Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Ngati_Grim]

Richard Dawkins is a wank.

Could you please elucidate on this?

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?

Aaah...yep, I mind. More than one thread on this topic and it will be too much.
but an origin of life thread...well...go for it!

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.

um...from what I have seen over the last few pages, there are some quite cogent arguments, from both sides, so it is a rigorous debate, as it should be. I'm sorry we don't live up to your high standards. Could I ask the basis of your offense?

There are, however, some ill-thought-out posts and inanities as well (of which I have been guilty), but the general standard recently has been quite good. BTW, I don't see much evidence, from what you post, that you yourself do not subscribe to ignorance.

[Ngati_Grim]

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.

um...from what I have seen over the last few pages, there are some quite cogent arguments, from both sides, so it is a rigorous debate, as it should be. I'm sorry we don't live up to your high standards.

There are, however, some ill-thought-out posts and inanities as well (of which I have been guilty), but the general standard recently has been quite good. BTW, I don't see much evidence, from what you post, that you yourself do not subscribe to ignorance.

[Arnifix]

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.

Compared to the majority of threads on iconz, this one is probably one of the smartest. While the religious folks are somewhat quiet simply because their side of the argument refuses to present evidence to further their claim does not mean that the other side is having a circle jerk. Religion is a fairly personal subject, some people might very well feel threatened by the way in which many of us refer to both sides of the argument, and that's ok, you don't have to share your thoughts or opinions.

But if you're going to come in here, refuse to participate, much less in an intelligent manner, and insult everyone, I'm going to patronize you as much as I want.

There are, however, some ill-thought-out posts and inanities as well (of which I have been guilty), but the general standard recently has been quite good. BTW, I don't see much evidence, from what you post, that you yourself do not subscribe to ignorance.

Lol. Well put.

[spliff]

Could you please elucidate on this?

Atheism is a load of balls. They feel the need to ridicule religion, but atheism is almost a religion in itself in that they only believe that a God does not exist - they do not know for a fact just as religious people do not know for a fact but choose to believe. How can one deny the possibility of a Creator - do they seriously think something as infinitey complex as the universe and everything in it came about purely by coincidental scientific chance? If so, what created science and matter and energy? It didn't all just appear out of thin air. Yes, the Big Bang marked the creation of the universe, but what caused it and what came before the Big Bang?

Science can explain a lot of things, but there are plenty of things it cannot explain, science is not the be all and end all of everything.

and basically I think atheism is a ridiculous stance to take on the issue, if one lives there life by logic then the only logical position to take would be that of an agnostic

[Ngati_Grim]

Atheism is a load of balls. They feel the need to ridicule religion, but atheism is almost a religion in itself in that they only believe that a God does not exist - they do not know for a fact just as religious people do not know for a fact but choose to believe. How can one deny the possibility of a Creator

As a scientific atheist, I do not deny the possibility of a creator. There is however, no need for a creator. Science, FYI, was created by humans in order to make sense of the world and universe around us through observations and testable hypotheses. Again, this denies the need for a creator.

I know the above may be difficult to fathom, that I can be an atheist and not deny the possibility of a creator, but you have to realise that from where I stand, there is no need for a creator.

I have never stated that Science is the be all and end all, just that it is the best explanation of the phenomena around us.

[KiLL3r]

Atheism is a load of balls. They feel the need to ridicule religion, but atheism is almost a religion in itself in that they only believe that a God does not exist - they do not know for a fact just as religious people do not know for a fact but choose to believe. How can one deny the possibility of a Creator - do they seriously think something as infinitey complex as the universe and everything in it came about purely by coincidental scientific chance? If so, what created science and matter and energy? It didn't all just appear out of thin air. Yes, the Big Bang marked the creation of the universe, but what caused it and what came before the Big Bang?

Science can explain a lot of things, but there are plenty of things it cannot explain, science is not the be all and end all of everything.

and basically I think atheism is a ridiculous stance to take on the issue, if one lives there life by logic then the only logical position to take would be that of an agnostic

Answer me this then. If the universe couldnt of just appeared out of thin air then by your logic who created god? Who created the creator of god and so on?

Also atheism as about as far from a religion as you can get. Tell me do atheists gather once a week to practice their beliefs? Do they force others to believe that if they dont they will suffer everlasting punishment?

The majority of agnostics are nothing more than cowards. They sit on the fence so when their time comes and if they are wrong they can still claim the reward.

[Arnifix]

The majority of agnostics are nothing more than cowards. They sit on the fence so when their time comes and if they are wrong they can still claim the reward.

I'd disagree with that. Agnosticism is as valid a choice as atheism. Until some solid evidence comes to light confirming or denying the existence of a god, then ruling one out completely is highly illogical.

Atheists and agnostics certainly have more in common than they do with religious folk, so it would also seem illogical that an Athiest would so rudely debunk agnosticism.

[KiLL3r]

Atheists and agnostics certainly have more in common than they do with religious folk, so it would also seem illogical that an Athiest would so rudely debunk agnosticism.

id call it more of a retort after being called a "laod of balls" and "ridiculous stance" by someone who doesnt have a clue what they are talkign about :sunnies:

[spliff]

Answer me this then. If the universe couldnt of just appeared out of thin air then by your logic who created god? Who created the creator of god and so on?

The whole point of a 'God' is that it is ominopotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It was not created, it just is, was and always has been.

Also atheism as about as far from a religion as you can get. Tell me do atheists gather once a week to practice their beliefs? Do they force others to believe that if they dont they will suffer everlasting punishment?

Irrelevant.

The majority of agnostics are nothing more than cowards. They sit on the fence so when their time comes and if they are wrong they can still claim the reward.

Grow up, agnostics are not 'cowards'. They merely realise that if one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God, then that is the only logical stance to take. I could easily say that atheists are more-so cowards because they blatantly deny the existence of God when they have no solid evidence to prove so, which is what they base their whole belief around: evidence.

[nick247]

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.

This point here actually deserves alot more discussion and i would like to hear from some of the Christians out there how they can justify the support of a faith that has arguably caused more historical suffering out there than all the homesexual weddings in the world combined?

In practice im am very much a live and let live person who really isnt bothered by religon as long as it doesnt attempt to dig into my life too much. I would rather preserve harmony in society by treating religon with kids gloves

However in theory religon is possibly one of the most destructive forces that our civilised world has faced in its entire lifetime.

So lets assume that most religous people are also ashamed of that past (ie the crusades, the fucking inquisition, the witch hunts, Cortez) and in return they argue for all the good things that religious organisations do now, like helping the poor. If that is true, which it is, then why do religions still focus their policies so much on things written in the past?

I would personally argue that the best thing most religions should do is get rid of all the fucking ancient rhetoric that is mostly irrelevent in todays society and go back to the basics. Helping people that need help, preaching harmony within society, preaching tolerance for your fellow man, speaking out against the divisions in society, the racism and the hate that has such a negative effect on the lives of sooo many

Instead all i hear is shit about how women should be virgins, abortion is evil, you shouldnt wear a condom, homosexuals are the devil, dont live in excess...............in other words a bunch of shit that really doesnt matter to anyone

[KiLL3r]

The whole point of a 'God' is that it is ominopotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It was not created, it just is, was and always has been.

So its ok for "god" to have been around forever but not for the universe to do the same thing? Please explain

Irrelevant.

Im guessing you have nothing to backup your previous claims so we'll drop it
 

Grow up, agnostics are not 'cowards'. They merely realise that if one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God, then that is the only logical stance to take. I could easily say that atheists are more-so cowards because they blatantly deny the existence of God when they have no solid evidence to prove so, which is what they base their whole belief around: evidence.

Lets lose the agnostic vs atheist argument you have brought up.

Atheists dont belive in a god or a creater. Agnostics are sitting on the fence waiting for more evidence, and theists are blissfully ignorant like they usually are.

[spliff]

So its ok for "god" to have been around forever but not for the universe to do the same thing? Please explain

Umm, in case you weren't aware, scientists has practically proven that the universe has not existed forever. You've heard of the popular and well-documented theory of the Big Bang, right?

[Arnifix]

id call it more of a retort after being called a "laod of balls" and "ridiculous stance" by someone who doesnt have a clue what they are talkign about :sunnies:

Fair enough, I guess.

The whole point of a 'God' is that it is ominopotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It was not created, it just is, was and always has been.

The whole point of a 'universe' is that it is omnipresent. It was not created, it just is, was and always has been. That makes as much sense as what you said and there is certainly more evidence that the universe is omnipresent than there is of god.

And while it is impossible to disprove god, there is no evidence that suggests that outside forces were involved in the creation of the earth or the universe. So, while agnosticism is valid, no evidence can really prove that their position is the most logical, while there is a lot of evidence which points towards no god being involved in anything that we have yet witnessed.

Nice post nick. +1

[spliff]

The whole point of a 'universe' is that it is omnipresent. It was not created, it just is, was and always has been. That makes as much sense as what you said and there is certainly more evidence that the universe is omnipresent than there is of god.

You gotta be kidding me... >_< You need to do some more research dude

[Arnifix]

Umm, in case you weren't aware, scientists has practically proven that the universe has not existed forever. You've heard of the popular and well-documented theory of the Big Bang, right?

That's pretty ignorant. The Big Bounce theory pretty much quashed that idea years ago.

You gotta be kidding me... >_< You need to do some more research dude

And no, it's you who need to do your research, considering you didn't know about the main cyclical universe theory.

[Ngati_Grim]

The whole point of a 'God' is that it is ominopotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It was not created, it just is, was and always has been.

I'm sorry, which god are you talking about?
Deist?
Theist?
Polytheist?
Abrahamic?
Animist?

etc etc?

[cobra]

Grow up, agnostics are not 'cowards'. They merely realise that if one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God, then that is the only logical stance to take. I could easily say that atheists are more-so cowards because they blatantly deny the existence of God when they have no solid evidence to prove so, which is what they base their whole belief around: evidence.

you need to prove things exist, not that they dont - you can not prove that an invisible zebra isn't flying around your head all the time - but im sure that doesn't make you an invisible flying zebra agnostic

you can not find evidence that something doesn't exist

[spliff]

That's pretty ignorant. The Big Bounce theory pretty much quashed that idea years ago.
QUOTE]


I highly doubt that. The Big Bang theory is still the most popular, and most widely used theory used by scientists to explain the creation of the universe. I've never heard of the 'Big Bounce' theory, there are many theories that exist but as I said the Big Bang is still the most popular and has the most evidence to support it.

[spliff]

That's pretty ignorant. The Big Bounce theory pretty much quashed that idea years ago.

I highly doubt that. The Big Bang theory is still the most popular, and most widely used theory used by scientists to explain the creation of the universe. I've never heard of the 'Big Bounce' theory, there are many theories that exist but as I said the Big Bang is still the most popular and has the most evidence to support it.

Anyway, how can one theory quash another theory if they are both just that, theories?

you need to prove things exist, not that they dont - you can not prove that an invisible zebra isn't flying around your head all the time - but im sure that doesn't make you an invisible flying zebra agnostic

you can not find evidence that something doesn't exist

There are just some things that man will never be able to prove and that are completely beyond our knowledge. Get used to it.

[nick247]

supporters of the idea of god are 100% right that science does not have all the answers, that science lacks the proof and evidence to support some of its theories and that in no way can they prove that god doesnt exist

HOWEVER

If hypothetically speaking a set of criteria were created that could be used to disprove science BY THAT SAME CRITERIA religious arguments would fail MUCH MUCH MUCH earlier

In summary religious people ARE MORE LIKELY to be wrong than any science even if science does not have all the answers

All religion has going for it is that it has been the status quo for alot longer than science, and the status quo can be hard to argue against

[Ngati_Grim]

That's pretty ignorant. The Big Bounce theory pretty much quashed that idea years ago.



And no, it's you who need to do your research, considering you didn't know about the main cyclical universe theory.

Arnie, I'm warming to you lol!

when I was a hippy (cough cough) I used to call this theory : the buddha's breath...i.e. the inhalation and exhalation cycles.
However, I must add that this was just for the sake of illustration, as well as the matter that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

I am not a buddhist, never will be, though there are some good parts I take and mix up in my pudding (see the theme re-emerging?) of philosophies and prescriptions for living.

I enjoy the odd spliff myself, but this one is obviously made of stuff weaker than I'm used to
 :sunnies:

[cobra]

There are just some things that man will never be able to prove and that are completely beyond our knowledge. Get used to it.

are you talking about the zebra? because i just made that up

[cobra]

Arnie, I'm warming to you lol!

when I was a hippy (cough cough) I used to call this theory : the buddha's breath...i.e. the inhalation and exhalation cycles.
However, I must add that this was just for the sake of illustration, as well as the matter that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

I am not a buddhist, never will be, though there are some good parts I take and mix up in my pudding (see the theme re-emerging?) of philosophies and prescriptions for living.

I enjoy the odd spliff myself, but this one is obviously make of stuff weaker than I'm used to
 :sunnies:

you might like "the tao of physics"

[Ngati_Grim]

you might like "the tao of physics"

I do, have read it, enjoyed it and recommend it to others as well.

I also recommend "Scientist confront creationism: Intelligent design and beyond."
Reading it atm and it's worth following.

[Arnifix]

Anyway, how can one theory quash another theory if they are both just that, theories?

You don't know what the scientific definition of theory is. Look it up.