Misanthropic Scott says:

#121 – RBG,

I guess. Funny thing though. My question began with a why and your answer had nothing approaching any form of because or other actual explanation. It was more of an unrelated and delusionally non-fact based musing.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#123 – RBG,

We’re so different that we’re talking past each other. I see nothing resembling an answer in either 115 or 123.

In 123, you make a false assumption about me. No, I am not OK with the idea of resorting to the supernatural rather than the natural, especially in these times when so much can be explained through the natural and so little by the existence of a god.

Why would a god who wanted to create humans here on earth, as described in the bible bother to create 10^11 galaxies and 10^22 planets just to put a particularly short-lived species (a mere 200,000 years and we’re ready to kill ourselves off) on one insignificant rock in the middle of nowhere?

No, I am not OK with the concept of a god created in our own image who is so wasteful with creation.

No, I am not OK with the concept of a god who would teach thousands of different names for himself to as many different groups of people and then tell each and every one of them to go kill all of the others.

No. Nothing about god makes sense.

As for going back to basics, one might say that to you who believe in fairy tales with absolutely no evidence to bolster them. Nothing about the god hypothesis is basic except for its obvious complete self-contradictions.

Turtles all the way down describes these best. You assume there must be a creator in order for there to be a creation and are then willing to take on faith that the creator needs no creator. Why?

Think!

Misanthropic Scott says:

#125 – RBG,

Ah Paul Davies, yes, there is a reason he won the Templeton Prize, not the Nobel Prize.

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

But, in that article, he said nothing that gives you any argument for god. He did not find any non-DNA based life. As for what is truly weird, there’s some cool stuff down at the ocean floor near volcanic vents. Still though, it all fits neatly in the tree of life and thus far has all been DNA based. If any turns out not to be, it would be an argument for a second case of what the apologists like to call “abiogenesis”. I’m sure as a fundamentalist, you are familiar with the term. Two cases would not argue any more strongly for god than one.

It’s not true that the creator’s creator is as easy to explain as the big bang. The big bang at least may follow known laws of quantum mechanics which allow for and even require that matter pop in and out of existence at the quantum level. The early universe met this condition.

What would be required to explain a creator would have been a process for creating intelligence from nothing. No evolution. No selection. Just bang and there’s a god capable of creating universes at the rate of one a week.

As for multitudes of planets with intelligent similar intelligent life, good. Let’s look for them. Right now, the silence is deafening. Maybe it exists. At least we know of one case of life in the universe, so there is evidence of some life in the universe, which is more than I can say for god. However, it may be quite rare. We don’t know yet.

Even if there’s lots of it though, it sure as hell takes away any thought of god having us in particular in mind.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#127 – RBG,

The big bang was an enormous quantity of extremely simple stuff. A creator is an enormously powerful being of extreme complexity. It’s far harder to explain complexity than simplicity. Therefore, the big bang is A) a lot easier to explain than any putative creator would be and B) is supported by real evidence unlike any putative creator.

The creator hypothesis goes completely against Occam’s razor. There was something moderately difficult to explain. Rather than attempt to explain it, you postulate a being far more difficult to explain. It makes no logical sense at all.

As for extraterrestrials, I’ll believe in them when I see them, or when we get some evidence of them. Until then, they are no more more real than any creator. That said, we have no evidence of any supernatural being. We do have evidence of natural beings, at least here on Earth. So, even though there is no evidence of E.T.’s, they are more likely than supernatural beings.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#129 – RBG,

I don’t expect perfect explanations. I’m just surprised you don’t even want to ask the question. You worship this creature and yet care nothing for his/her origins. This is typical of the religious. I have never heard a single religious individual question where god came from.

I am very curious about the origins of the universe. Scientists are searching for answers. Rather than setting up a religion, science tests hypothesis and tries to form rational explanations.

No. I don’t expect religions to answer questions. What shocks me is that they do not even ask them. Everyone I have ever heard question the origins of god was either an agnostic or a non-theist. Why would those who actually believe in such a concept not seek answers?

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

RBG, whatever unknowns there are concerning the origin of life and of the universe, they can’t possibly be as deeply troubling as the logical and moral contradiction of having to insist that the Creator whose evil atrocities are recounted in the Bible is actually good and loving and just.

If you want to believe in a creator, you should write a creation tale with a more sympathetic deity, possibly even worthy of worship. And if you do worship him, please don’t include animal sacrifices among your rituals — it traumatizes the children. Dance and have fun instead.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

RBG wrote, “I suspect ‘atrocity’ is in the eye of the beholder.”

Ah, perhaps you’ve inadvertently helped me see the true miracle of religion. Just when it seems truly impossible to justify the killing of innocent human beings, the Lord miraculously grants you blindness to his evil.

Like atrocity, the innocence of children is only in the eye of the beholder.

RBG says:

M. Scott: Add up the people who know anything about the Big Bang and you will find that the percentage of the ones who actually talk about the pre-Big Bang is about equal to your “never heard a single religious individual question where god came from.” That’s the nearly no one I refer to.

Gary: Just when it seems truly impossible to justify the killing of innocent human beings, the Lord miraculously grants you blindness to his evil.

And speaking of blindness, check out scientists with their “neutral” scientific discoveries that neatly kill and cause suffering on a scale religious zealots can only dream about.

RBG

bobbo says:

#136–RBG==I’ve never seen a gang of scientists use weapons against anybody. What the frick are you jabbering about?

Look closely and you will see religious and secular NON SCIENTIST using the fruit of scientific research for their nefarious deeds.

Science is a process, indeed neutral. It is people who are evil==those with an agenda. That in the main is religion and politics. If you didn’t have an agenda yourself, you would see that.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#136 – RBG,

M. Scott: Add up the people who know anything about the Big Bang and you will find that the percentage of the ones who actually talk about the pre-Big Bang is about equal to your “never heard a single religious individual question where god came from.” That’s the nearly no one I refer to.

OK. Then how about citing some religious leaders (those who are in the business of religion) who actually discuss such topics.

And speaking of blindness, check out scientists with their “neutral” scientific discoveries that neatly kill and cause suffering on a scale religious zealots can only dream about.

I guess you consider agriculture a product of science. It is a technology, so probably close enough.

For my part, I might argue that the science is relatively neutral and that it is the technological products based on the science that may provide the means by which to kill and cause suffering. Often such technology is wielded by the religious, making it even harder to separate which one did the killing, the technology or the religion or even some other ideology, such as communism, fascism, eugenics, or idiots trying to implement the so-called “social darwinism” (which really shouldn’t have Darwin’s name on it at all since he specifically warned about the evils of attempting to form a society based on survival of the fittest).

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

RBG, misdirection like yours is amusing, but I was really looking for a more open display of pure insanity, hoping you’d attempt to defend some of the more vile actions of your deity. Instead, you merely try to vilify science and its practitioners in an apparent attempt to drag it down to the same moral level that your religion occupies.

I enjoyed the magic show, but you’ll do well in the future to hire a lovely assistant to better aid in your misdirection.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#141 – RBG,

Now show me an atheist group that has built as many hospitals throughout the world as religious people. Have there been any? Atheists as a group, or individually, would rather bitch theoretical.

Red Cross? UNICEF? WHO? AFAIK, none of these are religious in nature. Further, keep in mind when comparing the works of the religious to the non-religious that:

A) There are far fewer atheists than theists, limiting their work.

B) Atheism is not a group thing like religion. There are no meetings to go to. Atheists performing charitable acts would likely not do so in the name of atheism any more than atheist mass murderers commit their murders in the name of atheism. So, just as Stalin killed for an ideology (communism) rather than atheism, so too do atheists support charity in the name of a deeply held ideology rather than in the name of atheism. Therefore, this measure of the goodness or badness of atheism won’t wash. The problem is in defining people by what the disbelieve rather than what they believe.

Very astute research there, bobbo.
Except: 15 for “before the big bang existed”
and 58,000,000 hits for Before God. That proves what, again? Fortunately this solid research is not needed since you, among us, are so open-minded.

I don’t understand this from either side. Truth is not a popularity contest. Gravity keeps me from flying, which I would love. That does not make it false.

Mis Scott. Feel free to check out Bobbo’s 630 entries followed by my 58 million hits cited above. Then answer the question “What is the number after the last number” to keep yourself amused about the nature of God.

Not that the popularity contest means anything. However, I noticed that you didn’t do my search that returned 230K instead of bobbo’s that returned just 630. But, you still win. More hits for before god. As you said though, it proves nothing. At most it proves that more people believe in god than disbelieve.

Wait a minute!!

This just in. You searched for a two word phrase for “before god” and a far more restrictive five word phrase for “before the big bang existed” and compared those results. Now add that your two words are in the freakin’ ten commandments, the number one best selling work of fiction in all of history, and one should not be surprised by a large number of hits.

As a search term, before big bang
returned 8.5 million hits.

This is a meaningless discussion, IMNSHO, but does prove your bias if nothing else.

Here are the types of discussions about “Before God” that have gone on for thousands of years longer than “before the BB.”
http://tinyurl.com/bq7jgt

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean either. Discussions existed before knowledge that the universe was expanding. Yes. This is knowledge from under 100 years ago.

By contrast, you are still repeating the same discussions from 2,000 years ago as if we’ve learned nothing. Do you also avoid using other knowledge that does not comes from the bible? Do you still use a horse and buggy? A sword to defend yourself? Candles by which to read your bible?

Since you are posting here, I’m betting that you make use of the fact that we have learned stuff that is not in your bible. So, what relevance does it have to state that people have been discussing god longer than the big bang other than to state that god is an archaic concept?

Likewise, religion itself is neutral, but like science, it’s misuse sure ain’t.

Actually, religion is sectarian. Let’s look at the word for a moment. It means that it divides people into sects. If Jews vs. Christians vs. Muslims is too few groups, we can further divide into Protestants and Catholics and Sunni and Shiite and Ashkenazi and Sephardim. And, when we’ve finished dividing into tiny groups, we will all find that it is always OK to kill members of some other group.

Religion is, by its very nature and purpose, divisive rather than unifying. This makes religion far from neutral.

Would we find reasons to kill each other without religion? Probably. But, religion adds not only reasons to kill, but vehemence and fervor to the killing rarely (though not never) found outside religion.

bobbo says:

#141–RBG==”Substute “Religion” for “Science” and I think you’ve got it.” // Whooo Boy. Let me substitute up for down, black for white, left for right and I’d have to say you have everything backwards.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

#147 RBG, a lot of atheists have too much to lose to make any such proclamation of atheism. Look at how Oprah was attacked in blogs and on YouTube when she expressed views about religion that were simply inconsistent with Christianity. She didn’t even claim no faith in a creator, only that Christianity wasn’t the only true path, contradicting Christianity’s claim of exclusivity and upsetting a lot of people in the process.

So imagine the price a proclaimed atheist might have to pay. Christians aren’t especially known for their tolerance of people who openly disclaim Christianity, and Muslims are even less tolerant than Christians. So asking “where are the atheist do-gooders?” seems a little disingenuous, but perhaps you already knew that. And surely you’ve seen survey results that indicate that atheists are trusted by Americans even less than people who believe in the “wrong” god.

Ask philanthropists like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet if they believe in God, and you’ll get a very non-committal answer consistent with a person who knows just how much they have to lose if they phrase their answer the wrong way. But by dodging the question, they’re also dodging the opportunity that most believers would welcome to talk about their faith, so it doesn’t take a genius to draw a logical conclusion from even a vague answer.