Religions

[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?

[Professor S]

It's funny to think that anyone can "win" this argument. My goal isn't to convince you that God exists and that He created the universe, even though your goal is to convince me that he doesn't and didn't.

Here are my goals:

1) To encourage those that don't believe in God to be honest about the scientific arguments against his existence. Stretching science beyond it's boundaries does not disprove anything, and only hurts science.

2) To make non-believers realize that disbelief in God is a belief, not a fact. Facts must be proven, correct? I'm willing to admit my belief in God is a belief, and not a fact. Can you admit that nonexistence of God is a unproven belief, and not a fact?

3) Combining goals 1 and 3, to encourage atheists to drop the condescending attitudes and superiority complexes. Atheists have one belief amongst many. No need to act like assholes every time God or religion is mentioned.

Overall, I think everyone should be open to the possibility that God is real; not to accept Him, just to be open that he might just exist (I lived in this spiritual limbo for years). An open mind never hurt anyone.

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

You made that one too easy for me. But I think a baker is a decent analogy.

I do find it your shift in perspective to be interesting.

Probably because I am a deist, and not tied to religion or dogma. In many ways, my belief in God is based in reason. Without a definite answer to everything, and the failure of atheist evangelists like Richard Dawkins to adequately make their case (often betraying themselves when they try), I still have this underlying belief in my chest that there is a God, so I choose to follow that belief.

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.

Good questions, but I doubt I have answers. My belief is that God gave the components and the spark, but then let the engine run on its own, but this isn't a strong belief. Hard to say, but I love trying to find the answer.

As for evolution, I definitely think evolution in a species exists, and there is a strong chance that evolution between species takes place, but I'm not convinced of that. There are a lot of holes in Darwinism that need to be worked out. I'm not anti-Darwin, but I'm also not a blindly devout Darwinist like Richard Dawkins.

My biggest problem with people like Dawkins are that they are so devout in their faith that they lose their objectivity, and at that point they cease to be scientists, and become evangelists. Essentially, he is everything he says he hates, just the perspective is reversed.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by Professor S

As for evolution, I definitely think evolution in a species exists, and there is a strong chance that evolution between species takes place, but I'm not convinced of that. There are a lot of holes in Darwinism that need to be worked out. I'm not anti-Darwin, but I'm also not a blindly devout Darwinist like Richard Dawkins.

My biggest problem with people like Dawkins are that they are so devout in their faith that they lose their objectivity, and at that point they cease to be scientists, and become evangelists. Essentially, he is everything he says he hates, just the perspective is reversed.

I only ever hear the term "Darwinism" from folks who question evolution, equating it to a belief with Darwin as a prophet of sorts. Dawkins is a bit of a dick. I'll give you 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.

Ah, I've heard about him. His doctorate is in dentistry.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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.

I find this to be a particularly agonizing point that Evangelicals who discount evolution tend to make. Having a God that needed to intervene to create intelligent life, or who needs to intervene in every step in the evolutionary (intelligent design) process is not impressive. Indeed, it is the sign of an incompetent God.

A far more competent, and impressive God would be able to set life into motion with one stroke of the pen, with the eventual outcome being intelligent life. Evolution is God's friend.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I'm asking specifically, why do you thank god for what you have. Why do you think he expended his power to help you, but not use it to feed someone who is starving?

Why do you assume by thanking God for what one has, one is also affirming that God extended His power to help? Is this what you assume religious people mean when they do this? For most I know, it is not.

Also, I see sporting events all the time where a player will have a great game and his or her team will win. At the end, they usually thank god.

How do they justify believing that god helped them win a football game, but he isn't saving starving people?

Again, are you assuming these players, by praying, are thanking God for helping them to win the football game, or do you know this for fact? I've watched a few players speak on this subject, and what you assume is incorrect for them, at the least.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I think you might be seeing what you want to see in the actions of religious people.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Life cannot be pre-determined if you have a choice, and if life is pre-determined, nothing you actually decide is a 'choice', it has all already been chosen for you by God.

Free will and determinism are compatible under the philosophical thought of... you guessed it... Compatibilism. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

Why do you assume by thanking God for what one has, one is also affirming that God extended His power to help? Is this what you assume religious people mean when they do this? For most I know, it is not.


Again, are you assuming these players, by praying, are thanking God for helping them to win the football game, or do you know this for fact? I've watched a few players speak on this subject, and what you assume is incorrect for them, at the least.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I think you might be seeing what you want to see in the actions of religious people.

Yeah, that is what I assume. What do they really mean, then? Are they simply thanking god for their existence in the universe? I could see that meaning having some relevance, but at the same time it feels like a pointless thing to say.

[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.