What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
491 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -126/+286There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Actually, as any sane person uses the word, there is no 'evidence' whatsoever for the existence of God - only a wholly tautological sense of 'faith.'
No one is born a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. They learn to be one and, in the *vast* majority of cases, their convictions aren't born of any personal introspection or philosophical musing, but are simply inherited from their parents. Religion is completely arbitrary and, more than anything else, dependent upon geography. - rolandde, on 10/12/2007, -64/+162I have read his book with great expectations. Being an atheist, I was truly curious how an intelligent person who is well versed in biology can account for his religious believes. Needless to say, I was deeply disappointed.
One of his major points is that no person should use the "God of the Gaps" argument, as science has been very efficient at filling these gaps. However, he then proceeds throughout his book to make the "God of the Gaps" fallacy over and over and over again to justify his believes. Why do we have these universal constants . . . We don't know . . . Therefore God (he is simply moving the "Argument from Design" from the sphere of life to the sphere of the universe, without realizing that pushing the problem to the next level and screaming THEREFORE GOD!!! is not a valid argument). He then goes through C.S. Lewis's now defunct Arguments from Morality, which under close inspecting is just another well crafted "God of the Gaps" Argument.
But the final insult to my intellect is the way he became a Born Again. While jogging (or walking) down a forest path he comes across a waterfall, somehow links it to the Trinity, and becomes a Christian. Why a Christian? Why not a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or a million of other religions that have had their brief tenure of human fancy. If he just realized that his childing charade of religiousness is nothing more than the indoctrinations of his childhood, we would possibly write a much better book and at least become an agnostic (equally futile, but one thing at a time :D). - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -26/+108@Scott802 - Actually the god in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same god. The bigger differences between them is how to worship and if a messiah has or has not appeared yet.
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -64/+143i'm agnostic, and i really dont care either way. i'll find out when i die. however, i always laugh at atheists who criticize those who believe in ____ religion for "knowing" god exists, when they're doing the completely same thing in the opposite direction. its outrageous that religious people can profess to KNOW god exists, but its not outrageous for atheists to profess to KNOW that god doesnt exist? i heart the hypocrisy
- Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -13/+82xsuite: "I, as a christian, agree with this man. Evolution and god are totally compatible and I believe both. I hope that this article shows atheists that their arguments are just as stupid and ignorant as those of conservative Christians."
I like how you isolated yourself from "conservative Christians", yet lumped all the atheists together into one group. - nikhilnidhi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+68God or the scientist?
- blobzorz, on 10/12/2007, -33/+91Well the Koran is based of the same God as in the Bible. Mohamed, the prophet in the Koran, comes from Abraham, who can be found in the Bible, Koran, Tanakh. Please research this stuff and don't talk about a subject you know nothing about.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -34/+69@nazuraki
"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God."
Do you mean "There is no scientific evidence, that I am aware of, for the existence of God"? Or do you mean you have proof that none exists? - loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -21/+54Even Dawkins said in the "God Delusion" that he is a believer in god in the Einsteinian sense: that there is an underlying beauty in the nature of the universe and this could be called GOD.
But an intelligence that rewards and punishes tiny humans according to their worship of him is beyond re-god-damned-diculous. - xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -172/+202I, as a christian, agree with this man. Evolution and god are totally compatible and I believe both. I hope that this article shows atheists that their arguments are just as stupid and ignorant as those of conservative Christians.
- insomniacal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32If God created the fossil record during creation, it would seem like deliberate deception -- fabricating the death of creatures that never actually lived. The standard creationist explanation of the fossil record is that it is the natural consequence of a global flood (Noah's flood) -- billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
- insomniacal, on 10/12/2007, -20/+47Refreshing to hear a world-renowned scientist profess that faith does not disqualify one from participating in science:
"As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan."
So many atheists argue that a strict materialistic worldview is required, but it's not. In this it would seem that the religious are intellectually more sophisticated than atheists, in that they are comfortable thinking in two modes, not just one -- and can find harmony where others see only dissonance. - Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27"I hate to correct everyone so much, but ICSU, atheism IS the denial of god. What you describe is borderline agnosticism."
I think by the strictest use of the word, there is no such thing as an atheist. I bet if you were to ask anyone who labels himself as an atheist he will tell you that he cant be 100% sure that god doesn't exist. The reason we are atheists is because we base our beliefs on scientific evidnece and look at everything critically. We are not so close-minded that we can say that there is no way that god can't exist.
But I think the the chance of there being a god is so low that saying I'm agnostic just confuses the issue. Religious people seem to take that almost as a victory, "Oh, so you admit that there's a chance there is a god!!!". Well, of course there's a chance. There's also a chance that a giant pink invisible elephant lives on my roof.
If a god started or created the universe, then it only makes sense that he must be even more complicated than the universe. The religious argument to this is that he is beyond physics and nature and he has always been. If that's the case, why cant we just say the universe has always been. This makes more sense because as i said, god must be more complicated than the universe, so it would be simpler for the universe to have just always existed. - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38Some of the comments are disheartening.
Belief in God does contradict the principles upon which science was built, because the existence of a deity is unfalsifiable. There is no evidence which could disprove God, because you cannot disprove an entity whose apparent characteristics include existing outside the universe and being able to evade detection. The same goes for any statement which is unfalsifiable. I can claim that I own an invisible, intangible tiger. You cannot prove me wrong because by their very nature, these tigers are incapable of being observed; their existence is unfalsifiable and my statement holds no value. The existence of God falls into the same category.
Not only is it a belief in an unfalsifiable entity, but it's a *selective" application of that reasoning. Christians, for example, reject the existence of Brahman. Muslims reject the existence of Zeus. Theists don't accept other unfalsifiable claims, and that's what makes belief in a specific god hypocritical. What makes the general belief in a "higher power" hypocritical is the fact that those believers don't give the same credence to the possibility of goblins, unicorns or my invisible, intangible tigers.
All this article does is remind us that being a scientist doesn't mean you're a competent philosopher. - BlazeQ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Yeah, cus that would be a miracle.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35@monospaced
I think you are talking about a kind of pantheism, which makes sense unlike monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Einstein or Dawkins have the same feelings - see this interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml
@nostoppingus
You are mistaken. Atheist don't have to claim they know there is no god. They claim that there is no evidence and therefore probability is so low, it's not worth wasting time.
- airandfingers, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30"Smart people are very good at rationalizing things that they came to believe from non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer, appearing on Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33@nostoppingus
"its outrageous that religious people can profess to KNOW god exists, but its not outrageous for atheists to profess to KNOW that god doesnt exist? i heart the hypocrisy"
You can't prove a negative. This is basic logic, the burden of proof lies in the person making the claim. Not the person disputing the claim. It's not hypocrisy at all. Or do you allow that there is also a possibility that Zeus, Odin, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot and and Space Unicorns from Alpha Centauri all exist merely because they have yet to be disproven? - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -12/+33spoilers: Your pastor knows knowing about archeology, paleontology, or geology.
Pastor: "YES, god placed fake fossils to trick you. Oh god, he's such a devious trickster. And fake rocks too. OHHH, and those wall paintings made by neanderthal man? FAKE TOO. HAHAHAHA!!" - compaqdrew, on 10/12/2007, -14/+33What? A Christian on the front page of Digg? For something *good*? Hell, I mean, erm... (do we believe in hell?) has just frozen over.
Seriously though, the guy mentions that C.S. Lewis takes a rational approach to God, and he's dead on. I realize that the world is full of "Christians" who base everything about their beliefs on blind faith, but there are quite a few of us who don't do that--we believe that evidence such as the human condition and human behavior make the existence of a Creator extremely likely.
Lewis makes a very good case for this evidence in a book called Mere Christianity, available here (http://artefact.lib.ru/cgi/reader/dindex.pl ). At the very least it may give some of you a better idea of what Christianity is really about than you will find at gay hate parades. Lewis (and all intelligent Christians) promote logic, a certain level of tolerance, and the importance of questioning your beliefs. All of these are integral to the Christian faith. - riverrunner, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30FTA
"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
"So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."
Thank you Collins. I wish the CNN had titled the article: Why this Christian believes in Evolution. Christians in this country need to wake up and stop pretending to be molecular biologists. - Trinition, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Theist: "Who created the universe?"
Atheist: "Who created God?"
Theist: "God always existed -- he is timeless"
If you can't accept a ever-existing universe where complexity arises from simplicity, how does an ever-existing, all-knowing imperceivable god stand in as an easier-to-accept answer? If you agree with the theists answer, then what's wrong with this?
Atheist: "The universe always existed -- it is timeless" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@thatdigger:
" I believe in the Big Bang: I just believe that somebody banged it."
That's blind faith since there's no evidence to prove 'somebody' or 'something' banged it.
"You say that the universe came from nothing."
This goes to show what you know the Big Bang. No cosmologist has ever claimed the Big Bang came from nothing. The best science has so far is 'I don't know." We don't claim anything else.
"Would it be awful it someone did?"
No. But that begs the question of "where did god come from?"
"I don't care how many times I hear that we came from monkeys, I simply can't believe that the process of life is "from the goo to you via the zoo." I want to know what caused the FIRST life."
That has nothing to do with evolution, You're talking about abiogenesis. We still don't know much about this phase of Earth but in lab environment, using various primordial states and lightning, scientists have syththesized 13 of the 20 basic amino acides. Amino acids can also be found in deep space and comets.
"The probability is astronomical."
The chance of you existing is also astronomical. The billions of sperm meeting the right egg at the right time made you. And we can go back into the chance of your parents existing. Just because it is rare doesn't mean it can't happen.
"One single tiny amoeba has a message spanning 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica."
The earliest lifeforms were probably very very simple composed of only a few pieces of RNA. All you need is some sort of self-replicating process for the first life to exist.
"And that's not just random information, that's an extremely ordered message."
DNA is composed of more than half useless information.
"Another thing I commonly run into is a Darwinist saying that Intelligent Design isn't science: If your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you'll never consider Intelligent Design science."
It isn't science since it has to meet the bare criteria for science. It is untestable, unverifiable and unable to predict therefore it isn't science.
Your entire mess of an argument makes no sense at all since modern biology, genetics, biochemistry etc. has proven that evolution is real. Evolution shows genetic drift, genetic change it allows us to design new drugs, determine the change in genetics. ID is useless. It cannot do anything. It just comes to a useless conclusion and stops.
"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist; I enjoy thinking too much"
Faith is belief without evidence. You don't seem to have any evidence at all. - Taorluath, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29@foxnutjob
You do not understand Christianity. It is true that evolution and creationism do not mix, but evolution and Christianity do. If you think all those crazy ranting creationists are the only christians around, then you are sorely mistaken. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24If there was a god, I would have a girlfriend.
- xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23My old pastor said that the fossils were angels that had been expelled from heaven before the 'perfection' of earth.
The reason he said that explained the fossils strange appearance was because all over the bible, it describes supernatural beings as marvelous and extravagant creatures: e.g. the 10 horned, multi-eyed satan, the lion people in revelation etc. He also said that they could have been 'beta' animals that werent ready when go decided to 'go gold.'
its plausible, but I like evolution better, and hey, Im still christian. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Many orthodox Jews don't see nearly the conflict between science and religion as American Christians seem to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_evolution#Jewish_opposition_to_Darwinian_evolution If it can be accepted that the Bible sometimes uses allegory, parable and metaphor, then science becomes a way of studying His wonderful creation, rather than something that conflicts with the Bible.
- insomniacal, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29Should have quoted this scientific heresy:
"By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."
Atheists will cringe at that one, I'm sure. The director of the National Human Genome Research Institute ... directing in the name of Jesus? :-) - liah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"God was not created as He is beyond time and matter and is not limited by the forces that He has created."
Isn't that convenient. - IneffibleMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@popearthur
Huh?
So the dozens of evolutionary bio classes offered at my university are wrong? Geeze, I gotta go call some professors and tell them that their research is faulty. Man this is gonna piss them off. Good thing that I go to a research institution, I can stop this ***** in it's tracks.
Boy the biology department will be happy to hear this, they can replace the hundreds of studies and journal articles that they use to teach their classes with a creationism colouring book. So much easier to teach eh? - airandfingers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@popearthur:
Maybe you should do a little researching too. The scientific community has not turned its back on evolution; to the contrary, very few scientists actually hold that evolution is wrong. Cite your sources, please? And if it turns out that scientists still do believe evolution, even though "it has been shattered many times over," then it hasn't been shattered. Scientists don't continue to believe things that have been "shattered," just to further their personal beliefs; that's the job of literalist Christians. - pendy, on 10/18/2007, -9/+21I think that the more I learn about biology, the stronger my faith in God grows. Earlier this semester, we learned about the makeup of a nuclear pore, the tiny openings in the membrane of the nucleus that allow vital cellular components to flow in and out of the nucleus. Each of the multitudes of nuclear pores is made up 39 enzymes that all have a unique sequence of amino acids that makes them up.
One incorrectly placed amino acid can render the enzyme, and in essence the entire pore, inactive. Now the chance that all these amino acids came together at the beginning of life without any guidance by any higher being is ludicrous to me.
I am grateful that other scientists are willing to step up and profess their faith in the face of a field that seemingly seeks to disprove the notion that there is a God. - RevRyan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18For what it's worth, I'm a graduate of Mercer University's seminary (a Baptist school, BTW). In their schooling, debate and discussion are fostered so much you'd swear it was a Digg.com discussion forum, insults, yelling and all. The "Christians" that typically make it into the media do not represent us all. Good for Mercer for encouraging open discussions about it all.
~RevRyan - morpo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Can I make one thing clear. There is only a conflict between Christianity and evolution when one takes an uber-conservative, narrowminded look at the bible.
Pope John Paul II himself supported the idea of evolution!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Theory_of_evolution_and_the_interpretation_of_Genesis
"some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly discipline" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15No, no, NO!
Something for which there is no empirical evidence is NOT a scientific theory.
"Just like Quantum Mechanics, String theory, Big Bang, Theory of Natural Selection, and even the Pythagorean Therom[sic]."
If you're implying there's no evidence for the above, you're a scientifically illiterate fool. - wonkavsn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@riverrunner
"Christians in this country need to wake up and stop pretending to be molecular biologists."
Funny.. I could say the same thing regarding most people on Digg. - joshreed104, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I don't see why you expected him to make an argument for the existence of God. Neither the title nor the description implied that Collins would do that. It's just shows that believing in God and also agreeing with science is not contradictory.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"A scientist only believes what he can prove"
You don't understand science. - Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"All i want is from you atheist is to prove to me how the world was created from absolute nothing"
I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer. There is no need to make stuff up to make us feel better about our ignorance.
"God was not created as He is beyond time and matter and is not limited by the forces that He has created."
Wow, how can you know that? Sounds nice and tidy but I suspect you just made it up or copied it from someone else who made it up. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"I still don't understand why macro-evolution is simply "FACT! FACT!" Let's quit calling it fact, and look at the evidence."
People have examined the evidence, hence the "FACT! FACT!" conclusion.
"I am an extremely open-minded Creationist that chose Intelligent Design simply because it made the most sense."
You have stated a contradiction. "Intelligent Design" is not creationism. Moreover, asserting that intelligent design "makes the most sense" does not make it true.
"I believe in the Big Bang: I just believe that somebody banged it."
What do you mean by "banged it"?
"You say that the universe came from nothing."
Who, specifically has said this?
"Aristotle defined nothing as "what rocks dream about". So, basically, "the universe came from what rocks dream about.""
Non-sequitur.
" Does it take a whole lot of reasoning to believe that somebody "banged" it?"
You have not even designed "banged" in this context.
"Would it be awful it someone did?"
What relevance has your question to do with the theory of evolution?
" I don't care how many times I hear that we came from monkeys, I simply can't believe that the process of life is "from the goo to you via the zoo.""
Your statements demonstrate that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution and, as such, your claims on the subject have no credibility.
"I want to know what caused the FIRST life."
While of interest to biologists, the origin of the "FIRST life" is not a part of the theory of evolution, and as such is a shift of topic.
"The probability is astronomical."
To what "probability" do you refer?
" One single tiny amoeba has a message spanning 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. And that's not just random information, that's an extremely ordered message. And that's just one amoeba!"
Please explain and justify your statement.
" You see writing in a sky that says "Drink Coke", you automatically assume it's a sky-writer, but when you see an amoeba (several can be lined up in a inch), you automatically believe that it was natural processes that created this, "for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" -Lewontin. "
Do you have evidence of "non-natural processes" that may have been involved? If so, please present this evidence. Note that you demonstrate no point by quoting Lewontin out of context, unless your point is that you are dishonest.
"Another thing I commonly run into is a Darwinist saying that Intelligent Design isn't science:"
This is correct.
" If your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you'll never consider Intelligent Design science."
As the conclusion that Intelligent Design is not science is not the result of ruling out intelligent causes beforehand, your statement is completely meaningless.
"The irony is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinism and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past."
Your statement is a non-sequitur.
"Origin questions are forensics questions, and thus require the use of forensic science principles. In fact, for Darwinists to rule out Intelligent Design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out themselves they would also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations, and the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)."
Your statement is founded upon a completely incorrect understanding of why Intelligent Design is dismissed as being non-science. You have a demonstratably false premise, thus any conclusions drawn are inherently faulty.
" These are all legitimate forensic sciences that look into the past for intelligent causes. Something must be wrong with the Darwinists' definition of science."
You have made a false assumption. You are either fundamentally ignorant of the subject that you are discussing or you are a liar. Which is it? - Trinition, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10My concern with the theists in science is that it sets up boundaries. Religion has often been used to stifle science. But when science finally prevails, the world is better off (yes there are counter-examples, but if you believe they are the rule and not the exception then go live in the stone age and fear the elemental gods).
Take Collins: "DNA is the language of God." It's actually a nice idea on the surface. But since God is an unknowable entity, there is a accepted boundary -- somewhere -- to how much you can know. Will Mr. Collins ask how DNA evolved (e.g. did it evolve from RNA? How did RNA get started?), or will he simply accept it as a language "designed by God" and therefore we can't know *why* God designed it this way.
There was an interesting article/debate in Time ("God vs. Science", http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986,00.html) where Dawkins and Collins duked it out. Dawkins can sound like an idiot a lot of times, but I think he was right in saying once you're willing to accept a God it means you're willing to stop looking for answers in some places. Way back when, defaulting to God meant people just assumed God put the heavens in motion (and possibly pulled the Sun from an invisible chariot in the sky). But if people can stop accepting the God explanation for things, they can see beyond the old barriers (Re: Sun, see Copernicus, Galileo).
I'm not saying God is inherently a bad idea. I'm just saying that God can serve as a convenient way to set the boundaries of what you're willing to explain. By God, if there is one, and he (she?) gave you a brain and critical thinking powers, it'd be an insult to said God to stop asking questions and just fall back on him! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Einstein rejected Lemaître's theory because it wasn't a theory - when he proposed it he didn't have the math to back up his assertions. When Lemaître did the math, Einstein accepted his work with the condition that an expanding Universe seemed improbable, which Lemaître later showed was not the case. You're wrong about the scientific community's initial rejection of Lemaître's work - a Universe born in a single incredibly hot, dense state had been predicted by the newer physics and astronomy of the time, and meshed well with Einstein's relativity. Actually, I took a course on more or less this exact discussion at my alma mater, which happens to be where Lemaître did his PhD work.
- EndersGame, on 10/12/2007, -28/+36@nostoppingus
Would you say you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, but is rather a fictional character. Its kind of the same thing for most intelligent people. And arguing with Christians over the existence of God is similar to arguing with a 5 year old over the existence of Santa Clause. I don't see any evidence that either exist, in fact I see a lot of evidence that the Bible is wrong about a lot of things. So with that in mind I don't take anything the Bible says seriously. I could really care less if God exists or not, because it doesn't answer any of the real questions I have about life, or explain any of the unknowns out there.
A 5 year old believes in Santa because his parents tell him that the presents that show up under the tree are from Santa Clause. Much like you fools believe in God because the bible tells you he was here once, supposedly interacting with the world and all its people. When are you going to grow up and realize that the presents haven't arrived under the tree in a long time? Figure it out retards, it was fictional. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I'm sure some atheists can be as imaginative as people who believe in a random thing with absolutely no proof.
Hell, just now I'm imagining a large green monster behind my door, it makes me happy! Sure, it isn't as imaginative as a supernatural being, but so what. Any ideas of what I could have fun imagining tomorrow? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20Religious belief fundamentally restricts imagination. Ask a child raised in a Christian household why the Sun rises each day. Well, that's easy - because God makes it rise. Why is the sky blue? That's God as well. While age and education will eventually assuage these early programmed responses in most cases, the point rests. If you ask a child who has never been indoctrinated with religious mythology why the Sun rises or why the sky is blue, and if he doesn't know the answer he'll start to think about it. There is nothing sophisticated or noble or pious about accepting what you are told without testing it against your own sense of logic and, in the case of something so deeply important as the origins of the Universe, against the existing science. Religion doesn't fail that test - it is absent it. There is nothing testable about theology, it is rooted in philosophy alone. Science, on the other hand, is so deeply married to both the testable - the tangible - as well as the philosophical.
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts." Richard Feynman - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -17/+25I'm a scientist and I'm an "occultist" for lack of a better term. Aleister Crowley once said occultism is basically the science of religion. If you pray or meditate and fail to elicit the desired result, it is basically worthless. However, if you find that your faith or spiritual actions actually give positive results for you in the real world, then it becomes a valuable asset in life. It's as simple as that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16@otheruser
Oh, religious people can be great at playing the violin or sketching a portrait - but they pretty uniformly suck at science.
When you accept that God is responsible for some appreciable fraction (or, in the case of most religious people, all) of the laws of our world, you necessarily concede the possibility that some subset ratio of those phenomena are simply divine, and therefore inherently inexplicable. You learn to be satisfied not understanding something. That is the core of ignorance and stupidity in our world, and it should be reviled above all else.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." Kurt Vonnegut - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@moocow1452
No. A hypothesis and a scientific theory are two very, very different things.
You take the approach which says that since we cannot disprove the existence of God, we do not know if he exists. You are right and wrong. We certainly cannot prove that there is no God since his very nature allegedly makes him untestable and impervious to the tools of observation man has yet devised. I find that a might convenient, but I'm willing to make the concession for the purposes of discussion.
So - we cannot prove there is a God, and we cannot prove there is not a God. What we can do, very easily in fact, is assign a probability to his existence. This gets into a very obvious and a very common, if completely irrefutable, point - neither can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or indeed of anything which anyone claims exists. You cannot prove to a child that there are no monsters under his bed, because perhaps the monsters just turn immaterial when you check for them.
That in itself is an *utterly* worthless, and frankly outright stupid, reason to believe in monsters - or in God. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13No atheist is going to claim they know how everything was made. It is up to the "believers" to prove God exists. The ball is in their court.
If I tell you there is a yellow invisible parrot sitting on your head, it is up to me to prove it is there. Same with God.
Actually religion and this ***** is such a completely pointless topic. It's just some people trying to justify their "faith." There is no reason or logic, it is just faith. They try to use reason and logic to justify their faith. - obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@pendy
That's exactly what happened for me. The questions that no professor could answer, the marvels of each individual cell ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 493 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is