Faith...

[Theophany]

Pow! hitchslapped! His intellect and vast knowledge is awesome.

The main source of hatred in the world is religion... and it should be treated with hatred. Is this greaseball for real?

Surely somebody else has a straight head on them here and can see that he merely perpetuates and incites the hatred he is denouncing? Religion does not cause hatred, people cause hatred. The vast majority of religious people are not hate figures, nor are they hateful towards people of other faiths.

This guy is not awesome and his intellect is not vast. He is just another ****ing hate figure, but by being an atheist he can claim that religion is the problem, an Abu Hamzah for the faithless if you will. As an atheist, I despise those of his ilk.

 

[aardvark]

The Universe is not infinite though, and the statistical probability of life originating by chance are far too unlikely for even a Universe the size of ours. Even if there was a lifeform only requiring 1000 amino acids, the chances of those 1000 amino acids all being the same handedness is 1 in 2^1000 (about 10^300)... Estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe is 10^80. I know that that is massively over simplified in terms of numbers, but that is only a single requirement out of many for life... As well as all of the molecules which have reacted being the same handedness, they also have to be in the right order and all of the required molecules are conveniently together at the right temperature and right pH conditions etc

Life coming about without interference is practically 0... Even with 10^22 or whatever stars in the Universe, this can not compare to 'smallness' of the probability of the simplest life forms coming about by chance. The only thing which could make life likely is an infinite time span or a mechanism to create it.

thats not even remotely true.

 

[D.P.]

The Universe is not infinite though, and the statistical probability of life originating by chance are far too unlikely for even a Universe the size of ours. Even if there was a lifeform only requiring 1000 amino acids, the chances of those 1000 amino acids all being the same handedness is 1 in 2^1000 (about 10^300)... Estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe is 10^80. I know that that is massively over simplified in terms of numbers, but that is only a single requirement out of many for life... As well as all of the molecules which have reacted being the same handedness, they also have to be in the right order and all of the required molecules are conveniently together at the right temperature and right pH conditions etc

Life coming about without interference is practically 0... Even with 10^22 or whatever stars in the Universe, this can not compare to 'smallness' of the probability of the simplest life forms coming about by chance. The only thing which could make life likely is an infinite time span or a mechanism to create it.

I have never read so much nonsense in such a short space of time.

 

[xJcBx]

The Universe is not infinite though, and the statistical probability of life originating by chance are far too unlikely for even a Universe the size of ours. Even if there was a lifeform only requiring 1000 amino acids, the chances of those 1000 amino acids all being the same handedness is 1 in 2^1000 (about 10^300)... Estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe is 10^80. I know that that is massively over simplified in terms of numbers, but that is only a single requirement out of many for life... As well as all of the molecules which have reacted being the same handedness, they also have to be in the right order and all of the required molecules are conveniently together at the right temperature and right pH conditions etc

Life coming about without interference is practically 0... Even with 10^22 or whatever stars in the Universe, this can not compare to 'smallness' of the probability of the simplest life forms coming about by chance. The only thing which could make life likely is an infinite time span or a mechanism to create it.

Have you actually been brainwashed or are you just ignorant of facts that we are here and are alive without the need of an imaginary being magically forming us out of nothing?

Because an invisible omnipotent being that is in everything and is everywhere, always, all of the time is sooo much more statistically likely?

 

[Johno please?]

The main source of hatred in the world is religion... and it should be treated with hatred. Is this greaseball for real?

Surely somebody else has a straight head on them here and can see that he merely perpetuates and incites the hatred he is denouncing? Religion does not cause hatred, people cause hatred. The vast majority of religious people are not hate figures, nor are they hateful towards people of other faiths.

This guy is not awesome and his intellect is not vast. He is just another ****ing hate figure, but by being an atheist he can claim that religion is the problem, an Abu Hamzah for the faithless if you will. As an atheist, I despise those of his ilk.

No, he really is clearly quite a smart guy, did you turn off after the first 10seconds or something? His point is valid. Religion makes people do horrible things.

I believe today there has been yet another suicide bombing in Afghanistan but thats nothing new there is it, Yes we all know people will do immoral things anyway, but the point is, religion makes otherwise moral people commit atrocities.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

For someone who trolls the religious threads a lot you seem to be denying that fact there for the sake of point scoring....but I don't think you're that stupid to deny that this is the goal of Islam in many followers.

Actually, i have allot of respect for Castiel who, despite not being religious, always constructs posts from an extremely objective view point. It is true you are the troll here, since you have nothing to say other than 'rabble rabble rabble'

 

[mrk]

If you are religious, how do you rationalise yours? I realise you are not really supposed to, as it part of you, but surely you must question your belief?

I am an atheist so it is an alien concept to me. I just see no reason/evidence for the existence of a God.

I am not judging or saying you are wrong, just fascinated.

I tell people (now) to watch the film "The Sunset limited" - Not everyone wants to read a book so the film is the next best thing which is based on the book

 

[FosterK]

Just skimming through this, it seems as if some atheists are giving others a bad name. There really are some plebs in this thread. You get athiests who believe in science, and others who, on top of that, **** off organised religion and the beliefs of others.

Personally, I believe science offers more insight into our 'purpose' in life. To me, religion is both a doctrine of morals, a way to live your life to lead to a better society if you will, and secondly, a way of answering questions like 'why are we here?' and 'what happens when we die?', from back in a time when there was no other means to do so. In my eyes, with the advancement of science and technology, leading to a better understanding of ourselves and our universe, I don't see the relevance of mass religion. Granted, science still can't (yet) explain how we got here with regards to the big bang etc, but I think it's just a matter of time. I've got faith in science, if you like.

That said, I'm not going to be a shallow **** like some people in this thread - I respect the views of those who do have faith in a religion. Don't get me wrong, I think having faith in a religion is a beautiful thing, and everyone is more than entitled to their own take on things. Just because I have my own set of beliefs, doesn't mean I'm going to berate those who are religious and call them closed-minded.

As an Athiest who's read the bible, I suggest to some of the shallow and conceited people who have posted before me to do the same. You might just learn something about being a good person.

 

[Theophany]

No, he really is clearly quite a smart guy, did you turn off after the first 10seconds or something? His point is valid. Religion makes people do horrible things.

I believe today there has been yet another suicide bombing in Afghanistan but thats nothing new there is it, Yes we all know people will do immoral things anyway, but the point is, religion makes otherwise moral people commit atrocities.

Are you for real? He is the atheist model of his brother Peter Hitchens who vehemently insults everybody who isn't a Christian and berates anybody who dare have the audacity to disagree with him.

I watched it the whole way through, every last second of him sitting there berating scripture that is widely accepted as being taken out of literal context. By and large, people do not read the Bible and want to do some of the terrible suggestions in it. The same goes for the Qu'ran or the Torah. People who are incorrectly balanced take it to extremes, the religion does not make them do it. If they weren't doing it in the name of religion, they'd do it in the name of political causes.

The people who commit these atrocities are not moral people. Religion has not made them immoral. Get your head out of your arse for five minutes please. For somebody to consider blowing themselves up to kill others THEY CANNOT BE A MORAL PERSON. Religion has not done this to them. If they themselves were atheists they'd be doing it in protest of Western insurgency in their countries.

I'm in no way denying that terrible things are done in the name of religion, but this does not make religion the root cause. If I were to murder a cricket fan in the name of football, would that make football evil? If I were to commit genocide in the name of my country, would that make my country evil? Take some perspective for goodness' sake. Lunatics like Hitchens are no better than the lunatics that preach hate in the name of religion and the world would be a much better place without them.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Personally, I believe science offers more insight into our 'purpose' in life

Science answers questions like "Why are we here" and "What happens when we die", not religion.


I am not aiming the following wholly and squarely at you, but putting these points into this thread which were provoked by your mortality comment:

. To me, religion is both a doctrine of morals, a way to live your life to lead to a better society if you will

Firstly: we evolved the ability to live in civilisation from which our 'morals' stem. Name one humane or good thing that has been done in the name of religion that would not have been done without it.

Secondly: are you honestly telling me that the only reason why you are not out raping, murdering and stealing is because stories written more than a 1000 years ago tells you not to?

Thirdly: the religions the majority of the world subscribe to are based on text which are hardly full of good morals and social conduct, are they?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Science absolutely does not make a statement that an untestable hypothesis is false.

The closest that science comes is the idea that an untestable hypothesis is scientifically irrelevant and can be ignored. That's completely different to declaring the hypothesis false.

Sorry, I was wrong on this

 

[Deadbeat]

People make religion do horrible things.

Fixed.

I still cannot believe people are failing to understand this exact point - it is the people who further hatred and violence, be they religious or atheist, not the religion itself. There are billions of Muslims out there who don't make it a daily practice to crusade against the infidel West, or spend their evenings refining their terrorist plots in order to kill the most innocent bystanders. The holy texts if Islam, like the holy texts of pretty much every religion, contain a great deal of 'march on the unbelievers' and 'slaughter those who insult [religion]'. There are a great many vicious, sociopathic, hateful Christians who perpetrate violence in the name of Christianity, too - the only reason you're not up in arms about them is that they're not bringing the violence against your culture.

Hitchens, Dawkins, Condell - these people are exactly the same as those hate-preachers featured in a double spread in the Daily Mail. The fact that they seem to be intelligent enough to rationalise their intolerance makes them unnerving rather than awe-inspiring. Do you think Abu Hamza ever marched into a crowded urban centre with an assault rifle and opened fire? Do you think he ever drove a car into an embassy and blew it up? More importantly, do you think, given the opportunity, that he would? Of course not - he stands on the back lines, riling op the masses into a frenzy of hate and ignorance and sends them off to bring violence to those he deems enemies. How is that different from these three atheist crusaders?

 

[Johno please?]

The people who commit these atrocities are not moral people. Religion has not made them immoral. Get your head out of your arse for five minutes please. For somebody to consider blowing themselves up to kill others THEY CANNOT BE A MORAL PERSON. Religion has not done this to them. If they themselves were atheists they'd be doing it in protest of Western insurgency in their countries.

Dont have the time to address all your points at the moment.

They would probably disagree with you. They are utterly convinced they are going to paradise when they kill themselves and other people, they think that because of their indoctrination.

Im not saying its the root cause but it has played a massive part in ******* this world up on a daily basis.

Id suggest watching the debate between Tony Blair and Hitchens, it pretty much covers what we are talking about exactly.

 

[Theophany]

Fixed.

I still cannot believe people are failing to understand this exact point - it is the people who further hatred and violence, be they religious or atheist, not the religion itself. There are billions of Muslims out there who don't make it a daily practice to crusade against the infidel West, or spend their evenings refining their terrorist plots in order to kill the most innocent bystanders. The holy texts if Islam, like the holy texts of pretty much every religion, contain a great deal of 'march on the unbelievers' and 'slaughter those who insult [religion]'. There are a great many vicious, sociopathic, hateful Christians who perpetrate violence in the name of Christianity, too - the only reason you're not up in arms about them is that they're not bringing the violence against your culture.

Hitchens, Dawkins, Condell - these people are exactly the same as those hate-preachers featured in a double spread in the Daily Mail. The fact that they seem to be intelligent enough to rationalise their intolerance makes them unnerving rather than awe-inspiring. Do you think Abu Hamza ever marched into a crowded urban centre with an assault rifle and opened fire? Do you think he ever drove a car into an embassy and blew it up? More importantly, do you think, given the opportunity, that he would? Of course not - he stands on the back lines, riling op the masses into a frenzy of hate and ignorance and sends them off to bring violence to those he deems enemies. How is that different from these three atheist crusaders?

This. There is a twisted irony that this is a thread dedicated to shifting the inadequacy of aspects of the human race on to one of its own creations.

 

[bam0]

Atheists do not believe in a god. Agnostics aren't sure either way.

What about the people that acknowledge that they cannot possibility be absolutely sure either way, but lend no credence to the notion of a god? Is that agnostic or atheist?

Before you say 'by definition you can't be agnostic if you lend no credence', this is not the same as being certain.

Agnosticism isn't just being not sure, simply not having made your mind up yet. It can be an assertion that knowledge as to a specific point is unknown or indeed unknowable.
Too often agnostic viewpoints are dismissed as simply indecisive.

 

[RobotXander]

Not for long.

It's his punishment from the invisible man in the sky
He doesn't believe in me, therefore he is going to hell, helped along by cancer of course.

It must be a comfort to christians that "god" hates the same people they do

 

[BunnyKillBot]

This. There is a twisted irony that this is a thread dedicated to shifting the inadequacy of aspects of the human race on to one of its own creations.

Aui, even as a Christian, i have to say +1 to this

 

[TwsT]

If you are religious, how do you rationalise yours? I realise you are not really supposed to, as it part of you, but surely you must question your belief?

I am an atheist so it is an alien concept to me. I just see no reason/evidence for the existence of a God.

I am not judging or saying you are wrong, just fascinated.

i really want to laugh hard at the thought of rationalising something that is irrational.

but i do get religion i get why people are religious, and aslogn as they let me be not religious i'll let them be religious. After all i can't proove the beggining of time either.

 

[Castiel]

Science answers questions like "Why are we here" and "What happens when we die", not religion.


I am not aiming the following wholly and squarely at you, but putting these points into this thread which were provoked by your mortality comment:

Firstly: we evolved the ability to live in civilisation from which our 'morals' stem. Name one humane or good thing that has been done in the name of religion that would not have been done without it.

Name one horrific thing done in the name of religion that could not have been done without it. That is a false argument, anyone can see that.

Secondly: are you honestly telling me that the only reason why you are not out raping, murdering and stealing is because stories written more than a 1000 years ago tells you not to?

Not anymore, however religion was the main way to spread those cultural morals. The reason civilisation has progressed to this point has much to do with religion. The interregnum after the fall of the Romans would in all likelihood been far more barbaric without the influence of religion on the populace.

Thirdly: the religions the majority of the world subscribe to are based on text which are hardly full of good morals and social conduct, are they?

That depends entirely on interpretation. Unfortunately most people who state such things have not read the texts in full themselves and as such are basing their assumptions on the opinions of others or incomplete knowledge.

 

[Metalface Mark]

No, it's worse than that, it all boils down to:

Non-Believers: You can't prove there is a god!
Believers: You can't prove there isn't a god!

And then Castiel will come into the Thread with 80+ Posts quoting Wikipedia to all and sundry as usual. And somewhere in the middle the Muslims will show up. It'll get to 6-10 pages and die a death, then on the third day it will be resurrected...NO! Wait...

Its always up to people that say something exists to prove something, not for skeptics to prove it doesnt.

You can take supernatural activity and religion the same.