Post your ad here for free.

Why are so many geeks atheists? - 07 March, 2007

			Jawad Shuaib says
			This questions has been bothering me for a while now. If I were to do a statistical analysis of the various religions on Shuzak, it would most likely yield atheism as the most popular belief by a large margin. The second most popular belief is in Buddhism...which is more of a philosophy than a religion. Anyway, I have a bunch of theories myself. But I would like you guys to start: Why, in your opinion, are so many geeks atheists? p.s) Let's keep the religious bashing out of this one If this topic becomes interesting, we could turn it into a collaborative article using Google Documents and host it on Shuzak.
			Total Topic Karma: 150	- More by this Author

		Mad Ant says	+0 Karma
		It was mentionned in another thread that geeks are attracked to philosophy, which doesn't often look to a God/Gods for answers.
			- Author's History - 07 March, 2007

		Tom says	+3 Karma
		Geeks are seperated from the majority. The majority often believes in some sort of religion or divine being. The geeks think for themselves and decide they don't need a god or that there isn't one logically (as alot of geeks are proone to math, logic, statistics, etc.) Also, being anti-social or seperated from the group can cause a distorted ego, where YOU are god (i.e. - I feel like god when I'm writing programs), or because you possess secret knowledge (things most other people wouldn't bother with, but you're obcessed about, making you superior in some way). Maybe? :O
			- Author's History - 07 March, 2007

		(Guest) says	+1 Karma
		I can't really speak seeing as how i'm religious and all, but it seems to me that because of what the perceptions of most religions are and how these contrast so drastically from what science normally tells us that most geeks who tend to know more science and think more rationally choose to not believe. But the question I really want to know is: Are they atheist because they're geeks, or, are they geeks because they're atheists. I.E. is there something about being a geek and the knowledge we posses that makes most of us atheistic, or is there something in most geeks' personalities that drove them to be both geeks and atheists?
			- Author's History - 07 March, 2007

		Ati says	+3 Karma
		I think I remember reading a study that showed a strong correlation between education and athiesm (i.e. the more time you've spent in school, the greater your oddsm of becoming an athiest). I would imagine something similar is happening here. Also, being a geek means thinking and doing non-mainstream things. Religeon is mainstream so it could be looked at in two ways depending on your personal bent: If your religious, you might say that being a geek makes them blind to the truth, because of the urge to be different. If you're an athiest, you might say that the urge to be different frees them to think new thoughts, and draw their own conclusions.
			- Author's History - 07 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+7 Karma
		I think it has something to do with common personality traits giving rise to geekiness and atheism. A great deal of religion's appeal is the sense of community it gives. Social bonds are something that people want, but the degree to which they want them varies greatly. In my experience (and this might be an invalid generalization), geeks aren't all that strongly drawn to them, since they generally seem to prefer the company of those who share their weird interests. Religious communities have no such homogeneity, other than shared belief, which doesn't draw geeks that strongly. So it boils down to differences in the reason that we enter social interactions. Once you no longer identify with that community, peer pressure falls dramatically, and you can think a little more clearly. There's another reason which strikes me as important, though. I think this might be far more important. For all the astronomy geeks out there, you know that the reason you love the stars so much is that exhilarating feeling you get when you look up at the night sky brimming over with those billions of points of light. And then you can think about fusion, and stellar evolution, and black holes, and all those cool things that make it so much fun. It's all so fascinating. It's numinous. The difference between geeks and everyone else is that we've actually perceived the numinous first hand - that's why we love the crazy stuff we do so much. Most other people live their whole lives seeing only glimpses of it here and there. Religion is a nice convenient way to experience the numinous, though. A nice, simple(well...sometimes), institutionalized way. But if you've seen the numinous first hand, the religious version loses all its flavor. It's a poor shadow of the real thing. Back when I believed, I used to be a HUGE astronomy and physics geek. A while ago, I thought back to those days, and realized that all the time I'd spent reading and thinking about these cool things, I never once thought "Wow, God is cool, creating all these things!" The divine just never entered into it. That's also why I think of my belief back then as a kind of forced self-deception - that sure as hell is what it felt like. It took me ages before I had the courage to actually look at the religious view of the world and think "Man, what a simplistic way of looking at things!" So that probably has something to do with it. Also ties in somehow with your comfort level at being an incidental byproduct of the universe, rather than the reason it was created. And the courage to say "I don't know" when you don't, instead of thinking that someone millennia ago had it all figured out. Ooh - that's another thing. Appeal to authority - I don't know about you guys, but I'm rather against accepting stuff from authority figures who go "because I said so".
			- Author's History - 07 March, 2007

		hail, bonk bonk god of power says	+1 Karma
		we worked out a formula that god doesn't exist.
			- Author's History - 07 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		Paul, you made a typo. It should be:
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		hail, bonk bonk god of power says	+2 Karma
		lol, my mistake.. been a while since i did religious maths
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Jawad Shuaib says	+2 Karma
		^lol@equation. Those were all great posts. I like the point Nadeem makes here: Once you no longer identify with that community, peer pressure falls dramatically, and you can think a little more clearly...But if you've seen the numinous first hand, the religious version loses all its flavor. It's a poor shadow of the real thing. The guest author raises an interesting question, "Is there something about being a geek and the knowledge we posses that makes most of us atheistic, or is there something in most geeks' personalities that drove them to be both geeks and atheists?" 1. As Tom pointed out, Geeks are prone to thinking logically (math, statistics, etc). Religion is based more on faith than logic. Consequently, geeks tend to believe that anything that does not have logical basis must be incorrect. 2. Highly intelligent minds are trapped in poor ideas because they can defend them so well. As a result, they are less prone to accepting arguments that do not apply the same sort of logical scrutiny. My thesis is that scientists (including geeks) tend to think in terms of logic. Because they are intelligent, they believe that their approach to problems is right. Religion has no place in science, and therefore, the smart individual claims that a belief in God must be irrelevant in other fields as well. The logical approach to problems does not work in the case of religion. Since geeks approach problems logically, the end result is a disbelief in a higher power.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Constantine says	+1 Karma
		I would say you are correct Jawad, and what you said reminded me of a Bertrand Russell quote: "What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" I think that looking for evidence behind opinions and facts is one of the features of geekdom, and because religion actively says "Do not question, believe instead." we ultimately reject it.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Jawad Shuaib says	+1 Karma
		The absence of evidence isn't evidence enough that there is no evidence at all. Geeks are conditioned to think logically, just as religious people are conditioned to replace faith with emotion. What I extract from this is that geeks are not atheists because they know "more" but rather because they choose to think differently.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+4 Karma
		@Nadeem, First of all what a great Post! Mad Karma Bro! @Jawad, I think you have hit on the key difference here. Allow me to qoute you: My thesis is that scientists (including geeks) tend to think in terms of logic. Because they are intelligent, they believe that their approach to problems is right I would enhance this a little and postulate that we as a group beleive in critical thinking whose fundamental postulate is that there is no truth without evidence and that any theory or postulate can be disproved with evidence. This means that we only accept things that we can prove and are willing to be proven wrong. It is a scary world view because it means that things can change suddenly. Religion builds upon Faith which asks it's followers to beleive in something without ANY evidence and indeed to continue to beleive in it despite any evidence that attempts to disprove it. In many ways it is the very Antithesis of critical thinking. It is certainly this fundamental difference that has made me come to the conclusion years ago that I could not be a person of faith, and good or bad I needed to live in a Universe that self-contained and explicable, even if that explanation was beyond my current grasp. We as a Race HAVE to reach out beyond our knowledge and strive for more or we will simply stagnate and die. Eden wasn't a paradise, it was a graveyard and the tree of life was our way out.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+0 Karma
		Thanks. Occasionally I have some interesting insights. PS: Can I be the Speaker of Cosmic Truth for the Church of Rob?
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+1 Karma
		@Nadeem I would say that you do so more than occasionally my freind! *smile* And yes.. you can become the Speaker of Cosmic Truth for the Church of Rob.. But you have to give me some Karma first bro! *LOL*
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		Shhhh...keep the karma hijacking quiet.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+0 Karma
		*whispering* Ok... *grin*
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Constantine says	+0 Karma
		Jawad, you said the absence of evidence doesn't mean that htere is no evidence at all, and that is true, that is why all atheists who are honest with themselves admit that there is no way to disprove the current god, an invisible all knowing magical superpower is kind of hard to do, all we can say is that the likelihood of god is decreased to the point that we are no longer agnostic. Just like I cant really disprove Zeus.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+2 Karma
		Constantine, I would say that to the "Critical Thinker", saying that you cannot disprove somthing is insufficient to say that it is true. As you pointed out, it is difficult (if not impossible currently) to disprove any divine being. But in a "rational"/"Naturalistic" world view you only beleive in what can be proven theoretically or empiracly. I beleive in Electron Flow because we have models that accurately predict it's behavior AND I have been electrocuted before. Faith and Religion ask us to beleive in something that has no Theoretical or evidentiary basis AND keeps asking us to beleive that it can ascribe various events with natural explanations as evidence of the divine. I think as "Critical Thinkers" we balk at that kind of causal liberty and that sours our palette for organized religious dogma.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		I agree with Naddem completely that religious ideas pale in camparison to the scientific world-view we have now. An entire universe springing from nothingness, billions of stars raging against the chill of space, gradually being consumed by entropy over billions of years; dances of things so tiny that they only probably are, millions of species living and dying even on the one pale blue speck we call home. How can 'let there be light' compete?
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Tom says	+0 Karma
		As much as I'd like to think we're the biggest picture in existance, it's probably not true.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		No, human's aren't the biggest picture. As a matter of fact, we are so far from being the biggest picture that its rather amusing. Our brains actually don't have enough computational power to comprehend exactly how far from being the biggest picture we are. Hey, does anyone here remember is one of the hitchikers guide to the galaxy books where they put Zaphod inside that machine that shows you the entirety of the universe, and then yourself beside it?
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Constantine says	+0 Karma
		I do remember that, and I got to say Adams is a superb author when it comes to things that defy understanding.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		That he is.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Tom says	+0 Karma
		Are you saying that humans in general don't comprehend their superiority in existance (lack there of) or that we, as humans, don't posess the capacity to understand our place in the universe (which is small)? If it's the second option I don't know if you can say that Ati, being a human. Unless you're not human. Unless you're GOD. :-P
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Ati says	+2 Karma
		Actually I was saying something more to the effect of, while we can know in a very intellectual sense that the universe is make of billions of galaxies, each of which consists of billions of stars, and that there are hundreds of lightyears between those stars, our minds really cannot understand the volume of distance embodied by even a single lightyears, more than less the billions upon billions of them that make up the observeable universe.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+3 Karma
		Hey, does anyone here remember is one of the hitchikers guide to the galaxy books where they put Zaphod inside that machine that shows you the entirety of the universe, and then yourself beside it? The Total Perspective Vortex! I love that. My dad often used to tell me "Have a sense of proportion!" whenever I'd have one of those phases of obsessive focus on some things to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Eventually I got tired of hearing it and told him about the TPE, and how the one thing you cannot possibly afford to have in a universe this size, is a sense of proportion.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		I've never been told that. Probably because I usually have too much of a sense of perspective for normal day-to-day life.
			- Author's History - 08 March, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		I cannot see how atheism and geekiness correlate. Therefore there is no correlation. What happens here is a coincidence. Kidding... It probably had more to do with the dynamics of people joining Shuzak... any time a product is provided to consumer, marketting is required to provide successfully... the networks that were accessed in that marketing process may explain why there are too there are too many atheists... as some members here have proved, there exists barriers between atheist and theist networks... This is merely a possible explaination... for all i know, everyone's explaination in here may be right to a degree... not everything is black and white...
			- Author's History - 09 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		I think it goes beyond that Joseph, as almost all of the people I've met who I would consider geeks are athiets or agnostics. It's not a Shuzak specific phenomena.
			- Author's History - 09 March, 2007

		jared.nance says	+2 Karma
		when we are talking about atheism here, do we mean the complete absence and irrelevance of an overseeing intelligence? or simply the falsehood of the western concept of god? or what? i find that many people, who claim to be atheists, admit to being "spiritual". myself included. that aside, i think this is an interesting question. i've recently been pondering the idea of "when" a person becomes a christian, or any faith for that matter. the christian bible, for example, lays down a set of moral tenets that people are expected to uphold, but as we have had illuminatingly proven to us time and again, those who espouse the moral code do not always practice it. so are they lying? do they say they believe it when they dont? probably not, my guess would be that they consider themselves religious, even though they do not believe in or subscribe to certain subsets of the predominant moral wisdom. perhaps it is this that makes so many geeks "atheists"... pure, simple inconsistency. geeks are, for the most part, highly trained and skilled in the field of critical thinking. ask yourself this: if there were a religion that claimed certain things, and held certain views, and you agreed completely with all of the views, and were unable to even approach disputing any of the claims, would you believe in it? i think i would. however, most of the world's religions stand in stark contrast to this. most of the religions that we are exposed to fail to practice what they preach... we have christians executing people and muslims declaring others unbelievers. these inconsistencies are what get me. aside from that, i consider myself 'spiritual' because of the wonderful and beautiful complexity with which the universe presents itself. the order that the universe displays is almost creepy, and it fills me with awe every time i think about it. to me, that is enough.
			- Author's History - 10 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+0 Karma
		Jared, Atheism refers to the disbeleif in ANY god. Agnosticism beleives that thre is some kind of a supernatural being, you are just not sure what flag they are flying! *smilE*
			- Author's History - 11 March, 2007

		Constantine says	+2 Karma
		Well Jared while I have said for a long time that I am an Atheist, I would now say I am a Bright, it is a movement Rob actually turned me on to. It espouses not just a disbelief in any god but a complete disbelief in the supernatural, ghosts, goblins, and undefinable spirituality. To be honest I wish this is what most atheists were like, but I think you are right, that it is not the case.
			- Author's History - 11 March, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		I call myself an athiest just so that people understand what I am talking about, but I am probably technically a Bright. I don't beleive in anything that cannot be substantiated by the evidence at hand. Although I am awed by the complexity and methematical intricacy of the universe, I do not believe that a higher entity or force created it.
			- Author's History - 11 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		Ati, isn't complexity and mathematical intricacy evidence in itself that there is a creator?
			- Author's History - 12 March, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		Atheism refers to the disbeleif in ANY god. Agnosticism beleives that thre is some kind of a supernatural being, you are just not sure what flag they are flying! *smilE* No, I'm afraid that isn't true. An agnostic is someone who thinks they are undecided about whether there is a God or not.
			- Author's History - 12 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Ummmm... No. The universe is a beatiful and complex thing - How does that prove, or even imply a creator?
			- Author's History - 12 March, 2007

		Fibonacci's Wench says	+0 Karma
		I believe in living life...... worry about death when it comes... give out good and it will return to you... give out bad and it will return to you..... everything is connected, in one way or another.... I could sit here and write a thesis but that would simply insult time and intelligence. We will never come to a collective perspective on this subject, people are ignorant. We can sit and rant all we like but in the end we're just tiring ourselves. I suggest we focus on the now.... Time is slipping ever so slowly yet rapidly all at once. Use time to your advantage. P.s Any individuals religious theory should be a personal path in my eyes.... Although I must state that it is good to be in the same company as those who are following a similar path.
			- Author's History - 12 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+0 Karma
		Joseph, I stand corrected... You are correct sir.. I have described a Theist, not an Agnostic... Thank you for poinging that out. *bow*
			- Author's History - 14 March, 2007

		poss says	+1 Karma
		The answer seems pretty simple to me, what are geeks except hobby scientists? We dabble in scientific fields all day, and when the battle between science and religion is come, our alleigience is clear. The scientific method does not allow us to accept false evidence, repeatable experiments must be carried out and a consistent testable theory must be provided, it is the Geek way.
			- Author's History - 14 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Well P0ss, that gets into what exactly 'geek' defines. In some cases, geek means someone with an affiliation with the sciences; however, it can also simply mean someone who simply has obscure or non-mainstream interests. However, I do agree with you that most geeks agree with the scientific method and model and prefer to have evidence put behind the assertions that they hear.
			- Author's History - 14 March, 2007

		poss says	+1 Karma
		of course ati, this whole thread is dealing in generalisations
			- Author's History - 14 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		True. Some better supported than others.
			- Author's History - 14 March, 2007

		Jeremiah Hoyet says	+0 Karma
		I think that so many geeks are atheist because we see the universe for what it really is, not some fable that *men* came up with thousands of years ago to explain natural occurrences.
			- Author's History - 15 March, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		I think thats more of why athiests are athiests...
			- Author's History - 15 March, 2007

		Fibonacci's Wench says	+0 Karma
		yes this is true.... missing the point.... why are so many Geeks Athiests?
			- Author's History - 16 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		The universe is a beatiful and complex thing - How does that prove, or even imply a creator? Actually, it does imply a Creator. Almost every society on earth has come up with false representations of God due to the wonders of nature. This doesn't necessarily mean that everything happens in this universe through "magic". But look around, the universe and its laws had to come from somewhere. Now you can believe the universe just is, but I think that is illogical.
			- Author's History - 16 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+0 Karma
		@Joseph, So you feel that it is more Logical to beleive that the complexity of the Universe is created by a Supernatural Being with a good eye for the esthetic and the ability to sculpt a Universe than it is to beleive that there is an overall modelthat dictates how matter and energy interact and can create large complex structures based on the evidence we observe daily that this does indeed happen. Sorry Joseph.. I don't follow that argument. I certainly can respect that you may beleive in a supernatural being and that is your right to do so however I would contend that Logic cannot be used to justify that belief.
			- Author's History - 16 March, 2007

		jared.nance says	+1 Karma
		Rob- I am no theist, but I would point out that there are philosophers who have spent plenty of time trying to prove, logically, that there is a higher intelligence. Descartes, for example, with his argument via perfection, which is simple but elegant: "No human is perfect. The very existence of a word with the implication of perfect means there must be a perfect being. Therefore, god exists." Stuff like that. Not that I buy it, but I'm just saying that logic can be applied to prove damn near anything. Does the existence of a god logically follow from our observations about the Universe? No. Then again, our current physical explanation of it all leaves some steps wide open as well, so we can hardly claim that our "logic" has produced a more seamless explanation than theism or religion could provide. I personally feel that the jury is out on this one. There will never be proof, save the rapture, that there is a God, but there will also never be proof that there is not a God. You'll see me on the sidelines. Anyways, as to the idea of why so many geeks are atheists... beats the hell out of me. but i would like to pose a question, which i asked earlier but wish to reiterate in a different context. it's really in the form of a hypothetical. let's say that tomorrow, somebody posits a new religion that incorporates a God that does not exclude your worldview, incorporates all present observations about the nature of the universe, and is agreeable to you in every way. would you accept this religion as true, or would you reject it based on its theistic nature?
			- Author's History - 16 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+0 Karma
		Jared, I agree totally that science has a LOT of work to do to fill in the gaps but we incrementally advance our understanding and fill in more and more. It is the process of examining the evidence, positing a theory and testing that theory that I believe in. Certainly Philosphers have posited many wonderful arguments as to the existance or non-existance of God but they are all meta-physical in their nature and of course do not follow any FORMAL system of Logic because of course we cannot ASSERT the big scary stuff. *grin* And to answer your question, if there were a new Religion that incorporates a Supernatural Being AND incorporates all Observations I would STILL not follow it because it requires THAT being. All the evidence I see, my observations of the Universe and it's laws indicate that it is complex, mysterious, strange and completely explainable.
			- Author's History - 16 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		I say that yes, we know how the universe works, and no, we don't know WHY it works like that, but I see no reason to imagine an anthroporphoid creator... To imagine that a creator of something as tremendous of the universe would share anything with something as tiny and insignificant as a human would be hubris in its purest state.
			- Author's History - 16 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		To imagine that a creator of something as tremendous of the universe would share anything with something as tiny and insignificant as a human would be hubris in its purest state. Important things can come in small packages. Size isn't always what counts.
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		So you feel that it is more Logical to beleive that the complexity of the Universe is created by a Supernatural Being with a good eye for the esthetic and the ability to sculpt a Universe than it is to beleive that there is an overall modelthat dictates how matter and energy interact and can create large complex structures based on the evidence we observe daily that this does indeed happen. The two positions you have outlined here do not appear to be mutually exclusive.
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		Ati says	+2 Karma
		I think you misunderstood Joseph, so let me rephrase a little more completely. Now, here is what we know for a fact. 1. The universe came about through some means, and progressed to its current state. 2. There appear to be laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy within the universe. 3. It is entirely possible that, starting from an explosive introduction of energy, the current state of the universe could have come about through the continued enaction of these laws. 4. Indeed, there seems to be evidence for this state of affairs. Now, 2-4 are the realm of physicists. We are here to discuss a subset of number 1. Why did the universe come into existance, and how. Now, your explanation includes a god that seems to be essentially human. He has human emotions like love and disgust and anger, and seems to behave according to concious will. Now, that begs the question, why us? It is entirely possible that there are hundreds or thousands of intelligent races in our galaxy alone. What makes us so special that a god, someone with the power to create a universe, would share any qualities with us? Obviously, left to themselves, every race would come up with a god that resembles themselves. What makes our's special? What makes us special? I don't know how the universe came about or why it is how it is. I don't pretend it likely that I'll ever find out. But I think that imagining that something like us made everything, is simply absurd.
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		Important things can come in small packages. Size isn't always what counts. *Walks by, muttering something about platitudes*
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		"But I think that imagining that something like us made everything, is simply absurd." Ati, j00 wins the internets!
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		Nadeem says	+2 Karma
		If something like us made everything, then this universe is in deep shit. Oh wait, that might explain a few things...
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		Ati says	+2 Karma
		Nah, because then we'd have a look through a scanning electron microscope, and see a bunch of little signs floating around reading '404 atom not found. Please reload the universe and try again'.
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		lol ati
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		Now, that begs the question, why us? It is entirely possible that there are hundreds or thousands of intelligent races in our galaxy alone. No it doesn't beg the question. Prove that aliens exist first. But I think that imagining that something like us made everything, is simply absurd. Clearly God would have to be a LOT smarter than us.
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		What makes us so special that a god, someone with the power to create a universe, would share any qualities with us? You seem to be the type of person who loves people based on their merits. Why else would you find it so hard to believe that God would love something that is imperfect.
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		Ati says	+2 Karma
		I'd rather not prove that other intelligent life exists. That would divert the thread too much. But given the sheer size of the universe, can we at least make the assumption that it is likely that SOMEWHERE else, there is something that can think that isn't human? Now, once again, I think you misunderstood my argument. I wasn't arguing that your god couldn't create the universe. It's probably possible for a being such as described in the bible to create the universe in its current state if certain things are assumed. Also, I wasn't saying such a thing wouldn't care about humans, although frankly humans don't care a whole lot of about E.coli, so that's another possible argument as well. My argument was that we are a small component of the universe. An incredibly small part. To the point of non-existance. You god is basically human. To say that what is essentially a human with an exceptional ammount of power and intelligence created everything would be madness coming from a non-human, and it is hubris coming from a human. It's like saying your grandfather created the entire universe - unless you provide an extraordinary ammount of evidence it is simple arrogance. As for the little remark about me locing people on their merits, I love people based on who they are, not that that has any bearing at all on the thread. Actually, that argument is a little absurd. When was the last time you took time out of your day to grant the wishes of a virus? or the mitochondria in a bacteria? Why would anything that called itself god care any more about something so incredibly less important than itself?
			- Author's History - 17 March, 2007

		jared.nance says	+0 Karma
		well, just to play devil's advocate, why wouldn't god pay attention to beings that he created? if we take the bible as accurate, and assume that creation was ultimately aimed at creating human life, why would he look the other way, even considering our insignificance? i think you are talking about another kind of god... in fact, i think the god that you are talking about is precisely the kind of god who would create the conditions and then let things play out as they may. creationism lurks dangerously nearby...
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		True. I guess in that case, the closest analogy to the christian god would be a reasearcher who engineers a new strain of bacteria, and spends all his time hunched over the microscope watching them and doing weird stuff to them. Butt hat wasn't really the brunt of my argument. That was just a side bit on the argument he used.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		Jared, to follow a similar line, If God is everything, then surely through every act of its existence it would be effecting us. Just as we support trillions of bacteria. No, we don't pay attention to each individual one, but our actions still effect them, and often times quite deliberately. Do our viruses worship us? should they?
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		Ati, I care about ecoli, i know i would do my darndest to exterminate it it if it came near me. I also care about the bacteria that break down my food for me, and i occasionally take supplements and consume food that will help them, am i a benevolent god? I do not think it is arrogant or absurd to believe in a God, and i also don't think even the christian God is very much like us at all. It is said we were made in God's image, but there is very little text clarifying what that means. It could well be that our sentience is God's aspect in us, and as such every other sentient race would be made in God's image also. I mean, a sentance like that oculd mean something completely different to what we take it to mean, i.e. what if that passage meant we were made on God's screen (in his image)? Or any other interpretations we have yet to have the metaphors to understand. Ati, we all believe in something without proof. And from time to time we all construct arguements to defend undefendable positions. Joseph, we do not need to look outside our planet to find examples of non-human intelligence, our understanding of intelligence and xenopsycology is so poor that we would be almost completely unable to communicate with or even recognise intelligent life if and when we find it. Dolphins, Octopuses, Whales, Elephants, apes, monkeys, and many other species display characteristics belying concious minds that we are yet to understand. Besides, I do not need to prove life exists elsewhere in the universe, just as i don't need to prove you exist. The chances of either not existing are so extremely low that it is not worth losing thought over. There is such an incredibly higher probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe than there is of you being the person you say you are, but i still talk to you.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		But given the sheer size of the universe, can we at least make the assumption that it is likely that SOMEWHERE else, there is something that can think that isn't human? Can you make the assumption that there is a God based on the wonders and complexity of the universe implying a Designer?
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		You god is basically human. To say that what is essentially a human with an exceptional ammount of power and intelligence created everything would be madness coming from a non-human, and it is hubris coming from a human. Says who?
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		What makes us so special that a god, someone with the power to create a universe, would share any qualities with us? Seeing that I probably misunderstood this question, I will try to answer it again. God made us special so that we could exist in fellowship with him. He didn't make us into mere automations for a reason.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		jared.nance says	+1 Karma
		Can you make the assumption that there is a God based on the wonders and complexity of the universe implying a Designer? not in the same way that we can assume that there are intelligent beings, which is ultimately a probabilistic argument. you CAN make the assumption that there is a god, but not based on statistical evidence. and just for the sake of record, could you define the concept of god that you are defending?
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		GringoStar says	+1 Karma
		Since Joseph is talking about the Christian god, I offer a question, or observation of the insanity of the biblical account. Why is it that god would create the earth and its people, then destroy them all in a flood when his design didnt work out. Another biblical oddity is Christ's death for our sins. First off, who is he appeasing? His own dad who sent him to do it. that makes plenty of sense. Then if you factor in that he is really just a part of one big god trinity thing, and that really he sent himself to appease himself, nothing makes sense. Why did he have to die for our sins? why couldn't god just forgive us? I will tell you why. The authors of the bible didn't really read each others work, so not much fits together. secondly, the authors weren't all too bright, or at least hadn't had access to the fine literature that we do.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		Ati says	+2 Karma
		Well, Joseph, its not the same thing at all. The evidence does not support the existence of the christian god in any way, nor is there a significant probability for that particular god existing. There are billions upon billions of stars out there. How could there possibly NOT be one that had life on it long enough for something to come about that could think? Also, your god is pretty anthromorphoid. Looks like a human, talks like a human, seems to have emotions, behaves according to concious will. This is sounding pretty human to me. also "God made us special so that we could exist in fellowship with him. He didn't make us into mere automations for a reason." Evidence? Of any kind? Again, what would make us so special that a supreme being would make us like him? If, say, dolphins made a religeon, wouldn't their god probably be more-or-less a dolphin? What would make them have a lower chance of being correct that you?
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		Why is it that god would create the earth and its people, then destroy them all in a flood when his design didnt work out. If we were robots that were designed to not work out, then it wouldn't make sense. But God made us with choice.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		Another biblical oddity is Christ's death for our sins. First off, who is he appeasing? His own dad who sent him to do it. that makes plenty of sense. Then if you factor in that he is really just a part of one big god trinity thing, and that really he sent himself to appease himself, nothing makes sense. Why did he have to die for our sins? why couldn't god just forgive us? I can't answer this. It's like asking me why God wants us to be good instead of evil.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		Um, in a sense Joseph, we are robots. We behave according to a very complex series of rules. If a god could not predict our overall behavior, even to the extent of seing that his efforts were doomed to failure, he would be a very poor god indeed. Especially given that he wrote said rules in the first place.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		then god is imperfect, in that he didn't know what would happen with his designs.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		jared.nance says	+1 Karma
		I can't answer this. It's like asking me why God wants us to be good instead of evil. and this is the essence of faith - blind belief without proof or evidence. this is precisely why we are challenging your viewpoint, because it lacks any evidentiary claims. it is entirely possible to make a cogent argument for the validity of religion and the existence of god, but you are not quite getting there.
			- Author's History - 18 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+0 Karma
		ATI, Thanks for the prose clarification... I clearly was not writing at my best! *grin*
			- Author's History - 19 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		*grin* Oh, and P0ss, you have a couple of million E.coli living in your gut right now. It's one of those self-same ones that helps you digest food. Just FYI.
			- Author's History - 19 March, 2007

		Rob Masson says	+1 Karma
		P0ss, you need 300 mg of Spartan Antibiotic to take on the Million E.coli of the GI Army... And you can get them at Esopageal Gate where their numbers won't count! AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! *running to the bathroom*
			- Author's History - 20 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		oooooookaaay...
			- Author's History - 20 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		Self-control is also power. But who knows...
			- Author's History - 30 March, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		And what exactly do you mean by that?
			- Author's History - 30 March, 2007

		azhar says	+0 Karma
		Presenting the religion of the Geeks... Jawadism All hail his holiness!
			- Author's History - 31 March, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		If God doesn't want to see something, He doesn't have to see it. Omnipotence also implies that power can be limited through self-control. But then again, I might be way off. The questions we ask may not be relevant beyond this universe.
			- Author's History - 01 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		I myself am both a geek and a explorer... but fall into the Taoist category of belief. I write about similar topics and would suggest. It's not that more geeks are atheists as much as geeks are willing to think outside established pre-packaged religions. If they find a logic flaw in one of the packaged religions they toss it away and quickly move on to the next package. Many pick Atheism as a handy holding spot (of no-religion) till they find something that does match. I still think many geeks would have a religion if they found one that fits without logic flaws to their personal belief structure. For myself that's Taoism: the practice of being oneself. A Personal Tao http://www.personaltao.com
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		One thing that would be interesting to look at is the age of the respondees. Quite often the younger generation moves away from religion and then moves back as they get older. Just a thought.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Dawkin's Minion says	+3 Karma
		Just as an astronomy geek is inclined to be amazed by the elegance of the universe, a history geek is inclined to marvel at the repetitive themes in human behavior. Most geeks, of any discipline, come to understand a common bond: to power of logic. Logic, and the application of it, can eventually answer every question in the Universe. Geeks know this, most "faith based" minds don't and don't care to. When a "supergeek", who is intensely geeky in several disciplines like astronomy, math, and history uses his logic to ask questions about divinity, he can't HELP but understand how the elegance of the Universe, the repetitive nature of human behavior (i.e. religions all borrow from one another quite liberally; Christianity is probably the worst plagiarizer of all), and the over-arching mathematical themes in every atom of the Universe all happily combine into a logical explanation that men made God, not the other way around.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		Yeah, I am a big fan of Taoism. It's so confusing to me though. But I do love how liberating it is. No dogma to speak of, and no preachers really. Its all about burning your own path.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest - Heathen says	+0 Karma
		I think there is a big difference from "moving away from religion" and choosing to be an atheist. I do think that younger people, in high school or college, care little for religion, but that isn't the same as atheism.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Geeks! Ha, fucking learn some spelling and grammar. First, thumb is not spelled 'thum' "The above article was collaboratively authored by Rob, Jawad, Constantine, and Josh, with Ati serving as main editor and compiler. All of the authors are large-brained, opposible thum equipped hominids. Please visit this thread to continue discussion on this topic." Also it is not spelled 'opposible.' I don't what the fuck that word means but the proper spelling one should employ to convey their ideas to an intelligent demographic would be 'opposable.' Though, I liked the article, I was displeased to see the spelling errors. Maybe this goes to show the atheists critical thinking and obsessive observation. There is no god. Learn to fucking spell, or at least you a fucking spell checker. n00bs.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+1 Karma
		or at least you a fucking spell checker HAHAHAHA Fuck you dumbass mother fucker! You made an error! see how easy it is? Fucking asswipe.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		Anal-retentive spell checking aside, I'm glad you liked it.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) says	+0 Karma
		When some1 defines "God" 2 me, I'll consider debating the subject. And no, saying "God is above definition and logic" is not an answer if u use Modus Ponus 10 seconds later to explain why god's existence implies things...
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Casey says	+0 Karma
		Hi again, GringoStar Yup Taoism can be confusing to a western outlook, since this culture is so focused upon logic and expectations. But once you discover it's really just about about being yourself and following common sense... then it clicks into place. It's a very relative practice. All the writing , all the confusing stuff, comes out from reading items from someone else's perspective trying to say.. hey kick back, relax and enjoy life a little while respecting it all, and of course someone from a thousand years ago is going to say it in ways a bit different than today of just saying: hey dude chill... (which it appears the reader with the spelling issue needs to do and kick back a brewski (heh and of course spelled wrong!)) Definitively not what one would label a traditional religion or philosophy. Since it always changes to the times.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		Extra Character says	+1 Karma
		I am not a geek. I am not logical. I certainly am not intelligent. And so, I have not given much thought to religion, creation, or god. But, I believe, as firmly any religious person believes in god, that there is no god. I am a faith based atheist.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+1 Karma
		I liked taoism because it felt dynamic. I also liked it because it wasn't goal oriented. be good, get to heaven, get to nirvana, get reincarnated, whatever. The payoff in taoism is in the now.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Casey says	+0 Karma
		Taoism is very strongly based in now. Of course saying all the good stuff about Taoism... I will also say it isn't an easy path either. Being yourself can be a royal pain in the arse at times at the end of the day when you just want to space out for a bit. but thats life, so it goes... Heh Extra Character: Your entry made me think of the saying: The king is dead, long live the King perhaps it should be God is dead, long live god! and god is simply ourselves in life...
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Or... (And I did not take the time to read everyone else's reply.) ...it could simply be that Religious Geeks, and I am one of several that I know, choose to use their time and express themselves in other places. The conclusion reached in the article is just more of the self-glorification tripe that abounds on Digg, Slashdot, and other such places.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+1 Karma
		I think many make are confused about religion in general and particular forms like Christianity or Islam or Judaism (Scripture based religion). I also think that most geeks are rather yung and the desire for spirituality come (for most) later in life. Religion and spirituality is NOT at odds with science. Religion and science COMPLEMENT one another. OTOH the Scripture based religiosn are just forms where all the content had almost entirely drained away. The FORMAL ritual is there, the message is almost gone. What remains is just a shadow of the former glory. The Scripture was NOT odds with Science. It was perfectly in sync with the Science at the TIME of the writing, i.e. 2500 years ago (give or take). In the mean time the Science has evolved. The Scripture did not. The only religion willing to openly evolve itself is (to the best of my knowledge) Buddhism: "... the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught... held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light. But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently. If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -- Dalai Lama
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		"large-brained, opposible thum equipped hominids" ...who can't spell to save themselves
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		uh, thats a typo. Dumbass.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+1 Karma
		Hmm... an interesting read. I'd like to know which of your examples are true athiests and which are agnostics. Most of them are fairly obvious - but some of the historical figures have somewhat disputed beliefs (Albert Einstein for example).
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Authentic Christian says	+1 Karma
		Recognize that I do not associate myself with the traditional, right-wing conservatives, nor do I associate myself with those that feel that religion is an essential tool in pursuing government democracy. That aside... Christians believe that people are inherently evil. "You never have to teach a child to lie," is a typical illustration of this point. Being that God is perfect, every mistake we make, intentional or not, separates us from the perfection that would meet his standard. To bridge this gap, Jesus had to die. Without his resurrection, Christianity is nothing. But where is the proof? All I have is a story of God's love that emerged out of an atmosphere full of Roman soldiers and angry Jews. The majority of the time, arguing the semantics of the past is as unproductive as it is frustrating, so I choose to move on. I would much rather address something that deeply stirs my heart. To me, Taoism and being a "free spirit" are just fancy names for optimism. To me, going with the flow, being free of religious chains and pursuing the world for your own understanding is comparable to a person who chooses to not go to school in hopes of getting an education on the street. The most reliable way of training the logical/scientific mind is within the educational institution and in just the same way, the most reliable way to train your spirit, unfortunately, is in a religious institution. It is only through an institution that keen sensitivity towards a certain subject can be preserved through time. Because I support the institution, it does not mean that I do not support "thinking differently." If you are good enough at thinking differently, in the end it just goes back to serving the previous institution or creating a new one. I think Galileo is a great example of a person that changed the institution of science and our understanding of the universe. The church, at the time, dismissed his findings as heresy and now, along with any educated person, the church supports his findings. I guess along the way, Christians decided that a bigger universe just makes God more powerful. When you think about it, the universe is just more of the same thing... nothing, mixed with big fireworks and rocks, all drowning in the laws of physics. People need to give God a little more credit. I think the reason that most geeks are atheists is because they lack respect, not religion. There are good things in community, tradition, and faith, but they are not easily seen through the lenses of the lazy and selfish.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Ironwolf says	+1 Karma
		I think the reason that most geeks are atheists is because they lack respect, not religion. There are good things in community, tradition, and faith, but they are not easily seen through the lenses of the lazy and selfish. Yeesh. Let's review, shall we? Charles Darwin: lazy and selfish. Albert Einstein: lazy and selfish. Thomas Edison: lazy and selfish. Richard Feynman: lazy and selfish. Bill Gates: lazy and selfish. James Watson: lazy and selfish. Richard Dawkins: lazy and selfish. The people I personally know and respect as geeks: lazy and selfish. "Authentic Christian" indeed.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		Not to mention he completely insults taoism without the slightest clue of what it actually is. Now that is a true christian, full of shit.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+2 Karma
		People need to give God a little more credit. Not really. Give credit where credit is due. I think the reason that most geeks are atheists is because they lack respect, not religion. And here I was thinking that it was because the idea of god lacked convincing proof. Well, you learn something new every day. .. There are good things in community, tradition, and faith, but they are not easily seen through the lenses of the lazy and selfish. Community and tradition, definitely. Faith? Nope. What good can come of believing things without proof? And what evil can come of holding high standards of proof and rejecting propositions that don't live up to them? As for the part about being lazy and selfish, forgive me for pointing out that that accusation seems to stem from a pretty religious self-righteousness, not an objective evaluation.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Authentic Christian says	+0 Karma
		Charles Darwin: lazy and selfish. Albert Einstein: lazy and selfish. Thomas Edison: lazy and selfish. Richard Feynman: lazy and selfish. Bill Gates: lazy and selfish. James Watson: lazy and selfish. Richard Dawkins: lazy and selfish. I did not mean to make a sweeping statement about ALL GEEKS EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. I thought we were talking about blog visiting geeks. I guess even still, it isn't fair to characterize blog visiting geeks as all lazy and selfish. I admit not being an expert in Taoism, but I draw my conclusions from being Korean and growing up in an Eastern culture. I would like to think I have more than just a clue about it. And for proof and faith... I listened to my parents when I was younger without fully understanding why I should. That is how I showed I loved them. Just because you have faith does not mean that you cannot doubt and that is how every Christian's struggle becomes personal.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		Charles Darwin: lazy and selfish. Albert Einstein: lazy and selfish. Thomas Edison: lazy and selfish. Richard Feynman: lazy and selfish. Bill Gates: lazy and selfish. James Watson: lazy and selfish. Richard Dawkins: lazy and selfish. You have got to be kidding me. If being lazy and selfish makes you one of these guys, then it's obviously the way to go.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Not to get into arguments of free will or nature vs. nurture - I disagree, at least semantically, with the statement in the article that geeks "choose" to think differently. I think it is more appropriate to hypothesize that they do think differently - at least compared to those that rely more on religious faith for answers or meaning in their life. g-dog
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Josh says	+2 Karma
		Being an Electrical Engineering major, I think that I am entitled to get in my two cents so to speak. I for one think that just being labeled as a geek or intelligent does not make you an atheist. Atheism is a relatively new occurance and did not really catch on until the latter half of this past century. To think that you are smarter than all the poeple around you is naieve and lacks understanding. There will always be things that you will not know. I pose the question: how can you pussibly with your limited knowledge bank even if you devoted your entire life to it know everything that is out there, or how everything works? If you are so sure there is no higher power and that faith is a bunch of bs (or not for you) and that thinking through a problem logically with a mathamatical or analytical mind will bring you to the conclusion are you not putting faith in your own knowledge? There by voiding the very reason that you so highly esteem. Someone said that you need to give God some credit, and not really beccause you only give credit where credit is due. If you do not believe in God then everything you see will discredit him, but if you do then the credit is obvious to those who care to look. You decide where I stand with that great mind that you were given.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		The general argument seems to be that science and religion are mutually exclusive, that science is the realm of logic, and religion the realm of faith. This is not true. Salvation is based on faith, no question. But this faith is based on evidence, not blind belief. The Bible is full of "therefore" arguments, logical argumentation. God says, "Come, let us reason together," and again, he praises the Bereans who didn't blindly believe Paul's arguments, but searched for themselves to see if they were true or not. I'm a geek, and highly anti-social. I'm a Christian not because I sought a social environment, but because the evidence is overwhelming, whether you choose to believe it or not, that God exists. The big bang theory proposes that there was an explosion that created order. Have you ever seen the result of an explosion that created anything other than chaos? What does logic tell you from this? Three is a loose rule of threes - we can only survive three weeks without food, three days without water, and three minutes without air (yes I know there are exceptions to this; that's why I said it was a loose rule). How can we have developed lungs over the course of millions of years, if we can't survive three minutes without air? That is illogical, and unreasonable. And if we could survive all that time without breathing, why the development of lungs? Though there are many men who are religious, many of them have a weak understanding of these things. But religion in truth has no reason to fear science, for all that science is is an examination of the physical world which God created. Far from disproving his existence, science instead reveals the order of the created world. If you walk into a room where things are strewn about, they could have gotten that way from any number of means; but if the books are on the shelves, it is only because someone has put them there. This we know from logic and reason. What then does the order of the universe tell you? Examine your own body - we are designed.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		oh really? well, it's shit design. gallbladder, wisdom teeth, appendix.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Josh says	+0 Karma
		Hey GringoStar ever think that maybe that extra stuff that seems to have no use but it really does and we just dont know what that use is yet? We are finding all sorts of new things all the time, and disproving theories that we came up with. We as a human race are a work in progress, and we dont know everything... contrary to popular opinion.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Cale Gibbard says	+0 Karma
		Contrary to the article, it is not the *simplicity* of the idea of a god which causes people to reject it as an explanation of the origin of the universe, but the needless *complexity* of that idea. Answering "How did the universe begin?" with "God made it." simply leaves one wondering how this god began. Any sentient being capable of wilfully creating every aspect of the universe in its entirety would have to be terribly complex, and it's unsatisfying to say that the god simply popped into existence, or that it had existed forever -- at least as unsatisfying as saying that the universe simply popped into existence, or that it has existed forever (and probably moreso). God is seen as an unnecessary middleman, needlessly raising the complexity of our assumptions. Even if we accept the notion of a creator god, it doesn't answer any further questions about the nature of our observations, the properties that the universe might have, and so on. There is nothing in the notion that a god created the universe which internally grants us any predictive power. Further, every one of the conventional religious claims which would appear to be testable, for instance, the efficacy of prayer, has turned up a dry well, once subjected to careful observation. So the long and short of it is simply that positing a god or many gods just doesn't seem to help answer any questions in a meaningful way.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Because I can't understand a thing, doesn't prove that thing to be false. I can't understand eternity - I can conceive of there being no end, but how can there have been no beginning? Yet it is true nevertheless, for our existence proves there is no beginning. A man once said, "True fortitude of understanding consists in not suffering what we know to be disturbed by what we do not know." Not understanding calculus doesn't negate my understanding of algebra, or change the truth of it. The universe either was created, or just came into being; it's one or the other. Evolution by it's very name shows it's inadequacy - it deals with the changing of one thing into another; it neither explains where the first thing came from, or how it became alive. Nor can it. We do evolve to a degree, diet and climate conspire to produce changes in our bodies. But they don't change us into a different species. Each plant, tree, and animal contains seed in it which produces the same. An apple seed doesn't produce an orange, and a cat doesn't produce a mouse.
			- Author's History - 03 April, 2007

		(Guest) Ironwolf says	+0 Karma
		Evolution by it's very name shows it's inadequacy - it deals with the changing of one thing into another; it neither explains where the first thing came from, or how it became alive. Nor can it. We do evolve to a degree, diet and climate conspire to produce changes in our bodies. But they don't change us into a different species. Each plant, tree, and animal contains seed in it which produces the same. An apple seed doesn't produce an orange, and a cat doesn't produce a mouse. These are such tired, straw man arguments against evolution that I'm really surprised people go around in public, even anonymously, and embarass themselves with them. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution works. It is not the Theory of Abiogenesis. When we have a theory of Abiogenesis, it will have explanatory power for how life came to be in the first place. But evolution is not abiogenesis. Therefore, this is a straw man. To say that we don't know how life came to be therefore godidit is an argument from ignorance. The idea that a cat doesn't produce a mouse is a gross mis-characterization of the theory of evolution— another straw man. They really teach young Christians this stuff and expect them to get along in the real world? If you actually study evolution, you'll find that not a single evolutionary biologist teaches that species change in such a fashion as your straw man argument describes. What is quite clear, however, is that various species share one or more common ancestors. That common ancestor may not be much like either descended species, but the actual genetic and fossil records reveal the common ancestry. If you're going to criticize something, you should at least have a little understanding of it first.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Then kindly explain.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Abiogenesis was disproved by 1869
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Also, saying that we share common ancestors DOES say that animals jumped species...
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		As to the fact that abiogenesis was disproved, I just consulted both the Encarta and Britannica (which in no way can be accused of conservatism), and both say the same thing - it was disproved, in large part by Louis Pasteur. Non-living matter does not spontaneously come to life on it's own.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Then kindly explain. What? Evolution? Go here and read what you find: http://talkorigins.org/ Abiogenesis was disproved by 1869 Oh, by whom? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		As to the fact that abiogenesis was disproved, I just consulted both the Encarta and Britannica (which in no way can be accused of conservatism), and both say the same thing - it was disproved, in large part by Louis Pasteur. Non-living matter does not spontaneously come to life on it's own. Here is what Pasteur really showed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Ironwolf says	+0 Karma
		Also, saying that we share common ancestors DOES say that animals jumped species... Not jumped, and not in the sense that a mouse comes from a cat, or an apple comes from an orange. Again this is just a straw man, and not the actual Theory of Evolution.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+1 Karma
		I mean to offend no one by any means but it seems to me that the trend of "geeks" (kind of a boorish term to use given the nature of this discussion) to flock toward atheism has little to do with avoiding the mainstream as many people seem to make as a point of explanation. It could still be viewed as a conformist action since the majority of your social network (other geeks) are atheistic. Just as most people who live in Pakistan are Hindu are following the majority despite the fact they are not Christian, which is the dominant world religion. I think that the recent trend in atheism, and it isn't constarined to geeks on the internet, has more to do with an air of superiority that comes with the supposedly educated stance. It is common to hear atheists on various interent forums viciously attack the belief systems of others, apparently trying to prove that those who are religious are somehow stupid for being so. Logic cannot prove nor disprove most religions so, logically, it is just as fallible to claim that all religions are wrong as it is to claim that one is right.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) casey says	+0 Karma
		GringoStar I don't think it's possible to insult a taoist or taoism Its kinda nice seeing the debate stirred up by this thread. very enjoyable Thanks
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Authentic Christian says	+0 Karma
		So why couldn't evolution happen after the creation? Have we found all of the missing links?
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) ealex says	+0 Karma
		heh. the article, in my opinion serves no opinion. atheism in itself is not related to a particular group in any way. as any other phenomenon, or way of thinking, it is bound to stir "fashions" in one group or another, it is bound to be accepted superficially as some, personally I find it quite wrong to be an atheist without having a clue WHY you are one, because that's sort of against the logic and rationality that atheism implies and supports. wether this pertain particularly to geeks, whatever that group may contain, because as you have said that term does not hold a proper defition, I don't know. however I find that you may find some similar results if you pick other particular groups. perhaps in lower, perhaps in higher percentages, again, I cannot make blind assumptions. even if I will be beat upon for making a call to words not my own, there is an excellent quote by Dawkins, that says that we are all atheists in a large measure. And he couldn't be more right, because of the 5000 some gods (number may be larger, just quoting a number I remember) that have existed and have been worshipped in history, each with myths and holy books and ends of the world, each religious group believes in just one, denying the existence of all others. And be it that we're geeks, scientists or regular people with no intellectual claims, but with an extra ounce of good logic and reason, we just go one god further. (this is not to be taken as an insult to believers, but I see faith as a distinct effort to ignore and purposely refuse to understand the arguments against it) So in case everyone wanted to evoke the "no loss" argument, as in "if I lived and believed and there is no god I have lost nothing, but if I lived and not believed and there is a god, i've lost it all", just ask yourself what happens if you believed in the wrong god heh. Luckily not all gods are as vengeful as the abrahamic one. The chance we take, from that pov, is exactly the same. The bottom line for atheism is the will and courage to say "I do not know, but I will not invent fairy tales to explain it". It's that simple. That is all.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		As to abiogenesis: "Spontaneous Generation, or abiogenesis, ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduce by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances. This view went uncontradicted until after the middle of the 17th century, when the Italian physician and poet Francesco Redi disproved (166 the prevailing notion that the maggots of flies were generated in putrefying meat exposed to air. In 1768, the Italian naturalist Lazzaro Spallanzani further showed that microorganism-containing solutions that were boiled and then sealed off would remain free of microorganisms thereafter; and in 1836 the German naturalist Theodor Schwann provided additional proof with still more meticulous experiments of this nature. The next step was taken by the French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, who summarized his findings in On the Organized Particles Existing in the Air (1862). On sowing these particles in suitable sterilized nutrient broths, he found that after a day or two the broth teemed with living microorganisms. Organisms such as these were shown by the German botanist Ferdinand Julius Cohn to be plants (a classification that held until the 19th century), and he named them bacteria. Finally, the British physicist John Tyndall showed (1869), by passing a beam of light through the air in a box, that whenever dust was present putrefaction eventually occurred; when dust was absent, putrefaction did not occur. These experiments resulted in the demise of the theory of spontaneous generation." © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. "also called Abiogenesis, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life. Pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, according to this theory, because after several weeks, there were mice in the rags.Many believed in spontaneous generation because it explained such occurrences as the appearance of maggots on decaying meat. By the 18th century it had become obvious that higher organisms could not be produced by nonliving material. The origin of microorganisms such as bacteria, however, was not fully determined until Pasteur proved in the 19th century that microorganisms reproduce. See also biopoiesis." 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica I looked at the site on Pasteur that guest included above, and what is stated is their conclusion as regards Pasteur's experiments, namely, that it didn't disprove that simple life couldn't arise in a long series of time. But even they say that Pasteur himself denied spontaneous generation. The burden of proof is not on one to show that it can't occur, because frankly, there is no proof that it has. Rather the burden is on the proponent of the theory, as the scientific method is to observe a condition, posit a theory as to the production of that condition, and then prove by repeatable experiment the fact of the theory. This has never occured with abiogenesis, but rather any experimentation has only proved it to be false.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) ealex says	+1 Karma
		I really don't see what the fret about abiogenesis is about. Sure, it hasn't been proven to be possible. And that means what? That god exists? I see no relation. How many things have been deemed impossible along history (and for long periods of it mind you), and then have been proven possible ? Shall we count? God is in now way a better "theory" as to how life came to exist as saying the midgets with plastic forks and pointy hats did it. It is supported by an equal amount of proof (although I'm not really documented though, I'd think there's still considerably more proof pointing towards abiogenesis then god) and is experimentally impossible to reproduce or observe.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		i think it's because when you look at religions closly and analitcly, they tend to contridict them selfs in so many places, making them break down. geeks do this, that's who we are. religios people, who are told to just "take it on faith" don't tend to analize their religion looking for problems, but instead look for how it stands up. it really depends how you're looking at the religions. like if someone's lawn has mole hills in it, to the owner, seeing it from one angle and haveing so much pride for his/her garden might tend to crouch down when looking at his/her garden, to put the mole hills out of view, to him, it's perfect. but to the naighbor, who's almost compeating looks at it from a higher angle, to him the molehills are obviuse, thus want no part of the lawn, and feels proud himself, knowing what he has is better.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		They are simply smart enough to know there IS NO GOD!!!! Best regards!
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Ironwolf says	+0 Karma
		The burden of proof is not on one to show that it can't occur, because frankly, there is no proof that it has. Rather the burden is on the proponent of the theory, as the scientific method is to observe a condition, posit a theory as to the production of that condition, and then prove by repeatable experiment the fact of the theory. This has never occured with abiogenesis, but rather any experimentation has only proved it to be false. First of all, to those trying to shoehorn the previous idea of "abiogenesis" into the modern understanding of the term: lay off it. "Abiogenesis" is an event whereby life came from non-life. Even Christians think this happened when God formed Adam and breathed the breath of life into him. That's their theory. Unfortunately, it is falsified by the much more powerful (in an explanatory sense) evolutionary theory that reveals: homo sapiens had ancestors. Now, does that mean that evolution is a theory of abiogenesis? No. As I mention above, there is currently no "Theory of Abiogenesis" that is consistent with other current scientific knowledge. Does that mean that godidit? No. Scientists simply reply, "We don't know yet, but we're working to find out." Given the kind of scientific advancement we have seen in just the past few generations, only blind faith would lead one to say that scientists will never develop a powerful Theory of Abiogenesis. Does that mean that I am just as blinded by faith in science? No, because I am not saying we will ever know for sure. I am allowing that we may not. But I think I have good reason to think the probabilities lie in favor of such an eventual discovery.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Sabremesh says	+0 Karma
		Why are so many geeks atheists? I do not believe there is any direct causality between the separate conditions of "being a geek" and "being an atheist", but there is a common link. 1) It is well documented that individuals with high IQs are more likely to be atheistic than the average person. 2)It is fairly safe to assume that individuals with high IQs are more likely to be categorised as geeks than the average person. Therefore, in the constituency of "intelligent people" there is a higher than average preponderance of these two conditions, and it is statistically highly likely that many intelligent people will demonstrate both conditions simultaneously, without there necessarily being any cause or effect relationship between the two conditions.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Faster Dax says	+0 Karma
		Greating Shuzakies! I would like to express my strong conviction that geeks are by definition atheists. Ah yes, no doubt some geeky types live in the shadowworld between light and darkness, just as some religious people might flirt with the forbidden fruit of knowledge, but really; there is no middleground. Through the ages the struggle between Dogma and doubt, Dark Ages and Enlightment, censorship and rebellion has been fought. When religion is weak it speaks of ethics, love thy neighbour and eternal life, when it is strong it speaks of heritics, war and doom. When the forces of reason are week they speak of esthetics, loyalty and quick results. When they are strong they speak of investment, social change and eradicating ignorance. The New World has entered a crucial period where Dogma is ruling for a long time now, and with it destroys reason and preaches war and doom. Prosperity, that old pillar of reason, is at risk. Desinvestment, oligarchy and profeteering keep the elite in power, but this can only maintain the order for so long. Poverty and illiteracy are thrive. Soon many may believe the earth is flat, peasants will rule the economy and the idea of freedom will be the laughing stock of the world arena. So what is geekdom to do? Compromise? Stand in shades of grey between the Dark Ages and Enlightment?
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) d012560c says	+0 Karma
		I am surprised that no one has raised the small point that Atheism is NOT a religion (by most accepted definitions of what constitutes a religion). Even though people use the phrase new religion in ways that have nothing to do with God (... tiddlywinks is her new religion...), it still irks me a bit. For me, religion died somewhere in 4th grade of Our Lady of Good Counsel elementary school. As I recall, a morning discussion in the schoolyard with my peers about evolution came back to bite me right after lunch when Sister Mary Elephant pulled me out of class to question why I was infecting the minds of my classmates. After telling her why I believed in evolution and not the Biblical version of things, I fully expected to get at least a slap or two. I was shocked when all I got was a very mild scolding of I had things wrong. It was something in the look of her face, her body language or maybe the tone of her voice that convinced me that she really did agree with me, but could not openly do so. Eight more years of Catholic school did not do much to restore my faith in a God! LOL Looking back at that episode (and others) plus the fact that I now know I have adult ADHD (hence more than a touch of oppositional defiance symptom), I realize that I object to a task I am required to do (work or religion) if it doesn't have some decent rationale behind it.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Equinocx says	+0 Karma
		"I would like to express my strong conviction that geeks are by definition atheists. Ah yes, no doubt some geeky types live in the shadowworld between light and darkness, just as some religious people might flirt with the forbidden fruit of knowledge, but really; there is no middle ground." Us history geeks must be a completely different sort than you mathematical scientifical geeks, because from all the history "geeks" i know and have talked to we pretty much are centrists. I live in the middle ground, how can you say it doesn't exist... I believe a being that we call "god" created this world and we were created through "guided evolution"(guided evolution being just one of the many middle ground stances). Now if you want to believe some alien came and terraformed this planet, and laid the seeds of life, thats your choice, and it is practically the same thing. That being is still worth of your worship as you nor anything here would exist without it. Another middle ground stance, I believe that the world is as old as carbon dating says it is. I also believe their were great civilizations in the past that may have been equal or greater than we currently are, but these civilizations were wiped out by the flood, or one of the many other atrocities written about in the bible, and the knowledge was lost(and as far as the flood being a fallacy there are too many sources I can quote stating the flood was easily a scientific possibility). As far as the bible being the word for word translation of what god wants us to do, it is not. It has been tampered with so many times, and translated incorrectly so many times as well that their is no way we could begin to understand what the original book was actually saying. Also the bible is not meant to be a definitive answer it is a guideline of how to live well(notice i didn't say right) If you follow the basic morales in the bible the world really would be a better place.I also realize that many of the stories in the bible are based off of stories from previous cultures and religions, the reason for this is to strengthen those other religions ties to "Christianity" which as I said is a guide book, you have to think about the time the bible was created in, human sacrifices, having sex all the time with multiple partners(these are inherently bad because they reduce human population through STD's and well the obvious human sacrifice)again it is not a you are wrong we are right book. Jesus was a great man, and I do believe he was a prophet, whether he was a prophet of aliens, divine beings etc is up to you to decide for yourself. It is also very feasible that he went around healing people "magically" you have a few choices here: 1. He was using alien technology. 2. We all know that we still have not seen everything the human mind can do, it is entirely possible he opened a path in his mind that allowed the ability to heal etc.. 3. He was the creators son sent to earth to show us how to live well. I fully believe their are many scientific answers to the great questions we all have, and I do believe someone somewhere created us(who I call god), a single cell organism did not just appear magically from a primordial pool(that would take the science out of it right? magically appearing single cell organisms, and all you mathematical geeks can please point out the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibility of that happening). Sorry this got a little long, but I'm bored at work, lol.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Pianocomposer says	+0 Karma
		Most of the people posting here are making erroneous assumptions about what God is, who nerds are, and what athiesm means. Without consistent definitions, it is impossible to make a coherent argument. Assuming that God is the creative entity behind the universe, that nerds know who they are (and are reading/posting to this forum), and that athiesm is the rejection of God's existence, here are several points: - Anyone with spiritual beliefs is not an athiest. Most of these posts appear to be anti-Christian. It is easier to find arguments against the existence of Jesus Christ (or any messiah) than to argue against the existence of the creative force of the universe. - Athiesm is illogical. At the most fundamental level, something did, indeed, create the universe. Even a self-created universe based purely on natural laws has a creator (the laws themselves). So who/what created the laws? If they just exist, then the universe itself is God. - The various arguments regarding why nerds might be more athiest sound reasonable to me (social, intellectual, personality) and I am willing to accept them. - Nonetheless, there is no data to back up the claim that nerds are more athiest than other groups. But it is a great diversion from getting productive work accomplished! (grin)
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Faster Dax says	+0 Karma
		Hello Equinocx, Thank you for your reply. I am most amused. "believe some alien came and terraformed this planet, and laid the seeds of life, thats your choice, and it is practically the same thing" Indeed, whether you believe in a god who created the world, aliens fertilising our rock or transdimensional fairies waving their magic wands is all the same, isn't it? The point is that as much as I like novels, I do make sure to mention that they are about fiction. May I remind you that the bible was actually written three centuries after Jesus lived? Written by people who were hearing voices? Now there are a few theories that would explain how life came to exist on this planet, it could be that; 1) Life is just everywhere, not just on our planet 2) Life was kickstarted by prions 3) Life was formed through basic anorganic chemistry into carbon/sulphur based enzymes But the real point is that I am not sure. I have some doubts about all these ideas. Doubt, unlike dogma is the driving force of science. Just to give another example; you mentioned the Flood. Hilarious! There's never been enough water on the planet to cover all the mountains, Noach must have had a ship larger than the biggest oiltanker in use, and besides that; if that is done by the god, the source of all things good, that you worship? Don't you think you should find one that is a bit nicer to people? Anyway, enough about fiction. You mentioned: "think about the time the bible was created in, human sacrifices, having sex all the time with multiple partners". Now that is ofcourse dangereous rounds you're threading on there. It is not nice of you to judge the free sexuality the way the pagans and pantheists knew and know it. Frankly, you have the freedom to express your religion, but don't impose that unto others. I am baffled however to read that you believe that christianity is opposed to human sacrifice. In it's history a nine million witches and warlocks got burned at the stake, crusades have been fought, knowledge and solutions for diseases been surpressed, slavetrade been sanctified. Well, I hope you'll be a little less bored now.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		First of all, the abiogenesis thing is non-sense. Pasteur proved that maggots and frogs don't spawn from dirt and rotting meat (which was believed at the time). He did nothing to prove that self replicating DNA chains can't form spontaneously. Whis has, incidentaly,, ben shown possible since. Perhaps if you picked up a textbook younger than two hundred years old or so, you would know this. Also, Pascal's wager is invalid, given that there are an infinite umber of possible gods. Wait, wait, there is more. There is no reliable documentation that Jesus did anything unusal(one book that doesn't cite sources doesn't count). He was a great guy, but no more. Also, cell's didn't just form by themselves. Pick up a recent biology textbook, for goodness sake. Also, we don't know why the universe is how it is. Or why the laws of physics are how they are. But picking a possible explanation at random is just absurd. Finally, people stop making straw man evolution arguments. If you pick up any modenr biology textbook, then maybe some of the frankly rather apalling ignorance of what evolution actually proposes can be answered.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Do you think the atheist thing applies primarily to Western geeks or do you think geeks in Asia would be similar? My experience says that geeks in Asia (particularly India) are much more likely to believe in God than not.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest Zinx says	+0 Karma
		I think the article fails to point to one issue...society as a whole has been turning toward atheistic/agnostic/no-religious beliefs. Before reading this article, I saw another digg pointing out the rise in numbers of non-religous people (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312). The idea that "Geeks are special" because they turn to atheist/agnostic doesn't really hold if society as a whole is doing the same thing. It also breaks down the idea that geeks are going against society at this point, instead of just following current trends.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		"Indeed, whether you believe in a god who created the world, aliens fertilising our rock or transdimensional fairies waving their magic wands is all the same, isn't it? The point is that as much as I like novels, I do make sure to mention that they are about fiction. May I remind you that the bible was actually written three centuries after Jesus lived? Written by people who were hearing voices?" I don't believe anyone except preachers at church have ever said this is the infallible truth the only thing that is complete truth according to the people who wrote the bible are the commandments, and the word of jesus. I don't get your point about being written 300 years later, 90% of recorded history is written after the fact, not until the 60's or so was everything recorded methodically. "Now there are a few theories that would explain how life came to exist on this planet, it could be that; 1) Life is just everywhere, not just on our planet 2) Life was kickstarted by prions 3) Life was formed through basic anorganic chemistry into carbon/sulphur based enzymes" Those are all easily possible but as I stated the chances of any of them being the correct answer vs a creator scenario are basically on par for probability. "But the real point is that I am not sure. I have some doubts about all these ideas. Doubt, unlike dogma is the driving force of science. Just to give another example; you mentioned the Flood. Hilarious! There's never been enough water on the planet to cover all the mountains, Noach must have had a ship larger than the biggest oiltanker in use, and besides that; if that is done by the god, the source of all things good, that you worship? Don't you think you should find one that is a bit nicer to people?" I assume you do not know much about History then, at certain points in its history earth has been completely covered by water, Google snowball effect + earth if you wish to learn more. As for a giant tidal wave covering the entire world's landmass no that did not happen and I did not state that it did, but you search any and I mean any ancient civilizations manuscripts and you will find a "Apocalyptic Flood" mentioned. this could have been encompassing just one continent or one island who knows, fact is it happened, not in your children's story view of raining for 40 days etc though. If millions of people turned their back on you and spit in your face and turned against you I dare you not to act like a child and if you had the power to put them in their place. He may be benevolent, all knowing, etc.. but he is still a being and no being is infallible. "Anyway, enough about fiction. You mentioned: "think about the time the bible was created in, human sacrifices, having sex all the time with multiple partners". Now that is ofcourse dangereous rounds you're threading on there. It is not nice of you to judge the free sexuality the way the pagans and pantheists knew and know it. Frankly, you have the freedom to express your religion, but don't impose that unto others." Here you must have mistaken what I said once again, for quite a few years I worshiped the pagan gods. In truth I would be most interested to see those times, sex everywhere, what man doesn't want that, human sacrifices would be scary to see, but to see the culture that were behind those, and why they did it is too intriguing to pass up if I had the chance. Never did I impose my belief on them, I merely stated the fact these things were detrimental to the population of the world, which is apparent since human population did not get a real jump start until Christianity took over, even then the plague put a big dent in that at first. "I am baffled however to read that you believe that christianity is opposed to human sacrifice. In it's history a nine million witches and warlocks got burned at the stake, crusades have been fought, knowledge and solutions for diseases been surpressed, slavetrade been sanctified." I think you forgot to mention that in the begining of Christiantiy it was an accepted practice to have human sacrifice and that god also had a female counterpart,which I cannot remember her name off hand but she was the goddess of fertility ashen or something of that nature. Or how about we mention that in the original bible there was a correct way to have a Gay Marriage ceremony, the original book is not as much bigotry as you seem to believe. Once again the reason it looks down on gay marriage is: no children are produced, the same reason you are not supposed to jerk off, you are wasting your seed on dry ground, which was believed to be limited in those days. Thank you for keeping me occupied, next response please try not to sound like so much of a bash against what I believe as I am being more than courteous, and this is not a flame page.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Faster Dax says	+0 Karma
		Hello again Equinocx, Ok, I'll try not to flame too much. Sorry about that. I guess there's just too much of a cultureshock going on here, where I'm assuming that you're more a run of the mill christian, which by the looks of things you're not. Interesting though what freedom of religion has done to christianity. I would call it "pick & mix", I suppose. But really, what do you need faith for, if you abandon dogma? Does it make you feel more secure? Someone to look over you? It's most interesting that you seem to perceive god as a personality. Still I'm worried that you see the rise of christianity as the start of modern civilisation. Clearly from my point of view it was the destructive outcome of the decline of great cultures. We seem to get sidetracked in the discussion by the issue of christianity. Would you feel that you have similarities with other faiths in you approach towards science and technology?
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		the real question should be "Why are 'so' many highly intelligent and/or educated people athiests?" to take a stab at it: Because religion asks you to not use 'your' intelligence and instead asks you to trust them. Most intelligent people, or even people with a satisfactory amount of common sense know that blinding trusting in others is a great way to get ripped off and misled. because religions, much more-so than science/scientists, are not peer-reviewed and are fractured into many different sects and philosophies which often times contradict one another and each damns the other to hell. As an intelligent person, viewing this, there is not a common consensus and therefore it is a safe bet to sit back and wait for one of those gods to come down and settle the matter once and for all "in person" where there is no question.. Otherwise, you are just blinding trusting people who have blindly trusted others.. (tithes are a nice religious 'tax' for your belief.. no thanks) As for christianity specifically, well.. which one? they all split off from the catholic church, which is a way for Europeans to believe as the jews do while keeping a good distance. Currently they are fractured into *many* different beliefs and systems.. As a geek, sorry.. I am not interested in being a sheep to your 8th removed from it's source religion. As an intelligent human being, I would not dream of trusting 'you' or your 'church' with my 'eternal soul' which obviously is a faith "idea" in itself designed to scare people afraid of death into giving money. My parents dragged me to church as a youngster where they had a collection system that you could use a credit card.. I remember very clearly under ways to pay on the projection "'Discover'(tm) the power of god!" Use your head, make your own way.. you will feel better about yourself and have more faith in yourself as an autonomous person.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Equinocx says	+0 Karma
		"Interesting though what freedom of religion has done to christianity. I would call it "pick & mix", I suppose. But really, what do you need faith for, if you abandon dogma? Does it make you feel more secure? Someone to look over you? It's most interesting that you seem to perceive god as a personality." I would defenitly concede that it is a pick and mix these days. To give you some backing on my religion I am a Pentecostal, which is very close to being a Southern Baptist, of course I am the black sheep of the family, haha. I still believe that their is an afterlife, and religion is the key to that afterlife. religion is to me is basically to teach you to live well, and to make sure your life doesn't just end. I do not believe in a hell, nor does my religion, we believe you either go to heaven, come back for the resurrection which you have 1,000 years to perfect yourself to attain heaven, or you cease to exist..I don't know about you but nothingness is fairly easy for me to grasp and it scares the $hit out of me. So I guess I cling to religion out of fear of death if you analyze it to the core, but also because I believe that there really is something more. As far as I am concerned I do perceive god as a personality, I mean he has a good sense of humor after all, throws tantrums, and basically just wants to be loved, and acknowledged it sounds like a sentient being to me. "Still I'm worried that you see the rise of christianity as the start of modern civilisation. Clearly from my point of view it was the destructive outcome of the decline of great cultures." While this is true in many ways such as lost technology, recession in human values it also managed to be the catalyst that propelled the United States to exist(the main reason we broke from england)..and not to sound like a complete brag on our country, but if the U.S. hadn't existed the world would be nothing like it is today, and honestly worse off in my opinion at least until we screwed up with the after affects of 9/11/01 (we are in a major recession since then). Also if every culture had been able to work together since the beginning of time we would be so advanced I don't think we could handle it in our current state, but of course we still have a bit of cave man in us and we get violently territorial. "We seem to get sidetracked in the discussion by the issue of christianity. Would you feel that you have similarities with other faiths in you approach towards science and technology?" I think that in almost every religion at some point there has been a schism, with one side believing the other was wrong, and as far as I know it is usually based on their beliefs...Christianity is one of the few that has viewed progression as something to be feared and it has created schisms. Although it seems as all the Abrahamic religions have this outlook (Jewish,Islamic,catholic,Christian...yes I separate catholics and Christians, they have entirely different dogma's with only the basic principles associated). The only current large religion I spare from this view is Buddhism as it is more a philosophy than an actual religion in the true sense of worshiping a god or many gods as Buddha was a "prophet/renounced prince" not a god. In truth religion is a crutch that we as a species need to make it through all the amazing things we discover, all the things we invent, and all the things we still do not know. Perhaps one day the world will see religion as no longer needed, but perhaps this already happened with the Tower of Babel, maybe we were shown there really is a God that day, there is no way for us to know the real answer...yet.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		I'd like to point people in the direction of alan watts, comparative philosopher and master of 'the psychology of religion' http://www.alanwatts.com/ he was trained as an anglican preacher and knows the bible inside out, he easily retells the story of jesus from a non-theistic faith point of view. it's important to understand that faith is not belief. faith is an act of trust, belief comes from the saxon root 'be liev' which means 'to fereverently wish or insist that is so'. faith for example is necessary to get on an aeroplane, nothing to do with religion. i like this thread and started one similar about 3 years ago!!
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest (Steve) says	+1 Karma
		I count myself as a Christian and a geek and find it is possible to be both a critical thinker and a follower of Jesus. Putting aside all of the cliched hot button topics (e.g. creationism, the flood, abortion, etc.) for a moment, it is quite hard to find fault with Jesus's actual teachings (I challenge Athiests to read through the Gospel of Mark and see what they think). It is easy to find fault with actual Christians, especially some of the more politically active ones, but we are called to be followers of Christ, not followers of other Christians. All that said, I thoroughly enjoyed this excellent article and welcome the debate and (real) critical thinking.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest (meekon5) says	+0 Karma
		As a passing reader (and self confessed geek, though Pagan myself) one thing occurs. Though this is a very interesting discussion where are the statistics to prove the hypothesis. All the argument is based on pure speculation, and as with any of these thing (for instance in Great Britain from the last census a majority of those that answered the question about religion where christian. Of course the atheists, and agnostics, would not have answered the question seeing it as irrelevant). The majority of your contributors here agree on their atheism because of the same reason. One has to set defined criteria and test a well balanced population to prove this theory properly before everyone gets the knives out to argue about it.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		If I could make a request, could you folks get accounts? It would make this thread more readable by a long shot.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		yeah, im not reading guest posts anymore. and I will not reply to them either. They probably won't be back if they don't sign up.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Amadeus says	+0 Karma
		As far as I can tell atheism is popular with geeks simply because of their inability to understand religion. They think they understand but in fact they don't. They think they are smarter than the average person, but they're not. Geeks live in a sort of parallel universe, where things that matter to them are irrelevant to most people, and things that matter to most people are irrelevant to them. Geeks are, simply put, different. Nothing else.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		As far as I can tell atheism is popular with geeks simply because of their inability to understand religion. They think they understand but in fact they don't. They think they are smarter than the average person, but they're not. People who think they're smart really annoy those of us who are. FYI, some of us actually understand religion. And we're still atheists. I have no idea why people find that so surprising. It's not like there are actually good reasons to believe or anything.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Kath says	+1 Karma
		Geeks just take nothing on faith. I think that would almost be the definition of a Geek. Geeks naturally ask the question "why" but, they don't want to just hear why, they want to see why. That's why we love the internet, and wikipedia, and reddit etc. It's all feeding our need for learning new stuff, and sharing it with others.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Casey says	+4 Karma
		Oh well Just have to join the fray and become a member then
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+1 Karma
		actually joining takes you out of the fray. I now care what you have to say, as I will be seeing you here more often (hopefully). Anyway, I am trying to think of something positive to say about you joining, but I'm drawing blanks. Good luck? Oh well, Happy Beams are sent your way. oh, and +karma for joining.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		I am not reading guest posts because their opinions must not be valuable (seing as how must of them don't agree with us). I have yet to hear a single person retort my previous post and I was hoping it could maybe spark a discussion beyond "Noah's ark! haha" that seems to happen here. We cannot debate atheism or religion based merely on one religion's primary text.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Did an atheist just say +karma?
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		yeah, karma is our currency on here idiot. look on the right of your post. or this post. And yes, I don't look at most of the guest posts. I just don't. I am not going to argue with someone who I will never hear from again.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		I agree. There are a huge number of posts here, most of them by people who have left, and many of them making identical points. If you want to be refuted, get an account and post again, otherwise I'm not going to go digging through to answer everybody and their brother's straw man arguments, especially if most of them will likely never read the refutation.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		I forgot to sign that last post from guest but this is my fourth post here and I think a healthy discussion that challenges our views and is with those we don't normally interact with is good for our mental growth. And i noticed the karmic currency but find it a tad ironic.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		Well I can't convince you to discuss anything with me and I hardly expect anyone to read every post but trying to coerce me to join your site in an attempt to somehow make me more credible is silly and avoiding discussion because of said point hardly does anything for your credibility.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		That's true I suppose. But it's sort of part of the etiquette here - you wouldn't go toa debate wearing a bag over your head. Also, frankly I can't find your previous arguments. If you could restate them now, I'm sure there's something I can say about them.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+1 Karma
		you could always ctrl+f "Davis" but here goes: "I mean to offend no one by any means but it seems to me that the trend of "geeks" (kind of a boorish term to use given the nature of this discussion) to flock toward atheism has little to do with avoiding the mainstream as many people seem to make as a point of explanation. It could still be viewed as a conformist action since the majority of your social network (other geeks) are atheistic. Just as most people who live in Pakistan are Hindu are following the majority despite the fact they are not Christian, which is the dominant world religion. I think that the recent trend in atheism, and it isn't constarined to geeks on the internet, has more to do with an air of superiority that comes with the supposedly educated stance. It is common to hear atheists on various interent forums viciously attack the belief systems of others, apparently trying to prove that those who are religious are somehow stupid for being so. Logic cannot prove nor disprove most religions so, logically, it is just as fallible to claim that all religions are wrong as it is to claim that one is right. " It is weird to quote myself.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		well, what was your argument? I am not looking at every post to see the name matches yours. We do need an influx of new thought. But guests don't really count. And I don't really find it ironic. I think that Hinduism is somewhat useful if not taken literally. I have a copy of the Ramayana.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		I am sure owning a book makes you somehow worldly and informed. How is Hinduism useful if not taken literally?
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		It provides some decent insight on how to live life. I can use this without having to believe in any of the gods. The philosophy is useful, not the theology.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		I guess I was expecting specifics. I won't press, though, I am not trying to be pushy.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		I am limited by my language. English cannot express.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		Logic cannot prove nor disprove most religions so, logically, it is just as fallible to claim that all religions are wrong as it is to claim that one is right. Science cannot show a given religeon to be wrong, just like you can't prove that there isn't a little invisible fairy on your shoulder that provides you a moral compass. However, is can prove that a given idea is astronomically improbable. Agnostics are those think that there is a good chance of a God or Gods existing. Athiests are those who think that while there is a chance, that that chance is vanishingly small, and should not be given serious credence.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		Casey says	+3 Karma
		actually going to the debate with a bag over your head, might get you more responses in a debate. Being taken seriously is way over rated at times. on the karma point... our lives are filled with many references to religion. Just becuase you don't believe in a religion doesnt mean you cant take the good points out for use in your life. Karma is a damn good idea... how about that mixing of religious metaphors.. damned Karma... nice.
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		I did not say that it is logical to believe in anything spiritual. I said it is fundamentally flawed to justify a belief that there is no spiritual existence or god with logic. What leads you to believe that the chance of a god existing is smaller than the chance of one who doesn't exist?
			- Author's History - 04 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		Gringo- Nice cop out.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		Ah, let me count the ways. First of all, no evidence. Not a single piece. Nothing, nada, zip. nothing that stands up to any kind of scrutiny or skepticism That right there is a good place to start. Second of all, there is a huge ammount of evidence that things could have come to their current point without any kidn of higher powers involved. (I might point to the entire fossil record for starters) For another thing, given the infinite number of possible explanations as to the universe's origins, picking one of the unsupported ones makes absolutely no sense- if your going to pick an unsupported beleif system, there are an infinite number to pick from... What makes the one that you chose superior? Is that enough, or should I go on?
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		I said it is fundamentally flawed to justify a belief that there is no spiritual existence or god with logic. How so? Logic can deny the probable existence of any hypothetical thing, including any god you care to name.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+1 Karma
		And it can do just the opposite, that's why it is flawed. There si just as much evidence that there is a god or gods as their is that no god exists: none. Neither arguement be proven nor disproven and each lanks the existence of any evidence. The evidence that things could exist the way they are without the presence of a god fails to define the role of god and therefore is actually useless. And atheism or any scientific belief in the origin of the universe or life is just another of the "infinite number of possible explanations" and still lacks support as do all the rest.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+0 Karma
		By the way, I hope you excuse my typos as I am a horrible typist, admittedly. I would hate for my obvious lack of skill to mar my arguements.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		And it can do just the opposite, that's why it is flawed. There si just as much evidence that there is a god or gods as their is that no god exists: none. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is a huge ammount of evidence that if there is a god, he did absolutely nothing. NOTHING. and therfore, for all practical intents and purposes, does not exist. Neither arguement be proven nor disproven and each lanks the existence of any evidence. The evidence that things could exist the way they are without the presence of a god fails to define the role of god and therefore is actually useless. Okay, let me put it this way: Using only that natural laws of the universe, there is a huge ammount of evidence that it could have come to its current state without any intervention from a creator. Happy? And atheism or any scientific belief in the origin of the universe or life is just another of the "infinite number of possible explanations" and still lacks support as do all the rest. We will start from a position with no assumptions, and try to construct a viewpointfrom that. As you can see, there are an infinite number of possible explanations: ranging from God, to the naturalistic viewpoints, to the flying spaghetti monster. Now, one of these viewpoints has evidence (the scientific one). The rest have none. Even if you don't care about evidence, how do you pick one of the others? They are all of equal merit to one willing to beleive something just because it 'cannot be entirely proven false'
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+1 Karma
		You are assuming that a god couldn't have set up a series of scientific laws and set them in motion to arrive at the point we are currently living in. "Okay, let me put it this way: Using only that natural laws of the universe, there is a huge ammount of evidence that it could have come to its current state without any intervention from a creator. Happy?" Give me one piece of this huge amount of evidence and tell me how it is conclusive that there is no creator. Argue a big bang, could a creator not have sparked it? Argue that all beings on earth grew and evolved from a common ancestor and PROVE that a creator couldn't have made that initial being. Scientific evidence is only evidence that there are phenomena or events that can, do, or have happened. It has yet to prove that the interference of some being or spiritual existence could not have interferred, guided, or watched any of these things happen or exist.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		poss says	+2 Karma
		I wish i could keep ati as a gaurd dog at my place, i could set him on the early morning churchy knockers.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+2 Karma
		I think it is only fair for me, at this point, to state my own beliefs, as I have been playing devil's advocate thus far. I believe that the way in which the universe has come to being, the way it will end, the religion of individuals is all inconsequential to how we live. The religious (or anti-religious) beliefs of an individual are highly personal and highly personalized and should have no bearing on the way we view others or compare ourselves to one another. The most important issue, in my eyes, is that we all exist here, it is the only thing close to a universal truth that we have. Given that, the differences in our beliefs is minimal because we can find common ground in this vast truth. Existence is a miraculous thing and should be appreciated for "that", not analyzed for "how"; if you were to find a twenty dollar bill is it more important how you found it or that you found it? That being said I think I will probably not be returning to this forum. The nature of this debate seemed to be not one of trying to understand the other view or even of trying to become more educated of it but rather to nitpick details of tenuously related items to demoralize or possibly humiliate people who decide to be religious instead of deciding not to be. As much as you were hesitant to engage in debate with me for fear I would quickly leave, I hesitated to register because I was not sure I even wanted to belong to this community, yet. Please don't hold it against me that I do not really feel that this is a community in which I would find a comfortable fit. I hope that we all, myself included, can continue to grow in our thoughts and use the things we learn in discussion with others to alter our own views continually for the better. Thanks for the debate, I hope you all took as much away from it as I have.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Geeks don't need a fantasy help from something people want to believe just because they can't explain or prove that god really exists......Can you ?
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		oi davis, log in so people can give you karma
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		I was suprised to not see evolution mentioned, however, this is a long thread, and I didn't read it all the way through. I would point out that like most other traits of humans, belief is most likely just an instinct. What society doesn't have belief, or just as easily, what society doesn't have language or customs. My point is then that if we naturally believe in things, then it would be natural that our environment -- including our culture and specific upbringing -- would shape those beliefs. This is probably what the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis should have said... Now on to my main point. If you read about how towns, cities, or just communities lived in the past, then you'll be familiar with how in most places the religion of the people defined them. You were either a Catholic or a Protestant, a Buddhist or a Taoist, a Muslim or a Catholic. If you didn't conform, then bad things generally happened. Today, niche-cultures thrive. You can belong to all sorts of groups which have their own identity, and these groups span age, ethnicity, and religion. No one sees themself as an Bostonian because they're Unitarian Universalist just as much as someone else views themself as a Austinite because they're Protestant. You're a Bostonian or Austinite solely because you live there. Your culture is defined by you. This change enables niches of all sorts of beliefs, including Atheism. Now, everything that has been said I think falls into place. "Geeks" found their culture in material rationality or reductionism. Since nothing reduces to some god or gods, why bother. Hence the creation of a culture of Atheists. ***side note*** I would like to add that building things is much more rewarding than tearing things down. Tearing something down, like theism, is like eating out all the time, building something is like cooking thanksgiving dinner.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Argue a big bang, could a creator not have sparked it? Argue that all beings on earth grew and evolved from a common ancestor and PROVE that a creator couldn't have made that initial being. Key word is 'could' It also may very well have happened of its own accord. You can almost never prove a negative, so I can't say for a fact that a god didn't. However, to pick one out of the air and say its true because you can't prove it wrong is absurd. There are a huge number of potential creators or creating forces. an infinite number, as a matter of fact. If you are going to pick one withoput support of evidence, then any given one you pcik is going to have only a 1 out of infinity chance of being correct. It's possible, but the probability is so low that it isn't worth giving serious credence.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		It also may very well have happened of its own accord. No, something had to have sparked it (if thats how it happened at all). It couldn't have happened on its own. so I can't say for a fact that a god didn't. No, don't contradict yourself. Because you are an atheist, you have to have faith that the universe was not created (for whatever reasons - probably something evil). Somehow believe it was just there. Otherwise, you are an agnostic... Your profile does say you're atheist. There are a huge number of potential creators or creating forces. Attribute all those to God and you are only left with two options. Either the universe was just there or it was created by God. But the former doesn't make much sense because "this" all had to come from somewhere.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		Hmm I consider myself a geek but I have always been devoutly religious. The split seems to be specifically this:what is the best/least error prone way of arriving at a truth? The proposed reason above for religious people is that you are told. Geek are proposed to use intelligence or logic to test for truth. Personally I still use logic a lot but I find that I am fallible and I can't always rely on my own non-bias. So the 3rd method for finding truth is to specifically ask someone who knows-God. No if you don't believe in God that is a tough pill to swallow. But if you consider every sense you have can be deceived, someone clever could always deceive you or you could just make a mistake. What other possible way is there to arrive at a truth? Unless someone is unbiased and cares about you and knows the truth tells you. Well that is the two cents of religious geek.
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		@Joseph No, something had to have sparked it (if thats how it happened at all). It couldn't have happened on its own. How do you know? What makes you think that it had to be caused? How many universe begginings have you seen to conclude that something MUST have caused it? No, don't contradict yourself. Because you are an atheist, you have to have faith that the universe was not created (for whatever reasons - probably something evil). Somehow believe it was just there. Otherwise, you are an agnostic... Your profile does say you're atheist. An Athiest is not someonw who denies the possibility of the creation of the universe by a god. An Athiest is simply someone who finds such a thing laughably improbable, and totally ridiculous compared to the scientific theory. Not impossible. But extraordinarily improbable. Attribute all those to God and you are only left with two options. Either the universe was just there or it was created by God. But the former doesn't make much sense because "this" all had to come from somewhere. Your argument is full of fallacies out the wazoo. What if I changed the subject of your argument to 'Attribute all those to the flying spaghetti monster and you are only left with two options. Either the universe was just there or it was created by the flying spaghetti monster. But the former doesn't make much sense because "this" all had to come from somewhere.' Is this a conclusive argument for the flying spaghetti monster? The fact is, you can't just pick one of those explanations and choose to attribut ALL of the others too it, without assuming that explanation that you picked is true, which is succumbing to circular reasoning. As you can see, this argument tack is totally without merit. @guest So the 3rd method for finding truth is to specifically ask someone who knows-God. No if you don't believe in God that is a tough pill to swallow. But if you consider every sense you have can be deceived, someone clever could always deceive you or you could just make a mistake. What other possible way is there to arrive at a truth? Unless someone is unbiased and cares about you and knows the truth tells you. As nice a thought as it is, this succumbs to several fallacies. The most obvious of which is that choosing to beleive in an entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever, a fairy tale, is not the path to truth. It is just another deception, this one implimented by yourself. You might as well pick Zeus as you unbiased source of truth. There is the same ammount of evidence for him as for God. It's not the path to truth, only self-inflicted deception
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		I'd like to suggest something. First, some clarification of terms. Religion is dead spiritualism, i.e., religion is a codified/crystalized set of beliefs. Spiritualism is an ever evolving field from which the dogma of religion is drawn from. Spiritualism requires direct experience, immediate knowing of something. Religion requires you to believe in the experiences of others and the interpretation of that experience through the view of those who set down the dogma. similarly, science is divided as well. There is the dead aspect of science, the codified beliefs that no longer require direct experience but are deemed universal. Humans collect these theories of other peoples experiences, this does not amount to knowledge and leads to the same thing as those that blindly follow religious dogma. As well, there is the living aspect of science, where empirical evidence(experience) is gathered, tested, and viewed with a skeptical eye. Let's confuse things a little further. I propose (and history would agree) that there are two types of science. Objective and subjective, the scientific method can be applied to BOTH, e.g. yoga is a subjective science. Objective science has branched out into a tree with millions of different disciplines, studying different phenomenon, all considered science. However, a chemist and an economist would be hard pressed to find a common language, and be such a myopic viewpoint that it would be hard for them to find a common ground (they do as humans by there subjective connection.). Similarly, because of the language, it is hard for a christian and a zen master to communicate. Just as objective science has divided into thousands of disciplines to study the many ways of dealing/perceiving external objects/phenomenon, spirituality has divided itself into different "religions" in an attempt to describe the many ways of perceiving/handling subjective states. What has been missed by most people is that internal subjective states can be reliably reproduced, within individuals and accross individuals as well. Just as someone who hasn't been trained in objective chemical science would not be able to reproduce experiments without first learning the language/terms, so it is with subjective science. As a simple example. Yoga, as well as other 'belief' systems, make a distinction between the type of 'energy' that runs through the left side and that which runs through the right side. Ascribing feminine qualities to the left and masculine qualities to the right. For someone to scientifically test this as a theory it would require someone who was capable of perceiving when they are directing energy to either body side and observing the results. This is not an easy thing to do!!! However, just like astrophysics isn’t simple, it is something that is capable of being acquired. The problem is that we are left in a world of religions, dogma as a recording of events, or other peoples experiences without details on how to achieve the same results. Thankfully, there is an easy way to rectify this. You see, everybody exists in two realities, objective and subjective. True knowledge comes when both halves are forged into one whole. As an example, everybody knows that objective science shows that each hemisphere is roughly responsible for one half of the body. Recently, studies are showing that our senses react differently depending on which side of the body they are on. Even more interesting is that these differences in perception, (sight, hearing, smell may be others that I haven’t read the papers on) match up with the masculine/feminine qualities that yoga ascribed to them thousands of years ago. It is a little confusing, and disconcerting, that a whole section of the human race has decided that everything that THEY experience is worthless, that the only thing that exists is a consensual description for the outside world. A description, is all that is left when only experiencing a right sided scientific world. I find it heartening that recent scientific studies are bolstering this spiritual information that is thousands of years old. Btw, if anybody is wondering. I was raised a shaman, turned to jesus as a choice(or out of traumatized childhood necessity), then renounced all for science by the age of 13. I still cling to science, it is an effective method of study after all, and haven’t dropped off into the crazy land of unsubstantiated belief. However, I have been able to derive subjective techniques from spiritual traditions to achieve results, such as, eliminating arthritis, escaping autism, regaining my eyesight (science has this one in the bag now too, to bad it’s a billion dollar industry, won’t be going away anytime soon, hurray for capitalism and lobbying), regaining use of my shoulder that had a nerve severed, etc… I plan on trying to compile a manual for the human body, describing objective physical techniques that change perception in varying ways, though I’m not sure how well the written word will do by itself. By attempting to describe something to others I usually obtain no success. After explaining things to someone, and then physically adjusting them I get great results, I especially love the looks of confusion as I manipulate body parts in a way that the subject never thought was possible, creating a new internal subjective experience that they can’t instantly comprehend. If anyone wants to contact me, I’m at spamreceiver at telus.net
			- Author's History - 05 April, 2007

		(Guest) Davis says	+1 Karma
		"An Athiest is not someonw who denies the possibility of the creation of the universe by a god. An Athiest is simply someone who finds such a thing laughably improbable, and totally ridiculous compared to the scientific theory." I think you'll find that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god or gods and that your definition is filled with subjective terms (not very scientific and certainly biased). "If you are going to pick one withoput support of evidence, then any given one you pcik is going to have only a 1 out of infinity chance of being correct. It's possible, but the probability is so low that it isn't worth giving serious credence." How is the probability of the non-existence of a god calculated exactly (and this is not necessarily rhetorical, I am interested in your method). Furthermore, saying there is not a god is also an act of picking one stance (out of many) that has no supportive evidence and a one in infinity chance of being correct, just as you claim is the case for any god one may pick.
			- Author's History - 06 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		I think you'll find that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god or gods and that your definition is filled with subjective terms (not very scientific and certainly biased). So sue me, I like adjectives. Anyway, I got the point across didn't I? Anyway, that is how I define athiest. If you disagree, it's because you have a different definition of athiest. I agree that God is possible. But so if the flying spaghetti monster, faeries, and santa-clause. How is the probability of the non-existence of a god calculated exactly (and this is not necessarily rhetorical, I am interested in your method). As for how the probability is calculated, it's quite simple. If there are a dozen shells, and you know the coin is under one of them, but there is no evidence as to which one, any one that you pick has a one in twelve chance of being the right one. If you have an infinite number of shells, the chances are one out of infinity. Now, if you replace the shells with explanations of the universe, and the coin with truth, you've got my method. Furthermore, saying there is not a god is also an act of picking one stance (out of many) that has no supportive evidence and a one in infinity chance of being correct, just as you claim is the case for any god one may pick. Not so fast. There is evidence that the universe came about entirely on its own. There is the expansion of the galaxy, which points to the big bang, there is the entire fossil record, there are the compounds in the sun which point to several generatiosn of self-assembling stars. It's not without evidence. As a matter of fact, it's the only viewpoint with any evidence to speak of.
			- Author's History - 06 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		@ati An Athiest is not someonw who denies the possibility of the creation of the universe by a god. An Athiest is simply someone who finds such a thing laughably improbable, and totally ridiculous compared to the scientific theory. Not impossible. But extraordinarily improbable. I like that definition, I don't know if all atheists will agree with that though. Can I say all critical thinking and open minded atheist accept this definition of atheist? Your position that it is not impossible means that there is still a possibility. just curioius to know, will you change your mind if you later find more evidence that points you to the existence of God?
			- Author's History - 06 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		@ati There are a huge number of potential creators or creating forces. an infinite number, as a matter of fact. If you are going to pick one withoput support of evidence, then any given one you pcik is going to have only a 1 out of infinity chance of being correct. It's possible, but the probability is so low that it isn't worth giving serious credence. I don't really understand your train of thought here. There are indeed a huge/infinite number of creating forces but the proposition is that God is not one of that many possibilities. Instead, the question is whether God is behind all of that possibilities or not. So it's just 50-50 chance. not extremely impossible is it?
			- Author's History - 06 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Your position that it is not impossible means that there is still a possibility. just curioius to know, will you change your mind if you later find more evidence that points you to the existence of God? Of course. As soon as the evidence is stronger for God than it is for the scientific explanation, I will change my viewpoint. Beleive you me, I'd rather have a nice cushy heaven to go to. It'll save me a lot of work building my own. However, as of this moment, there is none. So I'll keep with the naturalistic viewpoint as the safest bet right now by a good margin. I don't really understand your train of thought here. There are indeed a huge/infinite number of creating forces but the proposition is that God is not one of that many possibilities. Instead, the question is whether God is behind all of that possibilities or not. So it's just 50-50 chance. not extremely impossible is it? This commits the same fallacy as Joseph's post a few posts up. Let me give you a very small scale example to try to illustrate where this line of reasoning fouls. Let's go back to my shell metaphor, shall we? We've got four shells. One is the scientific explanation, one is God, one is the flying spaghetti monster, and one is a giant teapot: all possible creators of the universe. The coin which points to the true one is hidden under oen of them, we don't know which one. Now, what you are proposing is to say that if the coin is under either the teapot shell, or the FSM shell, then it is actually just a front, and that both of those explanations are derivative of the 'God' explanation, thus it has to be either God or the scientific explanation. Now, the problem with this is that you could just as easily say the same thing with the names switched: 'If it's under the God or teapot shell, it must just be a front for the flying spaghetti monster : thus, it's eiher the flying spaghetti monster, or the naturalistic viewpoint!' To put it another way, your argument is essentially as follows: 'God exists. Therefore, god can be behind all other explanations. God is behind all other explanations. One of the explanations has to be true. Therfore, god exists.' Obviously, this isn't a clean chain of reasoning: it takes its conclusion as a premise, and makes an unjustified assumption.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		@ati well in my previous posts I haven't used any assumption or come to conclusion that god exists. I was simply saying that for me it is possible that God exists and that God is behind all the scientific explanations. While you don't accept that, and considers the existence of God and science to be mutually exclusive. For you, relation between God and science has to be XOR (God XOR Science). So in your metaphor, you assume that God has to be in one and only one of infinite number of shells. While I think it is possible that God is in fact inside all of those shells containing scientific evidence. So this brings me back to the question is it possible that God is behind all scientific evidence? Once you think relation God and science as OR, it increases the possibility of the existence of God to 50% right? whether God exists or not exists. I cannot prove that God is behind all scientific evidence, but neither can you prove othewise, is that right?
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		Argh sorry for all the typos, I really should get firefox2 with spellchecker, too bad Ubuntu Drapper Drake still use FF 1.5
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		@Shin That's really not a very good example of probability, or at least it is a very non-useful example. To say that you have two choices and you have to pick one would indeed be a 1:2 chance, however, how useful is that and more to the point how accurate is that. When was the last time you talked to someone and they said, "Well, there was a 50-50 chance that science was right or that religion was right, and I just chose one without thinking about it." What you'd want is the probability of being right knowing something, like, P(God-creator | Fact1, Fact2, Fact3) and then P(Science-creator | Fact1, Fact2, Fact3). Then you'd just choose the maximum. One problem though was in this quote: "I don't really understand your train of thought here. There are indeed a huge/infinite number of creating forces but the proposition is that God is not one of that many possibilities. Instead, the question is whether God is behind all of that possibilities or not. So it's just 50-50 chance. not extremely impossible is it?" If there are say 100 creative forces that could have driven the start of the universe, and then there is a force called god, you have 101 creative forces. That means, the chance of one of them being correct is 1:101 or .00990099 or 99/100 of 1%. Much less than 50-50. You don't get to say that all the creative forces other than god are the same, because they are distinct possibilities of creation. Now the big problem with using probability is how do you find the probabilities of god as creator. You'd have to use fuzzy measures logic. Which allows you to believe whatever you want about something. This is subjective, so we get back to a problem of truth, which ends up being subjective as well. By definition you could believe that science is the sole explainer of creation with a P=.99, but also believe that god is the sole creator with a P=.99. It would be a tie, so you could have a transition probilitiy of A_12 (going from science_state to religion_state) equal to .5 and A_21 (the opposite) equal to .7. So by chance you could swing between science_state and religion_state. Now...that said, no one really thinks about it like this, although some people may be undecided like this and may swing between the two beliefs in a similar way. But, I don't think there is a pragmatic way to symbolize the probability of choosing between science and religion in a discrete way.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Once you think relation God and science as OR, it increases the possibility of the existence of God to 50% right? whether God exists or not exists. I cannot prove that God is behind all scientific evidence, but neither can you prove othewise, is that right? No, actually that is incorrect. In order for your argument that 'all explanations other than the scientific one have 'god' behind them', you have to start with the assumption that God, exists (if you don't assume this, then he can't veyr well be behind them, can he?). Since this is exactly what we are debating at the moment, I think you can see how this doesn't work. It's really a textbook example of circular reasoning. Now, obviously, I cannot prove that every explanation doesn't have God behind it, but neither can I prove that every explanation doesn't have fairies, or the Flying spaghetti monster behind them. Just because you take it a step back, doesn't mean that God still isn't only one of a infinite sea of unsupported explanations.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		(Guest) Guest says	+0 Karma
		I forgot to add the biggest problem, which is this: There has only been one creation, therefore, N=1. It is very hard to talk about probabilities whith only 1 occurence. This is because probability is the chance of getting X overtime. For instance, you can define P as (the number of favorable instances) divided by (the total number of instances or N). So let's say we observe 10 creations, and 2 of them were by some god. Then the chance of creation by god is 20%, and the chance of creation not by god is 80%, since notP(god)=1 - P(god). Now, how do you define P with only N=1? First of all, it is very unlikely that you can demonstrate that it is a significant probability (if you can find one), although it may be a significant discovery with lots of evidence. Second, going along with point one, how do you know that there isn't an 1:10 chance that some god creates the universe, and 9:10 chance a god doesn't? You don't. You've only seen one, you can't know about 10 of them. And therein lies the problem. Talking about probability and creation is a litle silly, becuase there isn't a freqency distribution to talk about, and really how are you going to measure it anyways? People can't even decide on this creation, let along 10 others or 1000 others. The creation, beginning, whatever of the universe if best left to claims of facts and theories, with the most powerful theory winning, as is the case in the rest of the civilized world.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		When was the last time you talked to someone and they said, "Well, there was a 50-50 chance that science was right or that religion was right, and I just chose one without thinking about it." Well, that's not my point. In fact it's the opposite. I'm not saying that there is 50-50 chance on the existence of God or the truth of science. It's not that you have to pick either Science or God. But rather, that the probability of the existence of God is not influenced by science if you think in God and Science in OR relation, instead of XOR relation. Because that way Science can be true and still have room for the possibility of the existence of God. If you see the OR table Science | God | Science OR God -------------------------------- false | false | false false | true | true true | false | true true | true | true Since you know science is true, then it only leaves the existence of God with either true or false, thus 50% possibility. But the main difference is that you still think God and Science in XOR relation. Science | God | Science XOR God -------------------------------- false | false | false false | true | true true | false | true true | true | false which I can see why you come to conclusion that the existence of God can't be possibily true. So that's why I think the main question of all this discussion is: Can you accept that God MIGHT be behind all scientific evidence? If not why? can you prove that God is not behind scientific evidence? For example, let's pick the big bang theory. Is it not possible that god is behind big bang? if not why? is there a conclusive proof that god is certainly not behind big bang theory? I realize we haven't really define God, and I'm sure we might have different definition of God. but that's for later discussion I suppose.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		For example, let's pick the big bang theory. Is it not possible that god is behind big bang? if not why? is there a conclusive proof that god is certainly not behind big bang theory? Same problem. How can you prove that fairies weren't behind the big bang? Is there any conclusive proof that fairies weren't? What makes the fairies explanation more plausible than god? They both have equal evidence (none). Or, if you want to say that God was behind the fairies, why would you assume that? If your going to resort to magical entities to explain the origins of the universe, why add another one? Doesn't Occam's Razor say that the simplees explanation (i.e. the one with only one magical universe creator instead of two is more probable?)
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		Same problem. How can you prove that fairies weren't behind the big bang? Is there any conclusive proof that fairies weren't? What makes the fairies explanation more plausible than god? I don't understand why you keep mentioning fairies and spagethi monster, lol, but if that's what your image of God then I think we have a problem in term definition which I have guessed before. For atheist to negate the non-atheist concept of God, first you have to agree to the same definition of God as the non-atheist. and since there are many definitions of God for different non-atheist groups then you just have to deal with each one of them, but here is my quick & short definition: Attribute God to a supreme/powerful being that exists before the universe come into existence and that created the universe (including all laws that make the universe work as it is now) and thus not part of the universe. now that's just a definition, I'm not assuming God exists by that, but we need to agree to the same definition to go into further discussion. Otherwise we're like 2 people trying to debate whether 'dog' can fly when one of them think 'dog' as 'duck'. so just forget all those fairies and spagethi monster, and focus on this definition of God. shall we go on then?
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Well, as counter-intuitive as it seems, the fairies and the spaghetti monster are the crux of my argument: you can't prove that either of them is more plausible than God. Thus, picking God out of the mess of fairies and teapots and spaghetti monsters as your explanation of the universe is irrational: it's got no more chance of being true than any of the others. As for a definition of 'God', shall we define him/it as 'A supernatural entity of unknown origin who supposedly created the universe, and who has made significant changes in the development of humanity' ? Does this sound compatible with your conception of 'god'?
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		it sounds close enough I'm not sure if we need to include who has made significant changes in the development of humanity' which can be interpreted in many different ways. and might unneccessarily complicate the discussion. and you don't mind keeping this in the definition do you? * God exists before the universe * God is not part of this universe, meaning that our universe is not all that there is, that there could be something ouside it, like other universe or God. So a little bit longer definition: A supernatural entity of unknown origin who existed before the universe came into existence and who supposedly created the universe and the law of nature governing the universe. and, therefore is not part of the universe, neither is bound by the law, time and space in the universe. how's that?
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		"A supernatural entity of unknown origin who existed before the universe came into existence and who supposedly created the universe and the law of nature governing the universe. and, therefore is not part of the universe, neither is bound by the law, time and space in the universe. " Sounds good.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		So based on that definition, can you accept that Science and God doesn't have to be mutually exclusive? meaning that science can be true and this entity God we just defined can also exists?
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Yes, they could both exist, assuming your god was willing to keep his hands off and allow the universe to progress totally unaltered. But this leads to two problems: number one is that if the universe could exist without God, why add him? According to Occam's razor, you should remove any unneccesary components which add additional complexity to a theory: such a god would have to be extraordinarily complex, and wouldn't add any probability to the arrangement. And number two is that an entity which has no effect on the universe effectively does not exist.
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		Good, so at least technically speaking the possibility of this God existing is 50% (maybe for you it's still much less than 50%) but it's not extremely improbable as you stated before. which explains why there are many intelligent people out there who believe in God and science and don't find any problem with it. I'm just trying to say that it's not as absurd as you might think to be critical thinker and believe in God at the same time. as for your statement assuming your god was willing to keep his hands off and allow the universe to progress totally unaltered. So basically if God exists, God should not interfere/get involved at all with the universe. Why can't there be a God that interfere with the universe that God created?
			- Author's History - 07 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Good, so at least technically speaking the possibility of this God existing is 50% (maybe for you it's still much less than 50%) but it's not extremely improbable as you stated before. I didn't say that. All I said was that god and science were not neccesarily mutually exclusive, but that there were a number of extremely good reasons NOT to include God. Also, the probability is still low: If your going to append an extraneouus creator, why pcik God? Why not pick the Invisible Pink Unicorn? What makes god the better choice? So basically if God exists, God should not interfere/get involved at all with the universe. Why can't there be a God that interfere with the universe that God created? Because if he did, he'd leave evidence. No evidence. Ergo, if god does exist, and IS interfering with this universe, he's being very, very low-key about it.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		(Guest) Steve C says	+0 Karma
		This is only a practical observation, take it for what you will. There are various processes taking place within our own body, which if any of them are stopped for a short period of time, we will die. If I open an artery, I will die. If I stop eating, I will die. If I stop breathing, I will die. I cannot survive for any length of time without any of these things continuing. If lungs developed over millions of years, if the circulatory system developed over millions of years, if the entire digestive system developed over millions of years, it is evident that man could not have been alive during the period of their development - man cannot live without air or blood for more than a few minutes at best. This can only mean, as a practical observation, that the body was not alive as it was developing. However, the law of entropy, an immutable law of our world, does not allow for this. A body, not alive, rots away. Everything in this world rots away, and returns to the most elemental form. But if man came to be over the course of time as the mutation of one form into another, how is it that all these separate, vital systems came into being? This would mean that various cells, as a matter of pure chance, without intelligence, formed themselves into complex mechanisms, all vital, all exceedingly interwoven and interacting with each other, the lack of any of which would prove to be quickly fatal to the whole. This is so mathematically improbable as to be impossible - even more so when we consider the uncountable number of life forms. Again, as a practical observation, all things have an origin. And there is always something which was before any given thing. Before today, was yesterday. Before yesterday, the day before. And so on. If anything exists, down to the atom and beyond, it had to have an origin, and something which was before it. For any given effect, there is a cause, and there is nothing that comes into being from nothingness. But if so, where did the nothingness come from? Just an observation.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		You argument about lungs developing suffers from a misunderstanding of the actual principals of evolution. allow me to demonstrate: Let's start with you 'lungs' example. If I stop eating, I will die. If I stop breathing, I will die. I cannot survive for any length of time without any of these things continuing. If lungs developed over millions of years, if the circulatory system developed over millions of years, if the entire digestive system developed over millions of years, it is evident that man could not have been alive during the period of their development - man cannot live without air or blood for more than a few minutes at best. Let's start with fish. FIsh have gills (we'll ignore the long series of evolutionary changes that led to this event for the moment). Now let's say that the oceans overpopulate, and food is running scarce. Now lets say that one is born with a lump of weird tissue in its body that lets it metabloze oxygen directly: Now it can go on land for a little while, allowing it to escape predators. Now if some of its descendants have a slightly better version of one of these, which lets it do this more efficitnely, ans so forth until eventually you have the modern lung. capische? The same goes for the circulatory system: in primitive animals, some of them developed a threading of tissue that let them spread resources around. Eventually, these developed tot he point where blood evolved in order to make use of this. eventually a ball of muscle came into the works and started working as a heart. Do you see? Also, Again, as a practical observation, all things have an origin. And there is always something which was before any given thing. Before today, was yesterday. Before yesterday, the day before. And so on. If anything exists, down to the atom and beyond, it had to have an origin, and something which was before it. For any given effect, there is a cause, and there is nothing that comes into being from nothingness. But if so, where did the nothingness come from? We don't know where the universe came from. God is one possible explanation, but there are a whole lot more. We really can't say until we learn a bit more.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		(Guest) Steve C says	+0 Karma
		Ati, I appreciate that you didn't just flame me, but took the time to answer. I understand the argument, it's the one I was taught in school. The problem with it is, there is no fish that can survive on land - as the saying goes, "like a fish out of water..." If it were the case, why does it not still occur? Even so, the argument supposes that this particular fish was born with an entirely different, functioning respiratory system, not developed over time, that allowed it to breathe differently. This doesn't occur. The proposition of evolution is that if an organ is needed, that organ spontaneously develops (over time). This would have had to have happened such an insanely, mathmatically impossible number of times, yet unfailingly. Throw even a modest failure rate in, and it just skyrockets. Or, if things developed, and then a use came from it, would we not have lumps of things waiting for a use? Yet we don't; everything is fitted for it's use, and perfectly so. Another issue with the theory is, it is assumed that the fossil records and archaeological finds illustrate progression of species, when most of the species are still in existence, concurrently with us, not successively - fish, chimps, apes, etc. You said above that the probability of God is low; the probability that all of the process changes necessary for each and every organ for each and every species, without unnecessary organs or who knows what else, all wrapped within skins, all with the necessity for food, and all with abundant supplies of that food (and air), without intelligence behind it, is so low as to be impossible. And this does not even get into the spirit of the creatures. Nor the fact that they are male and female (mostly), and have the ability to reproduce after their kind, and that the offspring are small, and near unfailingly develop to their adult size, in a consistent manner and time. There are over 400 muscles in our bodies, and not one of them does not possess a use, nor is there one not perfectly suited to it's task. The hinges of our arms and legs are completely fitted to their function - hinge joints mid-arm and mid-leg, ball and socket joints at their juncture with our trunk. Imagine they were the other way around, hinge at the trunk, ball and socket mid-limb; our limbs would be useless. And not one thing came into being not perfectly fitted for it's use? If it were random, we would have all manner of useless parts. Yet neither we, nor any of the other species, do. Even the appendix, if we never discover its use, would be the exception that proves the rule. And at the bottom of it, if there is not intelligence behind it, there is only randomness; and randomness just does not produce high-order mechanical objects.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		How do you know? What makes you think that it had to be caused? How many universe begginings have you seen to conclude that something MUST have caused it? It's more logical; Causality. Perhaps you just don't like causality because it necessitates a creator. An Athiest is not someonw who denies the possibility of the creation of the universe by a god. An Athiest is simply someone who finds such a thing laughably improbable, and totally ridiculous compared to the scientific theory. Not impossible. But extraordinarily improbable. No, it is probable. You just refuse to face it. Your argument is full of fallacies out the wazoo. What if I changed the subject of your argument to 'Attribute all those to the flying spaghetti monster and you are only left with two options. Either the universe was just there or it was created by the flying spaghetti monster. But the former doesn't make much sense because "this" all had to come from somewhere.' Is this a conclusive argument for the flying spaghetti monster? The fact is, you can't just pick one of those explanations and choose to attribut ALL of the others too it, without assuming that explanation that you picked is true, which is succumbing to circular reasoning. As you can see, this argument tack is totally without merit. I was simplifying the possibilities. Either there is a creator, or there is not. Stop weaseling, you know I'm right. And for your information, I am already humble of the fact that my perspective of God may be wrong. The nature of God's "state of existence" is like the 12th dimension, it is inconceivable in our minds. At one time, people thought of elements in terms of little tiny balls because they could not look deeper. We are in that state right now in terms of God. If someone wants to see God as zeus-like or a spagetti, its up to them. But Christians are aware that even if we see God as zeus-like or whatever, we do not take that as truth. Anyway, I think we're done here. You say I'm illogical. I say you're illogical.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		totally ridiculous compared to the scientific theory. There is not a single scientific theory regarding the cause of the beginning of the universe. Call it philosophy if you will but it is not science.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		"I didn't say that. All I said was that god and science were not neccesarily mutually exclusive, but that there were a number of extremely good reasons NOT to include God. " regarding the probability it's 50% because like I explain before that if you think relation of God and Science as OR relation instead of XOR, then no matter what scienctific evidence you may find it does not reduce the probability of the existence of God. "Also, the probability is still low: If your going to append an extraneouus creator, why pcik God? Why not pick the Invisible Pink Unicorn? What makes god the better choice?" Because didn't we agree on the definition of God before? I don't care what you want to call that entity we just defined, it doesn't reduce the probability of its existence.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		@Joseph: It's more logical; Causality. Perhaps you just don't like causality because it necessitates a creator. No, I'm fine with there being a cause (or a creator) but then we get into the assumption of what created the creator, and what created the CREATOR of the creator, etc. It makes most sense to cut it off here until we learn more. Also, what makes you think that cauality applies to the beginning of the universe? In the quntum realm causality is very shakey. IT could very well be even more so for that state before the universe came into being. I was simplifying the possibilities. Either there is a creator, or there is not. Stop weaseling, you know I'm right. And for your information, I am already humble of the fact that my perspective of God may be wrong. The nature of God's "state of existence" is like the 12th dimension, it is inconceivable in our minds. At one time, people thought of elements in terms of little tiny balls because they could not look deeper. We are in that state right now in terms of God. If someone wants to see God as zeus-like or a spagetti, its up to them. But Christians are aware that even if we see God as zeus-like or whatever, we do not take that as truth. Your 'simplifying of the possibilities' is a logical fallacy. All we know for sure is that the universe came into being in one way or another. Reducing it to either nothing or our god and ignoring all the other possibilities is not good logic. It's a common fallacy is point of fact. There are an infinite number of things that could have lead to our universe's inception. Most of them bear absolutely no resemblence to your God. A deposit of mass from an alterate universe; a huge ammount of energy produced by a possible infinite number of as-yet undiscovered phenomena; a massive example of the uncertainty principal. All of these are possible, if you want to attribute a creator or creating force. Shrinking it down to ONLY your god or a disguise of him is very poor logic. There is not a single scientific theory regarding the cause of the beginning of the universe. Call it philosophy if you will but it is not science. That's because we don't know. There are a few hypothesis floating around, but the scientific viewpoint is that we don't know yet. We don't even know if there is a cause. However, your god does more than just make a bunch of energy and leave it at that. He makes the entire universe and gives humanity a privlidged position in the universe, and interacts with the matter of the universe on a regular basis, and yet leaves not a shred of evidence for it. Which is more than a little absurd. I think that about covers it.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		@Steve C The problem with it is, there is no fish that can survive on land - as the saying goes, "like a fish out of water..." If it were the case, why does it not still occur? Even so, the argument supposes that this particular fish was born with an entirely different, functioning respiratory system, not developed over time, that allowed it to breathe differently. This doesn't occur. It doesn't assume a complete respiratory system. All it assumes is a mutation that let's it metabolize a little bit of oxygen directly. This lets it go into just SLIGHTLY shallower waters than it's comrades, thus making it silightly better at escaping predators. Then, as this organ grows better adapted, it's flippers change to become stiffer and more mobile in order to take advantage of its new ability to breather air for a little while. Given enough time, you get lungs and feet on a fish. The proposition of evolution is that if an organ is needed, that organ spontaneously develops (over time). This would have had to have happened such an insanely, mathmatically impossible number of times, yet unfailingly. Throw even a modest failure rate in, and it just skyrockets. Or, if things developed, and then a use came from it, would we not have lumps of things waiting for a use? Yet we don't; everything is fitted for it's use, and perfectly so. Your assuming that the organ just appeared. But the thing is, even a simplified version of most organs would have a benefit ont eh creature that they first occured on. They they got gradually more specialized over time, as various versions of them that occured in the creatures descendants got better at their job. Thus, you end up with an organ coming about eventually. As for why we don't have new limbs in the process of forming, it's due to two reasons: Numer one: we don't really need any more limb for survival right now. Hoever, we are changing a bit. We're taller than we used to be. Bigger heads and smaller jaws. Numer two: We've only been recording human history reliably for about 2000 years. This is only something like 0.002% of the minimum ammount of time required for a major evolutionary change to take place. You said above that the probability of God is low; the probability that all of the process changes necessary for each and every organ for each and every species, without unnecessary organs or who knows what else, all wrapped within skins, all with the necessity for food, and all with abundant supplies of that food (and air), without intelligence behind it, is so low as to be impossible. And this does not even get into the spirit of the creatures. Nor the fact that they are male and female (mostly), and have the ability to reproduce after their kind, and that the offspring are small, and near unfailingly develop to their adult size, in a consistent manner and time. It's not as improbable as you would have us beleive. If its benefitial to their survival, genetic changes do occur and propogate. It's not improbable at all: as a matter of fact, due to the nature of life, it is actually inevitable. When ac reature evolves into a more advanced one, it's no more random that when an apple falls to the ground. Also, the male/female example is poor, because two genders is the optimal genetic setting for cross-over to take place, which is very profitable for evolutionary genetic. There are over 400 muscles in our bodies, and not one of them does not possess a use, nor is there one not perfectly suited to it's task. The hinges of our arms and legs are completely fitted to their function - hinge joints mid-arm and mid-leg, ball and socket joints at their juncture with our trunk. Imagine they were the other way around, hinge at the trunk, ball and socket mid-limb; our limbs would be useless. And not one thing came into being not perfectly fitted for it's use? If it were random, we would have all manner of useless parts. Yet neither we, nor any of the other species, do. Even the appendix, if we never discover its use, would be the exception that proves the rule. We do have all manner of useless parts. More than I'd care to count. The appendix, wisdom teeth, unneccesary veins, etc. However, your basic premise is flawed: If a creature evolved with its joint backwards of its arm it would die young and never contribute that gene to the gene pool. Those who had functioning arms would survive and contribute. You again fall for the creationist straw-man that evolution is random. It's not. Its the polar oposite of random. As for why every muscle has a purpose, it's quite simple. Those muscles that are just sitting there doing nothing eventually get mutatiosn in them that shrink or damage them. Because they don't help the creature survive, th ones witht he damaged muscle don't get weeded out of the gene pool, so eventually the muscle dissapears through attrition. And finally, And at the bottom of it, if there is not intelligence behind it, there is only randomness; and randomness just does not produce high-order mechanical objects. Again, it's not random. It starts random, but natural selection then polsihes the good surival qualities from the randomness.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		"I didn't say that. All I said was that god and science were not neccesarily mutually exclusive, but that there were a number of extremely good reasons NOT to include God. " regarding the probability it's 50% because like I explain before that if you think relation of God and Science as OR relation instead of XOR, then no matter what scienctific evidence you may find it does not reduce the probability of the existence of God. "Also, the probability is still low: If your going to append an extraneouus creator, why pcik God? Why not pick the Invisible Pink Unicorn? What makes god the better choice?" Because didn't we agree on the definition of God before? I don't care what you want to call that entity we just defined, it doesn't reduce the probability of its existence. Yes, sorry. All of you are using different definitions of God, so it's getting a little confusing on my end. However, with a little re-wording, the argument still stands. For one thing, however vague the definition is, it still implies a concious will of some kind, so if the universe was engendered by a force or event, rather than an entity, then it still falls outside the realm of God. For instance, there are a huge number of things that go outside of even this extremely loose definition of God. for instance, a break-down of causality; a dump of matter from another universe. any one of an infinit enumber of possible, undiscovered physical laws. Thus, I put the odds of even this vague, weak god existing to still be very low.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		The problem with it is, there is no fish that can survive on land - as the saying goes, "like a fish out of water..." If it were the case, why does it not still occur? Most evolutionary niches have been occupied now. Going from sea to land won't improve your chances of survival any more, because the seaside ecosystem has already been populated. Sure, you still have fish that slowly evolve the ability to breathe in air for short periods of time, but natural selection weeds them out because there are far superior versions out there now. Minor mutations of the kind that drive evolution won't help an organism to steal enough energy from a ecosystem which is already filled with specimens that are far more efficient at doing it. So they die out, even though they might be repeating the same mutation that happened a billion years ago and created land-based life for the first time. Because now we have land-based life, and they're very good at what they do. Amateurs have their asses kicked. The reason there was such explosive evolution then, in comparison to what we see right now, is because the domains where life existed were rather limited. The earth was full of opportunities for an enterprising mutant to find a nice unexploited spot and set up their own species, as it were. Besides, complaining that you can't see evolution is silly, because it usually happens over timescales that the Biblical Methuselah would have found terrifyingly long. Of course, it's more likely that any candidate for Methuselah would have died at the age of 30, rather than 900, or whatever. The fossil record is a liberal education. There are over 400 muscles in our bodies, and not one of them does not possess a use, nor is there one not perfectly suited to it's task. The hinges of our arms and legs are completely fitted to their function - hinge joints mid-arm and mid-leg, ball and socket joints at their juncture with our trunk. Imagine they were the other way around, hinge at the trunk, ball and socket mid-limb; our limbs would be useless. And not one thing came into being not perfectly fitted for it's use? If it were random, we would have all manner of useless parts. Yet neither we, nor any of the other species, do. Even the appendix, if we never discover its use, would be the exception that proves the rule. On the contrary, there are thousands of body parts that are thoroughly and completely useless. Worse than that, there are parts of us that could do with some serious improvement, and which a designer God should have done, but which will naturally be overlooked by evolution, since it isn't concerned with minor conveniences that won't improve survival. Check this out. There was another website I used to have bookmarked, which had a huge list of little (and not so little) useless cruft that we've accumulated over our evolutionary history, but which still stick around because they don't do any harm to a species that is, on the whole, essentially invincible in the context of most problems that other species face.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		"For instance, there are a huge number of things that go outside of even this extremely loose definition of God. for instance, a break-down of causality; a dump of matter from another universe. any one of an infinit enumber of possible, undiscovered physical laws." Sorry, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		What I'm saying is that, despite the fact that the definition of God we are using is loose to an extreme degree, there are still a huge number of possible universe creating factors that fall outside what it encompasses. Thus, if you want to pick a creating force, there are still a vast multitude of them, of whhich God is only one. Thus, the proabilities of even our very loose definition of God being involved are still much slimmer than fifty percent.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Visible says	+1 Karma
		@Shin "So that's why I think the main question of all this discussion is: Can you accept that God MIGHT be behind all scientific evidence? If not why? can you prove that God is not behind scientific evidence?" I see what you are asking, but I fail to see the significance. In our discussion science is not only valid, but it is viewed as the correct belief. The question then is, what's behind science? Well, the answer is, whatever you want... This is an excerpt from Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric: "Famous in the history of science is the argument ad ignorantiam given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance” an hypothesis that saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies and that Galileo could not prove false! Legend has it that Galileo, to expose the argument ad ignorantiam, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rising up from that invisible crystalline envelope, even greater mountain peaks but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis, he pointed out, his critics could not prove false." You see, this is the same thing you claim -- create an unprovable entity to maintain a perfect world. Just make sure that your perfect world is worthy of you and isn't steeped in lowly beliefs undeserving of yourself.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		(Guest) Pake says	+1 Karma
		There are also use geeks who are ignostic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism Science is composed of theories that are falsifiable, religion on the other hand is not falsifiable. Many scientist and geeks alike would rather not delve into something we've already deemed as having no way to prove or disprove. We would rather spend our time working out complex problems with possible answers.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		Correct visible. An argument that rests entirely on that fact that it can not be disproven is a poor argument indeed.
			- Author's History - 08 April, 2007

		(Guest) Steve C says	+0 Karma
		Nadeem said: "On the contrary, there are thousands of body parts that are thoroughly and completely useless." I did some quick research on this, as I had never really looked into this before. What I found is that there are not "thousands," but only a few that are cited, namely, the appendix, coccyx, the plantaris muscle, and wisdom teeth. The coccyx is said to be the vestigial remain of a human tail, as it terminates in the human body at the same location in which a tail begins in other animals. Just because we have a tailbone in the same location, doesn't mean we had a tail - it just means we have a tailbone in the same location. The human coccyx serves a purpose in man best described this way: if you didn't have one, you would be incontinent. The pelvic floor consists of voluntary muscle which regulates the evacuation of waste. It attaches to the pubic bone in front, and the coccyx in back. If you did not have a coccyx, you could not control the evacuation of waste from your body. http://www.aboutincontinence.org/PelvicFloor.html The appendix is part of the lymphatic system. The plantaris muscle moves the foot and leg, albeit weakly in comparison to the main calf muscles. It is absent in about 8-10% (I think I read) of the population, with no effect on their quality of life. Curiously, though, I found that muscle apparently has another function other than the movement it controls (I didn't know this prior to today). In a diabetic research study I came across, I found that apparently muscle has a regulatory function in relation to plasma potassium (I say apparently because the study is highly technical, way over my head). In the study they used two muscles, one a slow-twitch, and the other (the plantaris) a fast-twitch. Irefer you to the study for their goal, but they found differences in the reaction of the different muscle tissues. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/615 Wisdom teeth, I don't know. Our understanding of human anatomy is far from complete. There are processes which occur which we have no idea how. There are organs once thought to be vestigial, which in fact have critical function.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+0 Karma
		Holy crap, I actually did write 'thousands'. Looks like I simultaneously overdosed on sugar and the power of my previous argument. My apologies - I don't usually exaggerate that much. Clearly I've been working too hard and need to take a long vacation involving lazing around while surrounded by lots of beautiful women. It looks like I was thinking more about useless and poorly designed body parts, rather than just the useless ones. In retrospect, I'd be very surprised if we had thousands of useless body parts, except maybe if you counted things all the way down to the cellular level or something. In any event, aside from several useless body parts, there's the issue of the terrible engineering involved, which doesn't particularly become a perfect Designer. If we count badly engineered body parts, the numbers start going up again, and the probability of some perfect creator behind it all falls. It's not at all surprising in an evolutionary context, however. I suppose I find evolution easy to digest because I think of it as a sort of search algorithm, though one that lacks a clearly defined goal. The 'goal', as it were, is a moving target, since the environment has a role to play, as do all the other organisms that are also subject to evolution. So you have a lot of freedom to explore, massive levels of interactions between various parts of your system, and a vague sort of idea that it's good to live and have lots of children who can do the same thing. Given geological timescales, variety and change in environments, and a means of storing blueprints to build solutions(DNA), complex biochemical mechanisms that map information to bodies, with a significant random component allowing the possibility of mutation, the development of a diverse array of life forms seems almost inevitable.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		(Guest) Dun Cow says	+0 Karma
		Having a prostate that surrounds the urethra is an absurd "design". It's OK when a man is young, but when he ages, it frequently swells and causes problems. It doesn't effect the survival of the species, since, by the time a man is approaching old age, he has served his function. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist". The definition of "atheist" is not luke-warm; it means an absence of belief in a deity (or deities). An agnostic say that either it's unknowable, or that he skeptical, since he hasn't been shown in a convincing way. I would say that, ontologically, I am an atheist, since for all practical purposes in my daily life, the idea of God or gods is an absurdity and serves no purpose. Epistemologically, I am agnostic, since I cannot prove the non-existence of God, just as no one can prove His existence. As a nerd/geek/creature of the Enlightenment, I don't see any more reason to believe in God than in any of an infinite number of ideas that lack evidence. That statement might not make sense to a religious believer in God, since it is manifestly obvious to Him that God exists, and perhaps communicates with him, but I don't know how to state it any more clearly. By the way, statistics have been tortured in this thread. That God either exists or doesn't, and therefore there must be a 50-50 chance that He does, makes as much sense as saying, "Either my lottery ticket will win or lose, so I therefore have a 50-50 chance of winning the pot." Obviously, flawed reasoning. I am shocked by the lack of understanding of the ideas of modern evolution expressed in in this thread. Steve C, are you actually a geek, or are you a religious person who found a religious discussion that happens to be on a geek Web site, so you thought you'd just jump in? You ought to go down to a major university and tell an evolutionary biologist about your insight into the impossibility of lungs' evolving. They must just never have thought about it. Perhaps there's a Nobel prize in your future. Or at least 2/5 of one.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		Dun Cow says	+2 Karma
		Hey, I'm registered now. Time to open that bottle of champagne....
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+0 Karma
		W00t - this Ignosticism stuff is exactly what I've said dozens of times on various forums, not just Shuzak. I've often complained that the god hypothesis was sterile, but for some reason, I never thought to use that as an argument for its meaninglessness. I hereby officially declare myself an igtheist, on the grounds that god is a meaningless and useless concept. Interestingly enough, you can apply the same idea to the soul, which is equally undefined and intellectually sterile.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		Yeah, I had never heard of that before, but I also dugg it myself. Very interesting concept.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		Dun Cow says	+1 Karma
		I forgot to mention one thing, above: The ulitimate flaw in the religious argument is the belief in free will. It's a gigantic illusion that does not comport with what we know about the physical universe. Everything runs on determinsism or randomness. That's it. I suppose one can conjure up a god to transcend that limitation, but all observable physical phenomena falls into one of those two categories. There's no evidence that it's any different for the biochemical and electrical processes of the human brain. I've read about igtheism/ignosticism, and it's a cool concept. It's the the same idea as saying that the idea of a supernatural god is orthogonal to your reality, but less geeky.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		(Guest) Steve C says	+0 Karma
		To Dun Cow: I do plan on responding, mate, it's just that time is running short, and the post was getting quite long, and not near finished. I'll have to finish it later.
			- Author's History - 09 April, 2007

		shin says	+0 Karma
		"By the way, statistics have been tortured in this thread. That God either exists or doesn't, and therefore there must be a 50-50 chance that He does, makes as much sense as saying, "Either my lottery ticket will win or lose, so I therefore have a 50-50 chance of winning the pot." Obviously, flawed reasoning." take this metaphor: the chance of getting head/tail when tossing a coin does not have anything to do with your chance of winning a lottery. that's what I have been explaining in the previous posts. That the question whether there is supernatural entity really doesn't have anything to do with whatever scientific facts you already found and will find. because it's supernatural, it's beyond nature. so it's just up to you to believe that this physical universe we live in is all that there is or there could be something more, something outside the nature of this universe. be it another universe with completely different set of laws, supernatural entity or whatever. it's more of philosophical question rather than scientific one.
			- Author's History - 10 April, 2007

		Visible says	+1 Karma
		I hadn't heard the phrase that god is orthogonal to your reality before, but I think i still like igtheism better. To be orthogonal implies that both you and god exist, however, independently. Independence is defined as: P(A,B)=P(A)P(B). So to be able to claim, at least in my probability world, that god is orthogonal to your reality, you'd need to find those probabilities, or some alternative. I'm guessing that orthogonal can be used outside of a statistical sense? If so, then it is a clever way of saying that you can't understand god.
			- Author's History - 10 April, 2007

		(Guest) Jonas says	+1 Karma
		A Danish scientist recently said that there where a connection between IQ and Aatheism. His studies show that religious people are genrally dumber then athists, which is possibly linked with what Ati metioned, the link between education and belief.
			- Author's History - 10 April, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		Jonas, i wouldn't be throwing those statistics around lightly, that is ammunition for a flame war if ever i saw one. Do you have a link to the quote or study?
			- Author's History - 10 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+2 Karma
		Religious people are dumber? Well, sometimes it feels like that , but I'd be a little wary of making sweeping statements about people's intelligence like that, primarily because it's such a multidimensional thing. IQ tests are a pretty simplistic way to measure intelligence. (And no, I don't score badly on them - overwhelmingly the opposite situation, in fact . So it's not some kind of personal vendetta or anything.) If I'm not mistaken, there is an established correlation between education and atheism - apparently atheists tend to be concentrated near the upper end of the spectrum there, as well as in the hard sciences. Maybe college is Satan's playground or something.
			- Author's History - 10 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		I THOUGHT there was a sulphurous reek coming from the teachers lounge...
			- Author's History - 10 April, 2007

		(Guest) Steve C says	+1 Karma
		To Dun Cow: Sorry mate, I really am a geek. I happened across this article because I was up late the other night waiting for them to post the DL.TV download. I saw this article on Digg, and it's something I had been wondering a bit about - in watching or listening to a lot of tech podcasts, I had noticed a general mocking and disdain of religion. I thought I'd check out what he had to say. I'm not an uber-geek; I'm not a hardcore gamer, or a coder. I did convert my deparment's files to a computer-based system, with crosslinking, and calling up of outside programs (in large measure because it was fun). I'm not in our IT dept, but people come to me to fix their computer problems. In the past I've purposely dumbed myself down around some people in order to be cool. I still try not to talk too high, because as the advice Abraham Lincoln gave (to paraphrase), "Talk so the common people understand you; the scholar will get you either way." Some men feel inadequate when you talk over their heads; why put them out for no cause? They're no less of a man because they lack a master's degree. I'm also an ex-hippie rock musician who served in the Army. The rest of this, is not specifically to Dun Cow. I joined in because in looking over the posts, there is a general equating of religion with stupidity, and atheism with intelligence. It may be true that in your experience people you knew, or the situation you found yourself in, lead you to this conclusion. Or it may just be that you find belief in someone you can't see to be ignorant, therefore the person who does so must be stupid. Either way, a superior attitude in anyone is unbecoming. At the end of the day, we’re all just men walking on the earth. I seek for myself to find whether what I read and hear is true or not. I may believe a man if I get the sense he knows what he's talking about, but if the matter is important to me, I find out for myself, and do my own research, and unless absolutely unavoidable, always search multiple sources, even in etymology. I've found too often to be the case that men who can't reason properly are considered authorities (I say this because if you look at the evidence these sort of men draw their conclusions from, it doesn't support their case, but often, the opposite of their case. And I'm not even speaking of evolutionary studies). Does that then mean I consider that I know how to reason properly? I'll leave that for others to decide, but if I know that 2+2=4, if someone tells me it's 5, I feel pretty confident he doesn't know what he's talking about. And I've always taught those in my charge to think for themselves, to find out for themselves, not to take anyone's word, even mine, but to find out whether what anyone is saying is true or not (generally I mean this in connection with Christianity and politics). Gentleman, in my experience, book learning doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence - nor does lack of it equate to stupidity. As to the statements that the body, if designed, is poorly designed, unbefitting a perfect creator, how many engineers do you know who criticize other’s designs, no matter how elegant? The bigger question is not that parts fail or in what order, but why do we die? But death is to your benefit. And to paraphrase a response given to me somewhere back in the thread, do you think that Christians have never considered these things? The book of Job, which some consider to be the oldest book on the earth (extant), deals with this question: If a man is obedient to God, who is good, then why does the man suffer? (Yes this pre-dates the Christian age, but God never changes; therefore the question and answer are still the same.) It also has been stated that we don’t have the scriptures as written; this is also wrong. The field of textual criticism is a science - there is more (by far, and I mean by far) documentary evidence and extant manuscripts for the New Testament than for any book in antiquity. Books like the Odyssey, Tacitus, and the like have 10 - 15 manuscripts at best - the N.T. has thousands; that is not an exaggeration. But someone may mention “Q”, the supposed source text of the gospels. This is an imaginary document. For such a supposed important document, and with all the manuscript evidence for the gospels, it is quite odd that not one line of this text has ever been found anywhere, nor any mention of it in antiquity - only modern man has cooked it up. They have a theory, and imagine a document in order to have their theory fit. It isn’t science; it’s faith that God isn’t real, therefore there must be evidence somewhere, even if there isn’t any. Evolution is only a faith that rejects God. It is indeed a faith, because as much as once held assumptions (such as various things once considered vestigial, that have been found to have a different function) about the body have fallen by the wayside as knowledge of the body progresses, nevertheless you continue to believe. Even if evolution were true, at most all it can do is concern itself with the progression of matter; it can neither explain the existence of the matter, nor how it became alive. Nor will it ever be able to. That is faith as it has been defined in this thread - belief in something in which there is no proof.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		Ati says	+1 Karma
		Oh jeez, that last post is really a piece of work, even without all the weird text formatting. Where to start... Okay, well, a little off the topic, but "Some men feel inadequate when you talk over their heads; why put them out for no cause? They're no less of a man because they lack a master's degree." You don't get a large vocabulary from a masters degree. You get it from reading, and talking to people who know what they are talking about. In casual conversation, I may simplify a few expressions, but I find that in serious discussions, someone who is not educted enough to understand what I say without me condescending to them is not someone educated enough to be worth debating with. Not to mentiont hat some concepts simply don't simplify I joined in because in looking over the posts, there is a general equating of religion with stupidity, and atheism with intelligence. There is a distinct correlation between Athiesm and a high IQ. Also, quite frankly, most of the christian posts in here have done little to provide counter-evidence for that correlation. I'll leave that for others to decide, but if I know that 2+2=4, if someone tells me it's 5, I feel pretty confident he doesn't know what he's talking about. You pick an extremely simple example. Almost anyone can work that problem out with a fair degree of accuracy. The problems come when applying that theory to things which require an education in order to be able to work with. I mean, hundreds of people who have spent their entire lives studying the evidence at hand and commiting themselves to finding a logical explanations for all this have a better claim to probably being correct than your average joe. Gentleman, in my experience, book learning doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence - nor does lack of it equate to stupidity. Your right. 'Book learning' as you so quaintly put it, is not the same as intelligence. However, a mind without knowledge is like a car without gas, or a computer without a hardrive: it goes nowhere. And as long as the knowledge in books is from a reputable source, and can be tested, it should be used to make further discovies. Knowledge is the most valuable thing on earth. Also, aside from 'book learning', what would you suggest as an alternative? As to the statements that the body, if designed, is poorly designed, unbefitting a perfect creator, how many engineers do you know who criticize other’s designs, no matter how elegant? You'll note that even though these designers are not perfect (as your god purports to be) that they still don't have circuits that lead nowhere, or little explosives that go off when you try to type the letter 'G'... And to paraphrase a response given to me somewhere back in the thread, do you think that Christians have never considered these things? The book of Job, which some consider to be the oldest book on the earth (extant), deals with this question: If a man is obedient to God, who is good, then why does the man suffer? (Yes this pre-dates the Christian age, but God never changes; therefore the question and answer are still the same.) That is one of the simplest counter-arguments to christianity that I can think of. It's probably the most severe one that found its way into the bible. And frankly, most of the christians I know DON'T ask these questions. When I ask them, the either give a blatantly incorrect fact, or give a totally absurd hypothesis that won't stand up to even a rudimentry examination. Evolution is only a faith that rejects God. It is indeed a faith, because as much as once held assumptions (such as various things once considered vestigial, that have been found to have a different function) about the body have fallen by the wayside as knowledge of the body progresses, nevertheless you continue to believe. Even if evolution were true, at most all it can do is concern itself with the progression of matter; it can neither explain the existence of the matter, nor how it became alive. Nor will it ever be able to. That is faith as it has been defined in this thread - belief in something in which there is no proof. Okay, let's go over this assertion by assertion. Evolution is only a faith that rejects God. It is indeed a faith, because as much as once held assumptions (such as various things once considered vestigial, that have been found to have a different function) about the body have fallen by the wayside as knowledge of the body progresses, nevertheless you continue to believe. This would be an example of a blatantly incorrect fact. There have been numberous organs conclusively shown to have ABOLUTELY no purpose (or, at least, no noticable effect on survival after it's removal). Also, evolution is not a faith. No more than gravity is a faith. Every single SHRED of credible evidence we have supports it. We continue to believe because everything we have shows it to be true. Not because we have 'faith'. But because it seems to be true. even if evolution were true, at most all it can do is concern itself with the progression of matter; it can neither explain the existence of the matter, nor how it became alive. Nor will it ever be able to. Your right. That's not evolution. However, there are numerous other theories for these as well. There is no portion of our universe that requires a God to explain it.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		says	+2 Karma
		The matter argument annoys the hell out of me. Evolutional theory has to do with the process of progession and evolution of biological species. It doesn't pretend to deal with the origins of matter, or even the origins of life. The fact that you even made the argument suggests you don't know even where to begin in arguing your point. It sounds like you have an axe to grind with science in general.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		And evolution doesn't reject God. Evolution doesn't have anything to say in the matter. The book is called The Origins of Species. It is available in most bookshop. You can read it and stuff.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		poss says	+0 Karma
		steve C, log in so the karma you recieve actually counts
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		Nadeem says	+1 Karma
		Even if evolution were true, at most all it can do is concern itself with the progression of matter; it can neither explain the existence of the matter, nor how it became alive What do you mean 'became alive'? A very insightful comment I heard a few days ago was that the distinction between 'living' and 'non-living' hasn't been biologically meaningful since the time of Louis Pasteur. Think about it. What is the difference between living and non-living matter? Living matter is just a bunch of chemicals in a complex equilibrium carrying out various interesting processes, but it's fundamentally no different from non-living matter, as far as we can tell. It's a little difficult to avoid one's prejudices, but it's an important part of understanding the world. Subjective notions about differences between living and non-living need to be carefully examined before you can use them as premises in an argument.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		Fibonacci's Wench says	+2 Karma
		is there a correlation between atheism and liberatarianism?
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		says	+0 Karma
		Fibonacci's -- You know, I emailed Penn Gillette and asked him the same thing! He (or his radio co-host) said "no". I'm not sure about that though.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		Visible says	+1 Karma
		Even if evolution were true, at most all it can do is concern itself with the progression of matter; it can neither explain the existence of the matter, nor how it became alive This comment is really of not importance, b/c it is just saying what has always been said: that evolution is a biological theory, not one of abiogenesis or anything else. A Danish scientist recently said that there where a connection between IQ and Aatheism. His studies show that religious people are genrally dumber then athists, which is possibly linked with what Ati metioned, the link between education and belief. This type of claim has been around for a while. When I was in high school a guy came to my church, a Unitarian Universalist church. He said he was a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin and asked if he could interview me. I said sure. I found out he was trying to figure out why it was that the more liberal churches scored so much higher on the SAT than the more conservative ones. At the time, I said I thought it may be b/c at more liberal churches we are encouraged to think more than at more conservative churches. For instance, at the UU church nothing is given to you to believe, you have to completely make it up for yourself -- and interetestingly enough, UUs scored the highest on the SAT consistently for years. However, now that I'm older, I wonder if it has to do more with money and environment. UUs are generally middle class to upper class with a large pool of professors, doctors, lawyers, along with musicians, writers, and artists thrown in as well. The question is then for me, does the education and value of thinking create the UU, or does the UU attitude create the desire for education and value for thinking. I'm inclined to think there is some interaction, with a large main effect of the former.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		GringoStar says	+0 Karma
		I am inclined to say that smarter people tend to go to UU's. Hell, I've been to one, and I liked it. Not to say that I am a brilliant mother fucker, but I am an atheist, and would consider going back, if it wasn't an hour drive. imho, I think the attitude creates the church, not the other way around.
			- Author's History - 11 April, 2007

		(Guest) Steve C says	+0 Karma
		I may have failed to express myself clearly regarding what I mean when I say that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of matter; I know that it doesn't - that's the point. (And as to the crazy formatting - don't know what happened there. I wrote it in Word, then pasted it into the post, and it looked fine at the time. The random weirdness that is Word...) First, a definition. By alive, I mean the difference between yourself and a cadaver on a slab. The body's there, but obviously something is missing. The soul, lifeforce, however you wish to call it. 2 arguments: 1. Eternity stretches forward, and this a man can understand. There being no end to existence, is understandable; in fact, it is the only way it can be. But eternity also stretches backwards - but how can this possibly be? Yet it also is undeniably true. Explain this. 2. a. Evolution is put forth as the way that man came to be. But it is only third in line, for of necessity there must be two pre-existing conditions - matter, and matter that became alive. Eternity stretches backwards; at some point, the matter had to come into existence, and at some point it had to become alive. All evolutionary argumentation, e.g., "a fish swimming closer to shore, who could stay on land just a little longer..." etc., deals with existing, living matter. b. As to the two necessary pre-existing conditions, science is silent as to provable, repeatable experimentation. If there were provable, repeatable experimentation in either of these, the entire world would know - there are many men who desire very greatly for there to be no God. c. The search for proof of evolution begins with a biased viewpoint - namely, that there is no God. Now, I don't mean to say that all men or even any man purposely looked into these things with an eye to disproving God; though it's very likely that many do. What I mean is, a man who believes that God is sees the organization, design, and sheer mathematical impossibility of the creation being an accident, and sees nothing in the physical world that screams to him, "Hold on, this is not consistent with creation." He sees that an ape has similar structure to a man, and sees just that - a similarity. That the outward shape is similar, of course some of the underlying architecture will also be similar. But the case in no way demands that one is an outgrowth of the other. The evolutionist approaches the situation from the worldview that none of this was created, but only happened. This then is biased from the outset, and the result must be that the man is the outgrowth of the ape, and that all complex life evolved from simpler forms (in spite of the fact that both simple and complex forms exist concurrently), even though the case in no way demands this. d. Earlier in the thread someone answered respecting abiogenesis with a link to a page that said Pasteur didn't prove that abiogenesis couldn't occur, only that it didn't. That something can't occur, is near impossible to prove. That's why in our judicial system the burden is on the state to prove your guilt, and not on you to prove your innocence. Likewise, the burden in scientific method is on one to prove a thing does occur, and not on one to prove that it can't, "Scientific Method, term denoting the principles that guide scientific research and experimentation, and also the philosophic bases of those principles. Whereas philosophy in general is concerned with the why as well as the how of things, science occupies itself with the latter question only, but in a scrupulously rigorous manner...Definitions of scientific method use such concepts as objectivity of approach to and acceptability of the results of scientific study. Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are, without falsifying observations to accord with some preconceived world view. Acceptability is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentations can be reproduced." (From the Encarta, © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) This is why evolution is a faith. For though the evidence does not demand that evolution is the necessary outcome (and in fact there is much evidence that mitigates against it), and despite the fact that two necessary preconditions have not been proven by scientific method, but are only theories introduced by some man, it is nonetheless pushed as a settled fact, to be believed by all, with the caveat that you are dumb if you don't. The evidence is far more plausibly in favor of God, than not.
			- Author's History - 12 April, 2007

		says	+4 Karma
		Why are these necessary preconditions? Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of matter in the universe, it has to with the speciaztion on the planet. It does not begin with the thesis that there is no God. Evolution has nothing to say about God. That's not the same as denying the existance of a god. Darwin was a Christian and struggled with the theory because of that. You are interjecting data that is not part of the hypothesis and is not needed to make the hypothesis. And plenty of theists are actually okay with the hypothesis. The Catholic Church has made its peace with the theory, as had the COE, and the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Most Jews are okay with it. All that's left are the Evangelicals and some of the kookier Muslims. And there are biologists working with physicists on a model of quantum biology that will begin to address the questions you raise. Science doesn't end, science will never have all the answers, and any decent scientist knows that. The bible stopped innovating at the Council of Trent in 1563. And with that Encarta quote, you actually hoisted yourself on your own petard: science occupies itsel (with the how of things). That's as simple a explanation of evolutionary theory as you could want. It is how species beget new species. That's what is does. It does not answer where matter comes from because it never asks the question. For all Evolutionary theory says, YHWH is your man up until the creation of plants and trees and trees which grew fruit from seeds. Let's your man has Monday until after lunch, then evolution kicks in.
			- Author's History - 12 April, 2007

		says	+1 Karma
		Oh, and don't be a puss. Get an account. You'll be safe. That's what Michael is for.
			- Author's History - 12 April, 2007

		Dun Cow says	+0 Karma
		[I don't have down how to reply to a specific post, so sorry if I've messed up the indenting/threading.] To Steve C: As has been mentioned, the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to say any more about the existence of God than Newton's laws or relativity do; that is to say, nothing at all. Fundamentalist Christians seem to have come to some accomodation with the natural laws of physics that appear to be violated in their version of the creation myth, but they haven't yet come to terms with evolution. For all science knows, God exists, and if he does, he's pulling all the strings behind what is being observered. Whether true or not, there is no way to construct an experiment to gather evidence on the matter; it's not a scientifically valid question. Each time I drop something on the floor, trip over a rock, hit the remote and watch the TV channel change, etc., God could be behind it...or not. It could be some kind of unimaginable mysterious force. Who knows? It might be an interesting subject for a science fiction story, but it serves no useful purpose to worry about it in one's daily life. > By alive, I mean the difference between yourself and a cadaver on a slab. The body's there, but obviously something is missing. The soul, lifeforce, however you wish to call it. What do you mean by soul? When a bacterium dies (I assume you believe that e. coli and such are living organisms), where does its soul go? How about a virus or a prion -- are they alive? When you shut down the operating system of a computer, does its soul go somewhere, until it's rebooted? What happens to your soul if you were completely frozen? And what about when you were thawed out and regained life functions? Is your arm alive? What if it were amputated? Would its soul go somewhere? What happens if you get Alzheimers? Is your soul also brain damaged, or does it magically regain the mental capabilities you had as a younger person? This is not a perfect analogy, but to a non-Christian, fundamentalist Christian beliefs (and to an atheist, all such beliefs) appear as a belief is the divinity of Zeus or the Earth Mother would appear to you. You have your faith, but other people have their faith, and they believe what they believe just as ardently as you believe what you believe. If a fundamentalist Hindu and a fundamantalist Christian tell me about their faith, it sounds pretty much the same to me, with differing details. Each will say that the other is wrong. In my opinion, either one may be right, but they're probably both wrong (or both right in their beliefs about each other). At the end of the day, religious faith is an arbitrary and unsupportable explanation for natural phenomena, including how and why the universe was created. There are an infinite number of possibilites, but science deals with the testable ones. Science is different from faith in that its ideas evolve, and over time, converge on the truth. Individual scientists may not be to your liking, and scientists do make mistakes and go off on tangents, but ultimately, it's self-correcting. In any case, I take what science says with a grain of salt. I understand that the result of an experiment is not the last word. Would that religious people take the precepts of their faith (and there are many, many contradicting ones).
			- Author's History - 12 April, 2007

		Dun Cow says	+0 Karma
		To "Authentic Christian": > Being that God is perfect, every mistake we make, intentional or not, separates us from the perfection that would meet his standard. To bridge this gap, Jesus had to die. Without his resurrection, Christianity is nothing. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone dies, how does it make me more perfect? Outside of the book of Revelations, this is the strangest part of the Christian myth. To Steve C: Re: lung evolution...Do a search on "lungfish" and "walking catfish". > Eternity stretches forward, and this a man can understand. There being no end to existence, is understandable; in fact, it is the only way it can be. But eternity also stretches backwards - but how can this possibly be? Yet it also is undeniably true. Explain this. You are making assumptions about time that we cannot currently answer. Eternity may not stretch back forever. Before the singularity from which the universe may have sprung, time may not have had any meaning. That's not easy to think about, but I wouldn't jump to a supernatural answer. Many phenomena that were inexplicable at one time are well-understood now, and the supernatural answers have fallen by the wayside.
			- Author's History - 12 April, 2007

		Ati says	+0 Karma
		First, a definition. By alive, I mean the difference between yourself and a cadaver on a slab. The body's there, but obviously something is missing. The soul, lifeforce, however you wish to call it. 'Broken' would be the best word to describe it. However, there is no fundamental difference between the matter in a corpse and a living man. It's just that one is a bit less mobile, and significantly more prone to entropy than the other. 1. Eternity stretches forward, and this a man can understand. There being no end to existence, is understandable; in fact, it is the only way it can be. But eternity also stretches backwards - but how can this possibly be? Yet it also is undeniably true. Explain this. Doesn't have a thing to do with evolution. And even if it did, it's not true. It's entire possible that time didn't really mean much before the big bang. I mean, if there's no matter to age, there's really no difference between a billion years and a second. 2. a. Evolution is put forth as the way that man came to be. But it is only third in line, for of necessity there must be two pre-existing conditions - matter, and matter that became alive. Eternity stretches backwards; at some point, the matter had to come into existence, and at some point it had to become alive. All evolutionary argumentation, e.g., "a fish swimming closer to shore, who could stay on land just a little longer..." etc., deals with existing, living matter. Again, doesn't mean a thing. There are other theories that deal with the spontaneous generation of self-replicating chemical chains, and the generation of matter. Saying that just because the theory of evolution doesn't address these problems, there must be a god is like saying: 'Just because I can't use a ruler to measure the brightness of light, therefore there must be no way to measure it'. c. The search for proof of evolution begins with a biased viewpoint - namely, that there is no God. Now, I don't mean to say that all men or even any man purposely looked into these things with an eye to disproving God; though it's very likely that many do. What I mean is, a man who believes that God is sees the organization, design, and sheer mathematical impossibility of the creation being an accident, and sees nothing in the physical world that screams to him, "Hold on, this is not consistent with creation." He sees that an ape has similar structure to a man, and sees just that - a similarity. That the outward shape is similar, of course some of the underlying architecture will also be similar. But the case in no way demands that one is an outgrowth of the other. The evolutionist approaches the situation from the worldview that none of this was created, but only happened. This then is biased from the outset, and the result must be that the man is the outgrowth of the ape, and that all complex life evolved from simpler forms (in spite of the fact that both simple and complex forms exist concurrently), even though the case in no way demands this. Once more, doesn't mean a thing. You could just as easily say 'the evolutionists viewpoint is inherently biased because it assumes the non-existence of the fling spaghetti monster. Those who believe to start with see the evidence of his noodely hand everywhere they turn, and see no contradiction.' Also, if you are looking for a contradiction, try the entire fossil record. There are a number of examples of transitional forms, and similar pieces of evidence avaiable. d. Earlier in the thread someone answered respecting abiogenesis with a link to a page that said Pasteur didn't prove that abiogenesis couldn't occur, only that it didn't. That something can't occur, is near impossible to prove. That's why in our judicial system the burden is on the state to prove your guilt, and not on you to prove your innocence. Pasteur proved that maggots didn't spawn from rotting meat. He didn't say a thing about self-replicating DNA chains forming. This is why evolution is a faith. For though the evidence does not demand that evolution is the necessary outcome (and in fact there is much eviden