Blair v Hitchens

[Duncan]

This will be an interesting debate.

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion

[Michigan Girl]

This will be an interesting debate.

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion

I'm on the side of Blair ...but, what Hitchens says is, more than likely, true.
The age of reason, seven (7) isn't it, by law?!?!
I suppose parents would still be allowed to
help shape their little consciences until then ...

[parfait]

This will be an interesting debate.

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion

I'm on the side of Blair ...but, what Hitchens says is, more than likely, true.
The age of reason, seven (7) isn't it, by law?!?!
I suppose parents would still be allowed to
help shape their little consciences until then ...

Don't be stupid. Moral and ethic isn't something religion a copyright on, even though they might think so. Far from it; our morals and ethics has evolved from the basic needs of survival and fitting in. To think a religious upbringing is somewhat superior to a non-religious one, is ridiculous. I won't even start with all the shit the religious parts of the worlds have done through history. It would be fun however, to see where the world would have been without religion. Except for the fact that hundreds of pedophiles would had to go looking for a new job.

It's perfectly okay for people to believe in God, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - whatever floats you boat. But when you go up against Hitchens, then you'll get your religious ass raped. The man got terminal esophageal cancer, and still got the balls to sit before a big crowd, and talk his cause, which is the cause of reason - that's just awe inspiring.

[Michigan Girl]

This will be an interesting debate.

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion

I'm on the side of Blair ...but, what Hitchens says is, more than likely, true.
The age of reason, seven (7) isn't it, by law?!?!
I suppose parents would still be allowed to
help shape their little consciences until then ...

Don't be stupid. Moral and ethic isn't something religion a copyright on, even though they might think so. Far from it; our morals and ethics has evolved from the basic needs of survival and fitting in. To think a religious upbringing is somewhat superior to a non-religious one, is ridiculous. I won't even start with all the shit the religious parts of the worlds have done through history. It would be fun however, to see where the world would have been without religion. Except for the fact that hundreds of pedophiles would had to go looking for a new job.

It's perfectly okay for people to believe in God, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - whatever floats you boat. But when you go up against Hitchens, then you'll get your religious ass raped. The man got terminal esophageal cancer, and still got the balls to sit before a big crowd, and talk his cause, which is the cause of reason - that's just awe inspiring.

ahhhh, 'tis true, mon cher ... People are good, or people are bad.
People choose to act rightly or wrongly, and they can do so with or without religion.
Religion is often used to justify bad actions, but that doesn't make religion bad …it’s people!!

"all children must look after their own upbringing. Parents can only give
good advice or put them on the right paths, but the final forming of a person's
character lies in their own hands." Anne Frank

[Rhiannon]

It's perfectly okay for people to believe in God, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - whatever floats you boat. But when you go up against Hitchens, then you'll get your religious ass raped. The man got terminal esophageal cancer, and still got the balls to sit before a big crowd, and talk his cause, which is the cause of reason - that's just awe inspiring.

You know, Hitchens & Dawkins and this whole New Atheism movement is quite fascinating to me. The passion and conviction these men argue their belief systems with. The intelligent-reasoning person knows, however, that an individual's right and instinct to believe how they want is perfectly fine to remain that way... individual. Which is your point with the Spaghetti Monster, who has some great philosophies by the way. It's when people gang up and try to convince everybody that their way is the right way and the only way that we have wars and cultural ruptures. Be they on the battlefield or in the mind.

I'm all for people sharing their theories, but the way these two go about it is no different in personality and crusade as some of the religious zealots of history. Lack of belief still requires you to believe you have no reason for it. Which makes it a belief system. People get to decide for themselves. And I've read their stuff, too. And I still believe in my own beliefs. There's a middle ground somewhere that eventually humanity will arrive at. I believe that.

[bluejeangirl76]

The intelligent-reasoning person knows, however, that an individual's right and instinct to believe how they want is perfectly fine to remain that way... individual. Which is your point with the Spaghetti Monster, who has some great philosophies by the way.

...not only that, but at weekly worship, we get Spaghetti-Os and chianti. It's pretty cool. Better than unleavened bread and grape juice business.

[Rhiannon]

The intelligent-reasoning person knows, however, that an individual's right and instinct to believe how they want is perfectly fine to remain that way... individual. Which is your point with the Spaghetti Monster, who has some great philosophies by the way.

...not only that, but at weekly worship, we get Spaghetti-Os and chianti. It's pretty cool. Better than unleavened bread and grape juice business.

Blasphemy! I will pray to Chef Boyardee for your soul. You're supposed to eat ABC123's.

[parfait]

This will be an interesting debate.

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion

I'm on the side of Blair ...but, what Hitchens says is, more than likely, true.
The age of reason, seven (7) isn't it, by law?!?!
I suppose parents would still be allowed to
help shape their little consciences until then ...

Don't be stupid. Moral and ethic isn't something religion a copyright on, even though they might think so. Far from it; our morals and ethics has evolved from the basic needs of survival and fitting in. To think a religious upbringing is somewhat superior to a non-religious one, is ridiculous. I won't even start with all the shit the religious parts of the worlds have done through history. It would be fun however, to see where the world would have been without religion. Except for the fact that hundreds of pedophiles would had to go looking for a new job.

It's perfectly okay for people to believe in God, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - whatever floats you boat. But when you go up against Hitchens, then you'll get your religious ass raped. The man got terminal esophageal cancer, and still got the balls to sit before a big crowd, and talk his cause, which is the cause of reason - that's just awe inspiring.

ahhhh, 'tis true, mon cher ... People are good, or people are bad.
People choose to act rightly or wrongly, and they can do so with or without religion.
Religion is often used to justify bad actions, but that doesn't make religion bad …it’s people!!

"all children must look after their own upbringing. Parents can only give
good advice or put them on the right paths, but the final forming of a person's
character lies in their own hands." Anne Frank

I wouldn't actually say it's that easy. The unfortunate truth is that many religious parents raise their kids in a way that they think is right, but in fact only helps to indoctrinate ideas of hate and injustice to the child. Thus the offspring will act in a way that him/her has been taught to be the right thing, and this cyclical process is neverending. Religion preach superiority; "I'm better than you, because I know the guy that created all of this. I can talk to him. I got a book who is in his words." No wonder people turn out bad with that in the back of the head (not to mention how religion is hostile to free inquiry and contemptuous of women)

You know, Hitchens & Dawkins and this whole New Atheism movement is quite fascinating to me. The passion and conviction these men argue their belief systems with. The intelligent-reasoning person knows, however, that an individual's right and instinct to believe how they want is perfectly fine to remain that way... individual. Which is your point with the Spaghetti Monster, who has some great philosophies by the way. It's when people gang up and try to convince everybody that their way is the right way and the only way that we have wars and cultural ruptures. Be they on the battlefield or in the mind.

I'm all for people sharing their theories, but the way these two go about it is no different in personality and crusade as some of the religious zealots of history. Lack of belief still requires you to believe you have no reason for it. Which makes it a belief system. People get to decide for themselves. And I've read their stuff, too. And I still believe in my own beliefs. There's a middle ground somewhere that eventually humanity will arrive at. I believe that.

It's a movement for reason, free speech and inter-cultural understanding and acceptance. Give me a break about it being a crusade. They state continuously that anyone is right to believe what they want; it's when that belief affects others, who don't believe (be it a newborn child, an atheist or even a buddhist), which they oppose. It's in no way a belief system either - that's just mumbo jumbo. Atheists are for everything religion opposes: advancement in science, a secular society as well as all the aforementioned.

[bluejeangirl76]

The intelligent-reasoning person knows, however, that an individual's right and instinct to believe how they want is perfectly fine to remain that way... individual. Which is your point with the Spaghetti Monster, who has some great philosophies by the way.

...not only that, but at weekly worship, we get Spaghetti-Os and chianti. It's pretty cool. Better than unleavened bread and grape juice business.

Blasphemy! I will pray to Chef Boyardee for your soul. You're supposed to eat ABC123's.

No ma'am. It's the Spaghetti Monster, not the ABC123 Monster (that's the secular offshoot... )
We use Spaghetti-Os because they are smaller and more managable for mass than actual spaghetti.

[Michigan Girl]

I wouldn't actually say it's that easy. The unfortunate truth is that many religious parents raise their kids in a way that they think is right, but in fact only helps to indoctrinate ideas of hate and injustice to the child. Thus the offspring will act in a way that him/her has been taught to be the right thing, and this cyclical process is neverending. Religion preach superiority; "I'm better than you, because I know the guy that created all of this. I can talk to him. I got a book who is in his words." No wonder people turn out bad with that in the back of the head (not to mention how religion is hostile to free inquiry and contemptuous of women)

You make excellent points, but again ...people!!

[Rhiannon]

It's a movement for reason, free speech and inter-cultural understanding and acceptance. Give me a break about it being a crusade. They state continuously that anyone is right to believe what they want; it's when that belief affects others, who don't believe (be it a newborn child, an atheist or even a buddhist), which they oppose. It's in no way a belief system either - that's just mumbo jumbo. Atheists are for everything religion opposes: advancement in science, a secular society as well as all the aforementioned.

From your perspective it's not a crusade because you agree. You disagree with religion so from your perspective that is a crusade. You see? Two things can be identical at the fundamental level (goals, belief, humanitarianism, behavior, education, ideals, etc) but because people tend to lean so passionately and biased to whichever side they can't see that. And I'm not taking the side of religion either. I have no slant towards any dogmatic doctrine. The faith I was raised in is still something I hold in very high regard and cherish. But that doesn't mean I see God as some 15 billion year-old Israelite-looking bearded man. But I do believe in intelligent design, my soul & the spiritual universe, and God.

I know what they state. But the condescending nature they hold towards intellectual people who do believe in a God or have religion is completely myopic. Man created it's religions, but that doesn't mean there is no God. And the very fact this can't be proven nor disproven (nor can the atheistic views) is the very reason why I see their attitudes as "crusading". I've read the books, they're completely convinced they're right and that is the first step in crusading. And when I say "they're", I'm referring to people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

Anyway, I just think all people... be they atheist, monotheist, or polytheist, or even agnostic... need to keep in mind that whatever truth they find in this world is for themselves. Smart people can believe in God. And in my experience in studying secular knowledge I do not at all believe that everything I observe is a cosmic accident. Science proves God to me. I guess that's why I have a sore spot for scientists who see for themselves the research and because of outdated stigma can't incorporate philosophical meaning to their results. Or because of their own adherence to whatever it is, can't even see the possibility to begin with.

[Rhiannon]

No ma'am. It's the Spaghetti Monster, not the ABC123 Monster (that's the secular offshoot... )
We use Spaghetti-Os because they are smaller and more managable for mass than actual spaghetti.

"Lois! Come quick! There's a message in my Alpha-Bits. It says, 'ooooooo'."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."

[parfait]

It's a movement for reason, free speech and inter-cultural understanding and acceptance. Give me a break about it being a crusade. They state continuously that anyone is right to believe what they want; it's when that belief affects others, who don't believe (be it a newborn child, an atheist or even a buddhist), which they oppose. It's in no way a belief system either - that's just mumbo jumbo. Atheists are for everything religion opposes: advancement in science, a secular society as well as all the aforementioned.

From your perspective it's not a crusade because you agree. You disagree with religion so from your perspective that is a crusade. You see? Two things can be identical at the fundamental level (goals, belief, humanitarianism, behavior, education, ideals, etc) but because people tend to lean so passionately and biased to whichever side they can't see that. And I'm not taking the side of religion either. I have no slant towards any dogmatic doctrine. The faith I was raised in is still something I hold in very high regard and cherish. But that doesn't mean I see God as some 15 billion year-old Israelite-looking bearded man. But I do believe in intelligent design, my soul & the spiritual universe, and God.

I know what they state. But the condescending nature they hold towards intellectual people who do believe in a God or have religion is completely myopic. Man created it's religions, but that doesn't mean there is no God. And the very fact this can't be proven nor disproven (nor can the atheistic views) is the very reason why I see their attitudes as "crusading". I've read the books, they're completely convinced they're right and that is the first step in crusading. And when I say "they're", I'm referring to people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

Anyway, I just think all people... be they atheist, monotheist, or polytheist, or even agnostic... need to keep in mind that whatever truth they find in this world is for themselves. Smart people can believe in God. And in my experience in studying secular knowledge I do not at all believe that everything I observe is a cosmic accident. Science proves God to me. I guess that's why I have a sore spot for scientists who see for themselves the research and because of outdated stigma can't incorporate philosophical meaning to their results. Or because of their own adherence to whatever it is, can't even see the possibility to begin with.

Yes, absolutely. Smart people can believe in God, no one states otherwise. That's why it's called a faith. It's something each and everyone is completely entitled to have. And the whole "cosmic accident thingie", the time before the singularity, can not yet be explained by conventional physics - that does not mean however that it will never be! Hundreds of great discoveries and explanation still remains: The Higgs Bosone, dark matter, dark energy, unification of general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, just to name a few. What you're doing, is taking a leap of faith. The argument of "find for themself" falls flat on its ass, when you see how many disgusting effect religion has caused for millions of people as well as religion being based solely on the fact that you need to be totally subservient. Free will and religion is a oxymoron.

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God - and the science continues to try to solve life's unanswered questions; particularly in the way of theoretical physics, evolutionary biology and anthropology. Rhiannon, science does not prove God - there's no way you can, as a educated person, say that. It's just not right.

[bluejeangirl76]

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God

Actually, all existing evidence doesn't prove there is no God. It just doesn't disprove it.

If anything "proved" for a "fact" that there was no God, then we'd all agree on the matter and this discussion wouldn't be happeneing.

(and no I'm not religious)

[parfait]

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God

Actually, all existing evidence doesn't prove there is no God. It just doesn't disprove it.

If anything "proved" for a "fact" that there was no God, then we'd all agree on the matter and this discussion wouldn't be happeneing.

(and no I'm not religious)

There's a lapse in your reason there, pussycat. All existing evidence shows that the likelihood of the existence of a God is as great as the dwarf from Austin Powers being the creator of the universe. And then I'm talking philosophically, evolutionary, literary, historically and scientifically. There is no way a reasonable person can, by looking at all the evidence gathered from the last 2-3 centuries, can jump to the conclusion that there is a God.

That still doesn't mean you can't believe in him (or the aforementioned midget) - that's why it's called blind faith.

[bluejeangirl76]

That still doesn't mean you can't believe in him (or the aforementioned midget) - that's why it's called blind faith.

That's ok. I'm a devout Spaghettian.

[kgdjpubs]

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God

Actually, all existing evidence doesn't prove there is no God. It just doesn't disprove it.

If anything "proved" for a "fact" that there was no God, then we'd all agree on the matter and this discussion wouldn't be happeneing.

(and no I'm not religious)

There's a lapse in your reason there, pussycat. All existing evidence shows that the likelihood of the existence of a God is as great as the dwarf from Austin Powers being the creator of the universe. And then I'm talking philosophically, evolutionary, literary, historically and scientifically. There is no way a reasonable person can, by looking at all the evidence gathered from the last 2-3 centuries, can jump to the conclusion that there is a God.

That still doesn't mean you can't believe in him (or the aforementioned midget) - that's why it's called blind faith.

You can't prove the existence of love either. You can prove hormones working, but (to the best of my knowledge), there is no difference that can be proven to split love versus lust, which can be a very different emotion. Not being able to prove it isn't the same thing as being able to disprove it. It's simply inconclusive from a scientific standpoint, and will likely remain so for a long time.

It's the same thing as the intelligent aliens debate. You can't prove that they exist, but technology certainly doesn't allow oneself to disprove the possibility either.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, absolutely. Smart people can believe in God, no one states otherwise. That's why it's called a faith. It's something each and everyone is completely entitled to have. And the whole "cosmic accident thingie", the time before the singularity, can not yet be explained by conventional physics - that does not mean however that it will never be! Hundreds of great discoveries and explanation still remains: The Higgs Bosone, dark matter, dark energy, unification of general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, just to name a few. What you're doing, is taking a leap of faith. The argument of "find for themself" falls flat on its ass, when you see how many disgusting effect religion has caused for millions of people as well as religion being based solely on the fact that you need to be totally subservient. Free will and religion is a oxymoron.

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God - and the science continues to try to solve life's unanswered questions; particularly in the way of theoretical physics, evolutionary biology and anthropology. Rhiannon, science does not prove God - there's no way you can, as a educated person, say that. It's just not right.

Again, I'm not making an argument for religion. I am, if I can put it to a way you understand, arguing for free will. Not with you, I see you get that. Just stating in general that I don't agree with the attitudes of some. Simple.

However, I am going to have to strongly agree to disagree with everything else you've said in that second paragraph. Even when we have the absolute Theory of Everything that unifies Newtonian laws with quantum mechanics, that still doesn't answer 'why', just 'how'. It takes looking at the universe from a philosophical perspective to unify a God theory with a TOE. If you don't agree with that or want to see the universe in that manner, that is your every right. But I've read the papers, I've studied the subjects, and I've not yet come across anything science has given me to make me doubt the intelligent design.

This is not a cut-and-dry, black-or-white issue. The discoveries themselves, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, none of what they postulated and tested disproved God. You can't say we evolved from a primordial amino acid and use that as your argument God doesn't exist. You can't say the big bang proves there is no creationism.

Neuroscientists can tell you how the brain works, but that still can not explain sentience, consciousness, even memory! If I am to believe some theories in medicinal neurology telling me my brain is my mind then I must also believe my radio is a sentient being as well since it exhibits the same qualities and that obviously is ridiculous. Shit, matter in itself is just an illusion of energy at the subatomic level. Energy which is stabilized by this quantum field which is nonlocal. The philosophical impact of that discovery alone should make your head spin.

If you don't want to believe in God, that's totally alright. But when there's so much unknown and so many discoveries to be made, especially in the areas of quantum physics, particle theory, and cosmology... don't rule out that science and God can't have a level basis for coexisting. For whatever reason everything from the universe to the electron orbiting the hydrogen was created. Somehow, someway. And if we narrow our thinking to rule out something more profound than simple random chance then we'll be in another dark age. It used to be that the Newtonian principles explained everything until quantum mechanics came along and showed that classical physics only explain what we perceive in the observable universe. So don't rule out intelligent design just yet, parfy.

[parfait]

Yes, absolutely. Smart people can believe in God, no one states otherwise. That's why it's called a faith. It's something each and everyone is completely entitled to have. And the whole "cosmic accident thingie", the time before the singularity, can not yet be explained by conventional physics - that does not mean however that it will never be! Hundreds of great discoveries and explanation still remains: The Higgs Bosone, dark matter, dark energy, unification of general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, just to name a few. What you're doing, is taking a leap of faith. The argument of "find for themself" falls flat on its ass, when you see how many disgusting effect religion has caused for millions of people as well as religion being based solely on the fact that you need to be totally subservient. Free will and religion is a oxymoron.

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God - and the science continues to try to solve life's unanswered questions; particularly in the way of theoretical physics, evolutionary biology and anthropology. Rhiannon, science does not prove God - there's no way you can, as a educated person, say that. It's just not right.

Again, I'm not making an argument for religion. I am, if I can put it to a way you understand, arguing for free will. Not with you, I see you get that. Just stating in general that I don't agree with the attitudes of some. Simple.

However, I am going to have to strongly agree to disagree with everything else you've said in that second paragraph. Even when we have the absolute Theory of Everything that unifies Newtonian laws with quantum mechanics, that still doesn't answer 'why', just 'how'. It takes looking at the universe from a philosophical perspective to unify a God theory with a TOE. If you don't agree with that or want to see the universe in that manner, that is your every right. But I've read the papers, I've studied the subjects, and I've not yet come across anything science has given me to make me doubt the intelligent design.

This is not a cut-and-dry, black-or-white issue. The discoveries themselves, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, none of what they postulated and tested disproved God. You can't say we evolved from a primordial amino acid and use that as your argument God doesn't exist. You can't say the big bang proves there is no creationism.

Neuroscientists can tell you how the brain works, but that still can not explain sentience, consciousness, even memory! If I am to believe some theories in medicinal neurology telling me my brain is my mind then I must also believe my radio is a sentient being as well since it exhibits the same qualities and that obviously is ridiculous. Shit, matter in itself is just an illusion of energy at the subatomic level. Energy which is stabilized by this quantum field which is nonlocal. The philosophical impact of that discovery alone should make your head spin.

If you don't want to believe in God, that's totally alright. But when there's so much unknown and so many discoveries to be made, especially in the areas of quantum physics, particle theory, and cosmology... don't rule out that science and God can't have a level basis for coexisting. For whatever reason everything from the universe to the electron orbiting the hydrogen was created. Somehow, someway. And if we narrow our thinking to rule out something more profound than simple random chance then we'll be in another dark age. It used to be that the Newtonian principles explained everything until quantum mechanics came along and showed that classical physics only explain what we perceive in the observable universe. So don't rule out intelligent design just yet, parfy.

Alright, you bring a good argument. I don't believe in any God, because the probability of a guy creating all of this is extremely unlikely, which I've already stated. I don't know what kind of degree you have, being a girl and all that, but you're basically stating that since science hasn't got everything yet, you take a leap of faith, and says; "well, fuck it. Since the scientists haven't figured it all out, I'm just going to not only disrespect their work, but claim that everything was created by a omnipotent dude with a beard!" I mean, come on.

I'm no theoretical physicist and I struggle with stuff quantum mechanics (most likely the physicist would do too), but you got several things wrong here. First of all: scientists know what happened just nanoseconds after the singularity, The Big Bang. Second: Classical physics couldn't explain everything; that's why it became necessary to developed another explanation for everything on a microscale (duality of light etc.) - but most scientists today agree that QM is just refined classical physics, because most macrophysical interactions can be explained with QM on a microscale. So wrong again, Buttercup.

Evolution isn't based on random chance either by the way. That's a common misconception. So please don't mix science and religion. It's a offense, to be honest, as religion has done nothing but resist and fight against the advancement of science. Virologists have made it possible for a baby to survive polio and tuberculosis. These kinds of research would have never happened, had the church had its way. So, how many kids have God cured? Here's a question for you though, which I'd like you to answer:

1: Has there even been any kind of direct evidence that may point it all to being created by a god?

Now, if you believe in creationism, then our discussion is done. Then I gladly resign.

[Rhiannon]

1: Has there even been any kind of direct evidence that may point it all to being created by a god?

Not that has been discovered yet in a platform that would satiate the scientific mind. Again with your explanation of blind faith, that is what it is. But don't say I'm disrespecting scienctists' discoveries by looking at the intricacies of cellular biology and seeing nothing short of designed beauty. I'd say that's the utmost respect to have for someone's contributions. You're trying too hard to push my views into "religion" and your conventional understanding of faith-based dogma. What if I told you science was God to me? Can you think outside of the box far enough to see what I'd mean by that? If not, then we should just leave the philosophy alone and walk away from discussing it. My thoughts and views are my own personal blend and I'm not going to sit here and tell you I believe I'm right. I can't be right about anything until I know everything about everything. Which is impossible. Erego, I keep learning. And as yet, I'm still inclined to believe my existence has meaning and purpose. As does yours. And every other thing around.

Now, if you believe in creationism, then our discussion is done. Then I gladly resign.

Now I have a question for you. (Don't try to school me on cosmology facts. I'm aware science knows what happened seconds after the big bang. Just not before it. And that's my point. We may one day, in which case I will make any adjustments to my understanding of the universe that need-be.)

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't there have been a creation pre-big bang of the gases and dusts and such that resulted in the expansion of the universe, a universe which continually evolves through timespace down to our own biology?

[Duncan]

1: Has there even been any kind of direct evidence that may point it all to being created by a god?

Not that has been discovered yet in a platform that would satiate the scientific mind. Again with your explanation of blind faith, that is what it is. But don't say I'm disrespecting scienctists' discoveries by looking at the intricacies of cellular biology and seeing nothing short of designed beauty. I'd say that's the utmost respect to have for someone's contributions. You're trying too hard to push my views into "religion" and your conventional understanding of faith-based dogma. What if I told you science was God to me? Can you think outside of the box far enough to see what I'd mean by that? If not, then we should just leave the philosophy alone and walk away from discussing it. My thoughts and views are my own personal blend and I'm not going to sit here and tell you I believe I'm right. I can't be right about anything until I know everything about everything. Which is impossible. Erego, I keep learning. And as yet, I'm still inclined to believe my existence has meaning and purpose. As does yours. And every other thing around.

Now, if you believe in creationism, then our discussion is done. Then I gladly resign.

Now I have a question for you. (Don't try to school me on cosmology facts. I'm aware science knows what happened seconds after the big bang. Just not before it. And that's my point. We may one day, in which case I will make any adjustments to my understanding of the universe that need-be.)

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't there have been a creation pre-big bang of the gases and dusts and such that resulted in the expansion of the universe, a universe which continually evolves through timespace down to our own biology?

Very well argued Rhiannon. Yours is the same argument that was put forward by Rev Al Sharpton when he debated with Christopher Hitchens. Would you describe yourself as a Deist or a Christian?

[parfait]

1: Has there even been any kind of direct evidence that may point it all to being created by a god?

Not that has been discovered yet in a platform that would satiate the scientific mind. Again with your explanation of blind faith, that is what it is. But don't say I'm disrespecting scienctists' discoveries by looking at the intricacies of cellular biology and seeing nothing short of designed beauty. I'd say that's the utmost respect to have for someone's contributions. You're trying too hard to push my views into "religion" and your conventional understanding of faith-based dogma. What if I told you science was God to me? Can you think outside of the box far enough to see what I'd mean by that? If not, then we should just leave the philosophy alone and walk away from discussing it. My thoughts and views are my own personal blend and I'm not going to sit here and tell you I believe I'm right. I can't be right about anything until I know everything about everything. Which is impossible. Erego, I keep learning. And as yet, I'm still inclined to believe my existence has meaning and purpose. As does yours. And every other thing around.

Now, if you believe in creationism, then our discussion is done. Then I gladly resign.

Now I have a question for you. (Don't try to school me on cosmology facts. I'm aware science knows what happened seconds after the big bang. Just not before it. And that's my point. We may one day, in which case I will make any adjustments to my understanding of the universe that need-be.)

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't there have been a creation pre-big bang of the gases and dusts and such that resulted in the expansion of the universe, a universe which continually evolves through timespace down to our own biology?

I gotta give it to you. Compared to all the religious loons around here, you bring a good argument. But it unfortunately all boils down to the hard facts. Creationism, have never produced a single good evidence (I wrote about creationism on this board a while ago. Look it up. ) And about the beauty of cells; I gotta tell you - that's not as much a beauty, as a mathematical necessity for how the cell can best survive (which it has adapted itself to do, through millions of years. Mitochondrion from proteobacteria etc.)

And yeah, since no one at this time knows what happened prior to the Big Bang, then sure, God could have created it all. That brings a whole shitload of other questions though, like: Why is the Bible, God's gospel, just a big collection of fairytales? Why did he equip us, since we're obviously his chosen race, with a pretty crappy genetic code? ( Poorly functioning eyes, a plethora of diseases, mutation and shortening of telomerase) I could go on and on and on and on and on. Seriously, if you can't see the obvious lack of reasoning in what you're saying, while claiming to be a educated little miss sunshine, then I got to give it to you. You won. Instead of asking a gazillion question all the time; why can't you religious, semi religious or whatever you are, actually answer some questions now and then - since you claim to be so scientific and well read. The scientific community gets constantly bombarded with shit, from stem cell researches to virologists, while these people have done nothing more than make it better for each and every one of you!

Oh, and I don't need a destiny or a predestined purpose in my life, to feel good about myself. I answer to myself, and not some masochistic, totalitarian dictator sitting in the clouds, drinking wine and eating graham crackers, while skyping with the disgusting, pedophile priesthood (not to mention the condom hating, gay bashing Pope himself).

[Rhiannon]

Very well argued Rhiannon. Yours is the same argument that was put forward by Rev Al Sharpton when he debated with Christopher Hitchens. Would you describe yourself as a Deist or a Christian?

I don't label myself as anything really, I think what I think based on my own experiences and perceptions the same as anyone. Thanks for the compliment.

[Duncan]

Very well argued Rhiannon. Yours is the same argument that was put forward by Rev Al Sharpton when he debated with Christopher Hitchens. Would you describe yourself as a Deist or a Christian?

I don't label myself as anything really, I think what I think based on my own experiences and perceptions the same as anyone. Thanks for the compliment.

I don't mean this to come across as an interrogation, but does the God in whom you believe influence human affairs; answer prayers etc? I haven't got any clever retort depending on your answer; just interested in what you have been saying.

[DrFU]

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God

Actually, all existing evidence doesn't prove there is no God. It just doesn't disprove it.

If anything "proved" for a "fact" that there was no God, then we'd all agree on the matter and this discussion wouldn't be happeneing.

(and no I'm not religious)

and science-boy should know this ... you can't prove a negative ... you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis ...

[Rhiannon]

I gotta give it to you. Compared to all the religious loons around here, you bring a good argument.

Thank you.

But it unfortunately all boils down to the hard facts. Creationism, have never produced a single good evidence (I wrote about creationism on this board a while ago. Look it up. ) And about the beauty of cells; I gotta tell you - that's not as much a beauty, as a mathematical necessity for how the cell can best survive (which it has adapted itself to do, through millions of years. Mitochondrion from proteobacteria etc.)

That's because "creationism" is just another dogma. And if you can't see the beauty in the mathematics either then you're never going to get where I'm coming from.

Why is the Bible, God's gospel, just a big collection of fairytales?

I'm pretty sure I've said that religion is the invention of man. Therefore all the texts and canonized scriptures would be as well. Some believe they were Divinely inspired, some don't. I find a lot of wisdom in the Bible. You call it a fairy tale, well it is. But you're being far too literal for someone who seems to be so capable of intelligent thinking. A quick understanding of the ancient art of storytelling would help you understand why religious texts are fantastical.

Why did he equip us, since we're obviously his chosen race, with a pretty crappy genetic code? ( Poorly functioning eyes, a plethora of diseases, mutation and shortening of telomerase) I could go on and on and on and on and on.

To answer that question is to question the original intent and purpose in God. You seem to think that everybody on the planet who believes in God thinks that He snapped his fingers and made everything the way it is right now. Dinosaurs would be the easiest way of saying that there's more to it than that. I will say though that with these issues all life forms face it's not what happens to you but how you react to it. But that's not literal enough for you, Oz, so I'll understand if you miss that point.

Seriously, if you can't see the obvious lack of reasoning in what you're saying, while claiming to be a educated little miss sunshine, then I got to give it to you. You won. Instead of asking a gazillion question all the time; why can't you religious, semi religious or whatever you are, actually answer some questions now and then - since you claim to be so scientific and well read. The scientific community gets constantly bombarded with shit, from stem cell researches to virologists, while these people have done nothing more than make it better for each and every one of you!

That's a mighty big serving of assumptions you just levied my way. All of them show me you don't get my drift. I DO ask a gazillion questions all the time. And the answers to most of them are "I don't know... but I'd like to figure it out." I believe I have answered your questions, just not in a way that you're comprehending. And I never once discredited or berated the work of disease research once. The scientists on the forefront of developing cures and solving the mysteries of life get my full respect. So don't make me apologize for all the closed-minded religious individuals out there, because I won't do it. I'm not one of them. Stop labeling me.

Oh, and I don't need a destiny or a predestined purpose in my life, to feel good about myself. I answer to myself, and not some masochistic, totalitarian dictator sitting in the clouds, drinking wine and eating graham crackers, while skyping with the disgusting, pedophile priesthood (not to mention the condom hating, gay bashing Pope himself).

With all due respect, parfait, your views on faith are unrefined for someone trying to argue your case. Although I do appreciate your tact and what you've said. You make great points and give people with a closed-minded religious view a lot to think about. But if you really want to argue the case for the non-existence of a God or intelligent creator, then learn the other side of the coin. Not every religion or faith-system is Catholicism. Nor is it Judeo-Christian.

[bluejeangirl76]

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God

Actually, all existing evidence doesn't prove there is no God. It just doesn't disprove it.

If anything "proved" for a "fact" that there was no God, then we'd all agree on the matter and this discussion wouldn't be happeneing.

(and no I'm not religious)

and science-boy should know this ... you can't prove a negative ... you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis ...

Well you said it a whole bunch of a lot prettier than I did... but yes, perzactly.

[Rhiannon]

Very well argued Rhiannon. Yours is the same argument that was put forward by Rev Al Sharpton when he debated with Christopher Hitchens. Would you describe yourself as a Deist or a Christian?

I don't label myself as anything really, I think what I think based on my own experiences and perceptions the same as anyone. Thanks for the compliment.

I don't mean this to come across as an interrogation, but does the God in whom you believe influence human affairs; answer prayers etc? I haven't got any clever retort depending on your answer; just interested in what you have been saying.

I really don't want to get into a public discussion on what I believe, what I think is completely non-conventional to the average person. But I will say that I do believe the spiritual world interacts with the physical world on many levels without going into a long explanation of how and why and what for. I completely believe in free will. And I completely believe that is part of the point on a more philosophical level of why we're here. I think that prayers have a profound effect on things, and to keep any sort of bias out of it, on a basic level the sheer act of prayers focuses our intentions and awareness. Which depending on the person serves to comfort, heal, educate, and make us grow.

Whether that's simply an act of the "self" or an interaction with a higher power/higher realm can't be proven. But again, if it could be, what would be the purpose in faith? But looking at everything from a specific literal stance on either side (science or faith) is one-dimensional. Incorporating all facets of possibility is what helps me believe. I know that sounds ambiguous but maybe it answers your question somewhat.

[Rhiannon]

and science-boy should know this ... you can't prove a negative ... you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis ...

Thank you, I was thinking that earlier.

[parfait]

The fact is though, that all existing evidence proves that there is no God

Actually, all existing evidence doesn't prove there is no God. It just doesn't disprove it.

If anything "proved" for a "fact" that there was no God, then we'd all agree on the matter and this discussion wouldn't be happeneing.

(and no I'm not religious)

and science-boy should know this ... you can't prove a negative ... you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis ...

Well you said it a whole bunch of a lot prettier than I did... but yes, perzactly.

What whut? Look at my next post before you go on some webster dictionary rampage. Shouldn't you be making somebody lunch?

Rhiannon

I get where you're coming from. Seriously. Being kind of uncertain, not exactly knowing what's right or wrong. I get it. I made a choice, based on my limited knowledge of physics, history, philosophy and biology where I stand on this subject. I actually respect that you don't agree with me; at least you're smarter than the rest of the burning crusade here in MR. Where we totally differ is the fact that I think it's completely wrong to want to both have your cake and eat it too. You want all the great stuff science have brought onto the modern society (I'd go as far as saying scientific advancement is the reason for our society today; be it computers, electricity or structural engineering) and still say: you know, maybe there is a God. You're basically saying that you're both rational and pragmatic. Sure it works. I don't really see the use for it though, as I find them to be quite contradicting. I am open minded, I'm just not open minded enough so that my brain falls out.

I have no spiritual side. I never pray, think of what'll happen to me after I die - I never do any of those things, because I have no need for it. I won't create some illusionary state of mind for myself, to make my life any better (nor have I the need to try to explain what others have yet to explain, by making up some imaginary reality).

I wouldn't spend a thought on, let's say a terminal cancer patient; if I wanted to help her out, then I would go and talk with her - make her feel better (because I know that jedi mind tricks won't cure her cancer) The reality is now. Not in our minds, not in our hopes or whatever. Hopes and kisses doesn't help the kids of junkies or parents that feed them crap - calling the child protective service and kicking the parents teeth's in respectively, does however. But I get where you're coming from. I'm just not that kind of person at all.