Yes I know Dawkins, he is just as bad as the religious nuts, if you want to remove religious influence from government and politics I am with you. You just want to make fun of all religion and religious people than sorry I am not.

I am atheist. I do not believe in you-know-who.

The whole religion stuff sounds quite unbelievable to me. It can not be explained scientifically, from what i think is science. Science is not begin obsessed to puzzle together loose events with part's that don't fit using weird theorys. Sorry, but thats what so-called documentarys on religion often do.

For me, religion (with "religion" i mean everything except Budism, wich is a bit weird on it's own) is a thing based on loose events in the ME and a "Hippie" named J3sus some people need to give their lives sense or can't live without since they where already born in a Religious family.

Oh yeah, before i forget it: Religion caused many stupid wars and is one of the reasons for the problems we have today. No religion=One important step thorwards a sane, better world. Paradise is not "up there", you have to get of ye a** and change the things "down here".

About safe-keeper's argument "It's nice have an open outlook on death". Well, for people who can't live with the trouth maybe. The moment i die i don't have to care about that anymore. It's over then. The big nothing, where all thinking and existing ends. Death.

I won't have to care about death if i'm dead. There is nothing after death, even if it would be nice, there isn't. Accepted that, moved on.

And i have a very happy life, except of the things wich cause me to rant (Like dumb politics and sh**ty people).

Avon Lady and August,

If G-d blesses anyone, he has to bless THE **** everyone, not only the Americans. *Gets angry damn quick*

Jaaaaa! Who said crazy rubbish again? Who made a "Racist" (Anti-Atheist) Remark? Who wants all atheist out of his country? (It's obivious) Yes, a bush again.

I agree. You slowly start to understand my dislike for America. In every country, there are @$%&?!! and nice people. But in America there are more @$%&?!!******'s .

*yawn* This is getting old.

*Sign*

/makes note to self: STFU!

Because we disagree with you?

Though I'm not a biologist, I will address the anti-evolution editorial if no one else has by later today. However, I may not be able to cite some things directly due to my mixed google skills, so I would prefer a biologist to do it.

As for the big bang, or rather, the theory that the universe emerged from a singularity, it is probably true that some atheists have unscientific opposition to it just as religious people may have unscientific support for it. Sadly, personal beliefs (not always religious) often interfere with science.

However, in this case, there is no scientific evidance to really accept a "true" singularity, both in the early universe and for black holes. This is because the theories for such a situation require large gravitational forces on a quantum level, and no current theories exist for this situation. Theories of Everything are in the process of being developed, and they might shed more light on the matter.

Still, just because there is an (apparent) "moment of creation" does not imply a creator, because then what created the creator, and so on. It is simply another unknown that may be explained in the future.

This brings up another point. While religious people like to fill all holes in science with their god(s), this really isn't proper. If they also accept science, then they need to keep changing exactly where their god interferes. Why not just wait for science to try to explain things, and if science seems to indicate that something cannot be normally explained, only then assign it to god(s)? Basically, you can assign the universe to god, and simply leave everything else to science. You can even do this if the universe is found to be completely cyclical, apparently ever repeating and haveing always been repeating (though the current theories do not indicate this, of course). I'm sure any god(s) would no be limited in their omnipotent ways by the mere temporal dimension.

If you have a typewriter and randomly press keys, you will eventually get and work of literature. This is simple probability. I'm sure that you would believe that with enough typing, you could get a simple word like "and" eventually. One monkey could probably get that in a good day's work of truely random typing (unless you need the space before and after it, which would make it take longer I think). To get works of literature, the principle would be the same, it would just be vastly more unlikely. We might be talking time periods similar to the age of the universe here. It can be calculated precisely if a few simple things are known. On the matter of the formation of life, there was certainly alot of time for random fluxuations, but I believe recent studies have indicated that it is less probabilitic then originally thought. Organic compounds can slowly build up into greater complexity.


Finally, it is correct that creationism is an important topic for school, but it belongs in social science when learning about different cultures, because so many people believe it, not in science, because it is unscientific, regardless of the state of other scientific theories.

No say what you think, but who are you to say religon is backward? How many people died in the name of state atheism? (IE. Communism)?

Quantum Physics in a nutshell says that "Any Thing" is possible...this is true.This has been taught by Christianity for over 2000 years now with one difference..."I can do ALL things through Christ which strengtheneth me".We believe the "Power" comes from and originates from God to do anything according to the will of God.

To laugh at the Dead Sea Scrolls is a mistake by dismissing them in the belief that they must be wrong by your only evidence being that "Christians" believe the Earth has only been around for 10,000 yrs.

Consider Einstein and the theory of realativity and the understanding of time...the closer one comes to the speed of light time begins to slow yet "Man" has determined that it can never be done that is travel at the speed of light...if this theory is true and God claiming to be "Light" itself living for Him would mean "Time" does not exsist and therefore one does not age hence Eternity...

so if God created the heavens and all the Earth in seven days what is seven days to God?....a year a thousand yrs,,,a million a billion?...you tell me what is time to a being where time really has no bearing on anything.

Point I simply try to make is man...has a really small mind...and to dismiss anything is ignorant...

Some other things taught by Christianity..."Be carefull for No-Thing but be carefull for Every-Thing"

E=MC2 = And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

one more diddy about time....it will END eyes will be opened then.

Revelation 10

[1] And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
[2] And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,
[3] And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
[4] And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
[5] And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
[6] And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
[7] But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
[8] And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
[9] And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
[10] And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
[11] And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

I do not personally care whether you or anyone on this forum beieves in the Bible or God that is your choice but to put all your eggs in the basket of science make me respect the gambler in you.

The FSM reference was intended as an explanation with an exaggerated example. The FSM concept was deliberately developed as something silly, yet the scientific evidence in favour of a creation of the universe by the FSM and the creation of the universe by one of the more common gods is equally strong (i.e. nonexistent). Of course, the number of FSM believers is much smaller than the number of believers from more traditional religions, but that doesn't mean much. After all, when those traditional religions started, they were also small, and often ridiculed and/or persecuted.

Besides, amount of supporters doesn't determine correctness.

Also, for the correctness of a scientific theory it doesn't really matter that many people believe things that contradict it, what matters is if those people can provide evidence that observable reality contradicts the theory.

Open question. This is just another example of the "God of the gaps": there is something we don't know, therefore God must have done it. In science, if there is no good evidence, or no currently feasible method to test some theories, one simply has to accept that there is uncertainty until someone finds a way to solve the problem (without really knowing if that will actually happen).

Of course, some people cannot stand uncertainty, and seek explanations they can believe without proof. Science is the opposite: it demands proof, but can never provide certainty (because proof of natural laws is always incomplete: one can not have complete data about every possible state of the universe).

Correct. Many new theories were opposed by those who were a bit too fond of the old methods, but still accepted when good evidence was provided. Some scientists certainly behaved badly when their pet theory was under attack, but science as a whole still advanced.

This happens everywhere, not just in science. For example, politics should not be about corruption and bribery, yet for some politicians still do it.

And there are worse cases: schools teaching things that are know to be incorrect.
A few examples: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12705167/
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/vision/Galileo.html

Well, if you have this "god of the gaps", anything that has no good scientific explanation is described as an act of that god. When a good mechanism is found to explain the problem, a gap in our knowledge is closed, and this type of god loses some territory to science. This type of god is in direct conflict with science, because every scientific advance comes at the expense of some of that god's authority.

The error is in wanting to see the divine in things that, while not immediately obvious, are certainly testable by science once the experimental methods become advanced enough.

So, the "lightning happens because God throws lightning bolts" idea has been disproven. OK, then we had (and to some extent still have) the "God created the earth 6000 years ago". Well, scientific evidence points towards something more like 4.5 billion years. Then "God created the Big Bang". That's where we are now. If science finds a good model of some other structure that would have been the source of the Big Bang, then we'll simply move to claiming that God created that structure.

This "god of the gaps" is not the only possible view of God. For an alternative:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

Allow me to illustrate their methods. I gave a link to a site illustrating bad science which sometimes gets in textbooks. Well, here's a similar link:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_lerner1000.htm
This one's written by a creationist. He's right about some things about those moths and embryos. There really were flawed parts in there. However, he uses that as an argument to attack the teaching of evolution, by giving the impression that the flaws in those examples have a serious impact on the theory. Well, they don't. The original studies got some things wrong, but not in a way that contradicts evolution (and in the peppered moth case, not even in a way that seriously contradicts the conclusions of the peppered moths study itself). For a discussion of this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

Note that several scientists were quite upset about how their words were twisted and selectively quoted to support the creationist agenda.


Quotes from article in bold...

In the apt phrase of Berkely law professor Philip Johnson, Darwinism is the "creation story of scientific naturalism," the doctrine that everything can be explained by natural, material forces.

Bad description. First, it only describes biological evolution. The creation of the universe, for example, is not part of Darwinism. Also, the theory doesn't claim completeness, there still are gaps in our knowledge, especially about the early origins of life (single celled organisms that died more than a billion years ago usually don't leave much evidence).

Darwinism is also a somewhat ambiguous term for the modern theory of evolution, because it has several meanings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Some pontification by some well known atheists follows. Let's skip to the interesting stuff...

Karl Popper famously defined a scientific theory as one that can be falsified. When Einstein propounded his General Theory of Relativity, for instance, he made a series of bold predictions based on the theory.

By contrast, Darwinists proceed by assuming the truth of the theory and then seeking empirical support. Studies of the fossil record that fail to buttress the theory are deemed "failures" and never published. The search for Darwinian common "ancestors", according to Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History, proceeds on the assumption that those ancestors exist and then selecting the most likely candidates.

This is ignoring that, in several cases, missing links in the fossil record were identified, which later were found in sediments of the expected age. The theory may not be able to predict what humans will look like one million years from now (and if it could, it'd take too much time to verify), but it certainly has been able to make testable predictions about which fossils may still be out there.

The mechanism by which nature is alleged to have fashioned a single ancestor into both whales and man has never been observed.
...(example)... That’s a long way from creating new species.

Blantantly false claim. The formation of new species has been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Nor can Darwinists explain how complex systems, such as human sight, none of whose component parts would alone provide any advantage, could have come into being by a long series of micro-mutations.

Another false claim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
(the "argument from incredulity" link there offers an extra explanation of the god of the gaps).
For some specific research comparing the relevant cell types in different organisms:
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/pre...ss28oct04.html

The fossil record fails to provide evidence of the millions of transitional species that Darwin’s theory assumes to have existed.

A pattern emerges...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/arch...challenge.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


The argument that follows, about the origins of DNA, is correct to some extent. There are, indeed, several unknowns regarding the early lifeforms and their origin. We do have some parts of the puzzle, but not enough to get the whole picture. However, it then follows the same argument as before: we don't know, so therefore God did it.

Regarding randomness, this is often misunderstood. Take, for a simple example, a salt crystal. In such a crystal, you have large domains, which are highly ordered with specific atom types sitting in specific places in a rigid lattice. If you took the atoms from a single cristal, perhaps a cubic millimetre big, and put them at random points in space, what is the probability that they would form this crystal? So small that you might consider it nonexistent. Totally improbably. However, the crystal does exist. And it doesn't take much effort to make such crystals from a solution of the salt where those atoms are rather disordered. That's because of the charges and electronic structure on those atoms makes certain configurations preferred (more stable than other confgurations), and once a few of those atoms assemble in such a form, they can act as a nucleation core where more atoms can fit in stable positions, growing the lattice.



I'd also like to note that religion, in the form of creationism, is not alone in its attacks on evolution. Take, for example, the case of Stalin, who preferred Lamarckism (specifically Lysenkoism) for ideological reasons. The purge of a number of biologists that followed was bad news for Soviet agriculture.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html

So, you lean completely on the Judaic commentaries? And not on your own intelect, which I think is above average?

No, what is the answer? :hmm:

Well, it's a pretty old argument. If you want to know the details, you can read this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

I have to disagree strongly with those who think the USA is not becoming a theocracy.

When Bush,Cheney et all can't get through a simple conversation without evoking "God" and they seem to do it constantly...we have a problem.

When religious groups constantly try to get creationism into biology classes throughout the country...we have a problem.

When churches and priests have get out the vote drives...and they only support one political party...we have a problem.

When religious views are held as a litmus test in some political races...we have a problem.

When some countries view some of our foreign policy decisions as being based more on our President's religious views than on anything else...we have a problem.

In my 46 years I have NEVER seen Christianity or any other religion be this powerful politically before.

Welcome to the Theocratic States of America.

(And before anybody accuses me of being a liberal...I'm a moderate republican who thinks my party has been highjacked by the christian right.).

That's because you haven't lived more than 46 years.

If you think Bush is bad with the God references, which BTW he has the right to make, you should check out some of the things the founding fathers wrote, or try Lincoln:

From his 2nd Inaugral address:
.....Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that itthe judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said " With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

You don't have to go back to the founding fathers to find god references, just go back to the previous occupant.

Just a simple search for clinton speeches god and you'll get more than a few hits.

My favorite was

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...bingspeech.htm

To all my fellow Americans beyond this hall, I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life. Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness: Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind.¹ Justice will prevail.

Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear. When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us honor life. As St. Paul admonished us, Let us "not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."