blonde poker forum

surely not......?

Bet24 are taking bets on who will be the next Pope.

surely we couldn't have "PopeScola"


Winner Special: Who Will Replace Benedict XVI >> The Next Pope 02.02.2012 - 01:00    
Name    Odds
Others On Request    1.00
Francis Arinze    2.75
Cardinal Peter Turkson    6.00
Cardinal Angelo Scola    8.00
Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga    10.00
Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco    12.00
Cardical Tarcisio Bertone    15.00
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio    15.00

Is he unwell?

FYP

i would vote for Boshi...hell, I'd kill the current pope if it meant Boshi would be the new pope

No, he's just sick.

Can I use my "one time"?

Bless me, I am your Father

Oh how the atheists chortled as you all went to hell :D

xx

I was in Tipton a few weeks ago.

Kin...have you read "how religion has poisoned everything"...interested in your opinion.....the author does not hold back...

read it?  he fecking wrote it!

LOL....ahh..a distinct possibility

Too far... Defo skirting with the idea of a boshi ban :)

xx

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pope+benedict+child+abuse  and more here:  http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&tbm=nws&q=pope+benedict+child+abuse

He's part of the institutionalised paedophilia within the catholic church.  His obstruction of inquiries, his compliance in ensuring priests who raped young boys not only escaped justice, but were also allowed to continue with their systematic abuse elsewhere when they were moved to a new church is nothing but evil.  Not saying he has raped any boys himself, but he's certainly an accessory to child rape and should be brought to justice for this.

Tim Minchin puts it more eloquently than I ever could:

Definitely NSFW and not safe for those that find swearing is a greater sin than child rape:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN002ejgC6I

 

lol @ that song

You mean "God is Not Great" by Chris Hitchens? Yes, it has pride of place on my bookshelf.  Hitchens is a brilliant writer, thinker, speaker and polemicist.  If you like that book, some of his other stuff is well worth a read.  Also worth checking out videos on youtube and other places, including the debate he had with Tony Blair about whether religion is a force for good or evil in the world.

Hitchens is terminally-ill with cancer (probably not completely unrelated to his love of cigarettes and alcohol), which I'm sure will please many in the religious right.

Impressive guy Hitchens.  Definitely one of my intellectual heros.  Pretty obviously a decent human being too.  Did you see the thing the other day where a little girl asked at one of his lectures what she should read and he came over at the end and spent five minutes with her giving her a reading list?

Is this stuff all proven or is it just people's opinions and internet bollocks?

Through extensive research I've managed to find some stuff that suggest he's not so bad after all.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pope+benedict+nice+guy

Would be mildly amusing if Hitchens discovered God now though!!

All religions suck IMO.. abuse is not restriced to the catholic church... It just gets more publicity than for example abuse by a muslim elder... or a jewish rabbi

This pope is not the first to turn a blind eye.. It would be nice to have a new pope that sacked a shit load of the dodgy priests...

Religions cause wars.. even though everybody basically believes in the same thing.. ridiculous!!!

I still think Dick Dawkins is a twat.

xx

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0xQcEH7Dqo More Minchin...genius

I think you are right that Dawkins is a twat but he is also a correct twat which I always find a bit infuriating.

Millions paid out to the victims sort of suggests they are well aware of it.  Also the pope has 'apologised' for the abuse quite a few times (again suggesting that he is aware it has/is happening), but then allows the priests to continue doing their thing.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&tbm=nws&q=pope+benedict+child+abuse

Did you read any of the articles from that link?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrr-oUI6OVA

It's a good book

I quite agree that abuse isn't restricted to the catholic church, it's just a shining beacon for it.  As this thread is about the pope/next pope it seemed right to focus on the catholic church.

This is very true.  His arguments are compelling, his understanding of evolutionary biology is amongst the best in the world - but he's very old-school, Oxbridge-type professor and some of his personal views reflect this.

Yeah kin...that's the very one...I'm only a few chapters in....had to put it down for a while and am having an inner debate at whether to continue...

Reason being I realise I can't argue with his thoughts....I'm a lapsed catholic and am of the opinion one day I would return to the church.n if I continue,well I think the door would firmly close,its very powerful stuff...my missus,a Christian read a lil too n had to put it down,I could sense she was feeling subverted....

Isn't that a good reason to continue?

Read and listen to the argument from both sides - and make your mind up then.  Not sure what to recommend on the pro-religion side (I haven't read anything particularly convincing at all), but in the other corner there's the work of quite a few, especially these four: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens - as well as the bible of course ;). 

If it makes you feel any better (or worse), I was brought up as a catholic, went to a catholic school, etc.

There may be some features of the catholic church which predispose it to having a higher proportion of abusers among its clergy. Many clergy that are getting done now for abuse in their later adulthood, were shoe-horned into seminary before they were teenagers; thus they forewent many of the social processes that allow a development-beyond a childish sexuality that could predispose them to becoming child abusers. Sure, many child abusers didn't have this lacuna, but it's a feature worth examining. Is there a greater proportion of abusers among the clergy than in the normal population? Or is it the same and people expected better of them? The anger probably multiplied by the way it was handled/covered up.
Maybe it's an extreme manifestation of the dynamic that goes on in much of catholicism, the whole manipulation/control thing. Not all sex abuse is about sex, plenty has to do with control. Once you start willingly taking your kids to have their consciences cleansed and brains washed by some fuckwit in a dress, maybe you're asking for trouble...

I mean,I know I'm going to finish the book..possibly this week....n absorb it and probably,inevitably swing completely away from my faith upbringing....which it itself us sad,n also a bloody waste of time....

The pro argument usually boils down to....you just have to believe and have faith,n it will all work out. ..end of..     .

You both need to lay out for yourselves exactly what it is you believe (imo many christians do not actually know what it is they believe*), then on another piece of paper write down what Hitchens/Dawkins are saying about these specific points, and ask yourself why you are accepting one side over the other.
Christianity is based on sound reasoning, proven, developed argument around a commonly-held understanding of the world. If you live 2000 years ago. It was written in man's darkest days, we knew next to nothing about how design occurred in the world, where bad deeds came from, we couldn't even attribute the mind to the brain. Adam+Eve, Souls, original sin, were all pretty decent explanations back then, because we knew fuck all. Science blew it all out of the water. Some people accepted this and threw the old bullshit out. Some didn't and remain with that old rubbish.

This is potentially a really great post.  I have never really thought that there may be a factor intrinsic to catholicism that may make those that become priests more predisposed to paedophillia but you post makes some sense.  Possibly a chicken and egg situation though caused by the the celibacy rule ie. those predisposed to liking kids are more likely to push themselves into church both for opportunities and/or because they think that the discipline and neccesity of celibacy may 'cure' them

I'll check that one out (never knew about it), this one is good too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8, as far as the pro side, it's a really hard thing to argue for, but William Lane Craig is probably the best at it. He does come up with better arguments than anybody else as far as trying to back it up with facts goes but he still struggles to convince people who did not believe it anyway.

I find religious debate very interesting as well and reading and understanding different world views.

Not too sure about all this child molestation within the Catholic Church, I suspect there is a lot more too it than the public know about. Mind you if they live by Biblical Law (they don't) then it's not surprising, and probably far from the worst thing going on. Maybe it would help if they didn't hold the view priests were not allowed to have sex. Why is that anyway? Does anybody actually know?

As an agnostic (which I think is the only position you can really hold) I would be interested to know:-

1) Do people of any religion have any evidence to believe in God

2) Do strong Atheists have any evidence which they believe disproves God's existence (I know they don't need to but does anybody believe they can).

Kinda like Anthony Flew then :-)

Does anyone have any evidence that disproves Xenu's existence?

Anything you can't explain by science


Faith in the belief that anything you can't currently explain by science - will be explained by it at some point

Neither of these provide any evidence of the position though. I'm not saying it's possible to do, I don't know how to do it but wondered if anybody had any points that could be considered evidence of either position?

I've only been back five minutes and am DEFINITELY not getting involved in anything controversial.
However, I'm a big Hitchins, Dawkins and most of all Minchin fan.
were I to be getting involved, I would be posting more stuff in that vein.

But I'm not :)

The point being that both positions have a greater or lesser degree of 'proof'

But ultimately they both rely on faith

As much as I consider myself an atheist I do like Dawkins comment on this "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

proving the non-existence of something dreamt up by someone else's imagination is an impossible task.  If it weren't there would be no need for 'belief' or 'faith' and these discussions wouldn't be taking place.  Those that believe have their faith, those that don't can give scientific explanations for a number of things previously believed to be the work of god, but what it really boils down to, imo, is common sense.  I can't disprove the existence of fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny, the toothfairy, angels, god, or prince xenu, but I don't believe any of them actually exist.  Neither do I need to believe any of them exist to be a good person and hold, ahem, 'christian' values.

Faith is identifyable via a brain scan..

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/859/what-brain-science-tells-us-about-religious-belief

Some atheists believe that having faith in an all seeing all controlling God is a mental illness for this reason..

xx

I don't believe this is true of many people.

Even Dawkins is an agnostic atheist though, in the God Delusion he says that if you put a scale in place where a 1 is being sure that God exists and a 7 is being sure that God does not exist then he would be a 6, maybe even a 6.5 (I don't have the book to hand but it's something like that). I am pretty sure most people (Richard Dawkin's included) would be a 7 with regard to Fairies, Santa Claws, Easter Bunnies etc. Maybe I am being too closed minded here but I don't think so.

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

I knew the wife was mental.  Now I have proof.  Thank you so much....now what do you look for in the Yellow Pages....'w' for white coats?

Orcs in Mordor aren't real?

is that like Mork from Ork?  He's deffo real.

Catholicism teaches that Anathema be on those who say you can only know God through faith. So, many catholics believe there is a lot of natural evidence that allows you to come to the conclusion that there is a personal, intelligent, all good, all powerful creator who made the world as it is. For example, there is order and design in the world. Nothing comes to existence by itself; yet the universe is here, therefore some pretty big Guy most have wished it into existence. Like, people can make cars, they're pretty impressive. But DNA is muuuch more sophisticated, so a much more sophisticated guy must have made that.
So what that boils down to is faulty science, the premises are all wrong never mind the faulty logic. They're just lazy and they lack imagination. And that's before you even get to faith.

I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins position on some things. Don't get me wrong, the guy is one of the best evolutionary biologists, his books are really good, his atheistic reasoning and debating are pretty good. But I don't really agree with his position on the alternative. He does try hard to provide an alternative, and steer clear of nihilism. 'Oh the world is so beautiful, look at rainbows, blah blah.' It just doesn't fly. When people try to hold on to their Theism in the face of powerful arguments to the contrary, they're probably less scared of giving up a personal Father-god type guy and more fearful of having to embrace a cold dark pointless universe that we're hurtling through by accident on an overcrowded rock.
What science is beginning to show us in the last 100 years is that the world is far far weirder than we ever expected, we may come from nothing (unlikely), we may come from other universes, there may be many more around us; time may just be a messed up notion in our heads, the past present and future may all co-exist simultaneously; the material world may be a complete illusion. So since our knowledge of the very basics of the fabric of reality is in its very very infancy, it is haughty in the *extreme* to start extrapolating from a 'knowledge of the workings of the natural world' to the existence of a personal creator of it all. The desire in the heart of the Theist for an overarching Truth, an external origin and purpose to their lives, is nothing short of laudible. The rejection of that desire in the heart of some atheists is to be pitied, and it's probably unnecessary.

That Lane-Craig guy puts me on life tilt for some reason, he's like a slimy snake/ID-door to door-salesman hybrid, he never seems to lose steam or become aware of the power of his opponent's argument against his own.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

OK that's true (as I said earlier ITT), but for a second, just out of interest, pretend you do.

You seem to be pretty up on this subject, what are the thing's they lead you to dis-believe theism. I know you can't give total evidence for anything but there must be things that make you not believe.

(obviously you don't have to answer this but I am as I said just interested in the subject)

His language can be a bit 'colourful' at times, so warning in advance...

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Erm yes, maybe because almost everything in the bible can be proven to be bollocks?

You obv can't prove a negative

Something seems unsatisfactory about the argument though. When most believers think of 'God' they're not really meaning someone like Thor or Zeus, a specific entity, the concept they are trying to identify can range from an Intelligent, kind of personal force that can explain the fact that there is something and not nothing. You can't really reject this hypothesis with the 'he's just among many now derided deities' and the universe just *happened*. Maybe there was some great unitary force that wooshed our known universe into being, that has something like an intelligence. It just doesn't send his kids down for mutilation to cancel out his old grudges.
Just because most religious people hold many beliefs that are total bollocks and in the shape of a force that almost certainly doesn't exist in that form, it doesn't mean that there is necessarily *Nothing*.

The is religion a force for good in the world debate tends to come down to the Religios saying...

Religion does good stuff, all this bad stuff attributable to religion would be happening even if there were no religion.

and the Atheios saying...

Religion does bad stuff, all this good stuff attributable to religion would be happening even if there were no religion.

Or essentially, people don't need religion to not be cocks. The atheist argument slightly undermined then, by Dick Dawkins being a bit of a cock.

Pretty good point (the one about The Bible) but I did state Theism and not Christianity which is pretty much fully debunked (and by association the Jewish view and Islam) and yet more people still hold that world view than any other, but it HAS been "proven" wrong in that the evidence against it is so overwhelming that anybody unbiased would consider it proven false. I can probably find some of the proofs if anybody wants them. A lot centre around the creation story and also the flood story. The whole thing is also illogical (the lack of logic is not proof in itself of course).

I can get my head around why Yahweh can basically be put in the same category as Santa Claw's. I can get my head around why Allah can be put in the same category as Santa Claw's. I can almost see why Theism itself would fit there but there is still that doubt whilst things remain unexplained (basically the God of the gaps argument). I have actually completely forgotten the point I was trying to make, I'm sure there was one about Agnostics and Atheists and if Atheists would also be considered Agnostic as they are open to having their minds changed if compelling evidence was presented.

You can prove a negative though, I can prove an orange is not blue. It may soon be possible for science to prove god does not exist. It may be the same kind of proof that we currently have that disprove the Bible and therefore Christianity and you will get the people who refuse the accept the evidence but it probably will be done.

Science may soon be able to explain the origin of the universe via entirely natural causes (again I have forgotten what the process is called and the source I got that from may be unreliable, it was Matt Dilluhunty). But if it happened. That might be enough to move Atheism from a well supported idea into the realm of hard fact. Once we know how the Universe began we not longer have any need of the supernatural.

Do you really think this?  I think most non believers would be the same rating for both.  Logically, I see no reason why they wouldn't be.  Maybe Santa Clause is a bad example but I certainly think fairies are as likely as god.  In fact overall my mind finds it potentially more manageable to believe in fairies than god.

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

cocks gonna cock

A secular society should be a must for people of faith surely?  By definition the separation of faith from politics means that you're free to practice any faith whereas in a state intrinsically tied to a religion the people of that state are not free to worship their particular faith.

Privilege through religion is a major problem imo, and whereas faith is a personal thing that doesn't have to impact on others, religion affords people power - and when certain individuals or groups are given power in this way it means others have some freedoms or rights taken away from them.

Oh, and what's a "militant atheist"?

OK - give me ONE piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god or gods? The argument from incredulity isn't enough to give an idea viability - "godditit" just isn't a sound argument.

"militant atheist" in inverted commas. I forgot the commas, beg your pardon.

Atheists who, given sufficient oppurtunity, are rather keen to talk about their dislike of religion and the role it has within our society.

I think the intrinsic ties between favoured religions and the state which you speak of are a bit of a red herring.

Inequalities with regard to religion and people's decision to practice a particular faith will always exist irregardless of what the state does. Just as inequalities with regard to sport and what sporting activities people want to participate in will exist. The major factor behind both of these inequalities will be the relative popularity of others in the population making similar choices.

In practice people are free to crack on with whatever religion they choose in the UK. It's probably easier to be CofE than a Buddhist but eliminating whatever privliges Rowan Williams enjoys will not really acconplish anything. Eliminating all inequality would be a fools errand.

Think describing people such as that as millitant is a bit harsh and the proportion of theists that display a similar attitude to atheists and worse is much higher.  I also think that the stock view of most thinking atheists isn't really a dislike of religion, just a quiet (and quiet is the key word) disdain for their lack of intellectual capacity.  I have never seen anyone in the street shouting that the passers-by need to lose God, Allah or whoever.  I rarely walk down a street on a saturday without seeing the opposite.  Not really sure why theists should be allowed to ram their, frankly ridiculous (imo of course), views down our throats.  On the rare occasions atheists have publicly demonstrated or shown their voice the treatment they have received, particularly in the US, is nothing short of disgraceful.

Was thinking of getting leaflets printed up promoting a god-less kingdom, telling people there is no such thing as life after death etc. and going round the houses in my area.

Don't think it'll go down well in our neck of the woods though. (They still do marches here)

There's discrimination based on religion in education, employment, the armed forces - in fact pretty much throughout society in the UK.  Women's rights are very obviously restricted in many countries, but fortunately less so in the UK (although it's still there to a certain degree).  But to say the intrinsic ties between religions and states is a red herring is an interesting comment.  For example, I'm sure women in Ireland, or in Saudi Arabia or Somalia might disagree.

 

I'm not in Somalia, Saudi Arabia or Northern Ireland though. Revolution not required here just because it may well be required elsewhere. Campaign for change in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Northern Ireland and I'll leave you be and wish you well.

If that is the case then why has every Prime Minister in my lifetime felt the need to go to church and refer to religion?  Why is there not a single US congressman or senator that describes themselves as an atheist?  Why do we still have Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords?  Why does the Head of the CoE have a veto over every law that is passed by a democratically elected parliament?

Dawkins described himself as being a militant atheist, albeit with a dash of irony.

I make no apology for questioning atheists. Those claiming a monopoly on the  intellectual high ground should be
 open to opposition. Christopher Hitchens taught me that.

The lack of declarations of atheism among congressmen and congresswoman in the United States cones from a country which has the separation of Church and State enshrined into their constitution. One may call that evidence that similar changes to the British constitution (we do have one, though not a single document and it is more fluid than that of America's) are pretty pointless and they won't stop declarations of faith from political leaders if that's what they perceive the prevailing electoral climate to be demanding.

Also, percieved problems elsewhere, (in this case the US) do not always good arguments make to changing our current system here. Especially when the change being proposed makes us more similar to the place where the problem is.

As was mentioned, in the Lords (in itself a contentious issue) there are a significant number of Bishops helping determine UK policy:

http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx

"Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

Religion and state completely separate in the UK?

The enshrined separation in the US constitution is weird one.  If it is so strict I don't understand why dollar bills bear the legend "in god we trust" or public buildings can have a scribe of the ten commandments on its wall.  It may be enshrined in the constitution but it doesn't really work that way in practise.

The US is interesting, as many of the founding fathers were determined to separate state and religion and would probably be 'amused' at the direction that has taken.  Currently reading about this in 'Arguably' by the aforementioned Hitchens.

It is an interesting one. As much as I like questioning the conclusions and actions of some atheists, there's no doubt that atheism is increasingly prevalent in occidental society and that the communication of scientific advances in the fields of biology and physics has been a factor in this.

People who happen to be atheists should be participants at all levels of our representative democracy in the sane way that people who happen to be female, disabled or ginger should be. They are in Britain, they are not in America. Let the Americans worry about that though. I have no interest in solving problems here that don't really exist by means that don't really work.

Our system still offers religious privilege. That still needs to be addressed.

Agree totally with your reasoning although I would say that I think atheists are probably participants in all levels of democracy in the States too but they just daren't say that they are. For example, Obama had very little by way of religious upbringing and it wouldn't be a massive stretch to suggest that his church going is somewhat contrived.  

I'm not sure I agree and I'm concerned that any direct action to bring about that which you desire would have unintended consequences that run contrary to what you desire.

No CofE-er at the moment is taken seriously when they complain of oppression of marginalization within the United Kinggdom. The importance of the church within public life has slowly been reduced and that trend looks set to continue. No-one really cares. Pressing the issue with sone symbolic change that is radically different to what the masses are used to and this might galvanise popular opposition to the gradual scaling back of the importance of
religion.

Essentially, what you want is already happening. Pressing the issue and you risk losing a 'won' position.

Indeed, there are undoubtadely atheists within the American system who keep these beliefs to themselves.

Don't have a problem with that on an individual level (indeed atheists who keep their atheism to themselves are my favourite type of atheists) but when none of them are happy to stand up and say they don't think there's a God it's symptomatic of a problem.

Similarly in Britain we have a suspicious lack of gay people in professional football. It's up to the individual whether to be out or not but when none of them are out there's probably an issue.

I completed one of those equality monitoring form thingies over the weekend and, rather than select 'atheism' as my religious belief I chose 'prefer not to say'.  I don't know what this really says about anything, but I guess that, on some level at least, I believe it's still much more main-stream acceptable to be a christian (or otherwise religious).  This was situation dependent - i'd happily declare in other circumstances.

Is this still your view when they are getting religion shoved down their throats?  I rarely ever discuss my (lack of) religious beliefs with anyone but I do get a little annoyed when I am expected to participate unthinkingly in Christian traditions.  Perhaps it is because my wifes family are religious I am unusual but things like saying grace before eating really tilts me.  It isn't so much the actual act but what the reaction would be if I refused to participate.   Like a typically henpecked husband I just stand there defiantly not shutting my eyes or saying amen but why should I?  Do I become a millitant atheist if I request that I am excused from these things?

Love this thread for some reason *lol*

Most of the discussion seems to be around religion and I agree with most of the Atheistic points about it (it does very little good and a lot of bad) and it is very interesting. However I am more interested in the Theism/Atheism debate, which I would argue has nothing to do with religion.

Kinboshi (whose views on religion I pretty much agree with btw) asked me to give a proof that a god exists. Well if I had this I might have gone and claimed the $1,000,000 prize for it by now :-) (although if you REALLY want me to outline one of the common arguments I will)

Obviously no such proof exists I have already stated in my second post on this thread I don't know of any proof for either position and I said proof probably doesn't exist but asked what people thought the evidence was. I also believe both sides take a lot on faith and both carry a burden of proof and should be willing to present evidence (my own opinion - I understand why atheism strictly speaking does not - as it is simply saying it does not believe a claim and it is the responsibility of somebody making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence).

The thing is theists will try and give you proof, it's fairly easy to dismiss usually  (this may be because most of the ones I have talked to are Christians or Muslims), but to be fair they try. Atheists just say they don't have too. Yet atheist's frequently make the positive claim "There is no God". This claim DOES carry a burden of proof, you are making a positive statement. I can give some evidence (not proof but evidence). For example

Almost everything that science has explained has previously been attributed to a god, some examples of this are:-

1) The birth of stars (observed by NASA)
2) Evolution (this is now a fact by any reasonable person standard)
3) The way gods have been moved throughout the ages, they started off at the top of a mountain, then were in the sky, then went to outer space and are now in a different dimension. We can never find them.

This is pretty compelling (if basic) evidence to back up the claim that no god exists (it is not needed and  and a lot of reasonable people already accept it. It is not proof yet but once science explains the origin of the Universe then that's pretty does it. The only way you could still believe in a god is to ignore the evidence.

Redarmi asked me if I really believed a god was more likely than fairies. I am inclined to say yes but have to confess to not being able to back this claim up at all. I want to say that I am 100% sure that fairies do not exist but can't carry the burden of proof for this position. This just does not feel like a valid analogy. Not too sure why though. It's a good point then.

Surely its just good manners to sit in silence and wait for them to finish their prayer? 

The whole point of faith is that there is no burden of proof.

This is what I do in general and I don't have a massive issue with it but it generally works that everyone is called into a circle or something to say grace (tends to be the bigger family gatherings that aren't around a table rather than a regular table based dinner and I would just prefer to not join the circle and participate in any way. 

Oh I see.

I don't think they should have an issue with you not joining the circle. most people of faith, understand that their practices may not be for everyone. I imagine that they wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable.

Rod, wasn't asking for proof - just one piece of evidence, no matter how small.

Love

OK if I must, this one is not exactly new but it is probably the most compelling the hardest one to deal with, although there are some decent counter arguments.

*Disclaimer, I do not believe this to be "true" but would love to see Kinboshi's response.

The Argument of Intelligent Design (AKA Fine Tuning)

The universe does appear to be fine tuned. There are a number of universal constants including the force of gravity that unless they were set at there exact level would make life in the universe totally impossible, the appearance of fine tuning is accepted by even secular scientists . Even the often mentioned Richard Dawkin's considers this to be the most compelling argument in favor of Theism and the one that would be most likely to convince him could he ever be convinced (blatant appeal to authority ftw there).

I would say that is a piece of evidence, at least for intelligent design (which is basically creationism). ie if it is designed there has to be a designer (please note this does not mean that there has to be a designer just because the universe is here - it's not the watchmaker fallacy).

Go for it :-)

Both religious people and atheists suffer from the hangover of 2000 years of organized religion, and it prohibits both from framing the questions properly.
Religious types are hanging on to their notion of all powerful beardy guy, and similarly atheists become all 'ontological', like 'provide one piece of evidence for that being that you say exists'. Atheists are just allowing themselves to be forced to frame the paradigm according to the 2000 year legacy of god figures that believers have brought with them, really because they know they're wrong in that respect and can easily be poked in the eye.
Grow up lol

Don't look at it in terms of ontology and entities, the existence of which you have to prove/disprove. Look at it in terms of models that allow you to best explain the world which you encounter.
A good analogy to demonstrate this paradigm would be the theory of evolution (I'm not arguing about evolution, just the historical paradigm). When Darwin is first postulating it, you don't really have much direct evidence of it (even though you have obv speciation). Nowadays you have many intermediate fossils and other fossils, and DNA studies, which are almost direct evidence. He didn't have that then, but his theory was still the best model to explain why there are so many varied species etc. So look at the world now with the limited evidence we have (maybe it'll arrive) for or against the existence of 'God'. But look at the merits of a model which suggests that there was
-intention in the origin of the universe
-design, intelligence in the origin
-a specific place for man in the universe

Thuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus..........all many theists are really doing is positing a model where, on the face of it, there appears to be some degree of planning and design in the world, the suggestion that there may have been intention and that man may have a special role (Goldilocks theory, quantum observation etc).
And what fantastic model do atheists/agnostics have to repudiate this model? Very little really. Which is why so many are intent on concentrating on the entity of 'god' especially the christian god, because it's so easy to knock over.
We actually know so little about the actual real origin of the world (what brought about the Big Bang) and know few answers to the really fundamental questions (why there is matter and not nothing, why there should be a delicate arrangement that permits life), that to flick a hand and dismiss any model that would seem *extranatural* is more than a little cavalier.

?

Chemical reactions in the brain, experienced by many animals, including mammals and birds for example, and favoured by evolution in order to ensure the procreation and the successful survival of young until they develop  into self-sufficient adults.

Not sure why that's evidence of a god. I'm guessing those who don't experience love (for others or from others) have done something wrong and have deemed unworthy of this gift?

Almost everything attributed to gods can now be explained by science - but not all of it can be proved

It would be hard to quantify but I expect the majority of the sum total of scientific knowledge is evidence to support the scientific argument rather than literal proof.

There are some good theories to show how matter could spontaneously come into existence from nothing - a pre-requisite for doing away with god creating the universe - but even if you can recreate this in a lab for example, that would only be proof that it could have happened that way - not that it did.

ManuelsMum, just because an answer isn't known the solution that "goddidit" doesn't provide a sensible answer.

It merely moves the goalposts. If there's complexity in the universe that cannot yet be explained, to say it must be down to a designer doesn't solve anything. Where would this god come from - with all their inherent complexity?

Creation of the universe

Well said, but we're talking really about space/time coming from nothing, matter from nothing is fairly easy ;)

As Jon says, we can examine evidence to support hypotheses and models. Proof is the reserve of mathematics.

That's a question, rather than evidence. If the universe needs a creator because of its complexity, etc., where does this creator come from? If he/it doesn't need to be created or a creator, why does the universe?

You got a link to any of these by any chance? No problem if not, just would like to read, I got some links from google but not sure which are reliable obviously.

Oh by the way, completely off topic - ONE MONTH.

If there is a God, he's a great mathematician.  ~Paul Dirac

Cos the universe doesn't seem to demonstrate that it is capable of creating itself and it's not unreasonable to ask where it came from so maybe there's something else that whooshed it that doesn't in itself need to be whooshed. You're suggesting that it self-whooshed, which sounds pretty unlikely. Things don't self-whoosh.

It's stuff I read on actual paper rather than on a screen - I apologise for such aberrant behaviour obviously ;D

The creator self-whooshed?

I have a watch here, I wonder if it made itself.

(Joke)  :-)

Fair point, I'm just not that keen on 'goddidit' because I'm not all that keen on 'god', laden as the term is with so much baggage like oversight, punishment, power etc.

And I'm not just trying to explain the complexity either, I'm not that keen on a 'god of the gaps'. I'm trying to posit a model which is different from that implicitly suggested by most atheists.

I remember the bit in the convo between Copplestone and Russell where Russell says that 'I believe that the Universe is 'just there'. It's that model I'm trying to question, rather than defending a Yahweh type beardy guy.

He just is, no whooshing.

I'll labour til my dying day to prove the existence of this God I don't believe in, cos this other model, it's shit quite frankly.

Maybe antitheist (as proposed by Mr Hitchens) is a better term than atheist? It doesn't carry the same 'baggage'.

:D

Argument through incredulity isn't an argument. As you know.

That seems like more of a social crusade than participation in a philosophical debate. But it's perfectly worthwhile, I've seen pragmatic theism in all its forms, and it suck suck sucks.

so who do I put my money on for the next pope?

I'd lay Cardinal Peter Turkson.

Then I'd bet against him.

BTW, @ thinking that "once science explains the origin of the Universe then that's pretty does it." would silence the theists.

It honestly wouldn't, they would just say "Yeah, but god did that"..and the discussion would go on.

I dont think he will be too happy after reading this thread...

Must admit i don't like the negativity of antitheist and that is part of my problem or uncomfortableness (is this even a word?) with my atheism in general.  It just isn't very positive or comforting.  A bit like saying at someones funeral or to your grandmother - "Nothing after this...just getting eaten by worms".  In gambling terms it has often occurred to me that non believing is like the ultimate -EV bet.  There is basically no upside to it at all.  If there is even a 0.00001% chance of God existing presumably by not believing in it I have made it difficult for myself and there isn't much to be gained from not believing.  If I am right then I just become dirt.  unfortunately there is nothing in my brain logically that can think anything else although Buddism appeals on a couple of levels.

Good post......

Hitchens has wrote sometimes believing in something,anything has many psychological advantages.....as in we have a purpose.....there is a point to this life thing....and you will be rewarded......but you have to remain in a state of delusion or fervour to not question your faith......

Was reading about the Mormon religion there......its very new and researchable......and in my humble opinion and hitchens an utter load of claptrap originated from a convicted fraudster and plagurist.....now if this religion could be so easily picked apart for what it is....a nonsense....and if the same could be applied for other ancient religions(much more difficult).....then there isn't much left to debate...

Oh shit....I think the swing has swung for me....tbc

What's the upside or positive to believing in a god, what do you gain? I can think of things that you gain by not believing - although you obviously have to define that belief. I don't see why one side is more positive than the other.

It´s Pascal´s wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

Dawkin´s would say something like what you gain by not believing in God is the knowledge that it´s really important to make the very most of this life as it´s all there is, he put adverts on the side of London buses saying basically this.

Believing in Father Christmas is nice. Remember being disappointed as a child when I learnt he didn't exist.

Maybe if I believe in him enough he will exist, and that'll make me happy.

This post should have had a health warning with it!

I should have known.... :'( :'(

Wait a minute, if Father Christmas doesn't exist then who's going to get my kids presents this year?

He does exist dammit. I've bloody well seen him at the garden center.

You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

Sorry - should have posted a spoiler warning.  Or maybe a Santa clause...?

I am not an expert on theism by any stretch but depending upon the religion  The belief in eternal life and salvation must be pretty comforting and the promise of 47 virgins must be soemthing to, ahem, look forward to.  On a slightly more facetious level I could do with eternal life to overcome to variance associated with low stakes MTT's on Stars.

Pascal originally advocated spending time with religious people
The very reason I think he should concentrate more on the Biology. His call though obv, just like everyone else he's free to crack on with whatever takes his fancy.

His new book looks like a cracking read for children (and probably adults too):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/21/richard-dawkins-magic-reality-review

I wonder if his obituary will read, "Brilliant scientific career cut short by his own burning desire to find new and creative ways to be rude to old ladies."

I don't think he'll mind much. It's not like he'll be reading it from heaven or anything.

If I were God or one of his beurocrats at the pearly gates, I'd let in Dawkins just for a laugh.

Pascal's wager should be recalculated to include the possibility that if God does exist, whether or not he has a sense of humour.

Of course he has, otherwise why would he have made Scotland so bloody cold?

Because he's a cruel bastard?

I'm all for freerolls, but what God to belief in?  I was brought up as a catholic, but if God is a protestant, its hell for me and if he is a muslim, the prods will be keeping me company etc.  At least as an athiest if you are wrong, you will be able to put some pretty solid arguments to support your case.  

 

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Stephen Roberts

Was just doing some amateur thinking there in a similar note....there are countless gods in countless religions.....and there can only be one.....right?.....one ultimate designer/creator.......that must be perturbing to say the least for the faithful....knowing that statisically your backing the wrong horse......but if your an athiest then Woohooo if your right....or am I just debating pascals wager?...

I know someone who had to fill in a form at the nursery for their 1 y/o child - the question was -

Religion? - they replied with dont know child too young to talk, let alone able to choose the answer to this.

This thread is less interesting now, everybody is agreeing can somebody go and find some fundamentalism Christians for us to debate with. That's always fun.

I don't see people agreeing, I see people having a sensible adult discussion from various viewpoints without any flaming or trolling - bit of a rarity on the internetz nowadays.  Agree that the big childish arguments can be entertaining though :D

I don't believe in God but neither do I think science provides a whole lot of 'answers.

it's kinda stupid, or unscientific even, to believe that for all science can explain, it actually explains even a decent fraction of the doings of this world.

As a result I tend to find pseudo wannabe scientists a bit depressing and dogmatic.

They all have the same one God. Just different people spreading his word.
maybe, just maybe; all are welcome, after all we are all his children.

Got to agree with this..

I read the other day that E = MC2 may actually be horlicks, just saying.

Is this actually true?  ie that you all worship the same god?  So Jehovah, Allah, Hari and , erm, God are all the same person??  Not levelling but just genuinely never knew this...

Thinking more about this and it can't be true because there are more than one Budda and Hindu's have many Gods but the question remains for those religions with a single God I suppose.

Yes God laughed so much when the Crusaders and Muslims slaughtered each other over their version of him.

Muslims and Christians, for example, cannot both be right. Most Christians believe in the Triune God, 3 Persons, One god. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different Persons, are distinct, and each one is God. But there is only one God. Does this appear to be nonsense? Yes. However, it is true. And we call this a mystery. Pull out a 3 leaf clover to help explain it.
For Muslims (and Jews too actually), it's a really big deal that there is only one God. Triune God people can really piss some muslims off for this reason.
If you are talking to an educated/semithinking christian, and you want to debate, point out this fact to them.

I have been told by someone close to me that they are Christian because they know it is true, they know they are right. Well, most muslims would probably feel exactly the same way. And yet you can't both be right. So 'feeling that you know' is no guarantee of veracity. So you need something else which shows why you are right and the person from the other religion is wrong. One thing is for certain, no matter what you believe: there are a huge number of people and a massive proportion of the world who believe wholeheartedly in something that is definitely bollocks.

What, oh believer, is the % probability that your religion is the true one? And what were the % odds of you being born into your specific religion? Why should these two %s be different?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo.

""My wager: You should spend your life training for marathons because when you die, cerberus will chase you. If i am wrong, then you suffered a small loss. If i am right, you saved your eternal soul. So stop worshipping God and put those running shoes on Mr. Pascal."" lol

No, that's not what you read. It was to do with the neutrino experiment that gave results that if correct would question Einstein's famous equation and the idea that the constant 'c' (the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum) is not the universal speed limit.

The findings were published to be analysed and questioned, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, many scientists have questioned the accuracy of the experiment and the findings and it's very likely that there were fundamental flaws in their methodology.

As for this notion that "science claims to have all the answers" - bollocks does it. Science is a methodology where a hypothesis is put forwarded, tested and then tested by peers. It's this repeated searching for the right answers that separates science from faith. Science isn't wrong, people's conclusions can be misinformed based on limited evidence or understanding of what is observed. Science is about constantly questioning and challenging perceived truths. It's about putting together a model that explains our universe based on the evidence we have and our limited understanding of it. It doesn't deal with fundamental truths, and it's not scared of being challenged. It doesn't rely on blind faith or wishful thinking, or on medieval teachings based on a far lesser understanding and knowledge of how things work.

Science works. We have planes, computers, the Internet, medicine, etc., whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

That is exactly what I read(apart from the horlicks bit), it was the headline, I didn't read anymore of it.

Does science really constantly challenge perceived truths ?

Are many scientists working on challenging Darwinian theory ? Genuine question, perhaps there are ?

Is there a large tranche of men in white coats challenging the big bang theory. Again, perhaps there are but I never read about them.

A number of scientists are people of faith - are they bad scientists, idiots ?

It's unbelievably dense to take sides in a science versus faith debate in any sense that mandates someone must decide what side of the fence they're on.

Frankly, as well, the level of debate that wants to trivialise and distill the impact of faiths on this world to wars and architecture is pathetic (in the true sense of the word).

Good quetions Nirvana. I volunteer as "stupid believer guy" if it would heat up the debate lol

Darwinism unchallengable, so much of biology now assumes it, and tons of psychology too. There's basically no other model that even remotely comes close to explaining the observed DNA/fossil/speciation data. It would be like challenging the idea of the brain as the seat of thought.

Once upon a time the earth was flat.....






I'm not saying Darwinism is incorrect just not unchallengeable.

Actually, the creationist model would be pretty close hence the continued flaming between the sides of the debate.

As for this

"It would be like challenging the idea of the brain as the seat of thought"

I think I could make a plausible case for this not being true for many people :-)

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Science played a decent part in a few wars also.

Succinct and very well put

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

Like Soviet Russia you mean ?

Not sure what you mean.  Certainly the soviet system of party members and crushing dissent would be like the church in the middle ages.

Nor me, sorry

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

Don't be silly, if the uk was a religious society, kinboshi would have been disembowelled years ago. 

The UK does not run under the anachronistic institutions you mention. The Queen is for tourists and the order of precedence is for wikipedia. The House of Commons runs the show.

Ideas are challenged when a suitable hypothesis is put forward, evidence supplied and a model given that makes more sense than the currently accepted model.

Can you please give an example of how the theory of evolution (also don't misunderstand the word theory in this context, it's not the same usage as a theory in general use) can be challenged with an alternative model that makes more sense of the evidence available?

We're talking complete fossil records, evolution witnessed in laboratory conditions, and the smoking gun of DNA showing that all lifeforms on this planet share a common ancestry. Not only biology, but geology, physics, astronomy and chemistry all support the model of evolution.

Man used to think the world was flat and that the moon, sun and stars revolved around the earth at the centre of everything. Physics and astronomy have shown that model to be false, and we now have a greater understanding of how the cosmos is.

Should scientists be challenging the idea that the sun is at the centre of our solar system, which is one of many stars in our galaxy amongst millions of other galaxies? We don't understand everything about the cosmos, but science doesn't just replace accepted models unless there's something that explains things better than what we have now.

To challenge evolution just because a two thousand year old book didn't include an understanding of how life evolved on the planet is pretty ludicrous.

I haven't criticised faith. I was criticising religion.

Doesn't the queen have final say in passing new laws........in theory she can say no to whatever the house of commons passes on to her to sign,but doesn't to avoid a constitutional crisis.........would be a laff if she said "feck off Mr.Cameron...one will not sign this law"

Yes, there are lots of scientists looking at alternative theories to the big bang. Not sure there are any yet that explain the evidence as satisfactorily though yet.

Not for me to say how it can be challenged, I don't have a scoobies. If you want to have it both ways that science always challenges, except when it doesn't, that's fine by me and prob God, Allah etc. Sounds dangerously like a dogma though

If she did that then yeah, constitutional crisis. She's best to do it late on a Friday afternoon as then she might last till Monday.

Not sure I understand your point. There's loads of evidence, the theory predicted subsequent findings accurately, and there's zero evidence to support an alternative theory.

Where's the dogma?

Atheists, militant or otherwise, occasionally a bit hasty to draw conclusions and report as scientific fact some things that would be inconvenient to many religious people, but that there isn't really enough evidence yet to make such a statement.

eg, Life can be generated spontaneously in the lab coz we made some amino acids in the lab. Or then there's the whole thing about extra-terrestrial life. It's out there coz it must be as space is so big.

Religious people may very well say, I'll show you God if you either make me a beastie or show me a beastie from elsewhere in the cosmos.




On nirvana's point about no scientist challenging evolution. I'm sure many put their minds to it as there is considerable profit incentive for them to do so. If they found a way of crafting a narrative within rigid and recognized scientific paramaters that called the evidence for the Theory of Evolution into serious question then, if they published at breakfast, they'd sell 100,000 copies before lunch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00jjjw4/Origins_of_Us_Bones/

Excellent programme and well worth a watch (imo). The more we learn the more we understand about how and why humans evolved as we have. Still loads of questions to answer, and the more we find out, the more questions we have.

That's the nature of science.

Dawkins paints a picture of religion clinging to dogma and willfully ignoring hard evidence and reason (which is fair enough as this is what happens in many many cases). Thing is he then contrasts this with the established thinking in science, which is initially sceptical about the new data, puts it to the test, and if it comes to light that their life's work is obsolete then so be it. They rejoice in the pursuit of mankinds knowledge and give the young mind that made the discovery a well earned pat on the back.

Thing is, history of science is littered with examples of paradigm shifts taking a generation to be generally accepted as the scientific consensus. The old guard get the initial scepticism bit right, but then just ignore and poo poo, marginalize and defame. Old generation has to die before the new idea gets picked up. Scientists can, and have been, just as stubborn as theists.

Big fan of the scientific method, don't get me wrong.

Sell that she got rid of Gough Whitlam. Hadn't heard of this before, but from what I've read about it briefly it looks like the Aussie governor general got rid of Gough Whitlam. He acts on the Queens behalf perhaps, but in practice he does stuff on his own initiative and doesn't take orders from her madge. Maybe technically you could say it was the queen wot done it via her governor general, but he defp acts autonomously (he's appointed by the Queen, but by whomever the previous Aussie PM recommended her to appoint.)

Looks like an interesting spot where the PM could sack the governor general (via the Queen by recommending someone else) and the governor general could sack the PM (on behalf of the Queen) and it just so happens that the Gov moved first.

The reality is the Queen stays out of it, and like here, her power is some sort of wierd constitutional failsafe. Clegg, Cameron and Brown would have sorted out something had the coalition agreement not taken hold (minority Tory administration most likely). Keeping the Queen out of politics a big factor in their dealings.

and I don't know for sure, but I don't think she spends the weekly meetings lobbying the PM on behalf of the Church of Englands vested interests.

Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting that her power is used in a religious manner or that she is some kind of religious force.  My point was just that it is wrong to suggest she has no powers.  On the Gough Whitlam issue it was the Governor-general that made the decision but he has that power as the Queens proxy.  It is almost unthinkable he acted without her consent and approval on such a major issue.

You've described the scientific method there, and shown how human belligerence and stubborn refusal to be willing to investigate new evidence places obstacles in its path.  There are a lot of scientists who might show different levels of this, and these are human faults - not faults of the scientific method.

However, religious faith requires this refusal to look at the evidence and be open to alternative possibilities.  I'll let Dawkins put it in his words:

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."

^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is important.

As I suggested earlier and others have used as a means to undermine the argument - science relies on faith just as religion relies on faith (although perhaps not to the same extent).

Proof belongs to mathematics, science just has a weight of evidence to support or oppose certain theories - religion primarily only has faith.

Isn't faith the belief in something in the absence of evidence?

I'm not sure you could ever use that word in science.

Or faith is the belief in something in the absence of proof  - that makes it relevant to science

Fucking hell you lot need a hobby instead of talking about this shit, why don't you take up poker or summat?  :)

Meh, faith is maybe 0.0000000000000000000001% part of scientific theories like the theory of gravity etc. Obv more with regards to other theories (Evolution maybe 0.00000000000000000000005%)  but it's 100% required when it comes to believing in a higher power.

Tried that, but the poker gods don't like me.

"But human reason is limited, science can't explain everything."

People saying that sort of thing just massively tilts me.

We don't have to know everything, scientists should just just strive to get as many answers as possible.
Saying "Well, we don't know everything so I'll believe in homeopathy, faith healings, voodoo or god until the opposite is proven" is just lazy and, potentially, harmful.

In fact, I think everyone believing in any of the above should have all their privileges to the opposite things removed...Anyone who believes in homeopathy, faith healings and magic water etc. should be denied access to any service on the NHS.

See what they believe in then.

I would generally agree with you, but there are certain things, like chinese medicine, which have been around for thousands of years.

There are certain things that science has investigated however, which really point to things that are beyond reason, like the Turin Shroud, which really fascinates me.

1; Chinese medicine has been around for thousands of years. "Modern" Western medicine does not pooh-pooh the idea behind most Chinese medicine. (You know, the stuff that works) That doesn't mean that taking ground panda penis will make your own penis 4 inches longer etc.

Like the Turin Shroud what? Obviously scientists not actually being able to study the thing other than by looking at pictures doesn't help but I don't see what the big mystery is. If the Turin Shroud makes people believe in, a Christian, God that is obviously fine..but I would argue that there might be a more logical reason for the picture of a crucified figure in the shroud other than "God made it appear".

There has been lots of remedies that have been around for thousands of years. Those that work have become 'medicine', those that don't are peddled as 'alternative medicine' without having to undergo any clinical trials or studies.  Read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre for more on that subject, would be a bit of a digression for this thread.

Turin Shroud has been carbon dated (http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm) to the 13-14th Century AD.  What about it points to "things beyond reason"?

Pffft @ carbon dating;

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_assumptions.php

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html


It's clearly just nonsense.


BTW, the above links are also the reason why there is no reason to believe that people will stop believing in god when it's "proven" how the universe came to be.

+1

Radiocarbondating of the Shroud vair vair dodgy

"  It is said that the carbon dating is inaccurate. One Dr. Maria Grazia Siliato, Who has studied the shroud for 16 years     says the reason that the carbon dating is wrong, is that the fragment tested was a corner of the cloth that had been repaired five times since 1400. Another Dr, Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdez, after months of examining microscopic samples, concluded in January that the shroud is centuries older than it's carbon date. Dr. Garza said the shrouds fibers are coated with bacteria and fungi that have grown for centuries. He said that the carbon dating had sampled the contaminants as well as the fibers' cellulose.

      In May 1993, Dr. Garza traveled to Turin, and examined a shroud sample with the approval of Catholic authorities. "As soon as I looked at a segment in the microscope, I knew that it was heavily contaminated, and I knew what had been radiocarbon dated was a mixture of linen, and bacteria, fungi, and bioplastic (A plastic-like coating that is a byproduct of bacteria and fungi.) " Dr. Garza enlisted Dr.Mattengly. Together they are working with an enzyme process to cleanse the contaminated samples."

http://theshadowlands.net/shroud.htm

wiki

"Corona discharge
During restoration in 2002, the back of the cloth was photographed and scanned for the first time. An article on this subject by Giulio Fanti and others envisages the electrostatic corona discharge as the probable mechanism to produce the images of the body in the Shroud.[138] Congruent with that mechanism, they also describe an image on the reverse side of the fabric, much fainter than that on the front view of the body, consisting primarily of the face and perhaps hands. As with the front picture, it is entirely superficial, with coloration limited to the carbohydrate layer. The images correspond to, and are in registration with, those on the other side of the cloth. No image is detectable in the reverse side of the dorsal view of the body.
Results of some new experiments propose that a Corona discharge mechanism could have been involved in the Turin Shroud body image formation, but it is impossible to reproduce all the characteristics of the image in a laboratory because the energy source required is too high.[131][139] This theory and the experiment have not addressed a method by which the high level of energy could have been controlled and directed, without damaging the Shroud"

So we have probably got Jesus' burial cloth, an imprint of him left because of the High Energy Flash that happened when God the Father revived him (like the Defibrillation paddles you see in hospitals, only stronger. And divine). Jesus is not in the cloth. Why? Because He has risen. Only God can make people rise. Therefore God exists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051693/Rapture-Will-world-end-today-Harold-Camping-goes-hiding.html

Thus we can be sure that the whole world, with the exception of those who are presently saved (the elect), are under the judgement of God, and will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on October 21


So looks only the devout will be left to argue later today - what a lo

lol WP.

Missed the "world going into a frenzy" over his latest predictions though. Ah well, GL to him..this time I hope he's right and all the devout are being taken up to heaven. Means the rest of us can get on with life in peace and quiet.

Take yr ticket for the most part but I dont think they challenge in the way I understand the word. They challenge themselves to come up with another sub theory that explains another gap in our collective understanding of what evolution theory actually means. The fossil record has been quoted in these pages and yet the fossil record tends to disprove more than it proves. Some good points here though that you gotta have faith even if you don't have religion.

With my faith button switched on, I am looking forward to the punctuated equilibria events that lead to humans speciating or something - I would like to have wings, humans would really be awesome with wings.

Please expand.

Ultimately, there's only one way to settle this whole Faith v Reason debate, and that is a FaithReason RSQ.

I have just finished reading Dave Gorman vs the world where he challenges people to games.

Someone invites him to play IDVE, which only upon arrival does he find out is a board game called intelligent design vs evolution! I won't spoil the book, but let's say some of the games questions are a little one sided!

I have no problem with people having a faith, but on the understanding that they are choosing to believe in something which is fairly mythical. If it gives them personal strength that's great, but keep it to yourself please!

At least with science they are continually challenging themselves on their hypothesis and reasoning, religious people just believe because they are told to believe, and in any other part of life this attitude would usually be questioned

This thread could run and run but it is the best debate I have seen on this subject for a very long time (although I still think a few fundamentalists would be fun).

I agree with Boldie that proof of the origin of the universe would not bring an end to Theism there and then but it would probably die out over a few generations as the new theory gets taught to kids in school.

I disagree that there could be any serious challenges made to evolution. The evidence is so strong it is considered fact by any serious scientist (so I am lead to strongly believe). the transitional forms are all there as well and there are no "missing links". This does not matter, all evolution explains is the origin of life. The universe was already here and the it was already raining, where did all of this come from. There are two schools of thought to the best of my knowledge.

1) We don't know yet but science will eventually work it out (I think this is by far most likely)

2) God did it (as good an explanation as the one above at the end of the day, although less likely in my opinion)

Also the discussion shows why gods existence is more likely than fairies. God is a theory, which is in some ways scientific, fairies are just in the realm of fantasy. Kinboshi said that there is as much evidence for god as the orcs from Mordor. He is quite correct but god is still more likely (as we know the orcs to be fictional this is no great claim, I guess the fairies are also more likely).

Couple of points about the religion thing (which I was trying to stay out of). I understand the following to be true

Are The christian god (Yahweh/Jehovah) and the muslin god (Allah) the same thing? Yes they are, they are both the god of Abraham who both agree was a prophet of god. They both received the 10 commandments . The disagreement is about Jesus (is he the Christ and god incarnate?) and Mohammed (was he a prophet?).

Most protestants do not believe Catholics will go to hell. They are saved (mis-informed but saved).

Eternal Life? I think only Christianity offers this (Islam offers it to some people). If Christianity is true (I know it isn't btw) I will pass please god :-)

As for the good things religion has done which has been mentioned in the thread? Religion did not do it, Humans did. It may get attributed to god but the reality is the chances are 99% of it would have happened anyway, some of the atheist communities in the USA do massive amounts of good works. There have though been plenty of wars that would not have happened if not for religion. The crusades being the obvious example.

Anyway my position remains the same:-

Theism - Requires far to much faith in the unknown
Atheism - Way to many questions that cannot yet be answered.

My conclusion - I don't know which is true. If I have to guess I would say atheism but I still say theism is a possibility. Although if god does exist I don't think any existing religion has it right.

Interesting information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

Well there are plenty of missing links (fossilization is pretty rare, never mind the difficulty in finding them), but there are some major transitional fossils kicking around, and a pretty decent number of different fossils that bridge the link between ourselves and our ancestors with chimps. There's also a lot of DNA evidence.
Evolution explains the complexity of life in all its forms, doesn't spend so much time on the origin of life. How life originated on earth is still open to debate. Before life occurred, a lot of the groundwork had already been done by the universe in creating complex non-life chemistry without which life could not happen.
It's entirely possible, maybe probable, that we will never be able to understand the origin of the universe. We are creatures of spacetime, our understanding evolved to allow us to cope with spacetime events. Spacetime came about at the start of the universe, good luck wrestling with a non-spacetime 'cause' of it, if there is one.
It's pretty random to posit 'God' (as we know him) as the alternative really. By 'God' we're talking about a personal, intelligent maker, a concept totally suffused with anthropomorphisms, only because it was humans that dreamt him up, humans who thought that mankind was the King of the Universe. If there was some BigForce, it could come in loads of other forms. We only evolved intelligence, personhood and creativity as answers to a dangerous, complex environment; remarkable coincidence then that God has similar attributes despite having never been threatened by giant tigers or lived in complex social groups.

If you put a decent detective on the case, he'd probably arrive at atheism anyway without these considerations. It just doesn't looklike there's a benign, all-powerful creator of it all, who designed the universe as a suitable place for man. The world is really crap for man, very dangerous, and we've only recently begun to live life in any sort of 'comfort'. Doesn't look like a place made with us in mind.

Show one fossil record that disproves any element of the model of evolution.

@ Del, you are quite right. Islam does consider Jesus to be the Messiah, I made a mistake when I said it was a disagreement between Christians and Muslims.

@ Manuelsmum, first of all good post. I understand there to be enough transitional fossils to prove evolution happened and show a direct linage to out ape-like ancestors, I will admit I am not so sure of the evolution up to that point though, I am pretty sure I have read the transitional forms exist but would not swear to how reliable that info was. I don't know of any missing links but hey, I am a long way from being an expert on it. I'm pretty sure you are right about DNA being strong evidence though. So would you consider evolution a fact?

I think if the Universe began by natural causes we have at least AK's chance again QQ of working it out (well not us here but those scientist people *lol*).

I agree that it does not look like there is a benign, all powerful creator, but he doesn't have to be either. If we were created there is no reason to assume that the creator did so for anything other than his own ends (whatever they may be) and one he has done that he may have just left us to our own devices. This certainly fit's better than any religious theory imho.

Not sure a detective comes to Atheism as easily as most people seem to think, I don't believe it can be "proved" anything like beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is not strong enough (it is just stronger and more likely than the alternative)

The most logical answer remain's - I don't know.

I would be interested in this as well. I tend to look at these things with an open mind I like to think so if there is something of which I am not aware that really does call the theory into serious question I'd genuinely love to see it. I am no where near an expert but the theory of evolution seems pretty hard to argue with.

One day Nasruddin went to Lake Akşehir with a bowlful of cultured yoghurt and a long spoon. He squatted at the water’s edge and began ladling yoghurt into the lake.

Hussein saw him and asked what he was doing. Nasruddin replied, “I’m adding starter to the lake to make it into yoghurt.”

Hussein asked, “Are you serious‽ Do you really believe you can turn the lake into yoghurt?”

“I know I can’t. I know it won’t,” stated Nasruddin. “But just imagine — what if I could, and what if it did?”

Why, I'm not trying to disprove the theory. I benefit from having an open mind on these matters - happy to say I don't know rather than become consumed with any belief system. And in any case the point really is about the paucity of the fossil record as opposed to finding fossils that disprove stuff, assume yr just being obtuse.

However, I'd like your expert view on the convenience of a theory such as punctuated equilibria. Seems pretty nonsensical to my critical faculties

Rod just made the point again about religion and wars. It's some kind of a point in that it really puts people who believe in God on the spot. But they are only human - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao didn't need anything more than a humanist perspective to be who they were but people dont tend to categorise all non religious people on the deeds of the worse of their kind. Why do anti religionists do this so much, damaged childhoods, health issues, its beyond me and pretty non scientific, certainly not good maths anyway.

It caused wars, the argument that if not for religion we would have found something else to fight about is a valid one (not saying I 100% agree but accept the point) but I still can't see any benefit religion has on the world.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I'll have a stab at explaining how the punctuated equilibrium model fits into evolutionary theory.  If we have any evolutionary zoologists on blonde I hope they correct any of my misunderstandings.

What I know about it come mostly from reading Dawkins and also Dennet (mostly Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "The Blind Watchmaker"), so maybe if I expand my reading I'd have a better understanding of it.

Punctuated equilibrium is a model that's used to explain sudden evolutionary changes in fossil records that suggest a period of equilibrium or stasis, followed by a 'jump' in the fossil records to show rapid evolutionary change in a species.  It doesn't replace other evolutionary theory, and also doesn't suggest that it's the primary evolutionary mechanism.

I'll explain it with an example:

There is a population of mammals, let's say they're rabbits.  They live in a relatively stable environment, without any hugely significant environmental changes (predators, climate, vegetation, etc., are all relatively constant).  The population of these rabbits isn't driven by any pressing drivers of natural selection, other than the strongest and most virile of the population managing to survive and have offspring.  This population remains like this for many hundreds of thousands of years.  The fossil records in this area show this stasis as they exhibit very little change over the periods of time.

Dawkins puts forward the idea that punctuated equilibrium is predominantly a result of migratory movement.  During this period of stasis, some of the population move to a neighbouring area and some environmental factors separate them from the main population.  Maybe they are on a piece of land that is cut off from the main population by climate change (flooding, change in vegetation, volcanic activity, etc.), or some pioneering rabbits make it over a mountainous region (over a period of time) and effectively get cut-off from the main population of these rabbits.

In this isolated population there might be stronger factors for natural selection, and there's a relatively rapid change in the population due to their smaller size (compared to the main population) and the differing environment.  Maybe the predators here are faster, stronger, more cunning; or maybe food is more scarce.  Whatever the factor(s) it means these pressures mean that genetic drift has a greater affect on their evolution.  For example, natural selection would favour the rabbits that have longer legs and can run faster if the predators in this isolated region are also faster than the predators in the main population.  The population in relative 'stasis' isn't coming under these pressures to drive rapid evolutionary changes through natural selection.  However, the isolated population is changing rapidly (in evolutionary terms), and over hundreds and thousands of years and millions of generations of rabbits, they evolve into a markedly different type of rabbit to those in the main population (who are relatively unchanged).  If the changes are significant enough and there's a sufficient amount of time, the effect can be speciation - a new species of rabbit very different to those in the population in stasis for the same time period.

Then there is an environmental change that means the isolated population can now move back into the region where the original population are.  Maybe a melting of ice allows movement, or a drop in sea-level makes an island once again part of the main continent land mass.  Whatever the change, this means the new population (new species) can now reunite with their ancestral population.

It could also mean that the faster predator that was present in the region where the new species evolved can also move to where the ancestral population of rabbits live.  Remember that over time, the rabbits that were in contact with these fast predators evolved to be faster themselves (the rabbits that were slower would be more easily caught and less likely to survive and reproduce).  The same happens here in the mixed population, and over time the original population of rabbits loses out to their faster cousins who can avoid the predator more successfully and maintain their numbers.  The rabbit population that remained in stasis could become extinct.  (Not a million miles from what we've seen recently in the UK when grey squirrels were introduced and managed to out-perform the already native red squirrels).

So, the original population of rabbits rapidly (in evolutionary timescales) becomes extinct, and we're left with the new (and improved) rabbits with longer legs who can run quickly.  The next set of fossil records show what looks like a 'jump', a punctuated equilibrium, in this population of rabbits.  They've gone from exhibiting very little change over a series of fossil records spanning many hundreds of thousands of years to showing this rapid 'jump' to a rabbit that has markedly longer legs.  Having followed the history of these rabbits, we can see that the change didn't just happen suddenly in this main population, but was caused by the migratory population being exposed to greater selective pressures and then returning to their original stomping ground.

The net effect is that evolution appears to have occurred with a sharp jump into a new species of rabbit after a long period of stasis, or equilibrium.

This hypothesis puts forward an explanation of this rapid jump in the fossil records, but on the whole the main evolutionary changes in fossil records are gradual and don't exhibit the jumps shown in the punctuated equilibrium model.  But it does explain why we sometimes see these jumps in the fossil records for some populations and some species.

Hope that makes sense!

Rod, watch this:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00jjjw4/Origins_of_Us_Bones/

Of course, it doesn't go into finite detail as it's an hour-long documentary, but does go some way to explaining some of what you're asking about.  Like you mention, the DNA comparisons are the 'smoking gun' that show how closely we're linked to our ancestors and how other species, such as chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Is evolution a 'fact'?  Fact is a strong word, much like 'proof'.  What we can say is that there is a shed load of evidence that supports evolution as the best model we have to explain how species have come about through a combination of genetic mutation and the pressure of natural selection.  This model is supported by a mass of fossil records, geological record, backed up further by physics and astronomical models and ultimately by what DNA tells us.  One way that evolution has shown to be a robust and accurate model is that it has 'predicted' findings before they have been discovered. Evolutionary biologists have examined and analysed the data available and produced hypotheses that put forward a particular history in a species' development or evolution.  Then a hypothesis has been shown to be correct when fossil records are found that support the theory, and/or DNA is found that backs up their assertions as correct.

Evolution is certainly the best model for explaining how species have come about, and the only one that has successfully predicted what future fossil records/DNA will show.

There are some wars which are 100% purely caused by religion - and some wars that used religion as part of a number of reasons which would still have been enough by themselves.

But it is probably true that even if the wars that were purely caused by religion didn't occur - there would have been alternative wars to take their place.

The Crusades* for example were pretty much just about religion - but if they hadn't occurred the European and Middle Eastern protagonists and antagonists would have spent most of that time just fighting between themselves instead of each other anyway.



*the main ones - the 'other' ones largely had other motives with religion as a handy rallying call