Ed on religion

1568101120

Comments

  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    Big Man wrote:

    And at last, evilrabbit, you didnt answer my question : Do you think it is a coincidence that the big bang theory popped up in the very epoche when the A-bomb was invented?

    In answer to this question, no I don't think it was a coincidence. The field of science and technology took a huge leap forward during this period, thanks in part to guys like Einstein. They were hardly going to come up with the big-bang theory 100 years earlier, when doctors were using leeches...

    In response to all the others who claim such a discussion is a waste of time, I don't believe it is. If you do, feel free to go click on a thread about guitar picks or how you rank PJ's records. If you go to Dawkins' website, there's an area called Convert's Corner where ex-religious people talk about how this kind of information helps them change their mind or get a firmer grip on how they feel/think.

    Therefore, if just one young Pearl Jam fan reads some of what has been discussed and decides to go research further, or questions something he was told, then it was worth it, right? One guy earlier had his curiosity piqued by the evolutionary explanation for the eyeball. Perhaps he'll do more reading and go on to work in this field and cure the very disease you're going to contract in 20 years. Who knows?

    Then again, perhaps we should just stick to discussing whether Yield or No Code is the better album. Although I concede that's a far more challenging question than the existence or non-existence of God. :)
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    Finally, has anyone noticed that the believers can't spell?

    Sub-par educations I guess.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • jwillmojwillmo Posts: 470
    Big Man wrote:
    Plus: I dont understand people contributing to this thread saying how little sense it makes to argue, to ask these questions. It makes sense to me. So what is your point in posting? (Its almost like on this stupid antsmarching.org forum, those people hurt my brain)
    I'm not against the idea of discussing this, just on this particular thread. Moving Train is for shit like this (and that's why I'm hardly ever on Moving Train). It was originally about whether people thought there was some inherent irony in Ed's words, and now it's a circular argument on God.

    I'm all for intelligent discussion on the existence of God, I just don't think it's coming close to happening here.
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    Big Man wrote:
    by the way, before 17th hundred, there was no atheism. Feuerbach was the first. I wonder how it was like then.. all this time. and, now, it is, idont know 90 percent of the people on earth believe in a god.

    Impossible to prove but highly unlikely. Atheists probably existed a lot longer. Unfortunately though, if they declared such non-belief or questioned religion, the a-holes in the church would burn them alive.

    You also can't blame believers for believing in God hundreds of years ago because they didn't have the knowledge we have today. They had no idea why it rained, or why they got sick, or what the sun was. Today, you should all be ashamed of yourselves that with the information available at your fingertips you still believe in childish nonsense.

    Also, just because a large number of people believe in religion that does not make it true. Just ask your friendly neighborhood Aztec.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    Definitely not calling you a moron. My only point about religion is this:

    Religion satisfies, too easily, the human need to know "why" and "how". "Why" and "how" are the same questions that motivate science. My opinion is just that the "why" and "how" as answered by the recognized (mostly ancient) faiths are wrong. I still want to know the answer to both questions. It's just my opinion that they are, as yet, unanswered by anything that I've seen. Hence, "religion is the opiate of the masses", as stated by Ben Franklin. It fills the void in us that would normally inspire us to explore, learn, grow and create. To me, it's a giant crutch for mankind's fragile ego. God forbid we not be the most important entities in the universe.

    I understand and I see nothing wrong with questioning it. I do it too. A very valid question to ask imo is, did we come from nothing or something? It's basically the question of mankind. I happen to believe religion is the opiate of the masses, but imo religion is man's corruption of faith. Two different things to me.

    Another issue of mine is the creationism vs evolution argument. Typical of our society, it's either one or the other. I don't understand this line of thinking. No one of faith has yet to explain to me why evolution isn't in fact creationism....lol so yeah...I question too. :)
  • EvilRabbit wrote:
    Finally, has anyone noticed that the believers can't spell?

    Sub-par educations I guess.


    oh so now we are stupid? don't think "turn the other cheek" means to let assholes say and do as they please.watch what you say before it comes back to bite you on your ass.

    Karma = what you reap is what you sow.
  • jwillmojwillmo Posts: 470
    EvilRabbit wrote:
    Finally, has anyone noticed that the believers can't spell?

    Sub-par educations I guess.
    Congratulations, the discussion has officially hit its nadir. Seriously, pointing out spelling on a message board?

    But I'm sure it's comforting to know that you talking about an eyeball is going to lead to someone curing cancer. A pre-emptive congratulations on that one, as well.
  • Big ManBig Man Posts: 97
    "!If the fundamental basis (and let's be honest with ourselves here) for your belief is what you've been taught from these ancient writings and religious doctrine, then how can you, even for a second, believe that you're in any position to comment on the existence of any god. Your only proof is a book that was supposedly "inspired" by god."


    Huh? I rather believe in something that was tested and discussed for thousands of years by educated scholars, than in some postmodern theories. Not such a long time ago, two modern theories led to two of the worlds biggest atrocities ever, so, whats wrong with the old books?

    It is such a hybris to me, to think, that now we are enlightnent. Since 200 years, and only in the western world, and also here only a part. All the other humans that live elsewhere and lived through all of time are fools. !!

    btw, i think you mix up ancient with antique, but also could be my english...
  • World's most famous philosophical Atheist changes mind
    11/06/07

    When Professor Antony Flew, the world's most famous "philosophical atheist", announced in 2004 that he had changed his mind, it caused something of a theological earthquake. The aftershocks were amplified because it was further reported that he was persuaded by intelligent design.


    Now he has published a book, There is a God, setting out his new position. He does not pull his punches: Richard Dawkins is engaged in an exercise of "popular mystification", he says. He also now believes that the presumption of proof is on the atheists to make their case.

    He deploys a parable to capture something of what's at stake. Consider a satellite phone washed up on the shores of an island and found by a lost tribe. The tribe have had no contact with modern civilisation and have no idea what it is. However, they discover that some combinations of key punches lead to what sound like human voices being heard through the device. The proto-scientists of the tribe get to work on it and find that if they damage the phone in various ways that the voices cease. They conclude that the voices are an epiphenomenon of the phone's mechanism. A debate then ensues between the scientists and the priests of the tribe - the priests arguing that it could be that the phone is communicating with some other place. The scientists are not convinced.

    Flew's new creed, in a nutshell, is that the universe was brought into existence by a superior mind - an infinite intelligence - as were the intricate laws of nature; and that life and reproduction originate in God. Contemporary science produces three reasons for thinking this: first, that nature obeys rational laws; second, that life emerged from lifeless matter; third, the very existence of the natural world itself. He still does not believe in an afterlife for humankind.

    Three scientific puzzles have been particularly important in his change of mind: how did the laws of nature come to be; how did life come to be from non-life; how did the universe come into existence? Put together, these lead him to believe that the design argument for the existence of God can be formulated clearly. To put it another way, the universe is "reason incarnate", that incarnation being of divine reason - or as Flew has it: "The laws of nature pose a problem for the atheist because they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter." The universe as the mind of God makes sense of that.

    Consider one issue, the so-called fine tuning of the universe. This is the observation that various fundamental constants have to be "set" to an unimaginable degree of accuracy for order and life to have emerged. One response is to propose the existence of a multiverse, which is essentially to say that somewhere all combinations of the constants have been tried out, we just happen to live in the place where they are right, as we inevitably would. Flew rejects this since saying everything is possible explains nothing, does not answer why everything is possible, and is a massively complex proposal to say the least. Intelligence behind the fine tuning, the laws and the existence of the universe is far simpler.

    He also examines the current biological theories for the origins of life. Flew finds them unconvincing since, first they require the universe to have existed for far, far longer than it has; second they still don't explain how life can have emerged from lifeless matter. The deep philosophical question is how mindless matter can produce life, some of it conscious, with intrinsic ends and self-replicating tendencies. Putting it down to chance simply misses the point.

    Further, there is good reason to think that all such issues simply fall outside the remit of science alone. Science presumes laws and so cannot ask how the laws came into being. When it does, it conjures up more laws, and so on, and so on. Flew recalls Einstein's comment that the man of science is a poor philosopher.

    Incidentally, Intelligent Design, as advocated by conservative evangelicals, is not addressed head-on in There is a God. I suspect Flew wouldn't have much time for it as an alternative to Darwinism: divine intelligence, for him, is an issue where natural selection falls short, notably at the origins of life.

    Needless to say, this is only to skim the arguments that Flew presents in his book, though he explores intricacies with admirable clarity. He is keen to point out throughout that the conclusion he has reached now should not be seen as a conversion. This is a wholly rational discovery of the divine for him - natural theology not revealed theology, in the traditional terms. Or as Flew says, he is just continuing to follow the evidence where it leads, as he has done across a lifetime considering the arguments about theism.

    He says the book is his "last will and testament": he is a deist. The conclusion can provide only limited comfort to believers since his is the God of the philosophers, not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What is the case now, though, is that as he was once the chief architect of profound challenges to believers, he now does the same against atheism. His position echoes that of Einstein (who he goes to some length to "reclaim" from Dawkins in The God Delusion). Einstein said: "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.'"


    On the opposite side....Mother Theresa had major, major doubts about the existence of god.
  • brainofmebrainofme Posts: 231
    Big Man wrote:
    Plus: I dont understand people contributing to this thread saying how little sense it makes to argue, to ask these questions. It makes sense to me. So what is your point in posting? (Its almost like on this stupid antsmarching.org forum, those people hurt my brain)

    if you're talking to me:
    for me it just doesn't make sense because it's always this "i'm right - no, i'm right" thing. nobody knows the truth in this case, so in my opinion nobody is right. i personally like discussions about interesting topics, and this certainly is (although we went far off from the original topic), but discussions like this always tend to become side a vs. side b.
    and as i have posted earlier, that's what causes wars, and that's why religion is a difficult topic. it's just that people always want to think that they are on the right and others are one the wrong side. we all should just be a little bit more open about different ideas.

    enough said...
    Vienna, Austria 2006
    Munich, Germany 2007
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    EvilRabbit wrote:
    Finally, has anyone noticed that the believers can't spell?

    Sub-par educations I guess.

    This from the guy who tried to wow us with an "explain the eye" argument.

    Man...that one blew us away. *cough*evolution*cough*

    Good job sport!
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    oh so now we are stupid? don't think "turn the other cheek" means to let assholes say and do as they please.watch what you say before it comes back to bite you on your ass.

    Karma = what you reap is what you sow.

    I didn't say you were stupid.

    And I think that's exactly what "turn the other cheek" means.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • Big ManBig Man Posts: 97
    yeah yeah evil rabbit, now i and all believers ought to be ashamed. ok, that was a nice discussion so far

    the problem is hybris.

    ciau
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    jwillmo wrote:
    Congratulations, the discussion has officially hit its nadir. Seriously, pointing out spelling on a message board?

    But I'm sure it's comforting to know that you talking about an eyeball is going to lead to someone curing cancer. A pre-emptive congratulations on that one, as well.

    You've underscored a fundamental problem with believers. They take stuff too literally.

    I only mentioned the spelling because I'm tired of seeing hubris as "hybris" or atheist as "aetheist." I personally don't care if you can or can't spell, i just thought it was ironic that the worst spelling was coming from the same people who embrace creationism and denounce evolution.

    Tying all this to Ed, to keep some of you happy, don't you think he believes in Evolution? I don't see him visiting the creationist museum and agreeing that man walked with dinosaurs.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    Drew263 wrote:
    This from the guy who tried to wow us with an "explain the eye" argument.

    Man...that one blew us away. *cough*evolution*cough*

    Good job sport!

    I had to explain the eyeball because that's one of the main arguments of creationism and that subject was raised by someone else.

    It might not have wowed you, but perhaps it answers the question for someone else.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • Big ManBig Man Posts: 97
    brainofme wrote:
    if you're talking to me:
    for me it just doesn't make sense because it's always this "i'm right - no, i'm right" thing. nobody knows the truth in this case, so in my opinion nobody is right. i personally like discussions about interesting topics, and this certainly is (although we went far off from the original topic), but discussions like this always tend to become side a vs. side b.
    and as i have posted earlier, that's what causes wars, and that's why religion is a difficult topic. it's just that people always want to think that they are on the right and others are one the wrong side. we all should just be a little bit more open about different ideas.

    enough said...


    it is not about being right or wrong. it is about finding a standpoint, strenghten or redefining ones attitude. Cuz it is not hammered in stone, and i am open. So people who dont like to discuss, go and screw your girl!
  • EvilRabbit wrote:
    You also can't blame believers for believing in God hundreds of years ago because they didn't have the knowledge we have today. They had no idea why it rained, or why they got sick, or what the sun was. Today, you should all be ashamed of yourselves that with the information available at your fingertips you still believe in childish nonsense.


    ah,i see your knowledge of history is just as non-existent as your knowledge of God.


    when you reach the end of your life and you are staring death in the face,that's when you will find God.happens to a lot of atheists.

    it's funny how you claim religion is to blame for war yet it's the asshole atheist who is bashing my faith and inciting hostility through your total dis-respect.so much for open mindedness or "live and let live".i say you are free to believe as you wish.you say I'm stupid for believing as i do.so who is the one in the wrong and incapable of tolerance?
  • jwillmojwillmo Posts: 470
    EvilRabbit wrote:
    You've underscored a fundamental problem with believers. They take stuff too literally.

    I only mentioned the spelling because I'm tired of seeing hubris as "hybris" or atheist as "aetheist." I personally don't care if you can or can't spell, i just thought it was ironic that the worst spelling was coming from the same people who embrace creationism and denounce evolution.

    Tying all this to Ed, to keep some of you happy, don't you think he believes in Evolution? I don't see him visiting the creationist museum and agreeing that man walked with dinosaurs.
    First off, I think it's funny that just because I disagree with your tactics or arguing skills that I must be a "believer."

    Second, if you think believers aren't that bright and you're somehow more enlightened, wouldn't it be the opposite of ironic if they can't spell? Wouldn't this be exactly what you would expect?

    So if you're tired of seeing "aetheist" then I'm tired of the misunderstanding of the word ironic.
  • brainofmebrainofme Posts: 231
    Big Man wrote:
    it is not about being right or wrong. it is about finding a standpoint, strenghten or redefining ones attitude. Cuz it is not hammered in stone, and i am open. So people who dont like to discuss, go and screw your girl!

    well, i'm open as well.
    also what's this thing about either believing in evolution OR believing in some sort of god.
    i'd call myself a religious - NO better term "SPIRITUAL" person - and still know that evolution takes place.
    Vienna, Austria 2006
    Munich, Germany 2007
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    ah,i see your knowledge of history is just as non-existent as your knowledge of God.


    when you reach the end of your life and you are staring death in the face,that's when you will find God.happens to a lot of atheists.

    it's funny how you claim religion is to blame for war yet it's the asshole atheist who is bashing my faith and inciting hostility through your total dis-respect.so much for open mindedness or "live and let live".i say you are free to believe as you wish.you say I'm stupid for believing as i do.so who is the one in the wrong?

    Listen, I'd be happy for you to believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. I really would. But religion seeps into everything, worldwide. It's why AIDs is so rampant in Africa, why stem-cell research is handcuffed in this country, why the Twin Towers are gone, why homosexuals are victims of hate crime, why Bush got into office, etc. etc.

    My beliefs don't affect you. They are upsetting to you but they aren't affecting your world and how it is run. But if I'm truly free, let me conduct stem-cell research and let my gay friend do what he wants. Butt out (no pun intended).

    And not once have I called you an "asshole." That's you, the Christian, using the term to describe me and a few others on here.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • Big ManBig Man Posts: 97
    brainofme wrote:
    well, i'm open as well.
    also what's this thing about either believing in evolution OR believing in some sort of god.
    i'd call myself a religious - NO better term "SPIRITUAL" person - and still know that evolution takes place.


    All Germans are Nazis.

    (sorry, couldnt resist...)
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    jwillmo wrote:
    First off, I think it's funny that just because I disagree with your tactics or arguing skills that I must be a "believer."

    Second, if you think believers aren't that bright and you're somehow more enlightened, wouldn't it be the opposite of ironic if they can't spell? Wouldn't this be exactly what you would expect?

    So if you're tired of seeing "aetheist" then I'm tired of the misunderstanding of the word ironic.

    The irony stems from their own claim of personal enlightenment and intellect... then they misspell the same word consistently.

    Okay, so you're not a believer. My apologies.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
  • Drew263 wrote:
    I understand and I see nothing wrong with questioning it. I do it too. A very valid question to ask imo is, did we come from nothing or something? It's basically the question of mankind. I happen to believe religion is the opiate of the masses, but imo religion is man's corruption of faith. Two different things to me.

    Another issue of mine is the creationism vs evolution argument. Typical of our society, it's either one or the other. I don't understand this line of thinking. No one of faith has yet to explain to me why evolution isn't in fact creationism....lol so yeah...I question too. :)

    Drew263, you're alright. This discussion would be better had before or after a pearl jam show. i'm going to msg. should we happen to bump into one another, i'll buy you a beer...hey...here's another Ben Franklin quote, "Beer is proof that there is a god and he wants us to be happy."
    Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
    Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
    Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
    NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
  • brainofmebrainofme Posts: 231
    EvilRabbit wrote:
    Listen, I'd be happy for you to believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. I really would. But religion seeps into everything, worldwide. It's why AIDs is so rampant in Africa, why stem-cell research is handcuffed in this country, why the Twin Towers are gone, why homosexuals are victims of hate crime, why Bush got into office, etc. etc.

    My beliefs don't affect you. They are upsetting to you but they aren't affecting your world and how it is run. But if I'm truly free, let me conduct stem-cell research and let my gay friend do what he wants. Butt out (no pun intended).

    And not once have I called you an "asshole." That's you, the Christian, using the term to describe me and a few others on here.


    you are right about the fact that religion "seeps into everything, worldwide" and that that causes huge problems. that's my biggest problem with religion as a whole.
    but do you really think that every person who belives in some sort of god takes all that's said in the bible or koran or whatever literally? do you really think that all "believers" are against homosexuals, against contraceptives etc. and believe that human race grew out of adam and eve?
    Vienna, Austria 2006
    Munich, Germany 2007
  • brainofmebrainofme Posts: 231
    Big Man wrote:
    All Germans are Nazis.

    (sorry, couldnt resist...)


    sorry, didn't get that!
    Vienna, Austria 2006
    Munich, Germany 2007
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    Drew263, you're alright. This discussion would be better had before or after a pearl jam show. i'm going to msg. should we happen to bump into one another, i'll buy you a beer...hey...here's another Ben Franklin quote, "Beer is proof that there is a god and he wants us to be happy."

    Unfortunately, I can't make MSG..I will be at Columbia though and if somehow you happen to be there or another stop that I make in the future....first round is on me.

    P.S. That is my favorite quote from our founding fathers!
  • HermanBloomHermanBloom Posts: 1,764
    EvilRabbit wrote:
    Listen, I'd be happy for you to believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. I really would. But religion seeps into everything, worldwide. It's why AIDs is so rampant in Africa, why stem-cell research is handcuffed in this country, why the Twin Towers are gone, why homosexuals are victims of hate crime, why Bush got into office, etc. etc.

    My beliefs don't affect you. They are upsetting to you but they aren't affecting your world and how it is run. But if I'm truly free, let me conduct stem-cell research and let my gay friend do what he wants. Butt out (no pun intended).

    And not once have I called you an "asshole." That's you, the Christian, using the term to describe me and a few others on here.
    AIDS of because of religion; no, it's because people can't keep their dicks in their pants.
    SLC 11/2/95, Park City 6/21/98, Boise 11/3/00, Seattle 12/9/02, Vancouver 5/30/03, Gorge 9/1/05, Vancouver 9/2/05, Gorge 7/22/06, Gorge 7/23/06, Camden I 6/19/08, MSG I 6/24/08, MSG II 6/25/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield II 6/30/08; Eddie Albany 6/8/09, 6/9/09; Philly 10/30/09, 10/31/09; Boston 5/17/10
    I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
  • jwillmojwillmo Posts: 470
    EvilRabbit wrote:
    The irony stems from their own claim of personal enlightenment and intellect... then they misspell the same word consistently.

    Okay, so you're not a believer. My apologies.
    To tell you the truth, I don't even know anymore what you mean by "believer"
    and "non-believer". You keep shifting from arguing against the existence of any god at all to Fundamentalist Christianity (all the shit about stem cells and evolution). I really can't keep up. I definitely believe in God, but I also believe in evolution, that gays should be left the fuck alone, etc. I've just been having a go at you because you seem to be more keen on the personal attacks than the other side. That's what I can't stand, and then when I defend the people you disagree with, you just assume I must believe exactly as they do.

    Full disclosure: I really don't care near as much about all this as I let on. It's actually just really fucking boring at work today.
  • HermanBloomHermanBloom Posts: 1,764
    ah,i see your knowledge of history is just as non-existent as your knowledge of God.


    when you reach the end of your life and you are staring death in the face,that's when you will find God.happens to a lot of atheists.

    it's funny how you claim religion is to blame for war yet it's the asshole atheist who is bashing my faith and inciting hostility through your total dis-respect.so much for open mindedness or "live and let live".i say you are free to believe as you wish.you say I'm stupid for believing as i do.so who is the one in the wrong and incapable of tolerance?
    great post
    SLC 11/2/95, Park City 6/21/98, Boise 11/3/00, Seattle 12/9/02, Vancouver 5/30/03, Gorge 9/1/05, Vancouver 9/2/05, Gorge 7/22/06, Gorge 7/23/06, Camden I 6/19/08, MSG I 6/24/08, MSG II 6/25/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield II 6/30/08; Eddie Albany 6/8/09, 6/9/09; Philly 10/30/09, 10/31/09; Boston 5/17/10
    I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
  • EvilRabbitEvilRabbit Posts: 286
    brainofme wrote:
    you are right about the fact that religion "seeps into everything, worldwide" and that that causes huge problems. that's my biggest problem with religion as a whole.
    but do you really think that every person who belives in some sort of god takes all that's said in the bible or koran or whatever literally? do you really think that all "believers" are against homosexuals, against contraceptives etc. and believe that human race grew out of adam and eve?

    Of course not. But I believe the world would be a better place if we put religion behind us. Sane people no longer believe in alchemy and astrology and I feel religion should be buried in the grave right next to them.

    Name one good thing brought about by religion? If you say charity or morality, for example, I will argue those things can exist without religion. Atheists can be good people. Any wrong-doing performed by an atheist is not done out of his/her atheism. You can't say the same about religion. Religion makes otherwise good people do atrocious things.
    Are you a screenwriter?
    www.screenplaymechanic.com
Sign In or Register to comment.