Ye Religion Thread

[Whirlingdervish]

I understand believers of god cannot say, look at this, look at all my evidence on this sheet of paper, but the other side is lacking similar evidence as well.

OK enough of that.

THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE SCALE.

Similar evidence? Like what? we don't have a big bang in a bottle for you to gawk at?

WELL WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR GOD AND WHY CANT I POKE HIM WITH A STICK TO PROVE HIS EXISTENCE???

If science lacks the answers to one question that we don't yet have the means to answer you seem to be saying that it isn't accurate enough for you and never will be.

yet you feel that religions, which have exactly 0 evidence of any of the claims that they make about a god, are somehow MORE accurate?

that's just fucking stupid, and no amount of arguing with you will change this.

[quadz]

quadz,
when there's a lot you don't know, how can you say for sure there is life on other planets?

Erhm... And how is it you interpreted my words, "overwhelming case for the liklihood of some forms of life on other planets" as a claim of certainty?

liklihood ≠ certainty

have you seen the life? have you heard it?

[jägermonsta]

and if there is im sure god put them there and planned for us to find out about them when it happens. 

[DaHanG]

you don't have enough information to say there should be no god, at least that's my opinion. 

In general, what could be enough information? Isn't the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for god the desired way of not believing (until evidence arrives)?

when science has a better explanation other than, "we are here by accident, but we do know it looks like an impossible stretch for form a universe that could have life like this - unless there is x,y, or z which we know nothing about".

Let me rephrase it so you don't misrepresent science. Science generally claims "We are improbable, and the way the universe formed appeared to as well been a very improbable event as we understand the big bang today. The anthropic principle may or may not account for this."

Even if humans are in the tragic position of not understanding everything at the deepest possible level, this in no way favors the existence of an invisible, intelligent agent guiding the universe.

 

then you need to know why the universe is there (maybe it just is, whatever is fine), and how it came about.

 

What!?!?!? What's the difference between asking why the universe is there and asking why God is there?

 

I understand believers of god cannot say, look at this, look at all my evidence on this sheet of paper,  but the other side is lacking similar evidence as well.

So you're saying that there's no evidence for or against god, therefore it's a 50/50 chance he exists? I don't quite understand this statement.

[{TNP}Dukie]

science, which changes it's mind about things as soon as the textbooks are printed, is no more reliable in predicting the beginning or the end of our existence as religion.

this is a stupid argument.

science is valuable when it comes to curing disease, making hdtv and curing my slice!

You idiots. 

[jägermonsta]

Thing is people believe in the God 'theory' because it was pretty much the first and very primitive explanation that existed on why/how we got here. It's been passed down for ages and people who don't do the research or are just plain to stubbern to think otherwise will always believe in it.

Lock this thread. 

[reaper]

Let me rephrase it so you don't misrepresent science. Science generally claims "We are improbable, and the way the universe formed appeared to as well been a very improbable event as we understand the big bang today. The anthropic principle may or may not account for this."

Even if humans are in the tragic position of not understanding everything at the deepest possible level, this in no way favors the existence of an invisible, intelligent agent guiding the universe.

I don't think there is scientific evidence for the existence of god.

[DaHanG]

I don't think there is scientific evidence for the existence of god.  Mainly I think god exists, because it feels natural, and the world seems perfected.

If you believe for an illogical personal reason, that's fine. Just stop acting like you can bring the fact that science doesn't know everything as a reasonable way to come to the belief that god exists. Science is interested in the observable, and there has not been one verifiable observation about god. This doesn't help your argument.

I was just pointing out the lack of evidence on your side.

Why point that out? I don't need evidence to discredit the existence of fairies either.

While you practically claim we know the answers to all things for - sure -.

I just basically said we DON'T know the answers to all things:

Even if humans are in the tragic position of not understanding everything at the deepest possible level, this in no way favors the existence of an invisible, intelligent agent guiding the universe.

 

There is only a complete lack of scientific explanation.  We do not know how things came about.  If we do not know how things came about, what do we really know?  Not a whole lot, we just know we have more to learn.

And this favors God's existence how?

i'm saying the case you make is not solid.  you are saying, I know god is extremely unlikely, because a natural explanation for all things, is in our grasp, and this explanation is probable.  but for your belief to be true x,y, or z have to be true, and you have no more of a legitmate basis to say that, then someone saying they believe in god, because of x,y, or z.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say.

You can put your case up against an argument for believing in god, but the evidence is not stronger. it's a matter of opinion, and not verifiable.  I don't think we have enough information to say something like "there are four ways we can avoid the problem of probabilities (to create similar life) at the big bang's inception, so it is likely one of these four theories are true".  There is much evidence against any of these theories that solve the mentioned probability problems.  Personally I think science has bitten off more that it can chew, and were going to be stuck for a while, at least as far as the questions we've been referring to.

There is 0 information about god, as there is for the flying spaghetti monster. This is not something to relish in.

[Whirlingdervish]

i'm saying the case you make is not solid.

[reaper]

There is 0 information about god, as there is for the flying spaghetti monster. This is not something to relish in.

if I consider life to genreally be good, personally I consider god to be good.

[quadz]

science, which changes it's mind about things as soon as the textbooks are printed is no more reliable in predicting the beginning or the end of our existence as religion.

O Rly?





Science did predict the beginning of our existence, and VERIFIED the predictions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

"Data from COBE showed a perfect fit between the black body curve predicted by big bang theory and that observed in the microwave background."

Name any religious creation story that comes anywhere near as close to matching real world observations.

[Robot]

DaHanG, it seems you people need to understand what natural selection is.  Natural selection is just the fact that organisms with unfavorable traits tend to die off and organisms with favorable traits will continue to live on.  What does this have to do with the the mechanism for the mutation of a bacterium that's exposed to antibiotics?  You expect me to believe it takes eons of "random mutations" by antibiotics (assuming you can prove that) occuring before there's antibiotic resistance?  That's easily disproved because antibiotic resistance can be done in a short time.  And the wikipedia article only talks about the fact that some bacteria are already resistant, while others aren't.

[Whirlingdervish]

the time isn't the determining factor in the case of bacterial mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance.

the things that matter in determining how long a certain type of bacteria will take to adapt in a positive manner to life threatening antibiotics are the vast number of individual bacteria, the incredible rate at which bacteria multiply, and the rate at which they are threatened with extinction.

the eons, were what it took to make multicelled organisms like humans. bacteria have been around since the dawn of life.

Mutations in bacteria occur at a greatly increased rate when compared to the rate of useful mutations in human beings because:

1: There are millions of times more individual bacteria on earth than humans.

2: They reproduce and die at a greatly increased pace when compared to the rate of reproduction and death of humans.

3: They are simple single celled creatures and one little change in their DNA has a greater chance of having a meaningful effect on the whole of their being, than if that same change occured in a multi-celled organism (like a human) where that errant cell could be allowed to die off without killing the organism.


so:

they live and reproduce faster = more chances to mutate in a given day.
they have only one cell = more chance that a bad mutation will kill the organism.
there are squillions of them = many more individual bacteria are subjected to situations every day, where their ability to survive in the face of insane challenges is tested.

these lead to an increased rate of useful mutation thru natural selection.

why you ask?

because the rate at which natural selection occurs is almost entirely controlled by the rate at which a creature is capable of useful mutation combined with the rate at which that creature reproduces and the rate at which it faces life ending situations where a useful mutation would keep them alive and no other who did not have it.


hows that for a crash course in why the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is faster than the evolution of a complex multicellular being with many more needs?

[quadz]

[[ Note: I see whirling beat me to the post.. oh well ]]

DaHanG, it seems you people need to understand what natural selection is.

[DaHanG]

DaHanG, it seems you people need to understand what natural selection is.  Natural selection is just the fact that organisms with unfavorable traits tend to die off and organisms with favorable traits will continue to live on.  What does this have to do with the the mechanism for the mutation of a bacterium that's exposed to antibiotics?  You expect me to believe it takes eons of "random mutations" by antibiotics (assuming you can prove that) occuring before there's antibiotic resistance?  That's easily disproved because antibiotic resistance can be done in a short time.  And the wikipedia article only talks about the fact that some bacteria are already resistant, while others aren't.

The person who puts "natural selection" or "random mutations" in quotes automatically needs to do more research.