[Izzy]

Heh... The Spiritual World thread got locked, oops. Anyway, I thought the discussion was interesting, and would love to continue, maybe in the appropriate thread this time. If possible, can the mods split the old thread starting here?

My original topic title was "Atheism vs. All: Debate Style", but I figured it could be hilarious interesting to having people claim why ____ is better than _____, possibly educational as well.

Common courtesy applies in this thread. Remember to attack the arguments people post, rather than the people themselves. If you're going to tease someone, do so cleverly.

I'd like to pick up from where we left off, but anyone can feel free to start us off. NO PREACHING. No threatening with Hell because of disbelief. If I see any of that, I will ask to have your post removed.

[Izzy]

If you're annoyed, no one is asking you to read them. No one's suggesting you spam the thread with rude hints either. *hint, hint* (...)

*edit* Oh noes, I'm terrified by what Bran, presumably your brother, can do to me. The shock. The horror.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Izzy

[Guest]

temporal difference - in Humanities, our class has a good time laughing at Greek mythology. Hahaha, all the funny stories and ridiculous myths! The kinds of things that they believed in back then!!! Hahahaa!!! I'm laughing most of all, but for a different reason... they'll be laughing at Christianity a few thousand years from now, assuming we're still around by then ;D

It was in response to this

[Guest]

AAARRRGGGHHH I don't no why I gave Amanda this site. And my real name is Brandon.

[Izzy]

It was in response to this

In the future, Christianity will undoubtedly be regarded as funny stories and ridiculous myths. That's not to say morals weren't involved, as practically all fables and tall tales include them. All you've proven is that Christianity has survived longer than the Greek's religion (what was it called anyway?). ..Well done? (I think it may have to do with geographics and population. An entire continent believing in essentially the same thing, plus the middle east (Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are pretty much the same thing) will have their belief last longer than one country believing something else.

[Guest]

Regarding the origin of the universe, ... you quite literally have all of eternity to sit around and wait for a big bang to spontaneously happen?

I don't mean to mislead anyone into thinking that this is a generally accepted scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. It just seemed reasonable to me. I'm just posting to try to find out if anyone who really knows a thing or two about physics has ever heard of an argument along those lines and could tell me if it's even theoretically credible. That at least would provide a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe that doesn't involve a god.

This theory is called "creation ex nihilo" and has a history of at least 25 years in physics. It is one of many theories for the origin of the big bang not yet proven or disproven.

[Guest]

In the future, Christianity will undoubtedly be regarded as funny stories and ridiculous myths. That's not to say morals weren't involved, as practically all fables and tall tales include them. All you've proven is that Christianity has survived longer than the Greek's religion (what was it called anyway?). ..Well done? (I think it may have to do with geographics and population. An entire continent believing in essentially the same thing, plus the middle east (Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are pretty much the same thing) will have their belief last longer than one country believing something else.

Anything that gets frozen in time and isn't allowed to evolve and adapt will eventually die. Islam declares that Muhammad was the last prophet, period. Christianity froze the accepted "canon" at the Council of Nicea in 325CE, no further changes permitted, period.

There is no fundamental reason why a religion has to become frozen in time. When some religion gets smart enough to adopt an "ammendment" process that can update their beliefs and sacred writings to keep up with the changing times, it will have a massive evolutionary advantage over other religions. I'm frankly amazed that such a religion hasn't arisen yet. Maybe it has something to do with the human craving for constancy and absolutism in a world that buffets us with too much change in our lives. People must be seeking a refuge from that change and turn to religion for that refuge.

[plasmid]

Anything that gets frozen in time and isn't allowed to evolve and adapt will eventually die. Islam declares that Muhammad was the last prophet, period. Christianity froze the accepted "canon" at the Council of Nicea in 325CE, no further changes permitted, period.

There is no fundamental reason why a religion has to become frozen in time. When some religion gets smart enough to adopt an "ammendment" process that can update their beliefs and sacred writings to keep up with the changing times, it will have a massive evolutionary advantage over other religions. I'm frankly amazed that such a religion hasn't arisen yet. Maybe it has something to do with the human craving for constancy and absolutism in a world that buffets us with too much change in our lives. People must be seeking a refuge from that change and turn to religion for that refuge.

Aieee! You're giving it away! We're not quite ready to launch Uberfaith and take over the world yet... give us just a bit longer.

Edit: BTW, thanks for the "creation ex nihilo" tidbit.

Edited April 30, 2009 by plasmid

[hugemonkey]

Anything that gets frozen in time and isn't allowed to evolve and adapt will eventually die. Islam declares that Muhammad was the last prophet, period. Christianity froze the accepted "canon" at the Council of Nicea in 325CE, no further changes permitted, period.

There is no fundamental reason why a religion has to become frozen in time. When some religion gets smart enough to adopt an "ammendment" process that can update their beliefs and sacred writings to keep up with the changing times, it will have a massive evolutionary advantage over other religions. I'm frankly amazed that such a religion hasn't arisen yet. Maybe it has something to do with the human craving for constancy and absolutism in a world that buffets us with too much change in our lives. People must be seeking a refuge from that change and turn to religion for that refuge.

Religious memes (meme - a transmittable idea) do change and mutate over time (when was the last time you attended a public stoning?) but this change tends to be very slow. This slowness is painfully obvious in the current era that is characterized by almost constant change.

Getting frozen in time does not necessarily mean that a meme will die especially if it already has a working formula. Most religions adopt a type of orthodoxy or conservatism only after their institutions are established and they have a foothold in the society in which they exist. Prior to that time they are almost alway seen as extremely radical, cult-like and even criminal when compared to the society as a whole.

This is sort of a chicken-and-egg phenomena because the orthodoxy or conservatism of religious memes is what makes them recognizable across continents and through time as a Religion. If a Religion were to adopt an amendment process that was too easy then it would quickly mutate into many factions. These would become their own Religions as what happened during the Protestant Reformation.

I think, also, in this debate about religion it is important to separate what is "true" from what is "useful". Most Religions are a mixed-bag of memes. Some memes are useful to society (a moral code for example) and will help a Religion spread. Some only exist to insure a type of fidelity in copying (anti-heresy and orthodoxy). Other religious memes seem to serve no other purpose but to insure that it is spread (mandatory prostylization, have as many children as possible). Having parts that "believers" insist are "true" also helps in this spread because people are more likely to believe something if they think it is true. Factual "Truth" is not necessary though. The fables and other tales the Greeks told had many moral and ethical lessons that "ring true" were useful for them to believe in order to maintain the social fabric, but it was not necessary to believe in talking foxes for you to accept the truth of the underlying moral message.

One way to get people to buy into a bundle of religious memes is to wrap them up in an amazing story. It makes no difference if the story is true only that it is amazing enough for people to repeat it. In fact the wackier it is the more likely it is to get repeated. Throw in a few moral interpretations of the story that "ring true" or at least make everyone feel good, and suppress alternative explanations. Then you can pretty much throw in any amount of mumbo-jumbo with memes that undercut logic and criticism like "faith". Add in some taboos about arguing about religion as being rude. Then you've got everything that is needed to not only keep your religion going but the entire concept that "religion is good".

What good is it? Is it useful and/or necessary to believe a lie in order to have a stable society? Is there any alternative? Would you be more or less ethical to behave in a certain way that is useful and productive if no cohersion or religious code was making you?

[Izzy]

Anything that gets frozen in time and isn't allowed to evolve and adapt will eventually die. Islam declares that Muhammad was the last prophet, period. Christianity froze the accepted "canon" at the Council of Nicea in 325CE, no further changes permitted, period.

There is no fundamental reason why a religion has to become frozen in time. When some religion gets smart enough to adopt an "ammendment" process that can update their beliefs and sacred writings to keep up with the changing times, it will have a massive evolutionary advantage over other religions. I'm frankly amazed that such a religion hasn't arisen yet. Maybe it has something to do with the human craving for constancy and absolutism in a world that buffets us with too much change in our lives. People must be seeking a refuge from that change and turn to religion for that refuge.

There is a fundamental reason, basically, keep changing what you're religion believes in, and people will start to doubt you. Imagine if the Christians kept changing their mind about Jesus. Or God's abilities and personality.

That 'religion' sounds a lot like science.

[Guest]

Well, the fact is, Christianity or not, their has to be a higher power, until scientists get smarter. Think of the Big Bang as a dominoe effect. Big bang happens, because of that planets form, when earth forms volcanoes form, stromatolites appear, carbon dioxide warms climate, new life forms appear, and we come into the scene. Someone had to have started the Big Bang, since their was no space and time before, as scientists have said. That starter was God, the higher power. He was the one who "toppled the first dominoe", so to speak. Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. God was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.

[TwoaDay]

Well, the fact is, Christianity or not, their has to be a higher power, until scientists get smarter. Think of the Big Bang as a dominoe effect. Big bang happens, because of that planets form, when earth forms volcanoes form, stromatolites appear, carbon dioxide warms climate, new life forms appear, and we come into the scene. Someone had to have started the Big Bang, since their was no space and time before, as scientists have said. That starter was God, the higher power. He was the one who "toppled the first dominoe", so to speak. Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. God was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.

well actually, there are theories as to what caused the big bang, like other universes or dimensions and that stuff. it hasent been proven as far as i know, but neither has it been proven that their is a higher power

[Izzy]

Well, the fact is, Christianity or not, their has to be a higher power, until scientists get smarter.

Stop there. What complete bull sh*t. Why should something exists until 'scientists get smarter'?! If scientists get smarter (there's already more than enough evidence out there to show that God is utter nonsense), then God wouldn't have to be there in a first place. That's like me saying this invisible pink unicorn of mine exists until you prove it can't. No. It doesn't exist until I prove it does.

There rest of your argument is bull too. It's been covered so many times I really don't even want to bother anymore.

[andromeda]

Big bang happens, because of that planets form, when earth forms volcanoes form, stromatolites appear, carbon dioxide warms climate, new life forms appear, and we come into the scene.

Not really. First stars form and then from the dust of dying stars planets form. You and I are also made of star dust and I think that feeling is more magnificent than anything that any religion could come up with

Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. God was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.

Not really. You've been reading the wrong books and like I said in order to question those things you must know little bit more about molecular genetics this is an empirical science not a philosophical conundrum.

Edited May 1, 2009 by andromeda

[Guest]

It seems even more unlikely that another dimension or universe created the Big Bang. Otherwise we'd be living in them.

[andromeda]

It seems even more unlikely that another dimension or universe created the Big Bang. Otherwise we'd be living in them.

Let's go back to religion or start a new Big Bang topic... you don't want Martini frown!

[Izzy]

Have you ever read any sort of physics/chemistry/space science textbook? Ever?

Black holes are possibly 'portals' into other universes. Obviously, we don't coexist in more than one universe. Well, I suppose we could, but most physicists tell me the multiverse interpretation of QM is shite. But yeah, assuming we're a daughter universe of another one (which is VERY likely, because when suns more than ten times bigger than ours explode, black holes are formed, which may lead to other universes, as I said), something still had to start the initial big bang. However, if there's literally nothing sitting there for infinite time (which, it's hard to think of time in this context, but bear with me), eventually something was going to happen. Even if the odds are 10000^{99999999999999.....} to 1 against us.

I also read something pretty good about the possibility of life somewhere else. Okay, so there are roughly 10²³ stars in OUR universe. Planets must be in a certain 'Goldilocks Zone' for life to evolve on them. Clearly, it's possible, *points at us*. So, I just spent like half an hour trying to find the original post, but couldn't. It's something like, there's a hundred billion stars. Of those stars, over half are close enough to our fairly average sun, meaning they're able to form planets. Divide that by the possibility of one of those planets being able to fall into the Goldilocks Zone, life must have arisen on at least 10000 planets independently. (Bah, I really need to find this post. Does anyone else remember it? It was genius, and really explains what I'm failing to explain a lot better.

[unreality]

andromeda: as Izzy said, this is about all aspects of religion and religious debates. The big bang comes up in these kinds of discussions

Well, the fact is, Christianity or not, their has to be a higher power, until scientists get smarter.

Let me run a scenario through you... in a thousand years, let's say that "scientists" know 1000x more than they do now, and know all about the Big Bang and have empirical solutions to all of these meaning-based questions, discovering how it all works without gods and stuff - "scientists got smarter", as you put it, and religious folk are satisfied and the need for religion is gone. It is admitted that there never was a god in the first place but it was just a mechanism to help us cope with the world before we knew more and could "emerge from our shell".

Now... let's think about this. Scientists "got smarter" (what a ridiculous phrase btw lol) and we know there is no higher power - probably inevitable sometime in the future as you yourself basically said. Does god(s) just blink out of existence then? Clearly, it/they would never have existed

Think of the Big Bang as a dominoe effect. Big bang happens, because of that planets form, when earth forms volcanoes form, stromatolites appear, carbon dioxide warms climate, new life forms appear, and we come into the scene. Someone had to have started the Big Bang, since their was no space and time before, as scientists have said. That starter was God, the higher power. He was the one who "toppled the first dominoe", so to speak.

Your assertion in the above quote is pretty much valid, except for the red parts. My objection to "someone" is just phrasatory (is that a word?) as that not even an anthromorphisized god could be considered "someone". Now I'm not an expert on the Big Bang, so I'm pretty ignorant in the astrophysics field, but I know a few very distinguished astrophysicists at the University of Michigan, and I've heard them scoff at the mere idea of there not being a big bang. Their entire life's work is about this kind of stuff, you know? That should be enough for me to "take it on faith", but I still don't - I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of the big bang, even though I know a few of the things behind it. There are some knowledgeable physicists on here (cough ysan) that can help you I'm sure. Or ADParker probably. There's something about how nothingness is an unbalanced quantum state, things like that.

But personally, no matter how you look at it, IMO the universe has always existed and always will. Maybe the Big Bang was a sort of transitory period, a gravitational scrunching and then re-expansion, a recycling of the universe so to speak.

Either way, the "omniverse" of sorts has always and will always exist, it seems. We can only hope to understand the shadow on the wall of the cave, not the actual truth, because we are creatures bound within a system that we are trying to think externally about. But from our diminutive understanding, one thing is quite clear... SOMETHING had to exist forever/timelessly/etc. Most likely the universe. There COULD be a god that in turn created the universe, but then the god has to be existent forever/timelessly/etc. So how did the god get there if the god is infinitely more complex than the universe? You say the universe begs creation, well a superintelligent mind begs an even more spectacular creation. There's nothing that makes god different from the universe. Both can be considered timeless, omnipresent, alpha+omega, etc. Only your indoctrinated mind is what compels you to ambiguously say that god "can just be there" while the universe can't.

Here's something that might blow your mind: the universe may exist simply because it's a logically consistent possibility - note that this theory holds only if logic is external & omniversal (no one knows, it's impossible to know). It's also only managable in our lowly minds when one accepts particle-level determinism&probabilism. In that case, the universe is just a "form" as Plato puts it, a construct, a sort of planar example. An absolute, objective system that appears (and disappears?) in the blink of an eye (so to speak, eyeblinks may only exist in this universe ) just because it CAN. There are no rules in chaos. An infinite of infinite of universes, vast majority, have constants or rules of internal logic that may not even support the chemical existence of helium, let alone higher particles like protons in the first place. A few awesome universes (like ours) can support higher up levels of particles, leading eventually to complex molecules. And probably a lot fewer very-awesome universes (like ours) can support self-replicating... SELF-CONSCIOUS (eventually) lifeforms.

So it's pretty much awesome that our universe is so awesome Now it begs to differ - why is our universe fine-tuned for life? Well considering all the other universes, this one is one of the (few/only/some? not sure, we cannot know really) universes that can support life, therefore conscious life in that universe will ask that question. In a nutshell, the only universes in which the question "why is this universe good to life?" is asked can only possibly be the few universes that supported life. We're here talking about this BECAUSE our universe could support life.

And it may be more likely than not that ALL universes can support some kind of life, since self-replicated, entropy-reducing things are very useful... and resilient, being able to adapt. Life may be very different in other universes of course, that's to be expected. So it could be that nearly all logically consistent possible universes have developed some kind of life. We don't know under what conditions/constants life can arise - we only know that it can only arise in OUR universe with the exact constants OUR universe has, but that's mixing up the cause-and-effect... life arises in our universe under those constants because that's what life had to work with. Life adapted to the constants, not the other way around. It may be that life can form under nearly all constants. Or some. Who the hell knows

Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. God was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.

again... you jump to conclusions. This is the core of your argument:

(1) scientists don't know everything about Subject X. [this may be true - it is for abiogenesis. However we've made a ton of progress in this area in the past 50 years. Recently I read an argument about new theories, new tests, new experiments, etc... don't expect the shroud about the origin of life to remain for long]

then you jump to:

(2) God was the one who caused Subject X.

Do you see the problem here??? Let's say a phenomenon starts up. In the Gobi desert, a new mutated breed of cactuses start getting struck by GREEN lightning at an alarming rate. Scientists have only been working on it recently, and don't have conclusive results yet, though there are plenty of good hypotheses with some evidence.

You can't just say "Something has to be causing this strange green lightning... therefore God is the one striking these mutated cacti because he doesn't like evolution!"

not the best example in the world lol, but you get the point. Let me rephrase your quote:

Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. Zeus was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.

what's the difference? None! You can't just lump on a compeltely different phenomenon to something like that. You have nothing to back yourself up. Why can't it be Zeus? Why can't it be Baaldamned Odin for Ra's sake?

going back the point. Sure you can say, if you want, for an issue like the big bang, that a god put the seed there or something and then stepped back. Like Deism. But further identifying that god with a preexisting god (such as Yahweh/Jesus/Yeshua/YWHW(whatever the name is) or Zeus or even Pelor from D&D) is going too far. Especially when there are other, much more viable, theories and explanations.

If you went by the teachings of the bible, then you would already have your own predispositions for this (7 days, etc)... but I sense that you're smarter than that. Especially your comment about god planting the big bang, or "setting the conditons right".

Well ask yourself this: why did god have to set the conditions right? The conditions were right before, obviously. If all life needs to start is some conditions (which I agree with ) then a god isn't needed to initiate them. What part does your god really play in this?

I'm beginning to suspect you're actually more of a Deist than a Theist. Deists are much more sensible and realistic about things, IMO. It even allows for a quick divine injection when you need it. Basically Deism is "a god created the universe and then left it", so it's kind of similar to atheism in a way.

Most people I know, even devoutly religious ones, lead an atheist lifestyle 90% of the time. In the end, when it comes down to it, we operate on our own level, here on Earth. This is our home. This is our life. This is your time to be an individual before we rejoin the infinite splendor of the universe. To Bran and others, I don't care what belief system you hold as long as you appreciate life and live life to the fullest... my Life Philosophy, in a way, is to not let any Life Philosophies (including this one) stop me from living my life.

So yeah, go out, get off the computer and have some fun. That's what I'm going to do in ten seconds after clicking 'Add Reply' Cya

~ unreality, out ~

[Guest]

As I said before somewhere, life is pretty sad without God. No Heaven, and dying is sad. I am a complete Christian theist, I follow the Bible, and I'm satisfied with that.

[Izzy]

That's what you think. You wouldn't know what life is like without God because you haven't tried. The majority of atheists are perfectly happy, just like the majority of theists are.

[unreality]

As I said before somewhere, life is pretty sad without God. No Heaven, and dying is sad. I am a complete Christian theist, I follow the Bible, and I'm satisfied with that.

regarding life, see my post over in the other topic. Or the link in my signature.

It'd also be nice if you took the time to respond to some of our posts. Across a couple of topics, me and Izzy and ADP and kaw and some others have put together a series of excellent arguments, taking up a significant chunk of time, just for you and some of the other theists, and you do a very good job at ignoring them. Most of us were theists like you, but managed to break free. We want to help people like you but if you're unwilling, that's okay too. Whatever makes you happy is how you should live your life. Just don't lose sight of the big picture

I know I said I was *out* of these topics a while ago but I keep getting drawn back... anyway in my couple of longer posts here and in the other topic, I think I've covered enough. There's no further arguing needed - all the truth is there if you choose to see it. I hope you do someday, but you're you, and I know next to nothing about you and anyone else here, so ciao and have a good life

[andromeda]

andromeda: as Izzy said, this is about all aspects of religion and religious debates. The big bang comes up in these kinds of discussions

That is the very problem, I also mentioned my grandmother btw Martini hates when we go too wide in a thread

Edited May 1, 2009 by andromeda

[Guest]

regarding life, see my post over in the other topic. Or the link in my signature.

It'd also be nice if you took the time to respond to some of our posts. Across a couple of topics, me and Izzy and ADP and kaw and some others have put together a series of excellent arguments, taking up a significant chunk of time, just for you and some of the other theists, and you do a very good job at ignoring them. Most of us were theists like you, but managed to break free. We want to help people like you but if you're unwilling, that's okay too. Whatever makes you happy is how you should live your life. Just don't lose sight of the big picture

I know I said I was *out* of these topics a while ago but I keep getting drawn back... anyway in my couple of longer posts here and in the other topic, I think I've covered enough. There's no further arguing needed - all the truth is there if you choose to see it. I hope you do someday, but you're you, and I know next to nothing about you and anyone else here, so ciao and have a good life

Satan has his ways to fool people: one, it would help me not to deconvert. au contraire, it would make things worse. besides, i don't have all the time in the world to respong.

[Izzy]

Satan has his ways to fool people: one, it would help me not to deconvert. au contraire, it would make things worse. besides, i don't have all the time in the world to respong.

You're not fooling anyone. You're clearly avoiding posting any sort of response because you can't come up with one. You see the validity in our arguments, but don't want to face the truth. How long have you been online now? The above was posted half an hour ago, some of your other stuff several hours ago. *shrugs* Maybe not all the time in the world, but definitely a good percentage of your day.

[Guest]

Either way, the "omniverse" of sorts has always and will always exist, it seems. We can only hope to understand the shadow on the wall of the cave, not the actual truth, because we are creatures bound within a system that we are trying to think externally about. But from our diminutive understanding, one thing is quite clear... SOMETHING had to exist forever/timelessly/etc. Most likely the universe. There COULD be a god that in turn created the universe, but then the god has to be existent forever/timelessly/etc. So how did the god get there if the god is infinitely more complex than the universe? You say the universe begs creation, well a superintelligent mind begs an even more spectacular creation. There's nothing that makes god different from the universe. Both can be considered timeless, omnipresent, alpha+omega, etc. Only your indoctrinated mind is what compels you to ambiguously say that god "can just be there" while the universe can't.

I disagree. Time is a property of the (omni- multi-) universe. Without the universe, there is no time. Therefore, if the universe has a beginning, so must time. Another way to look at it is: if the time before us is infinite, then how could we ever get to now?

An infinite past is especially perplexing since time only moves in one direction, but a similar argument can be made about space, where one concludes that it must also be finite. This is consistent with the observation that the universe is the same in every direction: we know the (observable) universe is expanding, yet we see objects from the early (i.e. much smaller) universe everywhere. This doesn't make sense if you view space and time as infinite/eternal.

Edit: clarification...

Edited May 1, 2009 by d3k3

[unreality]

d3k3: I agree that time exists within the universe, but I think the universe(s) has(have) always existed, and therefore time as well. That's just my personal inclination. But I really don't know, and neither does anyone The most likely scenario is that we're both wrong and the real truth isn't even comprehendable