Aargh!

Post by **Best First** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:15 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Stor ... 70,00.html

its not that people have such opinions, its moe the fact they have funding...

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:53 pm

There has to be some way to take advantage of that...

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:06 pm

it beggers beleif, it really does.

the quote "the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake." is surely enough to make people think "hang on a minute..."

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:38 pm

Other religions don't have that, and, as for scientists, so much of what they believe is pretty fuzzy about life and its origins ...

That's because scientists are trying to piece together the origin of Earth from incomplete facts as best they can. But at least what they currently believe is allways called a "theory" rather than a "Fact that if you don't believe will result in you burning in hell".

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:50 pm

I saw this on TV - they have dioramas where there are dinosaurs and humans living together like the flintstones!!!

Seriously, WTF?

ppl who dont belive in evoloution generally dont understand it on a basic level. when u sit them down and explain it, they run out of arguments very quickly.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:31 pm

That's the real kicker, isn't it. Religion is supported by ignorance. Trying to shore up religion scientifically always comes off as stupid to anyone smarter than a turnip.

Get these people to comment more on their beliefs. This guy's building a 25 million dollar museum for made up stuff. Get him to go into detail. Get him to say that every other museum on the planet is wrong. Get him to go on record as saying that all those artifacts at all those museums aren't nearly as old as those little cards next to them say they are. Get them to go farther into detail. Let them say that humanity, plant life, the planet itself, the sun, the galaxy, and the all-but limitless universe was created less than 6,000 years ago. Get him to try to explain how dinosaur fossils could have been created in less than 6,000 years. Put him on television telling about how a flood that covered the entire world managed to carve out the grand canyon specifically. Then, put some high school science teacher on after him to explain why he's wrong.

I like how, in that article, he mentions that he's got The God Delusion on his desk but has only "flipped through it." That book is incredibly powerful. You finish reading it and you're either an atheist or an idiot.

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:16 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:they have dioramas where there are dinosaurs and humans living together like the flintstones!!!

wtf

Stormwolf · Post by **Stormwolf** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:44 pm

Hmmmm

http://notthemessiah.net/ntm/images/pro ... ratops.jpg

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:59 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:I like how, in that article, he mentions that he's got The God Delusion on his desk but has only "flipped through it." That book is incredibly powerful. You finish reading it and you're either an atheist or an idiot.

I've brought my mother it for Christmas, I'll let you know which catagory she falls into.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:14 pm

Professor Smooth wrote: I like how, in that article, he mentions that he's got The God Delusion on his desk but has only "flipped through it." That book is incredibly powerful. You finish reading it and you're either an atheist or an idiot.

You're with us, or you're with the terrorists, no? Gotta love false dichotomies.

What about if I were to believe in God, and think that God planned out the universe like a bunch of dominoes, set up all these rules and processes by which the universe exists, and then tipped over the first domino to start a glorious chain reaction 4.7 billion years ago, ie the Big Bang?

What if I were to believe that evolution and the fossil record were real, but that there had to have been some sort of divine power that kicked it up a few notches to get us from monkey to Homo Saps? That we've been imbued with self conciousness and a soul, and that's what enable us to sit around and create a society where we have fancy things like computers?

All I'm saying is, until science has fully explained all the phenomena of the natural world, there's plenty of room for options other than "atheist" and "idiot".

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:03 pm

This is one of them things I dont get.

Instead of saying evoloution is BS, why not just say that god made it that way?

and then re-interpret the bible (as u always do anyhows) to mean just that?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:28 pm

Just so we're not retreading an old topic, and very coincidental, as this was something I stumbled across yesterday while looking for a different old topic...

http://transfans.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3970

...and started by the same member, no less.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:33 am

Shanti418 wrote:What about if I were to believe in God, and think that God planned out the universe like a bunch of dominoes, set up all these rules and processes by which the universe exists, and then tipped over the first domino to start a glorious chain reaction 4.7 billion years ago, ie the Big Bang?

Isn't that the plot from Arthur C Clarke's 'Rama' series?

But that type of reasoning is just another version of the gap that all religions fill; the unknown. Before we could understand the climate there were gods of weather. How is the 'universe-starting god' any different?

I can't explain the start of the universe, but I don't need to fill that gap with a made up god, for the same reason that I don't need Thor to explain thunderstorms. Well, unless he could do it with pictures and very short words

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:29 am

Shanti418 wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote: I like how, in that article, he mentions that he's got The God Delusion on his desk but has only "flipped through it." That book is incredibly powerful. You finish reading it and you're either an atheist or an idiot.
You're with us, or you're with the terrorists, no? Gotta love false dichotomies.

What about if I were to believe in God, and think that God planned out the universe like a bunch of dominoes, set up all these rules and processes by which the universe exists, and then tipped over the first domino to start a glorious chain reaction 4.7 billion years ago, ie the Big Bang?

What if I were to believe that evolution and the fossil record were real, but that there had to have been some sort of divine power that kicked it up a few notches to get us from monkey to Homo Saps? That we've been imbued with self conciousness and a soul, and that's what enable us to sit around and create a society where we have fancy things like computers?

All I'm saying is, until science has fully explained all the phenomena of the natural world, there's plenty of room for options other than "atheist" and "idiot".

You obviously haven't read the book. Your views are address, carefully examined, and then shown to be, at best, highly unlikely. There are plenty of things that we don't understand. But why is it that a lot of (if not MOST) people, feel the need to fill in those gaps in our understanding with "God did it?" Once you've read that book, you will have eliminated the only 3rd choice that may have once existed, "ignorance." That leaves you with 2 choices. Atheist or idiot.

I've joined the Richard Dawkins mailing list and have just been informed that "The Root of all Evil?" has just been made available on DVD! You can order a copy at www.richarddawkins.net! It is another great work that helps to shed some light on the darkness that is organized religion.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:42 am

Scraplet wrote:
But that type of reasoning is just another version of the gap that all religions fill; the unknown. Before we could understand the climate there were gods of weather. How is the 'universe-starting god' any different?

I can't explain the start of the universe, but I don't need to fill that gap with a made up god, for the same reason that I don't need Thor to explain thunderstorms. Well, unless he could do it with pictures and very short words

I completly agree with that.

Speaking to Smooth's post as well, God, and religion has several utilities other than explaining the unexplainable. I could go over them, but you could basically retort that we've evolved past these precepts, except for a few, one of which is the big question, "Why are we here?". But people STILL want to fill in this space of knowledge (chalk it up to inquisitive nature, neuroticism, or whatever) with something, and science offers no more definitive solution than religion.

Now if Dawkins is explaining why people have this need to fill in unknown knowledge with deified powers, then that would be interesting to read, provided it's done in a scientific manner. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that religion was created out of utility as well.

If NO ONE knows the answer to the question, then what's the difference between thinking natural powers are at work, God is at work, or the FSM at work? Believe what you want to believe.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:59 am

Shanti418 wrote:
Now if Dawkins is explaining why people have this need to fill in unknown knowledge with deified powers, then that would be interesting to read, provided it's done in a scientific manner.

That's the bulk of Chapter 5.

Shanti418 wrote: Nonetheless, I would still maintain that religion was created out of utility as well.

Even after he addresses your concerns, you'll still maintain something with a mountain of evidence against it. The "created out of utility" theory is also addressed in Chapter 5.

Shanti418 wrote: If NO ONE knows the answer to the question, then what' difference between thinking natural powers are at work, God is at work, or the FSM at work? Believe what you want to believe.

Believe what you want to believe? Are you mad? Believe what you want to believe? That is ludicrous! Why would you discard the mountain evidence in favor of "believing what you want to believe" in the face of it?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:26 am

hmm.

so.

Smooth's approach to debating religion is now:

My opinion is right and there are no viable alternatives that should even be considered ("athiest or idiot")

and.

Look, this book says so.

has a strangely fundamentalist religous twang to it doesn't it?

FFS - maybe you Impy and Dead Head can form a club called Religion is Stoopid Cos I Say So And Its Bad Stoopidhead And Thats A Fact Moron? A club that meets somewhere far away from mature conversation on this topic?

If NO ONE knows the answer to the question, then what's the difference between thinking natural powers are at work, God is at work, or the FSM at work? Believe what you want to believe.

because the former actually presumes that we can't explain things yet which means that we remain open to learning and a genuine quest for the truth - the others are anti this.

If no one knows the answer to the question its best to leave it at that and try and find out, not plug the gap with gibberish. No one knows what the cure for cancer is (yet), that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to suggest that people who for some reason think its Milk should be given equal credence to everyone else.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:03 am

Professor Smooth wrote:You finish reading it and you're either an atheist or an idiot.

Love the inference that the two are mutally exclusive.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:31 am

Best First wrote:
FFS - maybe you Impy and Dead Head can form a club called Religion is Stoopid Cos I Say So And Its Bad Stoopidhead And Thats A Fact Moron? A club that meets somewhere far away from mature conversation on this topic?

How do you know about the club?

I see the parallels between my views and fundamentalism. They're really not all that subtle. The differences between the two should still be blindingly obvious. "Their" book is a collection of stories. "My" book, is a collection of the most recent scientific findings. Those pages at the end of the book are sources that can be examined at the readers' discretion.

If you believe something even after reading every piece of available evidence that points to the contrary, then you are at best willfully ignorant.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:50 am

Professor Smooth wrote:The differences between the two should still be blindingly obvious.

as should the negative impact of your simplistic rhetoric on any kind of discussion around this subject.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:30 pm

Best First wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:The differences between the two should still be blindingly obvious.
as should the negative impact of your simplistic rhetoric on any kind of discussion around this subject.

How complicated does it need to be?

Person A: I believe in God.

Person B: Here is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Person A: I still believe in God.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:50 pm

i can't even be arsed. "Arguement" like the above do nothing but make it easy to discredit athiesm - you may as well just start going to church every week if you are going to take that stance, you would probably do athiesm more favours that way.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:08 pm

Best First wrote:i can't even be arsed. "Arguement" like the above do nothing but make it easy to discredit athiesm - you may as well just start going to church every week if you are going to take that stance, you would probably do athiesm more favours that way.

What more can I do? The book's already out there. Any argument from me would just be quoting or paraphrasing Dawkins.

Church, eh? Only one problem with that plan, BF. That would greatly cut into time I've got scheduled for listening Tenacious D's new CD. You can see the situation I'm in.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:13 pm

I have to say that the way Church of England Schools handle religion does more to create athiests than anything Richard Dawkins says.

The day I was put of was when we had an assembly that where some C0fE theatre group (Legs Akimbosesque) did a little play where they had two people who'd lived similar lives- Not saints but not sinners- and the one who prayed got into heaven whilst the one who didn't got into hell. Which led me to conclude that whilst there may be a God, he's most likely to much of a bastard to put much faith in...

[Just to clarify though, I've no idea if that's the "official" position of the Church, but if the CofE's official way of recruiting children is to use scare tacticts then [composite word including 'f*ck'] 'em]

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:20 pm

Would that be the same Church of England mentioned here?

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

I know, I know, Daily Nazi.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:24 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Best First wrote:i can't even be arsed. "Arguement" like the above do nothing but make it easy to discredit athiesm - you may as well just start going to church every week if you are going to take that stance, you would probably do athiesm more favours that way.
What more can I do? The book's already out there. Any argument from me would just be quoting or paraphrasing Dawkins.

so, his is the only opinion on the matter then? So Agin we are back to silly fundamentalist statements. well done.

if you genuinely have nothing to add...

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:25 pm

To be fair to them, the vicar at the Church assosiated with our school was kicked out when he responed to the idea of gay Vicars with some verbose bollocks that basically meant "DIE POOFTERS DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:47 pm

Best First wrote:
so, his is the only opinion on the matter then? So Agin we are back to silly fundamentalist statements. well done.

if you genuinely have nothing to add...

Spoilin' for a fight this morning, afternoon, late evening? No, his opinions are not the only ones that matter. The God Delusion is not a remarkable work because it is the opinion of one well-respected man. Everyone has an opinion and, thanks to modern technology, everyone can get it in print for less than nothing. The work is remarkable because of the amount of outside evidence that it pulls together in one place. The Bible has no evidence to back it up. Credible evidence from Biblical times usually has the exact opposite effect. While it's not the first book to attempt to "debunk" religion (and thanks to its high sales, it won't be the last), it is the first one to do so in such an incredibly convincing manner. The most up-to-date facts from all areas of the scientific community are brought together to show that, while it's VERY unlikely that "god" exists, it is VERY likely that one does not. No one particular religion is singled out for debunking. Ignorance is a fact of life. We don't know everything. It's entirely possible that we never will. But as human beings, we have the ability to look at all the available data and use it to shape how we view the world.

I've read 2 different version of The Bible (King James and NIV), The Koran, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Satanic Bible, and dozens of eastern texts. I even went so far as to get a doctorate in the field of study. All of these texts have one common thread that links them. Faith. To some degree or another, the follower must have faith. The God Delusion does not require faith. The book lays it all out, gives readers the evidence, and encourages further study. You don't need to have faith in the argument presented by Dawkins. After you've read it, you probably won't see any use for religious faith at all.

Plus: Douglas Adams quotes in abundance!

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:08 pm

This is almost as funny as I got in the middle of an argument about how The Da Vinci Code is irrefutable proof that The Bible is bollocks.

That obviously wins more clubcard points on the grounds that one of the books involved gets filed in the non-fiction section.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:13 pm

Brendocon wrote:This is almost as funny as I got in the middle of an argument about how The Da Vinci Code is irrefutable proof that The Bible is bollocks.

That obviously wins more clubcard points on the grounds that one of the books involved gets filed in the non-fiction section.

That DaVinci Code thing kept me entertained for months. Here's a book, a clearly fiction book, that has people up-in-arms. The movie just added fuel to the fire. That was classic.

Best part was when Opus Dei tried to have a disclaimer put at the beginning of the film version.