Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

What are your thoughts/opinions on Irreducible Complexity?

It's BS.

What are your thoughts/opinions on the Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

It's a mathematical law describing the behaviour of energy in a closed system. I'm not quite sure what kind of thoughts or opinion there is to have. It's like asking "What is your opinion on Pythagore's theorem?".
Now if you're wondering whether it goes against evolution, no it doesn't.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's BS.

What are your thoughts/opinions on the Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

It's a mathematical law describing the behaviour of energy in a closed system. I'm not quite sure what kind of thoughts or opinion there is to have. It's like asking "What is your opinion on Pythagore's theorem?".
Now if you're wondering whether it goes against evolution, no it doesn't.

Oh jesus christ.

Second Law of Thermodynamics = no evolution?

What closed system are you talking about? Your brain? Or just the congregation of stupid idiots that keep repeating this shit to one another?

(directing the invective at the meme and those that spread it without understanding it).

 

[Raist]

Oh jesus christ.

Second Law of Thermodynamics = no evolution?

What closed system are you talking about? Your brain? Or just the congregation of stupid idiots that keep repeating this shit to one another?

Er, are you replying to me or Helscream?

 

[Monocle]

yeah, dude dismisses one very possible god so arrogantly. such close-mindedness.

doesn't he realize that there is actually SOME proof that there could be a god that could be classified as a cock monster? it says right there in the Holy Bible that man was created in god's image.. and man has a cock. so god probably has a cock. and god probably has some qualities that us mere humans would consider monstrous (or at least god can have them if he wants). so, possibly monstrous qualities and with a cock: a cock monster.

Satyamdas didn't even stop to consider this.

Indeed. And let us recall that there are known precedents for characteristics associated with traditional cock monsters, namely the widely and thoroughly documented existence of actual cocks. It is also of interest to note that science has encountered individual animal and human specimens that bear several of the aforementioned appendage, thus moving a cock monster that much closer to the realm of plausibility.

Are there similar precedents, similar material evidence, for beings with the most salient characteristics ascribed to the Abrahamic God? Omnipotence? Omniscience? Omnibenevolence? Timelessness? Has science yet found an organism or mechanism that is supernatural yet capable of influencing nature? Not to my knowledge. Draw what conclusions you will.

 

[cutmeamango]

I think that is one of the challenges science faces in disseminating information. The scientific method necessarily includes much hypothesis, conjecture and speculation, and the spread and discussion of ideas at that level is necessary to accelerate research and learning. But when such ideas are being presented with authority, lacking clarification of what and what is not pure conjecture, or otherwise lacking context, the lines between what is proven and accepted scientific theory and what is hypothesis and speculation can become blurred to the casual observer. Sensationalist media which reports on early findings or conclusions being drawn from research before the peer review process doesn't frame the integrity of science well either, especially when followup stories report backing down from early claims after further research, analysis and scrutiny.

Precisely.

---

An interesting subject from that talk is the end. His study led him to an even stronger "fine tuned" universe. (As I perceived, I may be wrong) He clearly tries to save some face by saying that the end to this model is horrible, but if all the math ends up 'perfect' it really leads us to a really nasty philosophical spiral.

And, this thread has reached the gutter it seems.

 

[Amakusa]

It can help if you want to be taken seriously.

If you don't want that, then it probably doesn't matter.

I believe in this! You are wrong because I believe this is correct, take me seriously.


Ok, the fact you believe in something with no physcial proof. You have shown -me- that you're serious. You can't get more serious inless you start killing people in the name of you... oh hohoho I'll just stop here.

 

[leadbelly]

Precisely.

---

An interesting subject from that talk is the end. His study led him to an even stronger "fine tuned" universe. (As I perceived, I may be wrong) He clearly tries to save some face by saying that the end to this model is horrible, but if all the math ends up 'perfect' it really leads us to a really nasty philosophical spiral.

And, this thread has reached the gutter it seems.

Yeah the 'fine tuned' universe is a bit of a paradox. The universe is right for life in so many areas that it is hard to fathom how it could get this way by accident. The one way of solving it is to say there are multiple universes.

Another interesting observation that is not yet fully understood is that galaxies in the early universe appear to be fully formed. It shouldn't be that way.

 

[danwarb]

Precisely.

---

An interesting subject from that talk is the end. His study led him to an even stronger "fine tuned" universe. (As I perceived, I may be wrong) He clearly tries to save some face by saying that the end to this model is horrible, but if all the math ends up 'perfect' it really leads us to a really nasty philosophical spiral.

And, this thread has reached the gutter it seems.

Not really fine tuned but what you'd expect to find if the universe was born of "nothing" and heading back there through eventual heat death. He's written a book expanding on the ideas presented in the video.



There are more stars in our galaxy than you could count in a lifetime and possibly 10x as many planets. Nearly all of what's out there is too far to ever be explored and speeding away. At the very least, we can infer that the universe wasn't created with us in mind. Nearly all of it outside the tiny environment we evolved is violently deadly to us.

 

[Zeliard]

There are more stars in our galaxy than you could count in a lifetime and possibly 10x as many planets. Nearly all of what's out there is too far to ever be explored and speeding away. At the very least, we can infer that the universe wasn't created with us in mind. Nearly all of it outside the tiny environment we evolved is violently deadly to us.

And no shortage of things inside of that environment as well.

 

[leadbelly]

Not really fine tuned but what you'd expect to find if the universe was born of "nothing" and heading back there through eventual heat death. He's written a book expanding on the ideas presented in the video.



There are more stars in our galaxy than you could count in a lifetime and possibly 10x as many planets. Nearly all of what's out there is too far to ever be explored and speeding away. At the very least, we can infer that the universe wasn't created with us in mind. Nearly all of it outside the tiny environment we evolved is violently deadly to us.

I know that physicists like Michio Kaku certainly wouldn't say it is what you would expect, as he for instance believes 'string theory' is one way of solving it.

 

[leadbelly]

There are more stars in our galaxy than you could count in a lifetime and possibly 10x as many planets. Nearly all of what's out there is too far to ever be explored and speeding away. At the very least, we can infer that the universe wasn't created with us in mind. Nearly all of it outside the tiny environment we evolved is violently deadly to us.

Just to add: I guess that is part of the reason why it is a paradox. There is evidence of the universe occuring by chance, but at the same time, there are actually so many areas where the universe is fine tuned that it is hard to understand how it could happen by chance.

Just to quote Michio Kaku

This begs the question of how many of the Goldilocks zones there actually are. If you begin to count them, you will soon realize that there are so many of these instances, it simply boggles the mind. The chance that our universe would be randomly placed in so many Goldilocks zones has been compared to a jet airliner being torn apart by a tornado and then suddenly reassembling itself by chance.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38513?page=all

 

[KtSlime]

Mitio Kaku is to physicists as Gretchen Carlson is to journalists.

 

[leadbelly]

Mitio Kaku is to physicists as Gretchen Carlson is to journalists.

Yeah. Because him being a 'populariser of science' instantly makes him a bad scientist.

You do know he is the co-founder of 'String field theory' right?

 

[[Nintex]]

I'm not a religious man myself but it all comes down to the question of: "Why are we are, what is out purpose?" religion is an easy answer to a question that has kept mankind wandering since our existence. It's the sole motivation of almost every human on this planet if a more clear cut answer was found it would probably be the end of us because we won't have the motivation to keep doing whatever it is that we do.

 

[danwarb]

No doubt there are areas where the universe could be much better tuned for life even as we know it.

If a universe springing into nothing is an inevitability, the odds of any particular configuration are almost meaningless. We could only ever find ourselves here, for a very brief period on one small rocky globe among thousands of trillions.

From that Michio Kaku bit:

However, there is another interpretation. In the same way that astronomers have discovered over 500 (dead) solar systems, perhaps there are billions of parallel universes, most of them unsuitable for life. Our universe is special, only in the sense that it makes life possible for human beings who can contemplate this question. In many of these other universes, there is no intelligent life to ask this question. In these parallel universes, the nuclear force, the gravitational force, etc. are either too strong or too weak to allow for life. So it is a matter of luck that we happen to live in a universe compatible with life.

 

[leadbelly]

No doubt there are areas where the universe could be much better tuned for life even as we know it.

If a universe springing into nothing is an inevitability, the odds of any particular configuration are almost meaningless. We could only ever find ourselves here, for a very brief period on one small rocky globe among thousands of trillions.

From that Michio Kaku bit:

Just to quote myself.

Yeah the 'fine tuned' universe is a bit of a paradox. The universe is right for life in so many areas that it is hard to fathom how it could get this way by accident. The one way of solving it is to say there are multiple universes.

I never denied this.

 

[Timedog]

Mitio Kaku is to physicists as Gretchen Carlson is to journalists.

Wat

 

[cutmeamango]

Not really fine tuned but what you'd expect to find if the universe was born of "nothing" and heading back there through eventual heat death. He's written a book expanding on the ideas presented in the video.

There are more stars in our galaxy than you could count in a lifetime and possibly 10x as many planets. Nearly all of what's out there is too far to ever be explored and speeding away. At the very least, we can infer that the universe wasn't created with us in mind. Nearly all of it outside the tiny environment we evolved is violently deadly to us.

Just to add: I guess that is part of the reason why it is a paradox. There is evidence of the universe occuring by chance, but at the same time, there are actually so many areas where the universe is fine tuned that it is hard to understand how it could happen by chance.

Just to quote Michio Kaku

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38513?page=all

I'm not a religious man myself but it all comes down to the question of: "Why are we are, what is out purpose?" religion is an easy answer to a question that has kept mankind wandering since our existence. It's the sole motivation of almost every human on this planet if a more clear cut answer was found it would probably be the end of us because we won't have the motivation to keep doing whatever it is that we do.

That's why I carefully put "fine tuned" in quotation marks and pointed to the philosophical (since fine tuning holds no weight scientifically) spiral it leads.

We are conscious that we are observers. And as we build the model of what surrounds us and why it surrounds us, we can't help but go: "Huh, that's funny. If life took a billion years more to develop, it wouldn't be me here thinking! Maybe it would be no one!"

All those "carbon chauvinism", "stupid design", "inhospitable universe" arguments are philosophically ingenuous to 'simple' questions our counsciouness leads us.

 

[Lionheart1337]

I'm not a religious man myself but it all comes down to the question of: "Why are we are, what is out purpose?" religion is an easy answer to a question that has kept mankind wandering since our existence. It's the sole motivation of almost every human on this planet if a more clear cut answer was found it would probably be the end of us because we won't have the motivation to keep doing whatever it is that we do.

Religion provides definite answers to many of life's great questions. I don't agree that we always need to have questions to answer, but if anything, religion should probably be more detrimental to your cause of human motive. The easy answer turns out to be worse, and yields fewer benefits.

The idea kind of works off the presumption that there is an ultimate "finish line" for humanity that once passed, will cause us to regress, or remain stagnant, or something. Even if there is one, I don't think humanity and evolution work in such ways that something like this is likely to happen.

I don't think human motivation relies on the "big questions". Human motivation is a product of many things really. I think that the benefits of a universe that we understand far outweigh any proposed de-motivation it might create. Humanity shouldn't for example, consciously enter a sort of stalemate with ignorance to counteract it.

 

[Zaptruder]

Er, are you replying to me or Helscream?

Obviously not you mate. Or maybe not so obviously since you had to ask.

 

[Zeliard]

Obviously not you mate. Or maybe not so obviously since you had to ask.

You have a puzzling way of responding to people. You did the same thing to me last time when I was trying to explain the basics of natural selection to that other guy. Here's a hint: don't reply to somebody's post if what you're saying is directed at someone else, especially if you don't bother to make that clear.

 

[Zaptruder]

You have a puzzling way of responding to people. You did the same thing to me last time when I was trying to explain the basics of natural selection to that other guy. Here's a hint: don't reply to somebody's post if what you're saying is directed at someone else, especially if you don't bother to make that clear.

Well to be fair, I did provide a paranthetical remark of who I was directing my statement at. Not the most graceful way... but sometimes message board communication is just rough and ready. Deal with it!

 

[Log4Girlz]

I don't want to post NSFW pics, but many religions have worshiped cocks throughout the ages. There are Japanese temples with very large phalluses oh and festivals. Clearly, cock monster has a following.

 

[zoukka]

I don't want to post NSFW pics, but many religions have worshiped cocks throughout the ages. There are Japanese temples with very large phalluses oh and festivals. Clearly, cock monster has a following.

Well isn't "God" seen as male in most big religions?

 

[SmokyDave]

I don't want to post NSFW pics, but many religions have worshiped cocks throughout the ages. There are Japanese temples with very large phalluses oh and festivals. Clearly, cock monster has a following.

Well, they're not really a 'following', they're just my mates.

 

[Sh1ner]

Well isn't "God" seen as male in most big religions?

I heard that is used to be a woman to signify the rebirth and so on but something major happened and the female figure got replaced with a male one.

I find that hard to believe as most religions that I am aware of have male based gods.

I would prefer a female God to be fair, makes more sense to me than a male god. But hey I am an unbeliever so it doesn't matter either way.

 

[jaxword]

Well isn't "God" seen as male in most big religions?

Most religions are patriarchal and have heavy instructions on controlling women.

 

[JGS]

God just has a masculine definition (Just like wissdom is female and countless other examples). Since men were created first in his image, the gender role stuck. Reality is that God himself can't be defined by human gender roles. Spirit creatures in general can't.

In Christianity, both men and women are cited to be rulers in heaven while at the same time no longer able to marry suggesting that no one really cares what gender you are in the big picture.

It should be noted too that women here on earth as viewed as equals too in terms of everything but organizational headship which goes to the man primarily because, again, he was created first.

 

[KHarvey16]

Fine tuned universe means I get to use my favorite analogy! We are a product of this universe, and like an ice cube fitting into the tray it formed in, remarking on how "fine tuned" everything is to accommodate us(and the ice cube) is getting it backward.

 

[DCKing]

Just to add: I guess that is part of the reason why it is a paradox. There is evidence of the universe occuring by chance, but at the same time, there are actually so many areas where the universe is fine tuned that it is hard to understand how it could happen by chance.

Thinking like this is a bit of a philosophical error because it wouldn't have been possible for us to ponder this question if we did not observe a Universe just right for us. The error is that it is useless to some degree to ponder that the chance for our universe is so small simply because it is a given that it happened since we're having this discussion. The second error is that there's no reason to assume that our Universe is extra special simply because we are here. Our universe is just perfect for us because our form of life (our form of replicators) could thrive in it. The assertion that hypothetical other universes could not support other forms of replication, some of which very similar to ours, is merely a product of our inability to imagine them rather than factual evidence that it is unlikely. To think of us as special is again being self-centered (which is a human trait that keeps on getting destroyed by cosmology and biology), when we have no reason to believe that we should be.

 

[Tawpgun]

Universe is not fine tuned.

We are adapted to the universe, everything around us is a product of that adaption.

 

[Zaptruder]

Universe is not fine tuned.

We are adapted to the universe, everything around us is a product of that adaption.

Pretty much.

It's the height of egoism to think that things are tuned to us.

Nope. It's adapt or die.

 

[Lionheart1337]

God just has a masculine definition (Just like wissdom is female and countless other examples). Since men were created first in his image, the gender role stuck. Reality is that God himself can't be defined by human gender roles. Spirit creatures in general can't.

Sorry if this is flippant but I have to ask : Do you believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib?

On reality -- that's what I thought. Assigning God gender and such is just a way to relate more to the almighty parent we created. We can assign attributes as we see fit. We did invent him after all.

In Christianity, both men and women are cited to be rulers in heaven while at the same time no longer able to marry suggesting that no one really cares what gender you are in the big picture.

Now I`m just confused.

It should be noted too that women here on earth as viewed as equals too in terms of everything but organizational headship which goes to the man primarily because, again, he was created first.

So you believe God shows men favor in this way because we were created first? Why would she even do such a thing?

 

[Joni]

God just has a masculine definition (Just like wissdom is female and countless other examples). Since men were created first in his image, the gender role stuck. Reality is that God himself can't be defined by human gender roles. Spirit creatures in general can't.

He actually created man and woman in Genesis 1.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Here God is presented as asexual, both men and women are created after him.

Certain Jewish books have suggested the woman in Genesis 1 to be Lilith; another woman than the Eve created in Genesis 2 suggesting Adam had left his wife.

 

[JGS]

Sorry if this is flippant but I have to ask : Do you believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib?

On reality -- that's what I thought. Assigning God gender and such is just a way to relate more to the almighty parent we created. We can assign attributes as we see fit. We did invent him after all.

Well, obviously I don't believe we invented God (Which is why the universe stuff is kind of pointless) and as far as Eve goes, I read that as she was created from Adam genetically.

Now I`m just confused.



So you believe God shows men favor in this way because we were created first? Why would she even do such a thing?

Not entirely. There are clear difference in how genders handle different things overall. However, that's still tied up into the intitial creation of the two genders.

The rest of it is Biblically the reason why men are the head in organization relationships.

 

[JGS]

He actually created man and woman in Genesis 1.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Here God is presented as asexual, both men and women are created after him.

Certain Jewish books have suggested the woman in Genesis 1 to be Lilith; another woman than the Eve created in Genesis 2 suggesting Adam had left his wife.

I agree with this except that's not how Genesis' first chapters are structured (Which makes sense considering that the freed Jews would have heard any number of creation accounts even while believing in God). The first chapter starts out with the obvious- God created everything and then proceeds to give a skeleton overview of creative days. The second chapter then proceeds to discuss mankind's role/responsibility in it with the 3rd chapter being about the sin and the prophecy to make things right.

Figuring out the literary structure of Genesis helps automatically exclude the possibility of a Lilith in the picture. Not to say that folklore doesn't have Lilith in it, but the actual account does not so there's ot much point shoehorning her in there.

 

[ManDudeChild]

I would say theists aren't the only ones that think they can back up their faith. Everyone has to be able to back up (at least in their own minds) what they believe in. If they can't, why believe in it? I often think a problem with SOME atheists and agnostic people (I'm agnostic) is the fait .... notion that one can simply hammer these facts into all the the 'ignorant religious' peoples heads over and over ... and eventually it will work. The appeal and solace one takes in theist beliefs are of the same personal value as what an atheist or agnostic gets out of their own. Yet it seems the acceptable practice is zillions of rage comics. Anyway after this many pages I'm certain somebody else has thrown this point down with more brevity than I.

 

[Raist]

God just has a masculine definition (Just like wissdom is female and countless other examples). Since men were created first in his image, the gender role stuck. Reality is that God himself can't be defined by human gender roles. Spirit creatures in general can't.

In Christianity, both men and women are cited to be rulers in heaven while at the same time no longer able to marry suggesting that no one really cares what gender you are in the big picture.

It should be noted too that women here on earth as viewed as equals too in terms of everything but organizational headship which goes to the man primarily because, again, he was created first.

Or because, you know, people who were the last to edit the bible were fucking mysoginists.

 

[JGS]

I would say theists aren't the only ones that think they can back up their faith. Everyone has to be able to back up (at least in their own minds) what they believe in. If they can't, why believe in it? I often think a problem with SOME atheists and agnostic people (I'm agnostic) is the fait .... notion that one can simply hammer these facts into all the the 'ignorant religious' peoples heads over and over ... and eventually it will work. The appeal and solace one takes in theist beliefs are of the same personal value as what an atheist or agnostic gets out of their own. Yet it seems the acceptable practice is zillions of rage comics. Anyway after this many pages I'm certain somebody else has thrown this point down with more brevity than I.

They definitely can back it up to themselves. It's easy. However, I don't know too many people looking to back up their faith to others (Particularly non-religious or ones not sharing their beliefs) which I think is where the OP is misguided. We seriously don't care overall whether someone knows we have faith or not. It's not something that is required to prove like a bunch of other things in life.

Or because, you know, people who were the last to edit the bible were fucking mysoginists.

This has little to do with what you quoted unless you care to explain.

 

[daviyoung]

Haven't read the bible in a long time but there are many references to 'Him' and 'He' when describing God.

 

[Zeliard]

Weak anthropic principle 'solves' the fine-tuned universe issue pretty comfortably for me. The universal constants have to be what they are because if they weren't, we simply wouldn't be here to observe them. Others could be, however, at which point the universe would appear "fine-tuned" for them simply because they happen to fit into it.

Some multi-verse theories postulate a basically infinite number of universes, each with their own set of laws, some of which are conducive to some types of life and some of which aren't. If that's the case then we're simply in one which is, and if we weren't, we wouldn't know it because we wouldn't exist.

And if this happens to be the only universe, then it's possible we just live during some golden age of sorts - and again, if we didn't live in that golden age we wouldn't be around to have these sorts of discussions. Regardless, the only fine-tuned element that's really any interesting is dark energy, and it's also what gives a lot of credence to multiverse theories.

 

[Lionheart1337]

I would say theists aren't the only ones that think they can back up their faith. Everyone has to be able to back up (at least in their own minds) what they believe in. If they can't, why believe in it? I often think a problem with SOME atheists and agnostic people (I'm agnostic) is the fait .... notion that one can simply hammer these facts into all the the 'ignorant religious' peoples heads over and over ... and eventually it will work. The appeal and solace one takes in theist beliefs are of the same personal value as what an atheist or agnostic gets out of their own. Yet it seems the acceptable practice is zillions of rage comics. Anyway after this many pages I'm certain somebody else has thrown this point down with more brevity than I.

Faith based on archaic "holy" texts is infinitely worse than atheist faith, if you can even call it that. It's faith that presumes that things exist that we have no tangible proof for. It's faith that, when met with this difficulty, presumes that it's impossible for god to be understood, creating a human limitation that allows the faith to live on. It's a never-ending stream of assumption, and requires a lot of these assumptions to rationalize itself. Ha, silly facts, why would that ever work on the religious?

I don't necessarily agree with the rage comics and ridicule, but I do think it's important that we don't place a social forcefield around religion. It should be subject to the same amount of bashing and open discussion as everything else. People should be able to make fun of Muhammad if they want to without receiving death threats. Religion deserves no special treatment in this regard just for being religion.

Yes your general point has been raised more than a few times. You should read the thread(s). This middle man no one is right stuff is tiring.

 

[Lionheart1337]

They definitely can back it up to themselves. It's easy. However, I don't know too many people looking to back up their faith to others (Particularly non-religious or ones not sharing their beliefs) which I think is where the OP is misguided. We seriously don't care overall whether someone knows we have faith or not. It's not something that is required to prove like a bunch of other things in life.This has little to do with what you quoted unless you care to explain.

Dude, come on. Plenty of theists out there try to back up their faith using the Bible and such. At the very least recognize that both sides argue for what they think is right. AT LEAST.

Don't care? Don't you believe in Hell and all that? Wow.

It's not something that needs to be proven yet if invented my own religion and god and preached it to you, you'd probably look at me like I`m crazy.

 

[JGS]

Faith based on archaic "holy" texts is infinitely worse than atheist faith, if you can even call it that. It's faith that presumes that things exist that we have no tangible proof for. It's faith that, when met with this difficulty, presumes that it's impossible for god to be understood, creating a human limitation that allows the faith to live on. It's a never-ending stream of assumption, and requires a lot of these assumptions to rationalize itself. Ha, silly facts, why would that ever work on the religious?

There is definitely no middle ground considering how many times non religious folk insist on bring up there can be no middle ground. This is despite the very real fact that everyone believes in something in which there is no tangible proof. Unfortunately as long there are delusional people out there who have even less to go off of than "archaic" holy texts, we will continue have no middle ground off worthless reasonings.

Dude, come on. Plenty of theists out there try to back up their faith using the Bible and such. At the very least recognize that both sides argue for what they think is right. AT LEAST.

Don't care? Don't you believe in Hell and all that? Wow.

It's not something that needs to be proven yet if invented my own religion and god and preached it to you, you'd probably look at me like I`m crazy.

That's not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with explaining your faith based on the Bible. Trying to prove it to you is a different matter entirely. You seem to be mixing up the reasons for our faith with actually concerning ourselves with convincing you we have faith. They aren't the same at all. I can easily tell you that based on Scripture, I have faith in God. If I believe in eternal torment (Which I don't) and you don't, that would only mean that I think you are going which is harmless to you.

What I don't care to do at all is to say "I can prove I have faith in God". Who cares what you think about that and I mean that in a nice way since I assume you think the exact same thing.

Middle ground...

 

[ManDudeChild]

Faith based on archaic "holy" texts is infinitely worse than atheist faith, if you can even call it that. It's faith that presumes that things exist that we have no tangible proof for. It's faith that, when met with this difficulty, presumes that it's impossible for god to be understood, creating a human limitation that allows the faith to live on. It's a never-ending stream of assumption, and requires a lot of these assumptions to rationalize itself. Ha, silly facts, why would that ever work on the religious?

I don't necessarily agree with the rage comics and ridicule, but I do think it's important that we don't place a social forcefield around religion. It should be subject to the same amount of bashing and open discussion as everything else. People should be able to make fun of Muhammad if they want to without receiving death threats. Religion deserves no special treatment in this regard just for being religion.

Yes your general point has been raised more than a few times. You should read the thread(s). This middle man no one is right stuff is tiring.

I never said nobody was right, simply that the need to back oneself up is not exclusive to the religious. Though theists do seem to push their faith more. There should be no forefield around any subject. We have far too many problems in the world because of our inability to address history and human actions due to this belief in the taboo. Making up comics of events that may or (more likely) not having occurred and repeated talking points however are passive aggressive at best. I'll admit ... some of them are amusing though.

Kudos on you for not being condescending at any point in your response.

 

[Lionheart1337]

I never said nobody was right, simply that the need to back oneself up is not exclusive to the religious. Though theists do seem to push their faith more. There should be no forefield around any subject. We have far too many problems in the world because of our inability to address history and human actions due to this belief in the taboo. Making up comics of events that may or (more likely) not having occurred and repeated talking points however are passive aggressive at best. I'll admit ... some of them are amusing though.

Kudos on you for not being condescending at any point in your response.

At least we agree on something. However, I'm sure you know that creating fake stories to further an agenda is hardly an atheist thing. Religions have done it as well, the Muhammad depictions thing comes to mind again. In a specific case, Muslims were being lied to about joke depictions of Muhammad to incite rage, which resulted in death threats.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Welcome to the thread, thanks for clicking on it and posting. I wish Jehovah's Witnesses waited until I approached and engaged them.

i've just been auditing this thread for a while but i had to post to say that this was among the greatest shut downs ive seen in my time on gaf. elegant, swift, and polite. well done.

edit: also, i 've recently been looking up christian analysis of timothy 2:12 and it's been really fun. any other controversial passages from a holy text i can look up?

 

[Lionheart1337]

There is definitely no middle ground considering how many times non religious folk insist on bring up there can be no middle ground. This is despite the very real fact that everyone believes in something in which there is no tangible proof. Unfortunately as long there are delusional people out there who have even less to go off of than "archaic" holy texts, we will continue have no middle ground off worthless reasonings.
That's not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with explaining your faith based on the Bible. Trying to prove it to you is a different matter entirely. You seem to be mixing up the reasons for our faith with actually concerning ourselves with convincing you we have faith. They aren't the same at all. I can easily tell you that based on Scripture, I have faith in God. If I believe in eternal torment (Which I don't) and you don't, that would only mean that I think you are going which is harmless to you.

What I don't care to do at all is to say "I can prove I have faith in God". Who cares what you think about that and I mean that in a nice way since I assume you think the exact same thing.

Middle ground...

I don't know what you mean by tangible proof here. I was saying that religion assumes that something is there and fills in the blanks, when we don't know nearly enough to make that conclusion. The assumptions are much more extreme than that of atheism if we care at all about empiricism. The so-called evidence (or lack of evidence, therefore god evidence) in favor of god erodes more and more as we learn more. If you acknowledge that we have no proof for anything, why do this? Do you put the word archaic in quotes to let me know that the Bible is not in fact, old text? Would you really distort time in such a way?

I did assume that you believed in heaven and hell. If you want to elaborate more on just what your beliefs are my ears are open.

That's my point. You wouldn't believe me in such a situation despite the same amount of evidence: none. People can preach whatever they want.

I care quite a bit whether people believe in god. People in their skewed perceptions would like to think that this makes a violent, militant person or something. But I would think a theist would care just as an atheist does. A person who believes in god thinks and behaves quite differently than a person who does not, and I think this effects civilization in a very profound manner, largely negative. So of course I care. I`m making this effort to discuss it with you. I just choose to take the same middle ground I would take in regards to things that have just as much proof (none) as god, I`ll spare you the FSM comparison.

 

[Joni]

I agree with this except that's not how Genesis' first chapters are structured (Which makes sense considering that the freed Jews would have heard any number of creation accounts even while believing in God). The first chapter starts out with the obvious- God created everything and then proceeds to give a skeleton overview of creative days. The second chapter then proceeds to discuss mankind's role/responsibility in it with the 3rd chapter being about the sin and the prophecy to make things right.

Figuring out the literary structure of Genesis helps automatically exclude the possibility of a Lilith in the picture. Not to say that folklore doesn't have Lilith in it, but the actual account does not so there's ot much point shoehorning her in there.

Genesis 1 clearly states man and woman were created at the same time in His image. Genesis 2 states man was created first and woman was made from man, not from God. Which of course is not the only problem with Genesis 2. Plants and animals made after man, while in Genesis 1 it is the inverse. You can clearly see they were written in two different time periods.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

This question is mainly for atheists: why is indoctrinating children with religious beliefs socially acceptable? Similar types of child abuse are looked down upon, such as raising children to hate all people of a particular race and/or consider them inferior.
If you accept friends who indoctrinate their children with their religion yet reject potential friends who teach their kids to be racist, please explain why.

I feel this is an important thing to discuss that has never been discussed on GAF before. If it has, I'd appreciate a link.