Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cavallino

The God Delusion

Recommended Posts

Wow this thread is so enlightening :rolleyes: ...you folks know a lot of stuff... like for instance some of you seem to think you know more than the 5.8 billion people on the planet who believe in a higher being of some sort.

:rolleyes: Actually I do agree with those 3 statements. It's a pity that the rest of your post wasn't so insightful, as Cav brilliantly demonstrated.

The same applies to science. Please can convince me the universe started with a big bang or better still, we come from apes. Please provide ample proof.

:D OK I'm sure Cav will happily help me out here! But first we have to make some points about science and religion very clear:

  1. There's not necessarily any conflict between religion and science. Some people think there has to be conflict only because they've been misled by their religious leaders.
  2. Religion normally claims to be absolutely correct for sure, but science never claims to have "proven" anything. So we can't give you "proof" for these things, we can only give you evidence which shows that they are the sensible, rational, evidence-based things to believe.
  3. So, notice Brad that your challenge is kind of based on a false premise. ;):P We don't need proof that God exists - we would be perfectly happy to believe in Him if the balance of argument and evidence pointed in His favour.
  4. The things you ask about (the Big Bang, and evolution) are imho (Cav may disagree) more controversial than most of science. I think the evidence makes them the sensible things in which to believe, but I wouldn't stake my life on them being right. This is fine by me because I don't base my entire life around those beliefs, whereas religious people ought to be more sure about their belief in God if they want to live their entire life by what He said.
  5. As I'm sure everyone remembers from school, science can be complicated at times, so to understand the theories takes some effort. You may have to bear with us at times because in science we try to give the truth, no matter if it's hard for us all to understand.

The wiki article on the Big Bang is quite helpful. It explains that there are two broad types of evidence: observational and theoretical support. On the theoretical side basically (read the article for the details) we have a theory called General Relativity (GR) which was invented in 1915 by Einstein. In the last 92 years it has predicted the results of every experiment in advance correctly, including ones that were inconceivable in 1915. Scientists routinely use it to plan or predict things now, like spaceship flightpaths, astronomical events and other things. It can also explain much of the past development of the universe. This theory predicts that there was a Big Bang of some sort and given all the independent support for the theory it is quite convincing to me. (Not a proof though!)

On the observational side, we have strong evidence (from telescopes!) that the universe is indeed expanding. This is a consequence of what is called Hubble's law, which is based on telescope observations of how fast other galaxies are moving away from us. Also many other observations have been explained and predicted by the Big Bang theory, such as the existence of old radiation permeating the universe, the relative abundances of the elements in the universe and the distribution of galaxies. You can read up on it in wiki.

On evolution, here's another wiki article. It gives many different strands of evidence including evidence from fossils, from similarities and differences between different species (evolution can explain why some are similar and some are different, in ways which would be hard to explain otherwise), from the geographic distribution of different species, there is physiological and biochemical evidence showing evolution. Not only that but evolution has even been observed: bacteria, flies and birds evolve before our eyes! Furthermore, although not mentioned in that article, there is much evidence from radioactive dating that tells us that the Earth is billions of years older than the Bible says, and which supports evolution in great detail. Other geological evidence does the same. Finally, the most amazing thing is that all these different branches of science have converged independently on the same results to enormous accuracy! For instance there are many ways to determine exactly when, where and from what other species a new species developed, but all the different methods tend to agree with great accuracy.

Well there's a short list of the evidence in each case. Clearly it's complicated but there's no reason to expect that the history of the universe would be simple! ;)

Note to atheists - providing a picture of yourself does not count as ratified evidence. That goes especially to you, Andres - apes have hair.

But Elgo's avatar counts, right? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: Actually I do agree with those 3 statements. It's a pity that the rest of your post wasn't so insightful, as Cav brilliantly demonstrated.

:D OK I'm sure Cav will happily help me out here! But first we have to make some points about science and religion very clear:

  1. There's not necessarily any conflict between religion and science. Some people think there has to be conflict only because they've been misled by their religious leaders.
  2. Religion normally claims to be absolutely correct for sure, but science never claims to have "proven" anything. So we can't give you "proof" for these things, we can only give you evidence which shows that they are the sensible, rational, evidence-based things to believe.
  3. So, notice Brad that your challenge is kind of based on a false premise. ;):P We don't need proof that God exists - we would be perfectly happy to believe in Him if the balance of argument and evidence pointed in His favour.
  4. The things you ask about (the Big Bang, and evolution) are imho (Cav may disagree) more controversial than most of science. I think the evidence makes them the sensible things in which to believe, but I wouldn't stake my life on them being right. This is fine by me because I don't base my entire life around those beliefs, whereas religious people ought to be more sure about their belief in God if they want to live their entire life by what He said.
  5. As I'm sure everyone remembers from school, science can be complicated at times, so to understand the theories takes some effort. You may have to bear with us at times because in science we try to give the truth, no matter if it's hard for us all to understand.

The wiki article on the Big Bang is quite helpful. It explains that there are two broad types of evidence: observational and theoretical support. On the theoretical side basically (read the article for the details) we have a theory called General Relativity (GR) which was invented in 1915 by Einstein. In the last 92 years it has predicted the results of every experiment in advance correctly, including ones that were inconceivable in 1915. Scientists routinely use it to plan or predict things now, like spaceship flightpaths, astronomical events and other things. It can also explain much of the past development of the universe. This theory predicts that there was a Big Bang of some sort and given all the independent support for the theory it is quite convincing to me. (Not a proof though!)

On the observational side, we have strong evidence (from telescopes!) that the universe is indeed expanding. This is a consequence of what is called Hubble's law, which is based on telescope observations of how fast other galaxies are moving away from us. Also many other observations have been explained and predicted by the Big Bang theory, such as the existence of old radiation permeating the universe, the relative abundances of the elements in the universe and the distribution of galaxies. You can read up on it in wiki.

On evolution, here's another wiki article. It gives many different strands of evidence including evidence from fossils, from similarities and differences between different species (evolution can explain why some are similar and some are different, in ways which would be hard to explain otherwise), from the geographic distribution of different species, there is physiological and biochemical evidence showing evolution. Not only that but evolution has even been observed: bacteria, flies and birds evolve before our eyes! Furthermore, although not mentioned in that article, there is much evidence from radioactive dating that tells us that the Earth is billions of years older than the Bible says, and which supports evolution in great detail. Other geological evidence does the same. Finally, the most amazing thing is that all these different branches of science have converged independently on the same results to enormous accuracy! For instance there are many ways to determine exactly when, where and from what other species a new species developed, but all the different methods tend to agree with great accuracy.

Well there's a short list of the evidence in each case. Clearly it's complicated but there's no reason to expect that the history of the universe would be simple! ;)

But Elgo's avatar counts, right? ;)

Typical scientist - wants to class a cartoon drawing of Homer evoluting, or devoluting as the case may be, as proof of evidence! :lol:

Haven't we been here, seen here, got the tshirt of here, Muzza?? :D

If anyone wants a brief synopsis of the original discussion - Muzza is sort of questioningly open minded about the whole thing but veers towards the sciences these days. Cav is............well Cav is just Cav, who still hasn't given me the details for the alternative big bang theories he said I'd like. I think it was Schumikonen that reminded me of 'one of those' Preachers (sorry Schumi), you know the type I mean. It was all very civilised, much to Muzza's chagrin. Anyway, the result is that you are free to believe in whatever you believe in and I don't think anybody was converted to the alternative belief - well except that now Muzza believes in the Easter Bunny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical scientist - wants to class a cartoon drawing of Homer evoluting, or devoluting as the case may be, as proof of evidence! :lol:

Haven't we been here, seen here, got the tshirt of here, Muzza?? :D

If anyone wants a brief synopsis of the original discussion - Muzza is sort of questioningly open minded about the whole thing but veers towards the sciences these days. Cav is............well Cav is just Cav, who still hasn't given me the details for the alternative big bang theories he said I'd like. I think it was Schumikonen that reminded me of 'one of those' Preachers (sorry Schumi), you know the type I mean. It was all very civilised, much to Muzza's chagrin. Anyway, the result is that you are free to believe in whatever you believe in and I don't think anybody was converted to the alternative belief - well except that now Muzza believes in the Easter Bunny.

I loved that thread

"Arguing with rabid theists is fun, they always make fallacious arguments from authority due to their age, intelligence or moral superiority, and they never ever make a credible argument so you are never faced with self doubt or a dilemma. Easy pickings"

Is this respecting someone else's believe. I think he has'nt learn. The mere thread title borders on malicious intent (to believers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone wants a brief synopsis of the original discussion - Muzza is sort of questioningly open minded about the whole thing but veers towards the sciences these days.

Yeah, except that I don't think science contradicts sensible religions. There are loads of physicists who believe in the Big Bang as God's way of creating the universe and loads of biologists who believe in evolution as God's way of creating us. A very famous one (who taught me!) argues that evolution is actually an argument FOR God's existence, based on how evolution seems to him to converge to certain outcomes that he argues God probably would want.

I don't think anybody was converted to the alternative belief - well except that now Muzza believes in the Easter Bunny.

Yeah it's true Paul. It all happened like this: one year, around 13 I guess, I kinda got bored with the usual chocolate Easter Bunnies I got every year. You know, the ones you can eat? Anyway, I asked my parents if that year I could have a chocolate coated Playboy Bunny instead to celebrate the male erection resurrection. Anyway, my mum told me they don't really exist so I had to make do with the chocolate Easter Bunny instead. :( I was gutted. Finally I thought I had found something I could worship with real devotion! :controller:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, except that I don't think science contradicts sensible religions. There are loads of physicists who believe in the Big Bang as God's way of creating the universe and loads of biologists who believe in evolution as God's way of creating us. A very famous one (who taught me!) argues that evolution is actually an argument FOR God's existence, based on how evolution seems to him to converge to certain outcomes that he argues God probably would want.

It wasn't meant to mean a mutually exclusive relationship as such, it as just a brief description of your belief as I remembered it from the previous discussion! :lol:

Yeah it's true Paul. It all happened like this: one year, around 13 I guess, I kinda got bored with the usual chocolate Easter Bunnies I got every year. You know, the ones you can eat? Anyway, I asked my parents if that year I could have a chocolate coated Playboy Bunny instead to celebrate the male erection resurrection. Anyway, my mum told me they don't really exist so I had to make do with the chocolate Easter Bunny instead. :( I was gutted. Finally I thought I had found something I could worship with real devotion! :controller:

:lol:

Always, alway remember this, Muzza - you can lick the cream out of a creme egg for less than 50p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I loved that thread

"Arguing with rabid theists is fun, they always make fallacious arguments from authority due to their age, intelligence or moral superiority, and they never ever make a credible argument so you are never faced with self doubt or a dilemma. Easy pickings"

Is this respecting someone else's believe. I think he has'nt learn. The mere thread title borders on malicious intent (to believers).

Well, the thing is Brad, we have all been there and done it. We have all had our parents saying things like 'you'll understand when you're older' and we all do pretty much the same, you know, you pull a face and wonder why they keep harping on. Damn, they were right, though! :lol:

Nah, it's not malicious intent, Brad, unless you allow it to mean that. Don't let it worry you and have a laugh. Cav's mannerisms will change when he gets out of uni and eventually gets laid! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the thing is Brad, we have all been there and done it. We have all had our parents saying things like 'you'll understand when you're older' and we all do pretty much the same, you know, you pull a face and wonder why they keep harping on. Damn, they were right, though! :lol:

Nah, it's not malicious intent, Brad, unless you allow it to mean that. Don't let it worry you and have a laugh. Cav's mannerisms will change when he gets out of uni and eventually gets laid! :lol:

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious to find out how Richard Dawkins's book is doing in the market. I mean atheists like me don't need a book to re-assert what we think. And the theists won't touch the book since they are firm believers in the concept of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why a gender is assigned to god. No,it's not the question of political correctness. It's just that if a gender is assigned,it automatically means the other gender has to exist. Meaning a Him can't exist without a Her & vice versa. It really seems funny if you think of it. Imagine god having testicles & a penis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes: Actually I do agree with those 3 statements. It's a pity that the rest of your post wasn't so insightful, as Cav brilliantly demonstrated.

Even that sarcasm is so easy to rip into, the fact is that those 5.8 billion have nothing in common, they all believe in their own different versions of god, and vehemently claim that their god(s) are the only ones that exist, and they are as convinced as atheists are about the non existence of other peoples' gods. Theists reject all other gods but their own. I just happen to believe in one less god than they do.

If anyone wants a brief synopsis of the original discussion - Muzza is sort of questioningly open minded about the whole thing but veers towards the sciences these days. Cav is............well Cav is just Cav, who still hasn't given me the details for the alternative big bang theories he said I'd like.

Sorry, I've lot that train, Remind me of exactly what I promised and I'll be happy to oblige (not the Liverpool bet, that was someone else posting under my account :P )

Is this respecting someone else's believe. I think he has'nt learn. The mere thread title borders on malicious intent (to believers).

And did he respect mine? The title is simply the title of a book, and a TV program connected to the book that the thread is about, I didn't come up with it.

Well, the thing is Brad, we have all been there and done it. We have all had our parents saying things like 'you'll understand when you're older' and we all do pretty much the same, you know, you pull a face and wonder why they keep harping on. Damn, they were right, though! :lol:

And they you realise that your parents aren't always right, and that's when you grow up and have to face the world and make your own decisions, because you learn that letting someone else make them works out to be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I've lot that train, Remind me of exactly what I promised and I'll be happy to oblige (not the Liverpool bet, that was someone else posting under my account :P )

To be honest, Cav, I have forgotten what it was myself - I think it was a book about one of the alternative theories, but presumably it was like the equivalent of windows for dummies so I could understand it! :D

I'd forgotten about that too - damn, my memory is bad!! I think I bankrupted your booky venture didn't I ?? :lol:

And they you realise that your parents aren't always right, and that's when you grow up and have to face the world and make your own decisions, because you learn that letting someone else make them works out to be worse.

No Cav, it's not really to do with being right or wrong or letting somebody else make decisions for you, but just that age and experience can give you a different perspective on life. That's not to say you disagree with everything you believed in when you were younger, but that certain opinions and beliefs can change over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Cav, it's not really to do with being right or wrong or letting somebody else make decisions for you, but just that age and experience can give you a different perspective on life.

It does, for some people. Equally, some people can go through life with closed minds. What did age do for Churchill for example - to the bitter end he was shouting his racist views even though he sounded ridiculous and out of touch with reality. People who have to use their age as a verbal bullying tactic have obivously stopped learning, since they think they know it all. Part of age and experience is learning that there will be people worth listening to - younger, older, less educated, more educated, more intelligent, less intelligent. Treat opinions on merit, not by whom they came from. Someone who hasn't learnt that has been wasting their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does, for some people. Equally, some people can go through life with closed minds. What did age do for Churchill for example - to the bitter end he was shouting his racist views even though he sounded ridiculous and out of touch with reality. People who have to use their age as a verbal bullying tactic have obivously stopped learning, since they think they know it all. Part of age and experience is learning that there will be people worth listening to - younger, older, less educated, more educated, more intelligent, less intelligent. Treat opinions on merit, not by whom they came from. Someone who hasn't learnt that has been wasting their life.

Cav, I am not sure we are agreeing to the same point, disagreeing on the same point or agreeing/disagreeing on a different point! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I said is some people learn from age an some don't. The ones who say "you know nothing because you're young" are the ones who don't because they obviously stopped learning a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I said is some people learn from age an some don't. The ones who say "you know nothing because you're young" are the ones who don't because they obviously stopped learning a long time ago.

Yep. The same would also be true of younger people dismissing older people's opinions and persepctives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even that sarcasm is so easy to rip into, the fact is that those 5.8 billion have nothing in common, they all believe in their own different versions of god, and vehemently claim that their god(s) are the only ones that exist, and they are as convinced as atheists are about the non existence of other peoples' gods. Theists reject all other gods but their own. I just happen to believe in one less god than they do.

:lol: Yeah of course. ;) I was only agreeing with the fact that I do think I know better than 5.8 billion people! As you brilliantly point out, most of those 5.8 billion people clearly think they know better than the rest of the 5.8 billion too. :lol::dam:

Treat opinions on merit, not by whom they came from.

This is the key point. When someone says something like "when you're older, you'll understand" to another adult in an intellectual debate, it's usually a good sign that the younger man was right. It does not count as a good argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. The same would also be true of younger people dismissing older people's opinions and persepctives.

Ah no, the same would be true of younger people dismising older peoples' opinions because they come from an older person.

This is the key point. When someone says something like "when you're older, you'll understand" to another adult in an intellectual debate, it's usually a good sign that the younger man was right. It does not count as a good argument.

417. ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE

(1) You're too young.

(2) You haven't yet experienced life's absurdity.

(3) You'll grow up.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

It is also a corollary to

10. MORAL ARGUMENT (II)

(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting b#####d.

(2) That all changed once I became religious.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

(I just found a more comprehensive list: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm )

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Yeah of course. ;) I was only agreeing with the fact that I do think I know better than 5.8 billion people! As you brilliantly point out, most of those 5.8 billion people clearly think they know better than the rest of the 5.8 billion too. :lol::dam:

This is the key point. When someone says something like "when you're older, you'll understand" to another adult in an intellectual debate, it's usually a good sign that the younger man was right. It does not count as a good argument.

Ah no, the same would be true of younger people dismising older peoples' opinions because they come from an older person.

417. ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE

(1) You're too young.

(2) You haven't yet experienced life's absurdity.

(3) You'll grow up.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

It is also a corollary to

10. MORAL ARGUMENT (II)

(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting b#####d.

(2) That all changed once I became religious.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

(I just found a more comprehensive list: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm )

:D

Yes I should have said that, my apologies.

However, you both have it all wrong and the God quotes have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Let me try to explain, if you will allow the indulgence. Whenever it was said to me, the 'you will understand when you are older', it was never used to win an argument, or to prove right from wrong, it was just a statement of fact as they saw it. Quite often it turns out to be true. You'll understand when you're older! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...