Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
ATG said:
No it isn't. It just isn't. Have your every spent any time actually listening to what religious people believe, rather just making up this intellectually bankrupt crap?
Can you explain? In terms of the bible, what do religious people believe?How much of the bible is to be believed?
Why is it OK to believe some of it, and not other parts?
What about parts of the bible that are homophobic? Are they to be followed?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't agree. If anything atheism deals with more uncertainty and requires more self belief than following some scriptures that you are indoctrinated in. I can remember thinking - I should believe this because others do. Belief is an easy way out. Don't question. just follow. Religion tells you want to do, what to think, how to be homophobic in some cases, what rules to live by. Indeed, the safe option is not to question or doubt and just follow, go with the flow.Atheism on the other hand requires the rejection of religion and indoctrination, and thinking for yourself about what questions to ask, what evidence to seek, how to rationale available evidence and theories, how to deal yourself with the pointlessness of existence and what morals and principles of right and wrong to adopt.
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
...how to deal yourself with the pointlessness of existence
Is that really the conclusion you've reached, after all that thinking? Being an atheist must be pretty depressing. An entire universe existing for no purpose sounds completely illogical to me.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is bizarre how wanting to be constrained, controlled, told what to think, who to persecute, and on no account to think that anything other than a single God is behind the universe is somehow having an open mind. Whereas being open to any explanation for the universe and life and everything - and being willing to change that view as things are learned - is having a closed mind.anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you don't think you religion tells you what to think? It doesn't control how you live your life? But it seems you are forced to believe in your particular God. Are you allowed to believe in other Gods, or no God? Why not? Why did you chose the God you believe in? Did you choose him? Or did someone choose him for you? How old were you when you chose him, or he was chosen for you?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you wore a blue jumper in your teens for the first time, with no indoctrination at a younger age at all? It does happen - but how did it come about? Influential peers or parents? Church attendance?Not sure I understand the t-shirt/trouser analogy - are you saying you dabbled in other gods/religions too?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Live and let live is fine in principle.To get right back to the original post - this was to discuss the significance of science (potentially) explaining the origin of life, and whether the potential closure of such a 'gap' would be a landmark discovery from a theological perspective.
What has been demonstrated is that many religionists have shown no indication whatsoever of such a discovery having any possible impact on their belief. Some have suggested that no evidence could ever dent their belief, "there will always be something we won't know or be able to explain", which was quite an interesting view (or excuse?) for belief when you think about it. Some have however quickly dismissed or derided the theory (or hypothesis), perhaps as it maybe was a bit threatening to their belief? Either way it seems evident that there is some closed minded thinking going on when considering the potential relevance of the discovery.
I have to say if someone showed me direct evidence of a god or a divine intervention I like to think I would start believing. But it has never happened - ever - so there is no positive evidence for such a thing whatsoever. This, unless shown otherwise, is quite compelling evidence for me - together with all the other obvious signs - that it is all just made up by man. But, crucially, I think if you showed me contrary proof I would change my assessment.
ash73 said:
Moonhawk said:
If i'm wrong - i'd much rather stand at the pearly gates in front of whichever god turns out to be the correct one and argue that I used the intelligence that was gifted to me to make an informed decision based on available evidence
What are you hoping to achieve at the pearly gates by doing that? I think the basic idea is to live a perfect life and make the right choices, not apologise for an imperfect one after the fact. You could say it was the right choice, but it's a moot point once you are standing there.I think the point is he doesn't really expect to find himself at the pearly gates
It might matter more how you lived your life and treated other people. I would expect to be judged on that not my beliefs; something people on both sides might do well to consider.
Of course how you live and treat people matters above all else. Both sides do consider that - it is perhaps a bit patronising to imply the "other" side do not that do that already, which it seems is an accusation you maybe hurling at atheists. Q: do you think your God will congratulate you if you have gone through life looking down on homosexuals and treating them as second class citizens? Treating everyone as equals is certainly something both sides might do well to consider.
Hawkish comments on little details in the bible are pointless, I think it's more interesting to look at the core tenets. As I understand it, it's basically about repairing man's relationship with God. I think it's reasonable to hypothesise God exists (see Godel), and it's possible we are the only intelligent life out there; seems very unlikely but if so we may have a special relationship with God. Ergo find intelligent life elsewhere, and religion is fundamentally broken.
Really? Just intelligent life elsewhere would break religion? I find this surprising, given that all the other evidence that suggests there is no God appears to have no impact on belief.
It's worth funding a space programme just to settle the argument
ash73 said:
How on earth does "both sides" imply something specifically aimed at atheists? Pure paranoia. No doubt a religious person would assume I only meant people carrying backpacks 
"something people on both sides might do well to consider."I think it is reasonably obvious what you intended to imply.
It is interesting how religion also seems to instill a feeling of superiority - perhaps that is one reason it appeals to some.
ash73 said:
Burwood said:
i don't subscribe to findinding alien life and that debunking god. God created everything so aliens included.
I agree it doesn't say anything about the existence of God, that's not what I said. Try to keep up ash73 said:
Ergo find intelligent life elsewhere, and religion is fundamentally broken.
So you are saying only religion would be broken, but not God?ash73 said:
///ajd said:
I think it is reasonably obvious what you intended to imply.
Then you are 100% incorrect. I am not religious, remember.Ash73: "....I think the basic idea is to live a perfect life and make the right choices, not apologise for an imperfect one after the fact.....It might matter more how you lived your life and treated other people. I would expect to be judged on that not my beliefs; something people on both sides might do well to consider.
Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 3rd March 22:10
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
So you are saying only religion would be broken, but not God?
Yes. I quite like Godel's idea you can prove logically God exists as a creator, but it's fundamentally unknowable, and I think religion is just man-made speculation about the nature of God.Look at the underlying theme of Christianity rather than pecking away at little details. It's about man having a unique relationship with God, the relationship being broken by original sin, and Jesus being sent as a saviour to repair it; by living a perfect life and achieving immortality.
Put simply, if there are intelligent aliens, some more intelligent than us, all of them with free will, God could not have a unique relationship with man. Our localised religion is smashed to pieces.
So you believe in the concept of a God, but dismiss all the intepretations of him through religion to date? I can kind of understand the logic in that.
Can you define what drives your belief in some form of God? And what such a God actually represents/does?
Reading again you do appear to recognise the specific ideas of Jesus and sin - which suggests the basics of Christianity are at the root of your belief. In that case does that not make you in some way loosely religious in terms of Christianity?
turbobloke said:
Could you explain what rules might need to be relaxed?
Responding as a scientist, the scientific method cannot apply to the existence of a God where the existence relates to meaning or purpose as there is no approach within science to questions which begin 'why'.
How the universe came into being, how life first formed, all of that is capable of scientific analysis. The only way a theist's God gets squeezed out is if they were relying on God to create the universe and life. That's a creationist perspective, surely we're not taking that seriously at this stage?
If you remove all the creationist aspects of a god, what is left? Responding as a scientist, the scientific method cannot apply to the existence of a God where the existence relates to meaning or purpose as there is no approach within science to questions which begin 'why'.
How the universe came into being, how life first formed, all of that is capable of scientific analysis. The only way a theist's God gets squeezed out is if they were relying on God to create the universe and life. That's a creationist perspective, surely we're not taking that seriously at this stage?
Is he some sort of caretaker instead? Doesn't sound like he's in charge at all; does he just tell you not to run in the corridors?
Allowing this kind of intepretation speaks volumes for the man made origins of religion.
cymtriks said:
....The OP claimed that a theory on the origin of life proved that there was no need for a creator.
I pointed out (perfectly correctly and without any reference to belief, faith or the Bible) that it could equally well show evidence of a divine plan.
Whether you are convinced about the theory or not, one thing it may do is show how life is possible without a creator. I pointed out (perfectly correctly and without any reference to belief, faith or the Bible) that it could equally well show evidence of a divine plan.
You can say it, but it is rather illogical to turn this around and say it is infact proof of a creator.
It is the equivalent of filming some teenagers in the middle of the night with planks and bits of string in a corn field making crop circles, and saying - "ha, but it is still proof of aliens - some aliens made the teenagers do it!".
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If by "higher being" you mean the alien bio-scientist, who himself was a product of evolution rather than being "intelligently created", then why not, in theory.The issue with such a theory is that in practice there are mountains of concrete (fossil) evidence that we infact evolved from single cell organisms and its predecessors on this very planet, itself a product of the big bang - with no evidence of other more complex / unconventional origins.
As such, the alien bio-scientist can be discounted, unless you suggest he went to the trouble of faking an entire evolutionary background on earth that perfectly covered his tracks and any evidence for him. On a scale of likelihood of 0 (likely) to 7 (not likely) - this is surely 6.99999.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff