The enemies of reason

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 1:35 pm

Another fantastic documentary by Dawkins that examines the absurdity of faith based unsubstantiated belief systems that suffocate the concepts of rationality and reason.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3707640763

As always, well worth a watch.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 15, 2007, 2:11 pm

Not being able to watch this from work... What does the video express that you find particularly enlightening?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 2:26 pm

Nothing particularly "enlightening" that I didn't already know. Dawkins simply makes the argument against paranormal assertions such as Astrology/Religion etc in favour of Scientific examination and reason.

It's an interesting show, documenting the absurdity of things like Psychic mediums/cold reading, tarot reading and miscelleanous spiritual guff like that, with an incredibly eloquent and intelligent guy presenting and exploring the issue.

It's also funny because Dawkins is pretty comical to look at when he finds himself confronted with a loony who believes in nonsense.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 15, 2007, 9:12 pm

Well this guy Dawkins definitely takes on the much easier questions and odd ball practitioners of various paranormal sects. He does however sound like a religious "Scientific Zealot" in that he continually tells us of the achievements science has made but never once mentions how many times they have been wrong and the catastrophic damage science has had on the world. Now before anyone goes off on a tangent I am simply pointing out that if he thinks science is the Saviour of mankind and infallible he is not doing a very good job of proving anything. He is simply stating what most rational people already know about the above mentioned paranormal sects.

He doesn't answer the big question which is "Does God exist?" and again no one can answer that question scientifically. It is a question of your beliefs.

One test that was performed which I found to be totally unscientific was the one testing the "Dowsers". It was supposed to be a double blind controlled test. How can you have a controlled test with no control subjects ie. people that are brought in to guess where the water is vs those that claimed to have some sort of supernatural ability. All in all this Dawkins guy is anything but enlightening. When the so called psychic asked him if he had known anyone with a G in their name and he said no, I was little surprised. His answer meant that no relative, friend, teacher, girlfriend, wife, wife's family member, parent, sibling, coach etc that had an impact on his life and had the letter G in their name had passed on. Hrmmm for a guy that is pushing 65 that sounded like BS and I might be wrong but what are the odds? and more importantly where is the proof, I guess we should just have faith in his answers? LOL! In fact he should add his name to the list of enemies of reason. Two names come immediately to mind Grandma and Grandpa. I know those aren't proper names but what the hell, scientifically the names he most likely called them started with G.

Science has provided us with many things that benefit us enormously. I just can't see why it has to be Science or Faith. I personally believe in both.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 15, 2007, 9:57 pm

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Well this guy Dawkins definitely takes on the much easier questions and odd ball practitioners of various paranormal sects. He does however sound like a religious "Scientific Zealot" in that he continually tells us of the achievements science has made but never once mentions how many times they have been wrong and the catastrophic damage science has had on the world. Now before anyone goes off on a tangent I am simply pointing out that if he thinks science is the Saviour of mankind and infallible he is not doing a very good job of proving anything. He is simply stating what most rational people already know about the above mentioned paranormal sects.

What catastrophes? Like the atomic bomb? Perhaps the car? Certainly we can choose to use scientific innovation to fuck up the planet, but that's hardly his point. His point is that "spiritualists" haven't advanced humanity at all, and in fact are just the type of people that push back towards the middle ages rather than on to ... whatever.

He doesn't answer the big question which is "Does God exist?" and again no one can answer that question scientifically. It is a question of your beliefs.

As is "does the flying spaghetti monster exist?". It's not even a valid question from a scientific viewpoint so of course it's not addressed, what is addressed are shysters that promote provably ludicrous agendas to line their own pockets at the expense of gullible people, but worse, at the expense of even the rest of us as they e.g. go back to using ragwort to ward off evil spirits instead of taking their kids to a doctor before they get really sick.

One test that was performed which I found to be totally unscientific was the one testing the "Dowsers". It was supposed to be a double blind controlled test. How can you have a controlled test with no control subjects ie. people that are brought in to guess where the water is vs those that claimed to have some sort of supernatural ability.

There's already a large field of science that provides the control sample for this kind of experiment, it's called probability. We already know how successful "normal" people will be at finding the cheese in a random sampling, bringing in controls who giggle their way through the experiment with no expectation of finding anything would in fact give cause to doubt the seriousness of the researcher, not reinforce his findings.

All in all this Dawkins guy is anything but enlightening. When the so called psychic asked him if he had known anyone with a G in their name and he said no, I was little surprised. His answer meant that no relative, friend, teacher, girlfriend, wife, wife's family member, parent, sibling, coach etc that had an impact on his life and had the letter G in their name had passed on. Hrmmm for a guy that is pushing 65 that sounded like BS and I might be wrong but what are the odds? and more importantly where is the proof, I guess we should just have faith in his answers? LOL! In fact he should add his name to the list of enemies of reason. Two names come immediately to mind Grandma and Grandpa. I know those aren't proper names but what the hell, scientifically the names he most likely called them started with G.

Science has provided us with many things that benefit us enormously. I just can't see why it has to be Science or Faith. I personally believe in both.

Faith is a whole different ball of wax, and even then, it depends what your faith proposes. You seem to have enormous difficulty with some of the stuff that some people believe Islam proposes. And science doesn't require "belief", that's the whole point of it....

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 15, 2007, 10:35 pm

Zaeleth wrote:

What catastrophes? Like the atomic bomb? Perhaps the car? Certainly we can choose to use scientific innovation to fuck up the planet, but that's hardly his point. His point is that "spiritualists" haven't advanced humanity at all, and in fact are just the type of people that push back towards the middle ages rather than on to ... whatever.

Did you ever think of the spiritual comfort organized religion brings some people. How about the millions and millions of dollars they spend every year to feed the hungry, cloth the poor, educate the uneducated, medical treatment etc etc etc.

How many millions of children have been born deformed due to fertility drugs? How many people have lost their minds do to anti-depressants? How many drugs that are on the market are nothing more than placebos? These were not things that people chose to do. These were supposedly scientifically proven methods of treatment.

Point being unless you are going to be fair and show both sides of a given group you become as much a fanatic as you perceive them to be.

Zaeleth wrote:

As is "does the flying spaghetti monster exist?". It's not even a valid question from a scientific viewpoint so of course it's not addressed, what is addressed are shysters that promote provably ludicrous agendas to line their own pockets at the expense of gullible people, but worse, at the expense of even the rest of us as they e.g. go back to using ragwort to ward off evil spirits instead of taking their kids to a doctor before they get really sick

So you are stating categorically that God does not exist? Hrmm even the scientific community isn't arrogant enough to make that statement. As for the rest of the above point I agree.

Zaeleth wrote:

There's already a large field of science that provides the control sample for this kind of experiment, it's called probability. We already know how successful "normal" people will be at finding the cheese in a random sampling, bringing in controls who giggle their way through the experiment with no expectation of finding anything would in fact give cause to doubt the seriousness of the researcher, not reinforce his findings.

So you are saying this was not a controlled test but rather a test that was engineered to come out with the results he wanted? There is a definition of what elements must be present to perform a controlled test and for that you must have a control group. He didn't enough said. Even when the pharmaceutical companies test their drugs they use control groups. The other thing that made me laugh was the pigeon test which supposedly proved that animals are superstitious. So the pigeon looked over it's left shoulder and was given food as a reward. The next time he did it the machine randomly gave it food again. Now tell me I am wrong but isn't that the normal response for a learned behavior based on a reward program? Look over my left shoulder and I get food, pretty smart bird if you ask me.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 16, 2007, 1:06 am

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Zaeleth wrote:

What catastrophes? Like the atomic bomb? Perhaps the car? Certainly we can choose to use scientific innovation to fuck up the planet, but that's hardly his point. His point is that "spiritualists" haven't advanced humanity at all, and in fact are just the type of people that push back towards the middle ages rather than on to ... whatever.
Did you ever think of the spiritual comfort organized religion brings some people. How about the millions and millions of dollars they spend every year to feed the hungry, cloth the poor, educate the uneducated, medical treatment etc etc etc.

How many millions of children have been born deformed due to fertility drugs? How many people have lost their minds do to anti-depressants? How many drugs that are on the market are nothing more than placebos? These were not things that people chose to do. These were supposedly scientifically proven methods of treatment.

Point being unless you are going to be fair and show both sides of a given group you become as much a fanatic as you perceive them to be.

Look, jackass. Please show me where in the program in question organised religion was even discussed? Google crapped out on me a couple times so I might have missed something, but I saw medicine show spirituality, dowsers, tarot readers and other "mystics", and generally everything even your feeble grasp of logic should be able to dismiss without the benefit of serious scientific treatment, yet you still aren't getting it.

Zaeleth wrote:

As is "does the flying spaghetti monster exist?". It's not even a valid question from a scientific viewpoint so of course it's not addressed, what is addressed are shysters that promote provably ludicrous agendas to line their own pockets at the expense of gullible people, but worse, at the expense of even the rest of us as they e.g. go back to using ragwort to ward off evil spirits instead of taking their kids to a doctor before they get really sick
So you are stating categorically that God does not exist? Hrmm even the scientific community isn't arrogant enough to make that statement. As for the rest of the above point I agree.

Zero points for comprehension again. What I'm saying is that you can't prove the FSM doesn't exist any more than science can prove God or anything else doesn't exist. Science is about addressing questions that can be tested; we can prove all day that evidence that God(s) *do* exist is insubstantial, but that doesn't mean there's not evidence that hasn't been found yet. Hence, the existence (or not) of God is not an appropriate question for a program addressing things from a scientific standpoint.

Zaeleth wrote:

There's already a large field of science that provides the control sample for this kind of experiment, it's called probability. We already know how successful "normal" people will be at finding the cheese in a random sampling, bringing in controls who giggle their way through the experiment with no expectation of finding anything would in fact give cause to doubt the seriousness of the researcher, not reinforce his findings.
So you are saying this was not a controlled test but rather a test that was engineered to come out with the results he wanted? There is a definition of what elements must be present to perform a controlled test and for that you must have a control group. He didn't enough said. Even when the pharmaceutical companies test their drugs they use control groups. The other thing that made me laugh was the pigeon test which supposedly proved that animals are superstitious. So the pigeon looked over it's left shoulder and was given food as a reward. The next time he did it the machine randomly gave it food again. Now tell me I am wrong but isn't that the normal response for a learned behavior based on a reward program? Look over my left shoulder and I get food, pretty smart bird if you ask me.

Are you getting dumber as you go on? No, I'm not saying it's a rigged test. I'm saying that we already know what the results of this test is without the benefit of some supernatural power. These people could easily have passed the test by actually demonstrating any sensitivity to the existence of water at all, they did not, hence they failed.

The only reason you need a control group is to measure things that aren't already known, for example in a double-blind drug test you need people who are getting the drug and people who are not. This is because some of the people who are not getting the drug will report side effects anyway, even though they're receiving a placebo. There is no element of this effect in the dowsing test, hence no need for a control group. Just go google "control group", even the wikitards have a better grasp of the concept than you attempt to supply here.

As to the pigeon, perhaps you should look up an explanation of cause and effect, then go back to the program and listen to the preamble where they explain that perception of patterns that don't actually exist amount to superstition. Go rent "A Beautiful Mind" perhaps, there's a great example of it in that movie.

However, based on your posts on the topic, I can understand how you would think the bird was smart. At least comparatively.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 16, 2007, 2:27 am

Zaeleth I love how you say WE as if you are part of the scientific community. Secondly I love how you start name calling etc.I do understand as it has been scientifically proven this is the norm for people with a limited intellect.

Now if you would take the blinders off for a second and LISTEN to what your idol is stating in this documentary and compare what he is saying with what SCIENTIFIC proof means you will see he offers NO scientific proof what so ever regarding any of the BS groups he is examining. Further he does talk about organised religion several times through out his diatribe as well in his other "documentaries.

Zaeleth wrote:

Zero points for comprehension again. What I'm saying is that you can't prove the FSM doesn't exist any more than science can prove God or anything else doesn't exist. Science is about addressing questions that can be tested; we can prove all day that evidence that God(s) *do* exist is insubstantial, but that doesn't mean there's not evidence that hasn't been found yet. Hence, the existence (or not) of God is not an appropriate question for a program addressing things from a scientific standpoint.

Umm so why does he keep referencing the fact that faith is the single reason mankind is slipping back into the stoneage? Please take your own advice and listen to what this guy is saying before posting yet again with a poorly thought out response.

Zaeleth wrote:

As to the pigeon, perhaps you should look up an explanation of cause and effect, then go back to the program and listen to the preamble where they explain that perception of patterns that don't actually exist amount to superstition. Go rent "A Beautiful Mind" perhaps, there's a great example of it in that movie.

So let me get this straight an animal with a VERY limited intellegence but can learn patterns. Is shown it gets a reward two times in a row for looking over it's left shoulder. It is then supposed to realize the machine is randomly sending down food and change it's learned behavior? What exactly does this test prove? I can tell you now a human being with any intellegence at all would realize there was no pattern and give up.

su·per·sti·tion (sōō'pər-stĭsh'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.
An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Note in the definition it says an irrational belief. The pigeon had a rational belief the food would drop becase it happened two times in a row. I could go on but I see you believe posting on things you didn't even watch in it's entirety is ok because I guess your SUPER ESP powers helped you see what you missed. LOL

Thanks for the effort though.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 16, 2007, 2:35 am

A quickie, because you're clearly a waste of time: The only segment with scientific proof was indeed the dowser segment. As for blinders, you can't even understand how that test is valid, let alone scientific so we'll just have to agree to disagree until you get an 8th grade education.

Can someone else who isn't on a fishing expedition verify that he even says "faith"? I recall spiritualism referred to several times, but not "faith" and certainly the only one introducing God into the topic is Hammer. Or did I miss the 10 minute tangent that discussed God and equated this lot of con artists and fakes to mainstream religion?

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 16, 2007, 2:53 am

OMG you really aren't asking that question are you? Let's see in the first two minutes he mentions how he has discussed how Dogma and faith are bla bla bla then he says something about organised religion. Not to mention the images he uses which make obvious reference to Christianity. Guess your google crapped out at that point though haha. Dude maybe you need to get out of the boat and jump in the lake cause damn you go for anything shiny and bright and just latch on don't you. I mean you need to thank god you aren't a fish because you would be on my plate right now.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 16, 2007, 3:26 am

Oh, so you mean in some other show he talked about how organised religion blights our lives? Yes, right at the start where he's talking about "some other show" he says "faith". Goodo. Conceeded. However, that's not what this show is about, and I haven't been discussing some other show, and your the one asking why does he "keep referencing faith", so again give me more than a preamble about his already established views on a related show.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 16, 2007, 3:46 am

Look as much as I know you want me to watch this POS documentary again. Maybe you should watch it again or for the first time and see how many times he references God, Religion and faith. I am done making you look foolish.

LOL so about that fishing trip?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 16, 2007, 3:49 am

What, you want some kind of kudos for being deliberately fucking stupid instead of a true imbecile? Here, have a cookie.

That said, I don't believe any of you trolls are really as skilled as you make out, you just fall back on it as a defence when what you say is shite.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 16, 2007, 3:53 am

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Look as much as I know you want me to watch this POS documentary again. Maybe you should watch it again or for the first time and see how many times he references God, Religion and faith. I am done making you look foolish.

LOL so about that fishing trip?

Hey I'm willing to concede he said "Jesus was a faith healing charlatan and the Christian faith is nothing but a money laundering exercise" if you like, but that wasn't the subject of the show. Regardless of how much you feel you need to defend your imaginary friend and the belief system you've built around it, I only feel foolish for wasting time bothering to discuss this when you can't work out simple shit like: Something happening twice in a row isn't just cause for even a bird to expect it to happen forever.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 16, 2007, 4:26 am

I can't believe I wasted this much time on you. I usually reserve my time for more intellegent people that would know the difference between a pigeon and those on a higher intellectual level. Guess the term bird brain is lost on you though. BTW you do follow a pattern though when you get pwned it equals profanity on your part. Good job!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 9:11 am

Hammerstalkerx wrote:I can't believe I wasted this much time on you. I usually reserve my time for more intellegent people that would know the difference between a pigeon and those on a higher intellectual level. Guess the term bird brain is lost on you though. BTW you do follow a pattern though when you get pwned it equals profanity on your part. Good job!

Intelligent conversation cannot have anything to do with religion on VV.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 16, 2007, 10:57 am

it's painful to read you two go back and forth and get nowhere... but zae is right.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » August 16, 2007, 11:05 am

Boogahz wrote:
Hammerstalkerx wrote:I can't believe I wasted this much time on you. I usually reserve my time for more intellegent people that would know the difference between a pigeon and those on a higher intellectual level. Guess the term bird brain is lost on you though. BTW you do follow a pattern though when you get pwned it equals profanity on your part. Good job!

Intelligent conversation cannot have anything to do with religion on VV.

Not like its easy to get anywhere else either.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 11:07 am

This is the part where all the atheists and scientists all pile on about the factual non-existence of God without being able to prove it. It is usually my favorite part of the VV experience.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 11:27 am

Faith is for the weak, kilmoll.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 12:06 pm

VariaVespasa wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
Hammerstalkerx wrote:I can't believe I wasted this much time on you. I usually reserve my time for more intellegent people that would know the difference between a pigeon and those on a higher intellectual level. Guess the term bird brain is lost on you though. BTW you do follow a pattern though when you get pwned it equals profanity on your part. Good job!

Intelligent conversation cannot have anything to do with religion on VV.
Not like its easy to get anywhere else either.

Too true...too true.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · August 16, 2007, 12:10 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:This is the part where all the atheists and scientists all pile on about the factual non-existence of God without being able to prove it. It is usually my favorite part of the VV experience.

Kill, I love playing MMOs with you and you know it, but do you seriously not see the crazy nature of your statement. The onus is not on us non-believers, it's on you. You seriously cannot expect us to proof the non-existence of the God you have no proof of existing. I'm not going to use the typical Santa Claus, Toothfairy shit...it's all been done before. Come on man. No one is asking you to leave your faith. It is obviously an important part of your life. Stay logical to a point.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 1:14 pm

What part of the logic do all of you struggle with? You present YOUR case as FACT when it cannot be proven. We present ours as faith, which is the tenet of our belief. I say God exists because I have faith that he does. You say he does not because of science and cannot produce scientific evidence that he does not.

My big beef with all of it is that you all jump on and present your claims as fact when you indeed cannot prove it.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 16, 2007, 1:36 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:This is the part where all the atheists and scientists all pile on about the factual non-existence of God without being able to prove it. It is usually my favorite part of the VV experience.
Kill, I love playing MMOs with you and you know it, but do you seriously not see the crazy nature of your statement. The onus is not on us non-believers, it's on you. You seriously cannot expect us to proof the non-existence of the God you have no proof of existing. I'm not going to use the typical Santa Claus, Toothfairy shit...it's all been done before. Come on man. No one is asking you to leave your faith. It is obviously an important part of your life. Stay logical to a point.

Actually the onus is on whomever wants to get on the soapbox to try and make their point.

As I've said before, I'm an agnostic: I don't suscribe to any of the modern religious views on divinity, creation or the afterlife but to paraphrase Hamlet, there are more things out there than we can explain with modern science. Thus I form the basis of my belief system. I don't reject the notion of divine powers automatically but I have a lot of issues with different theories, and a distaste for both the modern and historic effects of organized religion (sorry Hammer, as much as there have been scientific breakthroughs that have created harm, be they fossil fuels, DDT or nuclear weapons, they are less damning IMO than the constant blood bath brought about by theologians who try and twist religious doctrine to suit their political aims). I also don't give a fuck if anyone else believes as I do or not unless you're trying to convince me of your opinion: THEN the onus is on you, regardless of whether you're someone like Kirk Cameron making his outrageous claims (he didn't prove a damned thing other than his stupidity) or someone like Dawkins trying the inverse. In this I will give more pts to Dawkins because he tends to try (somewhat successfully) an oblique approach; to debunk aspects of the religious philosophies, like faith healing and some of the occultist shit, which in turn strengthens his case.

I'll give the point to Kilmoll in his post created after I started this one: neither side can definatively prove their case and thus say the other is wrong.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 1:38 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What part of the logic do all of you struggle with? You present YOUR case as FACT when it cannot be proven. We present ours as faith, which is the tenet of our belief. I say God exists because I have faith that he does. You say he does not because of science and cannot produce scientific evidence that he does not.

My big beef with all of it is that you all jump on and present your claims as fact when you indeed cannot prove it.

I don't claim what I say about god (or the lack thereof) or religion are fact. What I do claim is that faith is for the weak, hell I could be wrong... or you could be weak... BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 16, 2007, 1:42 pm

I have faith that every night, Julia Stiles sneaks into my bedroom and snuggles up with me, only to leave before I wake up.

It gives me strength and power throughout the rest of the day.

That is a more believable faith, because julia stiles exists, i have a bedroom, i sleep, and i like to snuggle.

What you don't seem to understand is the source of all this 'god' nonsense is man himself. We know man gets smarter over time, so why on earth would you lend any credibility to bullshit man pondered about 2000+ years ago?... They were uneducated morons and thought the world was flat... Of course they pondered where they came from and what their purpose is, but the only answer they could come up with is Magic, or God, whatever you want to call it, because they didn't know about science, reason, or rationality. Why would God only tell his story to a bunch of inbred swine, and trust that they would continue it successfully?..

It's not reasonable or rational to even consider... that is why one side presents it as fact... because reason and rationality exclude even acknowledging the question of god's existence.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 16, 2007, 2:50 pm

Fash wrote:I have faith that every night, Julia Stiles sneaks into my bedroom and snuggles up with me, only to leave before I wake up.

It gives me strength and power throughout the rest of the day.

That is a more believable faith, because julia stiles exists, i have a bedroom, i sleep, and i like to snuggle.

What you don't seem to understand is the source of all this 'god' nonsense is man himself. We know man gets smarter over time, so why on earth would you lend any credibility to bullshit man pondered about 2000+ years ago?... They were uneducated morons and thought the world was flat... Of course they pondered where they came from and what their purpose is, but the only answer they could come up with is Magic, or God, whatever you want to call it, because they didn't know about science, reason, or rationality. Why would God only tell his story to a bunch of inbred swine, and trust that they would continue it successfully?..

It's not reasonable or rational to even consider... that is why one side presents it as fact... because reason and rationality exclude even acknowledging the question of god's existence.

I was watching the Bourne Supremacy last night and leaned over and told my wife that Julia Stiles is my one person we could never get but would be allowed to sleep with. Hers is Brad pitt. Big surprise. Nice call little brother on her. Also, well said post. I'll cuddle with you.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 3:10 pm

Reason and rationale also would preclude some speck from exploding without cause and it turning into unfathomable stretches of space and billions of stars and rocks that would be infinitely larger than the speck from which they came.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 3:20 pm

The same applies in believing in a God figure, except Scientists dont claim they have the answer (yet), or build a muti billion dollar industry out of squeezing a moral code into the issue. There's a massive difference between a "best guess" based on actual observation of the Universe at large and a "best guess" based on picking a belief out of a hat. Guess which one carries more weight.

By all means keep believing in a ripped off version of Egyptian mythology if it makes you happy, just realise you'll be taken as seriously as some loony trying to defend his belief in pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 16, 2007, 3:43 pm

I get really sick of Kilmoll making the blanket statement that the "atheists and scientists" say with 100% certainty that any god(s) don't exist. That simply hasn't happened, and this myth is propagated entirely by his lack of basic reading comprehension skills. I think virtually every one of the non-believers that have spoken up on the subject here have readily conceded the irrefutable fact that the non-existence of any deity cannot be proven. Most of us on that side of the "debate" don't believe in God, Zeus or Vishnu because all of the things that we humans have learned over the years make it seem pretty damned unlikely. The ridiculous claims of various religions that fly in the face of that knowledge don't hurt our arguments, either. I'm 99.999% sure that your God doesn't exist, and that's good enough for me. The likelihood of his existence is too small for me to be worried about it. Does that mean that he's not out there hiding under a rock somewhere waiting for me to discover him? Probably, but I can't absolutely eliminate the possibility. Ultimately, this is all about what's probable vs. what's improbable. Given everything that We (big we) know about our natural universe, I think bogeymen willing EVERYTHING into existence 6000 years ago or so is pretty fucking improbable.

Ultimately, I'm not telling you abandon your faith - you're free to believe whatever you want. Just don't be surprised by the fact that rational people are going to think less of you for your superstitions.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 3:58 pm

Not as sick as i am of you and your other retards bringing the subject up repeatedly. Your space dust exploding into an infinite universe is a hell of a lot more laughable than a being creating and designing it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:10 pm

Kilmoll's the sort of fella who would have sat back in the day going "LOL THOSE FUCKING MORONS WHO THINK THE WORLD ISNT FLAT SURE ARE DUMB HURRRRRRRF DURF"

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 4:14 pm

Um, don't even try to call someone for blanket statements until you plan to stop supporting them yourself. What a joke.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » August 16, 2007, 4:19 pm

I do not like Dawkins. Here is a man who thinks only in the tangible. Ethics are created by belief in something you cannot prove. Morals too. I believe that if I do something good for someone, that it can better the world. I have no way of proving this, but I believe it could be, and should be. Will I stop handing money to a bum who asks for food, even if the reality is he will spend it on drugs or booze? Never, because if I did so to a person who was sincerely hungry, then I would be a worse person for it.

Also, and perhaps paramount, is that all humanity has done is because they have dared to dream. A man has a dream of a man flying in a machine. Crazy, at the time. Fucking coo-coo for coco puffs. Yet, the man flew. Now flying is a major source of transportation for us. What pioneered that? It was not the science, it was the belief. Science made it better, stronger, faster, but it did not make it.

Now as for the creation of everything that is, I will summon up a big shrug because it could go other way (god or big bang). Both are pretty fucking ridiculous concepts to me, but one may be right

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 4:22 pm

I will tell you another couple of tidbits.....I really don't care so much for people that taunt and call out my religion. I don't believe in forcing someone to follow it, but I also don't tolerate someone that would sit there and taunt me about it either. It is akin to the same crap you people whine about with racism and people making fun of your pics after you posted. I am saying everyone should completely let all religion vs science crap drop entirely. Don't bring it up and stop dropping that shit into every thread on here. If you want to continue with it, then don't be upset when I start dropping racist crap into every single thread on here just for emphasis.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 16, 2007, 4:27 pm

I believe that may be Kilmoll's point Nick. Scientists don't have the answer but you are extremely willing to dismiss his believe as idiocy and simple mindedness.

Lets also talk about the best guess.
Have you yourself ever read any of the data put forth by the scientists supporting the big bang theory?

Have you read any of the conflicting data put for by the "intelligent design" folks?

Do you understand what the arguments are? Do you understand where the weaknesses in each argument are, or do you simply dismiss the arguments that conflict with your world view as mindless drivel?

Allow be to break down one of the more recent articles I have read on the subject which is intended to debunk ID (intellegent design). The author in this instance puts forth 2 basic positions. One is that IDs are misquoting the statistical figures by examining the probability of the most simply recorded organism. His supposition is that there were likely organisms in place previously which could not have been recorded and would be much simpler in nature (You can read more about the underlying theory he refers to by looking into Abiogenesis). Statistical probability of one of these simpler organisms is 4x10^40. (if you are interested, the statistical probability for the simplest organism we have data on is 2x10^390. Here are some interesting points about where we have gotten to thus far. He is using a theoretical organism that we have no direct proof of its existence and making conjecture about the number of enzymes required to make up its DNA chain. I for one find this endlessly entertaining. The next issue I have comes with the fact that he attempts to overcome the incredulously large number by stating that the various trials could all be handled simultaneously. This I find amusing as well. Here we have a scenario put together assuming an infinite number of particles so that we can perform these tests simultaneously, and God forbid any of the other particles might actually interfere with the atoms arranging themselves into an order that could be combined into molecules, to be formulated into enzymes to comprize DNA and used as the building blocks of life.

If you would like to attack my last statement I suggest you do so by stating that given we are talking about other particles interfering with the molecular combinations and recombinations we should also be aware that more than a single type of organism could be created during this time. I would warn you that you should perhaps make sure you are ready to make that argument before you step down that road and have a good understanding of both chemistry/theoretical math.

The better approach could be to say there are an infinite number of possibilities because there are an infinite number of starting points and consider the possibility of multiple dimensions in which these possibilities could present themselves. This is perhaps the only argument that I cannot argue against from a mathematical possibility. We are in effect speaking to a truly limitless amount of possibilities in this scenario. Kudos if this is your world view.

Allow me to posit another curious question. We have some evidence about simple single celled organisms we believe to have been the first organisms. We have evidence of "higher lifeforms." Do we have any evidence of the intermediary forms to go from the basic organisms we evolved from into the "higher lifeforms?" I am not asking you for the missing link between ape and human. I am not attempting to disprove Evolution as a whole. I am asking you for the missing data points between single celled organisms and ape.

You can dismiss these as the ramblings of a religious zealot if you so choose. Or you can ask yourself the questions in an honest light. Based on these questions and the answers you can uncover, can you be certain that Kilmoll is wrong to believe in a God. Can you be certain there is no God?

If you would like me to be expressive about my own religious beliefs we can do so and I will answer questions about what I believe, why I believe it, and where my views may differ from what is accepted either by the common structure. I did not feel that was necessary to this point, but I'm willing to discuss it if it has any bearing on your ability to understand the questions I have put forth.

Edit: Xatrei. I'm not positive because I haven't look at all of Killmolls posts, but is he making the statement that all scientists and atheists feel this way or is he defending his position against certain people on this board that are attacking his views as being simple minded? You yourself has interjected that his believe in faith is irrational. Perhaps you could present your responses to any of the questions I have posed. Please educate me so that I too may be less ignorant to the world as you know it. Also, the timeline is something that is debated within most of the religious world as well. One of the more reasonable arguments is that it quite simply was mistranslated or misunderstood from original texts. Given the availability of writing once upon a time, I assume you could consider that details are modified over time accidentally through word of mouth dissemination.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 16, 2007, 4:41 pm

Nick wrote: By all means keep believing in a ripped off version of Egyptian mythology if it makes you happy, just realise you'll be taken as seriously as some loony trying to defend his belief in pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Never heard this one before. Please explain.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:51 pm

I'm not a biologist, so I won't attempt to enter into a discussion on that. However, ID's most celebrated Scientist, Behe, is pretty much a laughing stock in the Science community, for reasons discussed in great detail that simply refute his claims fairly substantially (from what I can make out).

These can be found on Google easily, alternatively you could read anything by Dawkins on the matter, or these links that I'm posting. Dawkins is particularly scathing, good.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Mutator.cfm
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/0 ... revi_1.php
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5830/1427

Ultimately, I'm not about to get into a debate on the subtleties of Biology becase I have said, I am not an expert. I read up on the issue and try to understand, but I am no way capable of doing much else than direct you onto people who are smarter than both of us who obviously know a great deal more on the subject (as is wise? - this for some reason is considered a bad thing nowadays - usually by idiots).

I am "extremely willing" to dismiss his belief as idiocy because anyone with half a brain knows the history of Christianity, its roots and origins in Pagan/Egyptian mythology and its total reliance on BLIND faith. He is by all means free to believe whatever the fuck he wants, but shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when coming off with nonsense about how he'll start posting racist remarks unless people stop attacking blind faith (or to put it nicely, christianity.)

There are of course an infinite number of possibilities on how the Universe started, so one can never rule out Genesis entirely. However, only a very short sighted man runs to the least provable random religious assertion, usually hiding behind what his parents believed.

You can dismiss these as the ramblings of a religious zealot if you so choose. Or you can ask yourself the questions in an honest light. Based on these questions and the answers you can uncover, can you be certain that Kilmoll is wrong to believe in a God. Can you be certain there is no God?

See this is where I look at things in an honest light, despite your attempt to twist criticism of blind faith into a bad thing. No one claims to be certain there is no God, no scientist claims there is no God. That is not the point. It's not my responsibility to disprove Christianity, its Christianity's responsibility to prove it if they wish to pose their particular viewpoint as valid. Christians are the ones incapable of proving their belief as valid, not me.

Edit: The first 30 minutes of Zeitgeist: The movie explains the Egyptian link, but don't watch the rest of it, its fucking awful 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. However, alternatively type in "Sun gods/pagan/christianity" or "Horus/Jesus" into Google (or something similiar) and all will be explained.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 6:40 pm

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Did you ever think of the spiritual comfort organized religion brings some people. How about the millions and millions of dollars they spend every year to feed the hungry, cloth the poor, educate the uneducated, medical treatment etc etc etc.

How many millions of children have been born deformed due to fertility drugs? How many people have lost their minds do to anti-depressants? How many drugs that are on the market are nothing more than placebos? These were not things that people chose to do. These were supposedly scientifically proven methods of treatment.

Point being unless you are going to be fair and show both sides of a given group you become as much a fanatic as you perceive them to be.

Hey Cowboy, before you get carried away, let's not forget the millions of people who have been murdered for their religious beliefs by other zealots, the untold millions in Africa who have contracted aids unnecessarily because the Vatican outlaws the use of condoms, persecution against people who are gay because something is written in a book, child abuse in the church, etc etc etc

Are you trying to argue that Scientific advances, especially in medicine, which is what you're citing, have actually hurt the survivability of human beings? What about the countless cures for various illnesses which previously killed millions of people, the number of people who have been helped by anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, increased human longevity (its not just coincidence that life expectancy has risen throughout the world einstein), not to mention the unfathomable increase in knowledge of the Universe we inhabit, both inwardly and outwardly.

These were supposedly scientifically proven methods of treatment.

There's no supposedly about it, Science isn't always right. Maybe you should read up on what Science actually is. It is the accumulation of mutually supportive evidence to determine if a particular theory is or is not valid. The beauty of science is that it constantly evolves, admits its mistakes, learns from them and continues to advance. Unlike religion, which is 2000 year old absolutist dogma that claims the Earth is 6000 years old (if you need more examples why its ridiculous I'll look them up, there is no shortage).

You sound like Tom Cruise trying to berate that chick for her Post Partum depression (i.e retarded)

Not to mention you completely missed Dawkins' point, which is that the pursuit of blind faith, unreason and stupid paranormal beliefs are harming the obviously more intelligent plan of being a rational, logical, reasonable human being.

No one denies that religion could be comforting, but again, thats not the point thats being raised. And no, its not a "harmless" thing when people are flying planes into buildings, stopping other humans from their basic human rights or murdering them in whatever god is the flavour of their parents, its pretty fucking seriously harmful.

You have the nerve to accuse Zealath of copying the beliefs of his "idol" Dawkins when he's simply agreeing with him, whilst comically failing to see the hilarious irony in your own belief in your own actual idol. It's sort of cringeworthy to read, much like everything else you've posted. But keep going, it's good for a laugh at least.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 6:45 pm

I am as much for living as the next person, but might all of those medical advances also be a reason for the overpopulation in many areas? Maybe some of the diseases are a natural method of population control.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 16, 2007, 6:51 pm

I'd like to point out that I was being a bit unfair earlier. while chemistry and theoretical mth would be beneficial in arguing the case, it is not a requirement. I'll take a look in the morning.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 6:51 pm

They are of course natural methods of population control.

Then again, its not really "natural" to be able to drive along at 80 miles per hour on a motorway opccasionaly sipping from a drink made from a bean that was grown a thousand miles away and transported through the air at 550 miles per hour and heated up to near boiling point by an electric kettle made of a mixture of advanced plastic technology whilst listening to soundwaves beamed into your car from a satellite orbiting earth, so I don't really see the point in the question.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 6:56 pm

Nick wrote:They are of course natural methods of population control.

Then again, its not really "natural" to be able to drive along at 80 miles per hour on a motorway opccasionaly sipping from a drink made from a bean that was grown a thousand miles away and transported through the air at 550 miles per hour and heated up to near boiling point by an electric kettle made of a mixture of advanced plastic technology whilst listening to soundwaves beamed into your car from a satellite orbiting earth, so I don't really see the point in the question.

Agreeing with you might be the most painful fucking thing I can think of putting myself through, but unfortunately for me I agreed with your last post as well as this one. However, I guess the religious nuts probably don't like those medical advances because they interfere with gods divine plan.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 6:58 pm

Fuck, there must be a god, this is a miracle if ever there was one!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 16, 2007, 9:28 pm

Nick wrote:Then again, its not really "natural" to be able to drive along at 80 miles per hour on a motorway opccasionaly sipping from a drink made from a bean that was grown a thousand miles away and transported through the air at 550 miles per hour and heated up to near boiling point by an electric kettle made of a mixture of advanced plastic technology whilst listening to soundwaves beamed into your car from a satellite orbiting earth, so I don't really see the point in the question.

nice imagery, nick

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 16, 2007, 9:41 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Reason and rationale also would preclude some speck from exploding without cause and it turning into unfathomable stretches of space and billions of stars and rocks that would be infinitely larger than the speck from which they came.

we live on 1 planet, in a solar system with 9 planets (at least 2 are inhabitable)
in a galaxy with 200,000,000,000 stars (a majority have planets)
in a universe with 200,000,000,000 galaxies.

i don't give a rats ass where they came from.. they're THERE.

whats do you get when you times 200 billion by 200 billion by some average number of planets? umm...

analogically, we stand upon a 1 square foot section of the entire planet and presume to understand the whole picture. what we're able to touch, taste, or see within that 1 square foot section is obviously not representative of the rest.

reason and rational does not preclude those odds.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 16, 2007, 10:19 pm

The whole point is what I said in my first post neither side can prove their position so until there is scientific proof I will believe what I choose to believe. Further I never once said science is a bad thing. In fact I stated earlier it has benefited mankind immeasurably.

I do agree much blood has been spilled in the name of Christianity but in name only not in the true sense of what it means to be a Christian. I guess it is kind of like saying all Muslims are bad because a minority of fundamentalists are doing horrible things globally. It is simply not the case.

If you watch some of Dawkins other "Documentaries" especially the one where he is being interviewed about his book, you will see that he is not in fact an open minded scientist always looking for answers. He is a single minded individual looking to disprove faith based on his own beliefs. I love the part where the interviewer calls him out on his statement that God does not exist. Squirm isn't a strong enough word.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 16, 2007, 10:25 pm

I used to use 100 billion billion...now it's 200 billion billion!

Either way, the numbers boggle the scrotum.

What's this thread about anyway? I haven't read any of it. The numbers caught my eye though!

To recap on religion:

-there is no god or anything that remotely resembles what mainstream religions worship

-there may or may not be a "force" of some sort out there but we don't have a clue what it is and there's no sense in making up fairy tales about it except to put the dying at ease.

-deal with your mortality in a way that won't bother your neighbors

-for christ's sake, don't start brainwashing your kids about religion until they're close to 18. There's a reason kids can't have sex before they're 18 legally. It's because they aren't old enough to understand things yet and believe pretty much whatever a grown up tells them. You are raping your child's mind by feeding them bullshit about religion. Their brains are mush. Give them a fighting chance to be normal and you god damned well better let them know that not believing in all that crap is a valid choice. If you have any decency at all, you'll raise your children as a good parent should, teaching them right and wrong according to the laws of the land, and then, when they're 16-18 years old, if you absolutely must, you can sit them down and say, "little johnny, I'm a religious whack job but raised you without prejudice, religious or racial, so you could make a conscious choice about what you believe in."

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 16, 2007, 10:27 pm

Hey Winnow go back to your closet. Thanks! Um Winnow will you be allowing your children to go to Church to make a fair unbiased decision too? Everyone makes their own decision. Everyday children go to school and are taught about alternate points of view and I believe it is healthy for them to have their own opinion.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 10:29 pm

Hammerstalkerx wrote:I love the part where the interviewer calls him out on his statement that God does not exist. Squirm isn't a strong enough word.

Let's set up a bet - If you can show me proof that Dawkins has ever said categorically that God absolutely does not exist I will never again post on this forum. If you can't, then you can never post again either.

Deal?

Edit: Ready guys? The incoming backtrack is going to be amazing.