Proletaria is one of those athiests that has already set up his position and will not budge. Something can only be considered evidence if someone is going to review and contemplate it. He will not even review certain inevitable responses as he throws false logic as a retort.
I repeatedly cited the laws of relativity in that energy cannot be created, and matter can only be create with energy, and his reply is quoting the athiest acitivist carl sagan (who by the way was in his prime before the voyager landers even hit mars) stating we should just believe the universe has always existed?
As I freaking told him... (and he excludes this due to his picking and choosing) it creates an intrinsic paradox in that the universe no longer adheres to its own laws. The laws of relativity determine that everything requires an origin, as you stated -> even time itself <-.
Even if we quote M-theory, the big bang... the initial singularity doesn't work. According to M-theory, the dimensional membranes of the multiverse collided and at that moment sparked creation. The thing is... M-Theory still uses quantum physics and relativistic physics within its math... and even if its proven true it all points back to the the paradox mentioned above.
I'm sorry proletaria but your quote of Carl Sagan doesn't cut it. God and the Universe are not on par. One requires an origin and the other doesn't. If you cannot explain the origin of the universe, and until you can ----- YOU LOSE.
So to summarise your argument. An atheist cannot prove the origin of the universe, therefore it must have been God. QED
I remember a similar argument that used to be popular, and still is in some circles. It basically said that since everything in nature is so perfectly adapted to its environment, it could only have been designed that way by an intelligent creator.
Its the classic, "nothing else fits, so lets use God" argument.
You seem like a smart guy, why do you fall for this?
If you want to understand the origin of the universe (how, not why), I suggest this quote from Hawking,
"there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe. "
This is true. But you also can't prove there are no fairies or magic dragons either. We might as well say they don't exist until someone can prove otherwise.
Basically what is more likely?
Everything spontaneously created itself and a cycle of life began.
There is a possibly infinite lineage of 'gods' creating other gods which created us.
Both seem pretty fucking stupid, if I could think up a third option that'd be mine.
The atheist is not saying that everything spontaneously created itself. The atheist is saying there is no evidence that a God created anything. It is up to the God-believer to offer evidence of their assertion. The Atheist does not say what created the universe, for he does not know.
You have offered 2 possible solutions, there could be many other solutions not yet discovered. The atheist simply rejects one solution being offered until it can provide evidence.
It is no different to if I told I believe giant donuts created the universe. You reject this assertion because I cannot offer any evidence for it, likewise we reject the assertion that a God created it.
To answer the guy who thinks Christianity is "right" instead of ancient greek gods because the ancient greek gods are not practiced anymore, this is because the ancient greek civilisation was wiped out. This is the same fate that was met of the roman gods.
This is because "God(s)" is a man-made construct, and each civilisation/power has their own version which supplanted the previous. The reason we believe in the christian god these days is simply because western europe (england, france, spain, italy etc.) adopted christianity and we all spawn from there. In the middle east, its not surpise that those countries are mainly muslim.
Isn't it funny that people grow up believing the religion they were taught?
Anyway... Altruism - looking after people who are not related to you in a way that benefits them but does nothing for you or reduces your survival in some way.
Not really. Early on in our evolution, i'm willing to bet altruism was applied at the tribal level (at best) to ensure the transmission of our genes (because our genese are passed on not just by ourselves, but our biologically similar family/ethnicity members). The reason it is now extended to people who do not benefit your genes' survival is the gradual extension of the tribe concept in our culture. We're no longer fiercely loyal to just our immidiate or extended family, but to our cities, our countries, or our regions (some people are even the entire human race). These aren't altruistic traits that demand an divine intervention, they are a cultural evolution of altruism which was an evolutionary (socially expressed) trait in and of itself.
The point being: there is a strictly evolutionary manner to describing the occurence of altruism and it does not force the question of gods existence on it's own terms.
Altruism however works counter to evolution... ie you sacrifice some of your fitness to help someone completely unrelated to you at all for no future benefit... thus decreasing the chances of siring offspring into the next generation. What you described was a form of mutualism which is very easy to describe developing in terms of evolutionary theory and extending throughout the culture/civilisation because of mutual benefit or potential future benefit.
True altruism cannot be described by evolutionary theory as it runs counter to the whole evolutionary process by helping someone else to the detriment of self with no benefit at any time to the original person helping. Thus it forces the question where did it come from? It needs to have come from something outside of culture or evolution... Is this proof of God, nope, but it does lend support to theories that there is something outside of our understanding that has and possibly continues to influence us today.
From what I have read on this topic its just a genetic misfiring of the tribal mutualism. We now live in much larger societies, however the same senses of helping our tribe/family are often confused with helping those unrelated to us, or helping animals (cats/dogs that are suffering). When we see suffering it has a negative cognitive effect, so we feel bad about it happening. It is a sign of our intelligence related to "other minds", i.e. we can empathise.
I've just spent the last 30 mins catching up from where I left off on page 6.
Thank God (no pun intended) for proletaria, he has saved me a lot of typing and can explain things more eloquently than me.
+1 to this guy.
I would like to know why theists think that their deity beliefs are any more valid than all the other ancient creation/god mythologies, like the aztec sun gods, the monkey god (india), greek gods (zeus), australian aboriginal 'dream time' (earth was created by giant snakes and other animals).
I mean - doesn't it seem strange that every human society has emerged with stories to "fill the gaps". It must be a flaw in human psychology that we are not comfortable with just saying "I don't know".
1.) I can prove that math works. It makes planes fly and bridges stand up? Ok I could just be dreaming and tomorrow I will wake up as a zombie on mars, but thinking like a skeptic achieves nothing.
2.) Is this a troll argument? Which part of imaginary numbers don't you get? By depicting an imaginary solution to the square root of minus 1, several real world math problems can be solved. Any first year should know this. Diving by zero is simple, you are trying to say "lets see how many times we can put nothing into something". This is a logical problem, the answer approaches infinity.
Next.... I do understand the concept of this thread thank you very much. I was trying to say that you say just making up something and calling it God. If you want to play the game where you define God to be something, then you are just giving a label to something. I could call my keyboard "God", I could call anything "God". This is what you are doing! You are calling whatever was before the big bang as "God". As an atheist I am cool with that. I prefer to call it "What was before the big bang".
Have a nice day.
I'm not going to take the time to respond to you more than this. Every one of your posts has been hostile and close minded. You are obviously set in your head whatever you believe and will not discuss what you believe without acting combative.
I'm sorry you feel that way as I was quite looking forward to your response. I am never attacking the person, I am simply attacking your argument. I am actually completely open minded having traversed from a 100% god believer to a 100% atheist over several years. I also fully respect anyone to be a theist (as are many of my friends/relatives).
I am more than happy to be proven that God exists.
I was simply trying to point out that arguing from the skeptics point of view doesn't achieve anything. You are actually completely valid in calling whatever was before the big bang as "God". I am simply saying I dont know what was before the big bang and dont feel the need to fill that void with an intelligent being (because who created THAT being etc. ad infinitim).
You are wrong to say that we cannot prove things, only disprove them. This is truly incorrect. E.g. I can easily prove that there is an infinite amount of integers. I can prove that the earth is a sphere. etc.
What I dont understand about your position is how you automatically attribute something you dont understand (i.e. where the matter in the universe came from) to a special being "God". You say he is not a "man on a throne", however this is what popular religions depict him as. If you are calling "god" whatever was before the universe, then by way of labels, any atheist would be fine with that. The fact is, what you're saying doesn't matter because you are just making stuff up and giving it a label. What real religions/theology talk about god is an omnipresent being that exists RIGHT NOW all around us that is watching us and influencing us and accepting us into his everlasting kingdom.
You didn't read what I said... I said there is no such thing as a postive fact (something that has been proven)... only something that is a negative fact (something that has been disproven). In freshmen level science classes they explain that all science is... is a set of rules that have yet to be disproven. Science is built from the ground up on THEORIES.
You try to rationalize your statement on an infinite amount of integers. You cannot explain that... because:
1.) You cannot prove that math is inherently correct. It is only correct to the point that it has not been proven incorrect.
2.) Your example of math uses conditions that cannot be defined and/ or explained. What is ANYTHING / 0? How is it that imaginary numbers are used in mathmatical conditions but they are just that... imaginary?
Next... you do not apparently understand the concept of aethism. Aethism is not that you don't believe in the christian god. It is that you believe in NOTHING. ZIP. NADA. I guess you do not understand the whole thread so far as a whole... because this is not Christian god vs aethism. This is "God" versus nothing.
1.) I can prove that math works. It makes planes fly and bridges stand up? Ok I could just be dreaming and tomorrow I will wake up as a zombie on mars, but thinking like a skeptic achieves nothing.
2.) Is this a troll argument? Which part of imaginary numbers don't you get? By depicting an imaginary solution to the square root of minus 1, several real world math problems can be solved. Any first year should know this. Diving by zero is simple, you are trying to say "lets see how many times we can put nothing into something". This is a logical problem, the answer approaches infinity.
Next.... I do understand the concept of this thread thank you very much. I was trying to say that you say just making up something and calling it God. If you want to play the game where you define God to be something, then you are just giving a label to something. I could call my keyboard "God", I could call anything "God". This is what you are doing! You are calling whatever was before the big bang as "God". As an atheist I am cool with that. I prefer to call it "What was before the big bang".
I live well because it makes me happy, and since I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, or higher being I live for myself, and my loved ones because those are the things that effect my happiness. This life to me is all that is, afterword is nothing. I'm not going to be in the ground saying, "Well it sucks being dead". Death isn't something I fear, since after all from my view, when I die I won't have a mind to worry about it with. I do what I can in this life because it makes me happy.
At least your view guides you to do good things, be it one reason or another. You have not read my first post in this thread, or else you wouldn't have asked your part two question about why I do good, and not bad. I explain that deeper there if you're still left wanting an answer.
I just feel living on faith is a shame to your human gift of reason, why assume there is an afterlife, or a higher being? If you're wrong you've lived your life with false hopes, even though if you are wrong it won't matter in death. It's rational to live by facts, because if something else exists, than what a pleasant surprise, but if it doesn't than you've been as right as you could be with your races' hard earned knowledge.
I honestly feel it's a sign of weak rational development to believe otherwise, it very simply doesn't make sense. I could come up with infinite metaphysical solutions to life, but what good would that do? It dishonors everything your ancestors have worked for by developing the workd in which you live. By saying this, I want to also state I don't judge personality off of this topic, so anyone who I offend should know that. I may strongly disagree with you, but that dose not mean I don't like you. I separate this kind of stuff from outside topics with people, since just because we disagree doesn't mean we should bicker.
I can respect aegnosticism (even if you believe that the universe was created by a giant space whale dropping a turd), but am perplexed by aethiesm. First, science is a higher power. Second, if there is no higher power at all... then what is the point of being an ethical person (and please note that statisically speaking aethiests are liberal politically).
Not to undermine your questions or points, but that last paragraph is very uneducated. Honestly to explain where Science stands in this you have to A. have a logical foot on the ground, then B. partake in either a class on the matter, or do research online. If you views really are how you live by, than you won't accept any reasoning you find on the matter anyway.
The thing that irks me about metaphysical based views is you undermine all of mans' accomplishments. Nothing is real is pretty much what you're saying. Science isn't factual, and should be disregard. I don't understand the reasoning behind any of this. At this very moment 2+2=4, and has for as long as we know. Why not use that to your advantage?
I don't understand how you claim that statement is uneducated. If anything, I am overeducated. You, just like the majority of all aethiests I encounter refuse to define science as your "god". If I am going to agree with you and say that 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4... then you need to agree with me that in order for the big bang to occur something needed to exist before it ( and eventually at some point infinite years ago.. had to create the cycle that we are simply a part of). The energy for this event/singularity had to be in the universe before that point and therefore your science is only as theoretical as what you percieve god to be.
Its not that I don't believe science... Its that 100% of science is simply theoretical. String theory is theoretical. Black holes are theroetical. Higgs-Boson particles are Theoretical. The universe being 13Billion years old... is theoretical. The fact that DNA is a series of random events/ mutations from RNA is theoretical.
Have you seriously never had an ephiphany/moment that your life just feels (even if momentarily) surreal? If you have then you should know that the fact that we are self aware and even having this conversation is momentous.
You base your life off what you consider achievements of mankind (science). These achievements have been proven wrong again and again overtime... and as such... there is not such thing a scientific postivie... only a scientific negative. Also, wasn't albert einstein a christian?
Ohh man you must be trolling us seriously? These flimsy arguments have been covered so many times in popular literature.
- Einstein was a christian, as it was a cusom in those days. I am a christian (baptised) but I am an atheist. So what? You call this proof of anything?
- Scientific achievements proven wrong? This is where you miss the point. If a scientific achievement is proven wrong that is a SUCCESS for science. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - science embrasses being wrong (because it was proven)!
- The point the previous guy was trying to make you cant even grasp/understand. He is trying to say that your theory is not useful to life as we know it. Your argument is known as Philosophical Skepticism (how do we even know we exist as we see ourselves, maybe there is no universe, maybe we are just a brain in a vat controlled by a robot ala matrix). This type of reasoning cannot be disproven, so sure, it could be true - but what value does believing it hold for you? Next time you leave a tall building, why do you leave through the door and not the window? If you always leave through the door you obviously reject your own believe of skepticism, because you know a bad thing will happen to you if you jump out of the window. Hence being a skeptic is a fun thought experiment but is downright useless in life and useless in a debate.
- Regarding ethics - ethics do not come from religion. Ethics are bred into us as we are social mammals. Other primates exhibit very similar social ethics to humans. It is evolutionary advantages to be ethical. If we got our ethics from the bible we would be screwed. If you dont know what I mean you should read it. Apparantly offering your daughter to be gang raped is fine if it means it saves your friend from being sold as a slave. Nice ethics!
Matter cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created... Only change forms. Simply put, science creates a paradox in which we should and cannot exist without a higher power. God may not be a being on a throne... He may not even have the capacity to be self aware... But science points to the fact that something sparked the universe/ multiverse/ big bang.
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
In all this no matter how many universes there were you eventually have to come back to a beginning... at least as we understand time and space. Thus from a human perspective there has to have been something to kick start all of this... was it a divine creator... possibly (In fact I personally think so)... or was it something else... if so what is that something else?
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even if the universe continually collapses and expands... at some point time, matter, and energy needs an origin because it belongs to a universe governed by relativistic physics. In order for all that we know about science to be true... everything that we know and understand about relativistic phyiscs/ quantum physics needs to hold true under all cases within the universe. If this does not... then science itself is flawed and our entire understanding of the universe is flawed.
As I said earlier. God (which again is not a guy sitting on a throne) does not need to be governed by the laws of physics, and therefore does not need an origin. If god created time... why would he need to exist within it?
PS: Aethiesm is an oxy-moron. Most aethiests truely are not aethiests after all. Science is in and of itself a religion. Just like being unable to prove god, you are unable to prove science. You can never prove a fact 100%, you can only disprove something. This said, science is the fundamental creator for all these aethiests and therefore becomes a god.
You are wrong to say that we cannot prove things, only disprove them. This is truly incorrect. E.g. I can easily prove that there is an infinite amount of integers. I can prove that the earth is a sphere. etc.
What I dont understand about your position is how you automatically attribute something you dont understand (i.e. where the matter in the universe came from) to a special being "God". You say he is not a "man on a throne", however this is what popular religions depict him as. If you are calling "god" whatever was before the universe, then by way of labels, any atheist would be fine with that. The fact is, what you're saying doesn't matter because you are just making stuff up and giving it a label. What real religions/theology talk about god is an omnipresent being that exists RIGHT NOW all around us that is watching us and influencing us and accepting us into his everlasting kingdom.
I was force-fed catholocism from a young age and it was only when I get older that I became an atheist because I started to ask rational questions about god (like how different religions believe in different gods, so if one group is right, the other must be wrong and vice versa). Why should my religion be "right" when it was simply the one I was instilled with?
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
That guy would be me, and yes evolution is random. Randomly the gene will mutate and change, and if it helps the organism survive, it persists, and if it doesn't help, for the most part that organism will die and it won't get passed on. Pretty sure that's random, as you said ' slight genetic random properties'. If you want to get technical on the definition sure, but when i step back and see that an organism randomly (ok so there's actually no such thing as randomness in the entire universe, there is always an algorithm that someone can eventually make to predict anything) changes something about itself, that's random! randomrandomrandom
Ummmm no you missed the point on this. There is a random component to evolution but this does not make the process of evolution random. Random component <> random process. The overall process steers the organism's DNA towards that which can reproduce more effectively, the overall process does not steer the organism in random directions, this is why we do not have eyes on our a$$ or teeth on our feet. The mutations may be random, but the process of selection ensures that only positive mutations are kept. Think of it like a "funnel" or "direction". The direction is focused by the organisms environment, which is why rapid environmental changes can wipe out species, and why all living things on earth are superbly adept at living in their native environment.
This process is so successful that there are computer programs called "genetic programming" that actually use the same technique to solve a problem. Take any given population of solutions to a problem, measure their "fitness", take the top 20% most fit solutions and "breed them", i.e. take components of each solution and mash them together (with a small % of random mutation thrown in for good measure), rinse and repeat. Eventually after so many generations you will have a bunch of good solutions to your problem. This is not a random process!!!
Matter cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created... Only change forms. Simply put, science creates a paradox in which we should and cannot exist without a higher power. God may not be a being on a throne... He may not even have the capacity to be self aware... But science points to the fact that something sparked the universe/ multiverse/ big bang.
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
I was force-fed catholocism from a young age and it was only when I get older that I became an atheist because I started to ask rational questions about god (like how different religions believe in different gods, so if one group is right, the other must be wrong and vice versa). Why should my religion be "right" when it was simply the one I was instilled with?
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
Honestly out of all things to be worried about, itemization is the least of my concerns... this is a beta test which is not representative of their vision.... they kept everything out of the beta for good reason, and I'm sure they've spent a lot of time looking at itemization and how it should progress. Way too early to criticize this, wait for release...
The sole reason for having a Beta is to garner input from testers and make changes to the game. What you're saying is diametrically opposed to the very purpose of a beta. Waiting for release to voice opinions and concerns is just an ignorant way to approach game design, especially when it's related to something so vital as an itemization system.
The fact is these items are probably the least interesting aspect of Diablo 3 that I've seen. Maybe we've grown too accustomed to Blizzard "breaking the mold," and that's a valid point, but we still can't help being somewhat bore-struck at basically a step BACK in itemization from Diablo 2 (D2 itemization was more thought-filled than these current listings). It just looks like laziness to me. I was expecting itemization in Diablo 3 to be just as exciting as the incredible skill system, crafting, and auction house, but it's just the same or less than past games have offered.
Not impressed.
Lafu I +1 you, this is exactly how I feel. To date I have not complained once about D3 and have "trusted in Blizzard" (art style, skill system, skill points decisions, runes, gems, RMAH etc.) I've never raised an issue until I saw these items.
I mean - these are the things we are going to spend months/years collecting and chasing down, and they just seem lazily prepared and have no interesting concepts or styles at all.
0
So to summarise your argument. An atheist cannot prove the origin of the universe, therefore it must have been God. QED
I remember a similar argument that used to be popular, and still is in some circles. It basically said that since everything in nature is so perfectly adapted to its environment, it could only have been designed that way by an intelligent creator.
Its the classic, "nothing else fits, so lets use God" argument.
You seem like a smart guy, why do you fall for this?
If you want to understand the origin of the universe (how, not why), I suggest this quote from Hawking,
"there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe. "
0
This is true. But you also can't prove there are no fairies or magic dragons either. We might as well say they don't exist until someone can prove otherwise.
0
The atheist is not saying that everything spontaneously created itself. The atheist is saying there is no evidence that a God created anything. It is up to the God-believer to offer evidence of their assertion. The Atheist does not say what created the universe, for he does not know.
You have offered 2 possible solutions, there could be many other solutions not yet discovered. The atheist simply rejects one solution being offered until it can provide evidence.
It is no different to if I told I believe giant donuts created the universe. You reject this assertion because I cannot offer any evidence for it, likewise we reject the assertion that a God created it.
0
To answer the guy who thinks Christianity is "right" instead of ancient greek gods because the ancient greek gods are not practiced anymore, this is because the ancient greek civilisation was wiped out. This is the same fate that was met of the roman gods.
This is because "God(s)" is a man-made construct, and each civilisation/power has their own version which supplanted the previous. The reason we believe in the christian god these days is simply because western europe (england, france, spain, italy etc.) adopted christianity and we all spawn from there. In the middle east, its not surpise that those countries are mainly muslim.
Isn't it funny that people grow up believing the religion they were taught?
0
From what I have read on this topic its just a genetic misfiring of the tribal mutualism. We now live in much larger societies, however the same senses of helping our tribe/family are often confused with helping those unrelated to us, or helping animals (cats/dogs that are suffering). When we see suffering it has a negative cognitive effect, so we feel bad about it happening. It is a sign of our intelligence related to "other minds", i.e. we can empathise.
0
Thank God (no pun intended) for proletaria, he has saved me a lot of typing and can explain things more eloquently than me.
+1 to this guy.
I would like to know why theists think that their deity beliefs are any more valid than all the other ancient creation/god mythologies, like the aztec sun gods, the monkey god (india), greek gods (zeus), australian aboriginal 'dream time' (earth was created by giant snakes and other animals).
I mean - doesn't it seem strange that every human society has emerged with stories to "fill the gaps". It must be a flaw in human psychology that we are not comfortable with just saying "I don't know".
0
I'm sorry you feel that way as I was quite looking forward to your response. I am never attacking the person, I am simply attacking your argument. I am actually completely open minded having traversed from a 100% god believer to a 100% atheist over several years. I also fully respect anyone to be a theist (as are many of my friends/relatives).
I am more than happy to be proven that God exists.
I was simply trying to point out that arguing from the skeptics point of view doesn't achieve anything. You are actually completely valid in calling whatever was before the big bang as "God". I am simply saying I dont know what was before the big bang and dont feel the need to fill that void with an intelligent being (because who created THAT being etc. ad infinitim).
Anyway hope you change your mind. Adios
0
1.) I can prove that math works. It makes planes fly and bridges stand up? Ok I could just be dreaming and tomorrow I will wake up as a zombie on mars, but thinking like a skeptic achieves nothing.
2.) Is this a troll argument? Which part of imaginary numbers don't you get? By depicting an imaginary solution to the square root of minus 1, several real world math problems can be solved. Any first year should know this. Diving by zero is simple, you are trying to say "lets see how many times we can put nothing into something". This is a logical problem, the answer approaches infinity.
Next.... I do understand the concept of this thread thank you very much. I was trying to say that you say just making up something and calling it God. If you want to play the game where you define God to be something, then you are just giving a label to something. I could call my keyboard "God", I could call anything "God". This is what you are doing! You are calling whatever was before the big bang as "God". As an atheist I am cool with that. I prefer to call it "What was before the big bang".
Have a nice day.
0
Ohh man you must be trolling us seriously? These flimsy arguments have been covered so many times in popular literature.
- Einstein was a christian, as it was a cusom in those days. I am a christian (baptised) but I am an atheist. So what? You call this proof of anything?
- Scientific achievements proven wrong? This is where you miss the point. If a scientific achievement is proven wrong that is a SUCCESS for science. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - science embrasses being wrong (because it was proven)!
- The point the previous guy was trying to make you cant even grasp/understand. He is trying to say that your theory is not useful to life as we know it. Your argument is known as Philosophical Skepticism (how do we even know we exist as we see ourselves, maybe there is no universe, maybe we are just a brain in a vat controlled by a robot ala matrix). This type of reasoning cannot be disproven, so sure, it could be true - but what value does believing it hold for you? Next time you leave a tall building, why do you leave through the door and not the window? If you always leave through the door you obviously reject your own believe of skepticism, because you know a bad thing will happen to you if you jump out of the window. Hence being a skeptic is a fun thought experiment but is downright useless in life and useless in a debate.
- Regarding ethics - ethics do not come from religion. Ethics are bred into us as we are social mammals. Other primates exhibit very similar social ethics to humans. It is evolutionary advantages to be ethical. If we got our ethics from the bible we would be screwed. If you dont know what I mean you should read it. Apparantly offering your daughter to be gang raped is fine if it means it saves your friend from being sold as a slave. Nice ethics!
0
You are wrong to say that we cannot prove things, only disprove them. This is truly incorrect. E.g. I can easily prove that there is an infinite amount of integers. I can prove that the earth is a sphere. etc.
What I dont understand about your position is how you automatically attribute something you dont understand (i.e. where the matter in the universe came from) to a special being "God". You say he is not a "man on a throne", however this is what popular religions depict him as. If you are calling "god" whatever was before the universe, then by way of labels, any atheist would be fine with that. The fact is, what you're saying doesn't matter because you are just making stuff up and giving it a label. What real religions/theology talk about god is an omnipresent being that exists RIGHT NOW all around us that is watching us and influencing us and accepting us into his everlasting kingdom.
0
Ummmm no you missed the point on this. There is a random component to evolution but this does not make the process of evolution random. Random component <> random process. The overall process steers the organism's DNA towards that which can reproduce more effectively, the overall process does not steer the organism in random directions, this is why we do not have eyes on our a$$ or teeth on our feet. The mutations may be random, but the process of selection ensures that only positive mutations are kept. Think of it like a "funnel" or "direction". The direction is focused by the organisms environment, which is why rapid environmental changes can wipe out species, and why all living things on earth are superbly adept at living in their native environment.
This process is so successful that there are computer programs called "genetic programming" that actually use the same technique to solve a problem. Take any given population of solutions to a problem, measure their "fitness", take the top 20% most fit solutions and "breed them", i.e. take components of each solution and mash them together (with a small % of random mutation thrown in for good measure), rinse and repeat. Eventually after so many generations you will have a bunch of good solutions to your problem. This is not a random process!!!
0
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
0
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
0
0
Lafu I +1 you, this is exactly how I feel. To date I have not complained once about D3 and have "trusted in Blizzard" (art style, skill system, skill points decisions, runes, gems, RMAH etc.) I've never raised an issue until I saw these items.
I mean - these are the things we are going to spend months/years collecting and chasing down, and they just seem lazily prepared and have no interesting concepts or styles at all.