I'm not suggesting it should be used to explain, but support in some cases. It's no different then an archeologist finding a wall painting depicting a fireball heading towards the earth and then when dated it's found to correlate with an asteroid strike based on geological research. Carbon-dating isn't always very accurate, but when you have two things such as that that are independently dated and then correspond, it gives added support to the initial accuracy of the dating.

Right. So then I could conclude:
1. There is a supernatural invisible finger poking my pudding in an unobservable way
2. Nothing is happening to my pudding

That's not really much of a choice, Occam's Razor and all that. It still reduces to the same question; how is it preferable to assume some unfathomably unknowable supernatural entity is in some unobservable way interacting with you, even though you'll never know it?

I do believe that a deity would be able to interact with the physical world, and do so in a way that leaves evidence of something supernatural happening. This evidence should be all over the place! But it isn't. The universe operates in a way that doesn't need God to explain its operations. Why insert something unnecessary, and why worship it?

More like the universe is 13.7299999999999999999999999999999999999999999999459 years old!

Just because a thing is complex and can be explained by science, doesn't mean it wasn't designed. It can go both ways. I've even watched a speech where a scientist (former atheist) argues the existence of God, needs some sort of "fingerprint" behind for them to track, and that he has found it: DNA. He said that DNA was literally a fingerprint of intelligent design, and elaborated on it further than I could possibly do. I will try to find a link. The main problem is though, for every "proof" atheists have, or evolutionists, etc, creationists have one to counter. Alternatively, for every "proof" creationists have, evolutionists have a counter for as well. I found some website a long time ago that compares each counter to each other but I can't seem to find it atm. I know you don't have to be a scientist to know how these things work, but nobody here can determine anything beyond that. It's all just argumentative folly from both sides, until we die and find out the truth for ourselves. God or no God.

Not to mention that NASA has recently discovered things in our universe that they say, simply shouldn't be there. They have heard static noise that defies their logic of physics, and have recently discovered there is an apparent cosmic "pull" that is making the entire universe essentially run like a river, towards this direction. They have no clue what it is, nor any explanation of it. There was also something about a huge wall in the universe that was something like 10 billion light years tall, and beyond that there is no way of determining what resides. The point of this paragraph is not to illustrate that these are GOD influencing this, but rather that there are many many many things we have not yet discovered, and there are many things we find each day that turn our theories and beliefs on their heads, or contradict physics in how they were thought to operate. IMO, with these things going on at a constant rate with our technology, it's entirely possible for there to be a God, but equally probable that there is not.

The difference is that Atheists aren't claiming that there isn't a god. Christians are claiming that there is. Atheists are claiming that there's no reason to believe in a god. There's no reason to think that anything that's unexplained has to do with god. Many things that were previously unexplained have now been explained through science. None of the peviously unexplained things have been explained by religion.

Who cares?

There being a God or not isn't going to change what you do tomorrow.

Unless today is Saturday.

Well if he existed maybe I'd consider sacrificing a bull or two tomorrow.

MAYBE.

IMOrthog

Who cares? The point remains the same. Both sides of the argument have equally compelling arguments against each other. It's only up to you, the person, to decide which side you want to take, if any.



Pretty much what I think right there. That's the mentality we should have. Although sadly, there are tons of people that do extreme things in the name of faith or religion. People have murdered in the name of God in the past or started a war because of religion, and will continue to do so well into the future.

Except it isn't a discussion where both sides have their logic and evidence and both present their evidence and discuss it intellectually. It's a discussion where one side values rationality and evidence-based reason, and the other derides it as materialist and shallow. It is a fundamental division in how to think and how to come to conclusions about the Universe, whether to value observation or prayer, whether to live for this world or to prepare for an immortal afterlife. It is not some technicality that papers over the cracks.

I agree somewhat with what you said Mort, except the fact that you cannot disprove the existence of God just as much as you can prove it. There are many examples of things we could not observe and thus thought to not be able to exist, only to find out they in fact did once we had the technological capabilities. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it can't exist.

If a God created all that exists, it is likely his desires could be fulfilled with out any further action beyond the original creation, so he wouldn't ever really need to intervene unless he was trying to make a point by the act of intervening itself.

I'd like the point of view of someone that does not believe in God, etc.

What about the spirit? Does a God have to exist in order for an afterlife, a spirit, a soul, to exist also? Or could it just be another unmeasurable dimension that we can't see? Furthermore, what about all those so called "ghost" photos (yes there are TONS of fakes) that cannot be explained (yes these exist, much like some UFO reports or photos/videos that can't be explained)?

I'd like to think that once we die, whether or not we go to a "heaven" or a "hell", we still go somewhere. We don't just "blink into nothingness" (to quote Jean-Luc Picard) and that's it. There is so much to the universe, to life, to the point in merely existing that when our body stops working we evolve into something else. Can there be spontaneous evolution triggered by a specific event, such as death?

I hold militant Atheists at the same level of contempt as militant Christians.
I hold Atheists who deride Christians as 'stupid' at the same level of contempt as Christians who call Atheists 'heathens'.



Here you are assuming that being Christian means you do not value rationality or evidence-based reason. This is a mistake.

Furthermore, you are assuming that rationality and evidence-based reason actually is superior. This is another mistake.

You can not devalue philosophy and spirituality. They are a necessary part of human experience.

Allow me to acknowledge your next mistake before you make it. It will be one of these :
You will assume I am Christian and/or I believe in God.
You (or someone else) will ad-hom me with the label 'Taoist' or that 'christaoist' thing Rob made up, under the assumption that calling me these things is actually insulting or in anyway invalidates my opinion.
You will assume that I believe that Christians are all rational people.
You will assume that I believe intuition and spirituality are superior methods of thinking to rationality and reason.
You will continue to assume that the only way someone can believe a religion is because they are stupid or deluded.
You will continue to fail to see the similarities between Atheism and religions, and believe that your anti-religion behavior is somehow superior to pro-religion behavior because you are 'enlightened'.
You will continue to believe you are 'enlightened', rather than merely deluded in a different manner.
You will continue to care what other people think and believe, and will believe yourself that you have a right and even a duty to 'set them straight'.

That is a long list to choose from. Please try to make a different mistake, so I can act surprised.

Athiests don't try to disprove gods, we know it's impossible. But we also know there is no reason to suggest a god exists. So some of us absolutely despair at those who waste their lives (and it is a waste) worshipping these figures and in many cases building their entire adult careers and lives around them. It really depresses me.

If it were truly isolated, I wouldn't care about if someone is wrong or not. But their being wrong has consequences. If outdated Christian-based legislation affects MY life, that is a problem for ME.

You do realize that they (science) have recently proven that people who pray each day, and are extremely involved in their faith actually live healthier and happier lives? It's an actual biological effect on the body and not just in their mindset or outlook on life. It's actually sort of funny, to think that you can get a similar benefit on your body of eating a carrot or broccoli as you do when you are very religious.

Why would there have to be a God? These seem like entirely orthogonal concepts.

If the Christian God is 'the God', and Hell exists, than the Christian God is a lying, deceptive, ******* of a prick. He claims to love us all, yet will send us to Hell. We are his children; yet he will punish us for eternity. That is not love. I will love my children no matter what they do. I will always welcome them, no matter how evil they are. That is love - an unconditional love, always forgiving. If we are God's children, and he loves us, then there is no place for hell - because he would never allow us to be there.

As for blinking into nothingness - well that's impossible, law of conservation of matter. Even after the worms have digested you, you will be around. You'll just be a lot further around than when you were alive.

That is interesting, but I'm also wondering how many times you're going to reference recent scientific discoveries in this thread without posting a single link. I'm not disagreeing, but I'd prefer to read the sources rather than have to take your word for it.

At this point you are not worried about what they think, but that they will impose this way of thinking upon you. And you have every right to be worried! But their wrong doing does not give you the right to do wrong by imposing your beliefs on them. It should give you an incentive NOT to try to force your views on them. An example is always the best way to lead.

I don't force my views on them, except at Massassi. But Massassi is my outlet for these things.

I have no idea. That's what I think though. I don't believe we necessarily need there to be any sort of God at all in order for there to be the possibility of an afterlife.

I agree, the Christian God sounds very demented, to say the least. I don't know how someone can justify burning someone in hell for eternity, then turn around and say they love all their children. There seems to be something sort of.. Odd.. with that mindset. And your definition of unconditional love is precise.

Christian God or Hindu God, or whatever, I would much rather like to believe we go somewhere rather than being eaten by worms and **** back into the ground. My stance on God is weird. I believe in a God existing, somewhere. What sort of God I have no clue, and at the very least there is an afterlife. Where it is, whether it's heaven or hell, I don't know, or if it's even close to those two but rather something entirely different I cannot say either. Yet, I find myself also questioning his existence daily. I am not a faith based person, I don't believe in religion or the propaganda they speak, or that you need to believe in certain things or practice certain actions in order to be given the chance at an afterlife. It's hard to explain. I believe he/she/it exists, yet I long for any sort of solid proof that cannot be provided.


EDIT: Sorry Detty:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html
http://blogs.blackvoices.com/2008/05/02/your-spirituality-may-make-you-healthier/
http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/555081

The title of this thread is still bothering me. When did they go from ~12 billion to a number as specific as 13.73?

What's wrong with being eaten by worms? Worms need to eat too.

I think what you're saying is that you hope there is something more to you than this physical body. This belief is hardwired into your brain as a natural consequence of intelligence. Our intelligence is a curse, because it makes us aware of our death. This is a dangerous thing for an organism, so we naturally try to defend ourselves from it. I also believe there is something beyond this physical 'plane', but it does not come from hoping there is a place to go after death. It's simply because I see no other source for free will, and I choose to believe that I have free will.

Ultimately, you will die. For all intents and purposes what makes you you will vanish. Your body will be recycled by the Earth. What will live on is what you do.

people dont give it enough credit at all, darwinism kicks ***, it happens every day

Sure there is. Faith is the most easily disproven argument there is.

I read it on the internet so it must be true, although that still says "give or take 120 million years". <_< (But hey, what's a measly 120 million years among universes?)

Jesustits that is one huge playground.

Seems like some seriousness going on in this thread.

Let us lighten the mood with some Falcon Punch glitching!

If you read your own sources, the majority of the ones I read that you linked cited psychological effects, not biological. The psychological effects, in turn, is what causes some of those 'health' benefits. You fail at understanding psychology.

Sources:
http://blogs.blackvoices.com/2008/05/02/your-spirituality-may-make-you-healthier/
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health

C wut I did thar? lolollol Didn't use the other source, as it asked for a subscription to view. And for the that may say "ITS WIKIPED IT NOT GOOD SURCE," maybe check some of the sources it cites. I would find more sources, but I'm lazy.




In addition, you can see the amount of suffering in the world. How could such a loving and understanding being allow for such things to happen? In addition, going back to what JM said, how could it cast its "children" to hell for not believing in it because of the conditions in the world. From this, you can arrive at different conclusions to tack on, not matter what is argued.

1. A test of faith? Wow, that's pretty sadistic and narcissistic.
2. Chooses not to interfere? That's pretty apathetic. Extremely non-caring for something that chose to create us.
3. Can't interfere? Then, I guess god isn't all powerful, after all.
4. Influences of a opposing power? Then again, god isn't all powerful and/or is very apathetic to do nothing about it.
5. The world isn't that bad?

Either way you go about it, there's a landmine to hit. And I don't know about you, but that is not the type of god that I wish to follow. That is the type of god that deserved to be shunned for its "sins." And why should we care about a deity that most likely cares only about itself, and not its beloved children? Why should we trust a god that judges its creations for their choices, most of which could have been prevented had the god cared? If capable of such imperfection, then could it possibly lie, or cheat, or steal? Yes, it could.

In my opinion, based upon my observations, I believe that religion mostly takes the free out of free will, and creates a blanketed sense of irresponsibility. Good things happen? Its god. Bad things happen? Because of satan/other opposing force. It only creates scapegoats for us to cling to when trying to answer questions as to why things happen, how they happen, and why we feel the way that we feel. I admit that I, too, have been guilty of this type of thought... the thing is that we all have at some point in time.

The point is that the human, as both individual and collective, has the ability for 'good' things. Do we choose to? No, most of us choose to cling to our old ideals. Why? Because they worked before. Ever hear of the term "if it's not broken, don't fix it?" The same applies for here, except we don't know what things would be like IF things were 'fixed'.

What do I believe? I'm personally mixed. Meaning that aspects of the afterlife, including the existance of a deity figure can not be argued for or against. However, I do lean towards the atheistic point of view. If there is a god, it isn't a 'good' one, either in ability, intent, or what have you.

There... I said it.

Fun fact: All matter is in fact energy, if you look at it on the 'lowest level'.



Time is very real. Where there is matter, there is time. But it is relative to speed. In fact time is so real that when people first went to the moon, it turned out Einstein had accurately calculated the amount of time the watches of the astronauts would be behind on their return.

If you stand on one end of the room, and throw your watch to the other end of the room, your watch will be 'behind' on you, because it moved with greater speed and thus time will have went by slower for it. Of course it will be an imperceivably small amount of time since you're not exactly throwing at light speed, but that's the idea.

Want to cite that? Yeah, it's well known that religious people tend to be happier according to certain studies. It's also a case of correlation not necessarily indicating causality.

I think Sarn was referring to some of the newer approaches regarding time, like how time may be just another physical dimension but appears as a sequence to us because we live in the lower dimensions.

Please link.

I provided links.



I'm not arguing psychology. What's your entire point? The end effect is similar but not the same, which is all I said. Psychological and Biological are intertwined, each has an effect on one another. Hence why you can literally think yourself into being sick. I didn't say that if you pray each day or go to church your clogged arteries will magically clear up.

Everyone must stop being so cynical.. or you will all be reincarnated as dung beetles.. or Rob

That one's pretty well known, you should be able to google it. There were also experiments where they calculated time dilation using atomic clocks on very fast airplanes.

I don't get the whole "Time is a dimension" thing. Time is just how we track change.

exactly...the change across a runway could be a matter of a few miles...thats a lenght dimension

[CENTER]Slightly offtopic but becomes back on-topic somewhere in the middle, but it needs to be said. Dont reply if you didn't read the whole thing, which will probably be most/all of you.
[/CENTER]

All the information about the theory of evolution regarding genetics, mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift have been developed and tested, using the methods and principals of science, over the past several hundred years by many people and from many different perspectives. Evolution is so well supported that we consider the basic idea to be a fact, and it is the central concept of all biology, although we continue to apply the scientific method to our investigation of specific details. Our ideas about the generation of genetic variability, adaption by natural selection, and the origin of species from existing species-all come together to explain everything we observe and understand about the living world.

We benefit from this knowledge every day of our lives. We eat food from species of plants and animals bred according to the principles of genetics and selection. We know the causes of many of the illnesses that beset us because we understand the genetic operations of our cells, and we have inside into how some organisms (such as viruses and bacteria) are adapted to other organisms (like us), and vice versa. Many of the antibiotics and other medicine that help us treat those with illness work only because of the interrelatedness of all life. And this interrelatedness has also allowed us to manipulate the genes of other organisms, including bacteria, to "trick" them into producing human insulin for the treatment of diabetes (which I have). Moreover, recent advances in decoding the genome have revealed remarkable genetic similarities amoung even distantly related species (we share 70% of our DNA with bananas).

SO IT IS TRUELY ASTOUNDING THAT SOME PEOPLE QUESTION THE FACT THAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY OCCURED, and many of these people base their questioning on religious belief. Why is this a problem? Science and belief systems are both important for the operation of any society, and, ideally, they operate in harmony with one another. They are still, however, distinct realms of knowledge, distinguished by the testability of science and the faith of belief.

Although pseudoscientific beliefs such as palmistry may be harmless enough, other examples have implications that may not be so benign. Some pseudocientific ideas find support within established belief systems. There are people who think the earth is flat and still refeuse to acknowledge the masses of scientific evidence to the contrary. This belief stems in part from the literal interpretation of several biblical passages, for example, Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him [Jesus] up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world..." How could Jesus have seen all the kingdoms of the earth unless it was flat? On one hand, scientific evidence-not to mention photographs from space-tells us unequivocally that the earth is a sphere. On the other hand, an interpretation of the chronicles of two major religions seem to say the earth is flat.

The idea that the earth is flat is completely ridiculous, but there is another pseudoscience, relevant to our topic. Scientific creationism proposes that the entire universe, including the earth and all its inhabitants, were created spontaneously by untestable supernatural forces around 10,000 years ago. Except for minor changes within "kinds" of plants and animals, no changes in living organisms have occured. But, we might ask, what about the layers of rock and soil and the fossiles they contain? According to supporters of scientific creationism, those resulted from a great flood.

This argument derives directly from one literal interpretation of the first eight chapters of Genesis, and it is clearly in direct opposition to all data and ideas accumulated and tested by science. More than 200 years of scientific inquiry tell us the universe, including the earth, arose through knowable, natural processes. The universe is approximately 15 billion years old, the earth at least 4.5 billion years old, and life on earth 4 billion years old. Living organisms do change through time, and species give rise to new species. The geological and fossile records are the records of these billions of years of change.

Scientific creationism is thus a pseudoscience-a testable set of ideas that even in the face of contrary evidence is accepted on faith. But scientific creationism goes further. Its proponents claim its ideas are, indeed, supported by scientfic evidence that also refutes the accepted theory of evolution. That the creation model coincides with one interpretation of Genesis merely shows, they say, the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Because advocates of scientific creationism claim both models are scientific, they feel both should be taught in schools.

The argument is persuasive, especially in a society like ours, concered with religious freedom and with a sense of fair play and equal time. But equal time is for equivalent things. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FOR THE CREATION MODEL. To teach scientific creationism alongside evolution would be a violation of the religious freedoms of those who do not subscribe to a strict creationist interpretation.

Intelligent design says the the basic chemistry of life-cells, DNA, RNA, and chemical reactions-is far too complex to have evolved naturally and so must have been designed by some intelligent entity. THe more involved arguments use statistics to convey the great odds against putting together just the right combination of molecules that we need for life. Intimidated by such large numbers, many people accept the improbability.

There are two problems with this idea. First, the initial improbability of something happening doesnt preclude its happening. What was the probability at my birth that I would eventually become a biological anthropologist, and at this moment, writing this post to you all? The answer is: infinitesimally small! And yet it happened.

Similarly, for the evolution of life, a billion years or so passed from the formation of the earth to the first evidence of life. There are so many molecules, so many combinations of compounds, so many chances for things to come together that we couldnt begin to even estimate the number. Among things that did occure was the chemical combination, under just the right circumstances, that set in motion the chain of events that lead to life.

In other words, an intelligent designer is not nessesary.

The second problem is that an intelligent designer is not a scientific idea. The proposal of an intelligent designer is based on supposed rational, scientific evidence is just thinly disguised version of scientific creationism. It ignores the majority of empirical evidence and substitutes an idea that cannot be tested, that must be taken on faith. It then becomes, by definition in one of the previous paragraphs, a pseudoscience. There may well be some designer behind the universe, but a belief in such a designer is not a substitute for a scientific explanation of the universe.

The quality of our lives now and in the future depends on the continued progress of our testable scientific knowledge, mediated by the values of our belief systems.

[/thread]

Really? I'm having trouble finding it.