Guest posts by Ele124

1

Religion / Re: I still find it hard to believe the complexity of the universe to be mere chance

« on: January 18, 2011, 01:27:26 pm »

Our race is still VERY young. I appreciate the work of science, but we simply dont have the means to fully investigate our envionment atm. Maybe in a million years when we're a little more matured we can fully discount god (and the almighty spaghetti monster) as valid theories to the big questions.

Again, im not completely in touch with the astro side of my discipline, but as far as im aware the only real evidence we have that our universe is expanding is that signals we receive from other galaxies are red-shifted, hinting that there may have been a big bang initially. Any theories as to the nature of the edge of our universe (if there is an edge, the nature of the edge, whats beyond the edge etc) seem quite religious to me...

As for the title of this topic, I should probably start talking about the anthropic principle and expansion and contraction theories for the big bang, but im a lil busy right now. Maybe later.

2

Religion / Re: I still find it hard to believe the complexity of the universe to be mere chance

« on: January 17, 2011, 11:17:47 pm »

Care to share a link supporting your first paragraph Killybob? Astrophysics isnt my strong point, but I was under the impression that such feats werent yet possible.

EDIT: Just to make myself clear, the first paragraph in the above post.

3

Politics / Re: Political debate thread

« on: January 17, 2011, 10:52:42 pm »

This whole section is for debating politics in general. Please mention in the title that this is specifically debating US politics.

EDIT: Thanx

4

League Archive / Re: Beginners League 1/2011

« on: January 16, 2011, 11:28:25 pm »

Ele124: 2
lordofdeads: 1

5

League Archive / Re: Beginners League 1/2011

« on: January 16, 2011, 07:28:33 pm »

Ele124 - 2
(...) - 0

6

Religion / Re: Why not Islam?

« on: January 16, 2011, 06:18:18 pm »

Even Evolutionists believe in God, but call it a fluke of reality. They know there is something that created a big Bang and even admit there was some force that set everything in its first motion and they know there is a set of rules by which everything works. This is their view of God.

Not sure I agree with this bit. There are a wide variety of theories in science, particularly surrounding the big questions. To suggest that any group of scientists accepting one theory will automatically accept another is just wrong. Even within the big bang theory there are numerous theories describing what occurred beforehand without invoking god. My personal favorite is that time was created during the big bang, so there was no "before", but I still respect the repeating cycle theory. I have several friends from my time at uni who are evolutionary biologists and also secular humanists and they definately do not believe in god in any format.


Getting back to Islam. My main beef with Islam can be sumed up in 2 words. Sharia law. Basically meaning that there is one law for everyone and a different law for members of Islam within the UK. Is this fair?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2202111.stm  <=Particularly disturbing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

7

League Archive / Re: Beginners League 1/2011

« on: January 16, 2011, 01:02:51 pm »

*Post deleted*

8

League Archive / Re: Beginners League 1/2011

« on: January 15, 2011, 11:44:08 pm »

Ele124  2-0 cookiepirate

9

Religion / Re: Is belief in Relgion dangerous?

« on: January 15, 2011, 10:29:05 pm »

@PoLkaTulK Nah, reckon we're still on topic. Hmm, reading over my previous post, some of my points werent entirely clear, allow me to expand on them a little.

No. Science has never intentionally harmed anyone. The atomic bomb was created at the specific request of politicians and military personnel. The responsibility to use it (or not) lies in their hands and by extension their citizens hands for putting them into a position of power. Religion (or at least christianity) alters peoples perceptions to fit its own agendas and its hands are slippery with blood.

Exactly, you prove my point. Just as religion is dangerous in the wrong hands and a gun is dangerous in the wrong hands, science is dangerous in the wrong hands. So let's find a red-science-destroying-button and destroy science now. After all, we should destroy all things that can  be dangerous right? Wrong.

Science (and in turn technology) is a powerful force, without which we would not be the dominant species on this planet and would have lost the evolutionary race long ago. Science is the noble pursuit of knowledge. Technology, which can be produced using science is regulated by the government who are regulated by us. Scientists are merely curious about whats happening out there, any misapplication of science is down to the government. If you dont trust your government to avoid using science dangerously, then thats a problem with democracy, not science. My verdict: not dangerous.

Organised religion is not in anybodies hands, it is not accountable to any democratically appointed group in the world, meaning they can do whatever they like whenever they like without any comeback on them. Throughout history they have used this freedom to coerce people into war and genocide. Many religions also seem to have the effect of closing peoples minds to other possibilities, to review the principles that they believe in. My verdict: very dangerous.

You seem to be a rather hateful person who would destroy anything he didn't like/understand or find any personal use for. I wouldn't trust you to do my homework much less hold a political position or own a "red button" like that.

Im not particularly hateful, I just write things as I see them. I dont see any point in sugar-coating things, more often than not this tends to lead to more confusion. Id like to think that I understand how religions work, but as to whether or not I do is up to you Its true that I dont have a personal use for organised religion and that I really dont like it, but that is all besides the point. This topic is about how dangerous religion is and I beleive that it is very dangerous and worthy of destruction.

*fingers crossed for red-button of doom*

Note: Just to be clear, by organised religion I am refering to mostly western style religions (e.g. christianity). I personally feel that many eastern style religions (e.g. taoism and bushism) have a lot to offer humanity.

10

Religion / Re: Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

« on: January 15, 2011, 09:12:50 pm »

@Chemist Sorry, I shouldve made it clearer that I was replying to Killybobs point rather than yours. I was attempting to use an illustration to descrbe one of the difficulties in using probability to disprove somthing after it has happened.

  I'm NOT saying the chance of 'deity of choice' being the correct answer is zero. In fact I'm saying that it CAN'T be zero, because we can not disprove said deity. But without a reason to favour this deity over the zillion other ones that we also can not disprove (and whose chances of existing are hence also greater than zero) it can not be any more likely than any of those. And since there are so many of those the chances of each individual one being "the correct one" are very close to zero, that is negligible.

Hmm, if the probability of any given diety being "correct" is negligable (ie can be ignored), then that should mean that there are no dieties and atheism rules all Anyway, this is straying far too close to a sorites paradox and they realy get under my skin, so i'll leave this point.

  When several theories are at odds, how do you determine which one is more likely to be correct? You look at which one is favoured by scientific evidence. When several deities are at odds, how do you determine which one is more likely to be correct? In absence of scientific evidence you may resort to making a choice based on 'evidence' the sort of which would never cut it by scientific standards. Which means it isn't worth very much.

Yeah, I agree with this, whenever scientific reasoning is applied to anything religious, the result is invariably bad for religion. Naturally, scientific research isnt itself entirely infallible, every scientific theory to date is based on a set of assumptions which may or may not be true. However, it sure does seem to be more rock-steady than anything religion has to offer.

11

Religion / Re: Is belief in Relgion dangerous?

« on: January 15, 2011, 03:02:06 pm »

I don't think that just because something has potential danger it need be destroyed, science after all has allot of potential danger (atom bombs anyone?) and perhaps even greater potential danger and current danger than religion.

No. Science has never intentionally harmed anyone. The atomic bomb was created at the specific request of politicians and military personnel. The responsibility to use it (or not) lies in their hands and by extension their citizens hands for putting them into a position of power. Religion (or at least christianity) alters peoples perceptions to fit its own agendas and its hands are slippery with blood.

If someone put before me a big red button entitled "press this button to end all religion" then I would press it in a heartbeat and be damned with the consequences.

where, pray, does the deity order rape or genocide? the murder is false term as the person rightfully deserved this punishment. for example in the new testament please give me a reference to the TEACHING or ACTION of any sin at all from Jesus.

The old testament is stuffed full of examples where the Israelites invaded and destroyed other nations and then condone their own actions by saying that god said these people were evil.

As for the new testament, thats a bit more tricky as it is worded more carefully. Im not sure what relevance Jesus' sin commiting activities have (assuming he exists), but the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse sent by God (or perhaps Jesus?) in Revelation are on a mission of genocide. In fact, if you beleive the bible, then the one responsible for disease and general suffering is having a field-day in Africa atm.

12

Religion / Re: Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

« on: January 15, 2011, 02:26:32 pm »

This whole issue about probabilities is a null argument. A prominent big bang theory is that the process is recurring, easily allowing for infinite universes one after another. If the universe only has a gazilionth (or whatever your number is) of a chance of supporting life, then how do you know it hasnt previously existed a gazilion times and this is the first time it has supported sentient life that can havee this debate?

This is a lot like receiving 5 cards in a poker game (any 5 cards) and claiming that it was ridiculously unlikely to have received these exact cards, therefore you cant have received them. Probabilities are tricky and need to be treated very carefully.