Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Again, if you`ve heard of a movie like this, please tell me. I swear that this came to me in the middle of the night sometime.
One of the big problem scientists have with time travel is, "Why aren`t we seeing ourselves from the future right now?" My answer is, we are. Scientists say that the odds of aliens resembling humans at all are remarkably low, due to the whole enormity of the universe thing, so why are alien descriptions mostly humanoid? Aliens are an evolved form of human from the far future. Lack of sunlight, exercise, and likely food that occurs when floating about space nonstop (Earth has presumably exploded by the time these creatures come about) has led to aliens gray, blobby appearance. Their highly advanced medicine is the only thing that keeps them alive. <c>
What created your god(s)? What existed before them? How could they be created from nothing?
If you answer that your god(s) is/are eternal and therefore weren`t created, then surely you must consider the argument that the universe is eternal and therefore wasn`t created.
*In its current form* A key distinction.
"If so, what created the big bang if nothing was there before?"
Something was there before - a singularity. Which is really an "I don`t know what it is."
"Also, we know that matter is neither created or destroyed, only changed into different forms. So how could this Big Bang create matter and turn it into starts and galaxies and planets?"
Energy and matter are forms of the same thing, so matter can be made from energy (and vice versa).
The big bang theory isn`t an explanation of the origin of the universe. It`s an explanation of what happened afterwards. Maybe only a tiny fraction of a second afterwards, but afterwards.
Another answer to your question is that time was created with space, so there is no such thing as before the universe existed.
>I`m not quite sure, but isn`t Scientology based >on that?
Do Scientologist identify themselves as proponents of ID?
ID was devised by Christian creationists as a rebranding of Christian creationism when it became clear that their first attempt to corrupt science teaching in schools had failed.
I still think that in theory ID could be another religion, but in practice it`s Christianity.
On a fair 6-sided dice, the chance of rolling a 6 10 times in a row is 1 in 60,466,176.
If a fair dice was rolled 3 times a minute, it would probably be about 38 years before 10 consecutive 6`s were rolled.
If a person in the dice-rolling room for *only* the 3 minutes 20s that it took for that sequence of 10 6`s to occur, they might well see it as spectacularly improbable. If they were a theist, they might well interpret it as divine intervention.
If they ignored all the other rolls of the dice over the decades.
My analogy didn`t get my point across, so I`ll try again.
The conditions for life seem highly improbable. For the sake of argument, I`ll pick a figure of one in a billion star systems.
If a person looks *only* at one star system and it has life in it, they might conclude that it`s so unlikely that it proves that the god(s) they believe in exist *because they already believe that*.
If, on the other hand, a person looked at a billion star systems and only one had life in it, that would just be as expected with those odds.
We can only really look at one star system and of course it has life in it - if it didn`t, we wouldn`t be here to talk about it. So by our very existence we`ve got an unrepresentative view on life and the universe.
I`ve known some really stupid atheists in my recent lifetime, so this perception you have of me is erroneous and I`m marking it up as an ad hominem and a straw man.
It is not the same style or source. There is no tradition in the news of atheists committing violence against believers with specifically their religion as the motivator. An example of the contrary: The protests against the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. The motivation was the perceived insult to Islam (untie the religious connection if you can). How many embassies were burned out? How many protests involving stoning? How many deaths?
Now show me a similar example of atheist protests against religious people for having mocked atheism. Let`s see that.
I`m assuming that modern science believes that the Big Bang created the universe. If so, what created the big bang if nothing was there before? Also, we know that matter is neither created or destroyed, only changed into different forms. So how could this Big Bang create matter and turn it into starts and galaxies and planets?
If you want to use lottery as an analogy, you could say that although it is not rigged for a particular person, it was created by someone (in essence, a "god" figure, if you will, just for example) with the intent that somone would win. Hopefully you caught what I meant, I confuse myself sometimes :P
"Can you find me an example of anyone who follows the faith of ID who believes that aliens are the Creator?"I`m not quite sure, but isn`t Scientology based on that?
A verse? As in a bible verse? Please link me to where I have done this. I have no such recollection. Besides, people don`t need a Bible to believe in God. That is to say that their beliefs are not necessarily always informed by the bible, which means I don`t resort to bible verses when I need to cite examples of misconduct on the part of religious people.
"Simultaneously, if Christians pluck out a verse of good you claim that biblical verses have no impact on any acts any people ever perform."
Again, the Bible doesn`t necessarily inform peoples` actions. Sure the Bible has good as it does bad, but as I don`t believe morality is derived from the Bible, this means essentially nothing.
I`m not quite sure, but isn`t Scientology based on that?
Im trying not to cause offence, but what about the amount of godless totalitarian atheistic regimes of the early 20th Century that killed millions... why do you not want to be held accountable for those? Why is it that the very thing that built the freedoms of your land is being thrown away? The very institution that guarantees your choice in either choosing or rejecting God?
And finally, what about the Altruism within Christianity... whether you belive there is a God or not... do not Christians do a trumultous amount of caring of the worlds needy?
Jesus Christ said to love all those including those who hate you... please remember that
no, it was the Christianfolk themsleves, because they saw that what they were doing was not what Jesus wanted them to be doing. (one example i can think of is slavery - abolished by William Wilberforce in British Empire, and Abraham Lincoln in the US -- both due to their deep Christian faith)...
I agree that ID in the US (and much of Europe) revolves around Christianity, but it doesn`t need to be that way.
Many ID proponents are also proponents because of their religious beliefs.
This is all in agreement with you I`d say, but maybe what Stufft is arguing is that it doesn`t need to be.
I`m sure you could structure and ID hypothesis/theory/argument which revolves around agnosticism, and therefore "ID" as an umbrella term is not Christian.
To give another example. "Communism" is not the same as "Chinese Communism", yet the latter is the only working model currently in practice.
It is far removed from what Marx described.
I think what you seem to be doing here is saying in practice only "X"(Ch.Comm/Ch.ID) works, so that is communism/ID.
What Stufft is saying is "Y"(Comm/ID) is the unadulterated description, so that is.
You`re just arguing terms I think.
A logical fallacy.
Not forgetting the fact that no-one is saying the universe was caused by an explosion. The "big bang" of the theory wasn`t an explosion.
It is true that a chain of unlikely events has occured to make our existence possible. *If it hadn`t, we wouldn`t be here talking about how unlikely it is.* We are an unrepresentative sample.
Take a lottery, for example. It is extremely unlikely that you`ll win it. Does that mean that each lottery is rigged specifically for each winner, that someone decided that particular person would win?
Can you find me an example of anyone who follows the faith of ID who believes that aliens are the Creator?
In fact, how about any follower of ID who does not believe the Creator is the Abrahamic god?
In theory, it could be another religion. In practice, it isn`t.
"Intelligent Design is basically an agnostic view on our world."
No, it isn`t. Agnosticism is essentially not knowing and not claiming knowledge you can`t objectively support. ID is faith in a creator. That is not agnosticism, obviously.
"There are way too many variables in the universe for this all to come out of an explosion."
No-one is claiming that is what happened. Even if they were (and they aren`t), you have just made a statement of faith as if it were proven truth. Even if you weren`t (and you are), a lack of an explanation is not proof of god.
"The whole point is, just because you believe in intelligent design, it does not neccesarily mean you believe in the Christian God."
In theory, it could be another religion. In practice, it isn`t.
Maybe using the term "variable" was a bad choice of word. I meant that there are way to many things that are lined up in this universe to work together to have come from an explosion. If that makes sense... :P
Um, wouldn`t such a degree of variation actually correspond to an explosive origin?
If you`re trying to say that Intelligent Design is synonomous with Christianity, then you`re wrong. Intelligent Design is basically an agnostic view on our world. There are way too many variables in the universe for this all to come out of an explosion. Thus, the idea that some sort of being(s) has made us for some certain reason. That being said, this being may or may not be the Judeo-Christian God. It could be aliens. We could be a computer program, and we don`t know it. Maybe it is the Christian God. Maybe Thor gave a mighty swipe of his hammer and we were created.
The whole point is, just because you believe in intelligent design, it does not neccesarily mean you believe in the Christian God.
Then would you care to explain what meaning you think was contained in your statement?
"2. being close to, is not the same as actually doing."
They have *a working ribosome*. You could possibly call that life. It`s unlikely to take more than a year to do the rest and have undeniably created life from some bags of chemicals.
"3. i am a believer of intelligent design, although intelligent design does not base itself in religion and has nothing to do with God vs. no God it is relative. the universe, atoms, molecules all have intelligent design."
You appear to have no idea what intelligent design is. It`s entirely religious. What`s more, it`s a specific religion - Christianity.
You claim to believe, without any evidence at all, that a person created all life...and you don`t see that as faith in a god? It is faith and it is about a god - how on earth can that not be religious?
Oh for fecks sake.
The appendix is a big joke right? The vagus nerve that runs up and down a giraffes neck, just for laughs? Whales having vestigual legs, oh the hilarity!
Where we may differ though, is that I don`t see the need to have a god to bridge the gap. Its unkown, or unfathomable, miraculous even (as is anything as yet unknown), but I don`t think its the work of the god I was assigned as a kid.
Will you change your mind about whatever point you`re trying to make if they do it in the next 5 years?
1. thats not what im saying at all
2. being close to, is not the same as actually doing.
3. i am a believer of intelligent design, although intelligent design does not base itself in religion and has nothing to do with God vs. no God it is relative. the universe, atoms, molecules all have intelligent design.
At some point in the future scientists decide that mankind has progressed so much, that they are as powerful as God.
So the scientists send an Ambassador to go and talk to him and tell him he is being made redundant (fired), and his services will no longer be required.
The scientist talks to God and God says "Fine, I tell you what, you make a human being out dirt, and I`ll be out of your hair, no severance package, no nothing".
Scientist says ok, and reaches down, scooping some dirt out of the ground.
God say "Hey, get your own damn dirt". **************************************
I think this is actually a very good demonstration of what I think is the "God of the gaps" mistake.
God will always be at the beginning, not in the gaps. I think it really takes a caveman to suggest otherwise, with maybe some exceptions w/r domains specific to God.
Stop making me do that! I feel violated.
i) What makes you think that`s in any way relevant? You appear to be arguing that science in invalid unless scientists can create life. Which is a very strange argument.
ii) Several groups of scientists are close to being able to create life from scratch. Second genesis. One team can create a *working* ribosome from scratch. That`s most of the job of creating life from scratch done. By "from scratch" I mean typing the genes into a computer and having it use some bags of chemicals to create life with that genetic code.
The word `hell` is more recent, but the idea of it isn`t. That vengeful god is also in the bible you say you believe in, in spades. Mass slaughter, punishment of innocents, etc.
"What if YOU`RE wrong?" Then he went on to expose the fallacy.
How is he supposed to answer, exactly? It`s a stupid question! Why not use it to SOME value and make a point?
As I`ve said many times before, it`s not like you`re paying for this sh*t.
Thanks Ani. I take pride in my work.
Nah, on a more serious note though, I do genuinely enjoy these kinds of debates. Not in a voyeuristic sadistic way, nor to make one group look silly, nor to score points, nor to score hits for the site (I don`t get paid, I don`t give a sh*t).
On the contrary, these kinds of debates bring out some of the most intelligent people on IAB, from both sides of the spectrum (on one side the likes of Baalthazaq and Crakrjak, on the other side the likes of Overmann, Angilion, Almightybob and catbarf to name a few). And I do mean "intelligent" sincerely, on both sides.
These kinds of posts are exactly the reason I signed up to IAB, which is why I like them. Baalthazaq knows what I mean - there is some warmth to be had from a flame-war, personally, like Baal, I enjoy them immensely.
Not true. Gods are always eternal, so the true religion might be one that doesn`t exist yet.
In the end, Pascal`s Wager is false and downright dishonest in intention- you shouldn`t choose your beliefs based on the idea of hedging your bets.
*FAP FAP FAP*
Wow.... I love how he answers the question with a question, kind of dancing around it like he doesn`t want to admit that he could POSSIBLY be wrong. All he had to say is, "Well, I guess I`d burn in hell, wouldn`t I?"
When the girl asked "What if you`re wrong" she was obviously referring to Christianity, and he replied that he was just as likely to be wrong about every other religion. http://www.adherents.com/ has information on 4400 religions. This means there is a 1 in 4400 chance (a whole 0.0227272727%) that your religion is the right one. Dawkins has an equal chance of having his head used as a cobblestone (see: viking) as going to hell.
If so, she was wrong. This has been addressed many times in this thread - Pascal`s Wager is riddled with logical fallacies, starting off with but not limited to a false dichotomy.
But I think his answer was incomplete and unsatisfactory.
*sees dark clouds coming over his head* uhoh."
It`s 3. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Christian trinity. But the 3 are 1. And 3. But also 1. Because they`re God, so they can do that.
It is a bit odd, but it is monotheism.
It also isn`t *essential* for Christianity, but other views were long ago suppressed as heresy.
Check this out for a Christian explaining the Christian mono-trinity thing:
What religion do you follow? As far as I`m concerned, my religion teaches me to be the best I can, and repent when I fall off the wagon. I`m not perfect and I never will be, and that is understood to be so. I guess you could say it`s taking away my free will by telling me not to rape and murder a woman and then go home to my wife, but I wouldn`t do that even if I were an atheist :\.
I could claim Atheists lack morality, and this clearly leads to more murders. I could claim that not having "thou shall not kill" in their system of beliefs, is demonstrated.
I could even more rightly demonstrate that much of China and Russia`s genocide was the result of trying to destroy religious groups.
However this is all unnecessary, when the argument I was mocking clearly used CORRELATION to demonstrate CAUSATION, and provided no additional details.
These mystical atheists you speak of who are always logical, always right, always scientific, and always cite their (always reliable) sources, are a greater imagining on your part than anything theistic God I have ever seen.
And I was around for the birth of the IPU.
Does agreeing with you on every point actually make anything I`ve said wrong?
The problem with you comes that you don`t believe your own argument.
"Atheists claim religion is responsible for violence, usually accompanied with an example of a direct link between the two, as I`ve often cited."
Bullpoo.You pluck out a verse out of context and claim it is the source of all ills in Christian countries.
Simultaneously, if Christians pluck out a verse of good you claim that biblical verses have no impact on any acts any people ever perform. "These are all common sense".
For you, there is only ever going to be a link when it suits you, even when it is the same style and source as your opponents.
"Usually accompanied by an example of a direct link"
Usually has a meaning jackass, count the posts on this forum WITHOUT a direct link. Count the generic throwouts of "religion causes all the worlds problems".
Usually? 1 in 100 if that. You didn`t even do it once in the thread in question.
...is this all IAB has become? Dumb pictures, "realistic physics" games, politics and religion debating?
yes but following a religion sacrifices free will.same statement for the "What if your wrong" people.
Now that someone with a belief system has answered the question in full, why couldn`t Dawkins do anything but oversimplify, make assumptions and then counter so defensively?
Furthermore, even when the child grows up and learns to think critically (assuming they actually do, which is a stretch) they will STILL believe what I told them.
Why? Because they can`t prove otherwise, and because there`s a lot of other people who were taught the same thing to reinforce their irrational belief.
Belief may not be the child`s choice, but it was MY choice to make them believe"
if that was the case, we wouldn not be having that disscusion.
Its because of people like Decartes, pioneers at going agaisnt the flow, that we even have this discussion.
If you give me a child to raise, I can make that child believe anything. Where do you think most religion comes from? Spontaneous thoughts in somebody`s head?
Why? Because they can`t prove otherwise, and because there`s a lot of other people who were taught the same thing to reinforce their irrational belief.
Belief may not be the child`s choice, but it was MY choice to make them believe.
You can expand that even further and say "What if you believed in the wrong god?"
I don`t keep up with number of religions on this planet, but...lets just say the odds aren`t in your favor buddy.
also: richard dawkins took his part in making my day
This list illustrates Dawkins` point very well. You can ask "What if you`re wrong?" about each and every deity on that list. They all have equal merit.
We really need to stop showing these things. At least not without stating the EXACT point to be discussed first. Everyone just goes off on one with these things.
Yes. Atheists claim religion is responsible for violence, usually accompanied with an example of a direct link between the two, as I`ve often cited. You wanted to suggest their argument applies to them. But if you can`t draw the link between atheism and violence, or if the link doesn`t exist, you are not parodying their argument and are being dishonest and inadequate.
"I wasn`t ever going to. I was demonstrating (by copying it) that it was a poor argument. I clearly succeeded."
Copying it? Hardly. Why not? No direct link. Clearly? Not until you can demonstrate how the Saudi government is acting on anything other than religious impulse. Not until you can dismiss the link atheists can draw and you can`t.
My question is legitimate, and it continues to be until either you admit you don`t understand the argument as atheists use it, and how it differs from how you use it.
Also, how amusing that the discussion in the comments has transformed from religion vs atheism to a heated argument about rhetorics. Pathetic.
Believing in something out of fear of being wrong is not believing.
"How exactly do you expect to turn such an argument on others when there is no reason to suspect atheism is the cause?"
To your post:
"Was I making an argument? Was I the instigator?"
Yes. What constitutes making an argument? Making an allegation and supporting it with data. What have you done? Suggested atheists should instead cite atheism as a cause for violence and researched a number like 63% of genocide. That is an argument. What you`re failing to do (deliberately or no) is draw the elusive direct link between atheism and violence sufficiently to convince atheists their own argument applies to them. In the case of atheists claiming religion is responsible for violence, at least the cases I have cited, religion was the direct culprit, usually on behalf of the Saudi religious police enforcing "morality" derived from Sharia Law.
atheist right: yay?
atheist wrong-punished by whatever god happens to exist
religion right, but you beleive in the wrong one:depending on what is right, you face some consequences
religion right, yours is right: you are set!
He said (in this thread, 6 pages down from here I think) that I never answered a question he asked me in this thread. You may read the entire thread at your leisure and decide if that is the case for yourself.
I repeat:"This is the tactic I mocked"
Elaboration:Mocked, parodied, copied.
Your question: "How did you expect to turn your non argument into one"
My answer: I wasn`t ever going to. I was demonstrating (by copying it) that it was a poor argument. I clearly succeeded.
Finally:I think I`ve done more than enough to answer your question.
I even joined IAB chat for the first time ever to see if I could explain better in real time, I was told by someone you sometimes appear so stayed a while for a couple of weeks.
The fact that my body and mind can only endure explaining for DAYS at a time rather than (weeks? months?) is I think a reasonable allowance for stopping.
Really simply explained: Religion makes you go to church, and pay them, in donations, the 10% rule, whatever. Belief is what you believe in, if you believe in god and jesus and the whole shebang doesn`t make you part of a religion, going to church and starting to belief what other people tell you, living to the (biblical) rules other people give you is making you part of a religion. You can also start your own religion, if you want to. Even if it has weird ideas, like reading golden tablets from a hat. I think what Overmann is trying to say is that he will raise his children with a good sense of moral values, or do you think everyone who doesn`t believe in a god is immoral? I will raise my children with knowledge of the main religions, if they choose to become religious it`s up to them, but I will not make them.
I also don`t ask questions which have assumptions built into them. "How did you expect to turn your non argument into one" is I assume the question we`re discussing?
Was I making an argument? Was I the instigator? Was I trying to turn anything? Was it *my* argument?
No, no, no and no. So drat all your assumptions and ask a legitimate question instead of one loaded to the brim with bullpoo.
Any child can read our conversation and come to the conclusion that I tried to explain this to you for far longer than I should be expected to reasonably endure.
It is my fault if I ignored you, but after 10 attempts (loooong attempts) at getting you to understand, your failing to do so becomes less and less my fault.
That`d be WAY too easy. As a whole, our species likes to find absolutes, and we will settle or nothing less.
Angillion: You`re just expanding the table even further.
Musuko: I`m NOT Christian. I was merely explaining a fallacy.I also gave a post already (this will be the third), explaining that belief is not a choice, and that is the main problem with the argument "Why don`t you believe".
Overmann:... what the hell? ... (Cycles through thread).Sigh.
Ok:1) "Essentially the girl has the arrogance to assume she thought of something so basic and Richard hasn`t."
She said: "This is probably the most simplest question for you to answer but..."
You need to reign in your indignation.
Next post coming for Overmann`s Question.
That was a seriusly retarded thing to say?
What is the meaning of life?I think the meaning of life is to figure out the meaning of life. thats why we ask, its our purpose.
Einstein didn`t have a personal god, therefore he was atheist. At most he could have been considered spiritual, but does that still count when one is `spiritual` about nature? It seems to contradict the term.
"A true atheist wouldn`t care enough to hate God or religion."
You`re ignoring the larger picture. We don`t hate God any more than we don`t believe in him or it, but religion is not the same as belief; it`s an institution, one that violates our own value system. For example, I as an atheist cherish free thought and children coming to their own conclusions, and am therefore against parents bringing their kids to church or the church trying to butt in to science curriculum. I care about religion to the degree that I care about the direction of the human species and our emancipation from the darker, more embarrassing corners of our imagination.
*sees dark clouds coming over his head* uhoh.
It could still be Atheist if you take the Greek philosophy; if he believes in anything else we believe, he`s an Atheist. But then again, I`m going with the first dictionary explanation: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." I don`t deny it, nor accept it.
Like when you try and explain to a little kid that Santa Clause doesn`t exit you mean?
His point is that you believe what you are indoctrinated to believe, mostly thats what you`re parents teach you. Thats the bit I don`t get with intelligent religous people, why they haven`t questioned their own beliefs, maybe the emotional investment is just too much.
Anyway, to the point in hand - I thought buddhism was *the* cover your bases faith?
So your argument for being Christian is that Christianity has the worst punishment for not believing in their religion?
Very well, I am starting a new religion; if you don`t believe that my left sock is the divine incarnation of the supreme being, then you will be damned to spend eternity suffering torments twice as bad as the Christian hell.
My religion now should be the logical choice, shouldn`t it?
Support my religion and Christianity turns out to be right: punishment by hell.Support Christianity and my religion turns out to be right: punishment twice as bad as hell.
I await your conversion.
That`s true, but there are numerous variations on those religions, especially in Christianity. It has been common for followers of one variation to proclaim another to be heresy (and often murder them for it). Being a heretic is deemed worse than being an unbeliever.
Maybe the correct religion is one of those now-dead "heresies" and all current followers of Abrahamic religions will be condemned as heretics and sent to a hell worse than that for unbelievers.
No way of knowing until death.
If you look it up in an accurate dictionary, you`ll find that it isn`t as clear-cut as you think. You meet one of the definitions of `atheist`, the one that most atheists use - you don`t believe in gods (or an afterlife, or any of that religious stuff). `atheist` literally means `without a god`. By that definition, if you don`t have a god you`re an atheist.
Unfortunately, you don`t get to decide what other people think.
An atheist couldn`t hate any god, since they don`t believe any god exists.
An atheist can hate religion, because religion does exist and is entirely about people.
In any case, I think you`re mistaking "disagree with", "dislike" and "hate", perhaps deliberately in an attempt to denigrate those who disagree with you, claim the moral high ground and claim the power of pretending to be a victim of irrational prejudice.
There are websites for that :)
"If you believe there is no God, Why would you bother wasting energy hating God or religion ? Why wouldn`t you instead attempt to peacefully co-exist with those of differing beliefs"
Because the former is getting in the way of the latter.
The internet is for shoving things in peoples faces?
Truth-seeking atheists and religious folk alike, instead of bickering, should recognize that materialism is more of a threat to both than the numbers `the other side` has in its ranks.
In this video, Dawkins is just trying to sell his book. She could ask the question of anyone and there`s no answer really. Ask a priest or a rabbi.I read the God Delusion and it`s pretty good btw.
But totally agree with Dogboy76
Also, she may have been an Atheist. "How do you answer this question" does not mean "I am posing this question", it`s part of the reason I got annoyed at the title.
He decided she was a Christian, she made no claims.
Quote:"Incidentally, the better answer (better because it doesn`t just expand the Pascal`s Wager table, but actually defeats it), is that belief is not a choice."
Full post is a few down from this one. Should still be on the same page.
Let`s be perfectly honest here. If you believe there is no God, Why would you bother wasting energy hating God or religion ? Why wouldn`t you instead attempt to peacefully co-exist with those of differing beliefs, Instead of trying to raise their ire ? Hate is not productive, It can only be destructive.
I don`t even know what to say to that... lol.
A true atheist wouldn`t care enough to hate God or religion. These people that hate God or religion are actually angry agnostics, But they won`t admit it.
I don`t attend meetings that have the opposite of what I enjoy, that`s just a waste of my time. I`d rather attend a meeting of people that share my interests where I have the opportunity to make friends rather than sit through someone speaking on a subject I don`t even agree with.
They see me trollin`, they hatin`...
Christianity, Taoism, Atheism.
Pascal`s Wager Remains:Christian is correct: Heaven. (Infinite good)Atheist is correct: Nothing. (Neutral)Christian is incorrect: Nothing.Atheist is incorrect: Hell. (Infinite bad)
Now what Dawkins says here is what about additional beliefs.
Atheist/Christian is wrong about Taoism:Nothing, they have no afterlife.
Lets keep going:Judaism doesn`t have a Hell.Vadic Hinduism has no Hell. Some hells are temporary. Some (more than not) religions are act based, not faith based. Athena apparently doesn`t give a poo if you believe in her, so long as you don`t challenge her to a weaving competition. (Lookup Arachne)
So on and so forth. Belief is a very Christian thing, though the philosophy has leaked into many other cultures, it is rarely the cornerstone of religion.
As I`ve said before, hiding behind science, or the American flag, or religion, or whatever, and hijacking it for your own needs makes you not just "incorrect", or "mistaken", or "badly worded" as he is now.
It makes you scum. The worst scum it is possible to be. It is a disgusting aftereffect of every despicable core quality it is possible for a human being to have.
That`s correct, but at the same time incorrect. You cannot force yourself to believe something just compulsively, that is true. But you can choose the people you associate with, and what ideas you expose yourself to--these are typically the things that shape our beliefs, and so in that way we do have a little say in what we believe. Although I`m sure you were implying the former, and in which case you are correct.
I am refreshed to hear all of these responses, pointing out the blatancy of his avoidance. His response to "Why don`t you believe in God" is no better than most religious responses to "Why do you believe in God". Honestly, there is no good "logical" or "philosophical" answer for either...
And technically, by the same logic of regional beliefs and the statement of "You happened to be brought up in America...", then wouldn`t all Americans be Christians?
His answer wasn`t the least bit satisfying to me, it was too generalized, and I got the feeling that he was evading the question.
It`s not exactly an easy thing for even a devout follower to say what would surely happen to them if what they believed wholeheartedly was right was actually wrong. The lack of a retort on his answer says most people probably would have said the same thing, though thats probably pushing it I admit. Regardless, extending the question to apply to not just him looked so much better than "Next question please."
This was no better than an elementary school child`s attempt at avoidance. It`s like trying to nail jello to a wall.
I suspect the reason Dawkins might not bring that up is he often (contradictorily) claims it is a choice.
For example, stop believing in your pants, just for 20 minutes. Can you actually do it? I find it impossible. Similarly, with temporarily believing that my cat has an extra head.
If he`s wrong it doesn`t matter. He didn`t choose not to believe, and you can`t make him believe it just because it would be good for him.
At best he could pretend to believe, at which point I`m fairly sure God would figure it out.
This is different however, from choosing to be open minded, or choosing to listen, and so on. Arrogance, and often ignorance, is a choice.
he uses the logic of a child.
However: 1) What exactly of Freud is proven through a CAT scan?2) I`m a Freud fan, and even I don`t think this is plausible. "Most of his theories" don`t lend themselves to being defined by cat scans.
Also, as I`ve said before, this is Pascal`s Wager. Pascal`s wager is bad argumentation. (Having said that it is mathematically sound, just not in context).
However: This response isn`t all that fair. Assuming all interpretations vary in some small way shape or form, you could arguably cover 4.5 Billion out of 7 billion interpretations of religion simply by being a Monotheistic follower of any of the Abrahamic religions.
Worshiping "the Juju" has you covered for what? 100?
Also, why is this Christianity vs Atheism? I have given smarter answers, to dumber questions. Does that mean religion is winning? Or does that only work the other way round?
Everything has its place in the world, so you can take your hierarchy of value in the sciences and various fields of study, and blow it out your ass.
I didn`t say Freud`s theories were false, just that they are generally deemed as irrelevant to psychology and complicate fields like developmental psychology.
A recent Times article said that most of Freud`s theories are being proven by CAT scans Pet Scans etc.
No disrespect to Barrons though, great study guide. I had the princeton one, never used it
Ok anyone can do psychology. My friend took the AP test without studying or without taking the class and passed it. If its liberal arts related, its easy to do.
Bio is for those who aren`t good enough for Physics or Chemistry, but are better than psychology."
I hope this a joke, and if so it`s lame
Right because with your extensive knowledge in all these categories you can dictate which sciences are more important than others?
Bio is for those who aren`t good enough for Physics or Chemistry, but are better than psychology.
and you didnt answer anything or show how all of bio and psychology is a lie, im waiting for something of substance here mr nobel prize in all sciences.
1) The universe was created by a being that sits around in non-time-space and decided he needed company but also likes to punish people for not doing exactly what he told them, tah-dah
2) The universe just popped into existence from nothing and kept growing and here we are, tah-dah
Call it an irrational gut feeling, if you really need to quantify that way, but I think people that adhere to either of these "strict" doctrines are a bit crazy/obsessed.
Who gang banged on your bacon, no one here could take a joke.
What I`m saying is that respectable scientist laugh at those liberal art "sciences".
I took AP Psych and got a 5. I can tell you its the biggest BS ever. "Freud hypothesized that the experiences in your child hood affect your personality later on in life" NO dratING poo
Since when is psychology a science? Thats glorified philosophy
...apparently it`s a lie that cells divide. And the functions of the hippocampus, amygdala, and the limbic system? LIES! This is the drating stupidest thing I`ve ever seen someone say on IAB, bar none. NONE.
i would have to agree Mr.boredfjord. he sounds as bad as baptists, saying all scientists are lying to us for their own secret agenda.
Yes it is hippie liberal art major.
so yes npdarren, according to him as long as you repent later it will help cover up what ever you did.
...apparently it`s a lie that cells divide. And the functions of the hippocampus, amygdala, and the limbic system? LIES! This is the drating stupidest thing I`ve ever seen someone say on IAB, bar none. NONE.
Neither of these things are to be condemned. They just have to take some time to figure themselves out.
No that was an answer to a question someone asked me about 5 pages ago.
What I`m saying is that sin is not and never is ok, and nothing guarantees you access to heaven. But what I`m saying is that repenting implies a change in behavior. So if a sin is committed and you do repent later (meaning doing everything to fix the problem and working with those that were harmed or something to that extent) that goes a long way.
Everything you learn in bio is a lie. Same with environmental science, psychology, etc.
If its not Physics or Chemistry it doesn`t matter.
Now Biochemistry just makes me scream....why combine something so terrible with something so amazing.
P.S. drat YOU PUNNET SQUARE!
Are you implying that because the priest repented, he`s guaranteed access into heaven? Does that mean that it`s okay to commit sins in life as long as you repent later?
By the way, that is a 100% factual statement.
Davy is gay and is having a relationship with Timothy, we call him Tim.
Because an atheist went their whole life not trying to repent. If lets say at the last few moments of life, they regret being an atheist, then that would be actual repent. But repenting after you see God wouldn`t quite work the same
Mate. I`m off to work now, but take this to bed with you, because this is very, VERY important. Not trying to be condescending, not trying to score points. Seriously man, you need to drop words like "unexplainable" and replace that with "not explained yet". I promise, you`ll have a more fulfilled and fulfilling life.
Snazyguy, Dude, we`re working on it. And before you jump on the "THEREFORE GOD WINS!" pish, do yourself a favour, and don`t. Learn some humilty, as Religion espouses. We scientists start on a platform of "we don`t know yet, but we`re going to try our damnedest to find out". Please tell me what is wrong with that, for I don`t see it.
And in response to your (frankly weird) earlier statement of "I`m not religious at all, no, but I do have a relationship with God/Jesus."...
What can I say? Call me out on this, but it`s like saying "I`m not Gay, but I do have a relationship with my boyfriend Timothy".
If having a relationship with Jesus ain`t being religious, then taking it up the arse from Tim every night ain`t being gay. I say different.
Just my take on it.
I give up.
and you say your not like most christians?
That can be attributed to psychology. I do not know if you have taken psychology, but one of the most fundamental principles of psych. is that "everything biological is simultaneously psychological", which leads me to my conclusion that the reasons more of the chemical release for a loved one might be because of familiarity and/or other psychological responses. Not because love is some intrinsic, spiritualistic feature that doesn`t manifest itself in the human conscience.
So... Yay, for hugs.
It`s not a matter of "where", like I said; cell splitting is an emergent property, and if you have forgotten what that means-it means that capabilities of an organism only exist when the parts that make up the whole are assembled correctly. I like the bicycle analogy: if you put all the parts that consist a bicycle (e.g two wheels, tires, a chain, some gears, etc.) into a box, do you then have a bicycle? No, all you have are the parts of the bicycle, but when assembled correctly you have a functioning system.
Yes we are built to perpetuate the human race but when you look deep inside you find that Love is key.
And those chemical messenger, what do you think: magic?
what makes a girl beautiful to you? if you just saw a girl walking down the street in a dirty ripped up sweatshirt youd have a totally different reaction than if she was wearing short shorts and a tank top, had her hair and makeup done, etc.
again we could all just sit around and look at eachother saying how pretty we look, and the human race would die out, or we could do what were biologically programmed to do and make some babi
"Extrapolate at your own risk." --Mr. G
Funny that you mention the "biased crowd" there. See the "Book TV" icon in the bottom right corner of the vid? It was a reading at a University Campus book club for his "The God Delusion" book (I`ve watched the whole two hours of it, this is a small excerpt from the Q&A session following the abridged reading by Prof Dawkins).
Thing is, a local Fundamentalist Christian "College" (Liberty University) got wind that Dawkins was appearing and spammed/hijacked the whole Q&A session afterward with Creationist/Fundie horsewank. A previous questioner in this same Q&A session asked Dawkins how he could prove that the dinosaur fossils in his College were not 2000 years old and had drowned in Noah`s Flood. Dawkins laid a similar smackdown on him. Same lecture.
Now, you were saying something about a biased crowd?
A lot of people are asking whether Dawkins even answered the question. My interpretation is the girl wasn`t seeking an answer so much as she was aiming for a `Gotcha!` line against Dawkins. Richard in turn saw it for what it was and turned the tables, showing how anyone could be wrong about any of the various religions man has ever come up with and that the `Gotcha!` line applies equally to anyone.
I, too, would take the question offensively, because the girl seems to think Dawkins hasn`t fully considered the implications of his argument. Essentially the girl has the arrogance to assume she thought of something so basic and Richard hasn`t.
When I said lust, I really meant to censor myself from saying, gutter slut hopping frenzies. In my opinion, I don`t think it`s wrong to look at a girl and think beautiful but it`s when you strip her down in you minds eye where lust start to take affect.
Well, it`s just by coincidence, but in my AP Biology class we are reviewing DNA and RNA. And yes, scientists do know. The cell splits because an innate feature with any living organism is the need to reproduce. The splitting of cells is a means of not only perpetuating life, but also healing the organism and replacing dead cells. The ability of cells to split is an emergent property that arises from the various amino/peptide polymers that form such complex structures that they enable certain things, like reproducing.
Ah yes. All good. All good. My job here is done.
And so to bed. "
Got me thinking there, nice
id like to point out that all organisms have lust. without it we wouldnt reproduce and wed go extinct. Also, "greed" and "selfishness" are what drives Americas, and the free worlds, economy. everyone is looking to do whatever they can to make themselves better off. people act in their own self interest. you can call this bad and greedy, but the industrys people are most satisfied with are all for-profit. the not-for-profit industries all suck and noone likes them or gets quality goods from them. so id rather keep my lust and greed and selfishness
If you ask me, the question "what if you`re wrong" is an easy one to answer. You always have to make an exception for things in life. Even in the things you`re certain of, such as politics, sciences, or lifestyle, you have to stay moderate and not go to any extremes. If you live a life going to church every sunday in prayer, and it turns out you`re wrong when you die, no big deal. If you kill millions of people because you think their religion is wrong, then if YOU are wrong, well, you were a mass murderer.
Moderation is the key to everything.
Learn about your body and you learn that you do fly with pixie dust.
Ah yes. All good. All good. My job here is done.
And so to bed.
Ask that to the thousands of people who are killed each year because of religion, to the who women in countries that have no rights because of religion, to the growing number of Africans getting AIDS because condoms are deemed wrong because of religion, and to all the other ills that religion causes.
Even though many terrorists believe killing themselves for their religion brings them closer to God/Allah.
and what the hell is a Serengeti monster?
That might be the most monumentally untrue statement I`ve seen on the net this year, if not ever.
From what history teaches me, my beliefs are that Christianity causes self-destruction more than it prevents it. I see no reason to believe any non-religious person is inherently subject to self-destruction, especially when a vast majority of wars and genocide, etc., are religion based.
Yeah it kinda solidified my atheism. Especially the old testament... which isn`t as Christian as the new testament, but is much more f*cked up."
Sort of(*) the same here, although I`d query whether the old testament is Christianity at all. It`s basically Judaism.
Reading different translations was also an eye-opener, as was discovering how and when the new testament was put together.
* I saw "sort of the same" because reading the Christian bible made me believe less and less in Christianity rather than in a god. Although I don`t believe in any gods either, that`s not down to the Christian bible.
I just hope you understand that that is YOUR personal opinion and nothing more.
There are several serious errors in that point of view.
Whether you`re an atheist or not depends on your religious views, not those of other people.
You have doubtless seen many atheists in the media who you didn`t even know were atheists. You`re only considering those who stand out for some reason. Your position is as irrational as thinking that all homosexual men are hugely effeminate and/or parade around the street mostly naked, simply because those who are stand out. It`s also like someone saying that they believe in all of Christianity but don`t class themselves as Christian because they see Christians preaching in the media.
It`s a rather odd position to take.
It wasn`t a difficult question at all either....
Has anyone ever told you that red herring is not good for your intellectual diet?
So, you postulate that `Atheists` are ignorant of the mechanics of motion--and thus are blindly following scientists?
Seriously? I can`t even call that a slippery slope, because it doesn`t even lead to a conclusion that makes sense. You`ve jumped mountains and ended up in a totally different conclusion.
All I really need to know is that logically a God is impossible to surmise especially from a lack of evidence. I don`t need to know anything else, and atheists don`t ALL follow science. I don`t see any babies coming out with a Richard Dawkin`s.
I do this not out of shame or concern that i may offend someone who believes in a particular god or gods, but rather for the simple reason that i don`t think it`s my place, or anybody else`s place to tell someone how to live their life.
I don`t know what Atheists you`ve been hanging around, but myself and many Atheists I know are educated enough to understand physical laws and properties, and thus allow us to form an opinion based on intellect rather than blind acceptance. Like I mentioned earlier; I, for one, cannot accept something without first applying critical thinking skills--questioning everything and forming a conclusion based on what I know. While I don`t know everything, I know enough to form what I believe to be an educated guess as to the workings of the universe (because that`s all ideologies are doing, trying to make guesses at the true nature of existence).
Yeah it kinda solidified my atheism. Especially the old testament... which isn`t as Christian as the new testament, but is much more f*cked up.
youve lost free will. god says you have free will but if you dont want to do what i want you to do, then youre going to burn in hell forever. thats not what i consider free will.
Yes, all arguments and ideologies are flawed. How events unfold in life often dictate how we think, feel, act, ect., and especially what we believe. Thus, most any ideal is flawed due to its innate bias.
Most atheists can`t, by themselves, comprehend advanced physics, can`t calculate the trajectory of a ball circling a drain or a bird`s flight path. They simply take physics for granted. Science is true because this person more intelligent than I am says so, and while there is some basis for the claim laid down in fact after fact, the average atheist still doesn`t understand those facts, doesn`t know the laws of physics or how they apply to things on the macro scale, can`t do the math. So for him, it`s still blind faith is something that he is told to be true but can`t understand. There is a similarity.
So many prominent "ex-gays" and homophobes have been caught in anonymous sex acts - toe-tapping and cruising in gay bars.
So just wait
one of these days, there`ll be pictures of Richard Dawkins getting himself a little anonymous sacrament in a dark little church.
Atheists, sit and ponder about "logic." I`ll get you started; it falls within the realm of our perception. While you`re doing that, shut the hell up.
We`re limited in what we can do, and that includes drawing up a logical conclusion. Both sides defend themselves
I have read the Bible a few times, and each time I read it I believe in the possibility of a God less and less. I just cannot bring myself to believe in something that you can`t approach with a critical attitude. I can`t put my faith into something that contradicts the things I have been taught, just as how a Christian can`t accept an Atheist mindset because of how a Godless existence contradicts their own knowledge.
I just think it`s best to be open-minded and consider both sides. Ignorance breeds hate and violence, and people who teach that all other beliefs are wrong or evil, are themselves evil.
So can God. ;-)