Religions

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Religion of any sort boggles my mind.

I feel like I live in a world where everyone believes in Santa Claus and I'm one of the few people who realizes that he isn't real.

What's your primary exposure to religion? The southern evangelicals? I think that may be skewing your view of religious people a bit (understandably so I might add).

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

What's your primary exposure to religion? The southern evangelicals? I think that may be skewing your view of religious people a bit (understandably so I might add).

My family is religious, but not overly so. I've never even been to church a day in my life.

They just believe in a god - for me that's enough to cross the line into strangeness. That someone could believe that, with not a shred of evidence. It's just so obviously a fairy tale to me - written by people for other people.

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.

It's a combination of evolution, tradition, family, and politics. Religion is ingrained in so many aspects of our society.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in religion. Unfortunately, most of the good wisdom is ignored. I'm pretty sure God hates Republicans (AND TO DISCOURAGE AN UNNECESSARY POLITICAL DISCUSSION, he hates Democrats too ).

Jesus was a hippy who hung out with prostitutes and blind people and preached the New Testament. He was more about giving your stuff to the poor and asking for forgiveness...which is kind of just saying "genuinely love your neighbor and God and good things will come to you."

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Jesus was a hippy who hung out with prostitutes and blind people and preached the New Testament. He was more about giving your stuff to the poor and asking for forgiveness...which is kind of just saying "genuinely love your neighbor and God and good things will come to you."

Jesus asked people to be charitable with their own wealth, to CHOOSE to give to others. He never asked them to take from A to give to B, and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.

Back on topic: Now that the discussion has degraded into calling believers "stupid", I'll jump in.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own. Those that choose not to believe in God have tried to answer this by presenting theories such as "planet seeding by aliens" (who created the aliens?) to "we just don't know yet, but it wasn't God".

Now either of these may be true, but there is no evidence for either of them. They are guesses. Statements made out of belief, and not fact. Feel free to choose your religion, atheistic or theistic, but no one should pretend that they know more or are smarter than anyone else simply because they choose to not believe in the "spaghetti monster". You simply choose to believe in something else, but in the end, it's just faith... same as the most devout Baptist.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by Professor S

and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.

Not disagreeing because I don't know, but I would like to see an actual source for that.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own.

Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Not disagreeing because I don't know, but I would like to see an actual source for that.

Politically, this has been common knowledge for a very long time. Many believe this is because democrats tend to be 1) less religious, and 2) view government programs as charity (consciously or subconsciously).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

I see that they created primordial goo (amino acids), but I fail to see the part where life was created. In fact, experiments have been done where every amino acid needed for life have been put together in ideal conditions with favorable stimulus and nothing has happened. No life created. In the end, we are left with assumptions and the only possibility not being considered is a supreme being. IMO, to believe that the results of the experiments noted in that article = life being created is a leap of "faith" if I've ever heard one.

Again, we see mountains being made out of molehills. The ability to recreate the components of life does not = spontaneous formation of life. Science is about observation and proof, not conclusions based on assumptions that may be correct or incorrect.

I think this is caused by noble cause corruption. People feel the need to prove to everyone that God does not exist, so they extend their argument beyond the boundaries of science in order to "free the ignorant masses". In the end, its things like this that reinforce my belief that most atheists are "true-believers" and not nearly as rational as they think they are. If they were, they would be agnostic.

[Teuthida]

I linked that because you said it was statistically impossible. Which it is not. Imagine you have all the ingredients to make a cake. You still need to figure out the right proportion, what to mix with what and when, and even if you somehow manage to get all that right, you need to set it at the exact temperature for the correct about of time. Now think of creating life as infinitely harder and with far more variables, all of what we don't know. Life isn't like making a pie.

To make the jump to a supreme being for anything that can't be explained is the laziest course of action possible.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Politically, this has been common knowledge for a very long time. Many believe this is because democrats tend to be 1) less religious, and 2) view government programs as charity (consciously or subconsciously).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

Thank you for the link. My only food for thought response would be to factor in the amount of civilian casualties and wars caused by Republicans vs. Democrats. Look at the Middle East...for example. On the other hand, Obama clearly has a war agenda, so maybe it goes both ways. But charity is more than just giving people money. When you add civilian causalities and war into the equation, who really comes out on top?

Early Christianity was spread via war. Look at the Spanish Inquisition or what we did to the Native Americans. Christianity, actually....Catholicism....has a lengthy history in Europe. The Martin Luther revolution was the result of BAD RELIGION. Catholics are responsible for many wars and deaths throughout European history. Not to mention how often religion was abused by kings and other nobles. Remember, to date, the earth was flat, the earth was in the center of the universe, and God created the universe. Since then we've discovered the earth is not flat, we aren't in the center, and we came from the Big Bang. We haven't figured out what happened pre-Big Bang. So you can go two directions: God created us, or science still needs to fill in the gap.

None of that proves or disproves the existence of God, but when you consider the amount of causalities and war that are the result of religion, even religion's charitable contributions seem to weigh fairly against the destruction caused by religion.

Again, none of this really proves or disproves the existence of God. But, I have to ask:

I wonder if the big personalities in the science community wouldn't be so cynical or anti-religion if historically religion wasn't so anti-science. So much so in fact that many historical science figures died at the hands of religious men. I know in Physics class we were reminded what happened to people like Copernicus, or the Library of Alexandria. Need I remind you that Copernicus has done way more to advance human civilization than the Catholic church.

I think the science community is far more anti-religion than anti-God. And they've earned their jaded patch. I mean seriously, if you're a scientist you have every right to own a "fuck religion" mentality.

But it's a complicated gray area issue. Here is why: You have organizations like the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is fucking awesome, they help a TON OF PEOPLE out. But they are also anit-gay. For me, I have to refer people to Salvation Army for free resources all the time. I'm partially conflicted because I disagree with the anti-gay stance, so I'm in serious moral contention because I'd rather help people. I see the positives, like the Catholic church assisting in Africa. And then I see Pope Douchefuck the III telling the people not to wrap their shit. Seriously, Pope? AIDS!!!???!!

It's all the holes in the mythology that keep me away from religion....I'm open to spirituality and find that my own journey and questions are a rewarding experience. Organized religion has the faults of any major institution, only MORE SO because it is founded and based on antiquated and retarded ideas.

The notion of God or Spirituality should remain separate from both science and organized religion. I'm down with some higher power or some connected conscious. I'm open to that notion. I can't get aboard religion, I've seen way too much hurt caused by religious institutions. I'd like to think if there is a God, he set the universe in motion and grabbed a bucket of Popcorn. And some lube. Because he is watching you undress.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Jesus asked people to be charitable with their own wealth, to CHOOSE to give to others. He never asked them to take from A to give to B, and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.

Back on topic: Now that the discussion has degraded into calling believers "stupid", I'll jump in.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own. Those that choose not to believe in God have tried to answer this by presenting theories such as "planet seeding by aliens" (who created the aliens?) to "we just don't know yet, but it wasn't God".

Now either of these may be true, but there is no evidence for either of them. They are guesses. Statements made out of belief, and not fact. Feel free to choose your religion, atheistic or theistic, but no one should pretend that they know more or are smarter than anyone else simply because they choose to not believe in the "spaghetti monster". You simply choose to believe in something else, but in the end, it's just faith... same as the most devout Baptist.

No, it's really, really not the same. I don't believe in anything. I don't pretend to know the origin of life, but I think I remember reading back in high school about how scientists had conducted experiments using electricity in a box with similar atmospheric conditions to Earth, and small microorganisms formed.

If that's true, then isn't it extraordinarily more probable that life got it's start that way, as opposed to some all-powerful, omniscient being that no one has even a shred of evidence of willing life into existence?

And even if that isn't true and I'm remembering incorrectly, it doesn't change the fact that all religions were created by man, for man. They are a guess, but have no basis in fact. Science does. That is the difference. One is from someone's imagination, the other based on observations.

If one religion or another does turn out to be right, I'll eat my hat, because they just won the cosmic lottery in a most epic fashion.


-----

EDIT: Sorry Teuth, didn't see your post. Looks like I was remembering right.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

If that's true, then isn't it extraordinarily more probable that life got it's start that way, as opposed to some all-powerful, omniscient being that no one has even a shred of evidence of willing life into existence?

In terms of probabilities, I believe both come out to about nil. Note: Spontaneous creation of life is not absolute zero, but the chances are so remote it is considered a virtual impossibility. I believe the probability is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. To give some context, there is a far greater chance of observing every known atom in the universe than of life spontaneously erupting. (since you can't statistically measure the God equation I'll give Him an absolute zero). The best part of all of this? The most common argument against the probability dismissal is that the creation of true life is NOT RANDOM. So, the defense of abiogenesis is order, or one might say, design?

So we are left with the point of my post: You pick your belief, and I'll pick mine. But one zero doesn't get to be obnoxiously condescending to another zero. They are equal in terms of probability.

[Bond]

Wow, this thread exploded.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

My family is religious, but not overly so. I've never even been to church a day in my life.

They just believe in a god - for me that's enough to cross the line into strangeness. That someone could believe that, with not a shred of evidence. It's just so obviously a fairy tale to me - written by people for other people.

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.

I would encourage you to read and/or listen to Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Both are Oxford professors and extremely distinguished in their fields. Both are also Christian apologists (people who defend Christianity on a rational basis), in the same vein of G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis.

My intention is by no means to persuade or convert you, but rather to show you the best of the other side. I'd be happy to link you to a few specific lectures as well.