What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
644 Comments
- kinseyincanada, on 03/26/2009, -20/+210i dont care if your an atheist, christian, muslim or whatever as long as you are a decent human being it is all that matters.
- veriix, on 03/26/2009, -36/+188God this place needs an atheist section...
- Nicoon, on 03/26/2009, -19/+168It's right there in the menu: "Science".
- cobbs, on 03/26/2009, -13/+132If God is God then no, he doesn't learn.
I think you meant to refer to those who believe in God and not God himself... - sdizier, on 03/26/2009, -9/+89Just because we don't have an answer does not mean that by default God is the answer.
- Scopitone, on 03/26/2009, -3/+55Dammit, I thought that was a grizzly bear fighting a great white shark in the preview pic and got WAY too excited.
- JanTik, on 03/26/2009, -12/+63The question is not valid, because it assumes that God is like us. It implies that God has a brain that reasons, remembers, and solves problems in roughly the same way as us.
But if God has indeed created the entire universe (including us), then he must different from us, because none of us has anything even remotely like this capability to create something out of nothing. (Unless you take art as the equivalent of God's ability to create - which is a whole new debate.)
The better question (which is hardly new) is to ask if God exists.
But there is also a problem with this question. Why? Because, science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its domain is that portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Science simply does not deal with the paranormal, so by definition it can make no such statement (although individual scientists sometimes seem to ignore this).
One could ask this from a philosophical perspective, but then one has to admit one fundamental possibility – that God might have created the universe in such a way that it would be impossible to prove his existence.
This is indeed also the message of the Bible, and the position of most theologians. In other words: It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God has made it so that we have to choose what we believe – or not – without the benefit to first determine the answer scientifically.
Of course, from a philosophical perspective, this in not that much different from what we believe about science – if science can indeed be adequately distinguished from non-science. In the end, we simply have to believe that reality as we know it actually exists, or our whole argument is toast.
To sum it up: Science and religion is not all that different: Both have underlying assumptions (beliefs) that have to be accepted, or the whole argument becomes meaningless.
If it is impossible to decide the matter through human reasoning alone, the real question therefore becomes: Is there anyway that we could ask God (if he really exists, and if he even cares about us) to give us the truth about this perplexing problem.
Some would claim he already did. - doublsh0t, on 03/26/2009, -11/+54Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended--or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie? - David Hume
- wristpull, on 03/26/2009, -16/+58Ah, yes. Calling a belief system superstitious rubbish is bound to get you converts.
Listen. There is no reason atheists and Christians cannot get along. I say Christians specifically, because they're the only theists who ever seem to be attacked by these kinds of stories.
I say there is no reason we can't get along. This is because I believe both groups to be fundamentally interested in the same thing - explaining the universe around them. You will have scientific atheists claiming that Christianity is only interested in an antiquated and inaccurate version of the Truth, while science promotes an ever-changing, ever-growing Truth.
This is interesting because it is built on false assumptions.
We've all seen the Creation Museum dross that crops up from time to time. And I tell you, as a Christian, that there are very few of my kind ignorant to give attention and trust to that sort of thing. Science tells us that fire is the result of an enthalpy reaction. Christians are not inclined to disagree based on some presumed inherent hatred of the truth - Christians are inclined to agree. They simply believe that there is something that pulls the strings /behind/ the enthalpy change.
There are laws that govern the universe. Science can agree to this. Christians can agree to this. Our physical experience is full of interesting events that we cannot always readily explain. But, once you get an explanation, a scientifically-supported answer, you're still left with the question behind the question - Gravity pulls things down. Why? Because of mass. But why? Because, says the atheist, that's the way it is. Because, says the Christian, God made it that way.
This idea that there are fundamentally two different types of people - the Enlightened and the Ignorant, is exactly the kind of dichotomy that atheists rail against - when they are the ones called Ignorant. Imagine the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists, calling for the damnation of others because they have not accepted the Prince of Peace into their lives.
That is madness.
Consider, however, those who call for the marginalization of people who choose to believe that a God works behind the immediacy we are presented with day to day. Of course it is offensive and stupid to claim that non-Christians are somehow foolish for their beliefs. But it is equally offensive and stupid to claim that being a Christian somehow naturally acts as an indication of Ignorance.
I posit instead that there is only one true measure of which admittedly artificial, arbitrary category (Enlightenment or Ignorance) one fits in - and it isn't based on faith or science. It's based on willingness to discount the whole of another person's ideas, values, and merits solely because of which answer they choose when presented with the question of why things don't fall up. - inhaler, on 03/26/2009, -3/+43I hope you're being sarcastic, if not..
Assume that every life on spaceship earth has only one incarnation: that when it dies that's it. Fin. Nothing deserves to suffer if it's only got one shot at existence. You could say, "well, what's the point, if it's just going to die anyhow," - but it's really the experience of life, no matter how finite or inconsequential that is important.
Besides, biological immortality isn't impossible. In which case, if we're all hanging around for an undetermined amount of time, we might as well be nice to one another. - kurttrail, on 03/26/2009, -5/+44"God this place needs an atheist section..."
Is "God" Kevin Rose's new nickname around here? - inactive, on 03/26/2009, -24/+60God can never be proved or disproved. Let it go, people. If geniuses like Plato and Homer can't figure it out, YOU certainly can't. Let it go. There are atheists AND Christians that are smarter than ALL of the diggers here combined. Just find something ELSE to centralize on, you morons. Stop having circular arguments.
- soccernamlak, on 03/26/2009, -1/+32It's easier to call people out on their faults than to examine our own sometimes...
- BevansDesign, on 03/26/2009, -19/+48I'm comfy with the idea of Rectal-Dwelling Ass Pixies existing. Why? Simple reason: it gives me something to believe in.
...
Why do you need something to believe in? What's wrong with reality? - Warll, on 03/26/2009, -1/+28By fast you mean eleven hours after it was submitted?
- Syric, on 03/26/2009, -3/+28Utilitarianism. Rational self-interest. Because it makes us happy.
Because there's no life after death, and this earthly life is all we've got. So make it a good one.
Does that satisfy you? - johnsmaa, on 03/26/2009, -8/+32If there is a God, he created us to ask these sorts of questions. If not, there are still far worse things to have faith in than God (lenders, politicians, economists, clergy, pundits, well...any mortal really).
- Killphibian, on 03/26/2009, -3/+26One of the most hilarious things about that argument that not everyone realizes is that the banana has been domesticated through selective breeding for thousands of years to get where it is today. Wild bananas are roundish and have huge seeds. That guy's(forgive me for not remembering his name) "proof of God" is man-made. It's great that creationists are willing to put so much critical thinking and scientific discourse into their arguments. It really makes me want to listen to them. /s
- inactive, on 03/26/2009, -13/+36Atheism is not faith-based. Atheism is saying we don't have all the answers. Face it, we humans have a deep-rooted fear of uncertainty. The three most terrifying words ever uttered by Man are "I don't know." We simply can't live in a world beyond human control, beyond human understanding. This is why we invent gods. It's no different than how we go around saying that everything causes cancer - we can't stand the notion that sometimes cancer just happens, so we have to have a a reason, and a reason that we can control. Same with mothers who claim that vaccines gave their children autism - no one can accept that autism just happens, there has to be a reason that is within our control.
Once you realize that simple fact, suddenly you understand the vast mountains of ***** there are out there. - spriggig, on 03/26/2009, -8/+31Hmmmm, I count no fewer than seven local TV channels with Christians beating their drums 24/7 and not a single atheist channel on my TV. In an eight mile drive to work every morning, I pass three churches with signs displaying the "word" of the day. The money in my pocket says "In God We Trust", my kids pledge allegiance in a public school to a nation "under God". I have people on my door step at least once a month asking me to go to their church. As you know I could go on and on...
Give it a rest? You first. - browwiw, on 03/26/2009, -5/+25The unexamined life is not worth living.
- shcforward, on 03/26/2009, -13/+33If he is implying that theological or philosophical theories about a certain monotheistic religion or entity don't evolve, then he is being pretty silly. Just because some things (science) change faster than others (religion) doesn't mean that no change ever happened. Even dogmas change. We don't burn witches in America so much anymore, for example.
Also, his brilliant dilemma (where did God come from) misses a kind of obvious point. The whole all-powerful, magic, supernatural nature of the God-entity-thing is a little bit different from the nature of a bunch of rocks. If I ask, "how did those rocks get there?" I expect a physical answer (e.g., someone threw them at me for not being atheist). If I ask "how did that all-powerful, magic, supernatural being get there?" Well...you get the point. Rocks have to follow rules. Ideas don't. - prrp, on 03/26/2009, -53/+73EVERYTHING will eventually lead back to a presupposition. EVERYTHING is faith-based.
The atheist will argue "the universe is eternal", while the theist will argue "God is the only eternal thing."
The atheist will then say "Where did God come from?" and the theist will respond "God didn't need a beginning."
The atheist says "That's impossible / circular / contradictory," then the theist will reply "It can't be circular when an all-powerful God can do nothing BUT be transcendent of logic -- after all logic is finite and impossible to capture something that is infinite."
Me? I'm a Christian. Digg me down already! - inactive, on 03/26/2009, -2/+21When God answers "Why?" the answer he gives is always "because I said so."
- browwiw, on 03/26/2009, -5/+24Except by math and peer review.
- Gallowspoling, on 03/26/2009, -3/+22The point of doing anything decent or moral would be that those actions are inherently worth doing. Being "moral" only because you believe some god commands it and saying that people would not act morally if there was no God is like obeying the law only because you know your being watched by a surveillence camera. It isn't true morality if your only doing it because your afraid someone will punish you if you don't. Personally, I feel that morality is its own reward and that doing things that aid others and prevent suffering should be done for their own sake, not because some mystical being is offering you the carrot(heaven) or the stick(hell). I honestly believe that adult morality is more complex and robust than only existing because some being is watching us to make sure we do as were told.
- inactive, on 03/26/2009, -3/+21No one can honestly absolutely deny the possibility of the existence of some deity. The real difference between atheism and agnosticism is that agnostics claim both hypotheses hold equal weight, whereas atheists argue that the complete lack of evidence suggests that the possibility that God does not exist is much more likely.
- inactive, on 03/26/2009, -3/+20Concrete facts to refute the existence of the Christian deity as outlined in the Bible include the fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, but rather 4.5 billion years old; the fact that "heaven and earth" were not created at the same time, as the Bible states, but rather that the universe's age is approximately 13.7 billion years old, while the Earth's is only 4.5 billion; and the fact that the Sun predates the Earth, while the Biblical account states that the Earth was created before "light" and heavenly bodies (sun, moon, etc) were put into place. That's without observing that the Christian Bible contradicts itself various times from the very first page of the text, the first time offering two different and very contradictory accounts of creation.
Now, by all means, please start your waffling. Say that you didn't mean "God" as in the deity described literally by the Bible; the Bible is meant to be taken metaphorically since it's full of lies when taken literally, and that isn't good enough evidence to prove that it's worthless and should be thrown out. Say that you don't mean "God" as in the Christian deity at all, but rather as some sort of vague spiritual presence beyond our understanding, something completely undefined and therefore out of the reach of skepticism and criticism. In other words, declare defeat. - Denominator88, on 03/26/2009, -3/+19Humans will murder in the name of anything.
- evil-doer, on 03/26/2009, -4/+19i see so many religious morons say this. are you really that horrible of a person that the only reason you do good is because youre scared of going to hell?
- fathermarlow, on 03/26/2009, -5/+20You forgot the /s
- D3PyroGS, on 03/26/2009, -4/+19Ouch, nice one. Are we Christians burning witches, too?
- prrp, on 03/26/2009, -0/+14@Gallow, mac:
See, the whole anti-intellectual perception of Christianity one of my biggest beefs with the way people view Christianity. Admittedly, you're right about a majority of non-thinking Christians... and, to be complete, most other people in the world period.
The question of atheism vs. theism is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. No matter what, there will always be an underlying question of whether or not there was a First Mover. Either there was, which is substantiated by the evidence of existence, or there wasn't, which is substantiated by the evidence of .... well, existence that presupposes that there is no cause for anything.
As far as being anti-evidential, I don't ever stop at "God did it, look no further." A lot of people think Christians are anti-intellectual - but on the contrary, even though God is the underlying thing, He acts all through mechanism. Half of the fun in life is figuring out things - science - that's why I'm IN a science based field. I never stop at something and say, "this isn't able to be figured out, this is just God." However, I DO say, "wow, I wonder how God made this work!"
I honestly have no clue the exact way the world got to be the way it is... and I'm really excited to see what new research reveals (especially on the quantum level). Because honestly, we don't REALLY know how anything works.
So, in the same way that you would urge Christians to not be "so goddamn stubborn you won't even consider the alternatives," I would urge you to not be so damn self-righteous to think that Christians don't have any good contributions to thought or intellectualism... Trust me, I've spent many years considering the alternatives to my own worldview (Christianity). We're not as dumb as some of Diggers make us out to be. - paross2, on 03/26/2009, -5/+19Apologies on behalf of any ignorant Christian who has ever insulted you in the name of God.
I think we have come to a bridging point between science and faith. I believe God did create the universe… but it says in scripture that he is a God of order, not chaos.
That being said, and seeing how the world operates, it makes sense that an orderly God would, in the creation of the universe, institute a set of rules for nature to obey. Sort of like a computer programmer would set rules for software to run, despite the variables a user will input.
Recognition that the universe might be eternal is a positive for the cause of trying to find a logical reason for faith. Recognition that SOMETHING, be it God, energy, matter, the universe or a metaverse is eternal… means that Christians aren’t so foolish for believing in something eternal.
Now the question of the day becomes, “What do YOU personally believe is eternal?”
Writing the bible off as fiction or myth is writing off a very surface level understanding of the bible. If you don’t believe the bible because of the old testament accounts of things… your a fool. Plain and simple, the people of the day didn’t have an understanding of this world well enough to explain certain things. Oral tradition handed down as poetry was transcribed in the creation story, and no clear understanding of millennia of creation could be made.
I’m not trying to tell you to believe what I do.
I am asking that some people who call Christians fools please be more considerate. Don’t generalize that we all are ignorant of science. We aren’t. Don’t suppose we all take a literal view of some of the more fantastic stories in the bible, we don’t.
The important things to me are: There is a God. He is eternal. He created us. He sent his son to be with us, who died, rose from death, and offers us a chance to be with him when we die.
Do I know everything? No. I don’t. But I take this view on faith, based on eye witness accounts and scripture after study and personal experience.
If you don’t share this view, fine! But please stop treating me and other Christians like idiots for it, we aren’t. Never once has science proven or disproved God. It can’t. Faith and science CAN coexist because they are two separate things.
I’ll get off my soap box, thanks for taking the time to read what you’ll probably disagree with if you don’t already share my views. - browwiw, on 03/26/2009, -8/+21P.S.
Don't comment on the works of Stephen Hawking if you're too ***** limited between the ears to understand them. - artwork, on 03/26/2009, -1/+14So now you know the answer to "Why?" Do tell..
- therealkid, on 09/10/2009, -2/+15Wow. A rational human being. Someone that can clearly see both sides for what they are and judge accordingly. I didn't think there were any others out there. Thank you for being one of the precious few reasonable voices on Digg. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
- prrp, on 03/26/2009, -6/+18How was I a jackass?
- Dinner, on 03/26/2009, -6/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Goddamn, I am sick of seeing this "you can't prove God doesn't exist" argument every day. - wtrwlkr, on 03/26/2009, -1/+13Nooo not the atheist's nighmare!
- cjurdane, on 03/26/2009, -38/+50To answer your question: fundamentally no. And the reasoning is that God is the creator and thus knows everything. I see is as, science gives me the how, while god gives me the why.
- browwiw, on 03/26/2009, -2/+13What the ***** are you doing with bananas that makes you think they are so divine?
- BevansDesign, on 03/26/2009, -1/+12I can think of something else that's banana-shaped and fits perfectly in your hand. What are the implications of THAT?
- sdizier, on 03/26/2009, -1/+12I disagree, if you read the article you should of read the following:
"There is the flaw in your theory that it all happened by “accident” and not by design. No matter how you answer, the next question will be: And where did THAT come from? Eventually, you will have to answer: I don’t know.
And God will be there saying: I do." - Foofoofoofoobar, on 03/26/2009, -3/+12Because we're trying to prevent the US from slipping into a theocracy.
- literider, on 03/26/2009, -4/+13I wholeheartedly agree with dynelol. Can't we all just put these repetitive, rehashed, vile arguments about theism vs atheism aside? Instead, can't we all just drink beer, enjoy boobies, and be happy? I think so.
:-) - Gallowspoling, on 03/26/2009, -4/+13@DeathStrawberry
I disagree that morality is not supported by naturalistic evolution as homonids have always been tribal animals. Our existance has always been tied to our ability to work together and cooperate and I think that this may have developed in us a compassion for others.
In addition, I feel that in many ways morality is simply a sentient manifestation of the drive for all species to survive, since much of morality(but certainly not all) is related directly to helping others. Certainly one could explain a mothers love for her child in cold genetic terms(ie. the propogation of her genes), and perhaps there is an element of that want for our species to succeed in our behavior towards others in general.
I would offer an alternative line of thought: perhaps we developed morals and the concept of "goodness" due to this community driven evolution, and then invented a "God" figure to a)explain why we felt the compulsions we do, and b)enforce the laws that some, but not all, members of a particular society felt were "good"(since its reasonable to think that if "morality" is a developed trait then there would be a range of expression of that trait, with some falling to the far extreme on one end-psycopaths- and others falling to the other extreme-highly morally figures). While I follow your logic i think it might be a case of the measurement(morality) preceeding the standard(God) , not the other way round. - ctour95, on 03/26/2009, -4/+13I don't believe that the majority of Christians believe in a young Earth (6,000 years old) theory or the idea that things do not change over time (evolution). For some reason the ones that do seem to be on television though.
- joshmoney, on 03/26/2009, -1/+10I know where the banana fits but what about the pineapple?
- Lewie, on 03/26/2009, -2/+11@DeathStrawberry
In Richard Dawkins' "The God Dilusion", he describes four possible reasons why "morality" may have evolved.
1) Genetic Kinship - Your tribe will survive if you're good to each other
2) Reciprocity - (Should be self explanatory)
3) Reputation - A bad reputation will put you at a disadvantage in a tribe. Also, Dawkins notes that reputation has been observed between fish and their symbiotic cleaner-fish.
4) Conspicuous Generosity - Generosity used as an advertisement of superiority. Most notably observed in Native American tribes as "Potlatchs".
Besides, there's a lot of writings on ethics that have nothing to do with a deity (see Kant). -
Show 51 - 100 of 654 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is