Mosques

[AppleQueso]

talkorigins.org has a lot of info. Although much of it circulates around refuting creationist claims and general misconceptions about evolution, it's probably the most comprehensive website I know of off the top of my head.

Do you know any good books on evolution that aren't written for people getting their doctorate in evolutionary biology?

Just use that website. I'm not a biology major or anything and it's more than enough for me.

[Dylan]

"Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". There is not a single shred of evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There's no logic behind a woman appearing from a rib and a snake talking. If you're suggesting that the big bang theory is less valid than a guy creating everything in 6 days and then taking a nap, I really don't know where to go from here.

The Big bang could also be ridiculed for disregarding the laws of cause and effect, the law of the conservation of mass, and the law of the conservation of energy. It's difficult for me to believe that all things do not have an origin, and that they simply exist without explanation. It's important to understand that we as human beings cannot form theories of any kind without accepting axioms.

Perhaps, but atheists aren't driven to their decision on that issue through a religious compass. My point was that people are arguing against it without even understanding it, simply because the vatican says it's bad.

That's true, but likewise any person can listen in on what a relevant person is saying and just subscribe to their beliefs. Religion is merely a subcategory of this concept.

Ok. But what exactly is the negative to atheists speaking the opposite on that cause? I don't know how anyone who is not completely lost to religious fanaticism could possibly suggest that telling people not to wear condoms is a logical thing in any way when millions of people die of aids each year.

Honestly, I see no reason to argue this as I have no issues with contraception. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you subscribe to some Catholic beliefs. Heck, there are plenty of Catholics I know that don't believe in contraception. Just because there a streak of beliefs in a religion doesn't mean that they're shared by all people.

How is killing prohibited? Most religions are contradictory as far as killing goes. Either way, most religious texts are up for interpretation. The texts aren't even always the issue. You can remove them completely and still have a group of people who have irrational beliefs. These beliefs usually come from a long game of telephone interpretation of an original source. Someone like Bin Laden can twist the texts to suit his cause, then indoctrinate hundreds or thousands of people to his thinking. You can say that these people are not true muslims, but they still consider themselves religious don't they? So maybe bin laden's supposed following of islam is selfish and only suits his own interest, but what about all of his followers who have been brainwashed?

Likewise, this situation can happen outside of religion. For example, Mao Zedon was not a religious man. However, he called many people together under the banner of communism. Plenty of horrible things happened under his reign because people subscribed to his system of beliefs, either genuinely or out of fear. You can see an almost identical form of brainwashing in this case. My main point is that religion is merely a subcategory of potential strategies of manipulation. It's any individual's decision whether or not they subscribe to these modified beliefs.

I'm not trying to say Atheists are all completely moral and are the most innocent people on earth. That's rediculous. I'm saying if they do these things they are driven by their own desires. Religious followers may do the same thing, but they may also be driven by their belief system and what it tells them to do.

Likewise, a group of people that don't subscribe to religion or a group of religious people can be driven to do something by a more secular belief system. Again, you can refer to the Mao example for this concept.

[AppleQueso]

"Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". There is not a single shred of evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There's no logic behind a woman appearing from a rib and a snake talking. If you're suggesting that the big bang theory is less valid than a guy creating everything in 6 days and then taking a nap, I really don't know where to go from here.

The Big bang could also be ridiculed for disregarding the laws of cause and effect, the law of the conservation of mass, and the law of the conservation of energy. It's difficult for me to believe that all things do not have an origin, and that they simply exist without explanation. It's important to understand that we as human beings cannot form theories of any kind without accepting axioms.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/b ... onceptions

[Dylan]

This, imo, is one of the massive flaws with religion I see. They reject things until the evidence is rediculously overwhelming and they begin to look crazy for not believing it, then they quietly adapt it into their belief system. Humans have empathy born into them, and deep down we know that so much that is taught by religion is wrong. So we play the pick n' choose game. We believe some of it, and not other stuff. When it supports our bigotry, we go full force with it. When we decide "hmm, well maybe homosexuals are okayish" we ignore the parts that say they're going to hell. Then there's the extremist side who never left the fire and brimstone age who try really hard to hinder progress.

People swear up and down the bible and its teaching is divine and written by people who knew what they were talking about, and then they go and make "interpretive amendments". They don't actually change the bible, but they twist what it says to be interpreted differently. This is the same way people twist islam into killing anyone who isn't muslim.

I agree that modifying a system of beliefs out of convenience is foolish. However, not all people do this. In fact, this is a minority of religious people.

[Dylan]

"Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". There is not a single shred of evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There's no logic behind a woman appearing from a rib and a snake talking. If you're suggesting that the big bang theory is less valid than a guy creating everything in 6 days and then taking a nap, I really don't know where to go from here.

The Big bang could also be ridiculed for disregarding the laws of cause and effect, the law of the conservation of mass, and the law of the conservation of energy. It's difficult for me to believe that all things do not have an origin, and that they simply exist without explanation. It's important to understand that we as human beings cannot form theories of any kind without accepting axioms.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/b ... onceptions

Ah, I see (Thanks for the site by the way, I'll give it a look probably tomorrow). However, my doubt and cases would still stand as to where this phenomenon itself originated. What I'm trying to say is more along the lines of the universe and all things existing with no point of origin, which I do not understand as possible.

[AppleQueso]

The Big bang could also be ridiculed for disregarding the laws of cause and effect, the law of the conservation of mass, and the law of the conservation of energy. It's difficult for me to believe that all things do not have an origin, and that they simply exist without explanation. It's important to understand that we as human beings cannot form theories of any kind without accepting axioms.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/b ... onceptions

Ah, I see (Thanks for the site by the way, I'll give it a look probably tomorrow). However, my doubt and cases would still stand as to where this phenomenon itself originated. What I'm trying to say is more along the lines of the universe and all things existing with no point of origin, which I do not understand as possible.

Well one of the things outlined there is that the big bang theory isn't actually an origin theory, and that the actual origin of the universe isn't really something we know much about.

Your skepticism about that reminds me of the whole "if God created everything, then who created God?" thing you hear sometimes. I think you're getting into some philosophical stuff there, personally I don't think we'll ever really understand exactly how everything "started".

[AppleQueso]

To respond more generally to the (current) topic at hand, some people take religion to heart and take it very personally. It gives them a sense of purpose and belonging that they may not have had otherwise. I may be an atheist, but I'm not about to take that away from someone.

Tolerance in general would be nice, from theists and atheists alike.

[Jrecee]

"Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". There is not a single shred of evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There's no logic behind a woman appearing from a rib and a snake talking. If you're suggesting that the big bang theory is less valid than a guy creating everything in 6 days and then taking a nap, I really don't know where to go from here.

The Big bang could also be ridiculed for disregarding the laws of cause and effect, the law of the conservation of mass, and the law of the conservation of energy. It's difficult for me to believe that all things do not have an origin, and that they simply exist without explanation. It's important to understand that we as human beings cannot form theories of any kind without accepting axioms.

Perhaps, but atheists aren't driven to their decision on that issue through a religious compass. My point was that people are arguing against it without even understanding it, simply because the vatican says it's bad.

That's true, but likewise any person can listen in on what a relevant person is saying and just subscribe to their beliefs. Religion is merely a subcategory of this concept.

Ok. But what exactly is the negative to atheists speaking the opposite on that cause? I don't know how anyone who is not completely lost to religious fanaticism could possibly suggest that telling people not to wear condoms is a logical thing in any way when millions of people die of aids each year.

Honestly, I see no reason to argue this as I have no issues with contraception. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you subscribe to some Catholic beliefs. Heck, there are plenty of Catholics I know that don't believe in contraception. Just because there a streak of beliefs in a religion doesn't mean that they're shared by all people.

How is killing prohibited? Most religions are contradictory as far as killing goes. Either way, most religious texts are up for interpretation. The texts aren't even always the issue. You can remove them completely and still have a group of people who have irrational beliefs. These beliefs usually come from a long game of telephone interpretation of an original source. Someone like Bin Laden can twist the texts to suit his cause, then indoctrinate hundreds or thousands of people to his thinking. You can say that these people are not true muslims, but they still consider themselves religious don't they? So maybe bin laden's supposed following of islam is selfish and only suits his own interest, but what about all of his followers who have been brainwashed?

Likewise, this situation can happen outside of religion. For example, Mao Zedon was not a religious man. However, he called many people together under the banner of communism. Plenty of horrible things happened under his reign because people subscribed to his system of beliefs, either genuinely or out of fear. You can see an almost identical form of brainwashing in this case. My main point is that religion is merely a subcategory of potential strategies of manipulation. It's any individual's decision whether or not they subscribe to these modified beliefs.

I'm not trying to say Atheists are all completely moral and are the most innocent people on earth. That's rediculous. I'm saying if they do these things they are driven by their own desires. Religious followers may do the same thing, but they may also be driven by their belief system and what it tells them to do.

Likewise, a group of people that don't subscribe to religion or a group of religious people can be driven to do something by a more secular belief system. Again, you can refer to the Mao example for this concept.

1.)Ignoring Manzanacheese's link, the origin isn't even the issue. I think it's nearly impossible to comprehend things coming from nothing and how it all started. I have no idea, but I'm not going to try to curb my confusion (spin off of Larry David's show?) by buying into some religious concept of how it all began. It's like if the apple fell on Newton's head and instead of trying to figure out why, he just went "must be an invisible antelope that lives underground and sucks things towards it" and everyone just went with that. We don't make any progress or learn anything about our world by satisfying ourselves with the easiest explanation (and one that also happens to quell our fear of death while scaring evil people into doing good, how convenient)

2.)Relevant person =/= Religion.

3.)I never claimed that all religious people were against contraceptives and I never claimed every religious person supports what christian missionaries are doing in africa. In fact at no point have I made any claims that my negative points about religion reflect ALL religious people. I was just showing how religious beliefs can guide people to doing stupid things.

4.)Manipulation type A. Manipulation type B. I would say that if you removed one of these, there would be less manipulation in the world. Religion is manipulation type B. Just because bad things happen without religion doesn't make religion good.

[Dylan]

1.)Ignoring Manzanacheese's link, the origin isn't even the issue. I think it's nearly impossible to comprehend things coming from nothing and how it all started. I have no idea, but I'm not going to try to curb my confusion (spin off of Larry David's show?) by buying into some religious concept of how it all began. It's like if the apple fell on Newton's head and instead of trying to figure out why, he just went "must be an invisible antelope that lives underground and sucks things towards it" and everyone just went with that. We don't make any progress or learn anything about our world by satisfying ourselves with the easiest explanation (and one that also happens to quell our fear of death while scaring evil people into doing good, how convenient)

The antelope is a straw man argument. If it's impossible to comprehend, then a single omnipotent presence outside of timespace doesn't seem so ridiculous after all.

2.)Relevant person =/= Religion.

? I think that's what I said.

3.)I never claimed that all religious people were against contraceptives and I never claimed every religious person supports what christian missionaries are doing in africa. In fact at no point have I made any claims that my negative points about religion reflect ALL religious people.

Fair enough.

I was just showing how religious beliefs can guide people to doing stupid things.

And my point was as can anything. Sheep aren't hard to guide.

4.)Manipulation type A. Manipulation type B. I would say that if you removed one of these, there would be less manipulation in the world. Religion is manipulation type B. Just because bad things happen without religion doesn't make religion good.

It doesn't really make it bad either though. Additionally, I do not believe removing one route to manipulation would cease it. Finally, would it not then be just as acceptable to pursue other routes of manipulation?

Well one of the things outlined there is that the big bang theory isn't actually an origin theory, and that the actual origin of the universe isn't really something we know much about.

Which is why I don't see why the potential existence of an omnipotent entity is outrageous. If we know and understand nothing about the origin of reality, then who's to claim they know in absolution what it is? I cannot say with absolute certainty that I am correct in my beliefs, but like any theory it effectively explains the way things are now. What more can be asked of any theory? What further validity is required? Certainly, something ludicrous could be formulated (i.e. flying spaghetti monster), but that straw man of itself revolves around a singular core concept, which is to say an all powerful existence creating things as we understand them.

Your skepticism about that reminds me of the whole "if God created everything, then who created God?" thing you hear sometimes. I think you're getting into some philosophical stuff there, personally I don't think we'll ever really understand exactly how everything "started".

I do not believe that God can be separated from reality. God simply is. Time and space are construct, they are simply inventions. At least, that's what I believe.

[MrPopo]

I think it's nearly impossible to comprehend things coming from nothing and how it all started.

You want to really bake your noodle? Try and comprehend where your conciousness comes from. And by that I mean how did your conciousness come from the meeting of sperm and egg in the womb? I look at the Big Bang theory as something similar; because we are completely immersed in the product of it it's impossible for us to really visualize it. Hell, try and visualize four spatial dimentions if you want something easier.