more attention to scientific posts and not mainstream news to argue this, maybe.
#96 - It's spelled renowned, as in knowing ....
#103 - Even so, you may still remain and/or be often lonely and vindictive. Surprise how much an impetus being those are.
#106, #126, #147•, #165, #174¯ - Good posts/thoughts IMHO.
#145 - yeowch.
_end of line_

I agree that it took intelligence to create life at the very least. How could a random occurance come up with something so advanced that "intelligent" humans can't even reproduce it?

Why does it always come back to life? Why can't most people see that the non-living universe is pretty complicated in the first place? I've said this before on various threads on this board, NO-ONE KNOWS THE MEANING OF THE EXISTENCE OF A UNIVERSE will you stop thinking it's all about life and think about the big picture... matter.. energy.. what is the reason for any of that to exist?

Why does it always come back to life? Why can't most people see that the non-living universe is pretty complicated in the first place? I've said this before on various threads on this board, NO-ONE KNOWS THE MEANING OF THE EXISTENCE OF A UNIVERSE will you stop thinking it's all about life and think about the big picture... matter.. energy.. what is the reason for any of that to exist?
Why does there need to be a reason?

Where ya gettin' that? I'm not saying you are wrong, just want to know the source.

You asked for a source on the insufficiency of Carbon to randomly create simple life on earth issue. Organic Chemisty Dwain Ford submitted an article for a book entitled "in six days" published by "Master Books". It is a compliation of scientific perspectives from numerous disciplines on intelligent design and was compilied and edited by John F. Ashton Ph.D. It should be available at www.masterbooks.net. Ph.d. Ford's article begins on page 138. I sat through a lecture he presented on this subject about 3 years ago. If you need it, the Library of Congress card catalog # is: 00-110204.

There are 49 other articles that provide scientific evidence in support of intelligent design in this book. Interesting reading so far, though I haven't completed the book yet.

Hope that helps. :)

Why does there need to be a reason?

If there is no reason, life has no meaning and therefore, Hitler would have been just as wonderful a world leader as Ghandi. You could only say they had different ideas, neither better or worse, valuable or not, than the other. I'm very glad I don't live in a world/universe that is devoid of reason/meaning.

If there is no reason, life has no meaning and therefore, Hitler would have been just as wonderful a world leader as Ghandi. You could only say they had different ideas, neither better or worse, valuable or not, than the other. I'm very glad I don't live in a world/universe that is devoid of reason/meaning.
But you assume the only morals out there are religiously derived

I could argue that it is visa versa … religions grew around and were influenced by morals that people already had.

How do you explain the big ones being in all the major religions? (killing stealing … that bunch)

But you assume the only morals out there are religiously derived

I could argue that it is visa versa … religions grew around and were influenced by morals that people already had.

How do you explain the big ones being in all the major religions? (killing stealing … that bunch)

Assuming God created the world and revealed the basics to people at creation it makes sense. Particuarly, if all of the worlds population was centered at Babel following the flood/Noah. People would all have had some similar conception of right and wrong. When the languages were confused and people spread to the rest of the world, it would make sense that they carried that knowledge with them. In fact there are very interesting studies on the worlds oldest written language and the stories behind it characters, that suggest exactly that possibility.

Again, if all religion is the invention of man, none of it has anything other than a subjective value, not more or less than any other idea. If, however, it was Divinely inspired, it has both intrinsic and extrinsic values that cannot be given it by humanity alone.

Also, I don't believe that all morals are religiously/Divinely derived, just the ones that are benevolent, selfless, loving and pure.

I agree that it took intelligence to create life at the very least. How could a random occurance come up with something so advanced that "intelligent" humans can't even reproduce it?
We've only had the tech available to even discover the stuff for less than a hundred years. Give us a bit of time will ya?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

One of the world's most famous and intelligant atheists now believes in God. Take that you non-believers! :p Anyways considering science and how it was always anti-god do you guys think that Science will ironicly be responsible for reviving the belief in a God?
Problem is that most people have cognitive dessonance. Most athiests will ignore any evidence this guy presents, just as a lot of christians will ignore evidence that suggest otherwise.
Everyone has CD.

Wait a minute this dude was 81.
Don't most athiests profess belief in God when they are near death?
This doesn't count.

Wait a minute this dude was 81.
Don't most athiests profess belief in God when they are near death?
This doesn't count.
Lol don’t know statistically but would bet they wouldn’t mind “hedging” their bets

Wait a minute this dude was 81.
Don't most athiests profess belief in God when they are near death?
This doesn't count.


That depends on who you ask. As far as I'm concerned, every confession of faith counts or at the very least, only God can judge the validity of such a confession.

Wait a minute this dude was 81.
Don't most athiests profess belief in God when they are near death?
This doesn't count.

The implication you are making is that he has found belief due to concerns about the afterlife. Did you miss the fact that he only ascribed to belief in an intelligent force behind the creation, and then disavowed any other similarities to the Christian God? Elsewhere he makes it clear that all he has started to believe in is an Aristotelian prime Mover or intelligent first cause.

He's obviously gone senile.

He's obviously gone senile.

Maybe you should check out that book I mentioned on the last page. At lease if you consider yourself "objective". There are 50 scientist from various disciplines that not only agree with this scientists, but they also offer the scientific reasons they believe in intelligent design.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

One of the world's most famous and intelligant atheists now believes in God. Take that you non-believers! :p Anyways considering science and how it was always anti-god do you guys think that Science will ironicly be responsible for reviving the belief in a God?

Or, for the more sceptical among us....

I WONDER if this has anything to do with the fact that he has a new book coming out?

Maybe you should check out that book I mentioned on the last page. At lease if you consider yourself "objective". There are 50 scientist from various disciplines that not only agree with this scientists, but they also offer the scientific reasons they believe in intelligent design.
If I really wanted to I could probably find well over 200 scientists from various disciplines who had scientific reasons not to believe in intelligent design. Doesn't mean that they're right or wrong.

Maybe you should check out that book I mentioned on the last page. At lease if you consider yourself "objective". There are 50 scientist from various disciplines that not only agree with this scientists, but they also offer the scientific reasons they believe in intelligent design.

Objectivity does not include bad science.

Intelligent design has no real scientific backing. It is, in essence, a cop-out. "We can't explain this, so God did it. The end." It is also based on the very false idea that biology is fragile, and that the removal of any one component would destroy life.

You show me 50 scientists that sign off on it, and I will show you 50 scientists with little to no standing in their fields, that probably have not been able to publish in any sort of real journal throughout the bulk of their careers.

If I really wanted to I could probably find well over 200 scientists from various disciplines who had scientific reasons not to believe in intelligent design. Doesn't mean that they're right or wrong.

That is correct. I am just suggesting that, like most of the rest of us, you have been exposed to very little scientific evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design, and that to be fair and balanced and or to claim objectivity you at least owe it to yourself to be cognizant of the evidence on both sides of the argument, before drawing conclusions. Or are you to closed minded to even consider that it is a possibility? That wouldn't be very scientific of you, you know...

Lol don’t know statistically but would bet they wouldn’t mind “hedging” their bets

From a recent discussion between Habermas & Flew:

HABERMAS: I agree that near death experiences do not evidence the doctrines of either heaven or hell. But do you think these evidential cases increase the possibility of some sort of an afterlife, again, given your theism?

FLEW: I still hope and believe there’s no possibility of an afterlife.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page4.cfm


...and here's a little snippet for the Christians trying to claim him as one of their own:

HABERMAS: What do you think about the Bible?

FLEW: The Bible is a work which someone who had not the slightest concern about the question of the truth or falsity of the Christian religion could read as people read the novels of the best novelists. It is an eminently readable book.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page5.cfm

Maybe you should check out that book I mentioned on the last page. At lease if you consider yourself "objective". There are 50 scientist from various disciplines that not only agree with this scientists, but they also offer the scientific reasons they believe in intelligent design.
And there's over 500 scientists in relevant disciplines have produced written statements that basically state that ID is bullshit. And those are just the ones named Steve.

That is correct. I am just suggesting that, like most of the rest of us, you have been exposed to very little scientific evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design, and that to be fair and balanced and or to claim objectivity you at least owe it to yourself to be cognizant of the evidence on both sides of the argument, before drawing conclusions. Or are you to closed minded to even consider that it is a possibility? That wouldn't be very scientific of you, you know...

There is no 'scientific' evidence of intelligent design...

Just crackpot organisations like 'creationmoments.com', who pretend to have evidence, but it turns out to be scientifically flawed.

See, this is the problem the average christian fundamentalist runs into... they understand their theology, but have no clue about science...

Which means they get torn to pieces by the average scientific atheist, because they understand science, and, usually, are pretty clued up on theology, too.

Is religious faith, or the lack thereof, something that is judged valid based upon a popular vote?

There is no 'scientific' evidence of intelligent design...

Just crackpot organisations like 'creationmoments.com', who pretend to have evidence, but it turns out to be scientifically flawed.

See, this is the problem the average christian fundamentalist runs into... they understand their theology, but have no clue about science...

Which means they get torn to pieces by the average scientific atheist, because they understand science, and, usually, are pretty clued up on theology, too.

I would take out the word "atheist" there, as a Christian fundamentalist gets torn to pieces by *any* scientist, Christian (like me =) or not.

There is no 'scientific' evidence of intelligent design...

Just crackpot organisations like 'creationmoments.com', who pretend to have evidence, but it turns out to be scientifically flawed.

See, this is the problem the average christian fundamentalist runs into... they understand their theology, but have no clue about science...

Which means they get torn to pieces by the average scientific atheist, because they understand science, and, usually, are pretty clued up on theology, too.
That is one thing I have never understood … how more atheists could know religions to such a greater extent then the people who “live” by them.

Maybe it is because most of us (well I am agnostic but like to think I know a lot) were part of one religion or another until we studied too much.

I would take out the word "atheist" there, as a Christian fundamentalist gets torn to pieces by *any* scientist, Christian (like me =) or not.

The 'atheist' is in there because the average christian SHOULD have a fairly good idea about their theology (although, sadly, many seem not to...) - and a progressive lack of scientific understanding with every step toward fundametnalism.

Whereas, many atheists (like myself) are well read in religion (often better than the average christian, even in their own theology), AND able to deal with scientific concepts.

I already count you as something extraordinary - since you commonly debate religion (which is rare enough.... 'debating'), with a grasp of the theology, with a grasp of science, and with an ability to discuss such matters without the (saddeningy common) "I CAN'T HEAR YOU - IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE - LA LA LA LA LA" approach.

:)

That is one thing I have never understood … how more atheists could know religions to such a greater extent then the people who “live” by them.

Maybe it is because most of us (well I am agnostic but like to think I know a lot) were part of one religion or another until we studied too much.

There seems to be some truth to that... let's take Neo_Cannen for example... (Sorry, Neo, to use your name in vain... but you are unfortunately the perfect example). Profound believer (at least, claims to be... on the internet, how can you tell?), and yet, by own admission, has never actually READ the bible...

Some people seem to look deeper into the text and find something valid, some look deeper into the text, and come up empty handed.

Most, it seems, never even look into the text to start with.

The 'atheist' is in there because the average christian SHOULD have a fairly good idea about their theology (although, sadly, many seem not to...) - and a progressive lack of scientific understanding with every step toward fundametnalism.

Whereas, many atheists (like myself) are well read in religion (often better than the average christian, even in their own theology), AND able to deal with scientific concepts.

Ah, I see. This is true. My boyfriend has a better grasp of scripture (and so do you, from what I've seen) than the vast majority of "Christians" I have known. Of course, the Jewish rabbis I have met also understand the NT better than most Christians. Maybe the problem is that the church discouraged layperson reading of the scripture for so long that it just got stuck.

I already count you as something extraordinary - since you commonly debate religion (which is rare enough.... 'debating'), with a grasp of the theology, with a grasp of science, and with an ability to discuss such matters without the (saddeningy common) "I CAN'T HEAR YOU - IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE - LA LA LA LA LA" approach.

:)

Why, thank you. =)

I think everything requires debating. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think that any faith is true faith until it has been questioned. Those who don't want to question are, I believe, weak in faith. ((Maybe this is all because I greatly enjoyed many of the writings of an atheist-turned-Christian - C.S. Lewis?))

For one man to try to understand and comprehend the great mathematical statistics of the universe and not go crazy is impossible.

The guy gave up on his search of understanding and fell back on the EASY PATH, of believing that some make believe god made it all fall together...

One of the world's most famous and intelligant atheists now believes in God. Take that you non-believers!

Not quite. Read what the guy says. He believes in a first cause, not in God (with a capital G). "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins."

Frankly, the guy's got a point. The Christian god is depicted as a being who defines "being good" as "doing what I say", who's petty enough to demand worship, who, despite claims to the contrary, created evil (seriously. Read Isaiah 45:7), who, despite claims of justice, is willing to sentence people to be tortured for eternity for non-eternal transgressions of a law in place solely because he said so, and who, despite omnipotence, blames his creations when they fail to live up to his supposedly infallible design.

What Flew seems to have in his mind is far more along the lines of the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, who, according to Aristotle, exists outside the universe, set the universe into motion without any action on his part (ie. just as a bowl of milk may attract a cat without action, so the Unmoved Mover may set the universe into motion without action), and who is absolute actuality (ie. all that it is possible for him to be, he is. Therefore he has no potentiality: no potential to change, no potential to die, but also no potential to interfere in the universe).

Yes, Aristotle's concept of the divine is a lot more convincing than the Christian one, but it's also a lot more limited.

Ah, I see. This is true. My boyfriend has a better grasp of scripture (and so do you, from what I've seen) than the vast majority of "Christians" I have known. Of course, the Jewish rabbis I have met also understand the NT better than most Christians. Maybe the problem is that the church discouraged layperson reading of the scripture for so long that it just got stuck.


Why, thank you. =)

I seem to recall there being averse of scripture that advises against the principle of philosophising... that it can lead to 'evil questioning', or somesuch... I would LIKE to believe that most christians avoid too much concentration on matters for THAT reason... but, unfortunately... most of them seem unaware that it is even scripturally suggested...

I do believe that, to a large extent, organised religion deliberately DISCOURAGES independent study of scripture, preferring to focus the mind where THEY want it to go.

I am always pleased to talk with independent thinkers in theology - which is, unfortunatley, not an ultra-common event.

:(


Why, thank you. =)


Most welcome... you are one of the few people on the forum that I will gladly debate with or against, since I know that I will get reasoned responses - which I vastly prefer, even if they OPPOSE the point I am trying to support.

I think there's a quote somewhere about always wanting to play against the best opposition, or something...?


I think everything requires debating. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think that any faith is true faith until it has been questioned. Those who don't want to question are, I believe, weak in faith. ((Maybe this is all because I greatly enjoyed many of the writings of an atheist-turned-Christian - C.S. Lewis?))

I also truly believe that debating is important. I believe it is one of our greatest tools for learning, and it makes me so unhappy when I see people pounding-Bibles, or yelling rhetoric, wihout any THOUGHT about what the others side (or even their OWN side) is actually saying.

I also devoured C.S.Lewis material - but, he seems to have had a very different effect on me.... perhaps I am allergic?

There seems to be some truth to that... let's take Neo_Cannen for example... (Sorry, Neo, to use your name in vain... but you are unfortunately the perfect example). Profound believer (at least, claims to be... on the internet, how can you tell?), and yet, by own admission, has never actually READ the bible...

Some people seem to look deeper into the text and find something valid, some look deeper into the text, and come up empty handed.

Most, it seems, never even look into the text to start with.
I knoticed the same things (7 years of catholic school) I don’t know if I met anyone besides the priest that ACTUALY read the bible in completion
Not my family
Not my teachers

No one

I may not do so good in the blind faith department but at least I try to consider it as a whole

I knoticed the same things (7 years of catholic school) I don’t know if I met anyone besides the priest that ACTUALY read the bible in completion
Not my family
Not my teachers

No one

I may not do so good in the blind faith department but at least I try to consider it as a whole

And, in my opinion, 'Blind Faith" is no faith, at all...

Blind Faith is just doing what you are told.

That is why I have a lot of respect for people like Dempublicents, who have a faith obtained through reflection - even if I would chose a different path.

And, in my opinion, 'Blind Faith" is no faith, at all...

Blind Faith is just doing what you are told.

That is why I have a lot of respect for people like Dempublicents, who have a faith obtained through reflection - even if I would chose a different path.
Exactly … hear hear dempub!

Why, thank you. =)

Welcome.

I do believe that, to a large extent, organised religion deliberately DISCOURAGES independent study of scripture, preferring to focus the mind where THEY want it to go.

Yeah, that's probably why I haven't really been able to settle into a church of any particular denomination. They all seem to preach (very strongly I might add) things that I either know to be untrue, or simply disagree with - and they don't really encourage any independent thought on the part of the parishioners.

I am always pleased to talk with independent thinkers in theology - which is, unfortunatley, not an ultra-common event.

You would've liked my favorite theology prof. He never even told us his view on most things - not wanting to skew our opinions towards his. Out of a class with Christians, Jews, agnostics, I believe one Muslim, and at least one atheist - the only one that didn't enjoy the class was the fundie that sat next to me.

Most welcome... you are one of the few people on the forum that I will gladly debate with or against, since I know that I will get reasoned responses - which I vastly prefer, even if they OPPOSE the point I am trying to support.

For some reason, we generally seem to end up on the same side, though, although possibly for different reasons. =)

I also devoured C.S.Lewis material - but, he seems to have had a very different effect on me.... perhaps I am allergic?

Maybe it depends where you start from. Some of Lewis' stuff (like his adamant belief that love=lust and that there is no romantic love) kind of turned me off, but I enjoyed the fact that he always expects one to question everything. I had my boyfriend read a few things - and I'm not sure it changed his opinion one way or the other - other than demonstrating to him that I am not the only religious person that came to it on my own terms.

Objectivity does not include bad science.

Intelligent design has no real scientific backing. It is, in essence, a cop-out. "We can't explain this, so God did it. The end." It is also based on the very false idea that biology is fragile, and that the removal of any one component would destroy life.

You show me 50 scientists that sign off on it, and I will show you 50 scientists with little to no standing in their fields, that probably have not been able to publish in any sort of real journal throughout the bulk of their careers.

Here's a few of the 50, some with more publications in scientific journals than others, but all legidimate scientists.

http://www.uchsc.edu/physiology/joint/becv.htm
http://landholders.tripod.com/id115.htm
Biography—Jeremy L. Walter
... Jeremy L. Walter, Ph.D., PE. Mechanical Engineering (USA). Biography. Dr
Walter is Head of the Power Conversion Systems Department ...
www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_walter.asp - 13k

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/bergman-j.html

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/kramer.html
http://origins.swau.edu/who/giem/default.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_sarfati.asp
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Wanser.html
http://www.begellhouse.com/authors/557e69be60084ebc.html
http://www.me.psu.edu/cimbala/
http://www.chem.uci.edu/~wevans/decsam.html
http://www.globalflood.org/biography.html
http://www.grisda.org/bclausen/prof.htm
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/snelling.html