Keith

[G Richards]

I was looking back through this thread and I'd like to apologise to SD, since I was trying to be a bit of a smart arse with the whole vacuum and matter thing. I personally hold to much of the Big Bang theory (obviously apart from one crucial aspect) and while I'm no theoretical physicist myself, I doff my cap to anyone who keeps pushig back the boundaries and expanding our body of knowledge.

 

Stu Monty's link from a few pages back (when this thread was resurrected, if that's the right word!) is really worthwhile too. It is pertinent especially with the American political scene at the moment.

[bigal]

Said this on a previous thread, but what always amuses me about most atheists is that they berate religion for being intolerant of others' views, and then they proceed to slam any other opinion that doesn't jive with theirs.

 

JRD7 offering a good example of that kind of behaviour on this thread.

 

If you don't believe then don't believe, it's simple really.

 

That's the first bit of sense on here for a while. I'm not a believer and I do think that science tells the story after I've studied and thought and debated all this for many years. I may be wrong and would defend someone's right to believe or not. The only thing I'm against is absolutism and intolerance. (Unless it's ManUre of course). Religion has much going for it but also many things it has led to are amongst the worst of human history. Think don't shout

[Faustus]

Excellent post - Richard Dawkins is an expert in the field of biology and holds the public chair for the understanding and dvancement of science, at Oxford University.

 

He has committed his professional life to working in this field where results are checked, tested, scrutinised, peer reviewed before finally being accepted.

 

He makes no claims to offering any thoughts on theology, he doesn't need to.

 

You see, all those animals that you mentioned above, his life has been dedicated to discovering how they got here, the timescale, from what family etc. He only, as should we all, is interested in what is true.

 

Now then - your quote about theology is also hilarious for another reason, all you here from these muppets are wishy washy statements about divine goodness, first cause, his prescence, doG gives us morality.

 

That's all well and good but it's not religion, it's not what is contained in the backward, oppressive, mysoginistic, solipsistic texts a some bronze aged palestinian tribe.

 

Whilst China had a system of government, taxes land ownership in place at the same time, this Yaweh - your God, was busy making a pact with these idiots who presumably up untill this point were so fucking depraved that they actually needed a rule from God not to kill people. Fucking genius.

 

His first rule though, which is the most telling - have no fucking doGs but me, motherfuckers is awesome. Thank fuck he didn't mention paedophelia or anything serious.

 

Theologians have to stop where scientists start -at the hypothesis stage.

 

I could speculate as to the shape of doG, his plan for us, his love etc, but how the fuck do you test that?

 

There may have been a first casue inspired a deity of some sort, but it is not the prayer-answering, kiddy-crucifying, temple-burning, women-hating god of any of the religious myths that circluate amonst this planet, and most definitely not the Abrahamic ones.

 

Arrogance is thrown at Dawkins, but yet he dedicates his life to learning and testing, and re-testing his theories. Surely arrogance is when you accept some ancient unintelligent desert dwelling creation myths spread across the world by the Roman Empire, and turn them into a factual reconstrction of what actullay happened. We've see how this has worked even recently, with former slave populations taking on their oppressors religions.

 

While thologians hypothosise about fuck all, scientists get on with real work.

 

Next time I take some tablets, that's because of scientific advancement, planes, cars, mobile phones, jam, JCB's, nike air's etc. I'm fucking glad I didn't grow up in a world where a special book dictacted your living habits.

 

I just think that it's ironic that despite Dawkins being so keen on scientific logic, it still takes as much faith for him to believe that there is no God, than for a Christian to believe that there is one.

 

For the record, I'm not religious in any shape or form, nor am I an atheist.

[Stu Monty]

I just think that it's ironic that despite Dawkins being so keen on scientific logic, it still takes as much faith for him to believe that there is no God, than for a Christian to believe that there is one.

 

For the record, I'm not religious in any shape or form, nor am I an atheist.

 

That argument makes no sense, it doesn't take any faith to not believe in something. It just takes an approach of trusting evidence that is provided and making the best assesment based on that evidence. It takes no faith to bisbelief in the Flying Spagetti Monster, Keith or Super Sammy Lee...just a rational, logical approach to forming your opinions.

 

With regards to why people can be so fervently anti-religion it could be to do with them thinking it's a negative thing that stifles man's progress. It's kind of like being anti-lying or anti-nonsense which is a pretty decent stance to take really. As I've stated before, people who preach religious tolerance are mostly hypocrites, as soon as your religious belief veers from an established organised norm and into Mighty Gibbons they soon sneer at you and tell you to stop mocking them.

[Dropkick]

The minute Jesus turned up spouting peace and love your enemy, the Yanks would have him locked in Guantanimo before he could say "forgive them father..........." for being a terrorist supervisor.

 

America was a secular country but the idiots are now trying to rewrite their own history (ammendment 888) to mis represent the ideals of their founding fathers.

 

How anyone can believe in such a load of nonsense is quite simply beyond me. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - across all areas for testing.

 

Without religion, good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But it takes religion to get good people to bad things

 

I love how the anti religious bolsheviks and communists who did more badness in China and Russia than in all the rest of history combined get swept under your evidence based rug.

[Stu Monty]

Oh, and that "It takes religion to get good people to do bad things" is quite clearly bollocks. People act as they will, some feel the need to justify their good or evil with religion, they needent; it's irrelevant.

[Faustus]

That argument makes no sense, it doesn't take any faith to not believe in something. It just takes an approach of trusting evidence that is provided and making the best assesment based on that evidence. It takes no faith to bisbelief in the Flying Spagetti Monster, Keith or Super Sammy Lee...just a rational, logical approach to forming your opinions.

 

With regards to why people can be so fervently anti-religion it could be to do with them thinking it's a negative thing that stifles man's progress. It's kind of like being anti-lying or anti-nonsense which is a pretty decent stance to take really. As I've stated before, people who preach religious tolerance are mostly hypocrites, as soon as your religious belief veers from an established organised norm and into Mighty Gibbons they soon sneer at you and tell you to stop mocking them.

 

Errrmm... yes it does.

 

You can go on about a rational, logical argument and such, but at the end of the day, the existence of God can't be proven or disproved so depending on which side of the fence you sit, you require a degree of faith in your convictions.

[Stu Monty]

Errrmm... yes it does.

 

You can go on about a rational, logical argument and such, but at the end of the day, the existence of God can't be proven or disproved so depending on which side of the fence you sit, you require a degree of faith in your convictions.

 

I'm sorry but you don't require faith to not believe something.

 

If you belief only in the best possible explaination based upon the evidence available then it has nothing to do with faith. You are claiming that it takes an equal amount of faith for you to believe that I can fly and become invisible than to not believe it.

 

Frankly, it's a ludicrous stance. Just because you can't disprove any old jibberish I make up doesn't mean you require faith to not believe it.

[Dropkick]

Stu Monty is looking at it in a one sided way. You have to compare one who doesnt believe in God getting to be believing in God despite a lack of evidence to one who believes in God getting to be not believing in God despite a lack of evidence that God doesnt exist.

[Faustus]

I'm sorry but you don't require faith to not believe something.

 

If you belief only in the best possible explaination based upon the evidence available then it has nothing to do with faith. You are claiming that it takes an equal amount of faith for you to believe that I can fly and become invisible than to not believe it.

 

Frankly, it's a ludicrous stance. Just because you can't disprove any old jibberish I make up doesn't mean you require faith to not believe it.

 

Point 1:

Yes you do. Obviously you can use logic and scientific evidence to back up your view but it doesn't give the definitive view that there is no God. Even Richard Dawkins or a similar staunch atheist must concede that the existence of God can't be proven or disproven, therefore you still need a degree of faith in your assertion.

 

Point 2:

It's scientifically proven that humans can't fly. The existence of God is yet to be scientifically proven or disproven. Frankly, I'm going to adopt a similar condescending tone and say that point was a load of bollocks.

[Spy Bee]

I wasn't using straw-man tactics, although how very ironic for an ID exponent to be throwing those my way!!

 

That's the basis for adaption though, it's what evoltion is about.

 

Not sure why you're so attached to Evo-Devo, I don't really see any "intelligence" in there, I think I understand the point you're trying to make about the specific functioning abilities of Gene sequencing, and how the combinations provide different body parts etc, but explain how this suggests intelligence.

 

as mutations appear and become useful to the survival of the animal then that feature will advance over the generations, and Gene's store this information and replicate it - they don't guide it

I don't know what an ID exponent is?

 

I'm not attached to evo-devo, but as your entire argument is based on the theory of evolution, then I thought it was relevant.

 

The point I am making about evo-devo is this: If the behaviour of genome switches is different in different organisms, depending on the different environment that these organisms inhabit, and these different behaviours are beneficial to the survival and wellbeing of those organisms, then they behaviour of the genome switches cannot be said to be random. If it is not random, then this suggest a degree of intelligence.

 

I can't spell that out any more plainly.

 

I wasn't criticising you for your use of language, I was criticising you for your use of the word [sic] doG, which is below playground level.

 

Now Stu, for your point; To believe that there is no God, then you have to have conviction that there is no God. To suggest that this doesn't require faith, would imply that we have all the information available to make this deduction. We don't, therefor to be atheist requires faith.

[Dirk]

Religious people have a tendency to shift the goal posts accordingly, though. The atheist is expected to concede that there might be a God but the religious person refuses to make similar concessions and state there mightn't be a God. I'm agnostic.

[Monkeywool]

The best goalpost shifter if I ever seen it is the old prove to me god doesn't exist then. I had that said to me once, when you come up against such blind hypocrisy it is time to just leave it there I think.

 

The mentalists.

[Spy Bee]

I'm agnostic.

The only sensible conclusion.

[Dirk]

A further place where I find religious people don't do their cause any favours is when they try to equate the symbols in a book with empirical science. Science mightn't have conclusive answers but it at least has to have been performed in an empirical setting, whereas there are various religious texts, all claim to be true, all claim that others are wrong without providing a shred of evidence. The religious person will then turn, without an hint of irony, and ask an atheist to provide evidence to the non-existence of God when they have no evidence to prove God's existence. I find most religious people to be unduly hypocritical in this sense.

[wiiksie]

Question for the agnostics: what specific areas of our scientific knowledge to date do you feel is sufficiently vague (or non-existent) to warrant the agnostic stance?

[She Knows It]

Loving your sweeping generalisations about "religious people" here Dave.

[Dirk]

Question for the agnostics: what specific areas of our scientific knowledge to date do you feel is sufficiently vague (or non-existent) to warrant the agnostic stance?

 

Big bang theories and theories of evolution don't disprove the existence of God, they just disprove the existence of religious creationism.

[Dirk]

Loving your sweeping generalisations about "religious people" here Dave.

 

It was qualified using "tendency" and "most".

[She Knows It]

Big bang theories and theories of evolution don't disprove the existence of God, they just disprove the existence of religious creationism.

 

My point exactly. As soon as you admit to believing in "a God", it's assumed that you believe in creationism, Noah's flood, and all sorts of other fairy tales. Why should a person be forced to prove what they believe in, unless they're pious soap-boxers. Why not live and let live?

[She Knows It]

It was qualified using "tendency" and "most".

 

"Most"? As in over 50%? You have statistical proof of this I take it?

[Dirk]

"Most"? As in over 50%? You have statistical proof of this I take it?

 

You only have to go back through the entirity of the threads on religion to see the stance of the religious people. Religious people have strong faith, it's a huge part of being religious, they would find it difficult to concede that there mightn't be a God, it would be the exact opposite of displaying faith, wouldn't it?

[Stu Monty]

I have faith in there being no god to the same extent I have faith that when I sit on a chair it will actually be there and I won't fall through it. All the evidence and sensible estimates lead me to believe that I won't suddenly pass through the chair as it would be so unlikely at to be almost impossible. I think I would probably fall into the ranks of agnosticism as I am not staunhcly set against a diety of some sort, if evidence were to provide itself to suggest that. The funniest thing though is that people who believe in a God aren't giving themselves and answer to a question, they're giving themselves an even bigger question "Who created God?"

[Spy Bee]

The funniest thing though is that people who believe in a God aren't giving themselves and answer to a question, they're giving themselves an even bigger question "Who created God?"

 

For me it's hard to separate infinity from God.

[theRedHorse]

I have faith in there being no god to the same extent I have faith that when I sit on a chair it will actually be there and I won't fall through it. All the evidence and sensible estimates lead me to believe that I won't suddenly pass through the chair as it would be so unlikely at to be almost impossible. I think I would probably fall into the ranks of agnosticism as I am not staunhcly set against a diety of some sort, if evidence were to provide itself to suggest that. The funniest thing though is that people who believe in a God aren't giving themselves and answer to a question, they're giving themselves an even bigger question "Who created God?"

 

Has anybody ever gone to sit on a Chair and then did fall through?

 

Because the Chair wasn't quite where they thought it was?

 

You could be wrong.