Religions

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

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

I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.



I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?

You're asking us to prove a negative - it isn't possible. So I guess you win this argument by default?

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?

Heh, going to refer to god as the Baker from now on. The holy trinity of the Butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick-maker


I do find it your shift in perspective to be interesting. I mapped out my logic behind an afterlife previously in this thread. There's enough proof for me to believe life started without a guiding hand. Especially when you consider the sheer size of the universe and the number of planets within it. A freak accident like life is bound to happen. I can't wrap my mind around what existed before the big bang though. Even if this universe is the offshoot of another, where did that one come from? Or if everything was condensed and the universe is cyclical in nature of expanding and contracting, there has to be a starting point. So if I was to give the plausibility of a god to anything it would be that. But then where did that god come from?

But really, why would a supreme being who created all of everything, make one-celled organisms on this planet? Given this discussion, I'm assuming you don't believe all the creatures on Earth were magicked into existence like the really religious types do.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

Haaaa, that was good, I liked that.

Theres a funny show on netflix called "Animals that Defy Evolution". Its about some scientist guy who believed in evolution but then saw the light and now is trying to disprove it with stuff that doesnt make any sense. Hes things like, if theres a giraffe sitting there and it sees a zebra, hes just gonna chill, but if it sees a lion it runs away. Evolution didnt tell it to run away, god gave it the ability to distinguish between predators and other animals. And if god didnt make whales right on the spot like they are, theres no way it would have survived through evolution. Hes pretty much says that if god didnt make every animal it would have died.

[Vampyr]

Like I said before, I'm not claiming to know how life on Earth got started.

You are - you are putting forth a hypothesis that there is a supreme being who created everything, but you don't have any evidence, at all, for this.

Also, this question has been asked a million times before, but if a supreme being did create life, then that just begs the question as to how that supreme being was formed.

Either it was created by another supreme being (who created that one?) or it spontaneously sprung into being. And if that life could spontaneously form, why couldn't life on Earth?

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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.

I think wars are a muddier comparison because they can be considered just or unjust, while charity is simply a moral good. But using your new comparison, let's compare the casualties of the Iraq wars that were the responsibility of Republicans to the civilian casualties created in WWII and the Korean and the Vietnam Wars under Democrats... I don't think we actually have to pull up the numbers, do we? In WWII alone a Democrat authorized the use of nuclear weapons... twice. Want to compare the use of smart bombs with carpet bombing, fire bombing and napalm?

I happen to agree with the use of the weapons considering the times, but by your terms Democrats are the greatest offenders BY FAR.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I think wars are a muddier comparison because they can be considered just or unjust, while charity is simply a moral good. But using your new comparison, let's compare the casualties of the Iraq wars that were the responsibility of Republicans to the civilian casualties created in WWII and the Korean and the Vietnam Wars under Democrats... I don't think we actually have to pull up the numbers, do we? In WWII alone a Democrat authorized the use of nuclear weapons... twice. Want to compare the use of smart bombs with carpet bombing, fire bombing and napalm?

I happen to agree with the use of the weapons considering the times, but by your terms Democrats are the greatest offenders BY FAR.

My only response to that would be that World War 2 was a response to Nazi Germany and was more out of self-defense. Vietnam and the Korean War were both effed, so I can't disagree there.

The War on Iraq had some religious context, but I think deep down we all know that it wasn't really about religion. And Obama hasn't had any staunch opposition to messing with the Middle East, so boo on him. He seems just as pro-war as any Democracy-spreadin' American Politician.

So I respectfully appreciate that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. Ideally I wish both parties would stay the hell away from religion.

Also, random tangent, but what the fuck? "Effed" is a word now? It's not coming up on my browser spell check...it's defined if you Google search for it, and it has a Wikipedia thingy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effed

That's fucking awesome! I use "effed" in professional settings all the time.

[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.