Do you believe......

Dave! · 10-01-2007 12:41AM

InFront wrote:

You say you started out on this thread to correct comments attributed to Dawkins on alien life. Recently this guy wrote that he believed "beings will be found on other planets, and they will appear like Gods to us". This seems to fly in the face of what you made earlier as a defense. It appears that you and Dawkins may not be entirely compatible bedfellows.

I trust that I am misinterpreting you and you are not trying to misrepresent Dawkins here.

He very obviously meant by that that he believes there is alien life on other planets that is far more advanced than us (not a far-fetched notion to entertain, against considering the vastness of the universe), just as if we went back to homo erectus with an mp3 player and a mobile phone we might appear somewhat god-like.

InFront wrote:

I take a lot of exception to the suggestion that I only believe in Islam because it is what my parents and religious leaders say. And I would be very disappointed in their intelligence if my own parents and friends in turn only believed without question, like dogs, what they were told. In fact, I happen to know this is not the case.
In Ireland, there are a great many Irish people who come and join the Muslim community. They are not doing this because o what their parents say, and certainly it is not what their priests advise them to do. How do you explain their beliefs, you say it has to be based on their parents and religious leaders? So why are there ex-Catholics amongst our community? Because you are wrong.

I wouldn't think that 100% of people follow a particular religion because their parents do, but the vast majority of theists do settle for whatever religion they're brought up in, out of laziness, spiritual reasons, or cultural reasons, who knows.

Please don't try and argue that it's a coincidence that most of America is Christian, Israel is Jewish, Saudi Arabia is Muslim, India is Hindu, Thailand is Buddhist, etc.

InFront wrote:

My beliefs cannot be proven but that I believe in so strongly I would set the foundations of everything i do on them. This thread, as far as I can see, is certainly not about justifying or pleading ratification for one's beliefs to an atheist. I don't expect you to qualify your atheism to me, but expect the same.

Look don't take part in the discussion if you're uncomfortable doing so. I take part in these discussions because I think religion is based on a fairytale and it's important to establish the truth. I expect willing theists to defend their beliefs and I will defend mine. If you're not willing, then don't post in the thread, because your beliefs will inevitably be called into question!!! Or else simply say "I will not respond to that particular quote".

Steffano2002 · 10-01-2007 12:53AM

I do believe in God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Heaven and Hell.

Would I believe it if my mother hadn't been Irish and brought me to church and "Catholic school" (don't know what it's called in English)? Perhaps not... But I do. I grew up with it. And it comforts me. Everything time I need help with something big in my life He's here for me and I'm thankful for that. And I do believe it has helped me so far to be a better person. To make the difference between right and wrong, etc.

I don't mind what people think of me when I tell them the above. And I don't judge them if they don't "think" or "feel" the same way...
I'm just happy I have religion in my life because I honestly believe it is good and positive.

Sangre · 10-01-2007 01:24AM

InFront wrote:

Hopw many of today's scientists who believe in a the Christian/ Muslim or jewish version of God would you describe as primitive people?

And how many of those scientists were born Christian, Muslim or Jewish?

One of my biggest inability to understand those who believe in religion (and not a creator) is the fact they're convinced they were born into the right religion, to the exclusion of all others.

And it comforts me. Everything time I need help with something big in my life He's here for me and I'm thankful for that. And I do believe it has helped me so far to be a better person. To make the difference between right and wrong, etc.

Would you not consider yourself a better person for getting through it on your own or using your own conscience to decide right or wrong? (I'm not trying to be belittling by the way, just curious as to why you see this makes you stronger)

InFront wrote:

My beliefs cannot be proven but that I believe in so strongly I would set the foundations of everything i do on them. This thread, as far as I can see, is certainly not about justifying or pleading ratification for one's beliefs to an atheist. I don't expect you to qualify your atheism to me, but expect the same.

Apologies if I've made you uncomfortable, just genuine curiosity on my part. I've reached the point where I can't believe I ever accepted the Bible as fact and I'm fascinated why others chose a different path. Helps you to reassess your own position.

The fact that "something" is of lesser probability than "nothing" does not make "nothing" a certainty. I don't know how many more ways there are of repeating that, or saying it in new ways before some people get the point.

Most atheists don't have problem with accepting this. They have a problem with that being enough for a lifetime of devotion?

Incidentally, what type of degree did Muhammed have? Oh what's that? Its what he said that's important. I get you, moving on.

Steffano2002 · 10-01-2007 01:33AM

Sangre wrote:

One of my biggest inability to understand those who believe in religion (and not a creator) is the fact they're convinced they were born into the right religion, to the exclusion of all others.

I believe in religion yet I am not "convinced I was born into the right religion" at all.
If Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Hindus, etc believe in God(s) and feel it makes them better people/give them comfort/give them strength I'm simply happy for them. I'm not going to try and convert them to Catholicism...

InFront · 10-01-2007 01:48AM

DaveMcG wrote:

I trust that I am misinterpreting you and you are not trying to misrepresent Dawkins here.

I'm taking it from a quote in today's Irish Times, the 9th of january that he believes "beings will be found on other planets who will appear like Gods to us".

He very obviously meant by that that he believes there is alien life on other planets that is far more advanced than us (not a far-fetched notion to entertain, against considering the vastness of the universe), just as if we went back to homo erectus with an mp3 player and a mobile phone we might appear somewhat god-like.

My point is that a couple of pages ago Dawkins only said it was "probable" that there was "life" on other planets. But now, Dawkins believes there are God-like creatures on other planets in other solar systems. Fair enough, so he believes in aliens who have supernatural abilities, that's his perogative. But look at another of his quotes:

The patient

(Dawkins is referring to believers in religion as pateints)

typically finds himself impelled by some inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith.' "

And belief that there are creatures on other planets with God-like abilities, is not simply "possible" no, no, it is "probably" the case? In a finite universe, this is "probably" true?
How are we supposed to take this guy seriously? there is no statistical evidence to back that up. There is nothing to prove Dawkins is wrong, but how anyone can suggest he places his claims on evidence (the probability is there, but it is small: remember P0>P1)

Please don't try and argue that it's a coincidence that most of America is Christian, Israel is Jewish, Saudi Arabia is Muslim, India is Hindu, Thailand is Buddhist, etc.

Of course not, there are political reasons why Christianity passed into the Roman Empire and onto Britain and its colonies in America and Australia. Reasons also why deserted tribes in South America had the perpetuation of their religion "stranded", and political, historical and social reasons as to why Islam remained considerably in parts of South Asia and the Middle East and Africa (though this is now changing, and Islam is the fastest growing religion worldwide).
The fact that people in America were slow to change to Islam, or people in Ireland unwilling to change religion, does not make any religion any more or less valid. If anything it just proves that people are traditionally creatures of habit.
I hope I didn't give the impression that if I was born in a remote village somewhere in Ireland to Irish parents that I would mysteriously be born a Muslim, or if a 1985 Catholic was born in the hospital where I was born instead of Holles Street he would grow up as a Catholic. He would not, he would probably be Muslim, and I would be a Catholic. But would I really be a Catholic? No I think that I, if I were the same person, would feel very uncomfortable with Catholicism, or perhaps I would confuse that confusion with atheism. Hopefully I would discover Islam eventually.
I believe Allah exists. I hope that someday there will be Muslisms everywhere, I hope there is eventually a Muslim president of the USA. If I didn't what kind of hypocrite would I be?
The reason not everybody is Muslim is because they have not engaged with Islam, or because they have engaged with it but do not wish to join. We are still seeing the repercussions from religious seperations of hundreds of years ago. That is why you still have the old geographically predictable world religions.

I expect willing theists to defend their beliefs and I will defend mine. If you're not willing, then don't post in the thread, because your beliefs will inevitably be called into question!!!

I am only defending my beliefs in this thread in the sense that I am arguing not just my right to believe in God, but also my right to believe in science and mathematics, and that they exist in harmony with my religious beliefs.

I see absolutely zero point in any of us listing off the details of what we believe in and why. We can agree that faith and atheism are technically unproven, right?
If you have ever heard a Muslim and a Christian fighting over the Trinity then you will realize how completely depressingly disrespectful and sickening the whole thing is (the argument of "opposing" faiths, not the christian belief in trinity). Sometimes I think Muslims and Jews and Christians and atheists get so angry at one another they must forget which one they are themselvs.
Here is an unfortunate comparison because it makes religion sound too simplistic: but it would be like you and I arguing over which is a superior type of tea. All I am defending is the right of faith to be faith, and science to be science but also sometimes faith. And tea to be just tea.

Sangre · 10-01-2007 01:51AM

Are you being obtuse on purpose Infront. I doubt you're missing the point by accident. 'God-like' doesn't refer to supernatural abilities, especially coming from Dawkins, rather they will have abilities so beyond us that they will appear God like, in the same way the Sun used to appear God like.

And belief that there are creatures on other planets with God-like abilities, is not simply "possible" no, no, it is "probably" the case? In a finite universe, this is "probably" true?
How are we supposed to take this guy seriously? there is no statistical evidence to back that up. There is nothing to prove Dawkins is wrong, but how anyone can suggest he places his claims on evidence (the probability is there, but it is small: remember P0>P1)

Of course there is statistical evidence. As an atheist he feels life arose of its own making on earth. Simplistically put there are felt to be 343 quadrillion planets in the universe. The odds of earth being the only planetary body with life in the universe therefore stand at one in 343 quadrillion (ignoring the supposed life requirements as we don't fully know them).

InFront · 10-01-2007 01:55AM

If I thought richard Dawkins believed in a literally Godly individual, I think I might as well pick up the books I have on him and start making paper men out of them. Of course not. My point is, what reason or evidence is there in saying that there is probably alien life out there who are far more advanced to us? There is no satisfying proof. Even good old probability shrugs.

Edit: I've just sen your "of course there is statistical evidence" comment.

I remember reading an article in new Scientist about estimating the probability of finding alien life. They couldn't do it, Someone suggested that once in every one billion years there may be 33% chance of life on earth replicating itself, but NS wasn't biting. Now, bearing in mind that such a thing would be happening millions of light years away, and that they would therefore have been millions and millions of Earth years AFTER us, why on Earth, if they existed, should they exist like humans on Earth or be more advanced?! Evidence???

Edit: and furthermore, if he thinks theat they will appear God-like to us, presumably he's actually of the opinion we will see them. So he also thinks, therefore, that it is at the least "probable" that we will one day be able climb aboard a rocket and pop over to Zog to see them. Isn't physics great? What's a million light years between mates? I wonder does Richard have any suggestions as to how physicists should be designing his space ship?

Sangre · 10-01-2007 02:17AM

Basically you can't disprove there are no aliens can you? Therefore logically its a possibility and numbers indicate it will have happened, I have faith in the numbers.

Steffano2002 · 10-01-2007 02:22AM

Sangre wrote:

Basically you can't disprove there are no aliens can you? Therefore logically its a possibility and numbers indicate it will have happened, I have faith in the numbers.

Same with time-travel Sangre. It is not scientifically impossible. Thus it is possible... :rolleyes:

InFront · 10-01-2007 02:40AM

Faith is exactly the word. It is a question of faith in science, numbers and God.

These are great thoughts when you can't stop thinking about it! Dawkins is suggesting that it is "very probable" that this intelligent life form exists right? Presumably we cannot (well, "according to mere science" as dawkins might say on the matter of aliens) go faster than the speed of light.

And as we know from special relativity, physics forbids us from getting anywhere in less time than it would take light to get there.

So even a trip to the nearest star would take what - it would have to be at least tens of years, so what about the ones that are far away?:eek:

I wonder if Dawkins can persuade man to live so long?

Now if Dawkins, the biology writer with a second in Zoology is right, and Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist since Newton is wrong, it would really be a bit embarrassing for physics. But Dawkins, who said this will probably happen, is putting quite a bit of weight behind his own camp on that one. Clever guy, he truly is a man of deep faith in himself.

But seriously, I find the idea of us "probably" violating the laws of physics in this way really frustrating. Dawkins appearing on the scene and suggesting that it will porbably happen so Einstein and all of our wonderful physicists who dedicate their careers to space and time are probably all wrong is fine in a way.
But to then suggest that nobody else has the right to "illogical" beliefs (or mere beliefs even?) and if so they are victims of a disease, patients who must be treated, is well, illogical.

Sangre · 10-01-2007 02:44AM

I don't see why this thread should become about what Dawkins does or doesn't claim to believe, he is only one man.

But seriously, I find the idea of us "probably" violating the laws of physics in this way really frustrating.

If God can do it so can we.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 09:01AM

InFront wrote:

I don't particularly understand your personal attachment in Dawkins, or taking offense at my apparent belittling of this holy prophet of atheism, but I don't agree that all of his faith is based on science and quantifiable evidence.

he ain't no holy prophet and i'm not particularly attached to him but you keep making stuff up about him so you don't have to listen to what he's saying

InFront wrote:

You say you started out on this thread to correct comments attributed to Dawkins on alien life. Recently this guy wrote that he believed "beings will be found on other planets, and they will appear like Gods to us". This seems to fly in the face of what you made earlier as a defense. It appears that you and Dawkins may not be entirely compatible bedfellows.

and right there's an example. "THEY WILL APPEAR LIKE GODS TO US". does that mean they are supernatural, or they appear to be because they are more advanced than us? plase don't insult him when you're just misunderstanding him

InFront wrote:

I take a lot of exception to the suggestion that I only believe in Islam because it is what my parents and religious leaders say. And I would be very disappointed in their intelligence if my own parents and friends in turn only believed without question, like dogs, what they were told. In fact, I happen to know this is not the case.

please explain. would you be islamic if you had been born in belfast to ian paisley do you think?

InFront wrote:

In Ireland, there are a great many Irish people who come and join the Muslim community. They are not doing this because o what their parents say, and certainly it is not what their priests advise them to do. How do you explain their beliefs, you say it has to be based on their parents and religious leaders?

i said people usually have a religion because their parents had it, not always. some people look at what religions have to offer and find the one that is closest to their beliefs. that doesn't mean one is more right than the other, just that the mortal men who wrote this holy book agreed more with them that the mortal men who wrote that holy book. there's no scientific thought involved.

InFront wrote:

So why are there ex-Catholics amongst our community? Because you are wrong.

no i'm not mate

and you should have said, "in my opinion you're wrong"

InFront wrote:

Mathematics - has some of the most illogical, unorthodox means, methods and principles that you can imagine because of the irrational reasons to admit certain mathematical entities or axioms. I can go into reasons why Mathematics sometimes appears to me as utterly illogical and backwards in practice, but I'm wary of dragging out the point.

unorthodox, yes, but not illogical. and i'm doing a degree which is heavily maths based and i can tell you its logical

InFront wrote:

The point is simply this: logic is no pre-requisite to a belief. In fact, if it were, scientific, and certainly mathematical, progress would be greatly hindered.

no, it wouldn't

and i realise logic is no prerequistite to a belief for most people. that's the only reason religion still exists

InFront wrote:

The fact that "something" is of lesser probability than "nothing" does not make "nothing" a certainty. I don't know how many more ways there are of repeating that, or saying it in new ways before some people get the point.

god is not of "lesser" probability, it is of ZERO probability. there is a difference. an almighty being would have left some evidence of his existence other than some 2000 year old books written by men

InFront wrote:

As far as I can see everybody questions their own faith at some point, no matter who. For you to assume that I, or anyone else has not done so by virtue of the fact that we believe, is testament to the level of arrogance that you seem to deny.

again, claiming i said stuff i didn't in order to insult me. i never assumed anything of the sort

InFront wrote:

I would again re-iterate that intelligence is not inversely proportional to degrees of faith, there is no direct intelligence-faith relationship that I have ever seen.

then you haven't looked. throughout history, secularisation has increased with education.

InFront wrote:

My beliefs cannot be proven but that I believe in so strongly I would set the foundations of everything i do on them. This thread, as far as I can see, is certainly not about justifying or pleading ratification for one's beliefs to an atheist. I don't expect you to qualify your atheism to me, but expect the same.

you don't expect me to qualify it, you just insult it

InFront wrote:

CV, I can almost guarantee you (one can never be sure of anything) that while they may have used the words "law of conservation of mass", they are not about to publish a report to say it would suggest or hint at the theory that it is "probably" wrong.

did you watch the show? its one of the main reasons they're building a 27 km long particle accelerator. and no, they're not about to publish a paper about it. they're going to investigate before publishing anything, like all good scientists.

InFront wrote:

For yout to say you will "probably be proved wrong" about the Law of Conservation of Mass given this report you saw on TV, is fair enough. But there's no science behind you, it's all your faith.

OH FOR F*CKS SAKE I SAW A SCIENTIST WITH 20 LETTERS AFTER HIS NAME SAY IT. IT'S NOT JUST FAITH. AND THERE'S A HEAP LOAD OF SCIENCE BEHIND IT

Dave! · 10-01-2007 09:52AM

InFront wrote:

I'm taking it from a quote in today's Irish Times, the 9th of january that he believes "beings will be found on other planets who will appear like Gods to us".

My point is that a couple of pages ago Dawkins only said it was "probable" that there was "life" on other planets. But now, Dawkins believes there are God-like creatures on other planets in other solar systems. Fair enough, so he believes in aliens who have supernatural abilities, that's his perogative. But look at another of his quotes:

Again you're trying to misrepresent what he said and his point.

His point was not that they'd have supernatural abilities, but that they'd be so advanced compared to us that they'd APPEAR supernatural (technologically, probably biologically).

You're being disingenuous by trying to link that quote with the notion of belief in god.

InFront wrote:

(Dawkins is referring to believers in religion as pateints)

And belief that there are creatures on other planets with God-like abilities, is not simply "possible" no, no, it is "probably" the case? In a finite universe, this is "probably" true?
How are we supposed to take this guy seriously? there is no statistical evidence to back that up. There is nothing to prove Dawkins is wrong, but how anyone can suggest he places his claims on evidence (the probability is there, but it is small: remember P0>P1)

As you've said earlier it is statistically probable that there is life on other planets. Now considering that there are billions and billions of stars, and life is likely to exist on a number of them -- it makes sense to think that some of those civilisations would be more PRIMITIVE than ours, and others would be more ADVANCED than ours. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.
You could argue that if there's life on other planets then they would be exactly like on earth, begin at the same time, and so evolve at the same rate -- but that would be ignoring that (a) we don't know that the life that was created on earth is the only form of life that can be created, and (b) earth has been hit with meteors, etc.;the other planets that can sustain life may not be in the path of any meteors -- this is bound to affect the rate of evolution.

There are many variables.

InFront wrote:

Of course not, there are political reasons why Christianity passed into the Roman Empire and onto Britain and its colonies in America and Australia. Reasons also why deserted tribes in South America had the perpetuation of their religion "stranded", and political, historical and social reasons as to why Islam remained considerably in parts of South Asia and the Middle East and Africa (though this is now changing, and Islam is the fastest growing religion worldwide).

Yes there are political reasons why the Jews went to Israel, etc., but that doesn't explain why they're still there. The only explaination is that the vast majority of people who decide that theism is for them, stick to the religion of their parents. It's not up for debate TBH.

I'm sure I read a survey or some more specific research to that effect, but can't for the life of me remember where........

InFront wrote:

I hope I didn't give the impression that if I was born in a remote village somewhere in Ireland to Irish parents that I would mysteriously be born a Muslim, or if a 1985 Catholic was born in the hospital where I was born instead of Holles Street he would grow up as a Catholic. He would not, he would probably be Muslim, and I would be a Catholic. But would I really be a Catholic? No I think that I, if I were the same person, would feel very uncomfortable with Catholicism, or perhaps I would confuse that confusion with atheism. Hopefully I would discover Islam eventually.
I believe Allah exists. I hope that someday there will be Muslisms everywhere, I hope there is eventually a Muslim president of the USA. If I didn't what kind of hypocrite would I be?

That's all your own personal stuff, I couldn't tell you if you specifically would stay Catholic were you born into a Catholic family; except that you followed the statistical trend of whichever (Muslim) country you were born in, so perhaps you'd do likewise in a different religious environment.

But that's all circumstantial, so there's no point in speculating.

InFront wrote:

I am only defending my beliefs in this thread in the sense that I am arguing not just my right to believe in God, but also my right to believe in science and mathematics, and that they exist in harmony with my religious beliefs.

I see absolutely zero point in any of us listing off the details of what we believe in and why. We can agree that faith and atheism are technically unproven, right?
If you have ever heard a Muslim and a Christian fighting over the Trinity then you will realize how completely depressingly disrespectful and sickening the whole thing is (the argument of "opposing" faiths, not the christian belief in trinity). Sometimes I think Muslims and Jews and Christians and atheists get so angry at one another they must forget which one they are themselvs.
Here is an unfortunate comparison because it makes religion sound too simplistic: but it would be like you and I arguing over which is a superior type of tea. All I am defending is the right of faith to be faith, and science to be science but also sometimes faith. And tea to be just tea.

I still don't accept your premise that science is based on the same type of faith as religion.

Science says: "Well we've used science based on experimentation and evidence to explain this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this.......so hopefully some day we'll explain this."

That is different to:

"We can never know if we are real, if existance is real, where everything came from, why everything works the way it does -- so there must be a god."

It's not the same thing. You have faith in science, since you use it every day, and you have faith that we understand gravity enough that you will get into a plane.
We believe there is no god because there is no evidence to that effect; you believe despite there being no evidence.

Nobody's trying to take away your right to believe in anything, BTW. So you don't have to argue about that.

Crucifix · 10-01-2007 10:04AM

InFront wrote:

Faith is exactly the word. It is a question of faith in science, numbers and God.

These are great thoughts when you can't stop thinking about it! Dawkins is suggesting that it is "very probable" that this intelligent life form exists right? Presumably we cannot (well, "according to mere science" as dawkins might say on the matter of aliens) go faster than the speed of light.

And as we know from special relativity, physics forbids us from getting anywhere in less time than it would take light to get there.

So even a trip to the nearest star would take what - it would have to be at least tens of years, so what about the ones that are far away?:eek:

I wonder if Dawkins can persuade man to live so long?

Now if Dawkins, the biology writer with a second in Zoology is right, and Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist since Newton is wrong, it would really be a bit embarrassing for physics. But Dawkins, who said this will probably happen, is putting quite a bit of weight behind his own camp on that one. Clever guy, he truly is a man of deep faith in himself.

But seriously, I find the idea of us "probably" violating the laws of physics in this way really frustrating. Dawkins appearing on the scene and suggesting that it will porbably happen so Einstein and all of our wonderful physicists who dedicate their careers to space and time are probably all wrong is fine in a way.
But to then suggest that nobody else has the right to "illogical" beliefs (or mere beliefs even?) and if so they are victims of a disease, patients who must be treated, is well, illogical.

I'm confused...did Dawkins ever say anything about us travelling to this intelligent life or it travelling to us?

10-01-2007 10:08AM

InFront wrote:

Faith is exactly the word. It is a question of faith in science, numbers and God.

These are great thoughts when you can't stop thinking about it! Dawkins is suggesting that it is "very probable" that this intelligent life form exists right? Presumably we cannot (well, "according to mere science" as dawkins might say on the matter of aliens) go faster than the speed of light.

And as we know from special relativity, physics forbids us from getting anywhere in less time than it would take light to get there.

So even a trip to the nearest star would take what - it would have to be at least tens of years, so what about the ones that are far away?:eek:

I wonder if Dawkins can persuade man to live so long?

Now if Dawkins, the biology writer with a second in Zoology is right, and Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist since Newton is wrong, it would really be a bit embarrassing for physics. But Dawkins, who said this will probably happen, is putting quite a bit of weight behind his own camp on that one. Clever guy, he truly is a man of deep faith in himself.

But seriously, I find the idea of us "probably" violating the laws of physics in this way really frustrating. Dawkins appearing on the scene and suggesting that it will porbably happen so Einstein and all of our wonderful physicists who dedicate their careers to space and time are probably all wrong is fine in a way.
But to then suggest that nobody else has the right to "illogical" beliefs (or mere beliefs even?) and if so they are victims of a disease, patients who must be treated, is well, illogical.

What are you actually waffling about? What exactly did dawkins say and why are you saying it must mean einstein is wrong?

Rabies · 10-01-2007 10:25AM

Just to go off track a little. I know a mini debate is goin on between a few of you.

Thread is too long for me to read through it all.

Those that voted Yes in the poll. Did you vote yes because you belive in God or a god. Some people I know believe in a god but they are not sure if it is God. Just wondering.

Would it bother you if you happened to be brought up in a different religion. Growing up you realised that your own religion was wrong, say Buddist for example. You told your family you wanted to change to the christian faith. Would they mind? You would still belive in a god, but not the god of your family.

If you voted yes, do you think that your religion is right and everyone else is worshiping false gods?

Dave! · 10-01-2007 10:57AM

Rabies wrote:

Those that voted Yes in the poll. Did you vote yes because you belive in God or a god. Some people I know believe in a god but they are not sure if it is God. Just wondering.

Question: Who the hell is "God"? You say it like it's an actual person! There is no one "God"; there are many different gods worshipped; I presume though that you're talking about the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Rabies · 10-01-2007 11:00AM

I used a capital 'G' because I presumed that those that voted yes are probably catholic and God is a title of that god.

Dave! · 10-01-2007 11:03AM

It's the same god worshipped by the Jews and Muslims though, so just bear that in mind.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 01:48PM

InFront wrote:

Faith is exactly the word. It is a question of faith in science, numbers and God.

These are great thoughts when you can't stop thinking about it! Dawkins is suggesting that it is "very probable" that this intelligent life form exists right? Presumably we cannot (well, "according to mere science" as dawkins might say on the matter of aliens) go faster than the speed of light.

And as we know from special relativity, physics forbids us from getting anywhere in less time than it would take light to get there.

So even a trip to the nearest star would take what - it would have to be at least tens of years, so what about the ones that are far away?:eek:

I wonder if Dawkins can persuade man to live so long?

Now if Dawkins, the biology writer with a second in Zoology is right, and Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist since Newton is wrong, it would really be a bit embarrassing for physics. But Dawkins, who said this will probably happen, is putting quite a bit of weight behind his own camp on that one. Clever guy, he truly is a man of deep faith in himself.

But seriously, I find the idea of us "probably" violating the laws of physics in this way really frustrating. Dawkins appearing on the scene and suggesting that it will porbably happen so Einstein and all of our wonderful physicists who dedicate their careers to space and time are probably all wrong is fine in a way.
But to then suggest that nobody else has the right to "illogical" beliefs (or mere beliefs even?) and if so they are victims of a disease, patients who must be treated, is well, illogical.

he said life probably exists on other planets, he said nothing about going and visiting them. a swing and a miss. don't worry, one of these days you'll mention something he actually said when attempting to insult him

and again, you've only mentioned the least of his qualifications, most notably leaving out the PH.D, which you described earlier as an "amateur interest"

InFront wrote:

it would be like you and I arguing over which is a superior type of tea. All I am defending is the right of faith to be faith, and science to be science but also sometimes faith. And tea to be just tea.

no you're not, you're purposely misquoting and misrepresenting the other side of the debate. if you can't debate people without pretending they said stuff they never did, maybe you shouldn't debate them

10-01-2007 02:01PM

DublinWriter wrote:

Yes Conor74, nothing makes a point better than a 5,000 word post...

Clearly you believe that nothing makes a point better than sarcasm.

Anyway, too many words for you, or not enough pictures?

DublinWriter wrote:

If you're looking for some sort of unifed field theory that unites religion and science, then forget it.

Who is? I took it as being somewhat different, that far from trying to unite religion and science some scientists use their discipline to state that religion is bunk.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 02:03PM

Deleted User wrote:

Clearly you believe that nothing makes a point better than sarcasm.

Anyway, too many words for you, or not enough pictures?

i think he means a link would have been more appropriate

Calibos · 10-01-2007 02:40PM

Dawkins isn't trying to convert the likes of Infront anyway (by 'the likes' I mean devout though not necessarily fundy). He says as much in the book. Dawkins is trying to reach the nebulously religious. ie. Those that when asked whether they believe in God, answer, "Well, I suppose, well I guess, I never gave it much thought" etc Hopefully they will read the book and see the logic of the arguements against human religion.

And note that he is not doing this to convert lots of people to the atheist cause so that our numbers are increased and we can crush the believers and close their churches, Mosques etc. No atheist wants to do that. What we want is a secular voice that can protect everyones rights from being infringed by the Religious. Believe whatever you want to believe. Worship wherever and whenever you please, but how dare you('you' as in religious people generally rather than any poster here) try and impose your religious laws on those of other religions or on those with no religion.

Case in point being a motion in the UK house of Lords to reject legistlation that protects Homosexuals from discrimination brought by a group of Christian peers. Just because your religion has a problem with homosexuals does not mean that the state has to legistlate discrimination. Hey, Jesus said to treat your slaves well. He never said anything about freeing them. Should we bring back slavery because the 'Good Book' says its OK?

10-01-2007 02:50PM

Commander Vimes wrote:

i think he means a link would have been more appropriate

I thought it was 'netiquette' to post both the link and the content?

Either way, it's a good article by someone who, unlike Dawkins, is not trying to make a fortune on the whole religion/religion bashing merry go round.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 02:59PM

Deleted User wrote:

I thought it was 'netiquette' to post both the link and the content?

not if its 5000 words. generally only with news stories and stuff

Deleted User wrote:

Either way, it's a good article by someone who, unlike Dawkins, is not trying to make a fortune on the whole religion/religion bashing merry go round.

as opposed to religious officials that give all their money away to charity and live in basic shacks?

its funny how people only mention that someone is making money off something when they disagree with them. he's an author, hence he writes books, gets them published and sells them. if they won't sell they won't be published. he doesn't and shouldn't make apologies for that

Smellyirishman · 10-01-2007 03:17PM

proof.

10-01-2007 03:24PM

Commander Vimes wrote:

as opposed to religious officials that give all their money away to charity and live in basic shacks?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm. Read the post again.

I said 'religion/religion bashing'. I am as cynical of the Church's position too, and the wealth it has amassed. Hence I specified making a fortune on both the religious and anti-religious merry go round...

OliviaM · 10-01-2007 03:37PM

I believe there is a greater power over us. Yes I believe there is God.:)

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 04:03PM

Deleted User wrote:

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm. Read the post again.

I said 'religion/religion bashing'. I am as cynical of the Church's position too, and the wealth it has amassed. Hence I specified making a fortune on both the religious and anti-religious merry go round...

fair enough so. no one's forcing people to buy his book though. its not like he's saying they'll go to hell if they don't give him money :P

InFront · 10-01-2007 04:31PM

Commander Vimes wrote:

god is not of "lesser" probability, it is of ZERO probability. there is a difference. a

CV, there's no need to respond to most of what you say because most of it has been covered already and I don't see why we need to be repeating ourselves. But that quote is at the very least, a scientific falseness. Nobody can say it is of zero probability. I hope that whatever maths course you say you are doing is not heavily reliant upon statistsics and probability.

No matter how improbable something is, that does not mean that it is impossible. In Mathematics, the only thing that is assigned P = 0 is impossibility. prove to me that Allah is impossible, calaulations, etc.

Originally posted by Crucuifix
I'm confused...did Dawkins ever say anything about us travelling to this intelligent life or it travelling to us?

Originally posted by bluewolf?
What are you actually waffling about? What exactly did dawkins say and why are you saying it must mean einstein is wrong?

To repeat (for the third time lads) (I) "believe that beings will be found on other planets and they will appear God-like to us". This alien life was assigned Dawkins' probability of "very probable"
Therefore according to Dawkins it is very probable that life exists on other planets that will appear God like to us
Therfore it follows that they will appear to us
Therefore, provided you understand the implications of general relativity and space travel on a large scale, it follows that these currently held limitations are "probably" wrong. Well, either that or man will manage to live well into his hundreds

Statistical evidence for life outside our solar system: perhaps.

Statistical evidence for advanced life that leaves us in awe? I can't see why, wouldn't their planet have been born after ours in the big bang?

And thirdly: that we will see them, or that they will appear to us must mean that one of us must have broken the laws of relativity, given what you know about arriving somewhere at less than the speed of light. Travel to even the very closest star to us would take decades even with Nuclear propulsions methods, but this advanced life would surely live beyond that.
Physicists with a life's training on this have not even speculated such things.
Now if someone as esteemed as Stephen Hawking came on tv or wrote a book and said all this, maybe we'd have more respect for it because, well, he's a theoretical physicist and mathematician and he probably has evidence to back up these claims.
But Hawking? seriously, I don't understand what makes him an authority on eveything from theoretical physicis and violating Einstein's theory of relativity to "stamping out" potentially damaging cosmic radiation to the notion that people of faith be referred to in public as "patients".

he said life probably exists on other planets, he said nothing about going and visiting them.

"And they will appear God-like to us" - Dawkins. Surely such an advanced colony that Dawkins would love to live amongst as their footwasher need worry not about such trivialities of mere relativity.

and again, you've only mentioned the least of his qualifications, most notably leaving out the PH.D, which you described earlier as an "amateur interest"

CV, I don't know if you noticed that I deleted this from an earlier point on the grounds that it was so trivial and appeared petty in the post and you seemed to be of the quite embarrasing opinion that DPhil or PhD means Philosophae Doctor literally. But since you have brought it up again, and seem to suggest I am wrong then I will say it.

Do you know what Dawkins PhD was? Are you aware it doesn't actually indicate anything about philosophy?

He studied the ethology of the gene for his PhD at Oxford. Not philosophy.

I'm not arguing his right to pontificate on philosophical matters as the (rather unofficial but alleged) spiritual leader to the atheist fellowship of brotherhood, but if you do want to labour the point there you go. He has a second class degree in zoology and a PhD/ DPhil in the ethology of the gene, which is the science of how genes behave over time - which ones dominate, which ones are recessive and die away, which ones integrate, which genes compete with other genes and win, mutations - the science of evolution based on the flow of information. There you go, happy?

Do you believe......

Comments