|
|
 |
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:07 AM I've been feeling for an awfully long while now that Atheism is shite. Why, why why why is there a reason to declare a non-position?
Also, why give any credence to the establishments that are being declared worthless?
It's kind of like having an Anarchist political party.
Declaring oneself an atheist is having a position on spirituality, and that's just wrong. There is nothing worthwhile or logical about spirituality. It's inherently worthless. Even as one may admit to the feelings of there being more to life than we currently understand, trying to encapsulate the intangible (even almost by even naming it: spirituality) is the undertaking of the Lunatic Architects! Yes of course there are many many religious people in the world. And it gets tiring to constantly explain your position so you sum it up. But explain? How can one explain where they are on earth to people believing it's flat? There is no need for atheism. It is at best a bore and at worst a disingenuous attempt to fray away the religious cord. All declarations of atheism are bad energy. The end. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:19 AM Declaring oneself an atheist is having a position on spirituality, and that's just wrong. I agree completely. Athiesm is as much a religion as Christianity and Islam - it's just one without any gods.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Queen TortillaFactory |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Edited Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:37 AM I both agree and disagree with you, MJF. Spirituality is not inherently worthless, but declarations of atheism are shite. Still, it's a bit like declaring that "have a nice day" or "how are you?" is fake - it is, but we're going to keep using it because it's convenient and widely accepted. —Queen TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:40 AM Somehow I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with MJ's words but not their meaning. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:44 AM Actually it makes perfect sense. MJ is saying that a declaration of atheism is shite because it's taking a position on religion and religion is inherently worthless. You're saying that a declaration of atheism is shite because you get offended when people attack religion and, to you, a declaration of atheism is tantamount to an attack on religion. Quite different things those. Or am I completely misunderstanding you both?
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Queen TortillaFactory |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 10:48 AM a nobody, I know you're still sore about my getting sick of you and leaving the hub that night, but let's get a few things clear. I don't get upset when people attack religion, I get upset when people keep ramming the same tired, annoying arguments down my throat and don't listen to what I'm saying. I don't have to subscribe to the tenets of pure Atheism to understand what they amount to. While I don't agree that religion is worthless, I agree that those who believe it, such as MJF, shouldn't have to declare an anti-religion. It amounts to the same thing as declaring a religion. On this, the salient point of his argument, we agree. Whether or not we're coming from the same ontological place is irrelevant. —Queen TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Edited Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 11:21 AM ontological! i've never seen that word before. i wonder what it means? okay, i had seen it before. but i didn't know what it meant. and what is the worth of spirituality? anobody, you are saying a lot but not adding anything. please destroy one of your contradicting paradigms. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 11:42 AM I dont know where I stand on this argument - here are my beliefs so maybe somebody can tell me where I stand.
I dont believe in God or any of that religeous stuff (so much so I can never spell the R word), I believe it is a fairy story that has grown out of proportion like chinese whispers.
I believe you are born and what you do in your life is mainly about what YOU do. Then you die and that's it. No afterlife, no reincarnation just nothing - yep it means life is pointless get over it.
Not sure I believe in Karma either but I would like to think it had some basis as it seems more pure to me.
One thing I think about is this - Imagine if a top quality slight of hand magician were intent upon fooling people who did not have access to the things we now know - You would believe they were other wordly and that would certainly lead tgo some far fetched stories - imagine how they would sound 100 years later let alone 2000 years.
—AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 12:39 PM Athiesm is as much a religion as Christianity and Islam - it's just one without any gods. —anobody I would make a distinction between "religion" and "belief". Christianity is a religion, with many beliefs, rituals, etc.; theism is a belief (incidentally one that is a part of Christianity). The opposite of theism, atheism, would also be a belief, and not a religion. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Queen TortillaFactory |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 1:19 PM Laith, while you have a point, I think ultimately the distinction is superficial. The need to declare a stance on God at all has its roots in religion, and the only way to completely reject all religion is to refuse to declare a stance at all. But this is idealistic at best (my point, earlier) since religion is embedded in our world culture for one reason or another, and there needs to be some way to declare one's nonbelief in God. —Queen TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 2:07 PM I see little difference between hardcore atheists and hardcore christians. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 3:25 PM
Edited Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 3:32 PM The need to declare a stance on God at all has its roots in religion, In a world where 97% claim to believe in some god some wouild say there is a need to declare it. There are communitis/countries in the world where one of the first questions they ask you is "what church do you go to?" You can split hairs 'til the cows come home--someone could say that MF'er declaring that you shouldn't have to delcare is a declaration itself. Look I just did. I see little difference between hardcore atheists and hardcore christians. —mandeemoo22 If you mean that they both have the need to force god or a lack of one down everyone's throat constantly, then I agree. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 4:00 PM ^ i think both hXc atheists and christians can be forceful when it comes to conversion/displaying their point. but when christians are forceful it's usually condemning gays/sexually active/atheists/everyone. and when atheists are being forceful it's when others are being racist/judgemental/hurtful.
i have a problem with some of my hXc liberal/democratic friends because where as most republicans/heavily religious people are always wanting to be your friends and are happy people [think mormons].
i have liberal friends that are mad/disappointed/confused about me having a really good friend that happens to be republican, and vocal about his choices. i feel nothing wrong with the friendship. sure we disagree sometimes but that doesn't affect my view of him. he is pro-same sex marraige and abortion. that's all that matters to me. one of my best friends won't even go near him because he would vote republican, it's really a shame that someone who claims to be open and unjudging can judge a republican, but not a gay. she just doesn't seem to understand. it sucks. —lexieho |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 4:12 PM
Edited Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 4:15 PM If you mean that they both have the need to force god or a lack of one down everyone's throat constantly, then I agree. This is what I mean. Both are saying that their own views are correct without any consideration for others'. I'm a pretty radical liberal and so are most of my friends, but I've found that many of the radical lefties can be incredibly condescending and judgemental just as those on the other side of the scale, albeit in different ways. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
foob2011 |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 4:18 PM If anyone wants a perfect example of a rabit atheist basing his claims in science, read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion."
I can understand some of his points, but, frankly, he is a massive dick about them. He is just as much a dick as the hardcore christians. Honestly, I'm not concerned with trying to find a truth that works for everyone, I'm just trying to find my own. That is why people from any side of things just try to ram their beliefs down your throat as if they themselves are omnipotent and omnicient.
However, if you would like an interesting analogy on the attempts to put various systems of thought in conversation with each other, I recommend "Flatland." —foob2011 |
|
|
|
|
Ganthet |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 4:41 PM
Edited Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 4:42 PM Honestly, I'm not concerned with trying to find a truth that works for everyone, I'm just trying to find my own. That is why people from any side of things just try to ram their beliefs down your throat as if they themselves are omnipotent and omnicient. - foob2011 If there is some sort of deity out there, it's almost certain that he/she/it isn't just there for you. Your argument is basically the same as someone saying that you don't know if the laws of physics exist, but you want to just try and live by your own laws of physics. That's the problem with all this individualistic crap left over from the Protestants - by definition, truth CAN'T be truth if it is only true for you. If Hinduism is "true" for one person and Islam is "true" for another, they can't both be right. Given the many gods in Hinduism and Islam's strict monotheism, either one is right or they're both wrong. —Ganthet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 6:46 PM I know you're still sore about my getting sick of you and leaving the hub that night Yes Liz, that's exactly what I was talking about. I've been known to hold grudges for decades at a time. I don't get upset when people attack religion, I get upset when people keep ramming the same tired, annoying arguments down my throat and don't listen to what I'm saying. As long as you brought up that conversation - I never made any sort of argument against religion. All I did was tell you my religious prostitute story, and explain that that pushed me over the edge from giving religious people the benefit of a doubt. Then, as I recall, you left in a bit of a huff because (roughly in your words) you hated it when people attack religion (I'm sure Kevin or Plurry could pull the transcript if you don't believe me). Or are you saying that you've heard so many people talk about religious prostitution that you were specifically sick of that tired old argument? Seems unlikely. I don't have to subscribe to the tenets of pure Atheism to understand what they amount to Why would anyone think you would? Do you have to subscribe to the tenets of Islam to understand what they amount to? On this, the salient point of his argument, we agree Well... I guess I've gotta take your words at face value. It sounds like you did agree with the meaning as well as the words (though I must confess that I still slightly suspect that that's not what you were originally thinking; since I'm not a mind reader, I've obviously got no ground to stand on for that argument). The opposite of theism, atheism, would also be a belief, and not a religion According to my dictionary, one of the definitions of religion is just the details of belief as taught or discussed. Still, you make a good point I do agree with you in principal. On the other hand, I'd lean slightly more toward agreeing with Liz's counter. In a world where 97% claim to believe in some god some wouild say there is a need to declare it On the extremely rare occasion it comes up in conversation, I usually just answer that I don't have a religion. Unfortunately that usually leads to a long line of questions and explanation. Calling yourself an atheist will at least let you avoid that discussion (although, either way, if you say them to the wrong person, you can end up the victim of a long session of proselytizing). I've found that many of the radical lefties can be incredibly condescending and judgemental just as those on the other side of the scale, albeit in different ways Yeah - the radical left and the radical right are, in many ways, closer to each other than to those in the middle. He [Richard Dawkins] is just as much a dick as the hardcore christians Eh.... the main reason I'd disagree with you here is that he's actually got reasonable empirical and rational arguments to back up his positions. Religion ultimately has to resort to dogma and insists that you believe some patently ridiculous things.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Had To Get It On |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 6:55 PM I'm at the point where I don't see how being contradictory, redundant or fervent about your beliefs is any better or worse than whatever I believe. —Had To Get It On |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 7:15 PM to quote bjork "for the longest time i thought myself as atheist, but as i grew and became wiser i realized that the thing that i believe in and have the strongest connection with is nature" [semi-paraphrased] —lexieho |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 7:48 PM I'm at the point where I don't see how being contradictory, redundant or fervent about your beliefs is any better or worse than whatever I believe. Yeah I totally see your point. Nothing wrong with believing in celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters and invisible men in the sky who will send you to a horrible burning place to suffer forever if you do anything on their list of ten no-nos - but they love you. Nothing at all wrong with thumbing your nose at mounds of evidence and believing that the world is 6000 years old because of some half-assed interpretation of an old book. Certainly nothing wrong with spewing such nonsense at the top of your lungs and trying to force your fairy tales to be taught to impressionable children in school. That's all exactly the same as teaching historical facts and well tested scientific theories.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 11:19 PM
Edited Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 11:20 PM Everyone loves science/indor plumbing until it starts fucking with the fairy tales that they get told every weekend. Believing in god is akin to believing in Santa minus some history. Your parents told you all about Santa and it turned out to be a lie, but they're right about the all knowing sometimes malevolent but mostly ambivalent skygod? I think it's more likely I'll meet a real live Jedi someday before I meet "my maker." HOWEVER--as long as you keep it out of my life/school/government I don't give a shit what lies you tell yourself on Sunday (or Saturday) to keep yourself sane. I might even fake an Amen for my mom to make her feel good from time to time. I don't feel the need to declare a team, but I do like making fun of god as a concept. It's one of the few things I have in this miserable life I have created for myself. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
Stryker311 |
+ |
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 11:57 PM I think it's more likely I'll meet a real live Jedi someday before I meet "my maker."
What do you believe created life then? Big Bang? —Stryker311 |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Edited Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 12:24 AM Am I supposed to say god here? All I have to say is the good book gives us Adam and Eve 5k years ago and their mega life-spans and a whole bunch of incest begatting more incest. Science gives me a big bang theory (theory means it could be wrong and accepts attempts to prove it wrong) and single celled organisms and evolution and a fossil record and shit I don't even know about because I'm not a science student, plus the promise of more discovery. I know where I'm placing my bets. 300 clams on the Jedi. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 2:30 AM I dont know where I stand on this argument - here are my beliefs so maybe somebody can tell me where I stand.
I dont believe in God or any of that religeous stuff (so much so I can never spell the R word), I believe it is a fairy story that has grown out of proportion like chinese whispers.
I believe you are born and what you do in your life is mainly about what YOU do. Then you die and that's it. No afterlife, no reincarnation just nothing - yep it means life is pointless get over it.
Not sure I believe in Karma either but I would like to think it had some basis as it seems more pure to me.
One thing I think about is this - Imagine if a top quality slight of hand magician were intent upon fooling people who did not have access to the things we now know - You would believe they were other wordly and that would certainly lead tgo some far fetched stories - imagine how they would sound 100 years later let alone 2000 years. —AceRockollaisAce luv the chinese whispers bit. never seen you so eloquent son. the karma stuff is your hope clouding your intellect but half a sweet post ain't bad. You can split hairs 'til the cows come home--someone could say that MF'er declaring that you shouldn't have to delcare is a declaration itself. Look I just did. —bguirk A statement is quite different to a philosophy or a lifestyle. Declare I'm out then I'm out. I don't stay in by aligning myself. I don't have one more thing to remember to put on in the morning. Believing in nature, what does that even mean? Right so atheism is soft because it is a pretence of clear thinking and confrontation of entrenched folklore. It really is just another position in that pantheon. The hardcore position is to disregard everyone's beliefs, including your own. The religious don't believe what they say they believe and the atheists don't believe their line either. Espousing that would ultimately result in some kind of resolution which is defeating to the in-out economy of living we're all stuck in. Work all week, spend all your money on the weekend. So to clarify.
Atheists "I don't believe in God"
A better position "You don't believe in God"
All the while apart from the anger and stuff that people like Richard Dawkins and Derryn Hinch bristle with. Be calm, never bring it up. Others get ridiculous then tell them what they are, curtly and quietly. Then things move on. Only absolute psychos kick shit up after such action and you don't want to hang around with such people. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 3:42 AM
Edited Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 3:44 AM It might be worth all those who believe the earth is 5 - 6000 years old to read Bill Brysons - A Short History of Nearly Everything - No attempt to present sham arguments just simple scientific fact as we understand it including how it all began - I have not finishd reading it yet but I cant wait for the upcoming chapters of Adam & Eve and all the sex they had - And I want to know how old Noah built that big boat - and how he got all those animals and what he fed them on (did he take spare deer to feed the Lions/Tigers etc?) how he caught all those animals. I cant wait. I like to imagine God my father and saviour impregnating the local village slut and her claiming to be a virgin even though she was married and the silly old husband obviously was getting none and believed her. Then the son who was a good magician fooled all the people so much so that he must have seemed like a witch (before we invented witches) and so he was stuck up on a cross to die for all our sins.
I bet old God was sat up on his fluffy cloud for that one thinking should he let his Son suffer or as the wonderful super father that he was should he start some kind of storm to wash all the bad people away and then sneak down and let his son down - But I guess he thought fuck it, he can always find another village slut to impregnate, Britney Spears for one was going to be free in a couple of thousand years but whats a couple of thousand years when you are gonna live for ever.
He was going to save us all but in the mean time he let us invent guns so that we could kill each other better and quicker than those old knives and spears - then he thought AIDS might be fun. Anyway why do I care MF called me son and said I did a half decent post! —AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
Had To Get It On |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 4:40 AM That's all exactly the same as teaching historical facts and well tested scientific theories. Maybe you need to read what I wrote more carefully. Because what you're implying is not at all what I said. —Had To Get It On |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 8:20 AM Maybe you need to read what I wrote more carefully. Because what you're implying is not at all what I said. Well.... I'm at the point where I don't see how being contradictory, redundant or fervent about your beliefs is any better or worse than whatever I believe. I guess you were just making fun of the religious? I hope that's it. So hard to tell without nonverbal cues. I thought that was a possibility when I first read your post but couldn't tell and didn't give you the benefit of the doubt because it gave me a chance to blow hard. Taking your post at face value though, I think my response was completely appropriate.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Had To Get It On |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 7:12 PM I'm not making fun of anyone. In and of itself, a belief system is not good or bad, not inherently superior or inferior to another believe system. —Had To Get It On |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 8:56 PM That's patently and provably wrong. Lets just say that I believe that the sky is pink and that there's a secret world government run by cute and fluffy telekinetic bunnies who pit us against each other using the Pied Piper's flute in order to play out their global Stratego game - the stakes of which are possession of a single crystal of Tinker Bell's pixy dust, which, on winning, they will hand over to Bogart in Casablanca in exchange for the letters of transit. So you're saying that my belief system is neither good nor bad, and that it's no better or worse than something less.... insane. I see your point.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 9:45 PM Now I'M offended, anobody. How DARE you use my beliefs as a negative example. Kiss my ass, dickhead. —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 12:58 AM My belief is simple - computers are bastards and will only go wrong when you finally trust them enough to put everything important on them and then forget to back those things up. —AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
catloaf |
+ |
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 3:33 AM Puff-puff, pass, yo. —catloaf |
|
|
|
|
Queen TortillaFactory |
+ |
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Edited Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 10:50 AM Puff-puff, pass, yo. This is the best one-line summary of any thread, ever. a nobody, I'm only responding because I know otherwise you'll think you've won. Believe it or not, yeah, I have heard the argument of religious hypocrisy ten million times and I'm sick of it. Just because not everyone's who they say they are doesn't invalidate an entire belief system. Just because some people use underhanded tactics to achieve their ends doesn't mean everyone does. This is the second time you've completely missed the point of what I've said and then declared that I must be backpedaling; has it ever occured to you that you're dense and wrong? I have to side with ZT on this one, arguing with you is a huge fucking waste of time. —Queen TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
Had To Get It On |
+ |
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 2:59 PM If you think the sky is pink you're wrong. If you think 1+1=3 you're wrong. What does that have to do with faith? Even if that is your faith, so what? —Had To Get It On |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Edited Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 5:47 PM otherwise you'll think you've won Hardly. I have heard the argument of religious hypocrisy ten million times Shocking. You know - I don't think I was actually making that argument (though I do think it's valid). Just because not everyone's who they say they are doesn't invalidate an entire belief system. I agree completely. Just because some people use underhanded tactics to achieve their ends doesn't mean everyone does Quite. This is the second time you've completely missed the point of what I've said and then declared that I must be backpedaling; When did I say you were backpedaling? Where did I even imply it? WTF? has it ever occurred to you that you're dense and wrong? Of course the possibility has occurred to me. However, I don't believe that's the case here. arguing with you is a huge fucking waste of time. Then don't. Of course, I could argue that it's an even bigger waste of time when you start bringing up things I never said (like backpedaling and religious hypocrisy) If you think the sky is pink you're wrong. If you think 1+1=3 you're wrong. Exactly. What does that have to do with faith? Everything. From my perspective, there's not much difference between believing in that and believing in FSM, the Christian God, Allah, The Great Spirit, or Brahman. Even if that is your faith, so what? If you keep it to yourself and don't make stupid decisions based on it, not much, I guess (other than just believing something that's not supported by the facts - which doesn't exactly seem like a good thing to me). The real problem is that people have a tendency to try to foist their beliefs on others, indoctrinate their kids into their superstitions, and, on occasion, kill themselves and others because of their beliefs. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
Stryker311 |
+ |
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 11:32 PM anobody, your analogy doesn't really work, you can't factually PROVE any belief or religion, because that's what it is, a belief. The person believes it. No one really BELIEVES the sky is pink, because they know that's not true. They might say it, but they don't believe it. The only exception being someone mentally imbalanced. You can prove the sky isn't pink, you can't prove there isn't a God. I like to imagine God my father and saviour impregnating the local village slut and her claiming to be a virgin even though she was married and the silly old husband obviously was getting none and believed her. Then the son who was a good magician fooled all the people so much so that he must have seemed like a witch (before we invented witches) and so he was stuck up on a cross to die for all our sins.
I bet old God was sat up on his fluffy cloud for that one thinking should he let his Son suffer or as the wonderful super father that he was should he start some kind of storm to wash all the bad people away and then sneak down and let his son down - But I guess he thought fuck it, he can always find another village slut to impregnate, Britney Spears for one was going to be free in a couple of thousand years but whats a couple of thousand years when you are gonna live for ever.
He was going to save us all but in the mean time he let us invent guns so that we could kill each other better and quicker than those old knives and spears - then he thought AIDS might be fun. ace, as a quiet Lutheran, who doesn't share my beliefs and opinions with anyone so no one has a right to bash me, I find that to be pretty offensive. —Stryker311 |
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Friday, December 8, 2006 at 12:24 AM ace, as a quiet Lutheran, who doesn't share my beliefs and opinions with anyone so no one has a right to bash me, I find that to be pretty offensive. Fez of Ron and Fez fame is a Lutheran - according to Ron he believes in Luther Vandross - That seems as good a choice of religeous leader as any!
As for finding me offensive that's fine I'm an equal opportunities offensor - I am happy to offend everybody equally - You hear that Kike, Nigga, Jew, Whitey, Slant Eye etc etc Oh and I have seen pink skys - therefore they do exist and it is perfectly possible to take a picture of such a sky therefore providing proof. OK so the sky is usually a different colour but it does occasionally go pink. —AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Friday, December 8, 2006 at 12:25 AM No one really BELIEVES the sky is pink, because they know that's not true. They might say it, but they don't believe it. The only exception being someone mentally imbalanced. Dam my secret is out —AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Friday, December 8, 2006 at 9:19 AM you can't factually PROVE any belief or religion, because that's what it is, a belief You can't factually prove or disprove the existence of God (almost by design). You sure as hell can prove or disprove some beliefs held by religious people - many of which are as absurd as thinking that the sky is pink. Think about bible literalists - people who think that the world is less than 10k years old. There are mounds of evidence that show that's patently false. Unless you also believe that God is deliberately misleading people (to what end, I'll leave that up to the person believing in the fairy tales to explain). Take the whole evolution vs creation 'debate'. Evolution is directly observable. You don't have to go back into the fossil records to see it (though there's plenty of evidence for it there). You don't have to look at differences in DNA sequences between species to divine that they had common ancestors, and roughly where those appeared in the phylogenetic tree (though there's also plenty of evidence for it there). You don't even have to look at things like the peppered moth, in which evolution was quite observable. Take a nutrient broth tube full of bacteria that are susceptible to an antibiotic. Expose them to a small amount of the antibiotic (and, if you're impatient, a mutagenic chemical or radiation). Lather, rinse, repeat, and up the dosage. Magically you end up with a nutrient broth tube full of bacteria that are all resistant to the antibiotic. Or look at your immune system. You have these things called B and T cells. Each of them has a specific receptor that fits specific antigens (think E. coli or Influenza). If you get exposed to an antigen, your B and T cells respond. You've got a ton of different ones with different receptors. Some of those will match the antigen reasonably well. They get stimulated, multiply, and deliberately mutate their receptors. Now you've got a bunch of B/T cells with receptors that all kinda match the antigen - some better and some worse. They get exposed to it, and the ones that match better multiply while the ones that don't die off or just hang around. So every time you get sick, that's evolution at work. Of course, the creationists like to redefine the argument to make it less falsifiable. They make up things like micro vs macro evolution, or push creation back to the big bang. That makes their beliefs a little more bullet proof. Still, there's one simple argument that makes even that questionable. At the beginning of the Universe, you want to explain how everything got started. Now, modern physics says that there was a big bang, and doesn't really know what came before that. People like to stick God in before it as the first cause. So, rather than accepting that they don't know the answer to how the universe started, they're throwing in a supremely intelligent being, as complex as the universe itself, before the beginning. So then how did the first cause come into being? You're explaining one complex thing you don't understand with something even more complex and mysterious that just popped into existence. That doesn't disprove the existence of God, but it does seem to make it more questionable. When you think about it, God's almost an answer in search of a question. Of course, Hindus even get around that by saying that the first cause, Brahman, is beyond existence and nonexistence, beyond time, beyond reason. Accept that kinda stuff and you've got yourself a religion that science can't even hope to question. Another way around it is to just assume that the God who created our universe is a member of a civilization so much more advanced than we are that they can create entire universes at will. That doesn't explain how they came into being, but it does beg the question - why should you worship someone who, by luck, ended up in a godly civilization? ace, as a quiet Lutheran, who doesn't share my beliefs and opinions with anyone so no one has a right to bash me, I find that to be pretty offensive. I don't quite get what you're saying there, or why you think he was specifically bashing you.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Stryker311 |
+ |
Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 2:10 AM anobody, some of your posts make me want to punch a baby. then cry (and not because I just maimed a baby) grey how do you deal with the pain that is reading anobody's posts. —Stryker311 |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 2:16 AM grey how do you deal with the pain that is reading anobody's posts. Uh, I don't. There is nothing anobody could write about that would alter my experience on TLC. I use the scroll thingy on my mouse and just move on. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 8:25 AM some of your posts make me want to punch a baby. then cry (and not because I just maimed a baby) It happens.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 10:29 PM Stryker, honey, some of your posts make me want to go half on a baby with you! —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|