[bleeepbluuup]

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.

You're right, I don't need to believe in anything that has already been proven incorrect. It's the stuff science has no explanation for that requires filling in. That's why it's called faith. When logic has been exhausted, what do you do?
You can abandon your problem, or you make an assumption and go on from there. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Such is life.

It seems to me you are just railing against stupid people in general.
Or are you convinced that all people of faith are necessarily stupid?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

for some people, faith can be a positive thing, for others it can be the opposite. faith can give you motivation to cope with a hard situation or it can destroy all your motivation to cope.

religion as a device can be used to mobilize people to do good or it can be used to mobilize people to do the worst evils imaginable. the unquestioning adherence to a set of beliefs and reverence to those who just make up answers without any obligation to prove them has the potential to cause more harm than good which is why i don't believe religion is overall a positive force in the world. religion is an excellent way to exploit people. the theme is that the more extraordinary something is, the less evidence it requires.

a leader who is popular can convince a huge amount of people of almost anything without having to offer any proof whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ4dA6kZsEs

robertson says that the hati earthquake was because hati made a pact with the devil. how many will actually believe this just because he said it. he's under no obligation to prove such a claim to his followers. if he says it, it's truth enough. that is the biggest problem with religious belief. the other problem with religion is dependant on the actual beliefs that make up a particular religion.

and the worst thing in all of this is that most of the people who are members of a religious group or believe a set of beliefs were brought up to be that way. there is no choice. it is an exploitation of trust. we also afford to much respect simply because elements of the supernatural are contained within these beliefs.

I don't need to believe in anything that has already been proven incorrect. It's the stuff science has no explanation for that requires filling in. That's why it's called faith. When logic has been exhausted, what do you do?
You can abandon your problem, or you make an assumption and go on from there. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Such is life.

when you fill in the gaps of knowledge with made up answers and accept this, you stop the quest to discover what is real. there is no shame in saying "i don't know".

 

[cacruden]

^ I feel sorry for Robertson that his god is a vindictive one.

 

[GenerationW]

I only feel contempt for Robertson. He's a vindictive little shmuck.

I'm hopeful that atheists will soon be a silent majority...

People who are silent tend to never become majorities.

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.

You as an individual with free will can assume whatever you want, but I don't know why you keep bringing up god as if I'm making a case for that. I'm talking science, and to date science has found no proof of extraterrestrial life.

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.

Careful there speaking for the world. The possibility for you might be nill, but the possibility for a religious person is metaphysical certainty. Still others would say they don't know, or they don't care, or extraterrestrials sparked humanity, or (my favourite) evil corporations are responsible.

I know millions of deaths can be attributed to religious beliefs

Out of curiosity, which historical massacres do you solely attribute to religion?

Dawkins will go a step further and call it a mental disorder, and I'd have to agree..................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.

Considering how many people still have religious beliefs today, Dawkins had better propose building giant institutions to house all those crazy people. Siberia's got lots of space, except that shipping undesirables there was already tried once with disastrous results. Or we could build more Walmarts and make them work there.

And putting aside that religious people obviously don't think their beliefs are "total nonsense", the main reason people still believe is that it gives them peace of mind, which, as one gets older, can become even more important than one's physical health. Until science comes up with a new cell phone that can match that, or until religion stops working for people, it's a fact of life.

 

[drone]

god is dead, all I know is religion was once a way to advance humanity, now it does nothing but hold it back

 

[gristle]

god is dead, all I know is religion was once a way to advance humanity, now it does nothing but hold it back

You realize that this is an admission of a belief in god.

 

[drone]

You realize that this is an admission of a belief in god.

Or a surrendering and admission that other people will always believe in a "god", and that's great, but, religion is no longer relevant
It's kinda like telling your kids about the tooth fairy or santa, they "exsit" because we have invented them

 

[wonderboy416]

You as an individual with free will can assume whatever you want, but I don't know why you keep bringing up god as if I'm making a case for that. I'm talking science, and to date science has found no proof of extraterrestrial life.

You refuse to accept the possibility that thanks to science, we know the earth is most likely just one of many planets capable of sustaining life in the universe. This is hugely exciting, of course no life has actually been discovered... but there's a mountain of evidence out there suggesting that the building blocks for life are scattered EVERYWHERE and aren't unique to this planet. This is quite the contrast to evidence supporting a god.. oh yeah, there isnt any.

Careful there speaking for the world

I opened my statement up by doing just the opposite so not sure why you'd even say this...

Out of curiosity, which historical massacres do you solely attribute to religion?

Hmm good question. Here's the ones that have stuck with me, although I'm sure there's countless more if you go back far enough..

Sikh uprising (80's), Northern Ireland (70's to late 90's), Jonestown, Iraq (91-92), Bosnia (early 90's), Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, St Barltholamew massacre.

Just to name a few... some might even throw in the holocaust since Jews were targetted. I'm sure I missed a whole bunch, and of course many conflicts can still be attributed to religion even if it wasn't the sole cause of the conflict such as the Dutch revolt, Muslim conquest of India etc...

It's quite simple, you remove religion and the world would be a much better place. Of course someone else would be in our place as our existence as individuals is entirely random so you could say that about anything.

Oh yeah, I forgot, massacres attributed to Darwin/Evolution... 0

And putting aside that religious people obviously don't think their beliefs are "total nonsense", the main reason people still believe is that it gives them peace of mind, which, as one gets older, can become even more important than one's physical health. Until science comes up with a new cell phone that can match that, or until religion stops working for people, it's a fact of life.

If something works for some but kills others and causes strife all over the world, is it really "working"? Why not worship the sun? At least we can see it and we know what it does for the earth.

God did not create man, man created god.

 

[cacruden]

I only feel contempt for Robertson. He's a vindictive little shmuck.

I have to admit the only tele-evangilist that I have respect for is Billy Graham.

 

[gristle]

You refuse to accept the possibility that thanks to science, we know the earth is most likely just one of many planets capable of sustaining life in the universe. This is hugely exciting, of course no life has actually been discovered... but there's a mountain of evidence out there suggesting that the building blocks for life are scattered EVERYWHERE and aren't unique to this planet.

Actually, no such thing is known, and it should not be stated as a fact.

That being said, there is nothing that prevents or precludes the existence of life somewhere else in the universe. Add to that, should we ever be lucky enough to discover a world where there is life, it would be interesting to see if the evolutionary processes there are similar to natural selection, or different. In other words, it would be fascinating to know if natural selection is typical to life-sustaining worlds, or if the particulars of a planet capable of sustaining life generate a different processes of evolutionary change.

 

[afransen]

Actually, no such thing is known, and it should not be stated as a fact.

That being said, there is nothing that prevents or precludes the existence of life somewhere else in the universe. Add to that, should we ever be lucky enough to discover a world where there is life, it would be interesting to see if the evolutionary processes there are similar to natural selection, or different. In other words, it would be fascinating to know if natural selection is typical to life-sustaining worlds, or if the particulars of a planet capable of sustaining life generate a different processes of evolutionary change.

I think the way the statement was phrased is fair. Given what we know (there are abundant earth-sized planets in our general vicinity; there are a lot of planets--a number that dwarfs the number of people on earth, say), it's fair to say that it is likely that there are many planets capable of supporting life.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

life on earth has proven to exist in the most extreme conditions, whether in extreme pressure, extreme dark, extreme heat, extreme radiation, etc. i think it's likely that living things could exist on planets that would be inhospitable to humans as well.

 

[Fresh Start]

Scientists have already discovered fossilized bacteria contained within a Martian meteorite believed to have come from within the Mars interior. So while aliens may not exist in the manner we typically think of them i.e. humanoid, it is very plausible that other life forms exist out there. And consider that the earth and our solar system is but a finite speck of dust in the vast infiniteness of space. Other solar systems and galaxies are just as capable of having planets with an earth-like climate and environment.

 

[gristle]

I think the way the statement was phrased is fair. Given what we know (there are abundant earth-sized planets in our general vicinity; there are a lot of planets--a number that dwarfs the number of people on earth, say), it's fair to say that it is likely that there are many planets capable of supporting life.

Actually, earth-sized planets are still extremely difficult to detect. I doubt that the numbers discovered could be considered as "abundant." Add to that, any such planets would have to be in orbit around a stable star (many are not), and not close enough so as to be fried, or so far away that they are frozen.

Even if there is an earth-sized world revolving around a stable yellow-dwarf star, and even if this planet is orbiting at distance that is optimal for allowing large bodies of liquid water on its surface, there is no automatic guarantee that life would evolve. The specific circumstances of how such a process comes about is still unknown.

 

[Dan416]

Believing in aliens is a lot like believing in God. You can't prove or disprove either at this point. So no point worrying about it. Everyone just go along your merry ways and if there's life out there, we may find it eventually. But not in your lifetime, your kids' lifetimes, or their kids' lifetimes.