talkmagic.co.uk

Dont get started on that DNA thingy me jig. How do they new everyone is different??? Same as snow flakes.

I agree with the good soon to be Dr. Although we dont share the same views on god and all that he makes a valid point.

Farlsey - i'd be interested in further explanations as to the "atheistic regimes have killed more people in the last 100 years than wars waged on religious grounds have in recorded history" thing...

i think for the hard-liner atheists, which im not, as i've said before i have a big interest in zen buddhism (though thats not really a god-head as such), i think they should accept that science can be and is flawed in some instances yet they are still accepted for the most part...

..just the same as some religious types (not anyone here) should accept that their religions are flawed too...

perfect is rubbish in my opinion...no such thing either really...unique most certainly...but perfect? nah...

Are we talikng full blown war here or a war of words war?

If tis not a govermental war. I would like to point the US rap Scene is full of wars all so gang war. the rap war more being more of an asthetic movement type of war.

The matter of athiest governments causing more death in the 20th Century is mearly one of technology rather than of athiesm itself.
If the crusaders or the any religious war of the 10th century onweards had access to modern warfare equipment then surely the death count would have far exceeded what it was.
Also the so called fact that Hitler was an athiest was very sketchy. In several speeches he mentioned God in a manner that would suggest he had religious leadings but in other writings denied the existence of God. If he was an athiest it just shows that mentioning God in a speeech can help rally people to do very horrible things indeed.

Again I will return to the point that science doesn't know everything and never should claim it does. This still does not mean that the existence of God is a fifty fifty shot. Evidence about our evolution and the Big bang for example are incredibly strong but not 100% as nothing can ever be 100% but that evidence is far more compelling than the universe being created in seven days, creation of man was from a pile of dirty and the female of our species being made from a rib.
The only evidence for this is a book written by many unknown authors with stories taken from much older books, then compiled, changed and translated many times over thousands of years.

well, i think alot of us atheists take the god thing too straight forwardly...what if God isnt what all the organised religions portray him/her/it as?

what if he was like a gardener? he is of no religion, he is just God (as we define it), by gardener i mean that he could well of created the big bang as an experiment? and we are the seeds that grew from that?

plus, no one can say what happened before the big-bang can they...they can only theorise...nothing can be absolutely proven on that count...

Then that would mean that all religions are wrong thus making all their arguments null and void apart from that God exists.
That would mean no Jesus, no mohammad, no Ra, no Shiva etc.
Yes the existence of God would be there but God as a Caretaker would need no bowing or scraping and all religous writings along with their myths e.g Hell, heaven, Elysian fields.
The power structure of belief would collapse too.

Also on another tack it is funny how religions of todayare seen as more viable than religions of the ancient world or of tribes people in more remote regions.
I personally see them with the same level of curiousity although Christianity particularly interests me as I was once under its grip

Greedoniz, hi there

greedoniz wrote:The matter of athiest governments causing more death in the 20th Century is mearly one of technology rather than of athiesm itself.
If the crusaders or the any religious war of the 10th century onweards had access to modern warfare equipment then surely the death count would have far exceeded what it was.

Perhaps, but also remember that whilst many of the religious wars have been of conquering nature, many of the atheistically motivated ones have been more along the likes of systematically rooting out and destroying those who disagree, or those who belong to a certain religion or ethinicity. I have no proof for the following statement so please don't take me to task about this, but when I read about wars it feels to me like only a very few of the "religiously motivated" ones are motivated by a purely religious cause; on the otherhand, many atheistic communist regimes seem to have committed mass genocide in the cause of ideology.

I am glad however that you are not proposing Hitler was a Christian. I'm not going to argue he was an atheist, it's one of those petty "he's not one of ours" things. Take a look at this website:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mische ... itler.html, written by a Christian I think but pretty fair in conclusion.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying religion hasn't caused any wars, but I do suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating - Christianity (and this is really the only religion I feel called to defend) states very clearly that the proof of faith is deeds. Show me one point where Jesus commands people to go and conquer lands and kill unbelievers? I don't think many of you have to bother looking in a Bible to know that he spreads a message of forgiveness and love. It is therefore just as angering to me as it is to you to see man's inhumanity - motivated usually by greed for something or other - done in his name.

Back to science. You state "evidence for evolution and the big bang theory is strong".
The main evidence for the BBT is that our universe is expanding. But the big bang theory as it stands now requires you to believe that all of the energy needed to create the universe lay dormant in a tiny particle, and that this particle encountered some indescript force to trigger the big bang. Let me ask you this:
a) Why should such a particle exist, and if it did, where did it come from?
b)What was this force, and again, where did it come from? and
c) Life exists because the universe is expanding at a precise speed - any faster or slower and it would effectively be a cosmic pile up. Is this just "lucky coincidence?"

As many holes as I could pick in evolution and the big bang theory, it wouldn't prove anything constructive for me, likewise people picking holes in creationism (and for the record, I am not really a 7 day creationist) does nothing to further a secular scientific theory. My point is that if you stop Joe Bloggs in the street and say "how did we come about?" he will probably say something along the lines of evolution and the big bang theory as if all the answers are there, which is a shame because it still takes a large degree of faith to follow these theories. And everytime you tell me that something happened with particles or energy or cosmic explosions, I will ask "...and before that?"

It just seems to me that atheistically, it is still an uphill argument - you are asking people to believe that from basic, simple, non-living atoms - before even molecules existed - came the complex life forms we now know. And when asked how it was done, the reply is, "well, they had a lot of time." But as one website I saw humorously puts it, I don't care how much time you give it - a television is not going to turn into an elephant. In this respect, the atheist effectively *does* believe in God - they just call him/her "Father Time" or "Lady Luck" respectively

Finally, as for the Bible, the translations done today are from the earliest texts that we have. What's more, we have more copies that match up with each other of the Bible than any other historical documents, documents which are themselves accepted as historical fact. Chinese whispers it ain't.

Markdini wrote:Dont get started on that DNA thingy me jig. How do they new everyone is different???

Twins aren't different from a DNA perspective, but there are an infinite number of permutations of external development factors. DNA is just the blueprint.

It seems that the argument is because we are here then God (The conscious omnipotent diety) must therefore exist.
Yes the creation of the universe and our subsequent evolution are statistical long shots but in a world of possible multiverses or the possibitlity of there being more than one big bang then even a long shot is very possible in a Godless universe. Anyone who has read into quantum mechanics can be aparty to how weird the universe can be.

As a rational thinker I can catagorically state that the nonexistence of God is not certain but more unlikely.

Farlsborough wrote:you are asking people to believe that from basic, simple, non-living atoms - before even molecules existed - came the complex life forms we now know. And when asked how it was done, the reply is, "well, they had a lot of time." But as one website I saw humorously puts it, I don't care how much time you give it - a television is not going to turn into an elephant. In this respect, the atheist effectively *does* believe in God - they just call him/her "Father Time" or "Lady Luck" respectively

I'm not sure where that theory of evolution is based. The building blocks of life are amino acids, which came well after molecules.

As for TVs and elephants, that's a mad argument, since evolutionary theory is not going to suggest that either. The Blind Watch Maker is essential reading for anyone who stand behind that argument. It's not a one sided god basher, it a simple explanation of the mechanism of evolution to complex form.

For anyone who is interested in the failings of Darwinian Evolution (not evolution per se), they should read into complexity theory as related to evolution. But that's another story.

And finally ... if a process is natural (like evolution) is needs no "being" to be attributed, so aethiests don't have to believe in God, they just believe in process. Just because the process has a name, it doesn't make it a "being".

But on a lighter note:

greedoniz wrote: As a rational thinker I can catagorically state that the nonexistence of God is not certain but more unlikely.

With no other statistical reference points, it is impossible to give a probability of God.

I think the issue and there being a god is being confused at the moment. Some people seem to have a bad time with there religion some embrace it. But remember how a religion operates is all to do with the people setting up said religion. The church of England and catholic churches believe in the same thing but they worship differently they both believe in a god. But how they go about it is different.

Apart from people who started there own religions is the past 100 years. Crowley with Thelma Levay with his branch of Satanism they all have there books then splinter groups have taken them books and built there ideas around it. The first church of Satan has many of shoot but using the satanic bible of Levey’s and Thelma has sprung up a load of new systems based of the book of the law and other Crowley teachings.

But if that’s how people want to find a crutch or pass there time I say let them. Just because someone has had a bad time with something it doesn’t mean others doing the same thing will.

If you look at all these holy books the bible , Koran , Torah etc they all have a common theme running through them. Its just how people took this theme and adapted it.

greedoniz wrote: As a rational thinker I can catagorically state that the nonexistence of God is not certain but more unlikely.

I couldn't agree more
If I correctly presume that you meant the existence of God is more unlikely (or less likely as some might say ), then I think you can catagorically state that this is your opinion, and nothing more. As Marvell points out, there is no way you can even begin to come up with a "probability for God".

On the otherhand, whilst non-guided creation and evolution take many steps of faith to follow, believing in God takes just the one - that God exists - everything else then falls into place.

As for "a simple explanation of evolution to complex form" - I'm sorry, I just don't think such a thing exists, or if it does it is making far too many presumptions. Evolution is *not* an easy, cover-all explanation - I absolutely think that it played a big part in how we came to be, but i refer you back to my "and before that?" retort! It might surprise you but I know a thing or two about amino acids myself , I know they are the building blocks of life - but how did they come about? For that matter, how did atoms come about?

That picture however was genius!

edited: double post

He who dose will tell he who don’t there is. The bible will be help up in proof
If I don’t think atoms are real the atomic bomb is held up in proof. You ever seen an atom?

You can see an atomic bomb explode, we have video footage and people are still experiencing the effects now. Do we have any video footage of anything supernatural? Post it if you do, I'm intrigued.

Show me one point where Jesus commands people to go and conquer lands and kill unbelievers?

But doesn't he state that the laws laid down in the old testement should be followed?

Finally, as for the Bible, the translations done today are from the earliest texts that we have. What's more, we have more copies that match up with each other of the Bible than any other historical documents, documents which are themselves accepted as historical fact

It cannot be upheld as a historical document, as there are too many contradictions and inaccuracies in it.

As for "a simple explanation of evolution to complex form" - I'm sorry, I just don't think such a thing exists, or if it does it is making far too many presumptions. Evolution is *not* an easy, cover-all explanation - I absolutely think that it played a big part in how we came to be, but i refer you back to my "and before that?" retort! It might surprise you but I know a thing or two about amino acids myself , I know they are the building blocks of life - but how did they come about? For that matter, how did atoms come about?

But does not knowing 'before that' Necessitate an omnipotent, omniscient god? Especially one that changes his mind from being a violent and jealous god to an all loving god seemingly on a whim?

And farlsborough, I'm intrigued as to what you have to say about biblical contradiction and nastiness. This debate has been respectful and intelligent so far, so I see no reason why it cant be done on the thread. And, although I don't agree with much of what you say, you are obviously an intelligent bloke, with arguments that challenge me and make me think. I like that...so lets have it!