h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"1. Organised religion is the biggest killer on this planet, not AIDS or cancer;"
That may be true, though I'd like to see the statistics. Reguardless, as I've said, I think the vast majority of organized religions are wrong in many ways. Assuming there are such things as good and evil, this would make sense.

"2. I object to people, mainly Christians, telling me what my beliefs should be (if Jehovahs come to the door I tell them I'm a Catholic and that usually makes them go away anyway evilgrin );"
How is that different in any way from objecting to people expressing their opinions? Do you not believe in the right to free speech or do you merely find the actual practice of it to be objectionable? (I tell those people to get lost also )

"3. I object to the hypocrisy and corruption of religious organisations; the congregation is starving but as long as the priests have enough wine to go round that's okay cross"
That is a valid objection to religious organizations that do such things. However, I don't think that's a valid logical objection to the fundamental idea of God or religion.

"I disagree with you about which theory's tenets and predictions have been disproven. Many of the predictions of Darwin about future discoveries that would vindicate his theory have in fact been discovered to directly contradict it. For example, the Cambrian Explosion."

How on earth does the Cambrian explosion contradict Darwin? Multicellular animals happened, and then very suddenly colonised the globe? Is that not exactly what Darwin would've predicted? Would you also attribute the massive explosion in human numbers over the last few years to an intelligent designer?

<>

Personally, atheists can be as atheist as they like! No objections. But anti-theists now, are quite another pair of sleeves... and the more militant, angry ones, ready to sue at the drop of a law (mostly in the USA, but that sort exists elsewhere too).Those who fly into a rage, spittle flying, when someone passing them in the street says "God bless you" if they sneeze, wow, they are tough to handle, tough to live with (and I did once!)

Vicky

Quick question regarding the "things are always true" idea. Is it still a sin to wear underwear out of mixed fabrics?

"How is that different in any way from objecting to people expressing their opinions? Do you not believe in the right to free speech or do you merely find the actual practice of it to be objectionable?"

The problem with religion is that it's not an opinion for the believer, it's Revealed Truth and thus unassailable. This is why countries with religious governments (Iran today, Spain in previous centuries) were and are so keen on torture and murder against "heresy". Faith is impossible to argue with, impossible to reason with until the person in its grip renounces their unshakeable faith and accepts a worldview based on reason.

This is why it's also nonsense to try and link rationalism to religious belief (as the likes of SWL has) and say they are "just as bad as each other", reason is based on evidence and is capable of being swayed by such; faith disregards any evidence and cannot be swayed by anything.

The Cambrian Explosion does not refer to the sudden population of the planet by multicellar organisms, rather, it refers to the *apparently* sudden diversification of body plans that *apparently* happened at the beginning of the Cambrian.

I believe it was SWL who used to have the tag "you cannot reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into".

Which I think is appropriate here.

RF

>How on earth does the Cambrian explosion contradict Darwin?

This is something Creationists, 9/11 "truthers" and Global warming deniers all have in common; they present "evidence" and then pretend that the "establishment" want to ignore this whereas, in every single case, as long as the evidence is truthful scientists *have* taken it on board and have either rejected it or are using it to test current theories. The idea that scientists avoid or ignore evidence because it "doesn't fit" with a preconcieved idea simply demonsrates an ignorance of science and how it works; scientists never ignore evidence and have no preconcieved idea, where scientific concensus exists it's not because of a cabal it's because that's what all the evidence points towards (and even then they're willing to listen to anything that'll contradict it).

I´d rather you didn´t mention global warming skeptics in the same sentence as creationists.

"I´d rather you didn´t mention global warming skeptics in the same sentence as creationists."

I really don't care. Global warming sceptics (at least in the current scientific climate) are guilty of the same thing: bad science.

If they have any good arguments (and they don't, I've seen them all) then they are welcome to present them to the scientific community who are happy to listen to them as long as its not the stuff about solar flare, CO2 on mars and all the other stuff which they've considered, tested, and eventually rejected and which nontheless keeps popping up on blogs and the like as "THE FACTS TEH SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENTS DON'T WANT TO HEAR!!!1".

<>

I don't know about his, but it's certainly a part of the doctrine of mine!

Vicky

What's wrong with global warming scepticism then? All scientist are (or should be) sceptics.

RF

Hi NPF,

Intelligent Design

There are plenty of refutations of cdesign proponentsists' claims. Put 'nova judgement day' into YouTube, or pick up 'Almost Like A Whale' (aka 'Darwin's Ghost') by Steve Jones, 'Evolution' by Carl Zimmer or 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins as examples.

Soft tissue can fossilise, but it's very rare, even by fossil standards. Soft tissue can also be trapped in amber, which is rather more common (but not technically fossilisation).

Did you read the article you linked to on the 'Cambrian Explosion'? Especially this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F This seems to have more to do with the first appearance of hard body parts, which fossilise well. Prior to that, the fossil record is very sketchy. Steven Jay Gould's book 'Wonderful Life' is also essential reading on this subject, and in particular his (now widely-accepted) idea of 'punctuated equilibrium'.


'There are no fossilized transitional forms with eye-flaps like you're talking about'

Ah, but there are! Living and fossil. Fossil: http://www.physorg.com/news116694609.html In living creatures: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Note that at every stage, the creature gains greater benefit. Even simply being able to tell whether it is in light or shade is an advantage to some organisms. Which leads on to:

'A creature with a half-finished eye is not more fit than a blind creature'

Yes it is! A creature without a lens in its eye, for example, gets only a blurry image of its surroundings, but that's a lot better than being totally blind.



God and Time

I accept that, as I phrased it, my argument against God relies on the concept of time, and of God being within it. But your response, that if God is outside time then all is resolved, simply raises all the same questions. Where did God come from? If She didn't appear over time, how did such complexity arise?



'What is the distinction then, between atheism and agnosticism?'

Good question - and the answer may be 'not much'. Generally, agnostics have not come to a conclusion on whether or not God exists, whereas atheists conclude that God does not exist. I think that the only thing that people are disagreeing with in your definition is that you're saying that atheists are *certain* that God does not exist. Most atheists I know would say they are 'pretty certain' or 'very confident', but wouldn't claim 100% certain knowledge about anything, including the existence or non-existence of God.

If you want to use your definition of agnosticism, I can't stop you, but then you would be very hard pressed to find any atheists at all. And I predict it will lead to confusion down the road, especially if you start claiming that (for example) Richard Dawkins is an atheist.



'The Old Testament traditions were looking forward in time'

I don't really understand your answer. As I was writing I was thinking specifically of, for example, the requirement to sacrifice animals. I think it's fair to say that nowadays it is immoral to kill animals for no reason, or at least that it's not praiseworthy. Yet in the Old Covenent it was praiseworthy and necessary. I don't understand how a 'temporal perspective' fits in with that. Likewise slavery, which is allowed in the OT, but I'm pretty sure you will agree is not morally acceptable today.



Incidentally, I'd just like to comment on how interesting it is to have someone who obviously has some fundamentalist ideas but also does seem genuinely interested in discussing other viewpoints. I think that the busyness of this thread reflects that.

Gif

"What's wrong with global warming scepticism then? All scientist are (or should be) sceptics."

In the strictest-sense of the word you're right, of course, I'm talking about people who believe that the idea that humanity is contributing to global warming through CO2 emissions is either untrue or scientifically-flawed (and that therefore the vast majority of climatologists - including many who were sceptics and needed to be presented with a great deal of evidence before being convinced - are wrong and that they are right).

Tell me, DA:

based on what NeoPathFinder has posted here, do you think he is a Christian?



After you answer that, go to his PS and, based on the information there and on any further research you may wish to pursue, answer the question again.



<evilgrin.

Well I must say what h2g2 was crying out for was a reigious thread.

Good one neopathfinder who began this scintillatingly fascinating exploration of god and religion. Nice one mate, and you only joined here on 19 Feb, clucking brilliant stuff.

And you only started this thread 7 hours ago, and this post will make 135. Clucking wicked!!!

it appears to be 136, such is the speed of posting

<>

Utter nonsense! And, AFAIK, AIDS and cancer aren't even close either. Diseases of poverty and deprivation are far bigger killers than what we pampered Western whiners care about - I mean choera etc...

<>

What's the problem? They can't force you, so what are you scared of?
<>

Point out a situation where any congregation actually *are* starving, anywhere, and you might be beginning to think about making sense...

http://www.webmd.com/news/20060525/top-10-causes-death-worldwide

Extract:
Here is the list for high-income countries:

Heart disease
Stroke
Lung cancer
Lower respiratory infections
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Colon and rectum cancers
Alzheimer's disease
Type 2 diabetes
Breast cancer
Stomach cancer
Here is the list for low- and middle-income countries:

Heart disease
Stroke
Lower respiratory infections
HIV/AIDS
Fetus/newborn (perinatal) conditions
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Diarrhea
Tuberculosis
Malaria
Road traffic accidents

I notice that in wealthy countries, AIDS is nowehere near the Top 10, and in poorer countries, it's 4th...

Here's another list:
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/index.htm
Leading Causes of Death in Children Under Five Years of Age, Estimates for 2000-2003
(Source: World Health Organization, The World Health Report 2005)

Rank Cause Numbers (thousands per year) % of all deaths
1 Neonatal causes 3,910 37
2 Acute respiratory infections 2,027 19
3 Diarrheal diseases 1,762 17
4 Malaria 853 8
5 Measles 395 4
6 HIV/AIDS 321 3
7 Injuries 305 3
Other causes 1,022 10
Total 10,596 100.0

Interesting, no?

>Oooh I do enjoy a good discussion about religion<

So do I

Those are interesting statistics. Good job no-one died of "war", then.

Oh wait...many of those deaths are caused by "war", due to lack of access (deliberate or otherwise) to care for otherwise non-fatal diseases.

Remind me, what is causing all the wars?

RF