Ye Religion Thread

[Robot]

That's not an assumption, it's a logical conclusion

so is belief in god.

Not when you consider what logical means.

[Whirlingdervish]

By fewer assumptions, I mean that all I have to assume to support the theory that the universe does not need a god, is that science, which has managed to uncover the truth of many many MANY things, is a logical process of making theories based on EVIDENCE. I don't even need to assume that science "works" because that has been demonstrated repeatedly.

You can't call scientific theories "assumptions" just because you don't understand how they all work and you didn't see the evidence first hand. They aren't "FACT", but they are much more TRUE than the "FEELINGS" of people that there must be a god, as they are based on recorded observations instead of people's egocentric idiocy and ridiculous archaic superstitions.


NOTHING IS PROVEN ABSOLUTELY.

and GOD is much more UNLIKELY than a universe that doesn't need a superbeing of infinite complexity.

If god is so incredibly complicated and incomprehensible, you've just added 2 more assumptions to your theory.
mine still has 1.

2 > 1, and now you apply occams razor which states that the simplest theory is most often the correct one.

a theory with one assumption is simpler than a theory with 2, so it is more probable that it is the correct theory.

see how this works?

[metaL]

1) the earth and human life are to perfect to have appeared by natural phenomenon.
2) there appears to be a natural feeling that there is some type of supernatural force
3) there is no scientific explanations as to why things are the way they are, perfect and balanced, i.e, evolution, and other scientific theories are not accounting for the human perception of life's wonder, harmony, etc.

REAPER. I believe in God, and none of these are true, NOR do they make for good grounds in an argument with an atheist! 

I believe that too many people here are under the impression that science rules out any possibility of a creator, and visa versa. 

[jägermonsta]

I believe that too many people here are under the impression that science rules out any possibility of a creator, and visa versa. 

Good point. Ok delete this whole thread, all pointless talk. 

[metaL]

haha

[Whirlingdervish]

I don't feel that science invalidates all religion or people's need to feel like they are special.


I do think that the answers science has provided us with are much more plausible and possible than those that any religion has given us, so far.



I think there is a mistaken assumption among religiously inclined people that GOD created religions and thus, by association, those religions are infallible.

Unfortunately this is UNTRUE. People create religions.

If people were to come up with a religion that doesn't make a huge number of assinine assumptions that can't be proven, and which doesn't try to prove it's points by relying on the existence of an invisible mythological construct, I might give it the benefit of the doubt.

[DaHanG]

1) the earth and human life are to perfect to have appeared by natural phenomenon.
2) there appears to be a natural feeling that there is some type of supernatural force
3) there is no scientific explanations as to why things are the way they are, perfect and balanced, i.e, evolution, and other scientific theories are not accounting for the human perception of life's wonder, harmony, etc.

none of these are true

 

[metaL]

notice whirling i didn't say religion. 

[reaper]

2 > 1, and now you apply occams razor which states that the simplest theory is most often the correct one.

a theory with one assumption is simpler than a theory with 2, so it is more probable that it is the correct theory.

I guess you're talking about your own theory, that there is no need for a god, and everything is going to be explained by semi-familiar natural phenomenon.

[DaHanG]

2 > 1, and now you apply occams razor which states that the simplest theory is most often the correct one.

a theory with one assumption is simpler than a theory with 2, so it is more probable that it is the correct theory.

That's simply not how that scientific principle works.

In a sense it is, it's intellectual honesty. I suppose a better name for it may be a logical principle.

 

[Whirlingdervish]

 

Metal, I just didn't feel like stating this again:

I don't find the need for a creator to be very plausible, due to the current state of the universe (it's self sufficient.. there is no hand turning the world) and the repeated observations that it is completely devoid of signs that it has ever been tampered with by any kind of god or creator or flying spaghetti monster.

[Whirlingdervish]

I guess you're talking about your own theory, that there is no need for a god, and everything is going to be explained by semi-familiar natural phenomenon.

[metaL]

THUS IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT NEED A GOD TO EXIST.

I agree!

[ReCycled]

It's funny how "Science" is treated as some form of alternate thinking. Science is merely the study of reality. It has no agenda. I don't think there was some kind of mischievious thought process at work in the 1800's by people to say "let's take monkies and make them the source of all humans just to make the God-believers look foolish". It came from Darwin's observations on the Galapagos and has streamed back through millions of years of dinosaur bones and whatever, to the very beginnings of the planet in its raw state. And the evidence of this history and progression has massive amounts of evidence. And it still continues. I find all this to be more beautiful and wondrous than anything that religion can come up with.
I have no idea how molecules of elements can self-organize into a larger mass and be self-aware. As in any living thing. I can't conceive in my head a universe expanding into endless infinity because I'm not capable, but I believe it. Its observable and measurable.
 It seems some religious arguments simply avoid arguments around evidence and instead concentrate on intuition and a "grand design" acceptance.

I'm getting a headache....

[reaper]

I'm not saying I'm applying some "scientific principle". I'm saying that I'm applying a very specific scientific principle called "occam's razor" (which you should look up on google before replying again) which literally states that the simpler of two theories is probably correct.

I was familiar with Occam's razor, and I made it quite clear how you were wrong using that principle.