Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[philo-sofa]

Sorry your mistaken on this and right at the same time

A "fact" in science is an observation.    
A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations.

evolutions is a fact and a theory. kinda crazy but yeh. And for the nay sayers, Gravity is the same a fact and a theory yet we know that gravity exists :sunnies:

Fair enough - I meant fact as a Philosophical factual/facticity thing, being proven in the same sense as Gravity etc as you said.

did you not see the .? he started a new sentence.

i am an Atheist my self, but i really hate the hypocrites in this thread, i don't attack the religion, as i live by the saying "live and let live" as most of you don't seem to understand the concept.

+1 there brother - I like the new, slightly more serious Cnvrt  You have a lotta good input to things dude.

k i must of just read your sig wrong

No, you read the wealth of evidence wrong and to me are just embarrassing yourself.  The 'it's got a theory in its name' discussion is frankly laughable and was well explained by Kill3r.  It's like defending the Democratic Republic of Congo because it has 'democratic' in its name.

Psst. You forgot about endogenous retroviral DNA

Oh and that Detonator - look it up.  It's essentially 'imprints' (rewritten code) made by ancient viral infections on our ancestors DNA.  We tend to share Endogenous Retroviral DNA with our close ancestors (apes, other mammals and so on, no one's managed to sample an angel yet unfortunately).  In fact you can fit a line straight through how much of the stuff we share with a species and how far removed we are from them in evolutionary terms.

Seriously, the whole debating evolution thing is just retarded Detonator, if God created the universe then evolution is one of His or Her's mechanism's, much as the orbit of the Earth around the Sun or predictable fluid dynamics would be part of a 'system' set up by a God.  There's nothing in evolution that specifically disproves God, though it does remove the specific need for one in the same sense that understanding why volcanoes erupt removes the need to blame it on an angry God - it no longer requires direct intervention.

The 'Theory' of Evolution should be no more threatening to the religious than that of plate tectonics.

[cobra]

The 'Theory' of Evolution should be no more threatening to the religious than that of plate tectonics.

god hides in the shadows of ignorance - every area science illuminates with knowledge is another area where god can no longer hide - there was a time when plater tectonics would've been very threatening to the religious

[philo-sofa]

god hides in the shadows of ignorance - every area science illuminates with knowledge is another area where god can no longer hide - there was a time when plater tectonics would've been very threatening to the religious

The God of the gaps would be pretty unappealing to the religious I would have thought.  I agree personally that God is a superstition and that the light of reason and its products dispelling myths wherever they occur is a virtuous thing.  I just don't think it's right as enlightened as we could be to come down like the hammer of science on those who disagree if they are rational about it.  There was a time fairly recently when plate tectonics was considered threatening by the scientific community!

As a side note, you might like (or find disturbing) Ben Elton's latest book "Blind Faith" - though I don't think it's a particularly good novel in its own right.

[Ngati_Grim]

I need to quote.

Thomas Jefferson: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the  priests of jesus."

Richard Dawkins: " I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."

So, I will ask those of a religious bent whether they believe in ghosts, fairies, oiuja boards, the trinity, theism, deism, flat earth or any other ridiculous claims, for that is what they are. There is no evidence to back them up, other than supposition and crazed wanderings of a fearful mind.

One doesn't need religion to lead a good life, and arguably, religion has created more rifts than anything else. For religion harks back to the superstition and fear of the cave, has enforced differences and 'fought the good fight', so I propose that religion has been as destructive as wars because it has been at the basis of wars through its very exclusiveness, intolerance and underscoring of difference.

I am unashamedly atheist and am intent on not treating religion with kid gloves as it has been for so long. There is a bizarre, unspoken societal convention whereby religion must not be criticised. I say "Nay, this cannot go on!" Religion must be accorded the same scrutiny as anything else, and I am certain that under such rigorous testing it will come up wanting.

Live and let live is not an option, because the same has not been accorded the irreligious, the different; indeed religion seems to promote intolerance and prejudice. It is a cop out and I, for one, will stand in the path of this injustice of injustices.


Re: Plate Tectonics. You are correct to say that some railed against it, as they had other paradigms which, to them, fit quite well. However, under the weight of overwhelming evidence in the affirmative, it has become accepted. Technology has come leaps and bounds since the early proposition of plate tectonics. The proof is in the pudding.

[Arnifix]

The proof is in the pudding.

The world is full off pudding? BRB, drilling for mah puddins.

[Ngati_Grim]

lol, if by 'pudding' you mean molten rock, water, magma, complex silicates, iron, nickel etc etc, then yes!

If, however, you mean chocolate and brandy, with a nice hot sauce, then no!

[Tiwaking!]

predictable fluid dynamics would be part of a 'system' set up by a God.

Are unpredictable fluid dynamics part of the plan too?

As a side note, you might like (or find disturbing) Ben Elton's latest book "Blind Faith" - though I don't think it's a particularly good novel in its own right.

Whatever happened to "The Blind Watchmaker"?

Richard Dawkins: " I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."

Bah. He never met a Taniwha before!

[Arnifix]

lol, if by 'pudding' you mean molten rock, water, magma, complex silicates, iron, nickel etc etc, then yes!

If, however, you mean chocolate and brandy, with a nice hot sauce, then no!

Complex silicates are nowhere near as delicious as pudding

[Ngati_Grim]

Bah. He never met a Taniwha before!

No, he didn't, because they don't exist, they are just flights of fairy fancy!

I'm thinking you haven't either?   lol

Every culture has myths to explain earth tremors etc, I figure that's what a taniwha began as: an unscientific, superstitious, supernatural explanation

[Ngati_Grim]

Complex silicates are nowhere near as delicious as pudding

Quite true, but they sure look pretty in thin section when viewed through a petrological microscope

http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/parks/rxmin/Russbasalt590x375.jpg

[philo-sofa]

Are unpredictable fluid dynamics part of the plan too?

Yes I believe a God would be quite capable of playing dice.

Whatever happened to "The Blind Watchmaker"?

I've been wondering that - I can't find my copy anywhere. But as far as my reading recommendations go I'd assume that Cobra has read it.  Also I'm very sure he'd understand the arguments and science fully without having read it TBH.

Live and let live is not an option, because the same has not been accorded the irreligious, the different; indeed religion seems to promote intolerance and prejudice. It is a cop out and I, for one, will stand in the path of this injustice of injustices.

Re: Plate Tectonics. You are correct to say that some railed against it, as they had other paradigms which, to them, fit quite well. However, under the weight of overwhelming evidence in the affirmative, it has become accepted. Technology has come leaps and bounds since the early proposition of plate tectonics. The proof is in the pudding.

I understand your point of view, but I do believe in leading by example.  Live and let live is not an option where we are attacked and threatened, but it is sheer madness to feel that this means we have to forcibly expunge religion from our society by force.  In a similar sense to which you talk of the eventual acceptance of plate tectonics becoming, evolution has become officially accepted by the Church of England, by the force of our reason.

It reminds me of a conversation that Dawkins had with a COE Bishop where the Bishop backs of the church's support of homosexuality by reasoning that we now understand through science that people are simply born gay.  Are you honestly saying we shouldn't encourage this kind of thinking, this kind of reasoning?  That it cannot be applauded?  If the time comes to stand in the path of ignorance and to defend the libraries you will find me there, and I've likely already done a lot more in that regard than most of you.  However we cannot espouse reason whilst condemning valid examples of it because of the type of person who comes out with it.  If we are to have an actual effect it must be through leading by example, by sticking to those things we hold to be true and entering into debate in good faith, not by declaring war with everyone who disagrees with us and eschewing logic for blind hatred.  I don't believe we are going to do society or Atheism any great service by attacking people like the Bishop, or by disallowing religious people reason -  it's only the fostering of that reason and an avowed respect for fair debate on our part that can lead to the triumph of reason. Let the chips fall where they may I say, as long as no one else is interfering with them  - because we have a fair idea of where they'll go we would need only concentrate on stopping others trying to interfere with their fall, rather than slanting the distribution ourselves.

[KiLL3r]

whats the blind watchmaker?

does it have something to do with the Watchmaker analogy or am i missing something?

found this good pic for you flea

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[philo-sofa]

whats the blind watchmaker?

does it have something to do with the Watchmaker analogy or am i missing something?

It's a book by Dawkins. The title is a reply to the famous creationist argument you're referring to that was advanced by the Philosopher William Paley.

[Ngati_Grim]

I understand your point of view, but I do believe in leading by example.  Live and let live is not an option where we are attacked and threatened, but it is sheer madness to feel that this means we have to forcibly expunge religion from our society by force.  In a similar sense to which you talk of the eventual acceptance of plate tectonics becoming, accepted evolution has become officially accepted by the Church of England, by the force of our reason.

Yes, I agree, I do not condone violence and think that the best vehicle for change is the voice of reason, logic, rationality and the scientific endeavour.
The only force I wish to employ, to expunge religion from society (or at least relieve it of its arcane privileges) is by leading by example and the force of my words.
Facts overwhelm fiction.


Yes, 'The Blind watchmaker" is well worth a read. So is :The God Delusion".
It's good to question, and on that note, I always question the Science I read. However, it is more than able to defend itself.

[spliff]

Richard Dawkins is a wank.

sheezus, 137 pages :eek: I'm keen to be involved in this discussion but 'tis a bit of a mission to go through 137 pages to see what people's different points of views are - would anyone mind if I made a new religious/beliefs/origin of life thread at some point?

[cobra]

Richard Dawkins is a wank.

sheezus, 137 pages :eek: I'm keen to be involved in this discussion but 'tis a bit of a mission to go through 137 pages to see what people's different points of views are - would anyone mind if I made a new religious/beliefs/origin of life thread at some point?

just jump in - any views welcomed (well by the scientists, the christians get quite abusive if you disagree with them)

[KiLL3r]

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/inerrancy-1.html

great link showing the most blatant inaccuracies of the bible

[spliff]

of course the bible has some inaccuracies, after being translated through what - 20 different languages? and over many many centuries, you expect it to be 100% accurate?

just jump in - any views welcomed (well by the scientists, the christians get quite abusive if you disagree with them)

yes but if I don't read all the pages I will feel like i'm missing out on some arguments, or I could be repeating stuff that's already been said

I might make a new thread when I get a chance, to share my point of views, and anyone can feel free to debate them if they want

don't know why it's only Religion VS Science either, what about those who aren't strictly religious but are aware that science cannot and will never be able to explain everything

[Slim]

This thread just seems to be a bunch of atheists having a circle jerk with Flea going around handing out tissues intermittently.

[Slim]

just jump in - any views welcomed (well by the scientists, the christians get quite abusive if you disagree with them)

Actually from what I've read, the "Scientists" are the ones that are getting quite abusive if anyone dares challenge their "Hard Facts" and "Evidence".

[Arnifix]

Actually from what I've read, the "Scientists" are the ones that are getting quite abusive if anyone dares challenge their "Hard Facts" and "Evidence".

If somebody walking up to you and said "you're a terrible person, because this book says so", would you believe them? or would you tell them to go shove it?

[philo-sofa]

Actually from what I've read, the "Scientists" are the ones that are getting quite abusive if anyone dares challenge their "Hard Facts" and "Evidence".

There's a fair bit of frustration at what happens to hard facts and evidence.  But I agree there's a great imbalance between the Atheists and the Religious.


Not quite sure what you mean about flea handing out the tissues tho...

[Arnifix]

There's a fair bit of frustration at what happens to hard facts and evidence.  But I agree there's a great imbalance between the Atheists and the Religious.

Only in this thread. I don't envy flea's position.

[Slim]

Arni.  I'm not going to engage in this debate.  Its a waste if my time.  Not to mention that I am more or less equally offended by both sides of this "ultimate battle."  I was merely offering an observation on this thread.  Most Christians will just steer clear due to the massive amount of ignorance present - so what do you have?  An atheist circle jerk.

Secondly, don't patronize me with such a stupid question.  This is something I have put a lot of thought into, unlike the very large majority of posters in this thread.

[Slim]

Not quite sure what you mean about flea handing out the tissues tho...

Lol neither.  I had an analogy and ran with it.