Tekforums

(http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/doonesbury_ID_060702.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M&fmt=18

LoL Fox News, that OReilly guy really thought he was clever

http://richarddawkins.net/



(http://kuvaton.com/bsh*t/house.jpg)

You read Dawkins new book, Bear? Its really good. :)

Quote from: bear(Image removed from quote.)

Then again, in the latest episode Ive seen, House is in a mental asylum...

Quote from: skidzillaYou read Dawkins new book, Bear? Its really good. :)

I have to admit I cant stand Richard Dawkins. Hes become the celebrated love child of the anti-religious crowd, who are often far more fanatical and crusading than anyone religious that Ive ever met.

Hes turned atheism from the absence of belief into a quasi-religious belief in itself.

Pure hypocrisy to be honest.

Quote from: Chris HHes turned atheism from the absence of belief into a quasi-religious belief in itself.

Pure hypocrisy to be honest.

Militant Atheist - Speaking out against religion, its stupidity and the harm it causes
Militant insert_religion_here - Strapping 50lbs of explosive to your chest and killing 20 people.

I am both an atheist and an anti-theist. I actively push for religion to be ended. It is not a "quasi-religious belief" and Dawkins has done nothing other than show people they dont have to roll over and take religious dogma being pushed down our throats day in, day out, particularly in the US.

Yeah I think I will read it if I can get hold of it :)




btw Goblin your signature reminds me of  SimCity  the original
game which I played on a 4.85 Mhz computer :D

Quote from: Goblin

Quote from: Chris HHes turned atheism from the absence of belief into a quasi-religious belief in itself.

Pure hypocrisy to be honest.

Militant Atheist - Speaking out against religion, its stupidity and the harm it causes
Militant insert_religion_here - Strapping 50lbs of explosive to your chest and killing 20 people.

I am both an atheist and an anti-theist. I actively push for religion to be ended. It is not a "quasi-religious belief" and Dawkins has done nothing other than show people they dont have to roll over and take religious dogma being pushed down our throats day in, day out, particularly in the US.

And for you and I, to have to suffer arcane Sunday trading laws !

Quote from: Goblin

Quote from: Chris HHes turned atheism from the absence of belief into a quasi-religious belief in itself.

Pure hypocrisy to be honest.

Militant Atheist - Speaking out against religion, its stupidity and the harm it causes
Militant insert_religion_here - Strapping 50lbs of explosive to your chest and killing 20 people.

I am both an atheist and an anti-theist. I actively push for religion to be ended. It is not a "quasi-religious belief" and Dawkins has done nothing other than show people they dont have to roll over and take religious dogma being pushed down our throats day in, day out, particularly in the US.

To push for the abolishing of all religion is just another way of pushing your own belief system (or absence thereof) onto other people rather than adopting a more reasonable and logical approach.

I also find it rather amusing that you were bitching about people being homophobic and prejudiced in another thread (something I agree with you on) and then actively celebrate the fact that you are intolerant of religion. No-one likes militant religious zealots and fanatics but the key here is acceptance and common sense running in parallel with whatever religion, faith, or lack thereof you are a part of. There are plenty of religious crazies out there, but there are also plenty of atheist and anti-theist crazies as well.

Everything to do with Dawkins is mired in hypocrisy. There are far too many parallels between his own opinions and advocacies and organised religion for any logical and sensible person to support the man.

I am intolerant of religion *when it interferes with other peoples lives*.

People can believe whatever they want, but as soon as that negatively impacts on society then it is no longer a matter of personal faith. Thats like calling me hypocritical for being intolerant of murderers and rapists.

the price of free speach is that you have to let people you dont agree with have it too.

Free speech is fine, but when religious opinions start to negatively impact society then they should be curtailed, just as to incitement to racial hatred is not protected by European free speech laws in the UK.

Regardless, free speech does not mean that one cannot seek to remove dangerous ideologies and actions from the world. Racial and sexual inequality should not occur, you cant say "ah well, its free speech for racists/misogynists too". The outcome of their actions in inexcusable, hence we seek to remove those actions from society.  

Quote from: GoblinI am intolerant of religion *when it interferes with other peoples lives*.

People can believe whatever they want, but as soon as that negatively impacts on society then it is no longer a matter of personal faith. Thats like calling me hypocritical for being intolerant of murderers and rapists.

Thats fair enough, I think any logical, rational human being would think the same. You threw me off by describing yourself as an anti-theist, I assumed you were simply against all forms of theism no matter how accepting and peace loving they may be.

I dont want to live in a country where a person cannot wave a banner above their head and declare that the world was produced from out of the nose of the great green arckleseizure if they want to. They have the right to say it, I have the right to ignore them.

If youre talking about people blowing stuff up, forcing others to marry against their will, etc then Im with you every step of the way, but you have to be very careful what you claim.

Religion doesnt cause crazy people, it is only used as an excuse. Remove religion and all youll do is force them to find a new excuse.

Quote from: Chris HYou threw me off by describing yourself as an anti-theist, I assumed you were simply against all forms of theism no matter how accepting and peace loving they may be.

Well, I think that people are better off not believing in fairy stories so I enjoy debating the issue with people and trying to get them to think rationally, but I would never deny anyone the right to believe whatever they want in their own heads.

I am anti-theist in the same way that I am anti-flatearther, its a silly belief system so I will argue with those who do believe it.

I am also anti-theist in terms of organised religion (so perhaps anti-church would be better) because I think they are a dangerous force in the world, preying (ha) on the weak willed and vulnerable.

Quote from: MongooseI dont want to live in a country where a person cannot wave a banner above their head and declare that the world was produced from out of the nose of the great green arckleseizure if they want to. They have the right to say it, I have the right to ignore them.

If youre talking about people blowing stuff up, forcing others to marry against their will, etc then Im with you every step of the way, but you have to be very careful what you claim.

Absolutely, people can claim whatever they want. However, when churches get to dictate that its illegal for Tescos to open on a Sunday morning, that their religious doctrine *by law* must be presented to my daughter in a taxpayer funded school assembly, that evolution must be tempered by "intelligent design" (not in this country, yet), when the leader of a major world religion tells those most vulnerable that condoms *cause* AIDS, when the forerunner for the new European Presidency claims atheists and terrorists are the same side of a coin, along with myriad other despicable acts, then there needs to be a serious shift in the level of influence they have.

Really, religion is hard to define, one is r = that which binds together.

Also one could say that advertising is a religion, not the product pushed
but the surroundings i.e. the nice houses people live in etc.   ads often pushes values and ways of living by saying this is how people live.
Well hard to explain but someone might understand what i am saying :)

Quote from: Chris HI also find it rather amusing that you were bitching about people being homophobic and prejudiced in another thread (something I agree with you on) and then actively celebrate the fact that you are intolerant of religion.

gayers dont suicide bomb.

Quote from: bytejunkie

Quote from: Chris HI also find it rather amusing that you were bitching about people being homophobic and prejudiced in another thread (something I agree with you on) and then actively celebrate the fact that you are intolerant of religion.

gayers dont suicide bomb.

Stop being a dick.

Quote from: Goblin

Quote from: Chris HYou threw me off by describing yourself as an anti-theist, I assumed you were simply against all forms of theism no matter how accepting and peace loving they may be.

Well, I think that people are better off not believing in fairy stories so I enjoy debating the issue with people and trying to get them to think rationally.

In that case forget science and physics, its unbelievable and irrational.

Quote from: SeriousIn that case forget science and physics, its unbelievable and irrational.

LoL

Quote from: Chris H

Quote from: bytejunkie

Quote from: Chris HI also find it rather amusing that you were bitching about people being homophobic and prejudiced in another thread (something I agree with you on) and then actively celebrate the fact that you are intolerant of religion.

gayers dont suicide bomb.

Stop being a dick.

how am i?

im not homophobic, but i do love to ask anyone muslim who will try and defend jihads how they can justify it? most of them point to extremism being evil.

in short, my beliefs are that homosexuality like religion is not for me. however, homosexuals arent out to kill innocents.

id like to point you back to a view which is that most wars originate around religion or religious viewpoints. troubles in NI? middle east wars? etc etc.

therefore homosexuals are a lot less dangerous than religious zealots.

so im a dick. fair point mate.

Quote from: Serious

Quote from: Goblin

Quote from: Chris HYou threw me off by describing yourself as an anti-theist, I assumed you were simply against all forms of theism no matter how accepting and peace loving they may be.

Well, I think that people are better off not believing in fairy stories so I enjoy debating the issue with people and trying to get them to think rationally.

In that case forget science and physics, its unbelievable and irrational.

Wut?

I think serious is referring to OReilly

Quote from: GoblinI am intolerant of religion

Told you

Quote from: Edd

Quote from: GoblinI am intolerant of religion

Told you

Religion isnt a person.

You could argue that organised religion is evil and has never done any good to anyone, or you could consider it as one of the more significant contributors to the culture, morals, ideals, society, education etc. of mankind through much of our history. But I won't digress into a Google-assisted overview of the evolution of society here or go into how actually religion does lots of good things nowadays (edit; as well as bad, of course).
 
Antitheism (or whatever you want to call the define-it-as-you-go way of thinking) is a load of bollocks; I'd be embarrassed to find myself spouting 'intellectual' crap like that when the only result is to piss people off and make yourself sound like a 17yr who's just found the grown-up section of the library. I'm firmly in God's corner here because I can't stand the high-and-mightiness of atheists (whatever) who go beyond simply not believing in God (which is fine) and start looking down upon those with differing beliefs or ways of life, considering them inferior and/or lacking in common sense.

Go, God, go!

Can anyone really lump themselves in with people who make sweeping statements such as "well that [religious person] [did something bad] therefore all x billion [religious persons] are [negative descriptive]" and expect people to warm to their way of thinking? Atheists (whatever) are supposed to be the easy-going, logical-minded ones, right?

Also, afaik there is no analogue to big bang theory (as far as being widely accepted in the scientific community goes) when it comes to the origin of life on Earth. Let's be clear. Evolution as a process involving natural selection and adaptation to changing environments is fact. Goovolution as a process involving a puddle of goo evolving into life via RNA and DNA is theory, one of dozens of scientific and mythical ideas that attempt to explain the origin of life.

Believe in God or don't. Either is fine. You have faith or you don't, no problem, but any opinion that flatly states that God does not exist is poorly researched to say the least - attempting to publicly deny something which by definition is undeniable is rather futile, isnt it?

Quote from: PeteYou could argue that organised religion is evil and has never done any good to anyone, or you could consider it as one of the more significant contributors to the culture, morals, ideals, society, education etc. of mankind through much of our history. But I won't digress into a Google-assisted overview of the evolution of society here or go into how actually religion does lots of good things nowadays.

Culture - indisputably
Morals - 100%, absolutely not (depending on your definition or morals)
Ideals - ditto
Society - arguably
Education - couple of hundred years ago, yes.
Good things now - no. People do good things.

Quote from: PeteAntitheism (or whatever you want to call the define-it-as-you-go way of thinking) is a load of bollocks; I'd be embarrassed to find myself spouting 'intellectual' crap like that when the only result is to piss people off and make yourself sound like a 17yr who's just found the grown-up section of the library. I'm firmly in God's corner here because I can't stand the high-and-mightiness of atheists (whatever) who go beyond simply not believing in God (which is fine) and start looking down upon those with differing beliefs or ways of life, considering them inferior and/or lacking in common sense.

When their religious beliefs result in the retardation of society (and I dont mean mentally) then I absolutely will look down on it. When you deny evidence because of a badly translated, selectively edited book then you dont deserve respect.

Quote from: PeteCan anyone really lump themselves in with people who make sweeping statements such as "well that [religious person] [did something bad] therefore all x billion [religious persons] are [negative descriptive]" and expect people to warm to their way of thinking? Atheists (whatever) are supposed to be the easy-going, logical-minded ones, right?

I judge people on the basis of their own actions. If you quietly go to church and mind your own business, work away. If you petition schools to teach "intelligent design" as a viable scientific alternative to evolution then youre a blight upon society. Same if you tell uninformed people living in a country with the highest rate of AIDS in the world that condoms *cause* AIDS, then you are no better than a murderer.

Quote from: PeteAlso, afaik there is no analogue to big bang theory (as far as being widely accepted in the scientific community goes) when it comes to the origin of life on Earth. Let's be clear. Evolution as a process involving natural selection and adaptation to changing environments is fact. Goovolution as a process involving a puddle of goo evolving into life via RNA and DNA is theory, one of dozens of scientific and mythical ideas that attempt to explain the origin of life.

There are a few theories on abiogenesis, none of which are conclusive. Yet. They werent dreamed up in the pub over a beer, there is clear scientific process and research behind them. To say "you cant explain X, therefore god is as likely an explanation" is the most basic logical mistake you can make.

Quote from: PeteBelieve in God or don't. Either is fine. You have faith or you don't, no problem, but any opinion that flatly states that God does not exist is poorly researched to say the least - attempting to deny something which by definition is undeniable is rather futile, isnt it?

No-one states flat out that god doesnt exist because, by definition, it is impossible to disprove the existence of *anything*, including leprechauns, invisible flying pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster. However, saying that the non-existence of something that has *zero* evidence for existing is the default position that one should take. I dont believe in gods in the same way I dont believe in fairies.

lol

Ill go with the Aborignes (earlier to belived to be a 40000 year old culture now believed to be at least 60000 year old).

Earth was created in "dreamtime"  

Aboriginals believe in two forms of time; two parallel streams of activity. One is the daily objective activity, the other is an infinite spiritual cycle called the "dreamtime", more real than reality itself. Whatever happens in the dreamtime establishes the values, symbols, and laws of Aboriginal society. It was believed that some people of unusual spiritual powers had contact with the dreamtime.

Quote from: Petelol

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to hear more.

Quote from: GoblinGood things now - no. People do good things.

so people do good things, but when a person claims that condoms cause AIDs, thats religion?

It doesnt seem entirely fair or particularly rational that good things are always a persons fault but bad things are always the religions fault.

Quote from: Mongoose

Quote from: GoblinGood things now - no. People do good things.

so people do good things, but when a person claims that condoms cause AIDs, thats religion?

It doesnt seem entirely fair or particularly rational that good things are always a persons fault but bad things are always the religions fault.

When that person is the Pope...

Quote from: Goblin

Quote from: Mongoose

Quote from: GoblinGood things now - no. People do good things.

so people do good things, but when a person claims that condoms cause AIDs, thats religion?

It doesnt seem entirely fair or particularly rational that good things are always a persons fault but bad things are always the religions fault.

When that person is the Pope...

yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility that any religious leader has done anything positive...

I dont think I did, that would come under the "people do good things". I see people do bad things done because of religion, and people do good things because they want to do good.

To quote Weinburg: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion".

Quote from: PeteAlso, afaik there is no analogue to big bang theory (as far as being widely accepted in the scientific community goes) when it comes to the origin of life on Earth. Let's be clear. Evolution as a process involving natural selection and adaptation to changing environments is fact. Goovolution as a process involving a puddle of goo evolving into life via RNA and DNA is theory, one of dozens of scientific and mythical ideas that attempt to explain the origin of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

^All you need is thermodynamics. And arguing against that is like banging your head against a brick wall.

Quote from: Chris H

Quote from: GoblinI am intolerant of religion *when it interferes with other peoples lives*.

People can believe whatever they want, but as soon as that negatively impacts on society then it is no longer a matter of personal faith. Thats like calling me hypocritical for being intolerant of murderers and rapists.

Thats fair enough, I think any logical, rational human being would think the same. You threw me off by describing yourself as an anti-theist, I assumed you were simply against all forms of theism no matter how accepting and peace loving they may be.

:stupid:
This is my opinion as an atheist too. I cant force anyone to believe or disbelieve anything; everyone must reach their own conclusions, their own personal truth.

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: PeteAlso, afaik there is no analogue to big bang theory (as far as being widely accepted in the scientific community goes) when it comes to the origin of life on Earth. Let's be clear. Evolution as a process involving natural selection and adaptation to changing environments is fact. Goovolution as a process involving a puddle of goo evolving into life via RNA and DNA is theory, one of dozens of scientific and mythical ideas that attempt to explain the origin of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

^All you need is thermodynamics. And arguing against that is like banging your head against a brick wall.

Great movies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEXK3A57Hk

Quote from: skidzilla^All you need is thermodynamics. And arguing against that is like banging your head against a brick wall.

...So where did all the energy come from to kick start the Universe? The laws of thermodynamics are really a statement of how things look, and have looked, as far back as  we can see.  This might change at any moment, although it is unlikely. It would be very difficult for us to tell if the universe removed or inserted a few galaxies worth of energy while or where we were not looking.

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: PeteAlso, afaik there is no analogue to big bang theory (as far as being widely accepted in the scientific community goes) when it comes to the origin of life on Earth. Let's be clear. Evolution as a process involving natural selection and adaptation to changing environments is fact. Goovolution as a process involving a puddle of goo evolving into life via RNA and DNA is theory, one of dozens of scientific and mythical ideas that attempt to explain the origin of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

^All you need is thermodynamics. And arguing against that is like banging your head against a brick wall.

"This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start."

I find myself agreeing with Goblin throughout on 90% of his points and Mark wholeheartedly on the stupidity of Sunday Trading.

Seeing hundreds of people scurrying to the tills of Tesco in some sort of mass exodus from the store because of the dreaded 4pm tannoy (hell, why not have a whooping Klaxon to warn of the impending smiteth thee God-doom for wanting some bread and eggs after 4pm) is pure lunacy.

Quote from: Pete"This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start."

True. But its also the most scientifically sound abiogenesis model Ive seen, and just as we started out with competing theories for gravity, one will eventually come out on top*.

No intelligent designers required, just simple natural laws over a massive timescale.

*Anyone care to devise an experiment? :P

Quote from: Serious...So where did all the energy come from to kick start the Universe? The laws of thermodynamics are really a statement of how things look, and have looked, as far back as  we can see.  This might change at any moment, although it is unlikely. It would be very difficult for us to tell if the universe removed or inserted a few galaxies worth of energy while or where we were not looking.

Honestly, no one will ever know unless theyre around to witness heat-death/the big rip/the big crunch. But we do have a few ideas. -)

And if the universe does spooky sh*t like that, a lot of astrophysicists are going to be pissed. :D

And yes Spooky sh*t is a technical term... :P

Quote from: Serious

Quote from: skidzilla^All you need is thermodynamics. And arguing against that is like banging your head against a brick wall.

...So where did all the energy come from to kick start the Universe? The laws of thermodynamics are really a statement of how things look, and have looked, as far back as  we can see.  This might change at any moment, although it is unlikely. It would be very difficult for us to tell if the universe removed or inserted a few galaxies worth of energy while or where we were not looking.

The energy didnt change, it was just in a very small area. As usual, there is an XKCD for that:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

Quote from: Goblin

Quote from: Serious

Quote from: skidzilla^All you need is thermodynamics. And arguing against that is like banging your head against a brick wall.

...So where did all the energy come from to kick start the Universe? The laws of thermodynamics are really a statement of how things look, and have looked, as far back as  we can see.  This might change at any moment, although it is unlikely. It would be very difficult for us to tell if the universe removed or inserted a few galaxies worth of energy while or where we were not looking.

The energy didnt change, it was just in a very small area. As usual, there is an XKCD for that:

(Image removed from quote.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

And before that? Has the universe always existed in some form with the present energy level? What about before the big bang?

Quite frankly your point just avoids the problem, all the energy came originally from something.

Actually some of the present theories propose that the energy cancels out, so you effectively get the biggest free lunch ever.

Quote from: SeriousAnd before that? Has the universe always existed in some form with the present energy level? What about before the big bang?

Quite frankly your point just avoids the problem, all the energy came originally from something.

Actually some of the present theories propose that the energy cancels out, so you effectively get the biggest free lunch ever.

That was related to the universe adding or removing energy as opposed to the where it came from.

We simply have no way to know what happened right at the start, or prior to the start of the universe (anything before the Planck epoch at about 10^-43 seconds in).

Yet.

Part of the problem too is that, as mere mortals (scientifically speaking), we have no way to conceptually think of the start of the universe, especially if you take the view that time starts with the big bang too. ie there is no "before".

However, to vaguely drag this back on topic, lack of knowledge is zero reason to say "it was god wot done it".

Adding or subtracting energy isnt allowed by the thermodynamics, it doesnt say that the universe is exempt from this.

At least by saying it was god what done it you have a 50% chance of being right. Remember that the whole of science is based on probability. Really I doubt if anyone can provide a 100% guaranteed answer to this question without adding an I believe to it. The nearest answer we can give at present is simply we dont know.

The alternative is that the whole universe turned up for no reason at all, which might be a bit disappointing to say the least.

Note Im not saying that the Christian fundamentalists, or the extreme Muslims are right either. I gave up on other peoples religion a long time ago and concentrate on what mine is. So far its if you believe in a god, go with your god, if you dont then go without...

Quote from: SeriousReally I doubt if anyone can provide a 100% guaranteed answer to this question without adding an I believe to it. The nearest answer we can give at present is simply we dont know.

Well, I would agree that, at the minute, we cant say how it happened, but we can make educated hypotheses which, as they stand up to the rigours of testing will become theories. In the absence of evidence we dont know is the logical position to take.

Quote from: SeriousAt least by saying it was god what done it you have a 50% chance of being right. Remember that the whole of science is based on probability.

Thats a common misconception. There isnt a 50% chance of god, thats like saying theres a 50% chance of winning the lottery jackpot because you either win it or you dont. Its also like saying theres a 50% chance that the universe was farted out by an invisible pink unicorn because that has exactly as much evidence as any other supernatural being.

(http://9gag.com/photo/13150_full.jpg)

Quote from: skidzillaThis is my opinion as an atheist too. I cant force anyone to believe or disbelieve anything; everyone must reach their own conclusions, their own personal truth.

This is a good atheisty statement.

Of course, if God exists then the nature of the world suggests that he is rather selective over who is saved and who isnt. i.e. you dont believe in him because he doesnt want you to believe in him :P

I had an argument with my friend whose a christian, who said that people who believe are preselected to believe or something similar. So i countered with why the f**k do they bother everyone, trying to convert them

How, literally in Gods name, would anyone preselectively believe in Him if they wernt bombarded and indoctrinated with religious material from a young age? Thats total garbage.

There are no Jesus believers in the Amazon rainforest unless missionaries get to them.

im fully aware of how religion is sh*t and full of lies

Quote from: Clockd 0NeHow, literally in Gods name, would anyone preselectively believe in Him if they wernt bombarded and indoctrinated with religious material from a young age? Thats total garbage.

There are no Jesus believers in the Amazon rainforest unless missionaries get to them.

It might be true that there are no believers in an Abrahamic god, but unlikely there are no people with faith?

Not that Im saying that that the whole bearded bloke in the sky thing isnt bollocks, but faith isnt without its value to some people.

Quote from: EddI had an argument with my friend whose a christian, who said that people who believe are preselected to believe or something similar. So i countered with why the f**k do they bother everyone, trying to convert them

Because thats in the contract...

(http://pici.se/pictures/QpsSRTrHp.jpg)

Quote from: bear(Image removed from quote.)

Applies equally to Scientists and Atheists ;)

Scientist: There is no god.

Christian: Oh yeah? Prove it!

Scientist: ITS OBVIOUS STUPID!

Quote from: SeriousApplies equally to Scientists and Atheists ;)

Scientist: There is no god.

Christian: Oh yeah? Prove it!

Scientist: ITS OBVIOUS STUPID!

Thats not how the argument goes.

Scientist: Theres no proof, or even any evidence for god so the only logical conclusion is to assume there isnt one until evidence appears to the contrary. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.

Theist: Yeah, well you cant prove there isnt one.

Scientist: /facepalm

Unfortunately it appears that religious people are completely lacking in logic

No, that is completely logical, thats the problem you have with it. It fits observable facts, something happened but we have no idea why. One possible answer is that there is one or more gods causing it to happen. If people chose to believe, great, if not thats their choice, but its still BELIEF! You are as stuck with this as they are. Faith, Belief and hope are as much a part of a scientists life as they are anyone elses, even the Pope.

Plenty of stuff in Physics and math is difficult or impossible to prove or disprove, its why you have hypothesises and theories. Although sometimes they get mixed up over whats what.

As for the scientist hes obviously not up to the job cause he cant prove his hypothesis there isnt a god ^_^

If you absolutely had to prove 100% that what you are saying forward in physics is true then there would be a lot less bunpf coming out.

As has been proven in the past, a scientist is far more likely to be wrong than right.

yes, that is one possible explanation, so is the FSM.

Unproven faith and beliefs has far to much power in politics etc. at least science givs useable stuff even if not proven
one can build stuff because of science, faith and beliefs tend to tear down, destroy and divide of course science can be used
to make big bombs but it is usaully a religious motive behind type; the others are evil hence it is ok to bomb them because you belive that is the will of the god you have faith in but cannot not prove the existence of.

Quote from: Clockd 0NeHow, literally in Gods name, would anyone preselectively believe in Him if they wernt bombarded and indoctrinated with religious material from a young age? Thats total garbage.

There are no Jesus believers in the Amazon rainforest unless missionaries get to them.

Tip: dont make this argument in bible-belt america - fastest way to lose new friends :)

Im still in Gods corner tbh. You want proof of God? Sirs, I give you the bacon buttie -




lol - red X, so no proof.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222923/One-Britons-say-children-taught-creationism-science-classes.html

I find this pretty worrying.

By all means cover rival theories, but not in science lessons. At my old school we had science, and we had RE/Religious Exercise. That is where creationism/ID belongs. Thinking back on it I think I got a fair dose of all that religious propaganda at that school, but as science was kept seperate it didnt suffer.

I remember being insanely jealous of the token muslim that had permission to not attend RE and instead spent the hour in the art room drawing.

The wording of that question is very poor and the sample not well defined (typically Mori polls people by landline, during the day which is going to skew the results to the elderly who are more likely to either believe it or, even more likely, not know what creationism/ID are).