[wonderboy416]

When a large group of atheists have such deeply held beliefs that they try and sell their program in public places, call the media. But until that day comes (probably when hell.....I mean Hawaii freezes over), to avoid another shocking encounter like that, try walking away faster.

This comment speaks volumes for your mind set. It's ok for religious groups to teach our kids ridiculous impossibilities and beg for money every chance they get... Yet if atheists were to emerge as a prominent group it would be a cold day in hell? It's a good thing I am just as likely to be the reincarnation of Jesus as there is to be an actual hell.

WHOA! There is EXTREME doubt that there is life anywhere else in the universe (I for one think we're all there is), and WIKI says:

Extreme doubt?
Science has been able to demonstrate that the basic building blocks for life aren't unique to this planet but exist all throughout the universe.
With billions of stars, each likely to have a couple of planets, with those likely to have a couple of moons the odds of another earth-like planet (or several) are quite good. I didn't say science believes there to be intelligent life as in the way some humans are (intelligence implies a certain degree of rational thinking which clearly not all people are capable of.. ahem...). Heck, earth isn't the only planet in our solar system capable of sustaining life.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html

Our first glimpses of planets outside the solar system seem to indicate that earth may belong to a category of planets that while rare, certainlly isn't alone. Of course the idea that our planet is but a mere spec of dust in the big picture of things doesn't sit well with the creationist crowd. It implies that god must have spent less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of his time designing the earth and its inhabitants as he clearly would have needed a massive investment in time to carefully plan out the rest of the universe. Unless he was using a photoshop type program and just clicked auto-fill and had the universe colour selected.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Hitler's was a political (and twisted) evaluation of Darwin as opposed to a correct scientific one, influenced by the eugenics movement started by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who was heavily influenced by Darwin. But I'm definitely not saying Darwin was responsible for Hitler.

Ben Stein was in a movie other than Ferris Bueller? I'm not blaming their lack of belief in a god for their evils. That would be as simplistic a conclusion as saying that one can blame person or group X's belief in a god for a horrible crime.
No.

i don't think darwin's ideas or theory of evolution by means of natural selection was used at all by nazis, not even in a twisted and perverted form. with regards to eugenics (artificial selection applied to humans), a practice which existed in many nations including canada up until a few decades ago, i wouldn't even totally blame the knowledge of that for the holocaust. it would be like blaming the existence of politics, weapons or blaming the institution of government or law. what led to the holocaust was the political and economic conditions germany found its self in after WWI and the continuation of antisemetic sentiments/ jewish persecution at the hands of christian institutions and followers for a very long time leading up the WWII. it was a very common practice to blame the jews for almost everything that was bad, probably starting with the death of jesus. and heck, with the end of WWII, that sentiment still hasn't totally vanished.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

There is no 'faith' or 'believing' necessary in science. Science is just about finding the explanation that best fits what we observe. Whatever works. If tomorrow we observe something that doesn't fit the existing model, then the model gets re-evaluated. Classical mechanics were good enough for 200 years, but fails when you get down to the atomic level or have electromagnetics involved. Evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment. We have lots of evidence that corroborates this, but if we started seeing stuff that didn't, we'd find a new explanation. No belief necessary.

I've always liked this quote:

—Everything written symbols can say has already passed by. They are like tracks left by animals. That is why the masters of meditation refuse to accept that writings are final. The aim is to reach true being by means of those tracks, those letters, those signs — but reality itself is not a sign, and it leaves no tracks. It doesn’t come to us by way of letters or words. We can go toward it, by following those words and letters back to what they came from. But so long as we are preoccupied with symbols, theories and opinions, we will fail to reach the principle.

—But when we give up symbols and opinions, aren’t we left in the utter nothingness of being?

—Yes.

Kimura Kyuho, “Kenjutsu Fushigi Hen†[On the Mysteries of Swordsmanship], 1768

Science tells us a lot about the universe we live in, but my sense is in the end we cannot come close to understanding it all. We learn more and more as time passes on but language, logic, our brains, our bodies -- these all have limits, and have yet to answer some pretty basic questions about our existence: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Science can't speak of the transcendent nature of life, if there is one.

Faith is what fills the gap in understanding. This is just a tool like any other, a vehicle to get you from point A to point B. Not everyone wants it or needs it; I don't see the big deal either way, but I think there is a certain luxury in being able to go without it. Sure, religion has been used to justify evil doings, but the same could be said of science, politics, economics, whatever. People are assholes, this is nothing new.

I don't know what I would qualify as. I always turn to science to answer my questions. I don't profess to know that god exists, and I don't think the existence of a god would ever be provable. But I want to believe. In my darkest hours, I pray. I don't expect anything to come of it, but it makes me feel better so I guess I do have some faith. Is that stupid or hypocritical? I don't really care, because it works for me. If something better comes along, I'll re-evaluate.

 

[Fresh Start]

I'm not blaming their lack of belief in a god for their evils. That would be as simplistic a conclusion as saying that one can blame person or group X's belief in a god for a horrible crime.

It's irrefutable that infinite millions died as result of religious strife. And the examples you've cited are not so much atheistic as they are Man-Centered Worship/Idolatry.

 

[GenerationW]

This comment speaks volumes for your mind set. It's ok for religious groups to teach our kids ridiculous impossibilities and beg for money every chance they get... Yet if atheists were to emerge as a prominent group it would be a cold day in hell? It's a good thing I am just as likely to be the reincarnation of Jesus as there is to be an actual hell.

You missed the point. I'm okay with anyone promoting their views as long as they obey our laws, but organized religion in one form or other has been a part of society for most of the history of mankind, while organized atheism has been around for a short time, is barely organized, and, deserved or not, has a bad reputation due to the collapse of world communism. Perhaps the day will come when there is a large organized movement of atheists but I don't see any evidence of that right now.

Extreme doubt?
Science has been able to demonstrate that the basic building blocks for life aren't unique to this planet but exist all throughout the universe.
With billions of stars, each likely to have a couple of planets, with those likely to have a couple of moons the odds of another earth-like planet (or several) are quite good. I didn't say science believes there to be intelligent life as in the way some humans are (intelligence implies a certain degree of rational thinking which clearly not all people are capable of.. ahem...). Heck, earth isn't the only planet in our solar system capable of sustaining life.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html

Our first glimpses of planets outside the solar system seem to indicate that earth may belong to a category of planets that while rare, certainlly isn't alone. Of course the idea that our planet is but a mere spec of dust in the big picture of things doesn't sit well with the creationist crowd. It implies that god must have spent less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of his time designing the earth and its inhabitants as he clearly would have needed a massive investment in time to carefully plan out the rest of the universe. Unless he was using a photoshop type program and just clicked auto-fill and had the universe colour selected.

You seem to have it in your mind that I'm some sort of bible-thumper but I'm not with the creationist crowd, and that type of speculative article from your link is hardly unique. And your snide remark aside, when people speculate about intelligent life on other planets they usually mean something akin to us. But until there is peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary -- whether life like us or a planet of sponges, I'll go with science: We're all there is.

So if I may ask, are you for, against or neutral regarding the Big Bang Theory? What's the official atheistic position?

 

[GenerationW]

It's irrefutable that infinite millions died as result of religious strife. And the examples you've cited are not so much atheistic as they are Man-Centered Worship/Idolatry.

Well since these catastrophes, whether through religious strife or not, are a feature of our existence since time immemorial, the thing to do then is to get rid of man since we obviously will never truly change our base nature. Scientific observation suggests that we just cant hack this society thing.

Or we could just build an LRT line in the Finch Hydro Corridor (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[GenerationW]

There is no 'faith' or 'believing' necessary in science. Science is just about finding the explanation that best fits what we observe. Whatever works. If tomorrow we observe something that doesn't fit the existing model, then the model gets re-evaluated. Classical mechanics were good enough for 200 years, but fails when you get down to the atomic level or have electromagnetics involved. Evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment. We have lots of evidence that corroborates this, but if we started seeing stuff that didn't, we'd find a new explanation. No belief necessary.

Science tells us a lot about the universe we live in, but my sense is in the end we cannot come close to understanding it all. We learn more and more as time passes on but language, logic, our brains, our bodies -- these all have limits, and have yet to answer some pretty basic questions about our existence: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Science can't speak of the transcendent nature of life, if there is one.

Faith is what fills the gap in understanding. This is just a tool like any other, a vehicle to get you from point A to point B. Not everyone wants it or needs it; I don't see the big deal either way, but I think there is a certain luxury in being able to go without it. Sure, religion has been used to justify evil doings, but the same could be said of science, politics, economics, whatever. People are assholes, this is nothing new.

I don't know what I would qualify as. I always turn to science to answer my questions. I don't profess to know that god exists, and I don't think the existence of a god would ever be provable. But I want to believe. In my darkest hours, I pray. I don't expect anything to come of it, but it makes me feel better so I guess I do have some faith. Is that stupid or hypocritical? I don't really care, because it works for me. If something better comes along, I'll re-evaluate.

And someone will be along to try and shove you off that fence in 5........4..........3........

But I enjoyed your post.

 

[GenerationW]

i don't think darwin's ideas or theory of evolution by means of natural selection was used at all by nazis, not even in a twisted and perverted form. with regards to eugenics (artificial selection applied to humans), a practice which existed in many nations including canada up until a few decades ago, i wouldn't even totally blame the knowledge of that for the holocaust. it would be like blaming the existence of politics, weapons or blaming the institution of government or law. what led to the holocaust was the political and economic conditions germany found its self in after WWI and the continuation of antisemetic sentiments/ jewish persecution at the hands of christian institutions and followers for a very long time leading up the WWII. it was a very common practice to blame the jews for almost everything that was bad, probably starting with the death of jesus. and heck, with the end of WWII, that sentiment still hasn't totally vanished.

I agree with pretty much all of that. Eugenics (or Hitler's interpretation of it) wasn't a cause of the holocaust but a tool Hitler used in developing the plan and carrying it out.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I agree with pretty much all of that. Eugenics (or Hitler's interpretation of it) wasn't a cause of the holocaust but a tool Hitler used in developing the plan and carrying it out.

and had eugenics not existed, the holocaust would have still happened. hitler's & the nazis' primary motivations were not to improve the human race but to kill & abuse what they didn't like or fit into their idea of the world. it's not that i'm defending eugenics, it's just that i think eugenics is bad for other reasons other than simply being associated with nazis. it's to my understanding that the nazis were the first to discover the link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. i don't believe that smoking is good simply to do the opposite of them and we sure as hell wouldn't call health canada nazis for agreeing that smoking is bad.

 

[cacruden]

There will always be those that are sociopathic killers, and they will use whatever they need to to kill people, to gain power, etc. They will use Darwin, Religion, Race, or any other means at their hands to achieve their goals. Before when Religion was the main power structure, religion was used, with structured religion being diminished - those that need to will just choose other means.

 

[wonderboy416]

Faith is what fills the gap in understanding.

Why must we need to fill in such a gap? If something is not known or understood we should just plug in some implausible explanation? And then when we do discover it... we forgo the filler explanation for the real one? Is this your logic? I'm scratching my head over how ridiculous it seems.

Perhaps the day will come when there is a large organized movement of atheists but I don't see any evidence of that right now.

Unlike many religions, most atheists are quiet about their beliefs and aren't bent on trying to convert the world or stand on street corners preaching to strangers, handing out pamphlets, going to mass and making large donations to help propagate their beliefs etc. It's quite satisfying to come to grips with knowing that not only do we not know many things, but that we do things for the right reasons, not to please some selfish god. I'm hopeful that atheists will soon be a silent majority...

You seem to have it in your mind that I'm some sort of bible-thumper but I'm not with the creationist crowd, and that type of speculative article from your link is hardly unique. And your snide remark aside, when people speculate about intelligent life on other planets they usually mean something akin to us. But until there is peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary -- whether life like us or a planet of sponges, I'll go with science: We're all there is.

Umm... lets assume that without absolute proof of other life in the universe that we're all there is, but with no proof of a god at all... we're to assume that there is one? Science has made a very convincing case backed up by a lot of hard evidence that there probably is the ideal conditions for life out there (at least on a bacterial level), no one has made any case at all demonstrating that there's a god, ever.

So if I may ask, are you for, against or neutral regarding the Big Bang Theory? What's the official atheistic position?

The Big Bang theory has come under scrutiny, but it's just that, a theory. I don't know if it's a valid theory or not. It's been speculated that the entire universe expands and contracts on a regular basis so the bang itself is just one of many. Our universe may just be one of many, I don't know, you don't know, no one does... but we never will if science doesn't study it. I don't expect such answers in our lifetime, but hopefully some day we'll get there, and if not... so be it - some nut will just say it was all created anyway without a shred of proof.

I don't think there's an official atheistic position on the big bang theory or creation of the universe. I can't speak for all atheists but I can't imagine anyone claiming to have the answer. All we can be certain of is that we're here today, and that we got here somehow and based on everything we have learned, the possibility that the universe was created by a god as described by the various religions all throughout time is nill.

They will use Darwin, Religion, Race, or any other means at their hands to achieve their goals.

Someone has used Darwin before? Who?
I know millions of deaths can be attributed to religious beliefs, but Darwin?

 

[bleeepbluuup]

Why must we need to fill in such a gap? If something is not known or understood we should just plug in some implausible explanation? And then when we do discover it... we forgo the filler explanation for the real one? Is this your logic? I'm scratching my head over how ridiculous it seems.

Yeah, exactly. Why is that ridiculous? There is no need for faith or beliefs when you know a thing. You only need to have faith about the stuff you CAN'T know, the uncertain stuff.

And I'm not saying everyone needs to fill that gap. If you don't feel a need to, great. Carry on, as you were. Some people do. I don't begrudge anyone the tools they need to get through life, so long as they're not messing with my life or the lives of others.

Unlike many religions, most atheists are quiet about their beliefs and aren't bent on trying to convert the world or stand on street corners preaching to strangers, handing out pamphlets, going to mass and making large donations to help propagate their beliefs etc. It's quite satisfying to come to grips with knowing that not only do we not know many things, but that we do things for the right reasons, not to please some selfish god. I'm hopeful that atheists will soon be a silent majority...

Those are all characteristic of specific religions. If you have issues with the way certain organizations carry out their business, that's one thing. Having faith in god/whatever doesn't necessarily mean you belong to a religion or practice your faith in a particular way. The evangelical types get all the press only because they believe they have a moral duty to save the heathens and so are interested in publicity. Other people don't operate under such an imperative.

I too get pissed off when people's beliefs are used for justifying things like murdering doctors who provide abortion services, or suicide bombings, or teaching kids that the earth is 6000 years old. This I would file under 'messing with others'. But I have no grudge against people who just quietly believe in whatever.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

There will always be those that are sociopathic killers, and they will use whatever they need to to kill people, to gain power, etc. They will use Darwin, Religion, Race, or any other means at their hands to achieve their goals. Before when Religion was the main power structure, religion was used, with structured religion being diminished - those that need to will just choose other means.

to blame darwin in any way or to say "they will use darwin" is like blaming newton for 9/11 or saying the 9/11 hijackers used newton.

damn you newton! you and your evil gravitational theories! i spilled my drink and it's all your fault! had i no knowledge of gravity, the water would have stayed in the cup damn it!


and if that sounds ridiculous, what is even more ridiculous is that a holocaust by no means resembles natural selection in any way. we might as well blame the knowledge of particle colliders for 9/11. i'm pretty sure what motivated the 9/11 hijackers was the desire to discover the higgs boson. why else would they crash planes near the speed of light into buildings? it makes perfect sense!

 

[wonderboy416]

Yeah, exactly. Why is that ridiculous? There is no need for faith or beliefs when you know a thing. You only need to have faith about the stuff you CAN'T know, the uncertain stuff.

And I'm not saying everyone needs to fill that gap. If you don't feel a need to, great. Carry on, as you were. Some people do. I don't begrudge anyone the tools they need to get through life, so long as they're not messing with my life or the lives of others.

But when you know said filler is incorrect, why entertain the idea in the first place? It's not like the concept of god or any of the stories from any of the religions can be presented as a serious alternative to any theory that science is willing to entertain. They're not in the same ballpark. It would be like asking a kindergarten student where everything came from and accepting that as fact until it's been disproven. It's a delusion to think otherwise. Dawkins will go a step further and call it a mental disorder, and I'd have to agree. It might get them from point A to point B even though it's false, so you could argue that the factuality of the matter is not relevant... the sanity of it though is completely relevant as it reflects on a persons ability to think rationally and with logic about matters that are important to their lives. Why let something that you know deep down inside is utter nonsense help you through anything, that's not someone I'd trust handling any of my personal matters that's for sure.

 

[cacruden]

^ Funny, but your (purposely?) not getting what I am saying, the problem is not necessarily with religion - it is with man (generic gender non-specific usage). Religion is just a tool that some men use as a weapon to accomplish their ends. Even when you talk about religion, you cannot talk about Christianity/Islam/Buddism/Hindu as a whole, because the vast majority of each of those religions are moral people who don't adhere to using violence as a solution. Things that are sometimes a strength, can sometimes be exploited as a weakness, one such is that the average man is more of a follower than a leader (if it were not the case then we would never have been able to accomplish much), but mix it with religion, nationalism, or any other tool - and a sociopath can inflict great damage on the world. If it were not religion, it would be a perversion of nationalism, or anything that you can easily get a large number of people as a group to follow. You have to start with something in common, and pervert a subset of those followers to do your bidding.

Religion is a creation of man (IMHO) to as a vehicle to teach common moral framework (right thought, right action, etc.) to those that follow that religion, and for the most part those morals are the same for each of the religion. In this Joseph Campbell stated "All religions are true, but none are literal" which I find to be a wise way to view religion. There are those that take their religion absolutely literally, but that is only a symptom of someone that is closed-minded - who rejects his own observations and the observations of others. This closed-mindedness though is not the sole domain of those that are religious, you have it in science - where people say that the "science is settled", science is never settled - it is always open for debate and further observations.

I do think you can judge religion based on their followers, but in an effort to make an argument about groups of people (i.e. those followers of Islam or Christianity are bad people and cannot be trusted), some will generalize each of those as much as possible to have the largest effect. Christianity and Islam are umbrella's for many different religions. The United Church, and the Catholic religion are different religions, with many things in common.

In the end, each individual is responsible for their own actions.