'Bout Time For A "Religion Sucks" Thread, Ain't It?

[Chizzang]

Religion is just man's early attempts at cosmology, that's all. The evidence that has lead us to the Big Bang is only our latest attempt at cosmology. Within the next year, if CERN keeps working, we'll have more eveidence to study and we will update our latest theory of how it all started accordingly.

We now have photographic evidence that the Earth isn't supported by elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle.

I don't know of anyone who thinks an elephant holds the world up

[clenz]

I don't know of anyone who thinks an elephant holds the world up

I know people who still think the world is flat, they don't believe in god either, but the elephant holding the world up is new. Is that part of the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[houndawg]

Religion is just man's early attempts at cosmology, that's all. The evidence that has lead us to the Big Bang is only our latest attempt at cosmology. Within the next year, if CERN keeps working, we'll have more eveidence to study and we will update our latest theory of how it all started accordingly.

We now have photographic evidence that the Earth isn't supported by elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle.

I don't know of anyone who thinks an elephant holds the world up

Exactly. But lots of people used to believe it.

We now have evidence that the theory is incorrect and we can move on.

We have also discovered more than 400 extra-solar planets so far, with more being found every day. It's a virtual certainty that there is intelligent life out there with it's own version of how things got started.

[clenz]

I don't know of anyone who thinks an elephant holds the world up

Exactly. But lots of people used to believe it.

We now have evidence that the theory is incorrect and we can move on.

We have also discovered more than 400 extra-solar planets so far, with more being found every day. It's a virtual certainty that there is intelligent life out there with it's own version of how things got started.

Can you prove that though?

I'm not saying I believe the Bible to the word, but if everything started from nothing going KABOOM I'm much more likely to believe there was some force behind it other than there was nothingness in vast space and then KA-FUCKING-BOOMERS!!!!

[ToTheLeft]

I don't know of anyone who thinks an elephant holds the world up

Exactly. But lots of people used to believe it.

We now have evidence that the theory is incorrect and we can move on.

We have also discovered more than 400 extra-solar planets so far, with more being found every day. It's a virtual certainty that there is intelligent life out there with it's own version of how things got started.

"Virtual certainty", even tho experts (and I hate when people use this line but it's too late for me to dig up references, so hopefully it's something that someone has heard of, otherwise I'll find info tomorrow) have done tons of studies that found that the Earth is so fine-tuned in its complexity that there is a microscopic chance of life existing under other conditions, even off by a hundredth of an inch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

That's the idea I am getting at, but I know wikipeida is far from scholarly.

Either way, you can only believe what you are convinced to be true. That being said, you should check out Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" if you haven't already for a smarter, better explanation than i could give.

[houndawg]

Exactly. But lots of people used to believe it.

We now have evidence that the theory is incorrect and we can move on.

We have also discovered more than 400 extra-solar planets so far, with more being found every day. It's a virtual certainty that there is intelligent life out there with it's own version of how things got started.

Can you prove that though?

I'm not saying I believe the Bible to the word, but if everything started from nothing going KABOOM I'm much more likely to believe there was some force behind it other than there was nothingness in vast space and then KA-****-BOOMERS!!!!

I didn't say it was proven, it's a THEORY based on the best evidence we have now. There will be some exciting developments in this field over the next few years as CERN ramps up, and as we learn more it is certain that the theory will be modified to fit the new evidence.

[houndawg]

Exactly. But lots of people used to believe it.

We now have evidence that the theory is incorrect and we can move on.

We have also discovered more than 400 extra-solar planets so far, with more being found every day. It's a virtual certainty that there is intelligent life out there with it's own version of how things got started.

"Virtual certainty", even tho experts (and I hate when people use this line but it's too late for me to dig up references, so hopefully it's something that someone has heard of, otherwise I'll find info tomorrow) have done tons of studies that found that the Earth is so fine-tuned in its complexity that there is a microscopic chance of life existing under other conditions, even off by a hundredth of an inch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

That's the idea I am getting at, but I know wikipeida is far from scholarly.

Either way, you can only believe what you are convinced to be true. That being said, you should check out Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" if you haven't already for a smarter, better explanation than i could give.

What do you mean by "other conditions"? Life exists without sunlight in caves and there are life forms that live in the depths of the abyss that breathe hydrogen sulfide. Lots of these "finely tuned" theories were proposed back when scientists believed that planets were an anomaly around stars because we had no evidence that any planets existed outside our solar system. Now it's looking like stars with planets are more common than those without them.

[ToTheLeft]

Believe what you want, but passing off things you disagree with as "outdated" when there are studies from very, very recently that prove the same things....

Such as:

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-282147-4
John D. Barrow, 2003. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-375-42221-8
Paul Davies, 1982. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-24212-6
Simon Conway Morris, 2003. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ward, P. D., and Brownlee, D., 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer Verlag.

I'm pretty sure they knew about other solar systems in 03.

[JoltinJoe]

Believe what you want, but passing off things you disagree with as "outdated" when there are studies from very, very recently that prove the same things....

Such as:

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-282147-4
John D. Barrow, 2003. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-375-42221-8
Paul Davies, 1982. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-24212-6
Simon Conway Morris, 2003. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ward, P. D., and Brownlee, D., 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer Verlag.

I'm pretty sure they knew about other solar systems in 03.

I knew this biologist who was also a priest. He felt his studies as a biologist only deepened his understanding that there was a creator who ordered things.

He explained himself this way. If you went to the track, and a 100-1 shot came in, you would be surprised. If it happened again, you might get suspicious. If it kept happening over and over, you would be sure that the races were fixed.

From a scientific perspective, our existence depends on a sequence of remote probabilities, too numerous to count, occurring one after another, as well as the simultaneous existence of highly unlikely conditions, again too many to count.

[mainejeff]

Religion is so 20th Century.

[ToTheLeft]

Believe what you want, but passing off things you disagree with as "outdated" when there are studies from very, very recently that prove the same things....

Such as:

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-282147-4
John D. Barrow, 2003. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-375-42221-8
Paul Davies, 1982. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-24212-6
Simon Conway Morris, 2003. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ward, P. D., and Brownlee, D., 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer Verlag.

I'm pretty sure they knew about other solar systems in 03.

I knew this biologist who was also a priest. He felt his studies as a biologist only deepened his understanding that there was a creator who ordered things.

He explained himself this way. If you went to the track, and a 100-1 shot came in, you would be surprised. If it happened again, you might get suspicious. If it kept happening over and over, you would be sure that the races were fixed.

From a scientific perspective, our existence depends on a sequence of remote probabilities, too numerous to count, occurring one after another, as well as the simultaneous existence of highly unlikely conditions, again too many to count.

Precisely.

[houndawg]

Believe what you want, but passing off things you disagree with as "outdated" when there are studies from very, very recently that prove the same things....

Such as:

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-282147-4
John D. Barrow, 2003. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-375-42221-8
Paul Davies, 1982. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-24212-6
Simon Conway Morris, 2003. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ward, P. D., and Brownlee, D., 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer Verlag.

I'm pretty sure they knew about other solar systems in 03.

I knew this biologist who was also a priest. He felt his studies as a biologist only deepened his understanding that there was a creator who ordered things.

He explained himself this way. If you went to the track, and a 100-1 shot came in, you would be surprised. If it happened again, you might get suspicious. If it kept happening over and over, you would be sure that the races were fixed.

From a scientific perspective, our existence depends on a sequence of remote probabilities, too numerous to count, occurring one after another, as well as the simultaneous existence of highly unlikely conditions, again too many to count.

Check your math, probabilities you describe as microscopic become near certain when you are talking about billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars with planets....doesn't leave the creator much time to oversee all happenings on Earth. Heck, we're just as likely be a contamination in an enormous petri dish as we are to be the "creators" magnum opus.

BTW, if you like Frank Tipler, check out The Physics of Immortality.

[JoltinJoe]

I knew this biologist who was also a priest. He felt his studies as a biologist only deepened his understanding that there was a creator who ordered things.

He explained himself this way. If you went to the track, and a 100-1 shot came in, you would be surprised. If it happened again, you might get suspicious. If it kept happening over and over, you would be sure that the races were fixed.

From a scientific perspective, our existence depends on a sequence of remote probabilities, too numerous to count, occurring one after another, as well as the simultaneous existence of highly unlikely conditions, again too many to count.

Check your math, probabilities you describe as microscopic become near certain when you are talking about billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars with planets....doesn't leave the creator much time to oversee all happenings on Earth. Heck, we're just as likely be a contamination in an enormous petri dish as we are to be the "creators" magnum opus.

BTW, if you like Frank Tipler, check out The Physics of Immortality.

I will check that out.

Nonetheless, even if you were to say that the odds of each condition necessary for the existence of life is (conservatively) 1000:1; and that the occurrence of each event necessary for the existence of life is similarly (and again conservatively) 1000:1; to describe the possibility of other life as a "near certainty" is an enormous mathematical stretch. I would gather that the existence of a force which created our circumstances for the existence of life is far, far greater than the existence of life like ours somewhere else.

That being said I am always surprised by the way non-believers stub their toes on intellectual consistency on this point. Where is this life whose existence you call a "near certainty?"

I cannot see it and so I don't belieev it in.

[Chizzang]

Believe what you want, but passing off things you disagree with as "outdated" when there are studies from very, very recently that prove the same things....

Such as:

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-282147-4
John D. Barrow, 2003. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-375-42221-8
Paul Davies, 1982. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-24212-6
Simon Conway Morris, 2003. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ward, P. D., and Brownlee, D., 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer Verlag.

I'm pretty sure they knew about other solar systems in 03.

I knew this biologist who was also a priest. He felt his studies as a biologist only deepened his understanding that there was a creator who ordered things.

He explained himself this way. If you went to the track, and a 100-1 shot came in, you would be surprised. If it happened again, you might get suspicious. If it kept happening over and over, you would be sure that the races were fixed.

From a scientific perspective, our existence depends on a sequence of remote probabilities, too numerous to count, occurring one after another, as well as the simultaneous existence of highly unlikely conditions, again too many to count.

I'm right there with you Joe..!!!
I went through life - not the least concerned about God or the idea of some magical order... and it always served me well and I felt Religions served others but were of no interest to me - I still feel that way about Religions but my perspective on "god" has changed dramatically

Physics changed everything - completely BLEW my mind - there is a grand order so far beyond our comprehension - so dumbfoundingly bizarre yet perfect - so ridiculously measurable to the infinite - I'm perfectly comfortable using the word god to describe it

Science has afforded me complete comfort in the idea of "something greater than"

[houndawg]

Check your math, probabilities you describe as microscopic become near certain when you are talking about billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars with planets....doesn't leave the creator much time to oversee all happenings on Earth. Heck, we're just as likely be a contamination in an enormous petri dish as we are to be the "creators" magnum opus.

BTW, if you like Frank Tipler, check out The Physics of Immortality.

I will check that out.

Nonetheless, even if you were to say that the odds of each condition necessary for the existence of life is (conservatively) 1000:1; and that the occurrence of each event necessary for the existence of life is similarly (and again conservatively) 1000:1; to describe the possibility of other life as a "near certainty" is an enormous mathematical stretch. I would gather that the existence of a force which created our circumstances for the existence of life is far, far greater than the existence of life like ours somewhere else.

That being said I am always surprised by the way non-believers stub their toes on intellectual consistency on this point. Where is this life whose existence you call a "near certainty?"

I cannot see it and so I don't belieev it in.

What the heck does that mean?


Would you show me the calculation that you think shows life to be an enormous mathmatical stretch?

Why would this creator not establish life throughout the universe? What are all those other planets for that we've never known existed until the last few years?

[Chizzang]

I will check that out.

Nonetheless, even if you were to say that the odds of each condition necessary for the existence of life is (conservatively) 1000:1; and that the occurrence of each event necessary for the existence of life is similarly (and again conservatively) 1000:1; to describe the possibility of other life as a "near certainty" is an enormous mathematical stretch. I would gather that the existence of a force which created our circumstances for the existence of life is far, far greater than the existence of life like ours somewhere else.

That being said I am always surprised by the way non-believers stub their toes on intellectual consistency on this point. Where is this life whose existence you call a "near certainty?"

I cannot see it and so I don't belieev it in.

What the heck does that mean?


Would you show me the calculation that you think shows life to be an enormous mathmatical stretch?

Why would this creator not establish life throughout the universe? What are all those other planets for that we've never known existed until the last few years?

The possibility of life elsewhere is overwhelming..!!!
Billions upon billion upon billion of stars if the odds of life were 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 there would be life abundant throughout the universe

[dbackjon]

Question - if life is found on other planets/systems, etc - does that change your faith?

If an alien were to show up tomorrow, would that change your faith?

[Chizzang]

Question - if life is found on other planets/systems, etc - does that change your faith?

If an alien were to show up tomorrow, would that change your faith?

Not mine..
I don't receive my guidance from a poorly written book - a book written by man to control men...
I am just aware of this miracle and open to new miracles daily

[houndawg]

Question - if life is found on other planets/systems, etc - does that change your faith?

If an alien were to show up tomorrow, would that change your faith?

This is what keeps believers up at night.

[houndawg]

Question - if life is found on other planets/systems, etc - does that change your faith?

If an alien were to show up tomorrow, would that change your faith?

Not mine..
I don't receive my guidance from a poorly written book - a book written by man to control men...
I am just aware of this miracle and open to new miracles daily

To me, God is life.

[Chizzang]

Not mine..
I don't receive my guidance from a poorly written book - a book written by man to control men...
I am just aware of this miracle and open to new miracles daily

To me, God is life.

I like that..!!!
There was a guy at MIT I worked with for a few weeks who used to say: "God is what is"

which is an odd statement but after chatting about it he explained "What is" and "what is not" are critical in determining truth... Science strives to discover truth = truth is "what is" leaving the remainder or what's left over as "what is not"

it's actually brilliant - God is "what is"

[JoltinJoe]

To me, God is life.

I like that..!!!
There was a guy at MIT I worked with for a few weeks who used to say: "God is what is"

which is an odd statement but after chatting about it he explained "What is" and "what is not" are critical in determining truth... Science strives to discover truth = truth is "what is" leaving the remainder or what's left over as "what is not"

it's actually brilliant - God is "what is"

I buy that.

Then the next question is "what is the Nature of what is (God)." And that's when all hell breaks loose.

[D1B]

Check your math, probabilities you describe as microscopic become near certain when you are talking about billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars with planets....doesn't leave the creator much time to oversee all happenings on Earth. Heck, we're just as likely be a contamination in an enormous petri dish as we are to be the "creators" magnum opus.

BTW, if you like Frank Tipler, check out The Physics of Immortality.

I will check that out.

Nonetheless, even if you were to say that the odds of each condition necessary for the existence of life is (conservatively) 1000:1; and that the occurrence of each event necessary for the existence of life is similarly (and again conservatively) 1000:1; to describe the possibility of other life as a "near certainty" is an enormous mathematical stretch. I would gather that the existence of a force which created our circumstances for the existence of life is far, far greater than the existence of life like ours somewhere else.

That being said I am always surprised by the way non-believers stub their toes on intellectual consistency on this point. Where is this life whose existence you call a "near certainty?"

I cannot see it and so I don't belieev it in.

I believe there may be a higher power and I'm comfortable with that, and I think most "non-believers" are in the same boat.

Joe, when you think of the "non-believer" try think of it as a person who (through logic, intellectual curiosity and mostly, common sense) has rejected the ridiculous ancient myths of christianity and others.

[D1B]

I like that..!!!
There was a guy at MIT I worked with for a few weeks who used to say: "God is what is"

which is an odd statement but after chatting about it he explained "What is" and "what is not" are critical in determining truth... Science strives to discover truth = truth is "what is" leaving the remainder or what's left over as "what is not"

it's actually brilliant - God is "what is"

I buy that.

Then the next question is "what is the Nature of what is (God)." And that's when all hell breaks loose.

Yep.

[JoltinJoe]

What the heck does that mean?


Would you show me the calculation that you think shows life to be an enormous mathmatical stretch?

Why would this creator not establish life throughout the universe? What are all those other planets for that we've never known existed until the last few years?

The possibility of life elsewhere is overwhelming..!!!
Billions upon billion upon billion of stars if the odds of life were 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 there would be life abundant throughout the universe

I'm afraid that the odds of life elsewhere might be significantly longer than that.

if we were to assume, conservatively, that the conditions absolutely necessary to support life number (only) 1,000; and that the odds of each condition happening were (only) 1000:1, then the mathemtaical representation of that number would be:

1/1000 (to the 1000th power).

To represent the numerical representation of that number, I'd be here all day typing zeros, and it would still be an extremely lowball estimate.