Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Tiwaking!]

If Atheism is based on evidence, the simple fact is: there is no solid evidence to prove that a God exists, but there is no solid scientific, physical (or otherwise) evidence to prove that there ISN'T - so what makes you think that you know there isn't? Do you somehow have knowledge of the existence of the universe that the rest of mankind doesn't?

So I ask you, how can you prove non-existence of God if you do not have sufficient evidence for it?

People who believe in a God generally do not need to provide evidence, because their belief is based on faith.

Actually a belief in a God tends to fall apart under its own scrutiny due to the inability to quantify its own argument. If you do not believe me then answer these questions:

Motive? Purpose? Actions? Interests? Movements? Limits?

If you are 100% certain that a God/Creator/Whatever you want to call it doesn't exist and the universe just popped out of nowhere like magic, show me the evidence.

Ahh this is an easy one. All I need is a machine capable of generating absolute zero, some liquid hydrogen and a tachyon. Failing that: One planet, a nuclear device with a yield greater than 11% and a living, breating population of intelligent beings.

Hmmm....come to think of it, all I need is a nuclear device....

Your precious science will NEVER, EVER, EVER be able to find the answer to everything. Get over it.

What would you do if I told you that science has already found the answer for everything, but if you were told you wouldnt be able to understand it?

In fact: I have the answer. Its in a box. Do you need to look in it to know the truth?

[philo-sofa]

I'm not sure you truly know what atheism means. An atheist is not 'saying nothing' you are saying that you KNOW without a doubt that there is no God, and denying any possibility of there being one simply because you personally don't possess solid evidence to support it. Basically saying: if there isn't evidence of something, it doesn't exist. And that's the end of that. Which obviously is an absolute load of shit, if I can be frank.

I'd remind you Spliff that I haven't been rude to you, whilst you no doubt feel outnumbered and have probably had the odd personal attack made against you it wasn't me.

Now, let's take your definition of Atheism.  It's logically impossible to ever say that something is true, except in mathematics and 'Boolean' type logic, so in RL we're always talking about varying levels of certainty.  The issue is not that the Atheist is making "no statement" because as you said, he or she is.  The issue is that the statement is about the apparent lack of something.  The Atheist states that given the lack of a God, it is incredibly unlikely that there is a God.  The believer however makes a statement to the effect that there is something.  

In certain similar cases the burden of proof would fall on the person who denies that something is there/something is true.  For example, if I were to declare there is no Earth, the burden of proof is squarely on me.  There is some truth in what you say about Atheists being required to prove themselves as the Religious are.  However you are utterly wrong about who the burden of proof rests on.  It by definition rests upon the person or persons making "the most extraordinary claim".  As you are specifically saying that there is a God, he had a son named Jesus, and that he has written a set of guidelines for us to live by, that the Earth and the Universe was created by him and so on, you are making a fairly extraordinary claim and thus the burden of proof rests upon you.  This is agreed on, not only by academic versed in logic, but also by Theologians, so you are simply wrong in saying that the burden of proof rests elsewhere.  Imagine if what I said were not logically true, then I could be accused of being Hitler and have to defend myself completely or be considered logically guilty, or you could say that there are pink elephants cavorting under the ocean and that would need to be accepted by the logical public until every cubic meter of ocean had been mapped.  Logically the burden must rest on the person making the more extraordinary claim or it would be madness - certainly it would not be logical!  Certainly logic cannot deny your faith, but if you wish to adopt the mantra of logic, then you must abide by logical rules, and again, the burden of proof is on you.  

As to Atheism being "obviously an absolute load of shit" I am as an Atheist (and assure you I know what that means better than you) declaring that there is very, very likely no God, I must prove myself to a certain extent.  And I have satisifed that myself for me - there is no logical reason left to believe in a God, whereas there are many reasons to believe that the legends of a God are the inventions of a humanity unable to explain the working of the world around them.

Which brings back to the intelligent life example I bought up, do you also believe that because there is no evidence to support the existence of intelligent life outside of Earth that they obviously do not exist and there is absolutely no possibility of it existing?

This is an example of confusing 'burden of proof' with what you correctly identify as the BS argument "If there is no evidence for something, it is not there".  Again, as a Believer in an invisible God, you are making the most amazing claim and the burden of proof is on you.  As an Atheist I have satisfied myself on the incredible unlikelihood in my estimation, of a God.

Atheism is stupid, full stop.

Nope.

If you are 100% certain that a God/Creator/Whatever you want to call it doesn't exist and the universe just popped out of nowhere like magic, show me the evidence.

Can't do that, true, but I can describe the first nanosecond of this Universe's time in intricate detail.  Not bad for a brain designed to throw rocks and climb trees eh?  I also think your explanation for the Universe's origin is a bit more like 'magic' dude.

I don't need to show evidence of the possibility of a God existing, because the evidence is all around us.

This is a virtually intractable problem.  We don't seem to agree on what constitutes evidence.  I however am again backed up by the generally accepted logic that can be summed up as "just because a cloud looks dead pretty doesn't mean that it was made by someone".

You actually inherit a lot more genetic traits from your parents than what would you think. If occurance was random, if two white-skinned people had a child there could be the random chance that their child would be dark-skinned. Which is obviously not the case.

Actually it does happen occasionally, do more research.  You also misunderstand random mutation and randomisation of phenotype and genotype inheritances.

a lot of Darwins studies and theories about evolution failed and/or were inconclusive. As someone who believes so firmly in the infallability of science you should have already known this.

That was a while ago, we've proven it now.

And please don't quote Richard Dawkins to me, I'm not interested in that tossers inept ramblings.

He's not a tosser, he doesn't ramble and he's certainly not inept.

Nah, but maybe, but then defiantly nah.  It's only in a relatively complex universe that life can evolve - thus it's not amazing that the universe appears kinda awesome as otherwise there'd be no-one to look at it.  Look up the 'Weak Anthropic Principle'.

I'm not certain that even makes any sense.

it is a complex idea, Wikipedia actually explains it very well:

"The anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it."

i.e. If the universe looks amazing, you should realise that only a somewhat amazing universe (stars, nebulae, galaxies, the sun, planets, atmosphere, clouds, plant life, lower animals) could possibly lead to your being able to observe it.  We could never see a dead, boring universe, because we wouldn't be alive to see it.

It's a good, solid argument.  If you still think it doesn't make sense then I'm sorry to say that it's because you don't get it, not because it's nonsensical.

Pascal's wager

We're not even going to go there

Not only did you apparently make up that quote, I've never referred to or relied on Pascal's wager in any way. Please explain why you attempted to insert words into my mouth, is it a Freudian thing?

[krasher]

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same regardless.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

The one thing that really blows me away is how some people can believe that they are walking on this earth "by chance". Before I even get into it, read this -

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/hoyle.asp
Though Hoyle was not a Biblical creationist or even a Christian, he eventually recognized the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. Hoyle regularly took to task the Darwinian establishment for ignoring the complex sources of information and information processing programs (like DNA) needed for the creation and continuation of life. He realised that life couldn’t have arisen by chance in a primordial soup on Earth. First, he tried to solve the problem by saying that if we had the whole universe to work with instead of Earth, then this might overcome the problem. Hoyle favored and popularized a view called panspermia, the notion that life originated somewhere else in the universe and was driven to earth by electromagnetic radiation pressure.

But eventually he realised that even this would be woefully inadequate as a materialistic explanation of life’s origin. In his 1981 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000 (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance.

Hoyle eventually came to believe that the fine-tuning of the universe as a whole was further evidence for a designer:

‘A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics … The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.’

[Tiwaking!]

Leaving aside the terrible lack of pro-Satan TV shows for now, it's a good point.  I think the general thinking of the part of the religious is that basically you're in effect going to lead to the loss of people's eternal souls, whilst they are attempting to save them (no response here for those attempts, but I guess I appreciate the sentiment).  The trouble of course is that this is based on the idea that the religious are right in the first place, which is your point - you're arguing they aren't.  

You certainly aren't a criminal or even morally culpable in terms of what you do, or the oft quoted reasoning that 'if you're right then stuff suxxors, if I'm right then yaaay we get an afterlife, so let people believe' as that would lead to us having to chase down the bottom of every rainbow for a pot of gold.  It is a bit of an inequity that Atheists tend to face: we're "irresponsible" in so many people's eyes for preaching rational reasons for disbelief with respect to God, much like people questioning the fact that Ecstasy is has about 1/10,000th the mortaility and some even tinier percentage the addiction rate of Alcohol are condemned as "irresponsible" for talking well of this "killer drug".  

Off topic, sorry....

This whole quote technically falls under the umbrella of Pascals Wager. Apologies to Philo-Sofa for simply cutting it to 'Pascals Wager'

[nick247]

some pretty good arguments have been raised that i wouldnt mind hearing the reply too

[winfieldsaregoo]

good looks like every thing is covered in this one the atheist have it 100-0
as religon couldnt show us a miricale,burrning bush. nothing nill not at all zip





                               :rnr:yay atheist win:rnr:

[nick247]

not really, i think religion has the harder side of things

It has the larger onus or burden of proof

Then theres the whole spirituality versus institutionalised religion thing which REALLY makes it hard on the religious

The truth is its irrelevent whether you call it god or science. Life is good, we all like life and we should all appreciate living in it

and you dont need to call it god or whatever to understand that and to be moved by that and i dont think it matters whether the process by which all this happened was due to something sentient or not

the point is moot

[spliff]

seriously, f--- off Winsfield

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

Sorry to put it bluntly, but this thread is for discussion, not spam. If you're not going to add anything worthwile to the discussion and just come in here and act like a twat, please just don't post in here at all.

[winfieldsaregoo]

seriously, f--- off Winsfield

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

Sorry to put it bluntly, but this thread is for discussion, not spam. If you're not going to add anything worthwile to the discussion and just come in here and act like a twat, please just don't post in here at all.

lol at some one who is ment to be so self righteous, so defensive. over me trying to lighten the mood of the thread with a joke.

but you are the type of religoius people i dont like hypicritcale, and give religoius people a bad name,

i have a frend at god uni, he is a good frend of mine for one he dosnt force his beliefs on any one, and has read the keran(spelling) and has read in to many other relgions diferant to his own because he is open minded.

you seem to be the type saying believe in what i believe in or go to hell

[Dr Woomanchu]

everyone who calls themselves christians get tarred with the same brush thats human nature. we like labels.
besides jesus wouldn't fight back, you're not like him at all. I'm assuming christians aim to be like jesus, that would be an ideal goal for all christians wouldn't it ? correct me if I'm wrong.

I saw that comedian in one of the threads in OT with his line about being accosted by a couple of Good Ol' Boy Christians offended at his routine, so his reply was, you're christians? forgive me.

Why can't there just be one Creator? Just because everyone's got varying beliefs about what God is and these beliefs have been all mixed up over the many centuries, doesn't make the possibilty of there being one any less substantial.

First of all you have to define what you're talking about when you say god. I have no problem with the concept that the universe we live in was "created" in some way by a sentient entity. It is an interesting idea and worth discussing. I keep the idea with all the other ideas we have no evidence for but are plausible and interesting to ponder

However, the concept of a micro interventionist anthropomorphic god who "made" life on this planet and has direct knowledge and involvement in what happens on the planet, and that humans are somehow special in the universe is as ludicrous as the flying spaghetti monster.  The human christian god is small, petty and little more sophisticated than the flaming dung beetle that rolled the sun across each day.

[spliff]

but you are the type of religoius people i dont like hypicritcale, and give religoius people a bad name,

i have a frend at god uni, he is a good frend of mine for one he dosnt force his beliefs on any one, and has read the keran(spelling) and has read in to many other relgions diferant to his own because he is open minded.

you seem to be the type saying believe in what i believe in or go to hell

and obviously you haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've said in this thread.

*sigh*

[winfieldsaregoo]

and obviously you haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've said in this thread.

*sigh*

like you said at the start of your post wall of words its a forum im reading not a novle

[winfieldsaregoo]

oh and tbh nick247 has posted the best stuff i have read in this thread

[philo-sofa]

This whole quote technically falls under the umbrella of Pascals Wager. Apologies to Philo-Sofa for simply cutting it to 'Pascals Wager'

I was talking about the inequities of being 'irresponsible' for leading people down a path away from God, when it's the issue of God existing in the first place that would make it advantageous, that's taken as a given in a Pascal's wager argument, which attempts to supersede that point.

That having been said the first sentence of the second paragraph looks a lot like part of a rejection a Pascal's wager argument so I may have accidentally been forming a wheel shape without realising I was a few years late.  Apologies for not realising that with my previous post.

[cobra]

- it wouldn't be stood for in that context, yet for some reason its fine for Cobra to compare me to a Nazi multiple times (page 136-137 being the most recent)?

i didn't compare you to nazis - i was just saying i am intolerant of hate groups, be they christians or neonazis

christians are more subtle in there hate campaigns, and you, blinded by your love, dont see them as hate campaigns but try talking to a homosexual and ask them if the fact you dont think that they deserve equal rights as heterosexuals is a form of hatred - my homosexual friends see your campaigns against the civil union bill as a hate campaign

[cobra]

I don't understand why some of you can't, or for some reason refuse to open your mind up to concepts that science cannot explain or you cannot fully comprehend. It's like: "Science can't explain it, therefore I don't want to hear about it." Even Stephen Hawkings, one of the smartest scientists in the world believes there is a possibility of a God, and I'm sure most other scientists don't outright deny the possibility. So why do atheists have so much difficulty coming to terms with something just because they don't fully understand it?

you seem to not know much about science - scientist love things they can understand, science is about learning about these things - can you explain what we dont understand?

In your apparently extensive knowledge of all things in the universe, do you deny the possibility that intelligent life might exist outside of Earth, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence to prove there is?

i would be an intelligent life agnostic, what's your point?

Now apply that to some of the remarks you are making about the possibility of there being a God, and you would realise how ridiculous you and other atheists sound. Maybe now that you finally understand this concept you can drop the whole 'imaginary friends' routine and move onto to supplying some solid scientific evidence that God does not exist (good luck with that)

if you still don't understand this concept, then there is no hope for you and your narrow-minded method of thought and in all honestly it's not worth wasting my time arguing with someone like you any further if this is the case.

all atheists are a tad agnostic, but we would have to be talking about a god who has no impact on anything ever, and for all intensive purposes doesn't exist, if this is what you are talking about then i would be the first to admit that this god might exist, not likely, but might.

if you can find scientific proof that an invisible giraffe that doesn't effect anything doesn't follow you around then i will give you your scientific proof that god doesn't exist

but would you call yourself an invisible giraffe agnostic, or would you branch out and call yourself an invisible giraffe atheist?

[Black Heart]

not really, i think religion has the harder side of things

It has the larger onus or burden of proof

Then theres the whole spirituality versus institutionalised religion thing which REALLY makes it hard on the religious

The truth is its irrelevent whether you call it god or science. Life is good, we all like life and we should all appreciate living in it

and you dont need to call it god or whatever to understand that and to be moved by that and i dont think it matters whether the process by which all this happened was due to something sentient or not

the point is moot

I agree, but thats a reason to attack religion. Religions believe theres an afterlife. this concept cheapens the value of life. The extreme faction abuses this concept to create suicide bombers, but even the centers of religion are effectively making people think of there lives as being more expendible than they are.

If theres no afterlife, then the life we have on earth is all we have and we should cherish it all the more.

I wonder how many people that believe theres no afterlife, volunteer to join the army, for instance.

[Tiwaking!]

if you can find scientific proof that an invisible giraffe that doesn't effect anything doesn't follow you around then i will give you your scientific proof that god doesn't exist

Dont be ridiculous. There isnt enough room in the Pantheon for a Giraffe. Not with the Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster(Peace be upon him) and Russells Teapot flying around

I agree, but thats a reason to attack religion. Religions believe theres an afterlife. this concept cheapens the value of life.

The Atheist religion of the Raelian faith believe in immortality via the cloning of a human followed by the transfer of memory engrams into the clone upon death of the original human.

Far more sensible

[Black Heart]

like the cylons ? Man are they gonna get there beans in season 4!

[Ngati_Grim]

The truth is its irrelevent whether you call it god or science. Life is good, we all like life and we should all appreciate living in it....
..... i dont think it matters whether the process by which all this happened was due to something sentient or not

Ah, the Universe would be a vastly different one with a god than without!
I think it matters exceedingly whether the process by which all this happened was due to something sentient or not.
For me, the existence of the Universe does not require a god. That is parsimony.
I don't think it's irrelevant re: the naming rights. They are both heavily laden words with layers of meaning. One promotes rationalism, the other irrationalism.

[philo-sofa]

like the cylons ? Man are they gonna get there beans in season 4!

We can but hope they pay for the destruction of the Colonies.  All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again!

[spliff]

Can't do that, true, but I can describe the first nanosecond of this Universe's time in intricate detail.  Not bad for a brain designed to throw rocks and climb trees eh?

Please do. I would like to hear exactly why and how you think time first began - and I assume this is going to be 100% fact and not just a scientific theory?

That was a while ago, we've proven it now.

Not every aspect of evolution has been proven, no. Anyway I was more just scoffing at Kill3r for referring to Darwin of all people to backup his beliefs.

Again, as a Believer in an invisible God, you are making the most amazing claim and the burden of proof is on you.

Not once in this thread have I said that I definately believe in God. I am very close to it, and I would rather die believing in a God than die not believing in a God.

I also think your explanation for the Universe's origin is a bit more like 'magic' dude.

Nope, I don't. Your explanation is that everything just magically popped out of nowhere. My explanation is that everything was created and designed with very clear and specific intent, my explanation sounds more logical tbh, even if it is a difficult concept for humans to comprehend.


I'm not really interested in arguing with atheists anymore, I've heard your point of views and I still find them to be completely ridiculous and it's obvious your lack the ability to 'think outside the box' per se, you're stuck in your own little realm of logic and science and not willing to venture outside that realm. You're lucky Cynos from GPforums isn't here, because he would absolutely rip apart your argument and make you look foolish, I just lack the knowledge that he does unfortunately.

You seem like quite an intelligent guy Philo-sopha, but as I mentioned earlier even some of the greatest minds in the world have believed there is a very strong possibility of a God that created the universe, including Hawking and Einstein and many other scientists, so I ask you - do you think you're smarter and more knowledgable than Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein? If these two highly acclaimed scientists think there is a very high likeliness of a 'Creator', what makes you think you possess the knowledge that it is very unlikely?

I also ask you Philo-sofa, are you afraid of death - and complete non-existence? Or do you embrace it as a part of life? when/if you have kids, do you teach this to them - than when they die, that's it, they will never exist again? Because obviously you don't know that this is a fact, but as an atheist this is the only rational option you have, right?

I pity anyone who relies completely on science to try and explain everything, because ultimately science and all it's methods and everything didn't just come from nowhere, something that intricate needs to have been designed by something, despite how you will try your best to explain it when ultimately you can't.

Cobra, I will not bother responding to your post for some of the above reasons, you're just repeating the same crap over and over and not offering any new insights into why you believe what you believe.

[Ngati_Grim]

Cobra, I will not bother responding to your post for some of the above reasons, you're just repeating the same crap over and over and not offering any new insights into why you believe what you believe.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Bring it on, bring your mate in and let her tear us to shreds, go on, do it, I can't wait!

There is no afterlife, just death. We are here for the survival of the species, as we are animals (yes, that's right, of the mammalian type).

Faith is bunkum. (There, I've said it, I'm sick of pussyfooting around you crazed believers). Religion/faith deserves no more respect than anything else, and generally a lot less.

[spliff]

Also, why the need to negative rep me? I told someone lay off the spam, because this thread doesn't need spam, and I get negative rep for it? The dude doesn't even bother to read anything in the thread and just comes in spouting a load of b/s..

of course I don't care about some colored box next to my name, but it's disconcerting that people feel the need to do this for no good reason.

[spliff]

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Bring it on, bring your mate in and let her tear us to shreds, go on, do it, I can't wait!

I can guarantee he would not take the time to come and argue with you lot on this forum.

See, these are the kind of ridiculous arguments I'm talking about. 'There is no afterlife, just death' You know this for a fact do you, Oh Wise Ngati? For someone believes so firmly in science, you fail to provide any scientific evidence to back up any of the things you say that you claim to be fact, so why should I listen to any of the shit you say

and lol at comparing us to animals, truly pathetic.

Faith is bunkum. (There, I've said it, I'm sick of pussyfooting around you crazed believers). Religion/faith deserves no more respect than anything else, and generally a lot less.

Good for you. Have fun living your life as an unspiritual, biological sack-of-meat-and-bones.