Sorry, I was still writing that before you posted, so the first bit of my comment, I was responding to legatissimo.

I do enjoy *discussing* both topics. However, I'm afraid I'm not so informed about the latter of the two. I think it's rather ironic that you would say arguing about religion interests the hell out of you. I realize you were most likely just making a statement as to how intriguing you find such discussions, however, as I've stated...ironic .

I hope you realize I'm rather difficult to...frustrate...so hopefully that's not the only result you seek (because you may be disappointed). I'm glad you are able to remain calm and composed. A level head is often beneficial when engaging in discussions.

And finally, regarding your "Arf." comment. Are you implying your discussions are often dogmatic? =P.

Here is an atheist's perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y&feature=related

Having no faith in religion doesn't mean that there's no God. I don't subscribe to any religion because it's obvious that the leaders of the major religions don't believe in God; or at least don't believe in the God they claim exists.

Posted By: tomasito

And don't even get me started on modern religions and religious leaders.

I hereby officially give you permission to get started. It's not as if this thread is overactive.

Good point, here goes.

I guess the main problem I have is how a lot of the time, religion outweighs logic in people's minds. Take literal creationism as an example. Anyone with any decently-formed sense of logic would realize that the earth is much older than 5,000 years, and that light didn't exist before the existence of the sun or stars. That in itself wouldn't be overly harmful, but religious leaders, who are just as corrupt as other politicians, use that kind of blind ignorance to manipulate the people. As an atheist, I personally get hit kind of hard by that, since strict Christians (the only ultra-conservative religious people I'm frequently exposed to) seem to think I should go around wearing What Wouldn't Jesus Do bracelets just because I don't think Jesus was any form of deity.

How could there NOT be light before the formation of stars? Light (photons) is a natural result of atomic decay.

Wow, that got responses sooner than I expected, considering the inactivity of this thread before my post. Sorry if this gets kind of lengthy.

Posted By: Udoboy

How could there NOT be light before the formation of stars? Light (photons) is a natural result of atomic decay.

I'm just going by what Genesis 1, the basis of Christian Creationist theory, says--that light was created on the first day, but the sun and other stars weren't created until the fourth. The earth did exist at that time, but considering its relatively low mass, there wasn't enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion, and there weren't enough decaying atoms to create a significant amount of light.

Posted By: Trance

Posted By: tomasito

light didn't exist before the existence of the sun or stars

Really? How did God see where to put the planets?

No seriously though, how was there no light before the existence of stars? I've never heard of light preceding the stars.
Light = energy = eternal ?

You're absolutely right. That is another way to disprove Creationist theory: the law of conservation of matter in conjunction with the theory of relativity, which is the complicated way of stating what you just said.

Posted By: cmseagle

So essentially you don't believe in religion because of the 10%-20% of religious people who are beligerant/annoying? By that standard, there is no organization/group worth believing (except for gullible.info, of course).

Depending on your definition of "religious", it's quite a bit more than 10-20%. Don't believe me? Go to a Church-sponsored event and bring up the topic of same-sex marriage or abortion. Actually, I suggest that you do that even if you do believe me, it's pretty interesting, though a little sad sometimes.

Posted By: cmseagle

That's because public education blows.

Definitely, but the Church isn't exactly helping.

Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: tomasito

[p]religious leaders, who are just as corrupt as other politicians, use that kind of blind ignorance to manipulate the people.

I imagine what you're talking about are megachurches which bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit. I admit, that does happen, and religion does enable it. But keep in mind that those are small scale examples, and that these megachurches are mostly independent from major religious denominations.

[/quote]

Actually, I was kind of leaving my solely Christian focus behind there and thinking primarily about the Muslim radicals who have given Islam in general a bad name in the United States. But that and what you mentioned are just two examples out of many. And yes, each of those groups makes up a small fraction of those who follow their respective religions. But they add up quickly, especially if you consider the world's low population of those who do not claim to subscribe to any specific religion.

Maybe I'm over-generalizing a bit. But human nature allows me to do that: most religions are identical because people think similarly. I suggest Joseph Campbell's _The Hero With A Thousand Faces_, which deals with that same concept in mythology, for those of you who are into deep thinking.

Posted By: tomasito

Depending on your definition of "religious", it's quite a bit more than 10-20%. Don't believe me? Go to a Church-sponsored event and bring up the topic of same-sex marriage or abortion. Actually, I suggest that you do that even if you do believe me, it's pretty interesting, though a little sad sometimes.

Those are hot-button issues, no matter where you go, you're going to get strong opinions in one direction or the other. Try this, go to Los Angeles and bring up the topic of same-sex marriage or abortion. You'd most likely get the same response, but in the opposite direction. (I only use Los Angeles because it is one of the most liberal cities in the country).

Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: cmseagle

That's because public education blows.

Definitely, but the Church isn't exactly helping.

Yes, unfortunately some churches lobby for creation to be taught in schools, and it sucks. However, that's one of the disadvantages of our legislature and the first amendment. I'm not sure if by Church, you meant the Roman Catholic Church, or if you meant church, as in various denominations of Christianity. If you meant the former, I'd have to disagree.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

-Pope John Paul II

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)

Posted By: tomasito

Actually, I was kind of leaving my solely Christian focus behind there and thinking primarily about the Muslim radicals who have given Islam in general a bad name in the United States. But that and what you mentioned are just two examples out of many. And yes, each of those groups makes up a small fraction of those who follow their respective religions. But they add up quickly, especially if you consider the world's low population of those who do not claim to subscribe to any specific religion.

Yes, Muslim Radicals are a perfect example of how a religion can be perverted. However, all groups have these extremists, be it religions or governments. I think that the organization/religion should not be evaluated based on those who give an organization/religion its bad name, but by comparing the positives of the organization/religion vs. the negatives it generates simply by existing. By this criteria, I'd say that most religions are a good thing.

You should understand that God is beyond the realm of Physical Theory. That is, the Laws of Physics do not apply to Him. I mean, how else do you explain the parting of the Red Sea? It cannot be done using the laws of physics but it can be done by a divinity.

So, is it possible that God created light before the sun and stars? Yes, it is. In fact, even in the laws of physics, it has to be that way. Light is a product of chemical & nuclear reactions, but those do not have to occur inside of stars. Man has proved that.

Is it possible that God created energy, which we theorize can neither be created or destroyed? Yes.

But, the other side of what you say holds true:

Religious leaders always claim that they have the "truth." Like that the earth is 5000 years old, that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, etc. And rarely are religious leaders correct about science. So it's difficult to believe them on other matters when they don't even know the truth about science or backtrack and wemble about what they said.

Posted By: Udoboy

Is it possible that God created energy, which we theorize can neither be created or destroyed? Yes.

A God may be able to break the laws of science capriciously, but the laws of logic seem to be a little more robust.

Posted By: Udoboy

No, changing one's tune only when faced with overwhelming evidence does not make me believe him on anything.

So you don't believe scientists who had incorrect hypotheses, and did not change their minds until after extensive experimentation?

Posted By: cmseagle

So you don't believe scientists who had incorrect hypotheses, and did not change their minds until after extensive experimentation?

Like Einstein with the cosmological constant!

Posted By: Trance

Just 'cause theories aren't compatible, doesn't make them necessarily incorrect. Take the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics for example.

That's partially true. Continuing with your example of quantum mechanics vs. Einstein's theories, each of those is partially right and partially wrong; going into specifics as far as that goes is probably unnecessary. When those theories conflicted, however, neither one could ever be completely correct. Moreover, if you break down all their general, conflicting views into more specific issues, you will find that, on the most basic level achievable, one side is always completely right, the other completely wrong, and the combination of those issues makes up the partially right, partially wrong views that we see when we examine the arguments of each side. This applies to any given conflicting theories, including Creationism and the theory of conservation of matter. The issue of whether the universe was created exactly as outlined in Genesis, which Creationists argue in favor of, directly and completely conflicts with the law of conservation of matter. In other words, if the law of conservation of matter is true and matter (and, by the theory of relativity, energy) cannot be created or destroyed, then Genesis 1, in which mater and energy are created, must be false. Conversely, if Genesis 1 is true word for word, then the law of conservation of matter must be false, as, obviously, it outlines God's creation of matter and energy.

Posted By: Trance

This holds some truth, but there are a lot of religions that don't require any money and differ from other religious streams of thought (Eg: Philosophical Taoism).

Fundamentally, Philosophical Taoism, like all religions, is the same as any other religion you care to name. I'm not very well acquainted with its teachings, though I do know that Taoism deals with the balance between metaphoric light and dark, which can be interpreted in countless ways, most of which are generally applicable to Taoism's philosophy. That some application of that balance shows up in most, if not all, other religions is irrefutable.

Posted By: Udoboy

You should understand that God is beyond the realm of Physical Theory. That is, the Laws of Physics do not apply to Him. I mean, how else do you explain the parting of the Red Sea? It cannot be done using the laws of physics but it can be done by a divinity.

God himself may (or may not, there's no way to know, even if we assume that he exists) be exempt from the laws of physical theory, but matter, like the water in the Red Sea, isn't. Let's assume that the parting of the Red Sea happened exactly as written, an obvious exception to the laws of physics. Since laws of physics must, by definition, be universalizably unbreakable in the realm of matter, the occurence of that "miracle" renders all applicable laws of physics false. Furthermore, those laws have been proven using the scientific method. So if the scientific method proved them true when in actuality they're false, the scientific method must not be reliable, and everything else ever proven true or false by the scientific method must be true or false, respectively, simply by coincidence. If that sounds logical to you, you are welcome to continue to assume that Exodus is completely and literally accurate. Or you could take the more practical view that the stories of Moses, the great man who led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt, was simply credited with slightly exaggerated works that grew more and more miraculous over the course of the 1000-something years between the Exodus and the writing down of the story of the Exodus.

Posted By: cmseagle

Does the fact that Papa Ben is saying that science has gotten it right make you want to become a Catholic?

Not really, though it doesn't hurt the cause. More importantly, however, that makes it much easier for me to have a decent amount of respect for Catholics, though I do wish the Church would do a better job spreading that kind of information around.

Posted By: Udoboy

So, is it possible that God created light before the sun and stars? Yes, it is. In fact, even in the laws of physics, it has to be that way. Light is a product of chemical & nuclear reactions, but those do not have to occur inside of stars. Man has proved that.

Of course; there's nothing incredibly different about stars compared to other matter. The only matter that existed at the time, however, was the earth, which doesn't give off a significant amount of light. Actually, if you put any faith in quantum theory, we can complicate this one step further by saying that light both existed and did not exist at the time, since we don't know for sure if it existed or not.

And that He created the universe from nothing. In order for your argument to make sense, then you must assume that the universe has always existed, and was not created. Otherwise, your problems with religions are much deeper than that they promote bad education.

Posted By: tomasito

Not really, though it doesn't hurt the cause. More importantly, however, that makes it much easier for me to have a decent amount of respect for Catholics, though I do wish the Church would do a better job spreading that kind of information around.

Do what? Let it be known that they believe in evolution, or to teach evolution themselves?

Posted By: Paulustrious

If we could all just accept creationism then we would save a lot of money on things like Large Hadron Colliders.

But probably spend it on temples and giant telescopes looking for god.

Posted By: Trance

Not necessarily, the main feature of a God is that he can break the laws of physics.

This is one of those points where the discussion has to hit a dead end. Even if one of us is correct, we can keep debating indefinitely and, more likely than not, neither of us will ever know who is right and who is wrong. I'm very strongly set on the idea that since, by definition, laws of physics apply, without exception, to all matter and space, no deity can be exempt from those laws, since he/she/it must be somewhere in space. And you're equally convinced that, for lack of a better way to put it, the ten (according to M-theory) dimensions of space and the one dimension of time, do not encompass everything that exists, and that God's rules are based on yet another dimension, and I don't think either of us would be able to persuade the other otherwise.

^^proof that I'm able to extend a simple thought into a somewhat lengthy paragraph without even trying ^^

Posted By: cmseagle

And that He created the universe from nothing. In order for your argument to make sense, then you must assume that the universe has always existed, and was not created.

That depends on how you define "universe". But yes, I think that all matter, energy, and space that exists has always existed. It's something like footprints on the moon: if nothing happens to erase them, they will stay there forever. Of course, after forever (or more concretely, infinity years, or infinity of any other unit of time you care to name), everything that could possibly happen to those footprints, will happen to those footprints, an infinite number of times, and one or more of those events will erase the footprints. But in that respect, the footprints are unlike matter and space: everything that can happen, will happen, but not a single one of those things can create or destroy matter or space. Obviously, the fact that everything that exists now always existed and always will exist is a bit hard to grasp, which is why, in my opinion, cultures tend to attribute the creation of all matter to a deity of some kind.

Posted By: cmseagle

Don't you know anything? They're looking for the god particle. You know, the particles that make up God.

Duh...

I can't think of a more appropriate site for you to post that on.

And you're equally convinced that, for lack of a better way to put it, the ten (according to M-theory) dimensions of space and the one dimension of time, do not encompass everything that exists, and that God's rules are based on yet another dimension, and I don't think either of us would be able to persuade the other otherwise.

I don't remember even saying I believed in a God, let alone one that transcends the multiverse.

Posted By: Fact totum

So godcanmake a rock so big that not even he can lift it.

I said laws of physics, not logic.

Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: Paulustrious

If we could all just accept creationism then we would save a lot of money on things like Large Hadron Colliders.

Don't you know anything? They're looking for the god particle. You know, the particles that make up God.

Duh...

Sorry - I must come across like a bit of a boson.