The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Richard Dawkins Slaps Creationists into the Primordial Soup
entertainment.timesonline.co.u… — When Dawkins set out long ago to bring science to the masses, he says he was not consciously imitating Darwin, but had the same aims as him: “To be understood, to inspire.” In these times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on. His audience is relieved to see someone slapping creationists as well as explaining atheism positively.
MakiMaki- 1520 diggs
- digg it
- B3000, on 07/18/2008, -167/+35Dawkins is a self involved prick with a chip on his shoulder who is only about half as smart as he thinks he is.
(holds breath and awaits burial.)- macweirdo42, on 07/18/2008, -16/+87Sounds to me that you're just upset that, despite all that, he's still right.
- rock42, on 07/18/2008, -6/+24I know I would be pissed if I was in a creationist propaganda film.
- Evilena, on 07/19/2008, -14/+75You might be a fundamentalist if...
You call Richard Dawkins a liar, a moron, an idiot, an ***** and a coward, yet all you know about him is that he's an atheist.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Signs_You_re_a_Fu ...- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -1/+17So you're INSANE! LISTEN TO YOURSELF SPEAK!!!
Fundie sermons are scary as *****! - rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -3/+4ZeRux -- I dugg you up b/c I think you are the first one I've encountered who took responsibility for his values. I think that separates you from the pack and for the better.
- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -1/+17So you're INSANE! LISTEN TO YOURSELF SPEAK!!!
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -18/+46He's still twice as smart as any Christian...
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -14/+35He is ten times smarter than all christians put together
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -45/+5einstein might disagree.....
you can have faith without being stupid. - breadfred, on 07/19/2008, -3/+45Einstein did not believe in God. Check your facts.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -5/+21checked and noted. I was given some bad info :-p.
- JimmySpaza, on 07/19/2008, -21/+5Einstein believed in God in some form but not as Christians believe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein. ... - Ramble, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6No he didn't, he was an atheist.
- JimmySpaza, on 07/20/2008, -9/+1Einstein was not an atheist. He certainly didn't believe in God as most people do. But, he was NOT an atheist by definition. If anything, Einstein was an agnostic.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger - Archimboldo, on 07/20/2008, -8/+1"He's still twice as smart as any Christian..."
Like we've been saying all along, atheists are arrogant. Scientists are brilliant in a narrow area, but ones who claim to know about non-material things are also arrogant, taking their method far beyond what it is suited for (material things).
The fact that Atheists digg down Einstein's belief in some form of God without any refutation based on one narrowly excised quote, taking the quote out of context and ignoring a fairly large body of other statements - shows how their belief takes precedence over reason.
I have every confidence this will be dugg down solely because of angry beliefs, not facts.
For a very thorough dissection and demonstration of scientists' shaky ground when they go beyond the material, read "The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski, an agnostic (!) mathematician and physicist with no personal belief to defend. - Evilena, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3Dawkins is also an agnostic. He doesn't have proof that there is no god, he just finds it so unlikely that its not worth considering.
- Archimboldo, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1"Dawkins is also an agnostic. He doesn't have proof that there is no god, he just finds it so unlikely that its not worth considering."
Science has a habit of having to backtrack to reconsider things it didn't find "worth considering." It would be wise to have a little more humility, especially considering militant atheism's goal to eradicate the superstitious scourge of religion, which in their view has "caused much of the world's ill." Anybody remember the Enlightenment aka Age of Reason when the elite intellectuals wanted to eliminate by death the religious believers who stood in the way of enlightened progress?
Not without reason did the Greek gods find hubris the one inexcusable trait or that Genesis portrayed knowledge torn out of its primordial context as an impious transgression. Those driven solely by what they can exactly define and investigate by sequential reasoning eliminate 90% of life and make terrible blunders.
- atdigg, on 07/19/2008, -15/+40You sound bitter... looks like belief in God doesn't help that much....
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -11/+5oooooh.... I'm gonna use that.
- Wakkyweed, on 07/19/2008, -10/+25Dawkins may be a self involved prick with a chip on his shoulder, but unfortunately for you he probably is just as smart as he thinks he is. He is also right.
- horseradish2, on 07/19/2008, -31/+6Dawkins arrogance and explanations that extend the bounds of his research and credentials gives evolutionary biologists a bad name.
- brokenworlds, on 07/19/2008, -15/+5I reported you, Dawkins is the man
- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -0/+14Don't report someone for writing something negative about a controversial person.
That is EXACTLY what the fundie christians do. You just proved yourself no better than those you hate. - TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+9Seconded. Though I don't believe Dawkins to be self-involved, a jerk or to have a chip on his shoulder (if you're looking for those traits in a public atheist, try Christopher Hitchens), everyone is entitled to state their opinion that he is one.
- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -0/+14Don't report someone for writing something negative about a controversial person.
- mwmccullough, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6Hope you didn't have to hold your breath for too long.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4Just wanted to help save B3000 from passing out and turning blue.
- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -9/+3Dawkins is the Jesus of not believing in Jesus!
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6No, Dawkins is a Humanist.
Resist Christian Cultural Assimilation! Christmas and Easter began as Pagan celebrations! - bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5No *****, that's not a secret. Anyone who takes one second to think about Christmas and Easter will realize that there's something off about it's bizarre symbols. We put lights on a tree and then presents appear under it... WTF?
A giant rabbit comes along and delivers eggs and chocolate... WTF?
Christmas (as we know it) was actually invented in New York in the early 1800's by wealthy aristocrats as a way to curb the riotous mobs that would roam the streets, intoxicated and asking for more drinks, during Christmas. Christmas was celebrated then as we celebrate New Years now. People go to parties, get hammered, and make asses of themselves for laughs. Go read about it, I really don't feel like typing out the whole history here, also I'm a little unclear on some of the facts.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6No, Dawkins is a Humanist.
- TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12What? Hardly. He can be blunt and occasionally he is exasperated by some people's intellectual dishonesty or lack of critical reasoning skills, granted. With that said, he's hardly a prick. This would contrast with someone like Hitchens, who will go out of his way to be contrary and start tossing ad hominem attacks around (don't get me wrong, he can be an eloquent, witty bastard and a good read).
Don't get me wrong, there are atheists (as well as religious apologists of all stripes) who are total jerks. You just happened to pick one that isn't. - Krylez, on 07/19/2008, -9/+1You dare to anger his religiously fervent followers?
- macweirdo42, on 07/18/2008, -16/+87Sounds to me that you're just upset that, despite all that, he's still right.
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -43/+284Creationists believe in a Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Where is the problem?- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -13/+78I like that, I wish I'd written it.
- aladrin, on 07/19/2008, -7/+63He does, too.
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5I never claimed I did, but I could not find a direct source. anyways a lot of new people have been exposed to christian logic, my mission is accomplished.
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -17/+11More on zombie jeebus
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Jesus- DivisibleByZero, on 07/19/2008, -1/+12I dressed as Zombie Jesus once for Halloween. It was awesome.
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7“He died for your sins, now hes back for your brains!”
~ Noah on Zombie Jesus
LOL!
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -18/+6I personally worship mike christ
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Mike_Christ- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Mike Christ, (January 6AD - October 55AD), born Michael Alan Christ in Nazareth, Galilee - was a successful outdoor caterer and entrepreneur, best known for inventing the onion as a cheap filler for burgers and hot-dogs. Success followed his invention and in just six months he had expanded his catering business from one van outside the Nazareth branch of B&Q, to a chain of mobile restaurants all over northern Judea. While his competitors were still adding fistfuls of boiled grit to their burgers, Christ's famous eateries went from strength to strength, all to the sound of his popular catchphrase "Do you want onions with that?".
I am SO converting!
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Mike Christ, (January 6AD - October 55AD), born Michael Alan Christ in Nazareth, Galilee - was a successful outdoor caterer and entrepreneur, best known for inventing the onion as a cheap filler for burgers and hot-dogs. Success followed his invention and in just six months he had expanded his catering business from one van outside the Nazareth branch of B&Q, to a chain of mobile restaurants all over northern Judea. While his competitors were still adding fistfuls of boiled grit to their burgers, Christ's famous eateries went from strength to strength, all to the sound of his popular catchphrase "Do you want onions with that?".
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -16/+5I get it now! Thanks.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -17/+5I would be inclined to join the Catholic church if I could listen to Father Glick and follow Buddy Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Christ- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Dogma was such a triumphant movie.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2And right now, my digg meter on that comment is -11 -- lol.
- rocketz, on 07/19/2008, -14/+7geez that sounds like Scientology.... let me guess the volcanoes are full of those Jewish Zombies
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3wow the christian bury squad is out in Full force today...
- Evilena, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1The Jewish Zombies are here in South Florida living in retirement homes.
- OJXs, on 07/19/2008, -6/+25It's sad to see all the digg downs that your comment has
Sounds like some people are in denial about what their books say. - arjie, on 07/19/2008, -2/+33I don't see how you can disagree with that, man. It's got a rib-woman in it.
- jbetancourt, on 07/19/2008, -16/+5Brilliant! But not really about Creationist, more a caricature of exoteric Christianity?
- cowboy77061, on 07/19/2008, -2/+16sounds pretty accurate to me.
- Daz3, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Try mainstream Christianity - which spawned the psuedo-scientific discipline of creationism/ID.
- miskaone, on 07/19/2008, -46/+7And atheist believe that all religion is can be explained in blurb and totally dismissed. The cute summary you wrote of Christianity has more meaning than that as lessons moral guidance for a majority of the population. but your right its a simple story full of questionable facts.
The question I have do you really think that Darwin had it totally right. So you are propose to dismiss writings proceeded Darwin by 1800 years because they do not fit your logic. Consider this, 2000 years from now Darwin's theories will be considered arcane and simple as well.
Science and religion pursue the the same thing but bozo's like you want to blame Religion and promote Science as the answer to all mysteries of universe.
The problem as you state is if you can not get the message from the writings and you have to bash others for what they get from it then you have issues that you should look into. I would start with intolerance. Spend some time with some folks that need more than math to get by and then post your thoughts.- susilou, on 07/19/2008, -3/+41You're wrong. Science and religion do not pursue the same thing. Science and religion are at direct odds with each other. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't care what other people believed. Honestly, religion is one of the major things that holds science back in this country.
- ThugThrasher, on 07/19/2008, -3/+14Actually, you can be at direct odds (which isn't 100% the case for science and religion, just for SOME religions and SOME interpretations of religion and science) and still pursue the same thing.
Science and religion BOTH pursue the goal of understanding the truth of the universe.
They take COMPLETELY different paths to try and get there and, therefore, come to VERY different answers, thus why they end up at odds with each other. - miskaone, on 07/19/2008, -10/+3Ok what does science look for? what does religion do? Explain things we have little understanding of? The thing that hold science back in this country is money not religion. With money most barriers are overcome. Stem cell research is limited from the government, bans and lack of funding. If the a company really saw a great ROI from this research line in this country it could change the governments position with lobbying and private research. Again folks want to blame religion, another point, do you dismiss research done by hospitals like St.Jude? or should we insist they restructure and rename in the name of atheism because religion is bad and has no place in science. One other nugget, should we discount all Newtons Laws of physics because he was religious?
Religion and science are tools we humans use to satisfy that question of "Why".
"Honestly, religion is one of the major things that holds science back in this country. " that follows the same logic of guns kill, no the people who use guns kill. - Phyraxus, on 07/19/2008, -1/+28"Consider this, 2000 years from now Darwin's theories will be considered arcane and simple as well. "
It has been 150 years since he proposed evolution and mechanisms for it. We have come a long way since then, HIS ideas are arcane and simple, evolution is not. The existence of DNA was unknown to him, of course we would have advanced since then.
Science is the only thing to overturn older science. This is a good thing; it is its strength. - TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10@miskaone: "'Honestly, religion is one of the major things that holds science back in this country.' that [sic] follows the same logic of guns kill, no the people who use guns kill."
No, it doesn't. A large portion of the American religious do hold, by their religion--which directly motivates them--certain propositions which are contradicted by basic facts about the world. If it were not for this religion, the same group would not be attacking stem cell research, evolution, radioactive dating, and well, a host of other scientific concepts. This isn't to say that other groups might not hold back science (perhaps certain postmodern and anarchist thinkers), but to claim that religion doesn't hold back science in America (and many other parts of the world) seems simply disingenuous. - diceau, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Rock you at are English good be.
- TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4@miskaone:
"And atheist [sic] believe that all religion is can [sic] be explained in [sic] blurb and totally dismissed."
Hardly, it's a collection of complicated social phenomena. Perhaps some atheists feel that way, but that certainly isn't representative of atheists as a whole.
"The question I have [sic] do you really think that Darwin had it totally right.[sic]"
He had the basic idea, but there are many details that we're still filling in.
"So you are propose [sic] to dismiss writings [sic] proceeded Darwin by 1800 years because they do not fit your logic."
Well, many of their propositions aren't logical, but the reason for dismissing them involves other factors, such as the historicity of the events contained in the documents themselves as well as other truth claims that the writings make.
"Consider this, 2000 years from now Darwin's theories will be considered arcane and simple as well."
That's beside the point. We can't simply ignore our current best knowledge about the world because we will know more later. That doesn't make sense at all. - Daz3, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3"proceeded Darwin by 1800 years because they do not fit your logic."
Logic is not subjective *****-face. - susilou, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3@ Miskaone "Religion and science are tools we humans use to satisfy that question of "Why".
Religion does not try to answer why, it uses fairy tales to explain things that we did not have the scientific research to explain.
"Honestly, religion is one of the major things that holds science back in this country. " that follows the same logic of guns kill, no the people who use guns kill."
This doesn't make sense. I don't really know how to respond to that except I guess you could have substituted that with any cliche statement...why didn't you use "the same logic as you can't teach an old dog new tricks"?
@ Thug Thrasher, "Science and religion BOTH pursue the goal of understanding the truth of the universe.
This is simply wrong. Science pursues understanding the truth. Religion simply states that things are because a book says so. Truth is the enemy of religion. If people applied scientific method to understanding religion, there would be too many holes that are unanswered. Some people do apply the scientific method to religion, they're atheists. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3"The question I have do you really think that Darwin had it totally right."
The answer: No, he did not have it *totally* right, but in general he was pretty close. We've had 150 years since Darwin in which to refine his theories, find more evidence, and better understand the how's and why's of evolution in general.
- Plotinus, on 07/19/2008, -5/+42@miskaone: I'm going to assume that English is not your first language or that you are dyslexic and respond to your points.
I can't actually respond to your first point, it was so poorly worded that it is unintelligible.
Scientists do not think that Darwin had it totally correct, rather they believe that it is the best explanation at the moment *based* on evidence and observation. It will, as our knowledge increases, be improved. Further it is also possible that with new evidence that evolution may be junked. Can you imagine *any* religious person changing their mind based on anything as mundane as evidence? That's not what 'faith' is about.
Science and religion do *not* pursue the same thing and ad hominem attacks ("bozo") show your argument up for what it is.
Atheists, and Dawkins, are trying to defend themselves and knowledge against the ignorance of superstition. I also ask which religion you are a member of, and why is it superior to any of the other superstitions?
I hope for your enlightenment, and will gladly debate any point you care to make with the proviso that you not stoop to childish name calling.
By the way, I've read the Koran, the Bible (several versions) and Darwin. Have you? - CLAWC, on 07/19/2008, -30/+3And YOU believe a speck of an organism turned into a sea sponge then a fish, then a bug, then a bird, then a monkey, then humans? What's next? What happened to all the creatures in between? Or do you believe in the OTHER theory of "a gigantic explosion occurred 50 trillion years ago & made the ENTIRE PERFECT universe as it is"?
- AllyOfReason, on 07/19/2008, -1/+21And YOU believe that we magically appeared into existence...
- iXam, on 07/19/2008, -5/+3The universe was not created for us. We are created for the universe and thus it seems "perfect".
- layzice, on 07/19/2008, -1/+19Entire PERFECT universe? By what standard are you measuring perfection?
- Doomxeen, on 07/19/2008, -0/+16Can I get me some of that perfect universe?
- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -1/+18LOL, this guy's classic. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the universe is by any means "perfect". We are adjusted to our surroundings, not the other way around. If you studied cladistics, by the way, you'd notice that birds and primates are on separate clades (that is, they branched out into separate organisms a long, long time ago). Please, please, educate yourself. If you're not going to run your brain, don't run your mouth.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Anyone want to use my lunchbox? He's not a believer, he's a troll.
- Phyraxus, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6Wolfgun87, nice points. I'm sure none of us have heard the arguments from personal incredulity and god of the gaps.
- kayala, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2That "strong force", sweetheart, is called magnetism. It's the same "strong force" that allows you to do neat little party tricks where you have one magnet on top of the table and one magnet below the table, and you move the one under the table so it looks like the one on top of the table is moving of its own volition. I wish you were a little more educated in chemistry, because you'd realize how silly your argument sounds. I also pity the "God" you claim holds together every single atom in the universe at once; that must be a hell of a job!
Gravity, from Wikipedia:
"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other,[1] and is one of the fundamental forces of physics. In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency that gives objects weight." ... "The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this attraction. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other."
No need for a "God" in there. Try again!
- Tanze, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1hmm... this sounds strangely familiar, a motivational pic perhaps?
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3It's a lot older than that.
- jockser, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8Hmmm, that makes sense!
I must admit I know nothing of this religion you are talking about but what you wrote here, now I understand everything! Praise the zombie-Jew ! - 5159, on 07/19/2008, -4/+0Funny. But some of us have read the demotivational poster you stole that from.
Now, here's my prediction. I will be dugg down for this. Why?- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6Funny, and some of us have read that passage that the demotivational poster creator stole it from, too.
The poster was hardly original. - 5159, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Well, here I stand corrected. And naked!!!!
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6Funny, and some of us have read that passage that the demotivational poster creator stole it from, too.
- EmperorAwesome, on 07/19/2008, -9/+2And Richard Dawkins believes that Charles Darwin was an atheist.
- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7I don't think any of us would deny that the religious can and do contribute to science, and throughout history have contributed to science. Naturally, they viewed things through a slightly different lens than we did, and a lot of their ideas needed some smoothing around the edges, but their ideas were basically correct, because they set out to learn how our world works. Do, however, keep in mind that those historical scientists tended to be Christian because the alternative was exile or death and they'd been raised to believe in that superstition; a few bucked it off, but given the time period, it would have been unrealistic to expect all those scientists to be atheists.
- Kidtuf, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13Way to attempt to perpetuate a rumor. Dawkins has said many times over that Darwin was a deist. That is NOT a theist nor an atheist.
You're an idiot. - bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6@kayala
Yup, we'd be pretty ***** without the advancements made by the Islamic faith. - kayala, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the Muslims contributed a damn lot; algebra is a good example.
- bjornski, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3@Kayala
Nope, no sarcasm. They've added great things to the book of knowledge. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4@bjornski
Just something to remember about that - the advancements made by the Islamic faith that you speak of were made during a time when the Islamic world was not nearly so fundamentalist as it is now, and conversely, the rest of the world was very fundamentalist Christian. We called these times the Dark Ages. The Islamic world is currently experiencing a Dark Age of their own, and if the trend towards religious fundamentalism in the US continues, we may slide back into one ourselves. At least western Europe is ahead of the curve.
Also, the advancements made by the religious are made in SPITE of their religious beliefs, not because of them. Regardless of their religions, I think it would be fair to call them scientists of their times.
- mikedoth, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Christian ...
- nicejai, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8... who then sent himself to earth to kill himself and resurrect himself to save us from... himself.
- SuperWinner, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5saved from what? taxes??
- Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1LOL, that is so ***** true
"I will send down my son, who happens to be me, and sacrifice him to prevent all of you from going to the hell that I would have sent you to, if I didn't kill myself!"
- drkroman9, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3i just found myself a new away message
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -13/+78I like that, I wish I'd written it.
- ieee, on 07/19/2008, -33/+8I haven't bothered to read Dawkins as I have been an atheist since studying philosophy in college. Being in a time crunch, I didn't see the utility of reading Dawkins, fun as it may be, when I am already an atheist.
So, for the folks who have read Dawkins or watched his youtube videos. Does he teach people critical thinking or the scientific method? If not, he should. Otherwise he is just trimming the branches off the tree instead of getting to the root of the problem.- macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -2/+32You really should read Dawkins - he doesn't just write about atheism. He has also written some very fascinating books on evolution. In fact, he's the one who coined the term "meme," and thus has, in some small way, contributed to how we talk about the Internet.
- orenshk, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3The scientific method is implicit in everything he writes. I disagree that he should make it explicit though. That is the task of science methodology courses in first year universities (or good high schools). Dawkins' aim is to promote public understanding of, or popularize, science.
- ieee, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1orenshkorenshk, you are talking of "should be"s. I'm talking about "not happening"s. That is why I think it would be useful if Dawkins did teach the scientific method explicitly, because very few if any people are teaching it. There are a lot of smart and open minded people who are ignorant of it. Teaching people how to think with the scientific method might alleviate other problems too.
- ieee, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1orenshkorenshk, you are talking of "should be"s. I'm talking about "not happening"s. That is why I think it would be useful if Dawkins did teach the scientific method explicitly, because very few if any people are teaching it. There are a lot of smart and open minded people who are ignorant of it. Teaching people how to think with the scientific method might alleviate other problems too.
- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -3/+5You're just as bad as the Christians who don't read the bible. If you're going to believe in something whole heartedly, it would be nice if you also wanted to learn as much about what you believed as possible.
The Christians that don't read the bible are the worst, you can tell them anything is in it and they'll believe it with passion.- JoeVet, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9"If you're going to believe in something whole heartedly, it would be nice if you also wanted to learn as much about what you believed as possible."
Atheism is not believing. That is the whole point. - freakygeeky, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4"Atheism is not believing. That is the whole point."
Atheism is not believing in god, which is not the same as believing in nothing. - ieee, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2bluezinc;
I wrote that I became an atheist in college after studying philosophy. That means I already have a quality education about the issues involved afforded to me by years of study. As good as Dawkin's book could be, it can't top that.
I would enjoy reading Dawkins' book, but it doesn't make sense to me to read about something I have already covered in a better way and take time away from other useful things in my life I haven't worked on.
Does that make sense? - TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1That makes perfect sense, ieee. Speaking as someone who completed a large part of a philosophy (phil/neuropsych) degree (before switching to a different program), I doubt that you'd see too many new arguments related to atheism coming from Dawkins; though you might want to check out memetics when you have a chance. Harris likewise sums up many basic points eloquently, but doesn't introduce much new material, aside from the idea of treating spirituality like a science. If you're looking for some new talking points, maybe check into Victor Stenger. Depending on your physics background, you may find something new there.
- bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1ieee:
Your position makes sense, but I don't agree with your sentiment of, "I already believe this thing to be true, so why do I need to read more about it?"
Even the foremost expert in the world on the 7th vertebrae of the pterodactyl will still read up on it if new material is released.
All I'm saying is, don't dismiss it as though it were a means to convert believers into non-believers. It's not a recruitment manual. - ieee, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2bluezinc;
Unless some deity pays me a personal visit and comes up with a good argument for convincing me that I am not hallucinating her presence I will be an atheist for the rest of my life, no matter what.
So, given that, a list of 30 books I want to read, a career I want to improve, a workout routine, loads of un movies, dating, friends, family etc something GOOD of QUALITY has to get pushed out of the list of priorities. - ieee, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1TheMonikerTheMoniker;
Thanks for the tips. I took a similar path you did. My philosophy department also had a strong philosophy of science influence and I migrated out of a master's program into computer science. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3@ieee
Don't forget, that deity would also have to demonstrate by some measure that it's omnipotence was not the result of sufficiently advanced technology. I'm not entirely certain how that could be accomplished, but a truly omnipotent being could figure out a way, I'm sure.
- JoeVet, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9"If you're going to believe in something whole heartedly, it would be nice if you also wanted to learn as much about what you believed as possible."
- homercles337, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2Critical of the scientific method? You idiot philosophers really trouble me.
- TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I think that you misread, "critical thinking or the scientific method."
- ieee, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Wow. I got dug down 15 times for asking a question. I didn't even insult anyone. Don't people here understand having a busy life and having to choose between quality uses of your time? What gives?
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Because you admitted you know nothing about him, and then explain that you saw no utility in reading his views.
You don't know if there was utility in reading his views until you actually READ some of his views.
That's why you earned my -1, anyway. - ieee, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1bjornski, check out my reasons in this subthread.
I mean no offense when I write this, but may I suggest that you slow your conclusion making down in the future? By thinking more before you come to conclusions you will be off the mark less. Especially when making conclusions about people's motivations and values more thought before the conclusion might lead to more happiness for you then quickly brushing people aside.
I realize this is a short attention spanned medium, so my guess is that you are likely a thoughtful guy in real life. - Evilena, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Don't take being Dugg down too personally. I understand what you mean. I enjoyed The God Delusion but I didn't learn anything new from it. There are lots of books on subjects that I already agree with that I have never read. Get the audiobook version. He reads it himself and makes it sound like a lecture.
I rarely have time to just read, but when I am working at my computer I almost always have an audio book playing.
You can read the first chapter for free on his website.
http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion - ieee, on 07/20/2008, -1/+0Awesome tip!
I hear you about reading. Reading was a major use of my time as a child. I love it and feel weird not doing it. I make time for it, but during the week that is often 30 - 60 min at the end of my day when I am tired and my eyes are watering.
I used to use digg.com a lot and before that slashdot. I'm acquainted with the cranky / itchy trigger finger mentality enough to not take it personally. I was literally curious as I did not see a slam in what I wrote or anything that could be twisted into a put down.
Everywhere else in the world asking people questions about something they are interested in is usually well received.
The webb, particularly digg, is a medium that encourages crankiness and short attention spans though. I've made my share of dumb comments.
I'm sure if I met some of these people in real life we would have fun talking.
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Because you admitted you know nothing about him, and then explain that you saw no utility in reading his views.
- unitedatheism, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Dawkins write great things not related to atheism, but skepticism or philosophy, or some other thing which is likely close to the atheist way of thinking, and it's such a joy to read it, but you don't have to read it to be atheist.
Reading Dawkins is not gonna make you more or less atheist, but I guess most of atheists will agree on things he say about other things besides that and often they never thought about. Not because he said, but because reason matches with it.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 07/19/2008, -48/+4God spoke to me,"Good News" then I received a Good News Bible. I don't claim to be the only being who knows God exists.
- BeefBaron, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7It's not news when millenia have past.
Look to the future my ignorant friend. - duckyinc, on 07/19/2008, -0/+14Are you sure it wasn't pizza hut?
- kmesp86, on 07/19/2008, -11/+2Digg hates Christians. :)
- sb66, on 07/19/2008, -0/+18Digg likes reason and rationality.
- Lyk4n, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Yay reason!
- sb66, on 07/19/2008, -0/+18Digg likes reason and rationality.
- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+8Good news! I created you and I love you, and if you don't obey me when I prohibit X, Y and Z, I'll throw you into a fiery pit of torture for all eternity... but I love you!
- BeefBaron, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7It's not news when millenia have past.
- Maevirko69, on 07/19/2008, -18/+1JOHN TITOR WAS RIGHT
- Wakkyweed, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10Buried simply for making me do a Google search on John Titor.
- bumcheekcity, on 07/19/2008, -20/+92He's an amazing man. Science doesn't have all the answers, but religion has far less. Want to build a car? Do you pray for god to deliver the plans for you, no. You go to university, study the properties of metals and lubricants, physics and chemistry, research aerodynamics and study previous cars, successes and failures, and base your new car on all that research.
Want to build a bridge? Want to perform brain surgery? Want to make a new Games console, design a house, design a bin, play on your TV, do some computer programming, make a website like Digg?
Well, I think I've made my point. Science, which is almost by definition making predictions and learning based on analysing evidence and observation, has given society so many answers that religion and spirituality falls spectacularly by the wayside as a mantra to live by. Science has given us machines, boats, airports, cars, mass production, houses, better materials, and everything that you use on a daily basis. Science has helped the advance of medicine, surgery, use of drugs to combat disease. Nobody prays when they seriously want an answer. They use science.- Barbarino, on 07/19/2008, -50/+1That could be the dumbest post ever on digg....
Praying for car parts? Are you serious? I'm going to say you are about 14 years old. How close am I?- bumcheekcity, on 07/19/2008, -0/+75 too few.
- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11Since you seem to need to have things spelled out for you, he's saying that religion doesn't have a whole lot of practical applications, since it's based on a single book that focuses more on subjective moral teachings than, say, teaching people how to build a car or a bridge, or perform brain surgery. For those pursuits, one must turn to science, which is far broader in its scope and can provide those answers.
- TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+11Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
- jbetancourt, on 07/19/2008, -30/+1Yup, you build that car, but after a period of time you won't be happy with that car, so you build a better one. But, that one is no good later, some big company has a better one, so you have to get that one. You condemn yourself to a Sisyphean labor and pursuit.
Science has not filled a void that many people have and that also leads to the misuse of science, viz., war toys, ecological suicide, un-medicine, etc. I'm reminded of a story, probably false, that the scientists working on atomic energy were not sure if the first fission experiment would destroy the universe, but they went along with it anyway. In short, where is the moral imperative in science? Monkeys are curious too.
- Lyk4n, on 07/19/2008, -0/+15Try Buddhism, less people will get murdered..
- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+11Science does not need a moral imperative on its own; that's why we have ethics. I am disappointed that you're still parroting the claim that people would not be moral without religion. You need only see an atheist open the door for a lady, or pick up a piece of trash off the ground and put it in a trash can, or break up a fight, to see that atheists find perfectly good reasons to behave like decent human beings without the mandate of a scary man in the sky. (Are you talking about the hadron collider? Because various safety inspections were undertaken, and committee after committee of scientists declared it safe. The speculation that it would destroy the world was a result of panicky laymen who didn't understand the underlying science.)
- TheMoniker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5@kayala: Right on!
Also, he wasn't talking about the LHC, there was some talk when they were developing the first atomic bomb that it might do bad things, like destroy our atmosphere, etc.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -22/+1I don't actually know of anyone that prays to get their car fixed. I don't think you've made your point at all. That may have been the most nonsensical thing I have read in a long time.
- FreakyT, on 07/19/2008, -0/+18The car was just an illustrative device, the idea being to point out that religion in and of itself cannot provide *tangible* benefits, whereas science can.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4the car was an illustrative device used to try and make modern day christians seem primitive and idiotic. Almost nobody refuses the tangible benefits of science because they believe in God.
- waspbr, on 07/19/2008, -23/+3why is he amazing? I am not religious or anything, but WTF do some people keep worshiping dawkins? To me he is not a man of science, but a media person. He picked a controversial topic and decided to advocate for the other extreme. He's just benefiting from the media attention by selling books telling how stupid the other side of the argument is.
Has he investigated a law? solved any scientific problems or established a new mathematical theorem. He simply coined a term "memes" and didn't even bother to explain the mechanics of it. This was done later on by some dude in the US who has no relation at all with Dawkins (look it up).
Sorry for the runt, but I work in a university lab and I am sick and tired of those media types that haven't done one bit of scientific work and give out interviews to people as if they are the new Einstein cos they have a big mouth.The people that are really amazing cannot be bothered with petty arguments and the media attention crap.- thesonofdarwin, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11You might sound like less of an ass if you looked into his biography before assuming he was Joe Nobody high school graduate before turning media whore. It would take at most a third of the time it took you to construct your post.
- TitoJackson, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11Wow. You just really have no idea what Dr. Dawkins has accomplished do you? Probably more uncomfortable is the extremely visceral reaction to someone of which you know so little and a topic of which you understand even less. That level of unwarranted callousness may be a sign of intense cognitive dissonance. You may want to reexamine your belief system or core values.
- waspbr, on 07/19/2008, -6/+2So dawkins is not capitalizing from all this controversy at all? I've read then "God Delusion" and I suggest you read is too, his arguments are hollow and subjective, he elevates himself to the status of the avatar of the scientific community. He is for all intensive purposes more of a politician then a scientist.
I am a PHD student in aerodynamics and continuum physics and there even in the university I go, there are people like that. I know Dawkins biography and it is not impressive at all. Once you work with people with multiple post-doctoral degrees in real scientific areas you start to see how much hot gas is spewed around by people like dawkins.
Ethology itself is not as objective and scientific as you may think, he is more of a biological anthropologist or behaviourist so to speak.
Nobody voted him to be the speaker of the scientific community. - thesonofdarwin, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2You're right, nobody did and he isn't saying they elected him as the speaker. You could make the same argument about any public speaker anywhere. He is but one voice.
I've read his all his books, and as a medical student with a degree in Biochemistry (focus animal behavior) I think I've a fair to moderate grasp on the biological science he brings up. I've ran across a few points that I didn't fully agree upon, but he isn't creating fact. He uses reviewed research to state fact, and is obvious in the parts where it is his opinion.
And who said he isn't capitalizing? Who ISN'T capitalizing when it involves controversial topics? That doesn't make what he says any less true, though. And if he were like a politician, we need hundreds more like him who will follow logic and reason above all else rather than prancing around superstition like it holds the same ground.
Your comment on "real scientific areas" speaks volumes of your bias within our community...
- miskaone, on 07/19/2008, -15/+1When you loose someone you love do you goto school to study the mechanics of grief?
When you struggle with weakness and distructive behavoirs of drug abuse do ask the doctors for a fix it medication?
When you need emotional relief because your children die before you from illness do refer to a detailed matrix of death statistics to reassure to that its normal?
It would be great if we all worked from a the same formula, and that could be defined in science. But what shape would humanity take then?- covertbadger, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10You're not making any sense. Drug addiction has fairly simple chemical explanations, and mourning is a result of our evolution as tribal creatures. All the things you list CAN be defined in science, and the shape humanity would take is therefore the one it HAS taken.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+12Miskaone, if you turn to religion to address grief, dealing with substance abuse, or illness, you are just relying on DENIAL to deal with difficult emotional conditions. While that is one stage of grief, there are many more, and all of them are scientifically documented. We have proven solutions for helping people through those difficult times that do NOT rely on mythology, but PSYCHOLOGY...which, as you may be aware, is a science too.
Don't confuse mythology (traditionally created by men to control women) with the real human needs for social interaction with others, a foundation of moral behavior which defines right and wrong (all are based on the golden rule, and we all know the difference as part of our genetic human makeup), or the real human need to feel part of something greater than our individual selves.
You can have all of these things just by being a living human being. All religions are just man-made stories meant to answer these questions in ways that we have long since come to find are as antiquated and trite as Zeus' lightning bolts. - otros, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2If I loose someone loved, I just get a better grip.
In all seriousness, No, yes, and no. But I do not turn to god either, much likely I'd turn to a psychologist or a psychiatrist.
- skankyBacon, on 07/19/2008, -12/+1The only thing I don't like about Dawkins is his condescension and arrogance. He says his goal is "To be understood, to inspire." Wow, pretty profound. And yet, "I don’t like giving [creationists] the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity."
Does he have a point? Of course. But how are you going to "inspire" someone you have judged to be a lesser being, not even worthy to breathe the same air as you? I saw him on TV once, and he was describing a group of some religious people (I can't remember what religion or where they were walking) the same way someone on Animal Planet would describe a colony of ants. He seems to truly feel that he is superior in every way. Also, he refused to allow the possibility of anything good coming out of any religion, not even religious contributions to art, music, etc. Nor the millions of *reasonable* religious people out there.
I think he'd get a lot more people listening if he'd acknowledge their inherent value as a human being.- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7You'd have a good point, if the proponents of "creationism" weren't utterly ignorant self-serving, wealth agenda aggrandizing morons. 8P
Dawkins isn't badgering the common religious ignorant citizen. He knows that true change, knowledge, and enlightenment filters down from the educated and enlightened. He's addressing them.
I hope he shames every person of intelligence to see the wisdom of discarding the religious ignorance and zealotry of the ancient world in favor of a more humanist and sustainable belief in ourselves and our REAL place in the universe. - kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+9You misunderstand his statement. What he's saying there is he doesn't want to debate creationists, because in a debate, both sides are given equal weight and credibility. This is a false comparison between real science and religion in a cheap tux; they do not have equal weight and credibility in any other arena, so it would be dishonest to cast creationism as somehow worthy of attention as a scientific theory. His statement is about creationism itself, not the people (except maybe for Ken Ham. He deserves to be deprived of oxygen) who hold the silly belief. It would be like proposing a debate between a chemist and an alchemist; one is science and one is pseudoscience, and we don't give alchemy the time of day because it has no scientific backing. See how that works?
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7You'd have a good point, if the proponents of "creationism" weren't utterly ignorant self-serving, wealth agenda aggrandizing morons. 8P
- Barbarino, on 07/19/2008, -50/+1That could be the dumbest post ever on digg....
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -40/+35I'm not so sure exactly how evolution disproves the existence of a supreme being. I'm christian and I certainly believe in evolution. I just don't see how its such a stretch to assume that evolution was God's doing, if you're a religious person. Because the bible doesnt lay it out literally? The Bible isn't meant to be literally translated in alot of places, and I think Genesis is one of them.
I don't understand why so many evolutionists are hell bent on building themselves up by calling christians stupid or ignorant. Why wouldn't you instead want to teach them, and be respectful of what they think and how they were raised. I understand being hostile towards the christians that say you will burn in hell for what you believe, but alot of us are entirely accepting (and personally I even agree with you).
Seriously, so many of you think that just because someone believes in a creator and you believe in scientific theories, you're automatically smarter than them? How arrogant and ridiculous is that.- macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -7/+42Nobody's arguing that evolution disproves the existence of a supreme being. That's your first mistake. Secondly, why do you think they're hell-bent on calling Christians stupid? It's because the vast majority of Christians have decided to reject science in favor of some 2,000-year-old book. It's not merely the belief in a supreme being, it's what that belief entails - and for many Christians, that belief entails rejecting, and outright suppressing science because it disputes their claims.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -11/+6what vast majority are you talking about. Of my predominantly christian circle of friends, i know one that goes the whole "dinosaurs are a hoax to test our faith, sun revolves around earth" thing.
Christians are hardly out suppressing science. Just the ones that make the news (a minority) are. - noumuon, on 07/19/2008, -8/+4the vast majority of christians reject science? i do believe you are quite off on that claim. i've only ever personally met one christian in my entire life who actually rejects the science of evolution, and my entire family, aside from myself and a small handful of others, is religious. hell, my grandfather is hell bent on aliens and roswell being an actual government cover up. if aliens don't go against fundamentalist dogma, i don't know what else would. are there christians who do reject science? of course... is it the vast or even a slight majority? no.
- melat0nin, on 07/19/2008, -5/+5You should look into the research that the Catholic church does in science, particularly astronomy (see the Vatican Observatory on Mt. Graham, Arizona).
- macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -1/+14Okay, I might have exaggerated a bit - the number's closer to like 50%. However, that's still enough for Creationists to be a powerful force in this country. And regarding Catholicism - I know, and I think the Catholic church's stance on science is cool - unfortunately, though, and please don't take this the wrong way, I know of many Catholics who aren't even aware of what their church teaches on the subject of evolution.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -10/+3the number is nowhere close to 50%. You at this point are pulling statistics out of your ass.
- macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -0/+18No I'm not - I'm rather insulted, actually. A recent Gallup poll showed that 44% of Americans believe that "God created humans in their present form."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creatio ... - AllyOfReason, on 07/19/2008, -0/+12Religious individuals don't outright deny scientific findings, they just cherry pick those that fit their needs.
Take the big bang for example, Christians claim it's direct proof for the book of Genesis. Yet the same science that was able to unravel the mystery of our cosmos' origin finds no evidence that god exists. - wexmajor, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4Dugg down for "vast majority". Fundies piss me off as much as anyone but they in no way comprise the "vast majority" of Christians.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2The step away from reading the Bible literally (to the extent anyone can read any historical document 'literally') is to step into the realm of Humanism and away from Christianity. "Christians" may accept the Reformation based idea of being able to interpret the Bible for themselves, but Martin Luther wasn't arguing for cherry picking from different parts of the Bible.
In that respect, Humanism accepts what Religion cannot, and AllyOfReason said it best. "Religious individuals don't outright deny scientific findings, they just cherry pick those that fit their needs." The amazing thing (in the context of this thread) is that Neuroscientists are finding that this cherry-picking phenomena (not just religious ones, but all humans) is biologically based in our brains, ie., human nature. http://digg.com/general_sciences/Why_We_re_All_Mor ...
I'd argue that the Abrahamic religions, in the end, reject cherry-picking from the Bible and see such behavior (on one issue or another -- see how this works) as worthy of damnation; followers who want to be with the majority of people who believe in religion but reject it's inhumane directives are, well, being hypocritical.
Humanism accepts it's not necessarily bad to cherry pick, we're human; accept it, identify such behaviors in yourself, work on it when it's dysfunctional (like driving you to want to harm another) and try to live the best life you can.
The premise of Christianity, when it comes to any sin, including hypocrisy, is that God had to engage in the sacrifice of his child in order to save us from the consequences of Eve eating from "The Tree of Knowledge." I refuse to accept a faith that expects me to appreciate such "Good News." - Aikidi, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Alot of the issues that people not raised in the faith have with understanding christianity is misinterpreting some of the more complex points of the Bible.
Alot of the Bible isn't to be taken literally, which some could consider "cherry picking" i suppose. God was Jesus though, so he didn't really sacrifice his son in the same sense as anyone else could, he sacrificed himself symbolically. To show his love for us he did the time-period equivalent of taking a bullet.
Thats the point of that whole thing.
And to macweirdo, if you think the majority of atheists arent trying to make christians look stupid, Read the rest of these comments. All I did was state that my belief on a subject that can't be physically proven one way or another, and look how many times i was called an idiot for what i believe. Look how many times me and fellow christians had our educations called into question simply for a belief system we share. I still graduated top 10% from college in the top 90% of all three of my SAT Subject Tests, but I'm still clearly an idiot for being religious.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -11/+6what vast majority are you talking about. Of my predominantly christian circle of friends, i know one that goes the whole "dinosaurs are a hoax to test our faith, sun revolves around earth" thing.
- bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -11/+41Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a supreme being at all. Pure common sense does it all by itself.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -13/+8how? if you want to drop a one liner like that you should be prepared to back it up. whats to stop someone from saying "evolution was god's plan"
- ruddy, on 07/19/2008, -14/+4not really. pure common sense says everything created has a creator, so there's probably something out there that's pretty "god like". I'm an agnostic, i don't believe in jesus or allah, but there has to be SOMETHING out there that's supreme, or at least more supreme than us. And the fact that the point is debatable, why would you write the "pure common sense" clause? You sound like a troll to me...
but there could be a spawn point out there that we all popped out of... now THATS common sense. - bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -2/+16Easy. Where is God? I don't see him. What's he made of? Who made him? What proof is there that he is any more than just a sick idea in someone's head????? There is none.
That's how. If in millions of years and billions upon billions of people, nobody has any evidence at all, then what am I supposed to think with my logical mind? Throw on some Christians or Muslims or whatever, that claim God did this and God said that, and now you're really out there a long ways. - macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12My reasoning is thus - there's no way to know whether or not God exists, much less which God is the correct one. As such, there's no point in worrying about it. Oh sure, you could talk about getting into heaven and whatnot, but that only works if I worship the right god or gods. As I cannot know which god or gods to worship, there is no point in wasting time wondering whether or not God actually exists.
- crunchyeyeball, on 07/19/2008, -0/+15Personally, I think Epicurius (341-270 BC) gave the best argument against the existence of God (at least against the Christian/Jewish/Muslim version):
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurius (341-270 BC) - Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -15/+2God works in mysterious ways.
That is really the only answer our faith gives us. See the silver lining and all of that.
If there was no evil because god actively prevented it, there would be no free will.
Because men are inherently evil, and God grants men free will, there is evil in the world. - AllyOfReason, on 07/19/2008, -0/+11I love how Aikidi makes a claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up yet expects everybody else to disprove it.
Did you know that the real god is a giant flying spaghetti monster? He even told me that he created other religions just to mislead people and those that discovered him were the ones who will be accepted into the big buffet in the sky. You can't disprove it so I guarantee I am right.
Makes me laugh until I realize he is for real. This is the kind of person that keeps our species in the dark ages. - kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6I'm not impressed with the two religious arguments on this thread.
ruddy: "pure common sense says everything created has a creator, so there's probably something out there that's pretty "god like"."
Everything created has a creator... so where is this "god like" creature's creator?
Aikidi: "God works in mysterious ways."
Biggest cop-out ever. "God" certainly does have mysterious ways, what with allowing for rape, murder, genocide, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, littering, fascism, and Ken Ham to storm unchecked throughout our world. I hear a lot of "Look at how beautiful the world is! God must have done it!", but they don't take into account, say, the young men over in Iraq dying for Emperor Bush; did "God" want them to die? Why did "God" find it acceptable to destroy their families with such a tragedy? What about the mine collapse or the bridge collapse from last year? Did those men and women deserve to die? Did those families deserve to endure that tragedy? I am not impressed with a "God" whose plan involves ruining families and ruining lives and gives no satisfactory explanation. "God works in mysterious ways" my ass. - andyeinstein, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7If god's ways are so mysterious then how do you know he is not preventing evil for the sake of free will? You can't tell us god is unknowable in one breath, and then explain his motivations in the next.
- DulcetTone, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10re: "God works in mysterious ways"
What a great excuse not to seek truths and simply to accept someone else's dusty fabrication. - Evilena, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7I don't know about all supreme beings, but this logic disproves the Christian God
Could God have forgiven our sins without sacrificing his son? If not, God is not all powerful. If so, the death of Jesus has no significance. - rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3I can never understand why people think that the free will argument proves god works in mysterious ways and we should just accept that -- "If god's ways are so mysterious then how do you know he is not preventing evil for the sake of free will?"
If God comes to me and says "I can in, my omnipotence and omniscience, stop all the violations of my Ten Commandments and the words of My Son, and bring the peace you, my creations, have failed to create. Will you trade your free will for that?" I will say YES! YES YES YES YES!
I will trade my free will so no child ever, ever again has to lose a parent or their lives in a war -- especially wars fought by followers of religions of "Peace" (yes, I'm talking about Christianity and Islam).
But god, in his mysterious ways, does not allow me to have free will regarding giving up my free will in exchange for him making this planet more, well, godly.
I'm glad crunchyeyeball brought Epicurus to the thread. If god is going to claim I have free will and that's why there is evil, but not allow me to give up free will so he can eliminate evil, I'll take damnation and reject his choice to rule "in mysterious ways." - kayala, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Evilena, see, "God" is vengeful and shallow. He's kind of like a jealous, possessive girlfriend: "If you love me, you'll do it!"
- Evilena, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4He sure acts like a jealous, possessive girlfriend when he finds out you have been worshipping another god behind his back.
I love how when I asked them this question, one guy said that my mind is so different from God that its not worth trying to understand. Yet God has human emotions like jealousy, anger, and love.
another one gave me this pearl of wisdom
"Are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I never said HE can't exist in the presence of sin I said SIN can't exist in his presence. "
Morons - Gods chosen people - Evilena, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4At least these people are a constant source of free entertainment. Just when I thought I had heard it all someone thinks I need an exorcism.
http://digg.com/politics/California_State_Universi ...
- Barbarino, on 07/19/2008, -14/+6I agree. When RD was asked about who created earth etc he had no answer. Where science ends faith takes over. I for one believe in evolution, yet I'm Catholic, I can be both. I believe in science and I believe that science was created by God.
- Shaqueefa, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Notice how as time goes on, it takes a lot more "distance" for science to "end", leaving less for faith to take over. A reasonable, but un-provable conclusion would be that given enough time, science will explain all, making faith useless.
Than again, science could keep explaining but never reach a full explanation of everything. The limit as time approaches infinity of sciences ability to explain is "everything", but "everything" may be an asymptote.
- Shaqueefa, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Notice how as time goes on, it takes a lot more "distance" for science to "end", leaving less for faith to take over. A reasonable, but un-provable conclusion would be that given enough time, science will explain all, making faith useless.
- tommymctom, on 07/19/2008, -2/+9Read Sam Harris' "End of faith"
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Sam Harris rocks.
- rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I looked that up thanks to your post. I'm going to read that. Thanks.
- crocodilexp, on 07/19/2008, -2/+19Evolutionists are hell bent on calling Christians ignorant because most of the latter stick to silly parts of dogma even when confronted by exceedingly strong scientific evidence.
As science advances, religion inevitably retreats -- many phenomena that once were mystical and explained as a will of God now have more mundane explanations. Of course, there will always be scope for religion, as the amount of things we don't know stays roughly infinite even as our scientific knowledge grows.
Kudos on having a good sense to retreat to a safe distance when confronted by scientific evidence. Only with your attitude it's possible to be sane & remain religious and not to quickly veer off into the nutcase land.- ThugThrasher, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3It's not necessarily retreating to a safe distance when confronted by scientific evidence. It's saying "If the evidence says this is true, then I'm going to believe it because the people who developed this religion did not have advanced enough science to know exactly what was going on in their world. Now we know better." It's the same thing most scientists do when confronted with evidence that counteracts their understanding of the universe. It's not retreating, it's learning and adapting your beliefs (both scientific and religious).
- bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Really?
Which parts of the Bible have been changed due to scientific discoveries? - rearlgrant, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Thug -- Good point. You've hit on the theme of one of my favorite books "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
- crocodilexp, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Thung, I do agree with you here -- learning and adapting beliefs in face of new evidence is the only reasonable way. However, majority of strongly religious people do have considerable trouble doing exactly this.
This is why I used the term "retreating" (as in, trying to hold out as long as possible, and then giving in late, if ever) instead of "adapting beliefs" -- it would be great if majority of religious people were doing the latter.
This applies to Christians and Muslims, at least -- Buddhists don't seem to cling to much of anything too strongly (as this is one of the percepts of their faith).
- DivisibleByZero, on 07/19/2008, -0/+9The controversy over evolution didn't have anything to do with it outright disproving religions. It doesn't.
However, it does contradict a literal interpretation of the bible where God took 6 days to make the world from scratch. Evolution says that it took millions of years and God didn't have a very direct role in it.
Now, lots of Christians will argue that evolution was just part of God's plans--like he seeded the universe in such a way that it would inevitably evolve life as we know it. That's fine, but since the key point of evolution is an organisms choice of who to reproduce with, you're walking a thin line near saying that there's no free will. If there was, we could have evolved into three legged green things. So if God really wanted to design us "in his own image", he would have had to control some breeding (or have a very broad impressionist artistic style...)- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2see, thats more literal interpretation that can be argued though. I don't believe "in his image" means we physically look like god, I don't believe god is a tangible being so how can he look like anything? I believe in his image referred to the moral/ethical teachings.
And alot of that is tricky. Evolution wasn't exactly a choice of free will though (from what I remember from Bio AP). Natural selection seems more of a game of russian roulette that lasted billions of years (and is still going) compared to choosing how you'd end up.
But i appreciate actually being able to discuss these things without being called a tard or a redneck or a crazy christian right-ist - noumuon, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3interesting reply but evolution has very little to do with the subject of free will. if an organism really had a choice of who to reproduce with, i'm somewhat certain there we be instances of inter-species children running around. so again, we're "free" to choose who we reproduce with under some strict (when you consider the abundant variety of life) guidelines.
- covertbadger, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4"if an organism really had a choice of who to reproduce with, i'm somewhat certain there we be instances of inter-species children running around."
Uh, you do realise that the very definition of 'species' refers to the ability for two individuals to have fertile offspring? Interspecies breeding, where possible, results in sterile offspring and is thus an evolutionary dead end. - kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Aikidi, you're thinking too far ahead. Evolution absolutely depends on who chooses to breed with whom. Sexual fitness is an extremely important factor here; the bull moose who impregnates the most cows will have the most genetically similar progeny, thus carrying along his genes. "Natural selection" isn't exactly a force, but rather an effect, in that sense. What we need to remember here is that selective pressures are the driving force of evolution; "natural selection" is simply what happens when the less sexually fit are unable to pass along their genes.
- noumuon, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1"Interspecies breeding, where possible, results in sterile offspring and is thus an evolutionary dead end."
and thus it doesn't really have much freedom of choice... does it.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2see, thats more literal interpretation that can be argued though. I don't believe "in his image" means we physically look like god, I don't believe god is a tangible being so how can he look like anything? I believe in his image referred to the moral/ethical teachings.
- appleseed1234, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10Because using science and history (both of which are able to provide answers where Christianity doesn't), it becomes quite obvious that, like other dead religions, the god you and I think of was made up by a few old men thousands of years ago.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13"I'm not so sure exactly how evolution disproves the existence of a supreme being."
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God, so it doesn't.
The bible, however, contradicts the theory of evolution.
And science and logic contradict the existence of God.- noumuon, on 07/19/2008, -6/+3"And science and logic contradict the existence of God." science has nothing to do with the existence of god, nor does logic contradict the existence of god. if you mean to say that science and logic disprove the bible as being a factual book, then yes... i agree. otherwise you are rather misinformed about science and what you can and cannot logically conclude.
- Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -3/+4The bible if you interpret it literally contradicts the theory of evolution. Which honestly, is a mistake.
And what specific line of logic are you using to contradict the existence of God? - AchaIemoipas, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8"otherwise you are rather misinformed about science and what you can and cannot logically conclude."
Belief without proof is a logical fallacy. Concluding that god or anything else exists without having any argument to reach that conclusion, is called insanity.
"And what specific line of logic are you using to contradict the existence of God?"
Not a single definition of God can survive a logical examination. The only one that can is a god that is the product, not the creator of the universe and has absolutely no effect on our lives or on any other physical aspect of the Universe.
God the creator implies:
A thinking being that existed before there was anything to think about.
Complexity before simplicity.
As for any other property he might have, making the argument that they exist first requires the demonstration of god's existence.
Simply put, you have absolutely no reason to believe a god exists and everytime you try to define him, you characterize him with impossibility.
You cannot make a valid argument for the existence of God. - noumuon, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1@AchaIemoipas
"Belief without proof is a logical fallacy."
I like this quote, let's stick with it.
"A thinking being that existed before there was anything to think about.
Complexity before simplicity."
you make the presumption that there is definitely no structure outside of our specific universe. this very *type* of presumption is the fallacy that leads one to conclude that science can make statements about a god and that god is not logical.
you use logic make a statement or statements about something derived from an initial framework. you use science to take these statements and test them against observable things.
first, take the case of a structure inside of our universe: a black hole. from a given framework logical deductions and operations are made to come up with the conclusion that within a given system, black holes can exist. so you've logically made a statement about something. you then take science, a method of validation of logical statements with experimentation, and you test it out. when you observe enough phenomenon that coincides with black holes, you say "black holes almost definitely exist," up until the point where the evidence is so conclusive, you actually state "black holes exist." this is how logic and science work.
secondly, let's look at a hypothetical structure within our universe. given another framework, you can logically conclude that a type of structure exists and has physical effects or properties within our universe. it is logically valide, because that's what logic is... it's the method of making statements that are valid within a system. it follows the same form as mathematics. there is a framework, a set of axioms, a theory, etc. and then logic creates theorems or predicts physical structures. now, the logical structure that was predicted is then put up to the scientific method. in this case, however, where and how this physical structure was said to exist simply does not hold up to observation and experimentation. science can then say that this is most likely false.
now, take the case of a hypothetical structure outside of our universe. using our mathematical understanding of topological structures, you could construct a logical framework which gives rise to a conclusion that our universe is the structure within a larger cosmological system. logically, you can make this statement. when science, however, comes in, there is no experimental or observational data to coincide. this is where you, and many other people, get confused on what the outcome is. without observation or data, you can not say that there is likely a factual existence to this framework, BUT you also cannot logically say that it is false, since there simply is no data and no means to experiment and the entire concept was produced using logic.
this comes to the idea of god. many, if not most of all religious myths and fables have no truth or factual existence behind them, as most are given setting within this universe and can comparatively, logically, or experimentally shown to be impossible, or even almost entirely implausible. the concept of god, however, is one that science and logic cannot go against. you can give a framework for logic to produce a creator of our universe. in fact, i can make a simple statement right now that would give everything in our universe a creator: we exist in a computational simulation of another reality. does this simplify things? no. does that mean it is false? no. can science make any stance, what-so-ever, about whether or not reality exists in a computer? no. is it logically possible? yes. this is the key point of the entire thing, something can be logically possible and concluded and yet science can either agree, disagree, or have nothing to say about it at all.
a thing people seem to not be able to get past, is the most common, religion dictated concepts of god. this is usually a personal god, and it is a lot easier to be able to demonstrate and give argument against a personal god, as it would have a potential affect on physical reality that could be measurable and can be proven against. things get more difficult on your side when god is detached and non-personal with no affects on physical reality. this is where logic can be on its side, yet science has nothing to say about it.
please don't get your hangups with christianity, islam, hinduism, judaism or any other organized religion involved with things that are seemingly beyond your grasp and understanding, as you do these things a great injustice.
simply put, you have absolutely no reason to believe science and logic contradict the existence of god. you cannot make a valid argument for their doing so either.
- chaiwalla, on 07/19/2008, -1/+14Read The God Delusion. Dawkins explains this clearly. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It also does not disprove the existence of fairies, the Easter Bunny or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With evolution, there is no need for a myth to explain the origins of life.
- Epik, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5Why do you believe in a creator? That's why I hate you idiots. You have no reason to. Yet you convince yourselves it's rational to say you believe.
Do you mean you hope? I could understand that.- straightpath, on 07/19/2008, -4/+1Sir or madam, so it is logic you want, so as to see not all who differ are idiots? So be it. Do you believe in the wind? You cannot see it, yet it moves the trees, and one feels it on their skin. It moves sail boats across the sea. I believe in God, as I have seen His actions in the lives of myself and others, doing great works of healing and love. Choosing to NOT BELIEVE is an Even Greater act of faith don't you see. You choose to believe that all this complexity of energy, and matter, and life, all of it came together in some great cosmic accident. A trillion times a trillion times a trillion to the trillionth power would not even begin to describe the probability that my writing this response to you is an accident, don't you see how illogical that is? Occam's razor, that key idea in scientific thought states "the simplest explaination is the correct one." In this case, the simplest explaination is a creator. C'mon, lets use logic again. If I am right, and you believe, what happens when you die? You believe in Jesus and you go to heaven. If there is no Jesus as you believe, then you just cease to exist. However if there is a God, and you don't believe, you will not be with Him when you die. Now, take your idea, No GOD. You just die. IF there is no God, you cease to exist. But if there is a God, you missed out on a great chance, now haven't you. God is the author of intelligence, love, and light. On the other side is darkness and perversion. Now is the chance for you, and all others reading this, to choose the light, and say, "I will follow Jesus." It is reasonable and logical. Do not believe the lies and diversions.
- chaiwalla, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Who ever said that all of existence is an accident? Dawkins never did. I wouldn't believe it. I have never heard a rational person explain life on earth as an accident. That is too improbable. However, the existence of God is just as unlikely. There is a rational explanation. Evolution. Now, that makes sense.
- TheCasablancan, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7@straightpath
You can measure the wind. Meteorologists do it all the time. How do you measure God? Tell me, and I'll do it. Whoever told you that the universe is an accident is 1 of 3 things. Ignorant (Which can be fixed), Stupid (which cannot be fixed), or lying (which implies corruption in your teachers).
You seem to not really understand exactly how large the universe is. Does it not make sense that in the quintillions, trillions, and millions of stars, that some might have planets? That some might have planets that could sustain life? That some of could be in a good temperature range for life to exist? That life has survived? That there is at least 1 viable planet with advanced life in the universe?
What you are implying is like flipping a coin a billion times, and it never landing on heads.
I want you to reread what you wrote:
"C'mon, lets use logic again. If I am right, and you believe, what happens when you die? You believe in Jesus and you go to heaven. If there is no Jesus as you believe, then you just cease to exist. However if there is a God, and you don't believe, you will not be with Him when you die. Now, take your idea, No GOD. You just die. IF there is no God, you cease to exist. But if there is a God, you missed out on a great chance, now haven't you. God is the author of intelligence, love, and light. On the other side is darkness and perversion. Now is the chance for you, and all others reading this, to choose the light, and say, "I will follow Jesus." It is reasonable and logical. Do not believe the lies and diversions."
Fear. You fear death, and that is the only reason you believe in God.
If He does exist, you are unworthy of His love and light, because you are nothing more than a child who is afraid of the dark.
- JayKeaton, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4From what you have written Aik is sounds like a lot of your questions could be answered by Dawkin's books themselves. I don't know what your agenda was with your post, but it sounds like you would find Dawkin's work very interesting and enlightening.
- Aikidi, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3I'll look into them. I only had the agenda of trying to defend my faith. I'm not trying to save anyone or change anyones mind, other thatn the preconceieved notion that because I am religious, I am inherently a moron.
I don't see how believing in God is any more silly than believing in True Love really. - rearlgrant, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Honest question -- not snark.
When you say God, what about those with a belief in Zeus, Bal, Ra, Chac-mool or the Flying Spaghetti monster?
- Aikidi, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3I'll look into them. I only had the agenda of trying to defend my faith. I'm not trying to save anyone or change anyones mind, other thatn the preconceieved notion that because I am religious, I am inherently a moron.
- cliffzdude, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Replying in a thread such as this one as Pro "Anything Religious" is like putting your hand on a hot stove.
But what the hell...
I believe in Evolution. I believe in the power of human will. I believe our life is our own choosing. I am not in any way fatalistic. Huh? Given the comments on this thread I must be Atheist, right?
Nope.
I believe in God. I also believe that just as in governments, friendships, social groups, and societies, Religion is full of people. People generally f**k things up, given the chance.
Extremists make any group look bad. Be they Peta nuts, Muslim Terrorist, or Evangelical Jesus Crispies who interpret a poetic book literally. The Christian bible, specifically the new testament has great life lessons. Taken as they were meant, as a group of stories and parables that teach us to love, and forgive, and be faithful.
I can't deny the Televangelists of the world are messed up, if there is Satan on earth he'd use Televangelists to move a society away from God. Well done ass hats (Televangelits, that is).
I do wish most would realize that are more like me around you just like me; educated, tolerant, peace loving people who you live with, work with, and basically don't know what they "believe" because we will not interrupt your life to preach to you. If you come to me asking, I'll share, but that's about it.
The hatred that one sees from Evangelical (so-called) Christians has created blow back, and its seen clearly here on Digg.
Belief in god equals not nuttiness, patent literal biblical belief, and the rest.
/rant- Risingashes, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3It doesn't equal nuttiness- but it is 'faith' which by definition is belief without proof.
The majority of nonbelievers wouldn't claim that God doesn't exist- because the entire point is that there are questions that are unknowable at this time (and possibly for all time). However the chance that the metaphysical world (if one exists) even partially reflects any religion, past or present, would be purely based on chance.
Why would you base your beliefs on the word of another person just because that person or group of people have been dead for a few thousand years? Would you believe someone talked to God today? Would you follow the new will of God or would you try to get the whackjob committed?
- Risingashes, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3It doesn't equal nuttiness- but it is 'faith' which by definition is belief without proof.
- straightpath, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1I believe in natural selection. We see it in plants, in breeding horses and cows. Yet, I haven't seen too may new life forms evolve lately by themselves. (Perhaps they are including genetic engineering?) Darwin believed in a Creator, read the Origin of Species, and the Descent of Man. Only NeoDarwinists do not, and have an unmitigated belief that defies logic in spontaneous evolution from nonorganic materials. There is NO proof of that, and NO experimentation that has ever substantiated that idea. Thus, in scientific terms of hypothesis testing, that hypothesis looks to be dead. Yet, it has lives in intellectual circles. For Darwin wrote that moral character is greater than intellectual ability. Current intellectuals have blind intellectual activity ahead of moral direction. To acknowledge Darwin's ideas on this, as well as those of most great scientist up to the mid 19th century would change the power structure of current academic thought, in which religion and God is ridiculed as an ACT OF FAITH. Perhaps its is time for each person to do some original reading, and bring facts up to the experts who are trying to generate a new reality. If only a few brilliant people became more open, perhaps a new enlightenment could begin.
- rearlgrant, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1"Current intellectuals have blind intellectual activity ahead of moral direction." There is a lot to that, and in general I agree with your statement.
Something about the water in this post-modern age... Adam Smith writes two books, the first on the morality required for a moral free market, and the second about creating a free market. Republicans, claiming to have the moral high ground, generally only quote a single sentence of the second book. A governing majority drinks the kool-aid.
In the other direction, the decomposition and specialization of arts and scientific knowledge that began with the Enlightenment seems to focus attention on achievement in a discipline absent social context. Thousands of brilliant graduates, in their field, go out into the world without any clue of a concept of audience beyond their own research -- I have to slap it into them nearly every day, and I don't find it fun.
Sadly, the best soliloquy I've heard in popular culture about this dynamic is by Picard to Wesley in a bad Star Trek Next Generation Episode, so quoting that doesn't even help, b/c the episode is bad... (which I can't find my notes on... my bad.)
- rearlgrant, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1"Current intellectuals have blind intellectual activity ahead of moral direction." There is a lot to that, and in general I agree with your statement.
- macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -7/+42Nobody's arguing that evolution disproves the existence of a supreme being. That's your first mistake. Secondly, why do you think they're hell-bent on calling Christians stupid? It's because the vast majority of Christians have decided to reject science in favor of some 2,000-year-old book. It's not merely the belief in a supreme being, it's what that belief entails - and for many Christians, that belief entails rejecting, and outright suppressing science because it disputes their claims.
- rocketz, on 07/19/2008, -32/+5Can anybody please explain to me how the Big Bang theory and the Law of Entropy can exist in the same universe?
Its the easy part not believing in god... Whats more difficult is to explain the universe. You have two very solid scientific theories (BIG BANG and ENTROPY) and they cannot exist in the same universe. If you can say that yes they can exist in the same universe then a christian can claim Jesus walked on water. Or a muslim can claim that Muhammed did whatever it is that he did now which was supposedly magical or krishna did what he did or the flying spaggeti monster did actually appear- bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -1/+18Science doesn't claim to explain the universe. That is only a goal that science works toward. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't work towards anything - it assumes it knows the answers already.
- rocketz, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2True and thanks for replying. I believe in multiverses and somewehere there is another me that doesnt
- lazyrussian, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13Now, why do you think the Big Bang Theory & Entropy can't co-exist?
The thing is they both do, well at least Entropy has been proven time and again to be present a statistical quantity.
You make a claim, and then two strange analogies, and then that's it.
Please reply with more info. - noumuon, on 07/19/2008, -0/+9i'm not understanding the inability for the big bang and the tendency for entropy to increase in a closed system to be incompatible. in case you are unfamiliar with either... the idea that entropy increases means a system will move from an ordered state to a less ordered system in equilibrium. the big bang states that the universe began as ordered as it could possibly be... a tiny tiny possibly infinite small and infinitely dense point of matter. if anything the idea of the big bang lies 100% with the idea of entropy increasing.
- kleptomaniac, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11People smarter than you or I have thought of this, and have apparently found an answer good enough for them.
- Lyk4n, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Thermodynamics according to Isaiah
The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26, describing Heaven: Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, Heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the Earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty-nine) times as much as the Earth does from the sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the moon is 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stephan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation, we have (H/E)4 = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the Earth, 300 K (27 C). This gives H, the absolute temperature of Heaven, as 798 K (525 C)! (For old-fashioned Americans, that's close to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Your kitchen oven won't get nearly that hot.)
The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed. However, Revelation 21:8 says: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. A lake of molten brimstone (or sulfur) means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6 C (above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake). We have, then, that Heaven, at 525 C, is hotter than Hell, at less than 445 C.
So who says that the Bible has no accurate and useful scientific data? - JigoroKano, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Do you mean the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?
The singularity would have been a state of very low entropy of course.
What's the contradiction you perceive?
Oh, that's right, you don't know what you are talking about.- rocketz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-sci-carro ...
- JigoroKano, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2You should reread that article more carefully. There is no contradiction between the 2nd Law and the Big Bang. Carroll never says any such thing.
What Carroll correctly says is that low entropy states are rare. A singularity, all by itself and without an exterior like a black hole, would be an incredibly low entropy state. The natural question arises, why or how did the universe begin in such an incredibly low entropy state?
Carroll then appeals to far fetched ideas like multiverses... all unjustified stabs in the dark and not something that should really be taken seriously until the ideas latch hold of something concrete.
The basic intuition is correct though. There should be a good reason that the universe began in a low entropy state and finding that reason is a worthwhile pursuit.
- kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3I fear you do not understand the concept of entropy. Please return to your chemistry and physics textbooks before posting again.
- bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -1/+18Science doesn't claim to explain the universe. That is only a goal that science works toward. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't work towards anything - it assumes it knows the answers already.
- VarelseSoul, on 07/19/2008, -23/+11What's the big deal about letting people believe what they want to believe when spirituality is involved?
- BradOFarrell, on 07/19/2008, -5/+29Because then they elect Bush.
- denizen42, on 07/19/2008, -2/+7In truth, he represents the opposite of christian values. Those who elect him on such a basis are either clueless or hypocrites.
- waydee, on 07/19/2008, -5/+27That's fine, it's when these beliefs start getting in the way of the advancement of our species, provoke war and generally make life that little bit more difficult for those who choose not to subscribe to them - that's the problem.
- DivisibleByZero, on 07/19/2008, -5/+2Provoking war? I thought our cars were fueled by oil, not jesus...
- JigoroKano, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Ultimately, but Jesus versus Mohammed becomes a useful diversion.
- bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -2/+37The big deal is that those people get together and then want to do things like make our laws and define our societies based on their religious beliefs.
- VarelseSoul, on 07/19/2008, -10/+3I honestly have a hard time seeing a difference in this and the Christians converting the south Africans to Christianity in the 1800s. People should have their religions and act on their beliefs, it's not anyone else's place to change that.
- chaiwalla, on 07/19/2008, -2/+13We have to let them believe what they want. We do not, however, have to agree with them, nor even be sensitive to their being offended by what is actually the case. God is pretend. You keep believing if you like.
- Lyk4n, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Because they burn people at the sta
- BradOFarrell, on 07/19/2008, -5/+29Because then they elect Bush.
