There Is No God
Quote: MathExtremist...a bunch of stuff ...
Dammit, ME. How do you always do that?
You always take the ideas in my head, and in this case, the ideas I've written, and spit them out so much more concisely and eloquently in one paragraph than I could manage in several pages.
It's like I'm trying to smash my way through this while you just kind of slide to the end easy as can be.
In any case, my entire argument from two or three pages ago... this is it.
Quote: MathExtremist
The very fact that an experiment on reproducing abiogenesis failed is proof that it's testable and is a question suited to science. Religion is entirely orthogonal. Not only can you not test true religious beliefs, but they're really not suited to answering "how" questions anyway. Religion should be about answering why. Science is about what and how. This dichotomy between "if science doesn't have the answers, then that means God did it" is not only a false dichotomy but denigrates what religion should be about. What happens when science someday does have all the "how" answers? What would that mean for religion then, if you conflate them? If your faith in God requires abiogenesis to be a one-time event, what happens if a scientist replicates it in a lab? Do you renounce God?
The religions of the Ancients disappeared because they were too focused on the what and how -- what happens when the sun sets, what makes rain fall, etc. Religious beliefs like "the sun is carried across the sky on a chariot" are easy to disprove with rational inquiry and sufficient technology, and when we figured out that our planet was spinning, Helios became unnecessary.
A key feature of Western religion is that it usually separates itself from disprovable facts. God is supposed to be ineffable. That's why Intelligent Design is such a step backwards. It attempts to insert a disprovable theory into what is otherwise a faith-based belief structure, cheapening it. Religion helps a lot of people deal with big questions of why, but it no longer needs to stretch to answer how. By attempting to tie faith in God to the question of how life originated, the proponents of Creationism or Intelligent Design risk the likely future where science actually does have the answer to the origin of life, and then God goes the way of Helios.
I really wish we had a LIKE button so I could just press it a million times for this post!
Quote: MathExtremistI'm trying to find something clever to say about getting back-to-back props from a priest and an atheist, but I got nothing...
Props from the rock and the hard place?
Taking it from both ends?
Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet is Unique by John Gribbin
I haven't read it yet but I ordered it.
Quote: pewMy pal louies' work on micro-organisms was the end of the idea that living things come from non living things. that is a fact that is as observable and repeatable as the sun setting in the west and is why I mention him. It's like saying Galileo put the final nail in the coffin of geocentrism, I'm sorry about any misunderstanding. I'm kinda new to forum posting but am enjoying the mental exercise and would like to have dialog as opposed to an argument.
You have to understand what a scientific law is: a single data point, provided it can be shown to be reliable (you may have heard a single data point isn't enough, but that's because in most cases it's not reliable, not that it's insufficient per se) - a "black swan" - is enough to force revision. In the case of the idea that life cannot arise but from life, we have that data point: life. The fact that life exists shows it must have arisen, and the only question is how, since it's clearly not by the means Needham et al. imagined. The only difference is that scientists hope to find an answer to this question based on what's observed in the universe, whereas you would rather knock the table over proclaiming Needham's failure and default to ancient superstition. We are both saying there's an exception, just that one seeks to explain that exception, the other to use its exceptional nature as a bludgeon.
I'm sorry .I really didn't know the name. Very busy trying to make a buck, I got killed by the Obama depression so its hard to take the time to post and my typing abilities really suck, but for better or worse there's more to come.Quote: 24BingoI'm a bit wary of saying this, since by the fact that it's clear from context what his role in this was, and that it's the only thing you respond to, it's fairly clear you intend to use whatever I say as some kind of deflection, but (Fr.) John Needham was an eighteenth-century biologist who claimed to have proven spontaneous generation.
Quote: rxwine
good one
It is a sensitive subject for some people and no one will never convince the other side. Let people believe what they want on this one.Quote: HotBlondeWhat ever happened to this thread?
They bought my argument God both exists and does not exist and it's just kind of settled. Now we're just trying to name our church and pick our favorite Kool-aid.Quote: HotBlondeWhat ever happened to this thread?
God = Schroedinger's CatQuote: onenickelmiracleThey bought my argument God both exists and does not exist and it's just kind of settled. Now we're just trying to name our church and pick our favorite Kool-aid.
I do get it, but my theory is God is the one conducting the experiment, the universe is inside the box. Basically just put God outside the universe, which is where you must be to control the physics of a universe. It cannot be done from within. Willing to be wrong, I am quite the heretic and bound by the limits of the human mind which is almost always wrong about so many things. We just cannot comprehend what our mind cannot comprehend. Doesn't do Shit to help me though because if there is a Hell, I'll be there.Quote: s2dbakerGod = Schroedinger's Cat
Your path to heaven is through faith and the grace of God alone. That includes those living "alternative" lifestyles, whatever that means. We are not to judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbUCzUk84fE
Brothers and sisters, have you heard the news?
The storm has lifted and there's nothing to lose,
So swap your confirmation for your dancing shoes,
Because there never was no God.
Step out of the darkness and onto the streets,
Forget about the fast, let's have a carnival feast,
Raise up your lowered head and hear the liberation beat,
Because there never was no God.
There is no God,
So clap your hands together,
There is no God,
No heaven and no hell.
But there is no God,
We're all in this together,
There is no God,
So ring that victory bell.
No cowering in the dark before these overbearing priests,
Not waiting until we die until we restitute the meek,
No blaming all our failings on imaginary beasts,
Because there never was no God.
No fighting over land your distant fathers told you of,
Not spilling blood for those who have never spread a drop of love,
No finger pointing justified by phantoms up above,
Because there never was no God.
There is no God,
So clap your hands together,
There is no God,
No heaven and no hell.
There is no God,
We're all in this together,
There is no God,
So ring that victory bell.
I know you're scared of dying man and I am too,
But just pretending it's not happening isn't gonna see us through,
If we accept that there's an end game and we haven't got much time,
Then in the here and now then we can try and do things right.
We'd be our own Salvation Army and together we'd believe
In all the wondrous things mere mortals can achieve
Well I've known beauty in the stillness of cathedrals in the day,
I've sung 'Glory Hallelujah' won't wash my sins away?
But now I'm singing my refrain and this is what I say,
I say there never was no God.
Quote: FrGambleI think people just realized there is a God and it is silly to believe otherwise, see the thread on can the Pope change doctrine if you want your theology fix, I thought it was a pretty good discussion there.
Good one, glad you have a sense of humour ;)
Quote: FrGambleI think people just realized there is a God and it is silly to believe otherwise, see the thread on can the Pope change doctrine if you want your theology fix, I thought it was a pretty good discussion there.
Good one, glad you have a sense of humour ;)
I think I can agree with that.
Quote: HotBlondeI just started watching Bill Maher's documentary "Religulous" on Netflix right now. Looks good so far.
If you like crap shoveled at you by a
blowhard, yeah, it's great. He's more
religious in his hatred of religion than
religious people are. He should feel
nothing one way or the other about
it if he's a true atheist. Yet he stands
on a soapbox and preaches about it.
Quote: EvenBobIf you like crap shoveled at you by a
blowhard, yeah, it's great. He's more
religious in his hatred of religion than
religious people are. He should feel
nothing one way or the other about
it if he's a true atheist. Yet he stands
on a soapbox and preaches about it.
Hardly. Because although God is not real, the concept of God is very, very real, and those who believe in it are real, and fall broadly into two camps: theocrats who want to forcibly structure the world around absurdities, and moderates, who in some ways are worse. The danger posed by the former is obvious, but the latter poses a more insidious thread, because whereas fundamentalists and other Bible thumpers take their ancient fables where they necessarily lead, even when it means steamrolling over reality, moderates reach an amalgam that preserves the veneer of the world we plainly live in, but in the process destroys reason itself. When someone believes in a being that could not exist, distorts reality such that that being could exist, and distorts their understanding of reality to hide the distortion, how can they be trusted with anything?
When people point out the movers and shakers of the past were Christian, what they fail to mention is that they weren't moderates in the same way as those we know today, nor the same kind of Bible thumpers we know today. In those days, our understanding of reality (and our broader mores) hadn't yet made Christianity so absurd as to present that dilemma. But it's 2014, where the religious are either dreamers or nightmares, and it's time to wake up.
Why resort to name calling using the phrase Bible thumpers at all? Who would they be exactly and if there is someone, refer to them, but don't intimidate others into thinking your mythical Bible thumpers exist. Do they look like the Boogey man? Do I just point my finger at anyone wearing religious items and I'll just know?Quote: 24BingoHardly. Because although God is not real, the concept of God is very, very real, and those who believe in it are real, and fall broadly into two camps: theocrats who want to forcibly structure the world around absurdities, and moderates, who in some ways are worse. The danger posed by the former is obvious, but the latter poses a more insidious thread, because whereas fundamentalists and other Bible thumpers take their ancient fables where they necessarily lead, even when it means steamrolling over reality, moderates reach an amalgam that preserves the veneer of the world we plainly live in, but in the process destroys reason itself. When someone believes in a being that could not exist, distorts reality such that that being could exist, and distorts their understanding of reality to hide the distortion, how can they be trusted with anything?
When people point out the movers and shakers of the past were Christian, what they fail to mention is that they weren't moderates in the same way as those we know today, nor the same kind of Bible thumpers we know today. In those days, our understanding of reality (and our broader mores) hadn't yet made Christianity so absurd as to present that dilemma. But it's 2014, where the religious are either dreamers or nightmares, and it's time to wake up.
Look, to me the people who say foolish things like there would be no war or most wars are caused by religion are fools. Powerful people cause wars and all wars are to suit them and it wouldn't matter if there wasn't a religion anywhere on earth, they would still happen. You are just practicing your religion of no religion of all shit you regurgitate.
I don't think there would be no war without religion, and I don't think I ever said anything remotely similar to that. I won't be as quick as a lot of people are to say "atheism's not a religion," because that statement holds a lot of interesting questions within it, but I can say that opposition to something so clearly harmful as Christianity, and recognition of this harm, cannot be called a religious exercise by any stretch.
Quote: 24BingoI'm referring to the people who are often called "fundies," but hoping to cast a slightly broader net, because "fundamentalist" has a specific theological definition that a number of them - Bill Donahue I think a rather uncontroversial example of both criteria - don't meet. Is Bill Donahue a figment of my imagination?
I don't think there would be no war without religion, and I don't think I ever said anything remotely similar to that. I won't be as quick as a lot of people are to say "atheism's not a religion," because that statement holds a lot of interesting questions within it, but I can say that opposition to something so clearly harmful as Christianity, and recognition of this harm, cannot be called a religious exercise by any stretch.
Fundamentalism means nothing to me and is just too vague. Just saying these terms weaken your argument and only work on the choir. Everyone else hears it and just hears the hate and grouping people together who do not belong together.
Religion has nothing to do with God but only beliefs. Does it matter what the motive for arbitrariness is as long as anything arbitrary is acceptable and WILL rule your life based on their beliefs, religious or not. When people talk of clones and zombies, this is what they're referring to. All these people looking alike thinking alike, repeating exactly what was on the news without knowing if true, almost as if they're exhibiting religious beliefs. So I call it religion because it acts like religion but you have no grounds fighting it.
The Fucking KardashiansQuote: 24BingoThe thing about sounding like someone else is that once in a while, and it's not often, but once in a while, someone, somewhere, is right about something.
Quote: onenickelmiracleLook, to me the people who say foolish things like there would be no war or most wars are caused by religion are fools. Powerful people cause wars and all wars are to suit them and it wouldn't matter if there wasn't a religion anywhere on earth, they would still happen. You are just practicing your religion of no religion of all shit you regurgitate.
If there were no God, the powerful would just find another pretext for war. Which is exactly what they did before there was a God.
This is true! I just watched a TED Talk where they talked about why human beings do irrational things like believing in cults, superstitions (such as many gamblers do), and etc. and they showed that it's just in our makeup. It's a part of how our brains are made up physiologically. It is what it is and will always be (unless, of course, it's changed in a situation of extreme adaptation over millions of years, but that's for another discussion).Quote: onenickelmiracleThere will always be religion no matter if not one person on earth believes in God, Zeus, or Hera. Until the day people are robots, there will always be religion. Whatever the people hear or read, they will repeat things and act on them irrationally and the perfect world will never happen.
Yes exactly and now we just attack countries which aren't democracies or countries which threaten the dollar.Quote: mickeycrimmIf there were no God, the powerful would just find another pretext for war. Which is exactly what they did before there was a God.
Quote: Elton John...and the New York Times said god is dead.
Here are my questions.
- Did the NYT actually say this?
- If so, on what date (the first time if multiple times)?
- Why did they say it?
- How did they know?
Thank you.
Quote: WizardSorry to break the flow of the conversation, but to address the thread title there is a lyric in the Elton John song Levon as follows:
Here are my questions.
- Did the NYT actually say this?
- If so, on what date (the first time if multiple times)?
- Why did they say it?
- How did they know?
Thank you.
It was a headline April 8, 1966 in Time Magazine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/media/18elson.html
Quote:For more than a year, Mr. Elson had labored over an article examining radical new approaches to thinking about God that were gaining currency in seminaries and universities and spilling over to the public at large.
When finally completed, it became the cover story for the issue of April 8, as Easter and Passover approached. The cover itself was eye-catching, the first one in Time’s 43-year history to appear without a photograph or an illustration. Giant blood-red letters against a black background spelled out the question “Is God Dead?”
The issue caused an uproar, equaled only by John Lennon’s offhand remark, published in a magazine for teenagers a few months later, that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. The “Is God Dead?” issue gave Time its biggest newsstand sales in more than 20 years and elicited 3,500 letters to the editor, the most in its history to that point. It remains a signpost of the 1960s, testimony to the wrenching social changes transforming the United States.
Quote: mrcleanIt was a headline April 8, 1966 in Time Magazine.
"Is god dead?"
Could we say then that Elton had the word order wrong in his song?
Quote: Levon
He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day
When the New York Times said God is dead
And the war's begun
Alvin Tostig has a son today
In Atheists We Distrust
Quote: MoscaIn other news, even atheists don't like or trust atheists. As an atheist, your best course of action is to keep it to yourself.
In Atheists We Distrust
"They thought it equally probable the culprit was an atheist or a rapist, and unlikely the person was a Muslim or Christian."
She likened me to a rapist! Athiest friends, let's band together and pressure Scientific American to get her fired!!
Oh. You don't care? Yeah, me neither =p
On topic, I can see the point. I have a lot of atheist friends, but none who I identify as atheist. There's Scott, and Mary, and Ashley, and Steve. I think this way because their atheism is just something about them. The one's I identify as atheist, I do so because everything they do or say must absolutely remind you of that fact, and they are batshit crazy. Like Corrie. And no, I would not trust her with a pair of pre-school safety scissors.
No different than the religious. Plenty of religious folk both here and my personal life, and trust is not an issue with 99% of them. It's the ones where every single thing is in the name of God of by the will of God that make me suspicious.
The actual New York Times page 1 headline that included the phrase "God Is Dead" is dated March 24, 1968; the full headline read, "'God Is Dead' Doctrine Losing Ground to 'Theology of Hope'." The phrase also appeared in a major (page 3) article on January 7, 1970. Smaller pieces dated January and April 1966 that feature the phrase in their headings can also be found. None were on Christmas Day, but the January ones are close!Quote: Wizard"Is god dead?"
Could we say then that Elton had the word order wrong in his song?Quote: Levon
He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day
When the New York Times said God is dead
And the war's begun
Alvin Tostig has a son today
But I don't think Bernie Taupin had an actual article in mind when he wrote the song lyrics. I've given up trying to understand most of his lyrics (ever try to decipher "Bennie and the Jets?"), but I like them.
Here is some more Wizard Bait: Who the heck is Alvin Tostig?
Quote: teddysHere is some more Wizard Bait: Who the heck is Alvin Tostig?
Thanks for the "god is dead" explanation. I interpreted Alvin Tostig to be Levon's father. I assumed EJ/BT just made it up.
Not here in Europe.Quote: MoscaIn other news, even atheists don't like or trust atheists. As an atheist, your best course of action is to keep it to yourself.
Crime has been measured to be higher in more religious countries.
The proportion of Christian/muslims is higher in prison than in the overall population.
Quote: AZDuffmanyou can neither create nor destroy matter.
You answered your own question. The universe was NOT created. (But it's certainly here now.) Thus, no start point. Thus, eternal.
Quote: kubikulannNot here in Europe.
Crime has been measured to be higher in more religious countries.
The proportion of Christian/muslims is higher in prison than in the overall population.
The number of atheists in US prisons
is so small it almost cannot be measured.
Studies are showing that, as a whole,
atheists are moral, and raise kids that are
moral. The kind of morality they teach
is the real kind, not the 'you better do it
or god will punish you' type.
Quote: indignant99You answered your own question. The universe was NOT created. (But it's certainly here now.) Thus, no start point. Thus, eternal.
People think they see a creation, so they
look for a creator. It's superstition. You
see your cow went dry, you can't explain
it, so an evil spirit is blamed. The logic
they used 4000 years ago to explain where
the universe came from is a little outdated.
