Popey calls us Nazis

[nath]

There seems to be a received opinion on these forums that only idiots believe in God, yet just last night I was reading about one of the worlds foremost experts on biotransmitters. His work on synapses lead him to turn from an atheist into a Christian - and there are plenty more examples too, eminent scientists and mathematicians who believe in the existence of God.

The fact that you think "oo he's clever, that gives credit to religion" goes to highlight the fundamental flaw in your thinking. You've displayed this when you've assumed that atheists treat Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking as some sort of justification for their/our thought process.

Just because someone is accomplished in a certain field, and indeed very intelligent, does not mean that on certain matters they can't miss the wood for the trees.

There's a simple reason to lack a belief in God. There is absolutely no evidence for a God existing. I think it extremely unlikely that there ever will be. But like all good sceptics, I relish the chance to see some.

 

[Krazeh]

There seems to be a received opinion on these forums that only idiots believe in God, yet just last night I was reading about one of the worlds foremost experts on biotransmitters. His work on synapses lead him to turn from an atheist into a Christian - and there are plenty more examples too, eminent scientists and mathematicians who believe in the existence of God.

Out of curiousity who is this expert? And would you like to give us some examples of these eminent scientists and mathematicians?

Both politicians and members of the Catholic Church are on record stating that the Church paid for all the pastoral aspects of the visit, but the state parts of his visit were covered by the UK taxpayer under the principle of reciprocity.

He was also invited to the UK by the previous head of state, Gordon Brown. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, its the fanatics way after all.

What does any of that have to do with protesting about the amount of money that has been spent on hte taxpayer's behalf in order to facilitate the Pope's visit? You could at least attempt to present an argument as to why protesting is wrong or fanatical instead of pointing out some facts which aren't actually in dispute.

There's a simple reason to lack a belief in God. There is absolutely no evidence for a God existing. I think it extremely unlikely that there ever will be. But like all good sceptics, I relish the chance to see some.

 

[Wij]

There seems to be a received opinion on these forums that only idiots believe in God, yet just last night I was reading about one of the worlds foremost experts on biotransmitters. His work on synapses lead him to turn from an atheist into a Christian - and there are plenty more examples too, eminent scientists and mathematicians who believe in the existence of God.

Not this dick ?

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ch3tan]

Both politicians and members of the Catholic Church are on record stating that the Church paid for all the pastoral aspects of the visit, but the state parts of his visit were covered by the UK taxpayer under the principle of reciprocity.

He was also invited to the UK by the previous head of state, Gordon Brown. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, its the fanatics way after all.

What facts, and what point are you trying to make here?

Also: BBC News - Vatican Bank 'investigated over money-laundering'

 

[kamorrista]

There's a simple reason to lack a belief in God. There is absolutely no evidence for a God existing. I think it extremely unlikely that there ever will be. But like all good sceptics, I relish the chance to see some.

I support your logic, but remember there is no evidence for a God not existing aswell

 

[pikeh]

I support your logic, but remember there is no evidence for a God not existing aswell

The god theory has been completely dissassembled time and time again by scientific fact. Its a fairy tale story made up to control the masses.

 

[kamorrista]

whatever, i don't believe in God but i repeat there is no evidence for his existence or for his non exitence

 

[Raven]

To go by that logic you would need to prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn for it to not exist. You don't need to prove that something doesn't exist, it is up to the god botherers to prove that god does exist.

This is where science and religion differ, one accepts something as true with absolutely no evidence and one takes a theory and attempts to prove it, only once it is proven and then checked and tested again and again is it fact. ofc your average god botherer will say "but I have faith?!?!?!" which is just stupid. Faith is meaningless, its just another word for "I have been told this bullshit from birth and I am too weak to question it"

Prove to me there is a god and I will acknowledge his existence.

 

[kamorrista]

is not a logic, simply there is no evidence towards one side or another, anyways, for me faith is not such useless thing, it can be useful when faith is a proved "motor" for people to get strenght to achieve personal goals, for a real utility about God, no, Faith shouldn't be useful by that logic.
I agree

Edit: btw pink Unicorn is not so transcendental as the huge influence of Catholic Religion hence they focus on that kind of things to prove, and not blue giants dogs or tiny elves in Venus

 

[CorNokZ]

And we call him a pedo eventho the odds of him ever having touched a child inappropriately are slim to none

 

[Raven]

is not a logic, simply there is no evidence towards one side or another, anyways, for me faith is not such useless thing, it can be useful when faith is a proved "motor" for people to get strenght to achieve personal goals, for a real utility about God, no, Faith shouldn't be useful by that logic.
I agree

Edit: btw pink Unicorn is not so transcendental as the huge influence of Catholic Religion hence they focus on that kind of things to prove, and not blue giants dogs or tiny elves in Venus

I used the invisible pink unicorn as it exists (or should I say, the concept exists ) Although there is as much proof to the existence of the invisible pink unicorn as there is to gods existence. No, some heavily edited book is not proof of anything except peoples will to believe in something because it makes the world a better place. If there is a disaster it is god testing us, if something good happens then its a gift from god etc etc.

Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kamorrista]

I know the feeling yep

 

[Raven]

And we call him a pedo eventho the odds of him ever having touched a child inappropriately are slim to none

Someone who actively protects (and yes, he has actively protected several) paedophiles is just as bad as being one.

 

[Garaen]

Sums it up nicely tbh

 

[old.Tohtori]

Weeell, there's worse things to be compared to really.

Cavemen, paedophiles, child killers, justin bieber fans.

You know, see the silver lining, atleast nazis did something good(as in efficiently, not holy as jesus necessarily) and well too.

...as conpared to the vatican

 

[Turamber]

Out of curiousity who is this expert? And would you like to give us some examples of these eminent scientists and mathematicians?

Professor Frantisek Vyskolic of Charles University, Prague, was the subject of the article I was reading. There is a small article about him in Wikipedia incidentally. In the article I was reading he was quoted as finding the synapses and the genetic programs that underly them as being far too complex to be the product of blind chance

Other notable figures that believe in a God include Professor John Lennox of Oxford and Professor John Barrow of Cambridge.

This isn't to say that one makes a decision based on the number of people who feel one way or another, or even on how learned or how many qualifications they hold, but I do feel it shows that faith isn't just a route for the uneducated or the over emotional.

For me it is a logical reaction to the existence and complexity of life.

 

[Wij]

Professor Frantisek Vyskolic of Charles University, Prague, was the subject of the article I was reading. There is a small article about him in Wikipedia incidentally. In the article I was reading he was quoted as finding the synapses and the genetic programs that underly them as being far too complex to be the product of blind chance

Evolution is the exact opposite of blind chance.

 

[Lamp]

It was chance that life started on earth in the first place. We just happened to be in the Goldilocks Zone (not too far, not too near the Sun) & it just happened that the right minerals / water / star dust from meteors combined with lightning strikes & volcanic chemicals started the first cellular life in the oceans. Then, evolution takes over, and 4.5 billion years later, we're all wasting our precious short lives typing crap on an internet forum

 

[Wij]

Evolution says nothing about the start of life. It's a different field.

Look at it another way, you are an intelligent being (ish ) what are the chances that you were born in a place where the conditions for life existed rather than on a cold barren rock ?

 

[Krazeh]

Professor Frantisek Vyskolic of Charles University, Prague, was the subject of the article I was reading. There is a small article about him in Wikipedia incidentally. In the article I was reading he was quoted as finding the synapses and the genetic programs that underly them as being far too complex to be the product of blind chance

If he thought evolution was the product of blind chance then he really was not much of a scientist. Blind chance has got fuck all to do with evolution; blind chance is pretty much the exact opposite of evolution. To be honest if you're basing your argument on scientists like him then you really need to rethink it if you wanna be taken seriously.

 

[Job]

You really need to read 'Climbing mount improbable' by Dawkins.
It explains the process that we humans find so difficult to grasp with
our short term minds with such clarity and ease it really is an
epiphany moment as it all clicks together in your head.

Science in noway rules out 'God', no matter whatever we discover, you
could still say that 'God' did it all. He 'could' have planted fossils to fool us,
he 'could' have adjusted all the laws of nature to confuse us and why
not, any decent omnipotent super being can do what the fuck he likes,
and our primeval human constraints are very poorly suited to judge
his 'decisions'.
I use the word 'his' because I too have been fed the old man, white beard
scenario.

 

[Turamber]

If he thought evolution was the product of blind chance then he really was not much of a scientist.

In the absence of a designer all you are left with is blind chance.

Science in noway rules out 'God', no matter whatever we discover, you
could still say that 'God' did it all. He 'could' have planted fossils to fool us,
he 'could' have adjusted all the laws of nature to confuse us

Why would fossils have to be planted by God? Dinosaurs are not a 'proof' that the account of Genesis is incorrect. Indeed fossils are particularly interesting as Darwin was certain that the fossil record would reveal missing links. Unfortunately those missing links are still missing. The existence of laws of nature points, in my opinion, to the existence of a lawmaker - somebody who defines the natural laws.

To me atheism seems as much a religion as any other, it requires faith to believe in it. But it is quite an easy religion to believe in as it requires nothing from its adherents.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd remove the last bit, will only derail the discussion and will make a lot of people rather annoyed.

Friendly warning

 

[Raven]

If you mean faith as in, I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow then sure, ofc it does. If you mean, I have faith there is a god, regardless of the complete lack of proof of any kind then no.

What startles me is you are willing to pin everything on a 1500-2000 year old book. Where was god 10,000 years ago? At what point in human history did it all become clear? How did it all become clear?

Or is it just some stupid cult built on the foundations of Egyptian sun worship that has got way out of hand?

 

[nath]

In the absence of a designer all you are left with is blind chance.

Perhaps a semantic argument, but I believe Wij already answered that, evolution is not blind chance - the emergence of life on this planet is. After that, evolution is pretty much a tautology. Things that are better at surviving, survive.

Additionally, the idea of a creator doesn't answer any questions that evolution can't. You're simply saying "god did it" instead of "evolution did it" or "chance did it". We're still left with who created God, how long has He existed etc. Only if you stop thinking at "God did it" does it answer any questions.

Plus, you say that atheism requires faith - you're thinking of strong atheism, that's the belief that there is no God. Weak atheism is the *lack* of a belief in God, that requires no more faith than my lack of belief in unicorns.

 

[Wij]

In the absence of a designer all you are left with is blind chance.

As Nath just said, that isn't true at all.

Why would fossils have to be planted by God? Dinosaurs are not a 'proof' that the account of Genesis is incorrect. Indeed fossils are particularly interesting as Darwin was certain that the fossil record would reveal missing links. Unfortunately those missing links are still missing.

The old God of the gaps argument. If something hasn't been explained yet by evolution then it must require God! Unfortunately that's very bad logic. Even where scientists haven't worked out how to explain everything (and there have been a fuckload of different species in the last billion years or so to try to come up with explanations for every one in the last 150 years or so) that in no way proves God must have done it instead. Where's your proof that God did it ? That's the whole flaw with Behe and Demsky's arguments, they don't have a shred of proof. All they do is point out current gaps in our understanding. Over time those gaps get filled so they move onto another gap and say "LOOK A GAP ! GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT !!!" But it's the same logic they use every time and it's been shown to be wrong before so there no reason to believe it must be right subsequently.

Specifically on the fossil record there's a lot less gaps than we used to think and transititional forms are being found all the time. Even so, due to the way fossils are formed and the way that changes in the phenotype tend to be less smoothly distributed over time than changes in the genotype, for good evolutionary reasons, you would expect the fossil record to be somewhat gappy. It perfectly accords with what the various scientific fields (biology, geology etc...) would predict. There is no gap that requires filling.

 

[Raven]

If there was no gaps and there was a fossil for every generation of every species going back to when life started there would literally be no room, the place would look like the wasteland in Terminator 1, not everything that dies will leave a fossil. You will only get a fossil in very rare circumstances, mud slides, silt build up in lakes etc etc. Most things that die get eaten by natural scavengers or simply rot away to pretty much nothing.

 

[Ch3tan]

If he was real, Jesus would be weeping right now.

Did you actually read what you wrote Turamber? You are talking about proof yet you are putting faith in the one thing that cannot be proven. It's tragic.

 

[Scouse]

Professor Frantisek Vyskolic of Charles University, Prague, was the subject of the article I was reading

Just to show you what Charles University in Prague is like, I ripped this image off the University's front webpage. And yes, it's main area of study is theological.

THIS is the sort of shit Turamber uses to support his arguments. And I'm on ignore

 

[Scouse]

To me atheism seems as much a religion as any other, it requires faith to believe in it.

This is why Turamber's such a joey. He's incapable of grasping the fact that you don't "believe" in atheism...