OT: The religion thead...

[EEVblog]

You mean my ceramic audio cable supports are completely useless? 

Of course not, they keep your cables neatly off the floor, and likely look very impressive!
The bible is useful too, it makes an excellent door stop.

Dave.

[Sionyn]

religion is a claim and nothing more

there is no well demonstrated reason to believe in any god

we might even know such tripe vaguerties come about


here Dawkins explaining the thought process of religion


and on lighter note

a creationist who insists god is here, his evidence a banana ?


and the last probably the most stupidest question ever asked

 

[EEVblog]

Both cases are possible, but both cases are not equally likely, not by a long shot!

Any "proof" we see, smell, hear, touch, observe, derive is specific to our special universe and the physics binding it.

Therefor we (in our incredibly limited fashion) can only say that there is nothing observable. If particles do not govern physics in another universe, then should God "break the rules" and provide proof in some fashion to them? Why to us in our realm?

Our science is only valid relative to what we know. If we determine our reality to be something very different from how we observe it (that we do not exist as we see we do) then you cannot apply "science" to add disproof to there being a God.

And so you do not know if it is less or more equal a chance.

Not so!
If I say there is a teapot orbiting mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot), then that's a pretty extraordinary claim. And as Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
We know based on our collected knowledge of the only world we know (our reality) that such a teapot, while not impossible, is extremely unlikely. And the proof would be on me to prove such a bold claim.
Likewise, religion makes very bold claims, that are on many levels more improbable than that orbiting teapot. The burden of proof is on them.

Do you really believe that a god(s) has an equal chance of existing, as not? given virtually no evidence? Seriously? If so, I don't know what world you are living in. You certainly aren't using reason.

Why is god and religion different? why does it always get a get out of jail free card?

Our science is only valid relative to what we know. If we determine our reality to be something very different from how we observe it (that we do not exist as we see we do) then you cannot apply "science" to add disproof to there being a God.

There is no "disproving" being done at all.
If you claim something, then you have to back it up with evidence, otherwise people have no reason to believe you. That's how the world works.
You claim something, you get to prove it.
Religion is no (or should not be an) exception.

Dave.

[A Hellene]

Ah! This is called the Burden of Proof.

Personally, I have a very hard time to swallow any irrationalities, since I realised that the burden of proof is laid upon the side that initially makes a statement; especially if that statement contradicts itself or the common sense.

For example, if I assert that there is a green horse standing on the second floor of the building, and you have an objection on that, since it sounds to be absurd, it will be MY responsibility to prove my claim; NOT yours to disprove it.

Do never forget that a lot of logical fallacies are based on the wrong interpretation, or on attempts to shift, the burden of proof.


-George

[robrenz]

The only rules/guidance I need and attempt to follow is in the book.

I hope not!
There are many horrible things in that book! (and the new one too, let along the far worse "old" one)
Hopefully you are one of those who like to use their own morals to pick'n'chose the good bits... 

Dave.

Ten commandments (old) golden rule (new)  These are enough for me.

No offense taken on any of your comments Dave.  I am not saying this in a wise ass condescending way like I have arrived but I really understand your viewpoint completely since I used to think exactly like you do.  No one could convince me otherwise, except God. It is one of the things that makes me so sure of Gods existence, that he could change my heart directly, no church, no religion, just me and him.  I can't change your mind and I am not trying to.

My great respect for you personally and your talents has not changed a bit.

Regards, robrenz

[_Sin]

One of the arguments that is common, and briefly looked like surfacing here, is the argument about creationism. The argument that because life is complex, it must have been created - that even though we might accept some form of evolutionary force, it cannot explain the incredible complexity and diversity of life here on our little rock. The argument generally speaks of how you could not expect a complex machine to "evolve" just by having lots of bits and then randomly moving them about.

Which of course is a massively disengenuous (and wrong) way of summing up evolution.

This is one of my favourite videos, and I just wanted an excuse to throw it out there:



In it, someone builds a simulation which can model the behaviour of a system of watch parts - cogs, rods, springs, etc. The initial state of the system is random - just sets of random bits which mostly do nothing at all. However when "real" evolutionary processes are allowed - reproduction, mutation, survivial of the fittest, then without any "creation" being involved, clocks evolve.

Science is cool.

[MikeK]

this is more my style:

http://www.venganza.org/about/

Apparently some states in the US allow this to be taught.  Anybody know if thats true or just another urban legend?

No, Pastafarianism is not taught in US schools.  It originated as a defense to religion being taught in schools.  In my home state, I think.  The original argument, by the religious, was "to hear all sides".  Because, again, they don't understand what "theory" means to science.  Anyway, the guy who came up with the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote a serious proposal that Pastafarianiam should also be included in that mix, if they truly wanted to hear all sides.

[EEVblog]

No offense taken on any of your comments Dave.  I am not saying this in a wise ass condescending way like I have arrived but I really understand your viewpoint completely since I used to think exactly like you do.  No one could convince me otherwise, except God. It is one of the things that makes me so sure of Gods existence, that he could change my heart directly, no church, no religion, just me and him.  I can't change your mind and I am not trying to.

So he spoke to you personally huh?
How exactly?
And what did the big fella say? 

Dave.

[robrenz]

So he spoke to you personally huh?
How exactly?
And what did the big fella say? 

Dave.

I didn't say he spoke to me, I said he changed my heart. I have never heard the audible voice of God and I don't expect to here on earth.  But he speaks directly to me thru the bible.  Yeah, sounds crazy, It has to be experienced to believe.  I thought it was BS until it happened to me.

Regards, robrenz

[rolycat]

I didn't say he spoke to me, I said he changed my heart. I have never heard the audible voice of God and I don't expect to here on earth.  But he speaks directly to me thru the bible.  Yeah, sounds crazy, It has to be experienced to believe.  I thought it was BS until it happened to me.

Regards, robrenz

I don't think it's BS. I think that former skeptics whose conversion was not due to indoctrination by zealots are likely suffering or have suffered from a species of neurological malfunction.

Both believers and atheists who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy have reported powerful spiritual feelings during seizures, and there is plenty of medical evidence to support such a hypothesis - but of course evidence is no longer of any use to the religious convert.

[free_electron]

both God and no God are correct and our arguments do not make sense.

Schroedingers god? You won't find out until you are dead...

[free_electron]

. Keep it out of the schools, don't expect government tax free status and favor because of it, keep it out of politics, and don't expect any special treatment because of what you believe.

exactly. At home, at church and in your free time you can do whatever you want.
But not while at work , school . And no handouts or tax cover. If your organisation. Needs money : work for it just like anyone else.

[/quote] clearly just re-hashes of older fables. [/quote] bingo!
Christ was born the 25 th ? Someone actually calculated it.. It was in march... The reason for december 25 th ? So it would cincide with some 'heathen' event and it was easier to cenvert them to christianity.

Easter ? Bunnies and chocolate eggs... They even gave the pope a 500k chocolate egg this year. If he had any modicum of respect for his religion he should have rejected it !

Life: a random gathering of chemical elements that forms YOU. Enjoy it before it falls back apart...

[ToBeFrank]

I didn't say he spoke to me, I said he changed my heart. I have never heard the audible voice of God and I don't expect to here on earth.  But he speaks directly to me thru the bible.  Yeah, sounds crazy, It has to be experienced to believe.  I thought it was BS until it happened to me.

I had been guessing that you had a near death experience, but now that you said this, I'm confused. What exactly is the experience? Reading the bible?

[Mechatrommer]

diversity of life here on our little rock. The argument generally speaks of how you could not expect a complex machine to "evolve" just by having lots of bits and then randomly moving them about. Which of course is a massively disengenuous (and wrong) way of summing up evolution.

bwahaha. i just gave robot fucking analogy earlier and be called silly. now this, i havent watch all, but only until the "fucking clock" simulation, i think i got it up to that point.

[bullet308]

I come to this thread belatedly and with no particular claim of expertise. So, like everyone else, allow me to share my ill-founded opinions.

Because my opinions are exactly as ill-founded as everybody else's are. The only advantage I claim is that I *know* mine are ill-founded at the outset. :-)

You see, I regard myself as a Fundamentalist Agnostic. Not only do I not know, but I know YOU don't know, either.

Oh, you may think you know. Wouldn't it be lovely to know? I know I would love to know. I certainly understand the desire to know, or even to just convince yourself you know even when you really don't and just plug in the gaps with this stuff called  faith, which really is just pretending to know when you do not. Faith is to knowledge what chewing gum and bailing wire are to engineering. Yeah, they can suffice, but are not to be mistaken for doing a proper job of it.

I want to print up a bumper sticker and plaster it on the back of my car, only I am sure most people would not understand it:  "Embrace the Ambiguity".

Leave yourself open to the possibility of anything. I do not particularly believe in God, but then, I don't believe that my belief is required for God to exist quite nicely. I do not particularly assume He would care one way or the other that I believe. But He may be there. Or not. Isnt that an intriguing possibility, though? Nothing that really requires you do do anything any different, necessarily, but still. Intriguing.

<makes popcorn> <watches universe do its thing>

[Mechatrommer]

believing in god is not "knowing" its true (unless you saw it), but "believing" its true, without necessary proof. its like hope, i hope i wil be ...... (insert your word) i do this because someday i/people/whoever will be ........ (insert). it is hope that drive us to do something. just like scientists i believe. with all their effort, they "hope" it is possible to find something... (or maybe its too difficult to understand with this approach of explanation).

put in another way... just as a simple question... does anybody here make circuit just to trash it in dustbin in the end? i believe everybody make circuit with "hope" it will work someday and use/sell/benefit from it, or at least gain knowledge from it before trashing it. if you are certain that the circuit is impossible to build, are you willing to make the venture? the neverending venture? i believe not.

same thing with scientists, same thing with religious people (not politicians and fanatic terrorism). except the approach is different, but the way the "hope" works for both people i believe is the same. with scientist, they will find mathematics and physical way to sense the prove/claim, because they "hope" and "believe" its possible, but for religious people, due to lack of their knowledge/capability/fund just take it with "faith" because they "hope" and "believe" its true.

"religion" is just a word, what matter is the connection it implies. maybe its time to change the word "religion" since its been misused or misunderstood. maybe the correct word this day is "morality" or "the way of life". morality of christian, morality of islam, morality of atheism, morality of scientists, and morality of politicians and businessmen. or "the way of life" or "methodologycal" of them.

[EEVblog]

You see, I regard myself as a Fundamentalist Agnostic. Not only do I not know, but I know YOU don't know, either.

Oh, you may think you know. Wouldn't it be lovely to know? I know I would love to know. I certainly understand the desire to know, or even to just convince yourself you know even when you really don't and just plug in the gaps with this stuff called  faith, which really is just pretending to know when you do not. Faith is to knowledge what chewing gum and bailing wire are to engineering. Yeah, they can suffice, but are not to be mistaken for doing a proper job of it.

I want to print up a bumper sticker and plaster it on the back of my car, only I am sure most people would not understand it:  "Embrace the Ambiguity".

Leave yourself open to the possibility of anything. I do not particularly believe in God, but then, I don't believe that my belief is required for God to exist quite nicely. I do not particularly assume He would care one way or the other that I believe. But He may be there. Or not. Isnt that an intriguing possibility, though? Nothing that really requires you do do anything any different, necessarily, but still. Intriguing.

I don't know a single sensible Atheist, even the hard core militants ones, who claim they absolutely know that a god or gods don't exist. And that is one of the biggest misconceptions about Atheists. Religous people (and others) are under this mis-apprehension that Atheists are absolutely certain there is no god, and cannot be swayed in their opinion, just as the religious faithful cannot be swayed.
But that is simply not the case, and any sensible Atheists will happily chance their mind and believe in a god or gods is there is some decent evidence put forth. But of course, there is never any evidence put forth, not even the slightest bit, we are bombarded with calls to just take it on faith.
Some Agnostics of course, simply don't give a shit, and have never really given it any thought. But of course, being intelligent and educated humans, everyone automatically weights up things based on evidence even if they don't realise they are doing it.

But the serious religious people of course claim that they do absolutely know. They have "felt it", god has spoken to them, they know it to be true. And they will fight tooth and nail and try to manipulate society, politics, and education if they have to to ensure it stays that way, and that YOU believe it too!

So what's the difference between the Atheist and Agnostic? Well, there are more opinions than you can poke a stick it, but basically, they are the same in that they both don't believe in a god ( or deem it to be seriously unlikely) simply because no evidence has been put forth for it.
The difference with an Atheist however is that they a bit more outspoken about it. They like to call out the bullshit for what it almost certainly is, rather than just fence sit and not try to offend anyone.

If religion wasn't so pervasive and more importantly so persuasive in our society, then there would be no need for Atheists. Everyone would just be agnostic on the issue  and barely care at all, like they do with flying teatpots, pink unicorns, and people who believe alien abductions and that Elvis is still alive. And that's the difference when religious people claim Atheism is just another a "religion" too! It's not of course, active Atheism would disappear tomorrow if religion no longer had any influence in society.

But because religious people are in our face at every turn, trying to impose morals on us, trying to convert us, trying to teach it to our kids in schools, influencing our politicians, sticking a bible in every hotel room etc, people have started to differentiate themselves and call themselves Atheists to really separate themselves from this nonsense.

Dave.

[free_electron]

it's INVISIBLE pink unicorns...
And elvis isn't dead .. he just went home.. Haven't you watched Men In black ?

Favorite quote :
Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow...

[bullet308]

Ah, but that is the phrase that can occasionally be quite problematic: sensible atheists. I have known plenty of them, as I have also known quite a few sensible theists, but as is so often the case on the theist side, the not-so-sensible atheists can be the loudest and most obnoxious of the lot. In my limited personal experience, its the preacher's kid atheists than are the worst. "I was raised in a bullshit-filled, two-faced religious household, ergo God does not exist, and BTW my daddy the preacher sucks!"  Its an ugly dynamic you have to see at close range to fully appreciate.

Or the avowed atheist on National Public Radio who was taped explaining  to his son young his vision of what happens to us after we die. Now, this is one of those toughies that religion really makes a lot easier and I didn't particularly envy him his task, but the bubbly, cheerful, almost *gleeful* way he described the corpse decomposing and being eaten by worms was pretty appalling, even if that is the literal truth of the matter. Truly the stuff of nightmares for, say, a seven-year old.  The phrase "age-appropriateness" leaps to mind.

A representative sampling? No, not at all, but those outliers are indeed out there, mucking things up for the rest of them.

And yes, the term agnostic can have a bazillion different interpretations, some of them implying a thoughtless disregard for these questions. That is why, in lieu of any other label being handy, I will go with Fundamentalist Agnostic. I have really put a lot of thought into it, and have decided that, per Neil Peart, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".  :-)

[Mechatrommer]

i watched that biological guy's video. he differentiated (iirc he quoted darwin), agnostics is not certain god exists until proven or disproven. but atheists are people who certain god does not exist, a fanatic type guys of agnostics.

[Mechatrommer]

But that is simply not the case, and any sensible Atheists will happily chance their mind and believe in a god or gods is there is some decent evidence put forth. But of course, there is never any evidence put forth, not even the slightest bit, we are bombarded with calls to just take it on faith.

so i guess thats the wrong kind of "brute force" bullshit calls? you havent met people with holy water yet.

i'm rephrasing the book using my on word (its maybe the wrong way and i'm no way expert) which i believe easier to comprehend, and i'm not going to persuade you
the evidents are everywhere, the trees and its fruits, the water you drink and in the sea, the sky the animals everything, esp the harmony of the universe's law. but of course the evidence can be twisted to means different thing. and the way we approach things has been changed since. furthermore, it has been claimed by science in the form of mathematical equations and theories. so human claim its their law, not nature's or god's law

if evolution is not relating to intelligence as the clock video earlier said, then what is the intelligence that governs the universe? why dont everyday commet crash and killing our neighboor? and why ever "intelligence and conciousness" do exist at all? why intelligent needs to exist in order nature to exist? even if it is, why the intelligent need to be concious? (us). US (not USA) is the very evidence. but as said, it depends on your point of view.

and is it possible in the end. through the marvellous of "evolution of nature" that one day... "another" God will be evolved?

[BravoV]

.. rather they will be transported to heaven to have sex with 72 virgins.

Well, I wouldn't mind about the sex though, its just I hate to be "stiffen" eternally, it will be very-very annoying -> http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

Quote :
...every male admitted into Paradise will be given "eternal erections" and wed to 72 wives, all with libidinous sex organs..... 

PS :
This fun thread should be stickied don't you think ?

[EEVblog]

i'm rephrasing the book using my on word (its maybe the wrong way and i'm no way expert) which i believe easier to comprehend, and i'm not going to persuade you
the evidents are everywhere, the trees and its fruits, the water you drink and in the sea, the sky the animals everything, esp the harmony of the universe's law. but of course the evidence can be twisted to means different thing. and the way we approach things has been changed since. furthermore, it has been claimed by science in the form of mathematical equations and theories. so human claim its their law, not nature's or god's law

And for very good reason. Science is the only thing that has served us well enough to advance our species beyond living in caves with the other animals. And all of science points toward the big bang and all it entails, and evolution et.al
If a god or gods had a hand in it, it was before all that, and hasn't touched it since.
To claim anything else puts one into either the batshit ignorant or batshit crazy camp, you chose!

if evolution is not relating to intelligence as the clock video earlier said, then what is the intelligence that governs the universe? why dont everyday commet crash and killing our neighboor?

Are you serious?

and why ever "intelligence and conciousness" do exist at all? why intelligent needs to exist in order nature to exist? even if it is, why the intelligent need to be concious? (us). US (not USA) is the very evidence. but as said, it depends on your point of view. (Dave's emphasis)

Only for those ignorant or unaccepting of the progress and results of science in these areas.

And if you want to have philosophical arguments about the WHY, go ahead, it has absolutely nothing to do with god or religion and is proof of absolutely nothing.
Yet another common religious mistake along the lines of "science can't explain why", so "god did it". Just more god of the gaps rubbish

Dave.

[Kremmen]

[...]
And if you want to have philosophical arguments about the WHY, go ahead, it has absolutely nothing to do with god or religion and is proof of absolutely nothing.
Yet another common religious mistake along the lines of "science can't explain why", so "god did it". Just more god of the gaps rubbish

Dave.

There are 2 "why"s and it is very important to be able to distinguish between them.
The answer to the first kind of "why" is an answer to the aim or purpose of something happening. It is intentional and must always have an (intelligent/conscious) agent (the one performing the action for some purpose).
The answer to the second kind of "why" is an answer to the cause and effect of a chain of events. No intention is assumed and the root cause does not have to be an animated agent.

Science answers and seeks knowledge only for the second kind of why's. Religion seeks answers to the first kind. When the distinction is not made or not understood, confusion is guaranteed.

[bullet308]

Part of me is inclined to say that the entire God question is truly unknowable (and essentially unaskable)  by us simply because He would be operating on a level that we cannot comprehend. Or, at least, can comprehend only with great difficulty and science and mathematics far beyond ours.

(Dont you love how theists say that "God works in mysterious ways", and then they proceed to tell us exactly what He is doing, why He is doing it and what He wants? Isn't it cute? As if they think He would be obligated to operate by any rules that are comprehensible to us. )

Lets push out a bit, to the bounds set by our current understanding of physical cosmology...the possibility of many, many concurrent universes. Perhaps each is kicked off with slightly different starting conditions, a vast-beyond-comprehension science experiment, if you will. This one gets us baryonic matter, a merciful shortage of antimatter, etc, etc, so we (or indeed pretty much anything we recognize as real) get to exist. Yay! Success! Well, by our standards, sure, but by His...who knows?

Or, on a bit smaller and more personal scale, evolutionary biology...are we but mere lumps of matter that have coalesced in a certain way because of cosmic starting conditions and random chance? Who the hell are WE to apply the label "mere" to such a process? Just what does "random" mean in the context of a Creator? Our puny minds may associate such things with a poverty-inducing trip to Las Vegas, but this all could be the most fantastical quantum chaos-powered science lab in all of Creation!

Or, not.

Its fun to kick stuff around like this, until people delude themselves into thinking they have the answers. Then, it can get decidedly non-fun...