Tyger : Read Dawkins
Chat Forum
[closed]
Creationism.............
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Tyger if everything needs a creator who created your god?
Either god or life happened without anyone coding it...at least we are here. ANY question you have about how we got here can just be asked of your god....Are you just arguing that god is the devine encoder/architect - bit short of a deity that and why does he allow the code to change...was it wrong to start with etc?
A very weak argument.Posted 2 years ago # -
God might exist but there's no evidence that he has to. Some think they have a relationship with him which is proof to them that he does exist but is of little use to others.
Anyone can argue anything they like, doesn't get anyone anywhere where proof on either side is weak.
I'm an evangelical agnostic....
Posted 2 years ago # -
proof on either side is weak
they are asserting that something exists ... the onus is on them to offer proof. You cannot prove a negative. Most people tend to belive in things they can prove/support though not things they cannot disprove as that would be an endless list including god, invisible spiderman, ectoplasm ,psychic powers etcPosted 2 years ago # -
i am here because my parents had sex, and i found enough sustenance to survive until this point.
that process has been going on for quite a while now, with all of my ancestors managing to have sex at least once before being eaten.
it's an impressive heritage, humbling really when I stop to consider the timescales involved, and of course the sheer amount of sex my ancestors had.
It would be ungrateful of me to dismiss all that sex and death with a simple ‘god did it, about 6000 years ago – now go to church and say thankyou’
(maybe I’ve stumbled over something, we invented the ‘god did it and ran away’ stories because we find it so uncomfortable thinking about our grandparents having sex)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Now that would be funny.. imagine the whole God myth being created by a mother who was too embaressed to explain to little Johnny how his little sister got to be in mummys tummy!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Every code needs an encoder
Some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizationPosted 2 years ago # -
Would Einstein be a creationism, A year before his death Einstein wrote (extract from letter):
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
He is also quoted of saying he does not believe in a personal god!
Posted 2 years ago # -
He is also quoted of saying he does not believe in a personal god!
The whole quoting what famous (intellectual) people have said is fraught with contradictions.
I had a debate with Rudeboy some time about Einstein. Fortunately I was able to prove that on balance he considered himself an Atheist, however he said some other things which could have been interpreted either way.
The fact that people we consider great leaders or great minds believe or don't believe in God is a bit of a Red herring in my opinion.Posted 2 years ago # -
hotfly
the thing that really troubles me about some of the recent STW posts are the comments that line up with Richard Dawkins' God Delusion. A lot of people seem to have simply swallowed all this without a critical look. Mr Dawkins philosophical arguments about religion seem to be seriously flawed in most areas and yet he has succeeded in convincing most people that his rationale is overwhelming and that nobody can challenge his views with any degree of intellectual rigour. NOT SO!!!
Yet the bible is treated in exactly the way you describe Dawkins book is being treated by some on here!
Double hypocrisy with skimmed faith and head in sand sprinkles anyone?Posted 2 years ago # -
Then there is the whole basis of societies morals - if we believe we are just chance joining of carbon etc atoms then why should we not abort babies, assist grannie's suicide, kill those who don't believe what we do? If however we believe we are created we might have a bit more respect for each other.
This does make me a bit cross..
I'm a moral being. I believe we should NOT kill those that don't believe as 'we' do. I have the utmost respect for others as far as they have the same respect for me. I believe in society and that everyone should contribute as in the end it is for the betterment of everyone, especially those worse off than myself.
I'm a complete and utter, uncompromising, total none believer in ANY form of religion. And yet I also understand that religion is often a very personal thing that means a great deal to a great many people and that's fine too.
So, what's wrong with me? It appears regardless of having no faith I'm not a murdering, selfish bastard!
I don't understand? Where do my morals come from?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wasted years of my life involved in the christian 'faith'. I believe in nothing until it's happened.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well actually there's an interesting point here - sort of. When is a human life special? At conception? At birth? Ever? If only at birth then abortion at any time is maybe fine - indeed maybe even to kill babies as they won't know what's happened? Dawkins says that he's not worried about dying as he won't be here to notice but just wants to die in a painless way - well that's fine but would he agree to being instantly teminated at some future random time whilst he's still enjoying life?
We protect human life as we empathise - often protect animal life too. There are those that will take it without caring and the rest of us can't understand that - we may think they're 'not human'.
Posted 2 years ago # -
When is a human life special?
This is a point I was making earlier regarding the religious obsession with the Blastocyct.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm with Mark - I'm a whole being, with morals and beliefs in respect and logic, I do not need religion to give me these.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What more worrying to me, is the assertion by religious types that the only thing preventing them going on a baby-killing rampage is their belief in their chosen
invisible superhero that lives in the skydeity.Posted 2 years ago # -
Well I don't think that's entirely fair! I think it's more that they don't want to go on a baby killing rampage and think the reason they don't is because they no it's wrong and the reason they know it's wrong has something to do with God - if the only reason they don't kill babies is because they think God will be angry then that's a problem I'm sure!
What is more interesting is why we don't kill people if we think we might get away with it and there's a gain - empathy and guilt stop us; I could be rich if it wasn't for guilt!
Posted 2 years ago # -
What is more interesting is why we don't kill people if we think we might get away with it and there's a gain - empathy and guilt stop us
I'd imagine from an evolutionary point of view it still wouldn't be a successful survival stategy, as just as you might kill people if you could get away with it, others would do the same to you, so as a trait it doesn't seem very helpful if you're living in groups. Hence (with all the normal provisos) we don't do it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't mind religious people being creationists.
I don't mind them using blind faith as a justification for their beliefs.
I don't even mind when they think their god has got a plan for them.
I don't really mind them using their wanky mixture of faith and logic as justification.But it gets on my tits that they think they've got the monopoly on forgiveness.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I was in a shop in the USA last week - heard one shop assistant talking to her colleague about her husband 'currently studying creationism science'. How I wanted to go for a beer and a long chat with him.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think persons religious beliefs say a great deal about them.....
Posted 2 years ago # -
We (as a general rule) don't go around bumping each other off because it is unhelpful to the survival of the species.
Survival of self at the expense of the group is short-termism,
Survival of group at the expense of species is suicide.Religion may codify morality, but religion is certainly not the sole arbiter of morality no matter what the religious types may say.
Your right to believe does not include the right to proselytise regardless of what commandments to the contrary your particular religion holds dear. Some religious people - certainly the 'Religious Right (wrong)' in the US - hold the the belief that Christianity is under a concerted attack because those same Christians feel they are being held back from expressing and propagating their faith.
Tough, you have the right to believe, you do not have the right to demand your faith be enshrined into law or to impose that belief on others.Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd imagine from an evolutionary point of view it still wouldn't be a successful survival stategy...
Well indeed - seems it's hard to get away with; perhaps we mostly catch the bad people and kill them so as to remove them from the gene pool? There is a test to determine if someone is a psychopath; maybe we should pre-emptively strike and stop them reproducing?
Posted 2 years ago # -
maybe we should pre-emptively strike and stop them reproducing?
I feel a thread hijack coming......
Ok its here...who would you want stop from reproducing??
I'll start : Grotesquely Fat People..... Why?? Its an image I just don't want to have in my head....Fatties on the job.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
