Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Secularism does not equal Atheism. Secularism is merely Religious neutral and only applies itself to those things where "god(s)" are impractical. Take a Road for example: There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, etc Road, it is just a Road that requires construction by Human hands/machinery. You wouldn't call it a Secular Road either, but a Secular Institution(Government in this case) is perfectly capable of making it and maintaining it.

The design of the road is based on some model. The selection of this model is based on some axioms. The selection of these axioms is based upon the experience of the engineer who is designing the road.

If he were a NASCAR track designer, then he might make all corners steeply banked, as one should if the cars will be traveling at 200 mph. However, if he were a civil/traffic engineer, he might make the corners banked as appropriate for cars traveling 60 mph. We should choose the road model that will benefit the people who will use the road, regardless of its source. In this case, it's obvious that the engineer's road model is more beneficial for the average road, as a normal car would fall off a road banked for 200 mph driving. If we are interested in building a racetrack, perhaps the NASCAR track model is more beneficial for the racers.

Similarly, in society, we should pick the model that is most beneficial to us, regardless of its origins. 'Extreme secularism' (that is, striving to remove all religious overtones from civil law) is simply foolish in that it rejects wisdom simply due to its source. It rejects the NASCAR model simply because it finds NASCAR objectionable, even though it may be attempting to build a racetrack. It uses the engineer's model simply to spite the NASCAR designer, even though the NASCAR model would be more beneficial.

You don't need "religious overtones" within Law. The dominant Religion(s) within society will ultimately determine the kind of Laws that will be enacted.

Not sure where you were going with the whole Nascar analogy.

Parallel lines lead you to the same destination? But may not have the same origin?

Sort of.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
where did the OP go?

I find it interesting when the OP of a thread will not sticvk around to defend his correcting everybody else; but when he is called on the carpet rather than admit the obvious he leaves the building.....

Sorry i had work to do, and I responded to your trolling. As usual you are contributing nothing. If you have more nits to pick with me then do so and I will respond.

The person making false claims didn't return, so nothing more to add on Christian vs. Deist for the FF's.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I've read a bit of Dawkins and seen some of his interviews and I think I know where he's coming from.

I'll try and explain my views. I'll do this not to attack people with religious believes, or change your views; it?s just so you know where some of us Atheists are coming from.

For me to accept the existence of your God I would also have to accept the possibility of all other gods and religions.

If I accept the possibility of all gods and religions, and that the universe contains the supernatural, I would then have to accept the possibility of all myths legends and superstitions to be true.

I am not willing to accept that I live in a universe where this is the case therefore I have to reject all religions and superstitions.

I think this closely matches my feelings as well.

Males and females have the same number of ribs, since that part of the Old Testament can't be interpreted literally, then everything else must also be viewed with skepticism.

Almost every story about Jesus is an allegory meant to teach a lesson of some kind, not much different from what the Greeks wrote about; Aesop's Fables for instance. Do I believe Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think he was the son of God, no. Was there a virgin birth? No.

Why haven't any angels from on high appeared to any shepherds in Asia? If the Christian God were universal I would think his messengers would be appearing to tribesmen in Africa or any number of other peoples around the world.

I know what it's like to believe without questioning, I was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic school for 10 years. Went to church 3 days a week during that time. These are hard questions that noone could provide answers for. Once I discovered science, I could no longer reconcile the two. Some would argue that they are wholly separate, well to me they weren't.

If all religion were to be erased from peoples hearts and minds tomorrow, would the world be plunged into chaos? No, I don't think so. For humans to survive there are basic tenants that are instinctual to us, don't kill others for instance. Most other mammals hold the very same instincts(most of the time), this the result of evolution, not from some God. There will always be a small part of the population who commit murder, who steal. We deal with them in the very same fashion that our ancestors did, they are cast out from the larger society, banished if you will.

There are differences between humans and all other forms of life on this planet. But I think that our similarities do make some religious people uneasy, and to some diminishes our greatness, and that is why Evolution is rejected.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, you know nothing - or at least are severely deluded.

Hammurabi is the foundation of written civic law, predating Christianity by nearly 2000 years. It is upon these ideas that Roman law evolved, then English common law, and that became the basis of the American legal system. Since the enlightenment it was the goal of nearly all progressive governments to remove as fully as possible all ties between the church and the powers of civil government. America was the most complete example of this up to that point.

I'll cede, for the sake of argument, that Roman law up until Constantine was based on Hammurabi's code. Are you going to argue that Christianity didn't heavily influence the system of laws that developed post-Constantine?

As pointed out in my other posts, the political system also is evolved from non-religious sources, with some ideas going back as far as Socrates and Plato. Then you move into the Hobbes, Locke, Montisque, and other major thinkers of the time. You will find, if you read notes from the conventions and also the Federalist, that the foundations are almost always secular.

But these philosophers rely heavily on their own personal religious experience in their logical meanderings. For example, Locke believed that we are created by God and, as such, are his property. This is his logic for disallowing suicide (Text). Hobbes expended a great deal of effort trying to reconcile his political philosophies with Christianity. Montesquieu clearly states that God is responsible for natural laws (rights). He also said that, while religious principle should not be the ultimate source for civil law, it is the only thing capable of keeping a government in check. So, while these are the primary sources considered by the framers, this does not imply that the framers had a strictly secular basis for the Constitution. This, in turn, does not mean that we live in a theocracy. Instead, it means only that religion has given us some insights and that we should not neglect wisdom simply because we disdain its source.

Christianity certainly played a part in western legal development, but that doesn't mean that western law is 'based on' christianity. I'm sure Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc all influenced the laws of their respective areas as well. Yet many (if not most) of those laws have striking parallels. In other words, there is a fundamental similarity of societies and civilizations which create similar laws despite influence by entirely different moral foundations. Short answer: laws are secular.

I don't think anyone has doubted the religiosity of the individuals (either founders or members of government). What is in question is rather a persons philosophical prejudices taint a body of their work to the point of being a work of the philosophy instead of the person(s).

If a satanist develops a cure for cancer is that cure necessarily sullied? If a group of fat scientists achieve a method of time travel do we say that time travel is a science of obesity? 20 atheists at a meeting, one of them chokes and is given the heimlich by another - saving his life. Did atheism save that mans life, or did an individual save his life?

My point is that a persons religious views are merely one minor aspect of their total personality, knowledge, reason, philosohpy, etc. To claim that a government founded by Christians is necessarily derived from Christianity is absurd. There is no uniquely religious inclusion in our founding stucture. The people forming the government specifcally noted (ad nauseum) that the point was to split religion off of government. The personal beliefs of the founders are therefore moot.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, you know nothing - or at least are severely deluded.

Hammurabi is the foundation of written civic law, predating Christianity by nearly 2000 years. It is upon these ideas that Roman law evolved, then English common law, and that became the basis of the American legal system. Since the enlightenment it was the goal of nearly all progressive governments to remove as fully as possible all ties between the church and the powers of civil government. America was the most complete example of this up to that point.

I'll cede, for the sake of argument, that Roman law up until Constantine was based on Hammurabi's code. Are you going to argue that Christianity didn't heavily influence the system of laws that developed post-Constantine?

As pointed out in my other posts, the political system also is evolved from non-religious sources, with some ideas going back as far as Socrates and Plato. Then you move into the Hobbes, Locke, Montisque, and other major thinkers of the time. You will find, if you read notes from the conventions and also the Federalist, that the foundations are almost always secular.

But these philosophers rely heavily on their own personal religious experience in their logical meanderings. For example, Locke believed that we are created by God and, as such, are his property. This is his logic for disallowing suicide (Text). Hobbes expended a great deal of effort trying to reconcile his political philosophies with Christianity. Montesquieu clearly states that God is responsible for natural laws (rights). He also said that, while religious principle should not be the ultimate source for civil law, it is the only thing capable of keeping a government in check. So, while these are the primary sources considered by the framers, this does not imply that the framers had a strictly secular basis for the Constitution. This, in turn, does not mean that we live in a theocracy. Instead, it means only that religion has given us some insights and that we should not neglect wisdom simply because we disdain its source.

Christianity certainly played a part in western legal development, but that doesn't mean that western law is 'based on' christianity. I'm sure Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc all influenced the laws of their respective areas as well. Yet many (if not most) of those laws have striking parallels. In other words, there is a fundamental similarity of societies and civilizations which create similar laws despite influence by entirely different moral foundations. Short answer: laws are secular.

I don't think anyone has doubted the religiosity of the individuals (either founders or members of government). What is in question is rather a persons philosophical prejudices taint a body of their work to the point of being a work of the philosophy instead of the person(s).

If a satanist develops a cure for cancer is that cure necessarily sullied? If a group of fat scientists achieve a method of time travel do we say that time travel is a science of obesity? 20 atheists at a meeting, one of them chokes and is given the heimlich by another - saving his life. Did atheism save that mans life, or did an individual save his life?

My point is that a persons religious views are merely one minor aspect of their total personality, knowledge, reason, philosohpy, etc. To claim that a government founded by Christians is necessarily derived from Christianity is absurd. There is no uniquely religious inclusion in our founding stucture. The people forming the government specifcally noted (ad nauseum) that the point was to split religion off of government. The personal beliefs of the founders are therefore moot.

I kind of have to agree with Prince of Wands on this one. Like I said before, why would a group of people leave a situation for the chance of religious freedom and then form a government whose laws are based upon a specific religion? All they would have done is change the landscape, change the religion, but created the same problem. The laws are similar to those of Christianity, and I'm not trying to say there isn't a certain correlation there, but that does not mean the laws are "based" upon Christianity.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: brandonb
Yeah, this is a good article /boggle:

Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

Sounds like a typical moron who found his corner of cyberspace.

BTW, the founding fathers were mostly Christian. They wanted seperation of church and state,. Because in England, they had the "Church of England." Which meant, that the tax payers paid for an official church. Freedom of Religion meant its now donation, and the burden isn't placed on the tax payers. As those who don't go to church should not be paying for a thing they don't even believe in, and would never use the services of (which in those times, meant schools, medical facilities, orphanage, and other places which helped the common man for the common good.)

It fits with my opinion of welfare. I pay $1500 a month in taxes, most which go to Department of Health and Human Services. I'd gladly choose to remove $1000 of that tax to sign a waiver that said I would never be eligable for welfare or any other program in that department. I'm sure that would be in the constitution if they founding fathers would have been alive today, but its not. But its the same principle however.

However, I still see freedom of religion being practiced in this country. Our tax dollars are not going into the donation plate. PS. It freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

actually, most the last money goes to the deptartment of defense. You should really investigate your governemnts budget and seewhere the money is really going.

DoD budget for 2006 is ~430 billion out of a 2.3 Trillion budget, try again.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment,

Which explains the following

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

God or the creator is mentioned twice in the document that started the whole drive for independence.
The whole drive for separation of church and state came from the drive to prevent a state religion, not because they didn't believe in god.

 

[piasabird]

Name one product on the market that uses quantum physics?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Name one product on the market that uses quantum physics?

All of them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Name one product on the market that uses quantum physics?

The PC you typed this message on is a direct product of quantum physics research.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You don't need "religious overtones" within Law. The dominant Religion(s) within society will ultimately determine the kind of Laws that will be enacted.

Yeah, that wasn't really what I meant I suppose. I'm trying to say that it's silly to reject a law simply because it happens to agree with a given religion. If the law is beneficial, this shouldn't matter.

Not sure where you were going with the whole Nascar analogy.

If a model is beneficial for society, society should accept it without bias.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Males and females have the same number of ribs, since that part of the Old Testament can't be interpreted literally, then everything else must also be viewed with skepticism.

So, based on this logic, if I lost a rib due to a car accident, my kids wouldn't have a rib? Give me a break. I don't believe this story in the Bible is meant to be taken literally (in fact, I'm sure it's not), but your attempt at logic is laughable. If this was your approach to religion, it's little wonder that you arrived at such ridiculous conclusions.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I've read a bit of Dawkins and seen some of his interviews and I think I know where he's coming from.

I'll try and explain my views. I'll do this not to attack people with religious believes, or change your views; it?s just so you know where some of us Atheists are coming from.

For me to accept the existence of your God I would also have to accept the possibility of all other gods and religions.

If I accept the possibility of all gods and religions, and that the universe contains the supernatural, I would then have to accept the possibility of all myths legends and superstitions to be true.

I am not willing to accept that I live in a universe where this is the case therefore I have to reject all religions and superstitions.

I think this closely matches my feelings as well.

Males and females have the same number of ribs, since that part of the Old Testament can't be interpreted literally, then everything else must also be viewed with skepticism. Almost every story about Jesus is an allegory meant to teach a lesson of some kind, not much different from what the Greeks wrote about; Aesop's Fables for instance. Do I believe Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think he was the son of God, no. Was there a virgin birth? No.

Why haven't any angels from on high appeared to any shepherds in Asia? If the Christian God were universal I would think his messengers would be appearing to tribesmen in Africa or any number of other peoples around the world.

I know what it's like to believe without questioning, I was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic school for 10 years. Went to church 3 days a week during that time. These are hard questions that noone could provide answers for. Once I discovered science, I could no longer reconcile the two. Some would argue that they are wholly separate, well to me they weren't.

If all religion were to be erased from peoples hearts and minds tomorrow, would the world be plunged into chaos? No, I don't think so. For humans to survive there are basic tenants that are instinctual to us, don't kill others for instance. Most other mammals hold the very same instincts(most of the time), this the result of evolution, not from some God. There will always be a small part of the population who commit murder, who steal. We deal with them in the very same fashion that our ancestors did, they are cast out from the larger society, banished if you will.

There are differences between humans and all other forms of life on this planet. But I think that our similarities do make some religious people uneasy, and to some diminishes our greatness, and that is why Evolution is rejected.

your example about the ribs of a man and the rubs of a woman really do show that you do not have a clue.

let me educate you a little if I may--

Web www.dmt123.com

how many limbs does a woman have in her body? how many does a male have? why the difference?

Question: what is your take on the meaning of the difference and number?

Answers:
Several Anatomy and Physiology textbooks. All agree that, based on medical research (somebody actually dissected cadavers and counted ribs, somebody actually looked at x-rays and counted ribs), men and women have the same number of ribs as each other. For example, one book says:

Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth.

So from where did the ?urban legend? that women have more ribs come? I don?t know for sure, but here is my guess. As I mentioned on my History of Science Web page, back in the Middle Ages, people came up with all sorts of ideas that were commonly thought to be true and were even put into print, but were never tested, never verified. For example, someone decided that that since giraffes had spots, they must result from a cross-breeding between a leopard and a camel, but no one ever actually did anything to check and see if this was really true or possible! I recall reading that a heavily-debated topic back then was the number of teeth that horses have. Numerous people vehemently insisted on a variety of numbers, and no one would or could agree with each other, yet no one ever actually opened a horse?s mouth and counted its teeth! The notion that women have more ribs than men sounds suspiciously like an idea that could have arisen back then.
So, why would anyone think that? The notion that women have an extra set of ribs is probably based on a misinterpretation of some Bible verses in Genesis. The actual quote is:

But for Adam, no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man?s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man.

Notice what this doesn?t say. It doesn?t say anything about how many ribs Adam had before or after this ?surgery,? and especially it says nothing, whatsoever, about how many ribs Eve had! Nowhere does it say that Eve had more ribs than Adam. Who made that assumption without checking? Wouldn't it be just as logical to guess (also without checking) that if she was created ?second? that God might have made her with the same number of ribs as the new, reduced number that Adam now had? Wouldn?t it really be more logical to guess that God might have created her with the same number of ribs as Adam just to avoid confusion? Genesis doesn't say one way or the other, so the only way to know is to cut open cadavers and start counting. Who has done that ? the theologians or the biologists? My guess is that, once again, if human misinterpretations are set aside and if it is remembered that theology looks at ?why? while science looks at ?how,? there is no ?conflict? between what the Bible, itself, is saying and what biologists know to be true about our bodies.A reader of this Web page sent me an e-mail message with another point worth remembering. If, for example, a person would accidentally lose a finger or would have a body part surgically removed, then subsequently that person would create a baby, that baby would still be born with all his or her body parts. Similarly, if Adam had a rib removed, that does not mean that we, his children, would have missing ribs.


have fun!!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
You don't need "religious overtones" within Law. The dominant Religion(s) within society will ultimately determine the kind of Laws that will be enacted.

Yeah, that wasn't really what I meant I suppose. I'm trying to say that it's silly to reject a law simply because it happens to agree with a given religion. If the law is beneficial, this shouldn't matter.

Not sure where you were going with the whole Nascar analogy.

If a model is beneficial for society, society should accept it without bias.

I don't think any sane person has ever rejected a law because it may have been expressed in The Bible, Torah, Quran or other religious works. Doing so would be completely irresponsible and just plain stupid.

What I and many other don't want is simply laws based off religion. I don't want gay marriage illegal/prohibited simply because many religious works don't like homosexuality in general. If it is to be prohibited I would want it because of sound reason based off of solid factual scientific evidence, which can be tested and proven. Though, I am not aware of any.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is how the article starts but it is not a political rant.

Saying that it's not a political rant doesn't make it so.

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

The axioms on which the Constitution is based are largely Christian in origin.

The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people.

Red herring.

Labeling a statement a red herring doesn't make the statement a red herring. You have to demonstrate why it's a red herring. Please do so.

It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world.

False dilemma.

And labeling an argument a false dilemma doesn't make that so, either. You have to demonstrate why it's a false dilemma. Please do so.

It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds.

Hasty generalization, among others

Yawn. This is getting tiresome. Don't label, demonstrate

More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming."

Appeal to fear.

Wow. If this is the extent of your powers of logical argumentation, Spock is in no danger.

Edit: By the way, this isn't an appeal to fear at all. We (the readers) aren't being informed of something WE fear and then goaded into changing our views (because that will allow us to evade the fearful thing). No, this argument merely points out that there are some wacky religious extremists out there, and is using that fact to support the claim that religion therefore may be a poor basis for public policy. That argumentation strategy might well be labeled "arguing from the fringes" (or possibly creating a straw man) (other fallacies of reasoning), but it's not an appeal to fear.

Based on this, I can't see wasting time reading the whole thing.

And based on your post, I find myself wondering why you wasted your time posting.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

I don't think any sane person has ever rejected a law because it may have been expressed in The Bible, Torah, Quran or other religious works. Doing so would be completely irresponsible and just plain stupid.

What I and many other don't want is simply laws based off religion. I don't want gay marriage illegal/prohibited simply because many religious works don't like homosexuality in general. If it is to be prohibited I would want it because of sound reason based off of solid factual scientific evidence, which can be tested and proven. Though, I am not aware of any.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm not understanding what you mean by factual scientific evidence, which can be tested and proven. How do the majority of laws we have today fit into that category? I apologize, but I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

I don't think any sane person has ever rejected a law because it may have been expressed in The Bible, Torah, Quran or other religious works. Doing so would be completely irresponsible and just plain stupid.

What I and many other don't want is simply laws based off religion. I don't want gay marriage illegal/prohibited simply because many religious works don't like homosexuality in general. If it is to be prohibited I would want it because of sound reason based off of solid factual scientific evidence, which can be tested and proven. Though, I am not aware of any.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm not understanding what you mean by factual scientific evidence, which can be tested and proven. How do the majority of laws we have today fit into that category? I apologize, but I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain?

Let's say gun laws for example. Compare a state with very strict gun laws like California and New York to a state with very lax gun laws like Texas. Is there more violence in Texas because of these laws? Maybe, it's not gun laws at all and something else that's completely different.

This is just an example of something that we can gather data from, we can test and we can find results. As far as I know, gun laws aren't a very effective means of reducing gun crimes.

What I don't like and don't want to see is politicians claiming things like "The second an egg and sperm join a soul is formed, therefore abortion is murder." This isn't something that you can prove, at least scientifically speaking.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Let's say gun laws for example. Compare a state with very strict gun laws like California and New York to a state with very lax gun laws like Texas. Is there more violence in Texas because of these laws? Maybe, it's not gun laws at all and something else that's completely different.

This is just an example of something that we can gather data from, we can test and we can find results. As far as I know, gun laws aren't a very effective means of reducing gun crimes.

What I don't like and don't want to see is politicians claiming things like "The second an egg and sperm join a soul is formed, therefore abortion is murder." This isn't something that you can prove, at least scientifically speaking.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

Definitely have to agree with you on the Gun control thing, as well as the abortion. Although I don't completely support abortion (I kind of the like the previous "under certain circumstances" version, though that's just me), I agree that you can't say the minute they join they are a soul. You're right. How do you prove that?

But I just wonder if that's a realistic expectation for all laws. Do you think we can actually expect to do that for all laws we create? Just wondering.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: wetech
My math professor at college told us a story about a mathematician who was asked to prove the existance of God (I forgot the name of the guy). His reply was e^(-pi*i) = 0. And his reason was that the 5 most important number in math balance perfectly in 1 equation.

This is a good anectdote that reminds us: there is not one piece of objective evidence that supports a claim or assertion of a creative being (God).

Not one bit. That is an unchalleged, uncontrverted fact.

This is all Dawkins really had to say to make his thesis.

Any claim asserting the existence of (a) God, is made without the benefit of objective evidence.

The point is quite obvious, but it is seldom made in polite company.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Let's say gun laws for example. Compare a state with very strict gun laws like California and New York to a state with very lax gun laws like Texas. Is there more violence in Texas because of these laws? Maybe, it's not gun laws at all and something else that's completely different.

This is just an example of something that we can gather data from, we can test and we can find results. As far as I know, gun laws aren't a very effective means of reducing gun crimes.

What I don't like and don't want to see is politicians claiming things like "The second an egg and sperm join a soul is formed, therefore abortion is murder." This isn't something that you can prove, at least scientifically speaking.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

Definitely have to agree with you on the Gun control thing, as well as the abortion. Although I don't completely support abortion (I kind of the like the previous "under certain circumstances" version, though that's just me), I agree that you can't say the minute they join they are a soul. You're right. How do you prove that?

But I just wonder if that's a realistic expectation for all laws. Do you think we can actually expect to do that for all laws we create? Just wondering.

I would sure as hell hope so, at least in this era.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: wetech
My math professor at college told us a story about a mathematician who was asked to prove the existance of God (I forgot the name of the guy). His reply was e^(-pi*i) = 0. And his reason was that the 5 most important number in math balance perfectly in 1 equation.

This is a good anectdote that reminds us: there is not one piece of objective evidence that supports a claim or assertion of a creative being (God).

Not one bit. That is an unchalleged, uncontrverted fact.

This is all Dawkins really had to say to make his thesis.

Any claim asserting the existence of (a) God, is made without the benefit of objective evidence.

The point is quite obvious, but it is seldom made in polite company.

I remember a long time ago, I was watching 20/20 about a mathematician who was working on some equation that would prove the exsistance of God. This was about ten years ago, but does anyone know what became of the man?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

America, founded in secularism

I got about that far... then I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Doesn't matter anyway... anyting he said after that was based on a premise so far from reality it's... I dunno... I'm still laughing.

i.e., your mind is almost as empyty as the evangelical voters Dawkins is criticising.

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: wetech
My math professor at college told us a story about a mathematician who was asked to prove the existance of God (I forgot the name of the guy). His reply was e^(-pi*i) = 0. And his reason was that the 5 most important number in math balance perfectly in 1 equation.

This is a good anectdote that reminds us: there is not one piece of objective evidence that supports a claim or assertion of a creative being (God).

Not one bit. That is an unchalleged, uncontrverted fact.

This is all Dawkins really had to say to make his thesis.

Any claim asserting the existence of (a) God, is made without the benefit of objective evidence.

The point is quite obvious, but it is seldom made in polite company.

I remember a long time ago, I was watching 20/20 about a mathematician who was working on some equation that would prove the exsistance of God. This was about ten years ago, but does anyone know what became of the man?

yeah I seen the one(looking for his name too).. I'm still waiting for the answer, even better I'm still waiting for god judgment day religion people claiming.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Have you ever tried to engage a religious person in conversation? If it isn't in the bible they don't want to hear it or it must not be true. If I drop a brick on your foot it's going to hurt right? But that isn't in the bible so it must not be true. Blind loyalty, something every cult or extremist group depends on. In my humble opinion christians are some the most extreme people you'll ever meet and certainly some of the laziest ones.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ayabe
Males and females have the same number of ribs, since that part of the Old Testament can't be interpreted literally, then everything else must also be viewed with skepticism.

So, based on this logic, if I lost a rib due to a car accident, my kids wouldn't have a rib? Give me a break. I don't believe this story in the Bible is meant to be taken literally (in fact, I'm sure it's not), but your attempt at logic is laughable. If this was your approach to religion, it's little wonder that you arrived at such ridiculous conclusions.

Read a little about the Adam's apple and tell me if your logic applies, this was the explanation as to why men have them, all of Adams descendents carry this very trait, so this would apply to the ribs also.

Same to you Jedi, reconcile the two.

Again you can't pick and choose where your logic applies; defending those which support your thesis.