Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

[Glaucus]

Computer chips have instruction sets, these aren't used in all devices. They don't make a new chip with out such instruction sets. Or companies disabling a quad core to a twin core, rather than making a new twin core. What's the point you recycle and adapt what you have already created.
Or disabled sd card slots.
Or holes and circuits on a pcb board which are unused.
Or car companies using the same wiring harness over different models, even though the other model doesn't have half the features.
Pretty much everything will have old and unused parts still in it.

Design to perfection? We don't do that wither. Prett much nothing is designed to perfection and will have errors.

To cause arguments take the iphone4s aerial issues. Has that stoped it being a useful and successful? Just like most animals aren't perfect and contain redundant parts.

Remembering I'm not arguing for ID, far from it.

It however is a hood comparison to show the limitations and assumptions of science.

 

[MrRoper]

But you are putting human constraints on something that by definition must be magnitudes more complex than ourselves, Why cant this creator create something perfect? Why would he have to use a common "blueprint"? why could he not remove parts that are no longer used? Why do they have to re-use parts? why make design decisions that have little use to the organism?

and this is before we get into the whole who designed the designer argument.

However I see your point, that "Intelligent Evolution" rather than "Intelligent Design" looks the same as Evolution.

The iphones aerial wasnt redundant though was it? theyd didnt say "well all our other phones had an aerial, this one doesnt but we will put one in there anyway!"

 

[spudbynight]

I believe whichever there is most evidence in favour of.
Currently, that is Atheism/Theory of evolution.
There is always the possibility that (a) God will reveal himself or something, then thet would probably have the most evidence in favour of it.

Hmm... Atheism is completely separate from the theory of evolution.

Lots of religions are perfectly happy with the theory of evolution.

 

[Glaucus]

But you are putting human constraints on something that by definition must be magnitudes more complex than ourselves, Why cant this creator create something perfect? Why would he have to use a common "blueprint"? why could he not remove parts that are no longer used? Why do they have to re-use parts? why make design decisions that have little use to the organism?

and this is before we get into the whole who designed the designer argument.

However I see your point, that "Intelligent Evolution" rather than "Intelligent Design" looks the same as Evolution.

The iphones aerial wasnt redundant though was it? theyd didnt say "well all our other phones had an aerial, this one doesnt but we will put one in there anyway!"

Why wouldn't an intelligent person use same blue print and stuff they've done before?

The aerial wasn't about redundant tech. It was about us always being perfect.

Intelligent evolution is intelligent design. It's the same thing. Thus the physical eviedence is the same.

 

[PermaBanned]

I dont think we are technically able to do that just yet, and all it will prove is that we can create a species and quide its development.

It certainly will not prove ID. if we created a self contained, self perpetuating Universe and was able to control that it would illustrate ID was possible, but still not prove that we ourselves are subject to it.

I don't know why you would want to create a species, since that would involve starting from nothing, then working up through single celled organisms and the like. To get past that point would take millions of years, and if you did forge it's development then people would say 'oh, that doesn't count, it's just a single celled organism'. You know the kind of people, who don't change their mind but strengthen their beliefs in the face of new evidence to the contrary? Anyway, how is what you're suggesting different to say... dogs?

But yes, i completely agree with your last 'paragraph'.

 

[spudbynight]

I don't have a problem with Athiests. I do have a problem with some of the militant anti-theists around though.

Everyone is entitled to the freedom of belief. The relentless attack on people of faith from some quarters simply isn't cool.

 

[MrRoper]

An intelligent person wouldnt design things with parts that are not needed
yet we see this in the natural world?

However if we are suggesting that intelligent design is just someone messing about with designs and DNA then I concede that that might be true,

however that isnt the mainstream view of Intelligent Design!

 

[Skidder]

Agnostic-Atheist

 

[StriderX]

Perhaps.

But either way, i just wished people would understand that we have barely even scratched the surface of the knowledge that the Universe holds and its growing (literally mind you) by the second.

This goes for the other camp of athiests that use science in all the wrong ways to further their own arguments.

We know very little.

 

[Glaucus]

An intelligent person wouldnt design things with parts that are not needed
yet we see this in the natural world?

However if we are suggesting that intelligent design is just someone messing about with designs and DNA then I concede that that might be true,

however that isnt the mainstream view of Intelligent Design!

So you are saying humans aren't intelligent? And we don't design things intelligently.

How is that not mainstream ID? That is what it is. They acknowledge parts are re used and redudent parts in animals. So how is it not main stream.

 

[easyrider]

Why cant this creator create something perfect?"

Because the creator was not perfect....?


Also How do we know that the universe was not perfect to start with?

God gave man freewill...We have chosen to **** things up by our overwhelming desires to feed and nourish our own egos.

The perfect choice of the creator would be to give the universe freewill if God hadn't then the universe would be nothing but Voidness of meaning.

Next on the agenda Existentialism!

 

[RDM]

Of course it does. As the evidence for both are identicle. Any evidence for evolution is also evidence for ID, that doesn't mean it has the same weight, especially in science. And it doesn't mean we think ID is correct. But you can't argue the evidence is different.
The only difference between Evolution and ID is one is random mutations, the other is mutations by a guiding hand.

This isn't really true when you look at some of the more complex parts of evolution and the evidience to support it. I think Nitefly went in to detail about it once and while a lot of it went way over my head it was effectively saying that genetically random mutation was pretty much the only way that certain things could have evolved and that no designer could have been present.

Regardless it is a bit of a red herring, all you need to do with ID is look at the history of the ID movement and it's main proponents and you realise that it is really just a fudge. Creationists trying to discredit evolution and get their religion taught instead.

As far as the OP goes I veer between Atheist and Agnostic. Logically I know that I am agnostic because I cannot prove God. However I would quite happily say that I feel the current concepts of what God is are false even if I cannot prove it.

It shouldn't really matter, however when other people's faith starts impacting those that do not follow it then I will start to argue for curbs on religion's ability to do so.

 

[Glaucus]

Quad disabled to dual is the obvious one.
A general chip being used in a specific device. Where most of the chips function is unused.

Ever taken anything electronic to bits? And wondered why the PCB has unused circuits and holes?
Ever seen phones/tablets with disabled sd slots. Or other disabled/missing components. Despite the circuits being there.

It's simply imposable to argue that the evidence would be different. You might not like it. But that's the case. It doesn't make it science and IMO it's still made up clap trap. But the evidence would be the same.

 

[MrRoper]

So you are saying humans aren't intelligent? And we don't design things intelligently.

How is that not mainstream ID? That is what it is. They acknowledge parts are re used and redudent parts in animals. So how is it not main stream.

We dont put redundant parts into new designs, we may reuse parts that we already have, but we dont design something by putting parts we know wont have a use into them.

Like I said if intelligent design is someone or something playing with a chemistry set then I can concede that that could be true. However ID is normally voiced by people who have the viewset that each and every animal was designed for a purpose.

 

[Glaucus]

This isn't really true when you look at some of the more complex parts of evolution and the evidience to support it. I think Nitefly went in to detail about it once and while a lot of it went way over my head it was effectively saying that genetically random mutation was pretty much the only way that certain things could have evolved and that no designer could have been present.

.

Why?

It's not a red herring it's an example to make people understand the difference between science and the predictive nature of it and the actual mechanical method behind it.

 

[Glaucus]

We dont put redundant parts into new designs, we may reuse parts that we already have, but we dont design something by putting parts we know wont have a use into them.

Like I said if intelligent design is someone or something playing with a chemistry set then I can concede that that could be true. However ID is normally voiced by people who have the viewset that each and every animal was designed for a purpose.

They don't voice that exactly. They are well aware the variations, problems and redudent body parts. That means they do not think that they are perfect designs. You are mixing in creationism opinions.

How can you say we don't use redundant parts. We do it all the time.

 

[Eddie182]

atheist bordering on anti-theist

+1

 

[RDM]

Why?

It's not a red herring it's an example to make people understand the difference between science and the predictive nature of it and the actual mechanical method behind it.

So knowing full well how and why ID came about you still want to use it as an example? Despite the fact that it is also wrong and does not use the same evidence? Surely Newtonian mavity would be a better example, it being Science that we know is wrong and yet we still use it because it works for most things at the scale we need?

Comparing ID and evolution just cheapens evolution IMO.

 

[easyrider]

Humans define themselves through the act of living (and dying).
Living is a series of interactions with other humans and their choices.
Alienation is a condition of modern life we cannot avoid.
Humans have free will and with that comes despair.
Free will implies responsibility for choices and actions.
Free will also means that life itself is a choice, once one is self-aware.
Life is a series of choices, creating anxiety and stress.
Decisions seldom are without any negative consequences.
One must commit to decisions, or they aren’t authentic decisions.
Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
Life either has no meaning (atheists) or the meaning cannot be understood (theists).
Events are random and even cruel, as opposed to a belief in Karma and universal justice.

So let me get this straight?

All you atheists believe life has no meaning?

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

I wonder if people will just except the fact that we die and become compost rather than this need to believe there is something tangible at the end.