Ye Religion Thread

[haunted]

"The bing bang and evolution are both paradigms that are falsifiable and testable, but as in most theories, are not proven in a mathematical sense."

That was the main point I was trying to make, I was just letting shit fly with the rest of the post (Unless you're a raging athiest lunatic, then it will all apply). I wasn't saying that the opposing side was different from any of my statements, I was just trying to say that you're wrong and I'm right.

[DaHanG]

nobody disagrees that theories are testable and falsifiable. however, at this point it's almost safe to say that evolution and the big bang are proven. realistically, the only new information that can come would be to simply refine these theories. some aspects of these theories may be incorrect, but the general idea will almost certainly not be thrown away for something entirely different. biblical theists have desperately tried to look for evidence of creationism (poof! here you are adam and eve.) and a universe that's 10,000 years old, but the evidence simply dwarfs compared to the more accepted theories.

[reaper]

it seems for the past 15 pages you've been obsessed with probabilities. if these were not the claims you've been speaking under, what were they? and what makes god "probably" necessary?

just what i believe, what i believe isn't based on the laws of physics. it's my take on life and the philosophy i formed based on my experience.

[DaHanG]

i imagine i wouldn't vote for an atheist, for the same reasons you would rather vote for an atheist.  i do think atheism is bad for mankind, because it can forms sociopaths , but it's not like religion can't do the same.  jefferey dahlmer was a good example of what  a lack of belief can do.

sometimes i really just don't understand you. i wouldn't 'rather' vote for any particular group of people. i don't discriminate, and the poll i identified used the phrase "perfectly qualified". i am willing to vote for anyone perfectly qualified, and i think everyone should as well. how you claim serial killing is a good example of what atheism can do is not even humorous; it's pathetic. of course child abuse, mental disorders, belief god wants you to do evil things, etc. aren't usually at the root of serial killing.

what  in the videos lead you to this conclusion?

i can't recall the details, it was the vibe i got.  it seemed dawkins really wanted an explanation to things(without god), and was thrilled to accept his new philosophy - the simple begginings philosophy.

please watch the video and show me these details, because i certainly missed them.

*beginnings - 4th or 5th time spelling it incorrectly.

[reaper]

wouldn't you want someone to lead people who follows your beliefs? to me, ideally, someone would just have to believe in god.

[quadz]

wouldn't you want someone to lead people who follows your beliefs?

Not precisely.  I'd prefer someone who understands and embraces the implications of this quote:

  The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly
  teaches me to suspect that my own is also.  --Mark Twain

when i mentioned becoming a sociopath as an an example of what atheism can do, the word good, didn't imply it was a good thing to kill people.

[DaHanG]

wouldn't you want someone to lead people who follows your beliefs? to me, ideally, someone would just have to believe in god.  i wouldn't be against voting for someone agnostic.  although i would rather someone be president who follows my beliefs, i would still vote for someone who doesn't - just not at the absolute polar end. if i am going to vote for someone to lead people, atheism would be a deal breaker.  i wouldn't discriminate against someone because they didn't believe in god, but for the position of president, it matters to me.  i personally think atheism is bad for the human race, but i don't think it's something anyone should worry about, because it's not going to be an issue.

what kind of god a president believed in would not matter to me. what kind of country does. atheism is bad for the weak, and no doubt most humans are weak. i find it ironic that our current president believes he had an intimate conversation with god in which he was told that god approved of invading iraq (before we did).

beginnings - 4th or 5th time spelling it incorrectly.

lol, who cares?

normally i wouldn't, but it was getting pretty excessive.

when i mentioned becoming a sociopath as an an example of what atheism can do, the word good, didn't imply it was a good thing to kill people.  it was a good example because it highlighted what can happen when someone perceives a lack of consequence - due to disbelief

you honestly think i inferred that killing was a good thing? where has your mind been lately? you're taking a pretty bold step to say atheism leads to serial killing, especially when simple jail statistics are strongly against the idea that atheism leads to bad behavior. now you're sounding like a religious person. you've repeatedly said god is incomprehensible (and that anything incomprehensible is where god is hiding). your belief in a simple guiding force (that one cannot comprehend) has turned into some sort of knowledge that there's consequences in the afterlife (something that certainly should go under your patented category of 'incomprehensible'). i am thoroughly enjoying the modifications of belief as new subjects appear.

[reaper]

you honestly think i inferred that killing was a good thing? where has your mind been lately? you're taking a pretty bold step to say atheism leads to serial killing, especially when simple jail statistics are strongly against the idea that atheism leads to bad behavior. now you're sounding like a religious person. you've repeatedly said god is incomprehensible (and that anything incomprehensible is where god is hiding). your belief in a simple guiding force (that one cannot comprehend) has turned into some sort of knowledge that there's consequences in the afterlife (something that certainly should go under your patented category of 'incomprehensible'). i am thoroughly enjoying the modifications of belief as new subjects appear.

i don't think there are consequences in an afterlife; although i do think there is an afterlife.

[DaHanG]

you honestly think i inferred that killing was a good thing? where has your mind been lately? you're taking a pretty bold step to say atheism leads to serial killing, especially when simple jail statistics are strongly against the idea that atheism leads to bad behavior. now you're sounding like a religious person. you've repeatedly said god is incomprehensible (and that anything incomprehensible is where god is hiding). your belief in a simple guiding force (that one cannot comprehend) has turned into some sort of knowledge that there's consequences in the afterlife (something that certainly should go under your patented category of 'incomprehensible'). i am thoroughly enjoying the modifications of belief as new subjects appear.

i don't think there are consequences in an afterlife; although i do think there is an afterlife.  if you believe in god, you probably have some sort of idea of what you think he might be like.  inquiring into why and how he does things on a scientific basis is rather pointless (i'm sure you find this ridiculous).  you should keep in mind there are people much smarter than you who do believe in god.  this is just my philosophy, and it can change.  if i thought there was good reason not to believe in god, then i wouldn't believe in god...  you shouldn't have any doubt atheism can lead to bad things, and i was pointing out an extreme example.  now the problems with religion may be more severe than with atheisms; however i think this could change.  right now, if all of a sudden, people seriously believed there was no god,  the human race would be in a world of trouble - probably more trouble than religion has caused.

why do you believe in an afterlife but no consequences in an afterlife? why would you ever draw such a conclusion on something so incomprehensible?

i'm aware there are smarter people than me that believe in god, as well as smarter people than you who don't. what's your point? is this evidence for either side? why don't we let the intellectual argument speak for itself.

if atheism is so bad for humankind, why are the highly secular scandinavian countries among the most generous in terms of helping the developing world, as well as enjoying higher standards of living themselves by almost any index?

what kind of god a president believed in would not matter to me. what kind of country does. atheism is bad for the weak, and no doubt most humans are weak. i find it ironic that our current president believes he had an intimate conversation with god in which he was told that god approved of invading iraq (before we did).

while what the president said sounds crazy, i doubt he was hearing voices, and the voice was god.  so god is not the issue here, whether you think it was right or wrong to go to war is.

you missed my point. the point was you argued atheism easily leads to bad decisions (by pointing out a lunatic). i tried to direct attention toward someone who is supposed to be among the most enlightened people in the world (leader of the US), yet even you admit his religious experience was merely a trick he played on himself. putting god before humanity is a terrible thing.

[quadz]

you shouldn't have any doubt atheism can lead to bad things, and i was pointing out an extreme example.

[Whirlingdervish]

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

[reaper]

why do you believe in an afterlife but no consequences in an afterlife? why would you ever draw such a conclusion on something so incomprehensible?

i'm aware there are smarter people than me that believe in god, as well as smarter people than you who don't. what's your point? is this evidence for either side? why don't we let the intellectual argument speak for itself.

if atheism is so bad for humankind, why are the highly secular scandinavian countries among the most generous in terms of helping the developing world, as well as enjoying higher standards of living themselves by almost any index?

whether god would have to follow the laws of nature is incomprehsible, what he's about is up for debate. this quote more accuractley describes what i was trying to say:
"
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly

[DaHanG]

whether god would have to follow the laws of nature is incomprehsible, what he's about is up for debate.

i'm speaking about true atheism, someone like jefferey dahlmer was a true atheist, when he murdered people he had no fear of a god.  most people in scandinavia would fear god if they were to murder someone, so in a sense they're not atheist

i think whether god 'has' to follow laws of nature IS comprehensible. he's god, and he can do what he want - end of story. the fact that 'what god's about' being up for debate is exactly the problem. if god tells you to be good, and that's the only reason you're good then fine. we all know it's better to be good because it simply is better. there are those in this debate who think 'god hates fags' or we should 'kill infidels'. ever wonder why it's so hard to understand this being? 

you missed my point. the point was you argued atheism easily leads to bad decisions (by pointing out a lunatic). i tried to direct attention toward someone who is supposed to be among the most enlightened people in the world (leader of the US), yet even you admit his religious experience was merely a trick he played on himself. putting god before humanity is a terrible thing.

religion can lead to bad decisions, i'm not saying it can't.  however i dont think it led to a bad decision regarding the president taking us to war in iraq.  i don't think his religious experience was a trick, i was saying he didn't mean what he said literally - he didn't hear voices.  so, god didn't say to him, go to war, he felt going to war was right. people feel a connection to god, so when they are thinking they may say they are talking to god.  this doesnt mean he hears a voice in his head from god that says go to war.

what are you talking about? you clearly have never heard bush speak about this. just take a look at his quotes which speak for himself: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq

[reaper]

ever wonder why it's so hard to understand this being?

not really, it makes sense to me that we can't understand how god does things. but i have wondered why the philosophy of a simple beginning is inadequate, and shouldn't be related to the beginning of this universe.

[DaHanG]

ever wonder why it's so hard to understand this being?

not really, it makes sense to me that we can't understand how god does things.

nevermind, i forgot that your definition of god was 'what we can't understand = god'. we don't understand god for the same reason we don't understand fairies and leprechauns.

what are you talking about? you clearly have never heard bush speak about this. just take a look at his quotes which speak for himself: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq