"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[gherkins]

Look - it's simple - I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, because to introduce a god figure just produces more complications. We don't know how the universe "came to exist", but if we say a god did it, then we end up with a load of other problems - who is he/she/it, why did she/he/it do it and then who/what created it/him/her?

Just because man has required a god figure in the past to provide reasoning and direction for his/her life and, to be more cynical, for those in power to control their subjects and acquire money, does not provide any justification in my mind to put forward any one of these gods as the creator of the universe.

Edited by gherkins on Wednesday 2nd May 11:32

[carmonk]

enioldjoe said:

ewenm said:

joe_90 said:

You should believe in the one true god, Ra.. you can see him and the light he brings..

Seriously, if I were to be religious and felt I had to believe in something, worshipping the Sun would seem to be a good candidate. After all, the Sun (and other earlier stars) are the source of all elements and all energy (and hence life) on Earth.

The Sun demonstrably exists and continues to maintain (or grant if you will ) life on Earth.

The Sun's energy needs to be directed though in order to produce increased organisation (regarding life).

You need an input of directed energy; energy plus information.

How is the sun's energy directed? 99.999999999999999999% of it streams off into space and doesn't even affect life. Bit of an unintelligent design if you ask me, or at least inefficient.

[NobleGuy]

gherkins said:

Look - it's simple - I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, because to introduce a god figure just produces more complications. We don't know how the universe "came to exist", but if we say a god did it, then we end up with a load of other problems - who is he/she/it, why did she/he/it do it and then who/what created it/him/her?

And so we return to the crux of my original point 3 months ago.
How does science answer those equivalent questions?
(The answer is it doesn't, but none of the extremists seem to understand this simple fact)

[Phil1]

gherkins said:

Look - it's simple - I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, because to introduce a god figure just produces more complications. We don't know how the universe "came to exist", but if we say a god did it, then we end up with a load of other problems - who is he/she/it, why did she/he/it do it and then who/what created it/him/her?

and why do they care so much what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom?

[ewenm]

enioldjoe said:

The Sun's energy needs to be directed though in order to produce increased organisation (regarding life).

You need an input of directed energy; energy plus information.

Maybe you need to consider worshipping the cause of all that energy and the source of the information in the Universe. The First Cause , according to the law of cause and effect, cannot be less than the sum total of that energy therefore it would be... omnipotent.

If you consider evolution of life on earth, I see no evidence that more than chance started the whole thing, once the energy and chemical conditions (both provided by the Sun and earlier stars) were suitable. The original source of information to spark life = chance, probability, mathematics if you like

Solism remains that, worship of the Sun. Feel free to start your own religion though

[joe_90]

enioldjoe said:

ewenm said:

joe_90 said:

You should believe in the one true god, Ra.. you can see him and the light he brings..

Seriously, if I were to be religious and felt I had to believe in something, worshipping the Sun would seem to be a good candidate. After all, the Sun (and other earlier stars) are the source of all elements and all energy (and hence life) on Earth.

The Sun demonstrably exists and continues to maintain (or grant if you will ) life on Earth.

The Sun's energy needs to be directed though in order to produce increased organisation (regarding life).

You need an input of directed energy; energy plus information.

Maybe you need to consider worshipping the cause of all that energy and the source of the information in the Universe. The First Cause , according to the law of cause and effect, cannot be less than the sum total of that energy therefore it would be... omnipotent.

bks, im just going on faith, Ra is the god, he brings life and light (and thus allows me to see boobies).

Checkmate.

[carmonk]

NobleGuy said:

gherkins said:

Look - it's simple - I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, because to introduce a god figure just produces more complications. We don't know how the universe "came to exist", but if we say a god did it, then we end up with a load of other problems - who is he/she/it, why did she/he/it do it and then who/what created it/him/her?

And so we return to the crux of my original point 3 months ago.
How does science answer those equivalent questions?
(The answer is it doesn't, but none of the extremists seem to understand this simple fact)

Go back a few hundred years and science couldn't explain lightning, meteors, gravity, celestial motion and a thousand other things. Did God once control these too and just push them over to science in a sort of divine staged handover?

[Phil1]

NobleGuy said:

And so we return to the crux of my original point 3 months ago.
How does science answer those equivalent questions?
(The answer is it doesn't, but none of the extremists seem to understand this simple fact)

So what if it doesn't? In what way does that make any of the huge list of gods I found on the internet any more plausible? It doesn't.

[NobleGuy]

Phil1 said:

NobleGuy said:

And so we return to the crux of my original point 3 months ago.
How does science answer those equivalent questions?
(The answer is it doesn't, but none of the extremists seem to understand this simple fact)

So what if it doesn't? In what way does that make any of the huge list of gods I found on the internet any more plausible? It doesn't.

That was never my point. I'm agnostic bordering on atheist.
I was arguing that in certain circumstances science is no better at explaining some things.
Cor the trouble we had with that

[NobleGuy]

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

gherkins said:

Look - it's simple - I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, because to introduce a god figure just produces more complications. We don't know how the universe "came to exist", but if we say a god did it, then we end up with a load of other problems - who is he/she/it, why did she/he/it do it and then who/what created it/him/her?

And so we return to the crux of my original point 3 months ago.
How does science answer those equivalent questions?
(The answer is it doesn't, but none of the extremists seem to understand this simple fact)

Go back a few hundred years and science couldn't explain lightning, meteors, gravity, celestial motion and a thousand other things. Did God once control these too and just push them over to science in a sort of divine staged handover?

I don't see how just because we now understand something that it can't have been created in the first place...

[TheHeretic]

carmonk said:

How is the sun's energy directed? 99.999999999999999999% of it streams off into space and doesn't even affect life. Bit of an unintelligent design if you ask me, or at least inefficient.

And then it will explode, killing all life in our solar system. To coin a great man, "some design!"

[ewenm]

TheHeretic said:

And then it will explode, killing all life in our solar system. To coin a great man, "some design!"

ALL HAIL THE SUN! IT GIVETH LIFE AND IT TAKETH LIFE AWAY! ALL HAIL THE SUN!

No evidence the currently popular Gods can do that is there! Hah!

[Phil1]

NobleGuy said:

That was never my point. I'm agnostic bordering on atheist.
I was arguing that in certain circumstances science is no better at explaining some things.
Cor the trouble we had with that

You're in here arguing that sometimes science can't currently explain something, although it seems to explain more and more all the time, and therefore you want "goddidit" to be taken seriously as an alternative until such time as science can explain it.... why? Why not just say we don't know. Why do you feel the need to tack on the "hey maybe goddidit"?

[Phil1]

ewenm said:

ALL HAIL THE SUN! IT GIVETH LIFE AND IT TAKETH LIFE AWAY! ALL HAIL THE SUN!

No evidence the currently popular Gods can do that is there! Hah!

Now you've gone and done it. I have to add the sun to my list of things I actively don't believe is an actual deity. Are you trying to make my life harder? I haven't enough time in the day to be an atheist

[Strangely Brown]

enioldjoe said:

The Sun's energy needs to be directed though in order to produce increased organisation (regarding life).

You need an input of directed energy; energy plus information.

Maybe you need to consider worshipping the cause of all that energy and the source of the information in the Universe. The First Cause , according to the law of cause and effect, cannot be less than the sum total of that energy therefore it would be... omnipotent.

Information? What is that? It comes up a lot in creationist spoutings but nobody can actually explain what it *is*.

[TheHeretic]

Strangely Brown said:

Information? What is that? It comes up a lot in creationist spoutings but nobody can actually explain what it *is*.

It is a fallacious argument. They like to talk about entropy, and so on, but they don't appear to actually grasp the concepts.

[Strangely Brown]

NobleGuy said:

I was arguing that in certain circumstances science is no better at explaining some things.
Cor the trouble we had with that

It's true. In certain circumstances there does come a point where science cannot explain things any more than religion can. The difference, though, is that once that point is reached, science says, "I don't know. But I'll keep looking." whereas religions says, "God did it. I'll stop looking now".

I know which I consider to be "better".

[Strangely Brown]

Phil1 said:

You're in here arguing that sometimes science can't currently explain something, although it seems to explain more and more all the time, and therefore you want "goddidit" to be taken seriously as an alternative until such time as science can explain it.... why? Why not just say we don't know. Why do you feel the need to tack on the "hey maybe goddidit"?

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams.

[NobleGuy]

Phil1 said:

NobleGuy said:

That was never my point. I'm agnostic bordering on atheist.
I was arguing that in certain circumstances science is no better at explaining some things.
Cor the trouble we had with that

You're in here arguing that sometimes science can't currently explain something, although it seems to explain more and more all the time, and therefore you want "goddidit" to be taken seriously as an alternative until such time as science can explain it.... why? Why not just say we don't know. Why do you feel the need to tack on the "hey maybe goddidit"?

I think I've made it fairly clear from the start and throughout that I'm happy with "We don't know.".
In fact I said exactly this today, on the previous page...

What's "goddidit" anyway...? Is this (yet another) hint that anyone that believes is an idiot?
Why not say "God did it." instead?

[NobleGuy]

Strangely Brown said:

NobleGuy said:

I was arguing that in certain circumstances science is no better at explaining some things.
Cor the trouble we had with that

It's true. In certain circumstances there does come a point where science cannot explain things any more than religion can. The difference, though, is that once that point is reached, science says, "I don't know. But I'll keep looking." whereas religions says, "God did it. I'll stop looking now".

I know which I consider to be "better".

Finally someone speaking sense.