Richard Dawkins sitting in movie theater watching 'Expelled' right now.

[strikezone89]

haha funny story

 

[BMM]

In the same way that a similarly intelligent person could say that there was one.

Exactly. I'm a Christian... but I don't understand why it's questionable that an intelligent person can claim that there is no God anymore than it is that an intelligent person can claim that there is one, especially when accepting the idea that God's existence can't be proven in the first place.

As for the film, it could be interesting. I may check it out on DVD... or maybe not.

 

[Superhobo]

Exactly. I'm a Christian... but I don't understand why it's questionable that an intelligent person can claim that there is no God anymore than it is that an intelligent person can claim that there is one, especially when accepting the idea that God's existence can't be proven in the first place.

As for the film, it could be interesting. I may check it out on DVD... or maybe not.

 

[Venomfan]

Exactly. I'm a Christian... but I don't understand why it's questionable that an intelligent person can claim that there is no God anymore than it is that an intelligent person can claim that there is one, especially when accepting the idea that God's existence can't be proven in the first place.
.

because someone can experience something that to them proves the existence of God/Xenu/the force etc. it might not prove the existance to others, but for that one person it is enough. there is nothing that a person can experience that can disprove the existance of God/Nirvana/w.e except maybe God coming down to earth and telling that person he doesnt exist, which would be moot.

 

[Venomfan]

In the same way that a similarly intelligent person could say that there was one.



I'm certainly glad you don't hate us.



What are you talking about?

Read this, foo.'

sounds just like a smart guy who knew how to distort a belief system so that he would gain followers

 

[BMM]

because someone can experience something that to them proves the existence of God/Xenu/the force etc. it might not prove the existance to others, but for that one person it is enough. there is nothing that a person can experience that can disprove the existance of God/Nirvana/w.e except maybe God coming down to earth and telling that person he doesnt exist, which would be moot.

Likewise, someone could experience something in life that leads that person to believe there is no God. It works both ways.

Anyway, we're getting off topic for the Misc. Films forum.

 

[Superhobo]

sounds just like a smart guy who knew how to distort a belief system so that he would gain followers

I'm going to smack you with a large piece of iron.

 

[Venomfan]

Likewise, someone could experience something in life that leads that person to believe there is no God. It works both ways.

Anyway, we're getting off topic for the Misc. Films forum.

not really, they could only experience something that leads them to believe a certain belief system is wrong, like the God of the Bible, or w/e Buddhists believe or Hindus. They can't experience anything that logically proves to them nothing is out there. maybe God is an impersonal God who just wishes to make the earth and then turns his back on it and goes about his business elseware. A person can lean towards there being nothing out there, but they can't experience anything that totally without a doubt confirms to them that nothing is out there, unless they don't think intelligently about the matter.

 

[Venomfan]

I'm going to smack you with a large piece of iron.

its ok we both have OCDt:

 

[BMM]

not really, they could only experience something that leads them to believe a certain belief system is wrong, like the God of the Bible, or w/e Buddhists believe or Hindus. They can't experience anything that logically proves to them nothing is out there. maybe God is an impersonal God who just wishes to make the earth and then turns his back on it and goes about his business elseware. A person can lean towards there being nothing out there, but they can't experience anything that totally without a doubt confirms to them that nothing is out there, unless they don't think intelligently about the matter.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Arcturus]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

LMFAO!

 

[psychocheeseman]

because someone can experience something that to them proves the existence of God/Xenu/the force etc. it might not prove the existance to others, but for that one person it is enough. there is nothing that a person can experience that can disprove the existance of God/Nirvana/w.e except maybe God coming down to earth and telling that person he doesnt exist, which would be moot.

Or perhaps noticing that the same feelings of the "being close to God/Xenu/nirvana" can be achieved through a variety of ways - usually with mutually exclusive spiritual explanations. for example experiencing the same feeling with different Gods, or through meditation.

People convince themselves there is a god, it's a nice feeling, but, on the evidence, it appears to come from within, not some external supernatural presence.

 

[sithgoblin]

because someone can experience something that to them proves the existence of God/Xenu/the force etc. it might not prove the existance to others, but for that one person it is enough. there is nothing that a person can experience that can disprove the existance of God/Nirvana/w.e except maybe God coming down to earth and telling that person he doesnt exist, which would be moot.

That's called a delusion.

 

[Joker]

I dont see how people can look around at the world we live in and believe that there's a god. Well, a loving, just god anyway. If there is a god, he's a sociopath. He's all powerful, but allows there to be pain, suffering, rape, aids, child murder, miscarraiges, terrorism, war, and a laundry list of other terrible, terrible things, when he could instantly stop it all in the blink of an eye. And dont give me the "that's satan, not god, doing all that" argument, because god could go all Scarlet Witch with "no more satan" and bam, he's gone. Inaction in this case is the same as if he were doing it.

I find it much more likely that there is nothing. We are all base creatures at heart, with no influence on us than our own. And really, deep down, we're just as much animals as we were the day we crawled out of the trees and invented murder. It's a much more likely scenario to me than an all powerful 5 year old with a magnifying glass torturing us like ants.

 

[Timstuff]

sounds just like a smart guy who knew how to distort a belief system so that he would gain followers

Hitler may have been publicly Christian, but behind the doors of his mansion he was just plain obsessed with the supernatural, including paganism and witchcraft. He was a friggin' member of the Thule society, for cripes' sake. He actually had an ancient pagan temple taken brick by brick from one country and reassembled in Germany because he wanted to absorb it's power, and today it can still be visited as a museum. Not only that, but there is a great deal of evidence that through the Thule society, Hitler had occult and possibly even satanic experiments conducted in hopes gaining more power. Even when you take away Hitler's genocides and antisemitism, you need not look further than the 10 commandments to see that Hitler was anything but a sincere Christian.

 

[Carcharodon]

I just can't buy that single celled organisms just decided to merge to form more complex lifeforms.

...and that's why you failed high school biology. Good job.

 

[Timstuff]

The scientific community has always been resistant to any sort of change, and has been for hundreds of years (except, oddly enough, for the adoption of evolution). New ideas for things that are believed to already be adiquately explained have almost always been met with resistance, and all you have to do is look back to Galileo to see how the science has traditionally reacted to scientific canon being contradicted.

 

[Carcharodon]

The scientific community has always been resistant to any sort of change, and has been for hundreds of years (except, oddly enough, for the adoption of evolution).

What the hell are you talking about? Darwin was practically a joke in his time. It took a long, long time for evolution to be scientifically accepted, and a multitude of supporting evidence. I'm surprised it wasn't more suppressed, given the hugely religious time in which it was presented. Scopes Trial, anyone?

New ideas for things that are believed to already be adiquately explained have almost always been met with resistance, and all you have to do is look back to Galileo to see how the science has traditionally reacted to scientific canon being contradicted.

Wait a minute? Are you high?

Galileo? Really?

You know what? You're right. It had everything to do with resistance from the scientific community, NOT resistance from the Church...which controlled, you know...everything at the time. The idea that the Catholic church would suppress such information that contradicted the ****ing Bible when they had so much to lose by way of credibility is preposterous.

The bottom line is this: when the evidence supports a new theory or explanation, it becomes the new prevailing theory.

Period. There is a burden of evidence to bear. That, "resistance," you speak of is there, but it isn't arbitrary, or just because they don't like the new theory. The proponents of the new theory have got to show that new and existing evidence support it.

I swear, if you want to point to resistance to scientific progress, I need direct you not further than your nearest religious establishment.

Galileo...wow.

 

[Superhobo]

What the hell are you talking about? Darwin was practically a joke in his time. It took a long, long time for evolution to be scientifically accepted, and a multitude of supporting evidence. I'm surprised it wasn't more suppressed, given the hugely religious time in which it was presented. Scopes Trial, anyone?

Wait a minute? Are you high?

Galileo? Really?

You know what? You're right. It had everything to do with resistance from the scientific community, NOT resistance from the Church...which controlled, you know...everything at the time. The idea that the Catholic church would suppress such information that contradicted the ****ing Bible when they had so much to lose by way of credibility is preposterous.

The bottom line is this: when the evidence supports a new theory or explanation, it becomes the new prevailing theory.

Period. There is a burden of evidence to bear. That, "resistance," you speak of is there, but it isn't arbitrary, or just because they don't like the new theory. The proponents of the new theory have got to show that new and existing evidence support it.

I swear, if you want to point to resistance to scientific progress, I need direct you not further than your nearest religious establishment.

Galileo...wow.

*claps*


Damn, Timstuff.

 

[wellsy]

I dont see how people can look around at the world we live in and believe that there's a god. Well, a loving, just god anyway. If there is a god, he's a sociopath. He's all powerful, but allows there to be pain, suffering, rape, aids, child murder, miscarraiges, terrorism, war, and a laundry list of other terrible, terrible things, when he could instantly stop it all in the blink of an eye. And dont give me the "that's satan, not god, doing all that" argument, because god could go all Scarlet Witch with "no more satan" and bam, he's gone. Inaction in this case is the same as if he were doing it.

I find it much more likely that there is nothing. We are all base creatures at heart, with no influence on us than our own. And really, deep down, we're just as much animals as we were the day we crawled out of the trees and invented murder. It's a much more likely scenario to me than an all powerful 5 year old with a magnifying glass torturing us like ants.

Oh, I know a fairly good answer to this one, and it requires a considered approach to the Book of Job (and no, I don't take it literally, thankyou very much).

First of all, let us consider the three primary assumptions of a good person (religious, in this case) with regards to God:

1. God is Just
2. God is all-powerful
3. The person in question is good

Now then, when Job is "punished by God" (I'm not going to go into the story of Job here), one of these propositions must be rejected. His friends reject proposition 3, that Job is a good person. Of course, Job has committed no sin. Eventually, Job finally feels that God is simply being unjust, rejecting proposition 1.

Thus, he challenges God to explain himself. God then comes down and says (paraphrasing) "Think you can do a better job mate? Pfft!". Essentially, then, the idea of the Book of Job is to show that God is not all powerful, rejecting proposition 2 (a somewhat heretical position for a Catholic, I'll admit, but I consider it only for this world/universe (or whatever you want to call it), and God reigns supreme in His Kingdom).

I just thought I'd put that argument through, and I won't claim it as my own either. It was actually discussed (in much greater detail) by a Jewish rabbi. However, I don't actually know the name of the book or the author (and it won't be on hand for a few days yet), but I can get it to you if you'd like to read further.

What the hell are you talking about? Darwin was practically a joke in his time. It took a long, long time for evolution to be scientifically accepted, and a multitude of supporting evidence. I'm surprised it wasn't more suppressed, given the hugely religious time in which it was presented. Scopes Trial, anyone?

Wait a minute? Are you high?

Galileo? Really?

You know what? You're right. It had everything to do with resistance from the scientific community, NOT resistance from the Church...which controlled, you know...everything at the time. The idea that the Catholic church would suppress such information that contradicted the ****ing Bible when they had so much to lose by way of credibility is preposterous.

The bottom line is this: when the evidence supports a new theory or explanation, it becomes the new prevailing theory.

Period. There is a burden of evidence to bear. That, "resistance," you speak of is there, but it isn't arbitrary, or just because they don't like the new theory. The proponents of the new theory have got to show that new and existing evidence support it.

I swear, if you want to point to resistance to scientific progress, I need direct you not further than your nearest religious establishment.

Galileo... Wow

Galileo's research and works were supressed more for political reasons than scientific ones (yes, the idea of a heliocentric universe was deemed heretical by the Inquisition, but the theoretical discussion of it was not forbidden). Not only did Galileo actively defy the Pope's orders to only discuss the Copernican model theoretically (ie "if it were true... but we all know it isn't" is essentially what was supposed to be said), but he offended His Holiness by having the character defending the Aristotelean model (named Simplicus, who acted in general as his name suggested) quote the Pope of the day.

In short, Galileo's mouth got the better of him (and it wasn't the first time either).

And please stop spouting this nonsense about how science and religion are incompatible. The Conflict Thesis is a load of rubbish, and educated, respectful people know that it is foolish to assume a theory based on the anti-Catholic propaganda of a few very pious (and very arrogant) English Protestants.

And if you don't believe me...

Apologies for not sticking to topic. With regards to the movie itself; ID, while certainly capable of becoming a scientific idea (selective breeding of greyhounds and horses, as well as GM crops are viable examples), it is, in itself, insufficient on basis of evidence to explain the origins of man. Evolution is required somehere along the line. I don't need to, nor want to see this doco, especially if it is a polemic full of half-truths and highly distorted facts.

It is hardly becoming of a mature debater to employ such tactics, and the ID lobby should learn this...

Then again, since when were reasonable voices ever heard?

 

[Timstuff]

You know what? You're right. It had everything to do with resistance from the scientific community, NOT resistance from the Church...which controlled, you know...everything at the time. The idea that the Catholic church would suppress such information that contradicted the ****ing Bible when they had so much to lose by way of credibility is preposterous.

That's a popular myth, but in actuality there are actually passage in the bible that refer to it as being round.

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The Catholic church's insistance that the world was flat came mostly from leftover pagan traditions from the Roman empire, not the actual scriptures. Further evidence that people in bible times were aware of the Earth's roundness can be found in the book of Luke:

34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.

Odd that Luke chose to describe the Rapture as happening to people who are both sleeping at night and laboring in the day, don't you think?

 

[Timstuff]

Galileo's research and works were supressed more for political reasons than scientific ones (yes, the idea of a heliocentric universe was deemed heretical by the Inquisition, but the theoretical discussion of it was not forbidden).

My point is that the common theme with both Galileo and Intilligent Design is that the alternative to the status quo is suppressed for political reasons rather than scientific ones. The Scientific community is unwilling to accept that there is any alternative to evolution, and they refuse to accept any model of intelligent design as viable regardless of whether or not it is coherent with the available evidence. The point of the movie "Expelled" (which is buried beneath heaps of propaganda) is that the scientific community is suppressing proponents of ID within their community due to politics more than the actual scientific evidence. It didn't matter whether or not the Pope had scientific reasons for why the heliocentric solar model should be impossible, because he was in charge. The same could be said about intelligent design and the scientific community today.

Well, I think that's all I have left to say in this thread, because if I get involved in another Evolution vs. ID argument I will be stuck here all week.

 

[Carcharodon]

And please stop spouting this nonsense about how science and religion are incompatible.

Please show me where I said that. I'd really, really appreciate it.

 

[Carcharodon]

That's a popular myth, but in actuality there are actually passage in the bible that refer to it as being round.

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The Catholic church's insistance that the world was flat came mostly from leftover pagan traditions from the Roman empire, not the actual scriptures. Further evidence that people in bible times were aware of the Earth's roundness can be found in the book of Luke:

34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.

Odd that Luke chose to describe the Rapture as happening to people who are both sleeping at night and laboring in the day, don't you think?

Yeah, you're high.

Galileo proposed that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system. It's called heliocentrism, as the previous poster pointed out. Why don't you post some more scripture that supports that notion instead of this completely useless dribble?

 

[Carcharodon]

My point is that the common theme with both Galileo and Intilligent Design is that the alternative to the status quo is suppressed for political reasons rather than scientific ones. The Scientific community is unwilling to accept that there is any alternative to evolution, and they refuse to accept any model of intelligent design as viable regardless of whether or not it is coherent with the available evidence. The point of the movie "Expelled" (which is buried beneath heaps of propaganda) is that the scientific community is suppressing proponents of ID within their community due to politics more than the actual scientific evidence. It didn't matter whether or not the Pope had scientific reasons for why the heliocentric solar model should be impossible, because he was in charge. The same could be said about intelligent design and the scientific community today.

Well, I think that's all I have left to say in this thread, because if I get involved in another Evolution vs. ID argument I will be stuck here all week.

The problem with ID is that it isn't science. There's no room for scientific method with that theory (and I use the word losely). The simple answer is, "God did it."

I'm not debating ID vs. Evolution here: I'm discussing the viability of ID as a scientific theory, and the general concensus is that there is none. That's why you see, "resistance," from the scientific community.

That is not to say that religion and science are incompatible. There are many, MANY God-fearing scientists out there that somehow reconcile their beliefs with what science tells them, and that's fine.

However, when you consider the deep rift between science and ID with respect to application of the scientific method, that simply can't be bridged. "God did it," is not a viable scientific theory. You can't prove it.

In the context of this thread, this discussion is very much on-topic. So please: continue.