Seriously.
It's concerning that in the 21st century people still believe in myths.
I'm going to start a bigfoot religion.
It's concerning that in the 21st century people still believe in myths.
I'm going to start a bigfoot religion.
do we get to sacrifice things...Seriously.
It's concerning that in the 21st century people still believe in myths.
I'm going to start a bigfoot religion.
It's much more than myths. Doesnt make you more clever or a better person if you think it's all myth, let people have their religion and believe. You might argue about some religions and their opinions thoughSeriously.
It's concerning that in the 21st century people still believe in myths.
I'm going to start a bigfoot religion.
fine, let me believe in bigfoot.It's much more than myths. Doesnt make you more clever or a better person if you think it's all myth, let people have their religion and believe. You might argue about some religions and their opinions though
True, although its role has generally been one of dividing people, resulting in countless wars and the accompanying atrocities.IMO religion is not intellectually compelling, especially when compared with science, but the history of religion can be fascinating because it has played a large part in human events.
Not in our lifetime.Seriously.
It's concerning that in the 21st century people still believe in myths.
I'm going to start a bigfoot religion.
I agree, rampant secularism is a cause for much greater concern.I find those running down a religion a tad boring - so you´re not into it fine but leave those that want to indulge alone
Well said, some people have to believe in something. Myself I believe in the Caf, and BerbaI find those running down a religion a tad boring - so you´re not into it fine but leave those that want to indulge alone
I find those running down a religion a tad boring - so you´re not into it fine but leave those that want to indulge alone
I personally believe religion has helped us achieve great things, including scientific advances, great art and culture. Visit Cordoba in Spain and you'll be amazed at what religion has given the city.
In recent times religions have become far more closed and dogmatic, probably as a result of rising secularism. It's a problem but I think it's more due to the people rather than religion itself.
And I doubt a Preist reading from the Bible is any less useful than a 'scientist' waffaling on about String Theory.
Many people use religion as a means to live their life. What is wrong with a person living their life how they see fit? Although some do use religion as a means to spread their own opinions and agendas.
There are more concerning things that happen in the 21st century - how a person can act in an uncivilised and disrespectful manner to another human being, whether it be unprovoked, racist or sexist, sometimes using violence and in many cases causing GBH if not death. After so long, why...
Besides all that, do you have to have a bigfoot, lots of hair, live in the jungle, or any other entry level requirements?
spot onWhy do science and religion have to subsitutes? They can co-exist perfectly together.
In fact you could even say in some ways they share the same purpose of trying to discover the truth about our existence. I'm not sure about the Abrahamic faiths but the essence of Hinduism/Buddhism is to attain enlightenment by finding God/the self/life force( whatever you want to call it) so we can discover the truth and experience the universe as a whole which in many ways is what science is all about.
if they left other people alone there wouldn't be a problem at allI find those running down a religion a tad boring - so you´re not into it fine but leave those that want to indulge alone
I personally believe religion has helped us achieve great things, including scientific advances, great art and culture. Visit Cordoba in Spain and you'll be amazed at what religion has given the city.
In recent times religions have become far more closed and dogmatic, probably as a result of rising secularism. It's a problem but I think it's more due to the people rather than religion itself.
And I doubt a Preist reading from the Bible is any less useful than a 'scientist' waffaling on about String Theory.
Says it all
very poor.A most apposite username..
simple fact is, based on fact or not organised religion is used as a cover for people to practice their own predjudices. Choosing to voice/believe/practice the parts they like and ignoring the parts they don't, its usually all so subjective or twisted over time that the founders true intentions are impossible to know and all's we get is evil bastards using them as an excuse to oppress women, homosexuals, minorities, whover they want to really.I'm not sure about the main religions; they were a fantastic ethical code; now they only seem to seperate us.
I think people have ridiculed the knowledge carried down by the ancient tribes - too swiftly were we swept away with creationism, Muhammed etc - these people might offer some insight into where we are from, why we are here etc. Until they find the missing link between the chimps and ourselves, i'm still inclined to believe that we were put here.
Opinion is polarized now, the intellectuals do meet somewhere in between though. Atheism through scientific reasoning doesn't work, metaphysics doesn't totally work (metaphysics, chaos theory, read up); science can only show us a small reel of tape, time expands way beyond "the big bang", and we clearly aren't the centre of the universe. We just cannot comprehend time, or our own insignificance.
After a couple of thousand years of having religion forced down our throats, dictated to and generally fed, naturally for progressive humans, which we all are, hopefully, it is very easy to break down religious arguments and dismiss the existence of God aka a higher being altogether. Science cannot disprove Gods existence, it can only offer an alternative to religions ridiculous assertions; that the world is less than 12000 years old, it was made in 7 days. Most people know this to be bollocks, even Rowan Williams has hinted at its interpretative meanings.
Hopefully some parts of the Muslim world - what we would call the fundamentalists - start to take religion with a pinch of salt, because unless they do, the west, America particularly; will continue to use it as a tool, a slingshot to the east. They will sell bombs and guns around the world, then come back to these countries, bomb them, and confiscate the arms they originally sold to you. That is another story.
Just like this guy does I guess;I find those running down a religion a tad boring - so you´re not into it fine but leave those that want to indulge alone
Great point.Just like this guy does I guess;
Why thank you sir! Crackpot zealots have, of course, no bearing whatsoever on the poisonous agendas of Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists. And they in turn never did any harm to anyone as we all know.Great point.
It takes a special mind, wit and originality to find and post images of crackpot zealots. If I was as smart, funny and original as you maybe I would post some images of Mao Zedong and claim him as the face of athiesm.
Now wouldn't that be utterly inspired?
And it would not be in anyway tired, hackneyed, worthless or pathetic.
God bless.
tell that to the Burmese peopleWhy thank you sir! Crackpot zealots have, of course, no bearing whatsoever on the poisonous agendas of Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists. And they in turn never did any harm to anyone as we all know.
Irony. But we're going up a blind alley. On reflection it wasn't clever of me to post the pic - I just thought it was amusing. Although many people are animated by religion-inspired hatred undoubtedly. Maybe it was a cheap way of making a valid point.tell that to the Burmese people
Saying 'why is there something rather than nothing' is essentially meaningless Frosty. 'Why' implies a chain of causation, and 'why is there something' simply means the first link in the chain. It is equivalent to saying what is the prime mover / first cause, and how can this itself not have a cause. You may recognise it: the infinite regress....the issue is that we are here at all. That there is something rather than nothing (although nothing again is an interesting term itself open to debate).
if only there were more like you Frosty.This will run and run and run....
Anyway, it seems to me that we are in the amazing position where both sides here are completely missing the point, which is some good going.
TheRedFlag; ThatOldRedMagic
Yes. You may think that religion is wrong, and a man made myth. This it probably is. However, your position does very well to avoid the main issue. In fact, thoughtless disbelief often avoid the main issue. That issue is not why we are here, the issue is that we are here at all. That there is something rather than nothing (although nothing again is an interesting term itself open to debate).
It seems to me that this question is the question that affects, well, everything. Also, this question is necessarily theological, as the cause of everything is what people have commonly called god.
Criticising religion does not actually address this question, and so can be countered by the point (as has been made here) that religion is man made and god is separate from it to an extent, at least the question of his/her/its existence is separate from whether religion is true.
All these debates too often focus on religion as opposed to this ultimate question.
Now, before you think I am picking on you:
Escobar;dumbo;topper;WeWonItTwoTimes;Psmith; Im red2;
I disagree with your positions slightly.
Religion, as any man made phenomenon (whether you believe it was influenced/given to us by a higher power, I think that this position is fairly incontrovertable for a theist) should be subject to the same amount of critique and scrutiny as any moral, ethical or political position.
I have no problem whether religion for the individual makes them a better person, gives them a meaning for life etc., but this doesn't mean that we cannot question belief systems as a whole to see their impact on the world, whether it is positive or negative, and mstly whether it is true or not.
Again, this is connected to the main question (why is there anything rather than nothing) but it seems to me that if we are polite and do not criticise religion we end up ignoring this question, which will be to the detriment of us all.
Now, this debate can, and should include the merits and criticisms of any alternatives to religious belief (be it spirituality, moral beliefs whatever). I think that bringing these questions into the open and discussing and debating them is much more healthy than not doing so. Besides, the vast majority of attacks on religion (and indeed atheism or a form of non-belief) aren't actually that well thought out and can be countered quite easily (and yes, that includes 99% of what Professor Dawkins comes out with).
Personally, it seems as though religion is a man made phenomenon, and can be fairly pernicious. As for god, I'm not sure if there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a god. Of course, I would prefer to hear your opinions to the contrary and engage in a debate. Or we could trade insults (but where's the fun in that?) It's a bank holiday, so I'll leave the choice to you
Why do you declare knowledge of such things as forever 'unknowable'?Well for me I'm feel fairly certain there is something else beyond our universe for the exact reasons you state, the question of why there is anything here at all leads to the conclusion that there is something beyond the universe as we are able to perceive it. Now whether this something has a god like entity is obviously unknowable but given the perculiarities of the universe that allow matter to exist, stars and planets to form and life to exist, I'm willing to accept that there was some element of design in the universe.
thats really avoiding the question of why the universe exists at all. Trying to take yourself beyond causality and the beginnings of the universe you have to ask the question why does anything exist.Finally, something to get stuck into in this thread...
Saying 'why is there something rather than nothing' is essentially meaningless Frosty. 'Why' implies a chain of causation, and 'why is there something' simply means the first link in the chain. It is equivalent to saying what is the prime mover / first cause, and how can this itself not have a cause. You may recognise it: the infinite regress.
It is unanswerable, and maybe even nonsensical, unless we postulate infinite time, and therefore no 'first' anything at all.
It is my belief that the 'why is there something...' phrase is just a relatively recent invention of theologians to try and shift the onus of the infinite regress problem to atheists. It is nothing new, just playing with words. I am surprised you seem to have fallen for it.
our ability to perceive is limited to the universe which we inhabit, any such being would logically not belong to our universe and so it must be unknowable to us.Why do you declare knowledge of such things as forever 'unknowable'?
Hi Mike, I hope you are well! Thanks for the response.Finally, something to get stuck into in this thread...
Saying 'why is there something rather than nothing' is essentially meaningless Frosty. 'Why' implies a chain of causation, and 'why is there something' simply means the first link in the chain. It is equivalent to saying what is the prime mover / first cause, and how can this itself not have a cause. You may recognise it: the infinite regress.
It is unanswerable, and maybe even nonsensical, unless we postulate infinite time, and therefore no 'first' anything at all.
It is my belief that the 'why is there something...' phrase is just a relatively recent invention of theologians to try and shift the onus of the infinite regress problem to atheists. It is nothing new, just playing with words. I am surprised you seem to have fallen for it.
It's a futile discussion.thats really avoiding the question of why the universe exists at all. Trying to take yourself beyond causality and the beginnings of the universe you have to ask the question why does anything exist.
Of course it is unanswerable but that doesn't, or shouldn't stop discussion about it as that is how progress is made
Huh? What do you mean 'beyond causality'?thats really avoiding the question of why the universe exists at all. Trying to take yourself beyond causality and the beginnings of the universe you have to ask the question why does anything exist.
I find it interesting that you aver that 99% of what Dawkins writes on the subject is not well thought-out.Besides, the vast majority of attacks on religion (and indeed atheism or a form of non-belief) aren't actually that well thought out and can be countered quite easily (and yes, that includes 99% of what Professor Dawkins comes out with).
Personally, it seems as though religion is a man made phenomenon, and can be fairly pernicious. As for god, I'm not sure if there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a god. Of course, I would prefer to hear your opinions to the contrary and engage in a debate. Or we could trade insults (but where's the fun in that?) It's a bank holiday, so I'll leave the choice to you
Quite. You prove what you can and for those things that are not provable by current human thought processes, you leave them as open questions in the hope that someone else in the future will be able to come up with an answer.Why do you declare knowledge of such things as forever 'unknowable'?
But you want that being (/ force / whatever you want to call it) to have an affect in our universe. By which I mean you want this entity 'not of our universe' to be effecting entities that are in our universe.our ability to perceive is limited to the universe which we inhabit, any such being would logically not belong to our universe and so it must be unknowable to us.
causality is to do with time, one event, preceeding another, causes it to happen. Time is a property of the universe though and outside it has no meaning. In that sense, from outside the beginning and end of the universe are the same thing and it isn't a question of one thing causing another but why the universe exists at all.Huh? What do you mean 'beyond causality'?
The answer to 'why does X happen?' is 'because of Cause Y'. The answer to any 'why' question, is some cause.
The answer to 'why does anything exist?' is a question of what caused the first 'thing' to happen. That is the cause of the first thing, which caused the second thing and so forth. This problem has been talked about for years without any solution.
I don't know why you mean by 'beyond causality'? Are you talking of uncaused events? By which you would mean totally mathematically random events? Or events which themselves do not have any further effects? By which you mean events which do not cause any future causes?