[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

Do go on..?

It's basically pointing out that you can't prove a negative which is something that is (or should be) fully understood by anyone trying to construct a logical argument. See also Cougar's invisible pink unicorns or if Russell's teapot. It doesn't make sense and displays a lack of critical thinking which, from an academic point of view, isn't a good starting place.

Ive been inviting our friends of STW, for sometime, to go look for God themselves and to stop waiting to be given "evidence" by someone else .

As someone who was raised as a catholic I've had my fill and find the very idea of deity as frankly ridiculous.

There's a lot of people clearly have WAY too much time on their hands to think too much

Yeah! huh! that thinking business, completely overrated, don't wanna do too much of that!

Haha,Ro5ey the cheesiest skate film of all time. I have the dvd and the t-shirt 😀

Who believes in love?

Who believes in love?

[img] http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-members-of-the-heavy-metal-band-the-darkness-are-bassist-frankie-picture-id612582948?s=612x612 [/img]

CharlieMungus - Member

poah » what about fun, eyebrowns and DNA lengthening?

you asked for things which were just unexplained

fun keeps us happy, we have complex brains and emotions. Fun releases hormones that alter our mood.

eyebrows prevent water, dirt and sunlight getting in our eyes. hence why we still have eyebrows (and eyelashes) while our other hair has been lost.

I'd need more information about what you mean about DNA lengthening. Do you mean telomere extension or differences in genome sizes between species?

This was literally my first post in the thread; a lot of theists persist in treating atheism as being a faith. It's like saying not riding bikes is a sort of bike riding. The absence of faith is not faith.

(I think I'm an atheist, BTW)

fun keeps us happy, we have complex brains and emotions. Fun releases hormones that alter our mood.

eyebrows prevent water, dirt and sunlight getting in our eyes. hence why we still have eyebrows (and eyelashes) while our other hair has been lost.

I'd need more information about what you mean about DNA lengthening. Do you mean telomere extension or differences in genome sizes between species?

You can do both

The absence of faith is not faith.

But many of the atheists on here are displaying faith. Complete faith in their own conclusion that there is definitely no god.

The point of about love, is that we know or believe it exists, but it is equally unprovable

Not just rough predictions, but in great detail.

Could you give me an example, out of interest?

Not sure I agree here.

You have not seen any evidence, but that does not mean that there is none - logically. So there could either be a god or not, and you cannot at this point say for sure either way. You have chosen an option that you consider most likely. That is not that far off faith is it?

This is an academic point I am exploring btw - nothing personal.

The flaw in the logic here is that just because either alternitive is possible doesn't mean that they have equal merit. The Zero Unicorns Theory isn't merely "more likely," it's as close to a certainty as makes no odds. In the absence of any rainbow-coloured droppings I'm happy to handwave the infinitessimally small offchance that I'm wrong.

You'd be fairly low on my list of people trying to make it personal, nay worries.

Ro5ey - Member
Hey there good people ...

But many of the atheists on here are displaying faith. Complete faith in their own conclusion that there is definitely no god.

You're clutching at straws now.

I don't have (or require) faith that my conclusion is correct. I could be wrong. If evidence of a deity presented itself one day I would go "whoops, got that one wrong didn't I, sorry about that" and revise my conclusion.

The flaw in the logic here is that just because either alternitive is possible doesn't mean that they have equal merit.

BUT

There is the equivalent of rainbow horse poo. We have a universe. How the hell did it get here? Big Bang is not an answer really is it?

I don't have (or require) faith that my conclusion is correct.

I think we do. Faith in our interpretation of what we see. Call it confidence, if you like.

ok, but what evolutionary purpose does it serve and what mechanism allows it to be favoured?

I've just told you what it serves. Humans are not the only animals to have fun. Do you think constantly gumpy, angry people would procreate?

In such a way that folks without them died off?

not a clue, maybe people just didn't loose them. we have always had 2 arms and 2 legs.

You can do both

genome sizes are different because the higher the species the more complex. your basic e.col has a genome of 4 million bp a human genome is approx. 3.2 billion bp.

telomers shorten as we get older, if we could stop them from shortening we would live for longer. however, the average life expectancy is increasing as the years go by.

a lot of theists persist in treating atheism as being a faith. It's like saying not riding bikes is a sort of bike riding. The absence of faith is not faith

Indeed. It's like they think "well you must believe in something". I really don't. When it comes to how the world is and works I have hypotheses/ideas that can be changed, not 'beliefs'. When it comes to how I think the world should be then for sure I have ideas where evidence is less important: "be excellent to each other" as someone said up thread. With the hows and whys of being excellent to each other, evidence again comes into play.

But by the same token that some people in the face of logic keep claiming that atheism is a belief, deep down I'm not sure that most believers really do believe, deep down.

How many act as though they're going to live forever? How many don't have doubts? How many don't hedge their bets? To the line "there are no atheists in foxholes" I'd say the opposite - how many desperate people praying in foxholes literal or metaphoric, really feel they're being listened to and act like there's more than this life?

So yeah, just as they're sure I've got to believe (in something they'll call atheism), I have my suspicions that deep down they have sneaking doubts...

But many of the atheists on here are displaying faith. Complete faith in their own conclusion that there is definitely no god

I have confidence in the facts that there is no god, I don't have faith in them the same way that a religious person does. the two are not comparable.

You'll have to explain why confidence in something unknowable is not the same as faith, poah.

It's confidence based on evidence, that's why it's not the same.

There is the equivalent of rainbow horse poo. We have a universe. How the hell did it get here? Big Bang is not an answer really is it?

Again, we're back to treating two options as equivalent when they aren't. If you saw rainbow horse poo, would you give equal credence to the explanations 1) your daughter dropped a bag of Rainbow Drops and 2) you need to ring Pest Control about your unicorn infestation?

I think we do. Faith in our interpretation of what we see. Call it confidence, if you like.

Ah, in that case I had faith for lunch. Well, it was a sandwich, I just called it faith.

I've just told you what it serves. Humans are not the only animals to have fun. Do you think constantly gumpy, angry people would procreate?

In such a way that folks without them died off?
[b]not a clue[/b], maybe people just didn't loose them. we have always had 2 arms and 2 legs.

You can do both
genome sizes are different because the higher the species the more complex. your basic e.col has a genome of 4 million bp a human genome is approx. 3.2 billion bp.

telomers shorten as we get older, if we could stop them from shortening we would live for longer. however, the average life expectancy is increasing as the years go by.

In all these you have explained what happened but not why, particularly from an evolutionary perspective.

Do you think constantly gumpy, angry people would procreate?

Complete faith in their own conclusion that there is definitely no god.

Again, we're back to treating two options as equivalent when they aren't

Well it was your metaphor.

We have a universe and no-one is able to explain why it is here. So God is one possibility, something else is another. Now compare the evidence for those two.

I can explain the difference between faith and a sandwich. Can you explain the difference between confidence in an unkowable and faith?

Personally, it is my belief that there is no God. But I accept that the evidence is far from conclusive.

You'll have to explain why confidence in something unknowable is not the same as faith, poah.

"When the facts change, I'll change my mind". That's the difference.

One of the problems here is that actually, most people only accept evidence which is aligned with their beliefs.

I think we did it with ESP previously, which people generally did not believe in.

When the facts change, I'll change my mind". That's the difference.

But faith can change too.

Big Bang is not an answer really is it?

There is the first cause argument but that really doesnt work since it just declares god to be the special case because, well, god.

Neither is God since where did god come from?

Another unanswerable question. But it does not negate the original question which is why is the universe here?

Questions that lead to other questions are still questions.

I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I am saying that it is unknowable, and therefore to have absolute confidence in EITHER position requires faith. Not 'a faith' meaning a religious belief, but faith all the same.

But faith can change too.

LOL. That's a pretty naive opinion.

Go on?

I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I am saying that it is unknowable, and therefore to have absolute confidence in EITHER position requires faith. Not 'a faith' meaning a religious belief, but faith all the same.

fwiw this is why Dawkins says that by strict definition he'd have to say he's agnostic because with evidence he could be convinced, but he prefers to say that for all intents and purposes he's an atheist because for all intents and purposes he's pretty sure there's no god. That's what most if not all the godless on this thread are saying too - for all intents and purposes there doesn't appear to be so we'll act as though there isn't a god or gods or elephants all the way down, or whatever.

Call it what you want - atheist seems closer than agnostic as the latter implies a higher degree of uncertainty, but it's semantics really.

We have a universe and no-one is able to explain why it is here. So God is one possibility, something else is another. Now compare the evidence for those two.

[i]Why [/i]it's here? That's a fallacious premise to start with, it might not have a purpose.

Do you mean "how it came about" and just worded the question badly? Comparing evidence of TBB theory and god we have respectively "lots" and "none."

Before TBB, who knows. Maybe it's always been here. That's a premise which hurts our feeble brains, but fortunately the universe doesn't require us to understand it. Either way, inserting "god" into the equation doesn't answer anything - where did god come from?

I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I am saying that it is unknowable, and therefore to have absolute confidence in EITHER position requires faith.

However when we talk about religion we rarely talk about those believers in a form of deism, since they dont tend to make pronouncements that god tells us to live a certain way since well they cant, but instead those who believe in an interventionist god. Once we get to that form of religion we can be more certain about their existence or not.

That's what most if not all the godless on this thread are saying too

Many, but the people asserting the non-existence of God as a FACT are the ones I'm arguing with.

gonefishin, do you believe that ESP exists?
if not, would you change your mind if presented with sound evidence?

note that I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'm a structural biologist.

That was my point. So you think we lost hair everywhere else, but for some reason it stopped just around the eyes?

I told you why we still have them.

So, genome sizes are different and that is how you get more complex life, but how did genomes jump size, to allow the more complex forms?

by joining genomes together, by DNA duplication, by chromosome translocation.

Why did this develop in life?

telomers shorten at different rates in different people in different environments. the obvious hypothesis would be population control but that's me grasping at straws. Doesn't really matter why.

Perhaps not, but some animals manage it

like?

In all these you have explained what happened but not why, particularly from an evolutionary perspective.

evolution is a fact, it happens, we know why it happens and have documented proof of it happening. Just like gravity we have an explanation as to what it is and why. we don't know everything but we don't point to a deity as to the reason why.

fwiw this is why Dawkins says that by strict definition he'd have to say he's agnostic because with evidence he could be convinced, but he prefers to say that for all intents and purposes he's an atheist because for all intents and purposes he's pretty sure there's no god.

I thought Dawkins identified as agnostic for pretty much that logic? (Not that I overly care what he thinks.)

It's pretty evident god doesn't exist,if he did he would have smite you all by now,just to shut you boring ****s up.

*** me this is a long thread. I think the key takeaways I have observed are as follows:

- There's a lot of people clearly have WAY too much time on their hands to think too much
- There is definitely a trend among the "non/anti religious" on here to use what I would describe as deliberately provocative & abrasive language such as "sky fairies", which just comes across as being a dick
- There's a difference between "religion" as in believing in a higher power and the "organised religion" part of that belief structure
- Everyone should just accept that people have different views, and allow them to crack on with their own beliefs
- Not all atheists are abrasive and combative dicks like some on here, just as not all religious people (of all faiths) are funadamentalists

In summary, there's various types of belief or non belief structure, but one unifying factor - in each group are cool people who are tolerant, and also dicks who want to start a fight (either virtual or real).

The end.

Unfortunately not the end, just as once this one dries up, some other attention seeker will be along after a while to start another one! Its the same old stuff every time!

Do you mean "how it came about" and just worded the question badly?

Yes.

The big bang theory only explains what happened after it was created. It does NOT explain how it came about.

Either way, inserting "god" into the equation doesn't answer anything - where did god come from?

Quite correct. But it does change the nature of our existence, so it is important. An important question that we cannot answer either way.

So has no impact on day to day life

There are other possibilities that do. That in the early civilisation God did talk to humans, but has changed his practices. I don't think that's particularly likely, personally, but I certainly cannot rule it out.

I thought Dawkins identified as agnostic for pretty much that logic?

I think he applies the same approach as Bertrand Russell. To paraphrase "if speaking to philosophers I am agnostic otherwise I am an atheist."

It's pretty evident god doesn't exist,if he did he would have smite you all by now,just to shut you boring **** up.

Unfortunately not the end, just as once this one dries up, some other attention seeker will be along after a while to start another one! Its the same old stuff every time!

And yet here you both are, reading it and commenting on it.

That in the early civilisation God did talk to humans, but has changed his practices. I don't think that's particularly likely, personally, but I certainly cannot rule it out.

Or, as has been pointed out, humans have been around for what, 100,000 years, randomly killing and raping each other, but God didn't much feel like intervening until a few thousand years ago..and then he decided to focus his core efforts on the Middle East, rather than have a word with more technically advanced civilisations in China and around the Indus.

If he exists, he certainly has an interesting modus operandi. Moves in mysterious ways, for sure.

Or, as has been pointed out, humans have been around for what, 100,000 years, randomly killing and raping each other, but God didn't much feel like intervening until a few thousand years ago and then he decided to focus his core efforts on the Middle East, rather than have a word with more technically advanced civilisations in China and around the Indus.

If he exists, he certainly has an interesting modus operandi. Moves in mysterious ways, for sure.

had to wait for all the other gods to fall out of favour first too. Shame there is no record of him in other cultures.

That's easy to answer. You'll have to do better than that.