What's so foolish about acknowledging the fact that there might be a giant flying spaghetti monster? It's a big universe, after all.

(And, if some current theories are true, there is with 100% certainty an infinite number of giant flying spaghetti monsters in the multi-verse.)

Spaghetti monster, haha...

That episode rocked.

No. Everything is possible, but even if a universe/multiverse is infinite in scope doesn't mean that all probabilities automatically collapse to 100%.

Quantum Physics allows pretty much anything to happen, it's just highly unlikely. You don't live your life constantly afraid that a piano will crush you to death yet even that is significantly more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Er, I was unclear. What I meant was how would one suggest to a guy, in the 1930s, the subject of atomism without presenting any sort of evidence?

You would provide reasons why it was a plausible explanation.

Holy ****, there actually is a flying spaghetti monster!

I've read some of Dawkins' stuff. I agree with just about everything I've read, but I think he needs to take a more Sagan-esque approach and take some of the sting out of what he says; he won't make many believers sit down and consider what they actually believe in by being pompus and telling them they're wrong. I do agree with Dawkins' that religion needs to take a back seat and should stop slowing scientific research.

"Jesus Camp" was a rather...interesting look at how some christian churches "mold the minds of their young flock." If any of you can find it, I'd recommend watching it, just to make you feel baffled and uncomfortable.

Hm. I'm tempted to watch it(being an atheist), but it sounds like it's just another person stating the obvious as if it's something new and excited and using it to start an intellectual circle-jerk. Am I going to end up wasting my time watching this? Will I actually learn anything or will I just be sitting there thinking "No ****, Sherlock"?

mmmmm

This was the main problem I found with the book. (am I the only person to post in this thread who's actually read it?) Dawkins makes some very good points, not just about the plausibility of god, but about the destructive effect that religion has on people and society. But he comes across as aggressive and quite a snob, and if I didn't already agree with most of what he says, I think I would be quite resistant to what he says just because of that.

It's worth watching just to see the interviews.

The the best interviews are the ones with the pastor from colorado and the one with the Rabbi(sp).

Even science supposes that there is a reasonable order to the universe. It is easy to suppose that that reasonable order is constantly being maintained and carried out by God.

Newton was a particularly devout Christian. The father of modern physics. In contemporary society, we focus so much on evolution. If one considers physics, however, there are quite a few more questions to be asked. It can be explained how gravity works, but not why. With any so-called law of nature, should one assume that they have occured randomly? or were they designed? are they rational as modern science supposes they are? were they deliberate?

Even the big bang theory... one must question what force there was that ignited such a phenomenon. Why is it unreasonable to call such a force God?

God can be the diety who brought the Hebrews out of Egypt or crucified his son, but he can also be something beyond that. He can be something beyond religion. He can be something beyond reason. He can be the reason. The ultimate reasoning of the universe. He can simply be the name one gives to the rational order of the universe.

Those are thoughts that should be taken into consideration when questioning the existence of God.

You're creating at extra entity to overcome the same problem, that's the issue.

We can't conceive of what caused the Big Bang. Some people create God to explain it, of course then we can't conceive of what created God. We're back at exactly the same point but now we've get an extra variable making things more complicated for no reason. That's bad science. Science doesn't guarantee we'll find an answer, but it guarantees that whenever we get closer to the answer it will be based on solid reasoning and not superfluous entities.

It's not creating anything.

if one believes that there is an entity that ignited the creation of the universe and gave it a rational order, does it matter if one calls it God or gives it some conventionally scientific latin name?

It has been said several on this thread times that even science takes a certain amount of faith. To create a hypothesis requires faith.

Why can God not be a hypothesis?

Dawkins himself describes the scientific process as rational hypothesises that are created and challenged through constant skepticism. What skepticism can one generate that this God I just suggested does not exist?

Again, it is a fundamental assumption of modern science that there is a rational order to the universe. Why is it arrogant of uninformed or foolish to assume that a designer is responsible for this? Why is it arrogant or uninformed or foolish to call that designer God?

Because you can't disprove his existence.


None.

You don't understand science.

GAH!

People convert to religions all the time. New people attend my church every week. Why do you think these people join new or different churches? Because some guy they don't know told them to? No one is that trusting.

Evidence of gods exists, but it is not scientific evidence. It comes in the form of answers to prayers, inspiration, consistent feelings of peace and joy, service, and love. That's nothing to base a logical proof on, but it can be proof powerful enough to base a life on. If you don't want to base your lifestyle on this kind of evidence, fine, but don't tell me I'm an idiot for doing it.

Also, can I ask again if Dawkins really believes that doing away with religion - which is also a strong force for good (Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.) - will actually make the world a better place?

[Disclaimer: I am not in favor of teaching things like Intelligent Design or creation myths in science classes. Those are not science. Go ahead and teach them in a religion class, but lets not pretend religion and science are the same thing. I don't need to believe in Creationism to be a Christian, and would much rather believe in a physics-hacker God. I am also not in favor of believing in a religion just because someone told you to. Religion is a personal decision that requires a lifetime of introspection.]

I think a major problem for many who consider themselves atheist is that every time you try to talk about it, your point of view is considered fairly insulting no matter how much you sugar coat it. Telling someone that one of their central beliefs in their life is irrational and most likely a product of childhood indoctrination is not going to sit well with most people. I'm sure Dawkins could have toned down some of his rhetoric in The God Delusion but ultimately the central arguments are still there and no less valid because of it.

Mother Theresa was a whore. An average nurse at an urgent care center does more on a daily basis than that ***** ever did in her entire life. The donations she received were never used for the sick. She was more interested in converting the dying to Catholocism than she was saving their lives. If she was actually interested in helping, she would have spent the money on health care instead of building convents. She's a perfect example of why religion is bad.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on the other hand, both atheists, have donated a combined total of nearly 70 billion dollars to charity.

Fine, I'll admit that I don't know about Mother Theresa. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Are you going to argue that every religious altruist has bad intentions? What about Steven's thread about the free car wash. What about the service activities I attend at my church that have nothing to do with converting people?

Hahahaha. That owned, Emon.

Hahaha he called someone a whore when simply explaining his point would have sufficed lol!

That's just dandy. The point is that you hardly need religion in order to do good.

For example, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, both atheists, have donated a combined total of nearly 70 billion dollars to charity.

MLK wasn't completely faithful to his wife. If religion was such a predominant force in his life, he should have avoid such sinning. Religion probably likely fueled his motivation but it basically comes down to his own actions and personality when he helped forward the Civil Rights movement.

I'm not saying we need religion to be good. I can think of plenty of atheists who are truly good pepole.

But does that make religion something that needs to be destroyed? Religion is not simply giving to charity. It is, first and formost, believing in God (generalising). Belief in God usually leads to charity and the like. However, if my religion is true, then simply giving to charity is not enough. There are other elements.

When looking at the history of the world, religion has done a lot more bad than it has done good. Crusades are everyone's favorite example, and although the fighting in the middle east today is largely geopolitical, it's hard to believe it would have ever started without religion.

Yes, religion has done bad things. Bad things happen in life. I maintain that bad things would happen without religion too. Bad people would still find ways to make other people do bad things. Mao's Cultural Revolution? The French Revolution and Reign of Terror?

Also, as a non-religious person you're not likely to see the majority of positive effects religion has. You don't see the volume of people that have found true happiness through religion.

I was baptized, raised and confirmed as a member of the Roman Catholic church. I know exactly what you're talking about, but I still think we would all be better without it. The happiness gained through religion is an illusion.

Prove it. For every religion in the world.

Look, religion can't be proved logically. It's also pretty much impossible to disprove. There's always ambiguity. You may believe personally that the happiness from religion is false, but then it's just a belief.

Which is why it comes down to faith.

[edit]And is why, I might add, it's silly to assert that religion is unnecessary. If you can't prove it's not true, you can't prove it's not necessary. Go ahead and keep religion out of science classes, but lets keep it in churches please.

I should get some sleep.

Religion isn't a bad thing, and usually goes hand in hand with good morals and kindness.

You contradicted yourself, good sir.

Whaaat?

I edited the post out in case there were other inane things flame mongers could point out. I don't want to derail the thread with OMG THAT ISN'T STATE OF MIND WTF LOL. Seriously man, it wasn't that important to point out.

The point is that you can't "debate" a mental illness or a fantasy away. End of story, book closed. Did I end my sentences with any prepositions? Is there a misplaced comma? Please, elaborate on points that have nothing to do with the main idea.



It's not like breathing where you need oxygen; you can have the same good traits without religion for other reasons.

The situation with the middle east would have happened regardless because it's really not a fight over religion. It's a fight over assets(oil/money/land). Religion is just the first catalyst that was used. If religion wasn't being used, ethnicity would be used.

Yes, but saying it's a bad thing isn't exactly right. Religion has helped plenty of people. Some folks just used people's beliefs against them, and they aren't a good example of religion.

What crawled up your ***? I'm not being picky, I really did not understand what you were saying.

I'm just gonna keep on chucking out quotes
[quote=Steven Weinberg] With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.[/quote]