Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[KiLL3r]

Denying the existence of something without having definitive eviden

why is there need to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence to begin with?

[psyche]

Oh man...

actually i have never seen dawkins mention anything like this.

Yeah and i'm Elvis Presley. AAHTHANKYOUVERYMUCH.

why is there need to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence to begin with?

So basically you are saying there is no need for atheism, right? I agree with you. I do not agree with you that there is 'no evidence' though, you're just not looking hard enough

This quote comes to mind:

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge"

If you are so damn sure about your belief - why do you even bother coming here to argue about it? Wouldn't you just say something like "You're all idiots, and anyone in the world that has ever believed in God or a being that is the source of physical existence are all idiots, because I am infinitely knowledgeable and all-knowing. Idiots." and leave it at that?

[KiLL3r]

So basically you are saying there is no need for atheism, right?

If only it was that easy. Yes without religion or gods id be happy for atheism to totally disappear. But as it stand there are people who claim gods exist and use this to gain power, and this is where the problems start.

[Pyromanik]

It's christianity's fault I don't have a flying car, so fuck you all.

[psyche]

If only it was that easy. Yes without religion or gods id be happy for atheism to totally disappear. But as it stand there are people who claim gods exist and use this to gain power, and this is where the problems start.

Sounds more like you have a problem with the doctrination and structure of religions than whether God exists or not then, do you agree? Is the only reason you relate to atheism because of the minority (and it is a minority) that use religion as a means to gain power? Surely we can give some merit to all the other many intelligent and respect-worthy people that claim God exists that aren't corrupted by the greed of power? I'm not sure if you are aware but there are plenty of other religious people that are some of the most kind, accepting people on the face of the planet, and have no desire for power or self-gain whatsoever?

[philo-sofa]

It's christianity's fault I don't have a flying car, so fuck you all.

This is a good point that people don't raise enough.

If only it was that easy. Yes without religion or gods id be happy for atheism to totally disappear. But as it stand there are people who claim gods exist and use this to gain power, and this is where the problems start.

Kinda like communism? :chuckle: Nah just kidding, some parallels there for me tho.

[Black Heart]

Oh look, it's a deluded Dawkins nutter. I suppose you believe aliens designed life on Earth aswell? Pfffft.

 Try coming up with a more coherent argument than just raving about fairy's and pixies, it gives absolutely no credibility to your arguments whatsoever

How many times must you be corrected?

Dawkins explored the idea of the earth being seeded by aliens, he said it was interesting BECAUSE it only led to the same questions about the origins of said aliens. HE DOESN'T BELEIVE IN ALIENS. HE EVEN STATES THE ALIENS IN THIS HYPOTHESIS WOULD HAVE HAD THEIR OWN KIND OF EVOLUTION.

More to the point he's only explaining his own veiw of someone elses possible theory, and then further seperates himself from it by stating "NOW I DON'T BELEIVE THIS THEORY IS TRUE."

But sure take a stupid movies twisted one eyed, single purpose and accept it, no matter the context of the interveiw, or the explanations of the interveiwee. Who by the way has taken great pains to make himself clear.

It's not even that your stupid psyche, your willfully ignoring facts that are glaringly obvious.

In the end it really doesn't matter, you can think what you like of atheists, your opinion means nothing to nobody -except yourself. And if you think theres a god good luck figuring out what meaning he's got for your life. Nobody has worked it out yet. Maybe they just weren't blindly following their own wild conjecture for long enough. Thats the only way I can see you've got an advantage on the millions of lives that have gone before you.

[Arnifix]

Kinda like communism? :chuckle: Nah just kidding, some parallels there for me tho.

That is a bizarre statement.

[philo-sofa]

That is a bizarre statement.

Huh?  That some people have used communism to gain power and cause all sorts of problems?  Thought that was relatively indisputable.

[Arnifix]

Huh?  That some people have used communism to gain power and cause all sorts of problems?  Thought that was relatively indisputable.

You could say that about almost any form of government.

[Black Heart]

heres a theory,

Life breeds throughout the universe, competing to become the most evolved being, eventually perfection is reached, a energy being whose sentience is omnipotent, they are a collection of all thought, and become a singularity, time, space, laws, these are nothing to the final being, who goes mad with boredom and simply self destructs in such a way to spawn a new universe, where it all begins again.

Now that way there is a god (briefly) and then we have life without it because face it gods daily influence is deafeningly silent. And nobody can disprove it. or prove it. or even explain the mechanics of it.

[psyche]

How many times must you be corrected?

Dawkins explored the idea of the earth being seeded by aliens, he said it was interesting BECAUSE it only led to the same questions about the origins of said aliens. HE DOESN'T BELEIVE IN ALIENS. HE EVEN STATES THE ALIENS IN THIS HYPOTHESIS WOULD HAVE HAD THEIR OWN KIND OF EVOLUTION.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to YOU? It's the fact that he thinks it's more intriguing possibility than God; the supposed source of ALL intelligence. So he's saying it's plausible for intelligent alien beings to have 'intelligently designed' life, but if you believe it was God instead according to him you are delusional. He made the fucking statement whether you like it or not.

Apparently in the same interview he was asked what he thought the likely chance of God existing is. He said "there is a 99% chance that God does not exist" - then when asked if it might be something close to 70% he said "it might be closer to 70% or 60%....oh I don't want to name a number.."  (not an exact quote but it is similar to this)

Meh, he's a joke. Like I said there are much more knowledgeable people than him, if you want to take him seriously and hang onto his every word... go for it.

In the end it really doesn't matter, you can think what you like of atheists, your opinion means nothing to nobody -except yourself.

Why the fuck are you even replying to my posts then numbnuts?

And if you think theres a god good luck figuring out what meaning he's got for your life. Nobody has worked it out yet. Maybe they just weren't blindly following their own wild conjecture for long enough. Thats the only way I can see you've got an advantage on the millions of lives that have gone before you.

Man, sorry for being curious about where the existence of everything came from, where we came from, and why and how and all these fascinating questions that one can ponder. I guess I should go play World of Warcraft and fondle my ballsacks for the rest of the week because that's a much more constructive thing to do.

[philo-sofa]

You could say that about almost any form of government.

True, true. Just seems to be a notably strong association historically. It seems communism tends to need dictators, and the dictatorial are only too happy to oblige.

[Black Heart]

He actually doesn't make the comparison of aliens vs god YOU DO. He dismisses them both, and it's pretty obvious why GOD is not intriguing.

WOW look at GOD did it. yea that wont get old.

Nice last line, you spout post after post about how god MUST exist, but face it there are no fascinating questions that you can ever answer, if you accept that idea as real knowledge. So no I don't think your pondering is anymore constructive than scrathing your ballsack, infact scratching your ballsack has a real result and therefore is a far more productive thing than a static state of "oh wow, GOD DID IT"

[Pyromanik]

This is a good point that people don't raise enough.

Thank you for recognising my statement for truth.

Because it is.





And no one ever thinks of the consequences the dark ages have taken on the development of our collective knowledge.




Banish all knowledge because it defies god?
Fuckoff, where's my flying car you cunt!?

[Black Heart]

it's here http://www.moller.com/

[philo-sofa]

Thank you for recognising my statement for truth.

Because it is.





And no one ever thinks of the consequences the dark ages have taken on the development of our collective knowledge.




Banish all knowledge because it defies god?
Fuckoff, where's my flying car you cunt!?

No I'm quite serious.  I want a gorram flying car.  It's a fact that can mobilise the average consumer to think about what they're missing out on.   Well, that and the myriad of medial conditions that could be easily solved via stem cells.

Though if we're being 100% serious we also have to give credit to religion for being a repository for science and learning during the dark ages, which AFAIK, for all that they were characterised by religiousness, weren't caused by it.

[cobra]

Meh, he's a joke. Like I said there are much more knowledgeable people than him, if you want to take him seriously and hang onto his every word... go for it.

once again read and understand one of his books and you wont be talking out of your arse, till then..............

[Wandarah]

I for one, am a child of the universe; engaged eternally in an ongoing conversation between the inner and the outer forms of space and the entities both real and imagined which inhabit it, and we are all in direct and deliberate communication with the eternal conciousness that links us all, constantly.

I find your books and laws and churches quaint, and amusing. Whacky ideas. I like your stories too, especially the ones about incest and the ones that condone violence.

And the pictures of anicient tits. They're sweet.

P.S And Richard Dawkins is a knob. He's right, mind. He's still a fuckin prat though.

[KiLL3r]

i think the chances of a supreme powerful alien creating the universe is alot more tangible than a supernatural god entity.


you seem to have a problem with this concept psyche. you see in billions or trillions of years mankind (if it last that long) might evolve to such a high level that they will understand everything around them and may then be able to create their own universe with life in it. Does it make them gods though? No it doesnt.

Does it make them powerful enough to be considered gods by people who are not smart enough to understand it? You betcha

[ThaFleastyler]

Merriam-Webster defines "religious" as follows:
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

religion is belief based on faith so saying christianity isnt religious because you identify it with faith is wrong.

Thats what I'm trying to say - the definition of "religion" as pertaining to sets of rules controlling a practice of faith is a purely Christian idea, which is what the lady was speaking about. The dictionary definition of "religion" is at odds with the way in which Christians use the word.

For example, going to a Catholic confession, and doing penance afterwards (saying certain prayers and stuff) is a religious practice; walking through the stations of the cross, as Catholics do at Easter, is a religious practice. On the other hand, believing in God is not a religious practice; its the basis of religious practice. If that makes sense - thats kinda how I look at it.

Like I say, I associate the word "religion" with a bunch of man-made controls and practices, and thats what I want to steer clear of. But I also understand that that is easier for nonChristian people to use the word religious, so I don't get too wound up about it.

Ironically, atheism is a faith-based belief aswell. So is atheism a religion also? It certainly seems like it.

So let me get this straight, in laymans terms:

Faith = belief in something that can only be "sensed".
Atheism = rejection of the notion that such a being exists.

So how does Atheism require Faith?
Pure and simple, it doesn't.

Idiot.

[Tiwaking!]

Have you ever considered that you may be wrong about certain things? It seems to me that you will not consider such an occurrence is possible. It's like you have blinkers on.

Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.

Faith in the non-existence of God

Atheism is a religion the same way BALD is a hair colour

[philo-sofa]

While I agree that your interpretation is a better way to go about it Flea, it seems far more likely to me that she was just an idiot.

Merriam-Webster defines "religious" as follows:
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

religion is belief based on faith so saying christianity isnt religious because you identify it with faith is wrong.

I think he's separating out two concepts to make a point.  It is a matter of semantics, as you can definately call belief in God religious, and thus call Flea's point into question.  The issue would have to be whether it's a valid point he makes or just a cynical attempt to redefine things away from something that's unfashionable.  I'd have to say for myself  he does make a good point - the belief in a personal God seems less ridiculous when removed from rites like stigmata and exorcisms - and he does it in an honest and forthright way.

So let me get this straight, in laymans terms:

Faith = belief in something that can only be "sensed".
Atheism = rejection of the notion that such a being exists.

So how does Atheism require Faith?
Pure and simple, it doesn't.

Idiot.

Lol, nicely put.  Psyche, read this FFS!

[ThaFleastyler]

I think he's separating out two concepts to make a point.  It is a matter of semantics, as you can definately call belief in God religious, and thus call Flea's point into question.  The issue would have to be whether it's a valid point he makes or just a cynical attempt to redefine things away from something that's unfashionable.  I'd have to say for myself  he does make a good point - the belief in a personal God seems less ridiculous when removed from rites like stigmata and exorcisms - and he does it in an honest and forthright way.

Yeah, what I'm saying is rough and its at odds with the dictionary definition of "religious", but it is a term thats been adapted to fit within the Christian worldview - its become a kind of jargon, if you will.

Rather than a "cynical attempt to redefine things away from something that's unfashionable", its more a case of trying to avoid the pitfalls as it were, and seek to have a real relationship with God, based on God himself, rather than any doctrination created by man.

[Retardobot]

I'm just gonna put something out there, if you don't like it then just send it on back.

What's the deal with being a christian? The base exercise of Christianity are to live for God, isn't it? Well, what was the point in Jesus/God giving us life, sparing our sins is all we are left to do is to live by his rules.

If i was alive around the time when Jesus had his cross over his shoulders, dragging it through town and he asked me "if i spare your sins and let mankind be spared, will you devote your life to me", i would if said "fuck no, i'm off to Taco Bell for a cheese burrito".

I don't think it's that i don't believe in God, it's just that i don't acknowledge him with his whole "i control you" bs as if we all have ariels sticking out our heads and he is up there with a remote control.

I've even TRIED it. I've had a paster (sp) poach my cell number from a survey/competition and ring me up, trying to get me to meet up with him so he can persuade me to be a christian. But i just can't bring myself to follow a set of rules that will inhibit my life enjoyment.