lobsta

Not true. The majority of atheists do not oppose religious organisations - they just don't care. Atheism certainly is not a religion. It is not structured or organised like religion. Here be some highly amusing discourse between Dawkins and a religious lady. I'm positive she does not reflect the intellectual capacity of the bulk of the American religious however.

If I told you I had a cream that would make you invisible, surely you would want physical proof that it worked? If I told you that manbearpig has been stalking you for 4 days, surely you would want some form of proof? Yet you are happy not to have any proof on a topic so complex as the creation of the Universe?

Thank God for some sense finally! You are absolutely correct. God does NOT solve the problem, he/she/it only aggravates it. How did God create the universe? Did God have a choice, could he/she/it have created it in any other way? What created God? And so on ad-infinitum... Because humans do not know about the origins of the Universe, does not mean that God should fill that gap by default. The idea that some kind of intelligence created the Universe is far more improbable than the idea that the Universe came together 'naturally' (I don't really know how to articulate that last point very well). God creates more problem than he/she/it, solves.

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious. Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about. Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion."

My university lecturer once told me; "never underestimate public ignorance."

What?

I was under the impression we were debating if god exists, not if christianity and islam were correct. You can be as angry as you want, its not helping your case much, since I dont believe in christianity/islam your whole argument is fluff to me. We are. People believe in different versions of God. Stop being silly.

lol

In the absurd reality that God does exist, I think we make too many assumptions about him based upon nothing. How do we know he is good? How do we know how powerful he is? Why are humans so arrogant to believe that they are the centre of his attention, what if he is really looking out for...Crabs? If he was so incredibly powerful and intelligent, would he really be that bothered if his little minions on earth did not believe in him? I wouldnt. How does anybody know that God will reward an individual with 72 virgins for attaching a bomb to oneself and blowing up 'non-believers' - there are some who truely believe this. The truth is, even if God existed, we know nothing about him/her/it - as is reflected by the multitude of different beliefs. God most likely does not exist. By the way,global warming is a good thing. Fact. Who likes feeling cold??

Nice achievement mate.

Grind 'em up and inhale them... Clog up your lungs pretty fast... A tortoise? That would have a hard time killing you! Too big to swallow, too useless to do much damage to you... Grind 'em up and inhale them... Clog up your lungs pretty fast... Touche! =D> Most solids can be ground up and inhaled for the death effect... How about - One single atom of Neon. Atoms and most subatomic particles have already been proven to be able to kill you. Both using their given mass:energy relation, and affecting objects around them. On a different note, I wonder if it would be possible to freeze mercury and create a bullet out of it. Leaving you seemingly untraceable. Hm... :-k I think there was a similiar idea like that where they wanted to use "ice bullets" that could still pierce the body just as well as a regular bullet, but then melt away l8r. No way to get anything cold enough that it won't melt from the gunpowder burning.I don't think being hit by liquids can kill you. I was joking. I'm not very funny.

Our brains have evolved in middle earth. We interpret a wall as a hard solid object. If we were the size of neutrinos, we would think of a wall as mostly empty space. Because our brains have only evolved to interpret and process information of relevance to us, it may mean that there are somethings that the human brain simply will not understand or appear 'illogical' to it like quantum mechanics - theres that quote from the scientist whose name evades me; "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." I probably have not articulated myeself very well, but there is a very interesting lecture on it by Richard Dawkins that you can look at on youtube. The problem with God, is that there simply is absolutely no evidence to support his/her/its existence. Nothing. I therefore can not accept that a God created the universe. Of course, I will accept that it is a possibility, but a very small possibility. I will say again; God does NOT solve the problem. Who or what created God? Did God have a choice when creating the universe? I do not know how the universe was created, but I do not pretend to know. God should NOT fill our gap in knowledge by default.

Different religions believe in different Gods. Personal beliefs are not enough to prove the existence of God.

Lol. Do you not see that this is an extremely vacuous statement? Your logic is faulty. There are missing links in many processes (my flat mate is one...). For example, we can not understand the precise series of events that lead up to a murder, but we can have enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that manbearpig did kill the small red pixie (probably for its money). There is so much evidence to support the theory of evolution that it is now regarded by many scientists as fact, even though there may be a 'few good missing links here and there'. Secondly, because you can not understand a process, does not mean that it is wrong. I am not a very good mathematician (or speller!), but I would not believe something is wrong just because I do not understand it. Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different forces, do not get them confused! It is worth noting that there are many philosophers and scientists that believe that the universe is queerer than we can possibly suppose.

Wrong. Evolution is a fact and it has demonstrated how man evolved. Stop posting these ridiculous statements on a subject you quite clearly know nothing about.

Probably nothing. There are few other areas of life where people are so unwilling to change their beliefs as is the case with Religion. If you are an average Christian, then you know what it is like to be an atheist. You are an atheist because you do not believe in the Islamic God Allah. But why do you choose to believe in your Christian God when there is no better reason to believe in him? Do you think you would believe in your Christian God if you lived in Arabic countries?

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory that states that evolution happens quickly over short periods over time, which is why there aren't many "in-between" fossils. Who's to say the last thousand years haven't been one of these periods? Firstly; we are lucky to have any fossils at all. The sequence of events necessary for fossilfication are extremely rare! Even if we had no fossils, it would not matter. There is overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution in D.N.A. Therefore gaps in the fossil record are not evidence that contradict evolution.

Absoultely not! Evolution occurs by process of accumulation over a period of time. With this in mind, a new species will not be created within one generation but over many.

Oh, so killing people in the name of "Because I was told to" is that much better? HA! You seem to rabidly believe that God is a pointless figment of people's imagination, and hold science in some sort of reverent regard, and yet claim this? I could certainly make jokes about how unimaginative you are for breathing oxygen and nitrogen, but I will refrain. Can you please explain these points further? I do not understand them. And I think you miss-understood me on that last point.

[/hide] 1. You can have a certainty of 99.9 percent, but your margin of error is immense due to the whole you cant prove god you cant disprove god(referring to a god not any specific god.) 3.(where did 2 go?) If you note, what I said is actually a better backing for atheism then theism. The main point here is that if the universe is here currently, either conservation of mass can be violated or what we have now came from a past universe or god. If the matter/energy that exists today can go back forever without creation then a god also could. 4. Let me clarify this, evolution does not contradict with the belief that something beyond reality ie a god can exist. For a given religion/religious text there will be varying levels of contradiction with science. I dont follow any religious text, and believe firmly in science so there isnt a contradiction. 5. sure it doesnt prove god, but it shows that you cant disprove him(harms the 99 percent argument) 6. I devoutly believe in science, the thing here is you are over generalizing a belief in god into a belief in a christian like god. These debates always seem to run in circles. 1. We can not prove the existence of God, therefore we should operate under the assumption that he/she/it does not exist but we can remain open to the idea, that if the evidence comes in to support the existence of God, we should believe in him/her/it. We can not disprove God. We can not disprove anything. I can not disprove that manbearpig is not real, and neither can you. 2. Yes I understand that people believe in different models of God 3. Although it is interesting, as I have said before it is purely speculation. We do not know how the universe began, or what was before it. God should not fill that gap because we are unable to perceive any other way in which the universe was created. Because science does not yet (maybe never) have the answers to the big questions, does not mean the intelligent design theory wins by default. It is highly implausible that intelligent matter came together to create the universe. As I have said before and will say again, the God theory does not solve the problem, it only aggravates it. Who created the creator? It is up to you, to prove that a God created the universe. 4. People believe in God in different ways. Some religious people believe that their gospels are the word of God, others interpret them differently. Because these gospels contradict the theory of evolution, this must disprove the existence of their God. 5. I am sorry - but not being able to disprove something is an extremely vacuous argument. I can not disprove that existence of fairies or unicorns or any other mythical creature. Neither can you. But I am sure we both assume that since we can not prove their existence, they do not exist. The same is true for God.

I do not hate God. The problem is when people blow themselves up and kill other people, in the "name of God". So you agree with me that God does not exist? However you think he is more a metaphor for good deeds? That is a nice poetic interpretation.

1. 99.9 is not a gross overstatement. The only reason I do not say with 100% certainty, is because it would be wrong to be 100% certain about anything. I shall always stay open minded to a point about these subjects - when there is sufficient evidence in support of God's existence, then I will believe in him/her/it. Your models are certainly very interesting, but purely hypothetical. There is no evidence for those scenarios and even if it were true and God were weak then surely he would not be worth worshipping anyway. Admittedly Science has yet to offer us a better understanding of the creation of the universe, but it does not pretend to know... However, this does not mean that any logically thinking human being should just assume that God should fill that gap. As I have said before, it would be just as reasonable to suppose that manbearpig created the universe. 3. Certainly a very interesting and thought provoking point. I do not know how the universe was created but I do not claim to know. If you truly believe that an invisible omniscient, omnipresent deity created the heavens and the earth and you are absolutely certain that there is no other scientific explanation, then you are entitled to that decision. I sincerely believe that you, on this point (not other areas of life), are suffering from a lack of imagination. 4. The problem is, is that religious people claim that their book or scripture is the word of God. Therefore, according to Christianity, it is God's word that he created the heavens and the earth in 7 days. Because of this, Evolution does contradict the existence of God. 5. Yes you may very well be correct - but this is subjective and does not prove the existence of God. 6. That may very well be the case, but that is the beauty of science. Scientists are driven by ignorance, and are continually improving/editing theories. God does not exist.

You contradicted yourself there. Evolution is not a fact and it is not proven. It is a theory that has heaps of evidence supporting it and little to none against it, but it has not been proven. It's essentially treated like a fact, in the sense that it "has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples". [1] [2] [3] It should be noted that "fact" in science doesn't mean 100% certainty. According to scientific thinking, technically nothing is ever that certain. The theory evolution will never be proven - like many theories it's in a state of flux where new information is being considered all the time. Something like that you can never prove in its entirety, but some of it's basic principles you can. Absolutely correct, you said this better than I could have cheers.

You contradicted yourself there. Evolution is not a fact and it is not proven. It is a theory that has heaps of evidence supporting it and little to none against it, but it has not been proven. Yes I suppose I did contradict myeself there lol :). Thanks for pointing that out. What I meant was that Evolution itself is a relatively simple process, that leads to complex organisms being created.

Feathers can't kill you. Fact.