Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[TuataraDude]

If you have the time, here is someone who certainly wants you to know where he stands. Have a look through the feedback section.

http://www.patcondell.net/index.html

I used to talk about this stuff at comedy clubs until I discovered internet video.

Now I get a lot more death threats, but I don't have to deal with drunks

Here is a sample




He is an equal opportunity insulter as well, all religion gets it from him. You can see all his videos here: http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u

[Ngati_Grim]

Ngati,

I didn't want to embarrass you in front of everyone, so I've taken the effort to contact you privately. I just read the Fox News article, which was very annoying, since it was boring and I already had a pretty good idea of what it said beforehand anyway. Just like what I said in the thread, the article repeatedly said that evolution and faith are not incompatible. Just look:

a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith.

Popes going back to the mid-20th century have "recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution,"

Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi told reporters that: "One thing is sure. Evolution is not incompatible with faith."

Pope Benedict XVI warned last week against fundamentalists' literal interpretations of the Bible.

So if there's any comprehension problem, it must be on your end.
Kind regards,

Huey

Bring it on,you little shit, because the quote I furnished was from the end of the article...you really are a supercilious cunt and I can't wait to burn you down (metaphorically).

As I said "They may accept parts of it,somewhat akin to the curate's Egg, but wholesale Evolution without a Creator is NOT accepted without certain clauses that evolution doesn't require." which means that it is NOT accepted in its Scientific form...they put qualifiers on it which aren't necessary so I suggest you either 'bring it' or stick your head where the sun don't shine  and actually start to question and ponder why you think there is a god when in fact it is unnecessary and there is absolutely nil,none, nada, evidence for  a god.


Oh, here, I'll do it for you.

[Ngati_Grim]

I apologise to everyone about my language....apart from huey because, well, she is ...

I'll start here:

Any Christian, Jew, or Muslim who accepts evolution, as do most of the scientists of these faiths, must be confronted with the fact that, according to the conventionalinterpretation, the human species is an accident. This violates the fundamental teaching by all these faiths that humanity is special. The answer usually given is that God, in fact, guides evolution. So,these so-called evolution believers are really believers in divine design after all.

From: The New Atheism by Victor J. Stenger, p99.

Would you like me to continue with, say the "Encyclical Humani Generis"  or maybe something from Ratshit Ratzinger, um Benedict XVI?

[Retardobot]

To answer your PM, huey.

My 'Did you just do that' post was in reference to you using a Fox News article in a debate about religion.

[nzr_hotsexgary]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

Comprehension problems?

They may accept parts of it,somewhat akin to the curate's Egg, but wholesale Evolution without a Creator is NOT accepted without certain clauses that evolution doesn't require.

Funnily enough, I just bought two books today:

"The New Atheism: Taking a stand for Science and Reason". by Victor J.Stenger.  


"The Greatest Show on Earth: The evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.


I've read "The Bible".
Will you read these?

Victor Stenger's "The God Hypothesis" is a very good read, as is Michael Martin's "Atheism - A philisophical justification".

The sad fact remains that in most religious arguments (eg those put forward by the likes of William Lane Craig and Alvin Platinga), they change the rules for each argument they take on. For example, when defending the "perfect" god (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) they use all their philisophical arguments, but then when the go on to defend the christian god, they forget about the 3 O's and try to prove something else altogether.

[cobra]

Did you just do that?

hey - it think we can all agree that fox news is the best source of impartial journalism

[ThaFleastyler]

Good call, Cobra :asian:

My question is this:
Who sends people PMs in a public discussion which has been running fine till now?!

[nzr_hotsexgary]

Good call, Cobra :asian:

My question is this:
Who sends people PMs in a public discussion which has been running fine till now?!

People who are scared that they have something to lose...

[Tiwaking!]

Just to repeat something I spoke to cobra about in private, the Vatican is not against evolution and has even spoken against groups that oppose it. Saint Thomas Aquinas had even alluded to it hundreds of years beforehand. Read these:

http://scienticity.net/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Vatican

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/the_latest_on_evolution_from_t.php

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

Why do Christians always bring up Thomas Aquinas when it is quite obvious that NONE of them has read Summa Theologica?

What can be accomplished by a few principles is not effected by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle, which is nature, and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle, which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

I agree. There is no God. ATHEISTS WIN!

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.

Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.

Oh and my personal favourite:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power

Stop using the opinions of other people and their uses of the Summae to misrepresent the opinions of a select group and actually READ IT for yourself.

Although it was written with on theistic basis, the arguments are still valid. Valid as in 'people still harp on about them' as opposed to 'people give a shit' valid

[Arnifix]

Good call, Cobra :asian:

My question is this:
Who sends people PMs in a public discussion which has been running fine till now?!

Morons who need to be banned but for some ridiculous reason have not been.

[Ngati_Grim]

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

:disappoin

[philo-sofa]

Why is that value of life more highly sought after? We are hardly the pinnacle of evolution, even on our own planet. We are not the most complex organisms. The majority of the functions our bodies fulfill can be better replicated by other lifeforms and many of the functions of our bodies are now perfectly useless. The only real advantage humans have is our adaptability.

PS. I do not include intelligence, because amongst humans it is fucking rare. Most humans cannot control their most primal selves to any substantial degree.

I'd strongly disagree - there's a difference between hyperbole about human intelligence and the facts.  The argument about 'humans not being anythign special cos we're dumb and stuff' is just hyperbole.  There are a lot of subatomic particles around, and they make up a lot of atoms (and even more dark matter or something lol).  It is however the complexity of the thinking element that I feel defines the real value in 'life' - hence the regard we hold for atoms that make intelligent things.  That's a belief which I have to defend the basis for, but right now I'm just disagreeing with the statement that 'there's no difference in intelligence value' if my basis is accepted.

1 Human > 100,000 beetles for me, as beetles are as dumb as hell.

Then that's us, again, wanting to be special and 'creating' the vehicle for this by defining 'life', or by giving it an extra value because of consciousness. If that is so, then it's for the dolphins
Life is.

...and my quote was purposefully obscure (sorry). I was referring to the number of planets found that are in the 'habitable zone'.

I will also contend that humans are generally stupid :/

Who does and doesn't define value though grim?  Where is the special value in truth, correctness and logic then?  It all does at the end come down to some kind of inductive intuition.  If you had to choose between letting a Cetacean or a Coleoptera die (TBH I looked that up cos it sounds cool to use families of animals and shit yo), I'm fairly sure your intuition would be the same as mine.  By the same token, is a brain dead human, dolphin or elk, worth as much a one with a functioning consciousness?  Would a functoning above human level artificial consciousness implicitly be worth more than a fly to you? Is there a clear correlation between consciousness and the value you place on something? There may well be other factors, but I'm guessing you'd get a very high P-Value for that one.

In as much as any value judgement can be valid, I'd argue that a value judgement about the value of life being based in large part on intelligence would be valid. Life experiences, life thinks and yes life acts like a fucking retard sometimes, but... it is valuable somehow. IMO anyway, but can you really say differently?


Then again, one always ends up in a circular argument with this; I appreciate it's life justifying itself. However all bases for valuation do fundamentally come down to a value judgement of some kind.

[cobra]

In as much as any value judgement can be valid, I'd argue that a value judgement about the value of life being based in large part on intelligence would be valid. Life experiences, life thinks and yes life acts like a fucking retard sometimes, but... it is valuable somehow. IMO anyway, but can you really say differently?


Then again, one always ends up in a circular argument with this; I appreciate it's life justifying itself. However all bases for valuation do fundamentally come down to a value judgement of some kind.

you definitely have an intelligence bias,  i would assume you are smarter then most people and that would be a major factor in you choosing intelligence - if you were stupid you would probably have a different value system (such as how religious you were)

you nailed it when you said that it is all a value judgement.

[Ngati_Grim]

Not a full reply, just something I found



Tiny Insect Brains Solve Big Problems

"The question is: If these insects can do these things with such little brains, what does anything need a big brain for?" said Lars Chittka of Queen Mary University of London, who presented his arguments along with colleague Jeremy Niven in the journal Current Biology. "Bigger isn't necessarily better, and in some cases it could be quite the opposite."

Because we are intelligent animals with big brains, people have long assumed that big brains are smarter brains. Yet, scientists have found scant evidence to support that view, Chittka said. Studies that have made those connections are fraught with problems. "If you try many measurements," he said, "Eventually you will find one that shows a correlation."

Insects may have consciousness and could even be able to count, claim experts

'Animals with bigger brains are not necessarily more intelligent,' said Professor Lars Chittka, from Queen Mary's Research Centre for Psychology, writing in the journal Current Biology.

'We know that body size is the single best way to predict an animal's brain size.

'However, contrary to popular belief, we can't say that brain size predicts their capacity for intelligent behaviour.

'In bigger brains we often don't find more complexity, just an endless repetition of the same neural circuits over and over.

'This might add detail to remembered images or sounds, but not add any degree of complexity. To use a computer analogy, bigger brains might in many cases be bigger hard drives, not necessarily better processors.'

Certainly food for thought.

[ThaFleastyler]

Ok guys, time for me to ask a serious question:
Without getting into bashing any particular religions or faiths - just referring plainly to believing in the existence of God - what are your thoughts on Pascal's Wager?

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

Link at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Simplified, it might read like this:

Surely, the wisest option is to believe that God exists.  If He doesn't exist, you have lost nothing by believing. If He does exist, you will  save yourself from the damnation of non-believers and enjoy an eternity of heavenly bliss.

I'm interested purely in knowing your own thoughts on this argument. I came across it today, incidentally as an exercise about dissecting argument from my Critical Thinking textbook.

[Ngati_Grim]

lol Huey negged me  for my picture post...."as if that stuff was really sold"...it was a humorous interlude Huey, that's all.


Flea, not my words, but my thoughts are in line with this:

"There are, after all, atheists who say they wish the fable were true, but are unable to suspend the requisite disbelief, or who have relinquished belief only with regret. To this I reply: who wishes that there was a permanent, unalterable celestial despotism that subjected us to continual surveillance and could convict us of thought-crime, and who regarded us as its private property even after we died? How happy we ought to be, at the reflection that there exists not a shred of respectable evidence to support such a horrible hypothesis."

Christopher Hitchens.


Plus, I'm not a betting man

[Bounty Hunter]

random thought I had, totally unrelated to any current conversation:

I find it hard to say I'm a believer of science, because it's not a belief, it's fact.

whatever faith I have in science, I have in all of science (even biology and those fuckin punnet squares) I know that gravity is 9.8ms^2, I know that the strongest atomic structure is a lattice etc, these are things I know, not things I believe.

However you ask any religo folk about the racism and hatred, the crusades, the safe sex, anything considered bad that the bible preaches, and they tell you they dont believe that particular bit, or that it was so long ago, or that it's a misinterpretation.

and you simply dont hear that in science, sure science gets things wrong but it doesn't just tuck it under the rug, it doesn't just say "oh i dont believe that part" because science isn't a belief, it either corrects it, and posts the new findings, proudly, or it keeps it as it is because it's easier that way.

science doesn't go around proving religion wrong, it goes around proving itself wrong, which is the purpose of all scientific study if not to discover in the first place.

[cobra]

Surely, the wisest option is to believe that God exists. If He doesn't exist, you have lost nothing by believing. If He does exist, you will save yourself from the damnation of non-believers and enjoy an eternity of heavenly bliss.

just to dissect this part:

Firstly it requires you to not lose anything by believing, i would argue that this is not the case and you lose a lot e.g. a life free from superstition - with the likelihood of a god being so close to zero your expected gain from believing is quite small.

the second part is you need to do more then believe to get salvation, there would be a cost in believing  - going to church, interacting with people, donations etc

thirdly: There is not universal agreed way to get salvation across the religions - the fact that you would have to pick one and hope for the best eats into your odds again.

you are best to be an atheist - at least you will be right and be able to think freely

[nzr_hotsexgary]

pascals wager is quite elegant, but in its simplicity it makes a lot of assumptions (in the style of most religious people who are out to prove a point rather than find the true answer)

the main thing it doesn't account for is the possibility of a god who rewards people for not believing in him. if this god exists, then all the probabilities go to undefined values (infinity - infinity != 0, but some undefined number that could be positive or negative), and therefore the expected outcome of believing in god is the same as the expected outcome of not believing

it still worries me how few religious people actually honestly question why god cares if we believe in him. surely he (or she, if god is actually alanis morrisette) can't be that fucking insecure, right?

[Ngati_Grim]

Why doesn't god heal amputees?







I've just watched one of the worst miniseries I've seen in a long time: "The Last Templar".

Horrid, horrible, terrid, terrible 0.o
Masty (lol typo) Nasty tentacles the Catholic Church has and this show was no exception.

[cobra]

watched a thing on cults on tv - can you have a non religious cult? is it possible? or are cults a gift from god that is just part and parcel of religion?

[AintNoMeInTeam]

just to dissect this part:

Firstly it requires you to not lose anything by believing, i would argue that this is not the case and you lose a lot e.g. a life free from superstition - with the likelihood of a god being so close to zero your expected gain from believing is quite small.

the second part is you need to do more then believe to get salvation, there would be a cost in believing  - going to church, interacting with people, donations etc

thirdly: There is not universal agreed way to get salvation across the religions - the fact that you would have to pick one and hope for the best eats into your odds again.

you are best to be an atheist - at least you will be right and be able to think freely

fourthly: any god that you do pick, and hope its the right one, would have to value dishonest belief over honest skepticism. If you dont believe in something, but just go through the motions of believing just to get some reward at the end, then any all knowing god would just call you a fraud.

[nzr_hotsexgary]

watched a thing on cults on tv - can you have a non religious cult? is it possible? or are cults a gift from god that is just part and parcel of religion?

Surely you haven't heard of the christian organisation "cultwatch" which has members "from all denominations" - except destiny of course, since they've just decided to label them as a cult, pot calling the kettle black if you ask me

[Chilli]

Surely you haven't heard of the christian organisation "cultwatch"

Lol yeah, saw one of them on the Campbell live show going up against that toss pot from destiny's 'church' .. was funny as