Guest Agaib

Religion

Religion  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Is religion...

    • The Best
      2
    • Good
      6
    • Bad
      4
    • Ugly
      10
    • Other (Elaborate)
      16


Recommended Posts

Guest Agaib

I was going to stop, but I guess I can't help Myself.

I think some people have mistaken me for rejecting religious arguments without thinking about them. I've entertained the idea of god existing, I've played with the concept and wondered how I can set up personal system for establishing truth that included a god without compromising it but I haven't yet found one. I've decided to establish truth by saying that all things are to be assumed false until demonstrated to be true through evidence. I know the table in front of Me exists because I have compelling visual evidence. While its true that my visual perceptions could be compromised it has been giving consistent data and appears to agree with My other senses. Thus, for Me to beleive that god exists, I must have powerful consistent evidence demonstrating that he must exist.

Evolution does not say that life came from nothing (you're thinking of abiogenesis, evolution itself is only a theory about how life has developed not how it started). However, it is not sufficient to say something supported by experiments and collected evidence "sounds" absurd, you must demonstrate why it is impossible by producing contrary evidence or experiment. Your Darwinism argument is based in rhetoric, not science. Order indeed can spontaneously arise from chaos in the natural world (although entropy would dictate that the disorder of the universe must have a net rise).

Your cosmology argument, like the one from before merely demonstrates that a god is a possible cause for the universe (there are alternative causes which are not gods as your might understand them to be). It doesn't mean that god must be a cause, which is necessary for asserting that god must exist.

Setting said the problems with "it's unlikely arguments" that lack quantifiable numbers, your physics argument is valid only when it states that without the very specific constants of the universe humanity would likely not exist. However, this doesn't mean that if the universe functioned in a different way that there couldn't be sentient life forms that function in a way radically different from us that end up having the exact same argument over whether their existence proves the existence of a god. You're right, humanity itself is lucky to exist, but it's hubris to assume that life can only exist in the ways we've observed thus far.

The astronomy argument is the same. Its ideal for humans, but that doesn't mean its ideal for life in any form whatsoever.

I'll admit to not knowing much about the biochemistry arguments but I think to declare that design is the only possible method that the flagella could have developed is presumptuous. It would be impossible to make scientific progress if jumped to the design conclusion as soon as a problem that appeared unsolvable materialized. I'll admit to be somewhat ignorant of this facet of the god debate, however, and I can't say much more than that.

As for biological information, simply because to objects share similar properties doesn't mean that the properties come from the same type of source. A light bulb and the sun both have similar properties (they emit light) but the light comes from very different sources. Not everything about DNA implies design. There are large portions of DNA that serve no purpose whatsoever which would be an odd thing for a designer to do.

People claiming to have conscious moments during near death experiences hardly prove the existence of god. Its possible that their experiences or memories were formulated after their revival. It's interesting to be sure, and maybe some day with better equipment we might be able make better conclusions about the source of these experiences.

I'm unimpressed with your argument for the validity of Christianity. Many other religions say the same things you've quoted, but at the same time present radically different ideas on the nature of the universe.

Atheism is not a "set of beliefs." Not all atheists beleive in the validity of science. The only property that unites all atheists is the lack of a belief. I fail to see how this could qualify as a religion.

Don't mistake me as saying that my interpretation of the evidence is the only valid one. What I'm saying is that as long as other scientifically minded conclusions can be made with the given evidence one side cannot claim to be proven. As I said before, the burden of proof is not on Me, but on those saying god exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I voted that religion is the BEST

Anyone who defies me gets spanked.

*writes everyone's names in little black book*

>_>

(God, do I still have to steer this damn stupid blue planet of yours, or should I stop? ....Wait till Dec 12, 2012? Okay.)

You guys are just lucky I guess. 4 more years.

:lol: ROTFLMFAO! :lol: Yeah! I picked the very bottom one... >.> but I think I made a mistake and meant 'Good' >.<; I can't believe you are one of the people who knows abotu 2012! >.< I thought only so many knew about it. Though I don't think the end will happen then, I do know something very VERY horrible is going to happen then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only God knows when the world will end. It's in his master plan. If you try to read it your memory of it will be erased. I will agree that something bad is going to happen soon though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's true enough. Maybe we'll evolve into something wonderful. (You never know...)

(Pets Agaib soothingly on head.)

We all have to sort things out for ourselves. It would be nice if God tangibly walked beside each and every one of us, but alas, His presence is something that must seemingly be hunted. Unless you believe that poem by anonymous. "Footprints" Which seems less intellectually appealing as it does emotionally appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to stop, but I guess I can't help Myself.

I think some people have mistaken me for rejecting religious arguments without thinking about them. I've entertained the idea of god existing, I've played with the concept and wondered how I can set up personal system for establishing truth that included a god without compromising it but I haven't yet found one. I've decided to establish truth by saying that all things are to be assumed false until demonstrated to be true through evidence. I know the table in front of Me exists because I have compelling visual evidence. While its true that my visual perceptions could be compromised it has been giving consistent data and appears to agree with My other senses. Thus, for Me to beleive that god exists, I must have powerful consistent evidence demonstrating that he must exist.

That seems reasonable.

Evolution does not say that life came from nothing (you're thinking of abiogenesis, evolution itself is only a theory about how life has developed not how it started). However, it is not sufficient to say something supported by experiments and collected evidence "sounds" absurd, you must demonstrate why it is impossible by producing contrary evidence or experiment. Your Darwinism argument is based in rhetoric, not science. Order indeed can spontaneously arise from chaos in the natural world (although entropy would dictate that the disorder of the universe must have a net rise).

Abiogenesis and evolution work together. Without the first, there is no latter. I use the term evolution as a blanket term to cover both (for the purpose of this debate). The argument is based on actual science… I did not include the data because it was long, and would only be needed if someone contested it. I did not say that chaos can not produce order, but that it cannot produce information (see 'biological information).

Your cosmology argument, like the one from before merely demonstrates that a god is a possible cause for the universe (there are alternative causes which are not gods as your might understand them to be). It doesn't mean that god must be a cause, which is necessary for asserting that god must exist.

Yes, it is possible… Which is what evidence is; a demonstration of what is possible. The cosmology argument is a single piece of a larger evidentiary puzzle, not an argument unto itself, which is why I included evidence from multiple sources.

Setting said the problems with "it's unlikely arguments" that lack quantifiable numbers, your physics argument is valid only when it states that without the very specific constants of the universe humanity would likely not exist. However, this doesn't mean that if the universe functioned in a different way that there couldn't be sentient life forms that function in a way radically different from us that end up having the exact same argument over whether their existence proves the existence of a god. You're right, humanity itself is lucky to exist, but it's hubris to assume that life can only exist in the ways we've observed thus far.

And yet "it's likely" or "it's unlikely" form the basis of many scientific theories. The physics argument is stronger than that, as stars would not form ect… Of course, life may be possible, but not as we know it, and not what we consider life.

The astronomy argument is the same. Its ideal for humans, but that doesn't mean its ideal for life in any form whatsoever.

Yet, still a valid piece of the puzzle.

I'll admit to not knowing much about the biochemistry arguments but I think to declare that design is the only possible method that the flagella could have developed is presumptuous. It would be impossible to make scientific progress if jumped to the design conclusion as soon as a problem that appeared unsolvable materialized. I'll admit to be somewhat ignorant of this facet of the god debate, however, and I can't say much more than that.

The experiment established that flagella could not have evolved. It is an irreductably complex organ, and the life forms that depend on it could not survive without it. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.

As for biological information, simply because to objects share similar properties doesn't mean that the properties come from the same type of source. A light bulb and the sun both have similar properties (they emit light) but the light comes from very different sources. Not everything about DNA implies design. There are large portions of DNA that serve no purpose whatsoever which would be an odd thing for a designer to do.

Actually the light comes from heat and chemical reactions in both cases. And as for the DNA, no purpose, perhaps, that we know about… Plus, it's not that odd. We design stuff with extra space all the time.

People claiming to have conscious moments during near death experiences hardly prove the existence of god. Its possible that their experiences or memories were formulated after their revival. It's interesting to be sure, and maybe some day with better equipment we might be able make better conclusions about the source of these experiences.

Actually, near death experiences did not form the sole basis of that research (which is why I did not specify it). And it is very good evidence of the soul, which implies the existence of God.

I'm unimpressed with your argument for the validity of Christianity. Many other religions say the same things you've quoted, but at the same time present radically different ideas on the nature of the universe.

Atheism is not a "set of beliefs." Not all atheists beleive in the validity of science. The only property that unites all atheists is the lack of a belief. I fail to see how this could qualify as a religion.

I wasn't trying to impress you. And I agree that atheism is not a religion.

Don't mistake me as saying that my interpretation of the evidence is the only valid one. What I'm saying is that as long as other scientifically minded conclusions can be made with the given evidence one side cannot claim to be proven. As I said before, the burden of proof is not on Me, but on those saying god exists.

Yes, yes… But like I said: It is evidence, where some people say there is none. I would also argue that the burden of proof is on the original claimant (In this case me). But if someone walked up to me and claimed there was no God, they would have to verify their assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our battles they may find us

No choice may ours to be

But hold the banner proudly

The truth will set us free

My mind was called across the years

Of rages and of strife

Of all the human misery

And all the waste of life

We wondered where our God was

In the face of so much pain

I looked up to the stars above

To find you once again

We travelled the wide oceans

Heard many call your name

With sword and gun and hatred

It all seemed much the same

Some used your name for glory

Some used it for their gain

Yet when liberty lay wanting

No lives were lost in vain

Is it not our place to wonder

As the sky does weep with tears

And all the living creatures

Look on with mortal fear

It is ours to hold the banner

Is ours to hold it long

It is ours to carry forward

Our love must make us strong

Those are the lyrics to a song called Beneath a Phrygian Sky. I find myself listening to it when I'm incredibly depressed. I only put up the parts that pertained to this thread, not the whole song.

It kind of sums up how I feel. Lots of people used the name of God to serve their own selfish purposes. But as human beings there is something inside us that makes us want to believe in a higher power. And for some people their love of God is what gives them the strength to carry on through all of life's shit.

I don't follow the Christian beliefs for the most part, but I do believe that Jesus Christ was indeed sent to earth as the son of God. I have a good relationship with him, and in my darkest hours it has been a life saver... literally. I'm a very old soul, and as far as I've seen, there are two types of Athiests.

The first type is the very young souls. They are incredibly naive. They only exist in the physical world, and don't know how to listen to their souls or God. This belief in the physical world makes them think they know everything. In reality, they don't know shit about shit. Most learn eventually. Those that want undeniable proof get it when they die.

Then there are those that choose to believe that there isn't a God so they can sleep better at night. There are the type of people that do things that they know would send them straight to hell if there actually was a God. So they deny his existence and just go on with their happy little lives. They get theirs in the end.

I should probably state that Athiests shouldn't take my views as offensive. I'm old, cranky, and a bit emotionally unstable at the moment. To sum up how old.... I watched the spynx being built.... You do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't follow the Christian beliefs for the most part, but I do believe that Jesus Christ was indeed sent to earth as the son of God. I have a good relationship with him, and in my darkest hours it has been a life saver... literally.
You know... it doesn't make sense that you don't follow the Christian beliefs and yet you believe in God and Jesus Christ. And you say you have a good relationship with him, but the thing is, to have a good relationship with God and Jesus, you must follow the Christian beliefs and teachings. What exactly are the Christian beliefs do you not follow?

To sum up how old.... I watched the spynx being built.... You do the math.
I don't think it's a good idea telling people about such things, many would have a hard time believing it and call you crazy. I'm just trying to look out for you and help you from having people judge you on this... you know what I mean? o.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Darwinism, the following must be true:

* Nothing produces everything.

Not even hardly. Evolution is just the changes in gene pools over time and is silent on the beginning of that life. It is also silent on the existence of any or all deities. Those that try to make it say something it doesn't are building straw men to knock down.
Abiogenesis and evolution work together.
Not really. Life could be created by a committee of gods, by chance, by supervised chance, by alien intervention, by alien negligence, or a host of other possible starts that gave us the first life form or forms on the planet.

Some people do take evolution to be proof there is no God. They're wrong. it's neutral to the nature and existence of the divine. Just as much as electricity doesn't prove or disprove a deity, or any other science.

I use the term evolution as a blanket term to cover both (for the purpose of this debate).
Then for the purpose of this debate, you're using a strawman attack. Maybe what you mean to use is something like: According to the atheist definition of how the universe works... Of course, it's still not accurate, but at least the terms seem to be closer to the true nature of your argument.
The argument is based on actual science…
Not if you're using non-scientific definitions of what evolution is, it isn't.

Tell me, what text book declares, just to start, that everything comes from nothing? Which scientists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's a good idea telling people about such things, many would have a hard time believing it and call you crazy. I'm just trying to look out for you and help you from having people judge you on this... you know what I mean? o.o

Well, thanks for looking out for me I guess. I said in the beginning, everyone is allowed to disagree with me. But since I don't call them crazy, they should do the same for me.

And it is possible to not agree with Christians totally, and still believe in God and Jesus. Men wrote the bible, and I don't agree with them. And did you know that the first testiment is actualy the Jewish bible? Christians are only supposed to follow the new testiment. Jesus actually contradicted Jewish law in his teachings, hence why he wasn't well liked by a lot of people. But Christianity was created by a group of men who got together and decided what they wanted to believe.

I don't follow organized religion period. I did a lot of soul searching and decided what I believe. I guess you can say I invented my own branch of the Christan religion. I'm not the type to let someone tell me what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is possible to not agree with Christians totally, and still believe in God and Jesus. Men wrote the bible, and I don't agree with them. And did you know that the first testiment is actualy the Jewish bible?

That's not true. First five books of the old testament are the Jewish holy book.

Christians are only supposed to follow the new testiment. Jesus actually contradicted Jewish law in his teachings, hence why he wasn't well liked by a lot of people. But Christianity was created by a group of men who got together and decided what they wanted tobelieve.
Again, not true. Jesus did not contradict the old testament, actually, he quoted it frequently. And the jewish rabis were upset for completely different reasons.

I don't follow organized religion period. I did a lot of soul searching and decided what I believe. I guess you can say I invented my own branch of the Christan religion. I'm not the type to let someone tell me what to believe and what's right and wrong.
That's fine. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even hardly. Evolution is just the changes in gene pools over time and is silent on the beginning of that life. It is also silent on the existence of any or all deities. Those that try to make it say something it doesn't are building straw men to knock down.

Straw Man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument (dictionary.com)

My argument is not fabricated, nor is it weak. When you study science books and religious books, there are implications that are made. One such implication is that if evolution is true then God is not. By refuting some of the base principles of evolution, I am implying that God is real.

Not really. Life could be created by a committee of gods, by chance, by supervised chance, by alien intervention, by alien negligence, or a host of other possible starts that gave us the first life form or forms on the planet.

Except that it cannot, once you apply any amount of real science and not just what some moldy old professor told you.

Then for the purpose of this debate, you're using a strawman attack. Maybe what you mean to use is something like: According to the atheist definition of how the universe works... Of course, it's still not accurate, but at least the terms seem to be closer to the true nature of your argument.

Again, it is not a straw man argument. What, did you take a debate class in high school? Maybe you did not do so well in it? I mean, you have not been able to refute any of my points. If they were straw men, refuting them should be easy.

Tell me, what text book declares, just to start, that everything comes from nothing? Which scientists?

There are so many to choose from. Try actually reading up on evolution. Study it enough and you will see that the conclusion that it leads us to (if it is correct) is that everything comes from nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One such implication is that if evolution is true then God is not. By refuting some of the base principles of evolution, I am implying that God is real.
Even if that were true, then refuting things that are not evolution has no bearing on evolution's implications. But it isn't true, since evolution, real evolution, is silent on the existence of God. So refuting evolution has no implications on god's reality.

Behe, who came up with Irreducible Complexity, fully accepted evolution as the source of change in life and the diversity of life on the planet. BUT he felt that some aspects of life were not possible without a God. So, he felt that evolution and God were both true.

A poll showed that 95% of all scientists in the country accept evolution. About 50% of them feel it is a fully natural process, needing no deity. Some 45% feel that it's part of God's plan. Five percent reject evolution. All of them do so for religious reasons.

Your 'implications' of evolution and god being diametrically opposed are strawmen. Nearly half of all American scientists find no problem accepting God and the Theory of Evolution.

Except that it cannot, once you apply any amount of real science and not just what some moldy old professor told you.
It's a common creationist claim, that they're using real science but real scientists aren't. But if your 'real science' is based on something that evolution isn't, not really, then it's rather wrong. As well dismiss evolution because it doesn't explain Bohr's model of the atom.
Again, it is not a straw man argument.
Yes, it is. As long as you paint evolution as being anti-god, or godless, or having any stance whatsoever on God, then what you're arguing is a convenient stand-in for real science. Like electricity, gravity, friction and any other science, it works on observations, not on any view of a deity.
There are so many to choose from. Try actually reading up on evolution. Study it enough and you will see that the conclusion that it leads us to (if it is correct) is that everything comes from nothing.
Fine. Show me one. Just one that actually says it. You can't, because your 'conclusion it leads us to' is wrong.

1) evolution is about changes in life, not the beginning of life.

2) 'everything comes from nothing' is not part of any scientific claim. It is part of non-scientist paraphrases of what they think the Big Bang theory is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, a good place to see evolution at work (in a human intervention sort of way) is by observing what animal breeders do with the breeds they work with. They pick and choose which animals to breed with each other based on certain traits.

As this is something that is not selected naturally, of course many times the traits have no useful purpose other than to please some person's sense of aesthetics more often than not. Naturally, most of these encouraged mutations (the Sphinx cat comes to mind as example) are often of a nature which would actually be detrimental to the animal in the wild for survival. Hence, natural selection would then breed the trait OUT.

My whole point there is that just observing something like animal breeding can show you no deity involvement whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if that were true, then refuting things that are not evolution has no bearing on evolution's implications. But it isn't true, since evolution, real evolution, is silent on the existence of God. So refuting evolution has no implications on god's reality.

Behe, who came up with Irreducible Complexity, fully accepted evolution as the source of change in life and the diversity of life on the planet. BUT he felt that some aspects of life were not possible without a God. So, he felt that evolution and God were both true.

A poll showed that 95% of all scientists in the country accept evolution. About 50% of them feel it is a fully natural process, needing no deity. Some 45% feel that it's part of God's plan. Five percent reject evolution. All of them do so for religious reasons.

Your 'implications' of evolution and god being diametrically opposed are strawmen. Nearly half of all American scientists find no problem accepting God and the Theory of Evolution.

It's a common creationist claim, that they're using real science but real scientists aren't. But if your 'real science' is based on something that evolution isn't, not really, then it's rather wrong. As well dismiss evolution because it doesn't explain Bohr's model of the atom.

That is an argument ad homenim(sp?) and as such is not valid in any debate.

Since you don’t seem to get how much evidence of God there is (evolution was just to prove that science makes mistakes and big ones) even though you cannot refute any of my other points, I am going to go ahead and show some more evidence that proves my point.

Okay, here it is... all compiled into one mega-post.

The Anthropic Principles point out that there are over one hundred variables to this Universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. Either this Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible, or there have to be googolplexes of Universes. If there are that many Universes, then the chances of a Being Like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could, of course call such a Being something other than "God." But if it quacks like a Cosmic Duck and waddles like a Cosmic Duck and builds little universe nests that produce baby Cosmic Ducklings, why not call it a Cosmic Duck?

To name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the books, "God the Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in Universes" and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been merely 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster. Leslie, page 5.

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example). Leslie, page 24. Leslie got this information from P.C. W. Davies, 1980 (Other Worlds), pp. 176-177.

"A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons, --yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars." Leslie, page 4, quoting Hawking, Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10.

The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact the resulting imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, rocks, stars, to explode violently. The Universe would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air. There would be nothing else. Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."

The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and Earth would be covered with solid ice. This property is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom. Leslie, p 30, quoting Barrow and Tipler pp 143-144. CF Debtys Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp 171-172.

The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4. beryllium-8 and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long." Wilkinson, pp 181-183. See also John Gribbon and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York: Bantam, 1989 pp. 243-247.

Scientific Evidence for Ephesians 4:15, 4:10 and 1 Corinthians 12:27

The Gaia Hypothesis states that all the life forms on Planet Earth work together to keep the planet life-bearing. There is much evidence for this. The heat output of the Sun has changed much down through the ages, and yet the temperature of our planet has maintained the narrow range necessary to maintain Life.

The level of atmospheric gasses has also remained, for the most part, a steady constant despite changing conditions. This is extremely important. If there were not enough oxygen in the atmosphere, fauna would die. If there were too much oxygen and not enough carbon dioxide and methane, plants would die and the atmosphere would be so flammable, fires would overrun the Earth.

Too much of both oxygen and carbon dioxide would also be fatal. But a third gas, methane, (produced by termites and digestion) is just abundant enough to keep the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in check.

Some kind of biological feedback system must be working to keep all this balanced. As of yet, there is no evidence Gaia is sentient, but She is biological.

Near Death Experiences:

Medical science has advanced to the point where people can enter a hospital DOA (Dead On Arrival) and leave it alive! Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and other medical procedures are restoring the life functions of many who would have been considered irreversibly dead in earlier times. According to a recent Gallup poll at least 8 million people in the United States have had Near Death Experiences (NDE's). Most of these people now have an unshakable belief that there is something beyond this earthly life of ours.

There have been some small attempts by scientists to clarify whether these experiences are real or hallucinatory. Their attempts have lead to some intriguing statistics. Dr. Kenneth Ring found out quite early that a patient who receives anesthesia is less likely to report a NDE than one who has not. Thus drugs do not seem to be the cause of NDE's. World wide researchers have found that NDE's do not vary from country to country or culture to culture. An Australian Aborigine will report the same kind of experiences as a New York Taxi Driver (not using the same language, of course). Also the number of reported incidences is amazing. Thousands have entered their names into the database of the International Association of Near Dead Studies. There is disagreement about what NDE's are, but that they have occurred to millions of normal people, is beyond doubt.

Some of the evidence is anecdotal. One lady found herself floating up to the hospital roof, where she noted a red shoe in the gutter. Upon her return to life, she told the doctor, who laughed and laughed. The Doctor told the janitor who also laughed, but he went up on the roof and looked for himself, and sure enough, there was the red shoe in the gutter! Another lady told her doctor she had watched her medical procedure while floating above the operating table. To prove it she mentioned that there were several coins on top of the cabinet in the operating room. The doctor got a chair, stood on it and looked, and sure enough the money was there in the denominations the patient had mentioned.

Some evidence is more scientific. Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist connected with the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, divided patients into two groups; twenty-two patients who had reported NDE's while being resuscitated, and twenty-five who didn't. He asked the twenty-two patients who had the NDE's to describe what the resuscitation attempt had looked like to them. He asked the twenty-five who had not reported any such experience to imagine as accurately as possible what they thought their resuscitations had been like.

Twenty out of the twenty five of the imaginers made major errors in their attempts to report what had happened. None of the twenty-two experiencers made any major errors. Six of the twenty-two were able to recall very specific events during their resuscitation, such as the gurneys they were riding on, the shape of the paddles used to revive them and which family members were or weren't waiting for them in the waiting area. This is not a big study and many more of a larger nature need to be done to confirm the matter on a scientific level, but it is an intriguing start. It certainly indicates the experience is more than just a hallucination brought on by a part of the brain being stimulated and that the out of body viewpoint is real.

There are several stages typical of a NDE. Not all experiencers report every stage. The early stages are reported more often than the later stages. Among those stages reported are, feelings of peace and quiet, finding oneself out of one's body, going through a dark tunnel, meeting up with a Being of Light, having one's life reviewed, coming to a border of some kind and being told if one goes through the border, one can't return, and making the decision to return.

The Scientific Study of Prayer Under Controlled Conditions

Proof it works. Proof it Doesn't ALWAYS Work

There have been over a hundred experiments done of the effect of prayer on various life forms. Experiments with people showed that prayer positively affected high blood pressure, wounds, heart attacks, headaches and anxiety. In many cases we can suspect a psychosomatic reason for these improvements, but not all. Some of these experiments were done in a double blind manner. That means that neither the doctor nor the subjects knew who was being prayed for, and who wasn't. That can rule out the placebo effect. Subjects didn't get better just because the doctors thought they would and somehow subconsciously communicated that belief to their patients.

To quote from Dr. Larry Dossey MD's book: "Healing Words" The subjects in these studies also included water, enzymes, bacteria, fungi, yeast, red blood cells, cancer cells, pacemaker cells, seeds, plants, algae, moth larvae, mice and chicks; and among the processes that had been influenced were the activity of enzymes, the growth rates of leukemic white blood cells, mutation rates of bacteria, germination and growth rates of various seeds, the firing rate of pacemaker cells, healing rate of wounds, the size of goiters and tumors, the time required to awaken from anesthesia, autonomic effects such as electrodermal activity of the skin, rates of hemolysis of red blood cells, and hemoglobin levels. It did not seem to matter whether the praying person was in the presence of the organism being prayed for, or was miles away. Objects locked in lead lined rooms and "cages" designed to block all known forms of electromagnetic energy were still affected.

In one study by researcher Daniel P. Wirth the effects of prayer on wound healing were studied. This was a double blind study. Forty-four subjects were deliberately wounded with full skin thickness surgical wounds. They were not told they were going to be prayed for. None of the patients were told they were receiving any kind of a healing treatment at all. They were told to insert the arm with the wound on it through a hole in the wall for five minutes. The reason for this unusual exercise was explained to them to be for the purpose of measuring the "biopotentials" from the surgical site with a "noncontact device." Little did they know that the "noncontact device" was actually a person praying for their wounds. With twenty-two of the subjects she was in the room praying, and with twenty-two of the subjects she was not in the room praying. Several times during the study, doctors double blinded as to which patient was in what group, traced the wounds on transparent acetate sheets. Then an independent technician, also double blinded, would digitize the tracings into a computer for data collection. By day eight the wound sizes of the prayed for subjects were significantly smaller than the non-prayed for subjects. On day sixteen the result was measured again. By then thirteen of the prayed for wounds were completely healed as opposed to none of the non-prayed for wounds.

Not all experiments were done double blind. In one early study done at the McGill University in Montreal by Dr. Bernard Grad, eighteen children with terminal leukemia were old to pray to God every night before going to bed. Another eighteen children with terminal leukemia were not told this. Ninety percent of the praying children survived an average of fourteen months. Only thirty-seven percent of the nonpraying children lived that long. Notice that this study does not prove that prayer CURES terminal leukemia. It only prolonged the children's lives. It did not necessarily heal them. Also note that the praying children at were very much aware that faith was being used to help them. We cannot rule out the psychosomatic effect here. Similar successes have been achieved when adults with terminal cancer were simply given psychological counseling during their fight for life. The counseled group lived longer than the noncounseled group This study does show that prayer is good for one's mental health and that improved mental health can prolong life.

ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT?

There is one way to know for YOURSELF that God exists and that Christ is God. Suspend disbelief for a few moments, and take a leap of faith and have the courage to SINCERELY pray the following prayer. Now you suspend disbelief for hours at a time to watch a movie, or read a book, you can surely do it for sixty seconds to perform an important experiment!

Leaps of faith are necessary in everything, even science. We wouldn't' have made it to the Moon if Humanity hadn't taken a leap of faith that the technology to make it possible would be inventible and put in the effort to invent it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

If Christ is not real, you will be no worse off than you were before. If Christ is real you will have gained eternal life and found a new best friend.

A few words of warning; you must be willing to commit to allowing this Presence to change you into the Being He wants you to be. If you perform it half heartedly, or with no real intention of changing, you will get nowhere. Not everyone is up to performing this experiment, Are you?

"Dear Lord Jesus, I have trouble believing in you. Please help my unbelief. If you are real, please forgive me my faults and help me to forgive others. Thank you for taking responsibility for my faults yourself by dying on the cross for me, and help me to overcome my faults. Please come to live inside of me. Be my Lord and Savior. Help me to live for you, and help me to help others find you. Amen."

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

In this short article, I summarize my ideas about the second law of thermodynamics, and why I believe it points to a creator God.

This article also appears in the book In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John F. Ashton, and published by Master Books, Green Forest, AR. Copyright 2000 by John F. Ashton. It is available on-line from Answers in Genesis .

A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.

Is this scientific proof for the existence of a Creator God? I think so. Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God.

The fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Richard Dawkins considers to be his most convincing argument that no gods exist. He calls this argument the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." Dawkins asserts that the "The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist." However, as we shall see, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins, of course, believes that evolution (biological or cosmological) can explain all of nature, and presents arguments to support his views in this chapter.

The Ultimate Boeing 747

The Boeing 747 allusion is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner. However, Dawkins turns the argument around, and concludes that any designer must be even more improbable:

However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

Dawkins does not present the argument formally, but here it is extracted from the few sentences he actually devotes to the argument:

* Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself

* Premise #2. God shows evidence of design in himself

* Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself

Argument #2:

* Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible

* Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)

* Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist

Although Dawkins does not believe that premise #1 is true, he accepts it as such, supposedly being a premise that all theists would accept as true. However, theists make no such claim that all possible entities require design. Specifically, we can't know for sure if God shows evidence of design, since He is not even a physical entity (God is a spirit). The proof that the first premise is false can be shown by using it against Dawkins' own preferred universe designer - the multiverse. Here is Dawkins' argument turned against itself:

* Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself

* Premise #2. The universe shows evidence of design in itself

* Conclusion #1. Hence the universe requires a designer (a multiverse) superior to itself

Argument #2:

* Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible

* Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)

* Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no universes can exist

Obviously, the universe does exist, so there must be something wrong with Dawkins' argument! Dawkins argument falls flat because premise #1 is false. Entities can be either contingent or necessary. The Creator (or creator) of the universe is a necessary entity and is not contingent upon anything nor requires a designer. This must be true or no universe would exist at all. So, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins' failure to distinguish between necessary and contingent entities also assumes that cause and effect operates upon all entities. However, the evidence indicates that time itself began at the beginning of the Big Bang. Without the existence of time, cause and effect do not operate. So, whatever or Whoever created the universe lies outside of time and space and has "always" existed. What was Dawkins thinking? (or was he?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is an argument ad homenim(sp?) and as such is not valid in any debate.
Exactly where is the insult? Ad hominem is using insult in place of argument.
Since you don’t seem to get how much evidence of God there is (evolution was just to prove that science makes mistakes and big ones) even though you cannot refute any of my other points, I am going to go ahead and show some more evidence that proves my point.
If you're going to keep using not-science to refute science, i don't need to refute your points. You're just off target.
The Anthropic Principles point out that there are over one hundred variables to this Universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different.
Well, the best you can really claim is that life-as-we-know-it may not be possible. But that could only mean that life as we know it evolved to match the universe it developed in.

If a puddle finds itself in a depression that perfectly matches the shape and size of the puddle, it's a bit arrogant for the puddle to claim that the depression was made just perfectly for it.

This is just argument from incredulity.

The Gaia Hypothesis states that all the life forms on Planet Earth work together to keep the planet life-bearing. There is much evidence for this. ...Some kind of biological feedback system must be working to keep all this balanced. As of yet, there is no evidence Gaia is sentient, but She is biological.
Yeah, i'll buy that. It may be that life developed on Earth instead of Venus because the conditions were right for life here while Venus is a burning hell. OR by life developing on Earth, it's come to have the right conditions for life while Venus is the way it is because life never developed there.

Fifty-fifty chances don't really make THIS planet the object of divine intervention.

Medical science has advanced to the point where people can enter a hospital DOA (Dead On Arrival) and leave it alive!
Yep. Well, to a degree. If they're not TOO dead.
According to a recent Gallup poll at least 8 million people in the United States have had Near Death Experiences (NDE's). Most of these people now have an unshakable belief that there is something beyond this earthly life of ours.
And my grandmother has an unshakeable belief that there is nothing beyond this earthly life. Which one is evidence?
There have been some small attempts by scientists to clarify whether these experiences are real or hallucinatory.
Personally, the reports made by a person whose brain is not perfectly functioning, pretty much by definition, are not compelling evidence. Have they managed to determine exactly when these memories are collected? At death, after resuscitation? If the non-corporeal body is having the experience, how are memories transmitted to the corporeal brain for recollection?
ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT?

There is one way to know for YOURSELF that God exists and that Christ is God. Suspend disbelief for a few moments, and take a leap of faith and have the courage to SINCERELY pray the following prayer. Now you suspend disbelief for hours at a time to watch a movie, or read a book, you can surely do it for sixty seconds to perform an important experiment!

I was a sincere Christain long before i became an atheist. I prayed the prayers, defended the faith and believed in all my heart.

When i got tired of the church offering platitudes instead of answers, i left the church, looking for the church that had a better grasp of the God i still believed in.

None of them had any better answers. My atheism wasn't a choice, it was the result of years of searching for God. And coming up with bupkes.

QUOTE MINE:

The opinions expressed by experts are fine. I encourage religion, freedom of worship, opinions, freedom of speech. I'm just glad that most of the better ones don't seem to take God to work with them.

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
For the world's most notorious atheist, i find it odd that i never heard of him until after he became a deist. Then again, it's his opinion, he's welcome to it. Maybe when i get to be 80 or so, i'll decide that the same evidence that's been unconvincing for years has become compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was fourteen, my cousin developed a tumor in his left lung. Before he went into surgery, I prayed a ton. I prayed for him to make it through the surgery and for me to be a stronger person. Hell, I prayed for a shitload of things at that point of my life. But, nothing changed. The world and my views were the same. It didn't really accomplish anything and it didn't make me feel better. If anything, it made me feel like an idiot, like a teenager talking to an imaginary friend, so I stopped praying all together. During surgery, he experienced a near death experience, but he said that, since he was a schitzophrenic and had been having delusions since he was seven, he didn't see how it was any different. I wish I could believe in god, I really do, if only because the thought of absolutely no existence after death scares me, but hell, seeing a ghost would suffice for that. I spent all of my childhood and most of my teenage years going to church and I just couldn't see the point of going anymore. I've seen too many terrible things in my life to have blind faith, which is the only thing that could make me believe in god since I'm so scientifically minded. But mostly I don't believe in god because I have no need for him/her/it in my life. I'm torn between wanting to have the sort of comforting beliefs that others have and liking the 'eyes wide open' approach my belief system has. I reckon that even if I did have proof that there was some sort of deity, it wouldn't change my life very much, so I don't see the point in wasting my life looking for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Monsterking

While im personaly an atheist i do belive that religion overall is an good thing its just that certain nutjobs make it look so bad that a lot of people tend to be suspicious of it

Peace out brothers and sisters of adult-fanfiction.org and may the furs be with you "WOOOOOO!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irreducable Complexity is an incorrect assertion. No matter how you slice it, intelligent design is lazy science. "Oh, we can't figure it out!! It's too hard!! God must have done it!

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

"The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life."

The article is pretty exhaustive so i'm not going to reprint it here.

The argument that god is the first cause of the universe because the universe is incredibly complex and must have a creator is classicaly articulated in the Divine Watchmaker anaology.

"William Paley argued that God's existence could be inferred from the designs seen in biology. He said that if one were walking and came upon a watch, one would not assume that it was the product of nature. It must have been designed by an intelligent being. Likewise, Paley said that the designs seen in biology must be the result of an intelligent Designer"

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld018.html

The problem with this is that Cicero was the first advocate of this argument, meant to prove polytheism. A watch is constructed in many parts by many people, so must be the universe. This argument is easily refuted because it grounds itself in the premise of orders of complexity. Watch is the lowest order of complexity, obviously created by man, the next greater order of complexity. Logically, if watch is created by man, a higher order item, then man must himself have a creator, termed god. The obvious leap is then, if watch was created by man and man by god, god requires a creator.

Richard Dawkins refutes the whole premise of this argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker.

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

Here is another argument that contradicts the watchmaker analogy:

"The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

A watch is complex

A watch has a watchmaker

The universe is also complex

Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clearified by another example:

Leaves are complex cellulose structures

Leaves grow on trees

Money bills are also complex cellulose structures

Therefore money grow on trees (wich, according to the idiom, they don't)"

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say that religion is by far one of the best things that has ever happened to man kind. Sure it has blinded us and held us back on many fronts, but noting at all can compare with the utter strife and discord it has caused. Why, if it were not for religion than it’s possible we could have advanced too far in the realms of science! Wouldn’t want that… if the Atomic bomb scars you, just think of what could have been if we were far more scientifically advanced.

I concur, PorkChopExpress8, with your point about irreducible complexity. I was flabbergasted to say the least when I first sat down to watch a two hour long, one sided documentary about it. Man, I love how they get all those quantum physicists and biologists to really argue for the theory…

All sarcasm aside, I am still undecided when in comes to religion in general. I am not even sure that consciousness resides inside the mind, or in a floating bubble just to the left of my head… Really I read too much I think. I like to think everything is a conspiracy that is a hobby. I may turn it into a religion.

I just wanted to interject some humor in this thread, as I found it to be notably lacking. Usually I have more tact and I am much more charming, I assure you. (Grins and winks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, religion is an intensely personal thing that people should not try to foist off on others unless they want to hear it. I believe it is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it can be a very bad, very dangerous tool in the hands of the wicked or the delusional.

I understand people who doubt the existence of the spiritual because they have never seen anything that cannot be explained. You're not going to change someones mind's by pounding your "facts" into them, why should they take your word for it? And quite frankly, that's the way it should be, with people thinking for themselves and finding their own way and their own answers to life's questions.

I only believe what I do because of my life experiences. Had I not had such experiences, my outlook would be very different. Would I be wrong? No. Experience is what shapes our reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand people who doubt the existence of the spiritual because they have never seen anything that cannot be explained. You're not going to change someones mind's by pounding your "facts" into them, why should they take your word for it? And quite frankly, that's the way it should be, with people thinking for themselves and finding their own way and their own answers to life's questions.

It is good when people form their own opinions. The problem is the vast majority of the faithful do not, and when faced with evidence to the contrary, strap bombs to their chest and blow up a mall full of people or spout nonsensical "proofs" for their ancient text like ID, liberation theology or snake handling. Karl Marx was a fucking idiot except in his assertion that religion was the opiate of the masses. It allows weak minded and slow witted people to unburden their brains and let someone else figure out life's mysteries for them. Most christians have never read the bible and most muslims are only able to recite surrahs that the local moronic immam spouts out about zionist conspiracies and western moral corruption.

Religion is fine if you've actualy looked into it and you don't let it consume you to the point that everything that is contrary is evil, but most do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion is fine if you've actualy looked into it and you don't let it consume you to the point that everything that is contrary is evil, but most do exactly that.

I don't count the religion as the culprit for all consuming religious wars, I count the people responsible. Kinda like the guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't count the religion as the culprit for all consuming religious wars, I count the people responsible. Kinda like the guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.

I would disagree with that because monotheistic religions incite violence and hatred with direct calls to forcibly convert the heathens or put them to the sword.

And Jesus spake saying:

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Revelation 19:11

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

And Allah doth reveal:

5:33

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.

4:89

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

8:50

If thou couldst see how the angels receive those who disbelieve, smiting faces and their backs and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning!

thanks to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would disagree with that because monotheistic religions incite violence and hatred with direct calls to forcibly convert the heathens or put them to the sword.

True. But one of the ten commandments that Christians are supposed to live by is "Thou shalt not kill," yet what of all the people killed in the name of Christianity? That, to me, shows that it's more something wrong with the people than the religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now