Science vs Religion

[CutterJohn]

Failure to observe something is not evidence of its non-existence. This is a fact real scientists know well.

Real scientists also know that claims made in the absence of evidence require some well reasoned justification to be believed.

[Red Beard]

Concerning Agnostics; how do they know it's unknowable? lol

[Red Beard]

Real scientists also know that claims made in the absence of evidence require some well reasoned justification to be believed.

Like, 'the fundamental building block of matter'?

[Warborn]

No, it is not. Athiesm is a rejection of belief in deities. Agnosticism claims that truth about deities is unknowable. To an agnostic an athiest is just as incorrect as a believer. While a believer believes without hard evidence an athiest disbelieves without hard evidence. They are two ends of a spectrum. An agnostic believes that the truth is unknowable, so he cannot side with one or another.

This isn't the way the assertions work, though. The person who makes an extraordinary claim is the one required to provide the evidence for it. If I were to tell you that I am an alien from outer space, would you be obliged to be on the fence about my claim because you have no evidence either way? Of course not. You'd ask me to prove it, and if I couldn't you'd tell me I'm full of shit.

The proposition that there is a god is the same way. Do you believe in the tenets of Islam? Can you prove, with hard evidence, that Muhammad did not in fact receive the information contained within the Qur'an from the archangel Gabriel? Are you therefore obliged to be on the fence about whether Islam is true?

And on and on. Everyday in your life you're presented with the opinions and assertions of people in politics, at the workplace, wherever. The stuff you feel has evidence to back it you probably accept. The stuff you feel doesn't have evidence to back it, you reject. There's no reason to treat religious beliefs or belief in a god or gods any differently.

And, incidentally, while the definition of "atheist" is rather vague, atheists like Richard Dawkins define themselves as I've mentioned. Dawkins is indeed an agnostic atheist in that he does not claim to be certain there is not a god, but simply has not found evidence to indicate there is one.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Interesting article I just read regarding Atheism as a religion and having the characteristics of a religion.

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

Relating to this original discussion, the article has this quote


This is a concise capture of my position and purpose for creating the thread.

Now why would creation.com want to try to paint atheism as a religion? Hmmm...

Humanism is an ideology at least with some more structure to it. However, atheism itself is not humanism as this article tries to argue. Even more so, the article makes some insinuations on some random observations of random atheists and then basically calls it true in general. That's just improper.

It also makes some generalized assertions, such as scientists including evolution when it's not needed... When it's not needed? Who determines what is not needed? And what if the author simply didn't have the research, but for a biologist to have some ideas about the relationship between previous forms and this is quite important. The history of an animal is quite interesting from an educational and general knowledge perspective. Plus linking one species to another can lead to new insights and further research into both species.

The chameleon tongue example he refers to and the explanation HE GIVES himself though... I mean. What the hell?

Created, not evolved

One of the papers5 on the tongue’s design had a curious section, ‘Evolutionary considerations’. The author admitted that the suction cap and the ballistic tongue are both essential to capture prey, i.e. one is useless without the other. Yet he interpreted this as evidence that they must have ‘evolved simultaneously … early in their evolutionary history.’ A far better interpretation is that chameleons have always been chameleons, and were designed with both these mechanisms fully functional.

THIS IS NOT BIASED AT ALL? He doesn't back up this claim at all! He just qualifies it as better and trivialises the other argument while he doesn't even comprehend it. He just deemed it absurd and that's that. He doesn't even look into it at all!

Look, this guy is a fraud with an agenda. Malorn, I don't know why you give him credence at all. Evolved simultaneously does not mean they both happened to come to be at the same time, just that they evolved side by side. The guy doesn't understand what the biologist argued at all, as the guy can only think in spontaneous creation. He cannot consider that mutation on either element over time grew into this. I'll look up some chameleon evolution examples.

The article also seems very circle argumentative. Before establishing it's a religion, it already calls it a religion and then tries to fit in observations. This article is a clear example of induction.

[Figment]

Here's one.

In this paper we adduce new functional data demonstrating that an intermediate form of tongue projection exists among extant taxa. We analyze these data in the context of recent phylogenetic hypotheses of squamate relationships and conclude that this functional intermediate represents the retention of an ancestral state linking generalized lizards to chameleons in the evolution of lingual projection.

http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/schwenk/SchwenkBellChamTongue88.pdf

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

It's actually quite a shitty article, but it comes from a fairly terrible website so hey, what do you expect. Lets take a look at the dumb things its author wrote:

It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism has nothing to do with science or naturalism. A newborn baby is by definition an atheist, and yet it more than likely holds no strong opinions about naturalism or secularism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and people who do not believe in gods run the gamut from Luddite naturists to smarmy biologists from England.

Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings.

No, it won't be defined as this, for the same reason that Christianity won't be defined as the assertion that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. There are atheists who define their opinion toward the divine as a lack of belief in gods without the assertion as to their non-existence. If Daniel Smartt and Creation.com want to turn their detractors into a competing religion, they would be better served making a new term rather than hijacking an existing one.

Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything)

Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory, the origin of the Earth, or the origin of life on Earth. Evolution is the change in frequency of inherited characteristics within a population of organisms over time. That's it.

The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in “science” reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.

There are many Christians who understand evolution and realize it is compatible with their religion.

Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife.

No it doesn't.

If there is no afterlife, then ultimately is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy.

Atheism is not hedonism. So, no, another stupid assertion!

According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships.

Atheism is not Humanism.

Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.

And he cites Dawkins' book as a reference. Dawkins has one daughter and no sons. Clearly a man feverishly obsessed with spreading his genes.

On the other hand, Atheism requires “faith” (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.

Atheism has nothing to say about how life arose.


And so on and so on. You seriously thought this article was worth posting? Sorry, man, but it's a hell of a lot of bullshit. The author has no idea what atheism is, no idea what evolution is, and really is just totally out of touch with the subjects he's attempting to write about.

But you made a comment about overall message. Okay, overall message. What the author is saying is that atheism is really Atheism (big A), and is a religion. He's saying the adherents of Atheism share beliefs, ethos, and other qualities which make them effectively a religion despite not believing in a god. He is, of course, wrong. And dumb. Not believing in god says nothing about the person. Being an "atheist" is a meaningless quality, by definition. It simply indicates a lack of a certain category of beliefs. But atheists range from Stalin to Warren Buffett -- a brutal dictator to a modest philanthropist. What do those two men have in common? Do they share ethics? Beliefs? Rituals? And yet they're both atheists.

What this idiot writer means to indicate is that he is disturbed by the ability of Dawkins to rally a tiny fraction of what was once a group of people barely aware of each others existence into a very minor and inconsequential social movement. Where once atheists had no distinct presence, now there are tiny murmurs from within Christian-dominated societies. So, clearly, atheism has become a dangerous new religion called Atheism, and its morally devoid followers are busy waging war against their rival religion, Christianity, in order to impose their Marxist, Darwinist view of spreading their genes and having faith in thermodynamics. Meanwhile, back on Earth, Dawkins is virtually unknown to most people, most people who would call themselves atheists don't care what he has to say, and Christians getting their granny panties in a wad over it is a sign of something much larger.

That is, people aren't so easily indoctrinated when they have easy access to the Internet. Free-flow of information is the death of superstitious garbage. The power of the Christian demographic is waning. Young people are more atheistic, and more liberal than ever. And this, indeed, is a scary thing for the current power base to come to terms with.

[MadPenguin]

I altered that quote to demonstrate how irrational it is to be mad at God because you choose to go to hell.

Ok, let me post my version and your version.

Mine:
I refuse to even have a shred of respect for, let alone worship and love, a being who punishes with eternal hellfire those who refuse to accept his ultimate authority, this is the ultimate in dictatorship. What can i say, im a man of principles

If a man went round torturing to death people who wouldnt praise him as their master, even someone like you can see this man is evil. But when religion enters the equation, so many people are blinded and cant see the wrong doing there.

Yours:
I refuse to even have a shred of respect for, let alone obey, any parent who punishes with spanking or stern words those who refuse to accept his or her parental authority, this is the ultimate in dictatorship. What can i say, im a man of principles.

If police went round arresting and imprisoning, and subjecting some to the death penalty people who wouldn't obey laws, even someone like me can see police are evil. But when religion enters the equation, so many people such as myself are blinded and cant see the wrong doing there.

Now you dont seem to appreciate when you change so much of a sentence it wont necessarily be the same.

Let me show you what you did

One man says "I dont think its right to arrest people who havent been proven guilty because thats how i was raised"
You change that to "I dont think its right to arrest paedophiles because i was raised a paedophile". You then claim the man who made the original quote is a paedophile.

This just makes no sense. You cant do this. You cant just make changes to a statement and then say it is equivalent to the original statement. See how that works?

Edit: And you have the audacity to imply that since your altered version is clearly nonsense the original must also be nonsense. No one can make me angry like you do Traak, you at least have that.
Edit: I love how you replace an eternal torment in fire with spanking, as if they were even remotely equivalent.

[CutterJohn]

No, I buy it. Eternal torture is obviously the equivalent of a spanking.. Yeah.. :rolleyes:



The heaven vs hell thing is pretty logical though, all things considered.. I can totally understand an army of the 'damned' itching for the chance to bring that colossal monster down. I'd be down for it.

[Figment]

I listed the article because I think it had good arguments. Criticizing the source of an opinion piece is pretty silly, especially since this entire thread is opinion and you're just as biased as anyone else.

Though I have no doubt you will find a few nitpicks and ignore the overall message.

Ugh. I pointed out all the arguments were flawed, correlation was made up and overal placed in a biased, circle argument article.

Yes, I questioned the source as well, which turns out to be very biased (not open to verifying alternative ideas and treat them as he would any other: with proper scrutiny) and therefore untrustworthy. You honestly think a reliable, unbiased source is a bad thing? Can they make good arguments, yes they can, but in this case, no it did not. Not at all. He was clearly making things up to fit his personal theory, rather than deriving a theory from observation.

Really Malorn, what do you want? You want me to say "hey, those are great arguments, even if they're all wrong, misinterpreted and placed in a biased light?".

[MadPenguin]

No, I buy it. Eternal torture is obviously the equivalent of a spanking.. Yeah.. :rolleyes:



The heaven vs hell thing is pretty logical though, all things considered.. I can totally understand an army of the 'damned' itching for the chance to bring that colossal monster down. I'd be down for it.

One thing i never got is Satan is this angel who basically despises God. God then decides to send to him all the people who think the same as Satan, agree with him about God. And we are expected to believe Satan tortures these people? All im saying is if I was Satan, damn right I'd build an army. And sure as hell i wouldnt torture these people, I'd hold a party. It really takes an idiot to send to your enemy everyone who would ally with him.

[Baneblade]

A god is only as powerful as those who believe in it.

[Warborn]

One thing i never got is Satan is this angel who basically despises God. God then decides to send to him all the people who think the same as Satan, agree with him about God. And we are expected to believe Satan tortures these people? All im saying is if I was Satan, damn right I'd build an army. And sure as hell i wouldnt torture these people, I'd hold a party. It really takes an idiot to send to your enemy everyone who would ally with him.

Neither heaven nor hell are really elucidated upon within the Bible. Opinions about what happens to people in hell vary greatly depending upon religious sect. Some view it as a place of actual torture for eternity, others view it as simply being absent of God but that when Judgment Day comes, all souls in hell will be reconciled and allowed into heaven.

[Vash02]

There are early christian writings that didnt make the cut for the bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-roberts.html

21. And there were certain there hanging by the tongue: and these were the blasphemers of the way of righteousness; and under them lay fire, burning and punishing them. 22. And there was a great lake, full of flaming mire, in which were certain men that pervert righteousness, and tormenting angels afflicted them.

23. And there were also others, women, hanged by their hair over that mire that bubbled up: and these were they who adorned themselves for adultery; and the men who mingled with them in the defilement of adultery, were hanging by the feet and their heads in that mire. And I said: I did not believe that I should come into this place.

24. And I saw the murderers and those who conspired with them, cast into a certain strait place, full of evil snakes, and smitten by those beasts, and thus turning to and fro in that punishment; and worms, as it were clouds of darkness, afflicted them. And the souls of the murdered stood and looked upon the punishment of those murderers and said: O God, thy judgment is just.

25. And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion.

26. And other men and women were burning up to the middle and were cast into a dark place and were beaten by evil spirits, and their inwards were eaten by restless worms: and these were they who persecuted the righteous and delivered them up.

27. And near those there were again women and men gnawing their own lips, and being punished and receiving a red-hot iron in their eyes: and these were they who blasphemed and slandered the way of righteousness.

28. And over against these again other men and women gnawing their tongues and having flaming fire in their mouths: and these were the false witnesses.

29. And in a certain other place there were pebbles sharper than swords or any spit, red-hot, and women and men in tattered and filthy raiment rolled about on them in punishment: and these were the rich who trusted in their riches and had no pity for orphans and widows, and despised the commandment of God.

30. And in another great lake, full of pitch and blood and mire bubbling up, there stood men and women up to their knees: and these were the usurers and those who take interest on interest.

31. And other men and women were being hurled down from a great cliff and reached the bottom, and again were driven by those who were set over them to climb up upon the cliff, and thence were hurled down again, and had no rest from this punishment: and these were they who defiled their bodies acting as women; and the women who were with them were those who lay with one another as a man with a woman.

32. And alongside of that cliff there was a place full of much fire, and there stood men who with their own hands had made for themselves carven images instead of God. And alongside of these were other men and women, having rods and striking each other and never ceasing from such punishment.

33. And others again near them, women and men, burning and turning themselves and roasting: and these were they that leaving the way of God

[ItsTheSheppy]

Boy, nowhere will you find religious documents more specific and creative than when describing 'eternal torments'. They mention heaven like "Oh yeah, it's super nice. There's grass and flowers and stuff. Bunnies. Ice Cream. Whatever." Bring up hell and suddenly it's like, "Here, let me offload my six notebooks of Saw movie ideas."

[Vash02]

Ironically, that is the only christian writing that makes note of abortion and they chopped it out of the bible.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Effective]

So many secular haters.

Anyone want to criticize the Quran while we're at it? Wouldn't want Muslims to feel left out.

If we're honest, the Quran is just as bad in terms of bronze age morality and using fear as a means of controlling the uneducated.

[Warborn]

Being honest about how fucking stupid religions are is better than the disingenuous bullshit about respecting religious beliefs simply because they're religious beliefs.

[Figment]

If we're honest, the Quran is just as bad in terms of bronze age morality and using fear as a means of controlling the uneducated.

Easily.


Malorn, want to discuss Sumerian morality? Quite fun. It's partially what the bible is based on too.

[Vash02]

So many secular haters.

Anyone want to criticize the Quran while we're at it? Wouldn't want Muslims to feel left out.

Criticising old testament is criticising the holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (also Mormonism plus all of the splinter groups).

[ItsTheSheppy]

Honestly, criticizing the bible is just easier for us westerners because we're exposed to a great deal more religious bullying from Christianity and its offshoots than from Islam. I'm sure if the opposite were true, we would be talking about how dumb the Quran and the Hadith are.

It's just easier to talk about what's more relevant to the speaker and audience.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Allah isn't in the pledge of allegiance, or on our money. Islamic groups are major lobbyists in our government. I'm not even aware of any mosques in the state I live in. There just isn't as much point in coming down on Islam as there is Christianity, because it's not as immediately practical to my day to day life.

Islam is a major problem in the world. It's the most populous religion on the planet and it's characterized, much like the other monotheisms, by the barbaric bronze-aged wackiness of all the other Abrahamic sects. It's a major factor of why the middle east is as much of a hellhole as it is, it breeds fanatical 'extremists' (a term I hate, because they are only 'extreme' in their adherence to what the religion actually says; it's not like they invented new stuff). Its attitude towards women is only slightly worse than the christian attitude, and in many cases enforced far more brutally.

Islam is a terrible religion. Muhammad was a fraud and a pedophile, if he ever actually existed, which he very well may not have; I've never seen compelling evidence that he did.

Does that satisfy? I could go on, but frankly, it doesn't matter. Because it's not the hadith being pressed into schools. Elementary students aren't being herded into gymnasiums to bow to mecca. Anti-abortion legislation isn't being funded and proposed by people waving a Quran. So as an American, it makes much more sense for me to attack the religion that is the primary source for bad things in the community in which I live.

Savvy?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Actually He is. Allah means "God" in Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah).

It's both the abrahamic god. So what about hindus, atheists and pagans? It says god where there are gods or no gods for those people.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Actually He is. Allah means "The God" in Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah).

There are a lot of gods, Malorn. Allah is not the same god as Yahweh. The 'god' that shows up so much in American language is not Allah; it's Yahweh. Woden is a god, too, but I don't think the pledge of allegiance is actually considering itself under the scrutiny of his ravens.

[Figment]

There are a lot of gods, Malorn. Allah is not the same god as Yahweh. The 'god' that shows up so much in American language is not Allah; it's Yahweh. Woden is a god, too, but I don't think the pledge of allegiance is actually considering itself under the scrutiny of his ravens.

Though Thor is an American god!

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/5230/874517-76012_127024_thor_super_super.jpg

[ItsTheSheppy]

Though Thor is an American god!

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/5230/874517-76012_127024_thor_super_super.jpg

I wish people at least worshiped cool gods. Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild and the weird faceless abrahamic gods are so boring. With Odin, you knew what you were getting, and it was fucking metal.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

The pledge and currency says "God" - it doesn't say "Christian God" or "Hebrew God" or "Hindu God (Vishnu)"

It means whatever god you want it to mean.

The United States independence, constitution, and bill of rights is founded upon the notion that we as humans have unalienable rights bestowed by our creator that no government can revoke.

That's why "In God We Trust" and "...under God..." appears in our currency and pledge. It is recognition of that fact that our rights come from a higher power and cannot be deprived.

It is not allegiance to a specific church and therefore is no breach of separation of church and state. It's a tribute to the founding principles of our country, which ignorant douchenozzles want to remove because of their own disdain for religion.

Choose the creator that suits you (or no creator at all) and move on to a real issue.
Do you really believe that load of complete and utter bullshit?

In a christian majority country, in a time when they are fearing a godless foe, when politicians were making christian statements daily, they decided to put "under god" and "in god we trust" into government for completley secular purposes?
You would really have to be the complete moron of the year to buy that.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Quovatis]

The United States independence, constitution, and bill of rights is founded upon the notion that we as humans have unalienable rights bestowed by our creator that no government can revoke.


The constitution and the bill of rights are not founded on any of that crap. Only the declaration of independence has that phrase in there (once), and it was not in the original draft, mind you. Jefferson added it in at the request of others, and more than likely did not mean God. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian, including Jefferson. The USA is not a Christian nation, as reaffirmed in the treaty of Tripoli.

It was only during the cold war when the USA felt it had to play up the God thing as to not appear communist. Unfortunately, we've been stuck with it since.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Effective]

The pledge and currency says "God" - it doesn't say "Christian God" or "Hebrew God" or "Hindu God (Vishnu)"

It means whatever god you want it to mean.

The United States independence, constitution, and bill of rights is founded upon the notion that we as humans have unalienable rights bestowed by our creator that no government can revoke.

That's why "In God We Trust" and "...under God..." appears in our currency and pledge. It is recognition of that fact that our rights come from a higher power and cannot be deprived.

It is not allegiance to a specific church and therefore is no breach of separation of church and state. It's a tribute to the founding principles of our country, which ignorant douchenozzles want to remove because of their own disdain for religion.

Choose the creator that suits you (or no creator at all) and move on to a real issue.

Holy utter garbage batman

[Warborn]

And yet none of your rights come from any particular god or church but were instead created entirely by men who, far as I can tell, didn't refer to the Bible or whatever in the process. There's a certain irony to the idea of men who were deists/not-terribly-religious penning those words under the impression that the laws they were setting forth were only theirs to give by the grace of God or something.

[Baneblade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Hamma]

The constitution and the bill of rights are not founded on any of that crap. Only the declaration of independence has that phrase in there (once), and it was not in the original draft, mind you. Jefferson added it in at the request of others, and more than likely did not mean God. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian, including Jefferson. The USA is not a Christian nation, as reaffirmed in the treaty of Tripoli.

It was only during the cold war when the USA felt it had to play up the God thing as to not appear communist. Unfortunately, we've been stuck with it since.
Perfectly said.

[Effective]

And courts find it religiously meaningless while athiests continue their crusade. So yah, everything I said above.

Move on to a real issue.

Yes because equality and observing faiths and lack of there of all people is meaningless.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I was visited by Jehova's Witnesses over the weekend. Twice. I apparently made such an impression on the first pair that they brought in a consultant to talk to me for a second pass.

It was a lot of fun. I was a little disappointed that the best they could come up with was "It sure seems unlikely that DNA could spontaneously manifest in the primordial soup; God must have done it." I had to explain that, you know, we've actually synthesized DNA in a laboratory using chemicals and computers and such. We've created life. It's not THAT hard. And while we don't really know how it happened that first time, its important to remember that across trillions of stars per galaxy, in billions and billions of galaxies, it only had to happen once for us to be having the conversation, so it's not that big a leap to imagine that it could have happened on its own.

They didn't really have much to say about that. It was very clear to me that they were not used to having someone present them with educated, reasoned objections. Every time they suggested something, like "Isn't it amazing that the world is perfectly suited for us" and I'd reply that the world is indeed suited to support life, therefor capable of spawning creatures who could be having this conversation, but there was no evidence that it was at all special; it is a big universe after all, and though small the chance, it's clearly happened at least once... they would just stare at me and then move on the next point without even trying to pick at my reasoning. It was like they were hearing it all for the first time and just had no clue how to respond.

They hadn't even heard of the "god of the gaps". I had to explain it to them. It's very sad, how deep in their echo chambers these poor people are.

[Vash02]

I had two little old ladies come to my door. They made the "if we came from monkeys why is there still monkeys?" and "look at the trees!" arguments.
It was so awkward.

[ItsTheSheppy]

If you ever need a handy comeback to the 'why are there still monkeys' argument, just point out that a) we didn't come from chimps, we just share a common ancestor, and b) Americans (largely) came from Europeans... so why is there still a Europe?

[Figment]

If you ever need a handy comeback to the 'why are there still monkeys' argument, just point out that a) we didn't come from chimps, we just share a common ancestor, and b) Americans (largely) came from Europeans... so why is there still a Europe?

According to Malorn, Europe does not exist. We can't have a state with citizens living happy lives without gun rights after all.

[ItsTheSheppy]

According to Malorn, Europe does not exist. We can't have a state with citizens living happy lives without gun rights after all.

I don't even like Malorn, but I have to say that zinger was weak. Pick your battles, man.

[WildGunsTomcat]

It was a lot of fun. I was a little disappointed that the best they could come up with was "It sure seems unlikely that DNA could spontaneously manifest in the primordial soup; God must have done it." I had to explain that, you know, we've actually synthesized DNA in a laboratory using chemicals and computers and such. We've created life. It's not THAT hard.

So....you're saying we've created life?

And we're intelligent creatures yes?

So it takes intelligence to create life yes? It wasn't spontaneous, because humans created life in a lab.

The arrogance that you give off Sheppy is breathtaking. Simply stunning.

[ItsTheSheppy]

So....you're saying we've created life?

And we're intelligent creatures yes?

So it takes intelligence to create life yes? It wasn't spontaneous, because humans created life in a lab.

The arrogance that you give off Sheppy is breathtaking. Simply stunning.

Not sure if trolling.

The entire premise of the "god must have created life because life is too complicated to have just happened" argument hinges on the idea that creating life doesn't just take intelligence. It takes a supreme intelligence that could also create a universe, suspend natural laws when necessary, and understand a cosmic truth.

We did it in a laboratory in (if I'm not mistaken) Rhode Island. Or was it New Jersey?

I'll tell you what it isn't: a miracle. It's not even that impressive. It didn't even make front page news. I expect most people won't be impressed until we invent from scratch some kind of 'cool' animal, like a dragon.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe that we're aware of. Each galaxy possesses, on average, about a trillion stars. Even within our own galaxy, we've observed, with our primitive technology, numerous planets that exist within "goldilocks" zones capable of supporting life.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are one thousand planets per galaxy capable of supporting life. Considering how many we've already found, and considering that galaxies have trillions of stars, that's probably a significantly under-representative figure, but I don't need it to be bigger to make my point.

So a hundred billion galaxies each with a thousand life supporting planets. That's a trillion planets. Let's say the average age of these planets is, oh, five billion years, to again take a lowball estimation.

DNA would have to synthesize only once out of all of those for us to be having this conversation. DNA synthesizes by (again, simplifying considerably) combining certain chemical compounds in just the right mixture and applying energy in just the right amounts. Nothing needs to be invented. All the raw materials are there, they just need the right conditions.

Let's say that the necessary compounds exist on ONE THIRD of the possible planets. That's three hundred and thirty three billion. Now let's say that the chemicals shift around or mix up or get struck my lightning or whatever on average once per year. That gives us 1,665,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

That's a big number. A sextillion if I'm not mistaken. (Tee hee. Sextillion.)

The actual number of chances is much higher.

Given that, since the discovery of DNA structure, it took us about fifty (50) years to create it on our own, with our meager technology, it seems fairly likely to me that it would happen. At least once.

And it did! Here we are talking about it.

Now I could be mistaken. My math is probably atrocious, my reasoning flawed. But I can tell you one thing. Having that explained to me by somebody who does understand the nitty gritty science of it is a lot more engaging than being told a magical monkey man living in the sky did it, and by the way he hates gays and is super interested in your life. Your tiny, tiny, short, cosmically meaningless life.

Thinking such a being would give a shit about you or any of us; thinking that the planet was put here for us to enjoy it; thinking that we hold some special supernatural significance in the universe; thinking that such an entity would even LOOK like us or care about what we ate or what our sexual habits were... that's arrogance.

And believing the entity is there at all is delusional.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Not sure if trolling.

The entire premise of the "god must have created life because life is too complicated to have just happened" argument hinges on the idea that creating life doesn't just take intelligence. It takes a supreme intelligence that could also create a universe, suspend natural laws when necessary, and understand a cosmic truth.

We did it in a laboratory in (if I'm not mistaken) Rhode Island. Or was it New Jersey?

I'll tell you what it isn't: a miracle. It's not even that impressive. It didn't even make front page news. I expect most people won't be impressed until we invent from scratch some kind of 'cool' animal, like a dragon.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe that we're aware of. Each galaxy possesses, on average, about a trillion stars. Even within our own galaxy, we've observed, with our primitive technology, numerous planets that exist within "goldilocks" zones capable of supporting life.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are one thousand planets per galaxy capable of supporting life. Considering how many we've already found, and considering that galaxies have trillions of stars, that's probably a significantly under-representative figure, but I don't need it to be bigger to make my point.

So a hundred billion galaxies each with a thousand life supporting planets. That's a trillion planets. Let's say the average age of these planets is, oh, five billion years, to again take a lowball estimation.

DNA would have to synthesize only once out of all of those for us to be having this conversation. DNA synthesizes by (again, simplifying considerably) combining certain chemical compounds in just the right mixture and applying energy in just the right amounts. Nothing needs to be invented. All the raw materials are there, they just need the right conditions.

Let's say that the necessary compounds exist on ONE THIRD of the possible planets. That's three hundred and thirty three billion. Now let's say that the chemicals shift around or mix up or get struck my lightning or whatever on average once per year. That gives us 1,665,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

That's a big number. A sextillion if I'm not mistaken. (Tee hee. Sextillion.)

The actual number of chances is much higher.

Given that, since the discovery of DNA structure, it took us about fifty (50) years to create it on our own, with our meager technology, it seems fairly likely to me that it would happen. At least once.

And it did! Here we are talking about it.

Now I could be mistaken. My math is probably atrocious, my reasoning flawed. But I can tell you one thing. Having that explained to me by somebody who does understand the nitty gritty science of it is a lot more engaging than being told a magical monkey man living in the sky did it, and by the way he hates gays and is super interested in your life. Your tiny, tiny, short, cosmically meaningless life.

Thinking such a being would give a shit about you or any of us; thinking that the planet was put here for us to enjoy it; thinking that we hold some special supernatural significance in the universe; thinking that such an entity would even LOOK like us or care about what we ate or what our sexual habits were... that's arrogance.

And believing the entity is there at all is delusional.

You do understand though that the chances of RANDOM chemicals in a primordial soup mixing together to form a perfect strand of DNA is almost mathematically impossible right?

Many Many Many biologists have stated so. They agree that it had to have intelligent help from something. Aliens, God, whatever.

And in the end, I don't know why anyone wants to argue this shit? Who cares if you don't believe in God? I certainly don't.

And why should anyone care if I do? How is it affecting you in any way shape or form?

What I see here from a lot of people is "Stop liking what I don't like."

And a shitload of grand posturing.

Life is too short to argue the small stuff, because the FACT of the matter is...no one really knows yet. You have ideas and theories and faiths and beliefs...but no one knows.

This argument and debate is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

[Figment]

Wildguns, they don't agree an inteligence was needed. CHRISTIAN biologists and all MIGHT say it took intelligence, but in fact, most of them don't even say that.


And even IF they would say that, where did the aliens come from?

Where did the god come from?

If it takes a superintelligence to create a lifeform, then what kind of intelligence does it take to create a god with omnipotent power to create lifeforms and universes?

[MadPenguin]

And in the end, I don't know why anyone wants to argue this shit? Who cares if you don't believe in God? I certainly don't.

And why should anyone care if I do? How is it affecting you in any way shape or form?

What I see here from a lot of people is "Stop liking what I don't like."

And a shitload of grand posturing.

Life is too short to argue the small stuff, because the FACT of the matter is...no one really knows yet. You have ideas and theories and faiths and beliefs...but no one knows.

This argument and debate is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

If this is your opinion why post anything at all, why even read the discussion? We are people who find this question interesting and dont consider the question among the "small stuff". You disagree? Thats fine, but coming onto a discussion that you couldnt give 2 shits about and telling people that ARE interested that its just grand posturing and we are wasting our time may as well be the definition of trolling.

This is your opinion? Then keep it to yourself and just dont read any posts on this discussion.

[ItsTheSheppy]

You do understand though that the chances of RANDOM chemicals in a primordial soup mixing together to form a perfect strand of DNA is almost mathematically impossible right?


Did you read my post? Even in my admittedly shoddy and probably highly inaccurate example, I gave it a one-in-1.6-sextillian chance. That's a pretty slim chance.

The reality is, the chances are probably much higher than that. Scientists now hypothesize that its entirely possible that DNA could form in chemicals we had not previously anticipated. Instead of carbon-based, lifeforms could be silicon-based, or otherwise. We have some small evidence to support this, and are working tirelessly (and by we I mean lots of guys way more intelligent than I am) to figure it out.

I don't care of many many many biologists (and I'm not really sure how many there are not currently employed at Baptist universities) who say intelligence is required for DNA to form, because there are a great many people who can have bad ideas. A recent article indicated to me the interesting fact that Newton (you may know him as the guy who invented calculus) was an alchemist.

To your final point, we're arguing it because, as you may not have noticed, this thread is entitled "Science vs. Religion".

[WildGunsTomcat]

If this is your opinion why post anything at all, why even read the discussion? We are people who find this question interesting and dont consider the question among the "small stuff". You disagree? Thats fine, but coming onto a discussion that you couldnt give 2 shits about and telling people that ARE interested that its just grand posturing and we are wasting our time may as well be the definition of trolling.

This is your opinion? Then keep it to yourself and just dont read any posts on this discussion.

I'm sorry who are you again?

Oh, Nobody? Cool.

[Baneblade]

For the record, there is no such thing as a perfect strand of DNA... unless it is artificial.

[NivexQ]

Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

1 Samuel 2:3

I lol'd

[CutterJohn]

You do understand though that the chances of RANDOM chemicals in a primordial soup mixing together to form a perfect strand of DNA is almost mathematically impossible right?

Yeah. Long odds. Fortunately thats not what happened. Or at least not whats hypothesized to have happened.

All that had to form initially was a simple self replicating polymer that competed with other self replicating polymers for scarce resources. Thats it. And theres still long odds against that, but nothing even close to the odds against forming DNA, since DNA doesn't even function without the support structures in place in your cell.

Thats all life started as. A self replicating molecule that competed with other self replicating molecules for scarce resources. Those that were better at getting the resources out competed those that weren't, because they had more resources to work with. Those that were better at replicating out competed those that weren't, because they replicated faster or made more stable copies. Those that were less cannibalistic out competed those that weren't, since they spent less time hurting themselves.

Those things don't take DNA, or even particularly complex molecules. DNA came millions, perhaps billions, of years later, after a whole host of molecular tools necessary for the cell to decipher and utilize DNA developed. Thats why there is no multicellular life for the first billion years of life on earth.. That was time spent getting cells to the point where they were complex enough to support multicellular life.

[Traak]

One thing i never got is Satan is this angel who basically despises God. God then decides to send to him all the people who think the same as Satan, agree with him about God. And we are expected to believe Satan tortures these people? All im saying is if I was Satan, damn right I'd build an army. And sure as hell i wouldnt torture these people, I'd hold a party. It really takes an idiot to send to your enemy everyone who would ally with

So, penitentiaries are in danger of spilling over the land with people partying and destroying every single law envorcement official that exists? Strangely, prisons aren't a ceaseless party, but a place where the inmates, lacking innocent victims, turn on each other in rape, torture, murder, etc.

Prisons, following your line of reason, would be ruling the whole planet, since prisoners are far more potent compared to law envorcement officials than the sum total of all sinners and all demons are in comparison to God.

However, they aren't ruling the world, and prison is not a ceaseless party, from what I've seen or heard.

Saying that evil people should not be imprisoned, either on Earth or under it? What do you suggest be done with evil people? Live at your house? Bunk in a kindergarten? Some people are just evil, and are not fit to be near others who are not of their kind. So prisons exist, and so does hell, and ultimately, the lake of fire.

There are people who society imprisons and executes, based on flawed testimony of fallible men. God makes eternal life available, and people can choose to reject it. By making this choice, they, like convicts in the Earth, choose bad consequences, consequences that are enforced by an almighty, all-knowing, impartial God who is a perfect judge of right and wrong.

Blaming God for anyoe going to hell is like blaming the police for the murders that the people they arrest commit.

[ItsTheSheppy]

[a much more knowledgeable breakdown of what happened than what I proposed]

Thanks. I had a feeling that I was oversimplifying to an almost criminal degree.

[MadPenguin]

So, penitentiaries are in danger of spilling over the land with people partying and destroying every single law envorcement official that exists? Strangely, prisons aren't a ceaseless party, but a place where the inmates, lacking innocent victims, turn on each other in rape, torture, murder, etc.

Prisons, following your line of reason, would be ruling the whole planet, since prisoners are far more potent compared to law envorcement officials than the sum total of all sinners and all demons are in comparison to God.

However, they aren't ruling the world, and prison is not a ceaseless party, from what I've seen or heard.

Whats up with your anologies man...

Prison is taking people that have committed crime and handing them over to the forces of the Law, who are definately NOT on the inmates side. While it IS true that the inmates hang out with other inmates, they dont have any say on how the prison is run. Thats up to the law who as i have said arent on their side.
Hell is supposedly (if you believe this) God giving everyone who doesnt like him to his worst enemy. A better anology with hell would be if the prison were run by the inmates. Or perhaps more acurately a kingpin who is on the inmates side. How long do you think the prisoners would stay locked up?

Saying that evil people should not be imprisoned, either on Earth or under it? What do you suggest be done with evil people? Live at your house? Bunk in a kindergarten? Some people are just evil, and are not fit to be near others who are not of their kind. So prisons exist, and so does hell, and ultimately, the lake of fire.

When did i say this? Pick the quote out for me please. All i said was it is silly to send these people to the person who hates you most. Its not a binary system of either give them to your worst enemy or dont imprison them.

Blaming God for anyoe going to hell is like blaming the police for the murders that the people they arrest commit.[/

Note that I didnt lay blame at anyones feet in what i said. Again, give me the quote that gave you this impression please. All i was saying is its a little stupid to hand these people over to Satan.

I should point out that I do appreciate not everyone sees hell this way, I just think those that do need to reassess the logic behind it.

Edit: On a side note Traak, have you ever heard of the phrase the punishment should fit the crime? You keep on saying dont blame God. I would never blame God for someone committing a crime, but what I would question is whether his punishment fits the crime. Imagine a guy steals a £10 teddy from a megastore. The man then gets caught and locked up in jail for the rest of his life. What your doing is equivalent to saying "dont blame the justice system for the man stealing the teddy, if he didnt want to be locked up for the rest of his life, he shouldnt have stole the teddy". We WOULDNT blame the justice system for the man stealing the teddy, nor we would chastise the system for punishing him. What we WOULD do is ask whether the punishment fit the crime.

[Vash02]

Can blame him for the equivalent of a Judge sentencing a person to torture for the rest of their life for the crime of littering or sex outside of wedlock or that the defendant didnt love the judge enough.

That judge would be derided as a madman worse than Hitler. But here you are kissing Gods arse.

I think Hitchens had it right when he proposed this question to Christian's espousing God morality:
Would you, if you thought that you child didnt love you enough, put them in the basement of your house and have them tortured for the rest of their life?

[Figment]

Ratio vs Religion comes up quite often in relation to... well let's find a fun chapter of the bible... Noah's Ark.

Ricky Gervais on Noah***39;s Ark - YouTube

[ItsTheSheppy]

It would have to have been a big boat.

Probably wasn't very kind to the 2nd generation of animals who survived on it, having to have sex with their siblings and giving birth to all sorts of terrible incest babies.

Maybe god suspended the detrimental effects of incestuous parentage for the first couple hundred years, but that doesn't mean that brothers and sisters weren't forced to get freaky.

Gods infallible plan, everyone!

[Figment]

It's really up to Traak, who claims the Bible has no errors, to prove this is possible and how it's normal.


Would also be fun to know how during a flood of 150 days that covered even the mountains, both the fresh and salt water fish survived. Any biologist will tell you only select few species can survive in both fresh and salt water and 150 days is more than enough for water to mix.

And then there's the whole stratification geological bit that does not agree with a world flood, at all and it's quite easy to demonstrate through experiments that world flood theory is utter bogus.

But let's go over the verses:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/7.html#4

I mean the amount of biological and geological problems with the Ark story are tremendous. Not to mention the remainder of problems.

[Baneblade]

It's a problem of... biblical proportions.

[Figment]

It's a problem of... biblical proportions.

http://instantrimshot.com/

[ItsTheSheppy]

It's a problem of... biblical proportions.

I think that shaved a few years off my life.

[MadPenguin]

It's a problem of... biblical proportions.

Haha, im going to have to use that one some point down the road.

[p0intman]

I was going to put this in the religion thread, but its better here...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537958_432383583454961_224319224261399_1665215_890 562759_n.jpg