Post by Orranis
Good that there are people that can come up with smart, mature arguments. :)
You mentioned some books for us to read, and I like to mention Richard Dawkins from our Atheist side. He goes into evolution, and probability of whether or not got exists, especailly in The God Delusion
. Also back to the Big Bang discussion, the reason it hasn't happened again-and Dawkins goes into detail about this when talking about the origin of life and evolution-is because it is extremely improbable. Then why should it have happened in the first place? Because it only had to happen once. When talking about evolution, every step can't possibly be really improbable because of the common-ness(?) of it according to the theory, but the Big Bang only happened once, so it can be extremely improbable.
I live outside of the US at the moment, but have done some of that internet research on your guy. I've found that alot of atheist/evolutionist disagree with him. I don't know how much you actually know about him (probably more than me!), but it seems that his ideas don't fit that well with a big part of the atheist community. I don't think this site is from an actual atheist, but if you do some looking around he shows that their are atheist that think poorly of Dawkins:http://www.atheistdelusion.net/
Dawkins' Comment Regarding Adolf Hitler
When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external , what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever , it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath." http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc:
Ben Stein interview clip
Also, was doing some research on evolution: found this website amongst others that talks about how the scientific community is moving away from it, and such not:http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
I did like the part on this website about Nazi Germany and Evolution/survival of the fittest. Someone early said that no wars were started b/c of Darwin or something like that. WW2 was started b/c of the believe of survival of the fittest (Hitler's believes). It also links Evolution to communism and racism (beliefs behind both).
This is put out of context. Hitler was probably right, in that the human race probably has been different branches all with tiny bits of change. However, he was not employing this from a scientific point of view. He was using propaganda to try and tell people that they were the best and deserved the world, which is probably not true. While they do exist, the changes are not yet significant enough to put one race before another. I'm sorry, but you're arguing from a very Religious standpoint. You seem to not comprehend that it's possible Humans invented morals. Nature's a b****, does that make our theories any less valid? You're basically pulling the 'These guys are like the Nazi's, they're obviously wrong!" card. WW2 was started because of the injured pride of a country that wished to have revenge upon those who destroyed their lives (Remember, the Depression hit them 130% of what it hit us). Indeed, may I remind you that Hitler also identified a massive amount of people different from him lesser, simply because they did not share the same faith? Judaism is not a race, and thus you cannot say that Hitlers racial science was scientific. Historically, it would be possible to track ones ancestors through Religion and events in the world, however it is not a race. Biblically Judaism started in a land near Egypt, however now it is rarely seen in Middle Eastern countries, excluding Israel (Who are all non-middle eastern immigrants). Hitler's war against the Jews was about Religion, using false science as propaganda.
As for your sites, mostly what I see is "I find it hard to believe." I do not wish to go through the whole sight now, but if you point me to a place where any actual proof is shown (Rather than an agnostic simply leaning to one side for a lack of understanding the other). I actually accept that there might be a God, however from what I've seen, the scientific theories seem to apply to the real world much more. I am not very sure there is a God, and if there is, even less so that it is any demonstrated by a Religion so far. You seem to speak a lot of my lack of Religious experience, which you are assuming. Indeed, I am studying Torah and am having a Bar Mitzvah later this year, and still have found no compelling facts or arguments. I have frequent discussions with my Rabbi, and seem to run in circles around him. Thank whatever God may or not exist he is so accepting of other views.
Just some food for thought.
I've found that in my searching, that on both sides, people (and I'm not implying anyone in this thread, just in general) don't look into their own beliefs. The follow their side blindly, and say I believe this BECAUSE, but when asked to support their beliefs and give reasons, why they believe they typical don't. I think everyone should look into their beliefs, and research them, look at both sides of an arguement, and then decide. But like i said, many don't do this, and it's unforntunate.
Post by Orranis
Welcome back Faceshield, I thought you left the thread. Good to hear from you. Now I want to look at a couple of things you said,
This is put out of context. Hitler was probably right, in that the human race probably has been different branches all with tiny bits of change. However, he was not employing this from a scientific point of view. He was using propaganda to try and tell people that they were the best and deserved the world, which is probably not true. While they do exist, the changes are not yet significant enough to put one race before another.
My point about Hitler and others (I've repeated this several times) is that like different forms of religions, atheism has been perverted to evil ends. Hitler is an example of this. There are several other known atheist that did terrible things and used tenants of atheism to justify them. There are people who did terrible things and used the tennants of different religion to justify them. No side is immune to this.
While they do exist, the changes are not yet significant enough to put one race before another..
Are you implying that at one point, one race might become superior to others and that would justify this type of action? That is what it seems like. Please let me know if I misunderstand you here.
Yes. I do not truly believe in Justification, or right or wrong for that matter. Things simply are. Just as we use monkeys or apes for experiments before we use humans, humans could get to the point where they split up and become so different that human rights do not apply to the other side for one. However, I do not believe this will happen because essentially we've exceeded natural selection. It's become impossible to see what will happen. Now almost all mutations that are not immediately fail will not affect the persons survival, and thus both the good and the bad will go on.
I'm sorry, but you're arguing from a very Religious standpoint. You seem to not comprehend that it's possible Humans invented morals. Nature's a b****, does that make our theories any less valid? You're basically pulling the 'These guys are like the Nazi's, they're obviously wrong!" card.
I'm pretty sure that I never said atheist were like Hitler, nor do I think I implied this. See my above comment on Hitler. I tend to see more atheist use the arguement that "all religion is bad b/c some use it in a bad way". So technically, if someone was silly enough to say this, it could be said against atheist too. I'm not one of those people.
Hmm... I see your point. Even so, Religion has caused far more of this, simply because Science is not as interpretable. Also, it does not teach what is moral and why. It is far easier to justify something based on a higher power giving it the O.K. then to do it scientifically. Hitler's hatred was directed towards a religion, not a race. He used Science to note the differences, not to determine if it was okay or not to do it. It would be a lot more convincing to say "God wants these people dead, this is the right thing to do." Than say "These people have evolved differently, this is the right thing to do." Religion is used as a tool for war because usually it says that Morals come from a higher power, so that if a higher power "Says yes" then it's okay. Science does not teach it.
Basically, I see your side, but still all conflicts based on a difference between two people that I can remember have been based on Religion, not science. I'm not saying all Religious people are bad, in fact it's an ingenious tool for teaching people to cause as little harm as possible, but it's far too easy to corrupt for my liking.
Also, I do comprehend that it is possible that morals come from humans, but I think the evidence definitely points the other way. If morals were a human invention, there would be a lot more disparity throughout history on what is moral and what is not moral. Therefore, its seems that there is somesort of external standard.
I disagree. Throughout science, the most common trait of life, intelligent or not, is the will to expand your species. Killing is obviously counter productive to this. Rarely will you see an animal kill one of their own. In fact, it's probably most common in the non-cannibal species in humans.
As for your sites, mostly what I see is "I find it hard to believe." I do not wish to go through the whole sight now, but if you point me to a place where any actual proof is shown (Rather than an agnostic simply leaning to one side for a lack of understanding the other). I actually accept that there might be a God, however from what I've seen, the scientific theories seem to apply to the real world much more. I am not very sure there is a God, and if there is, even less so that it is any demonstrated by a Religion so far. Also, morals have
been under constant change throughout the years. Originally, Judaism practiced the sacrifice of animals. However, they realized this was immoral, and changed to prayer. Child abuse was considered a must for a parent one hundred years ago, but now it's forbidden.
I recommend this book by Anthony Flew, "There is
God". Anthony Flew was a very, very famous atheist, that through research about theism converted to a theist view. I would say he's pretty informed on both sides of the issue. Maybe this book can shed light, that I am woofully unable to. here is an interview with Flew: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
(haven't read it all yet, but am doing so now)
"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It is the same basic thing. An atheist who went out to proof God didn't exist, and converted, but this time to Christianity, not just a general theist veiw.
I would have to look if there are any books that are a theist switching to an atheist view, to give you the other side of the arguement.
As far as "actual" proof, that's going to be a matter of your interpretation of what "actual" proof is. I've never seen the type of proof to support atheism that atheist require theist to use to proof their side. So if you want "actual proof" that God exists, you first need to determine, what you think is "actual proof". There is plently of information that goes both ways. Its up to you to determine your criteria of proof and then research. It's pretty much impossible for me in a forum to "show" "actual" proof. It's always going to be "this research says this", "historical records say this" etc. I can't because of the nature of a forum, post whole research projects or whole books, so that you have proof. I can link or recommend places to look, or generalize what they say. Which I've done throughout this topic. Basically, if you really want to know, you'll have to do the research on your own. If I could post something here, that was the definitive answer to the question "is God real", don't you think I would? Don't you think if anyone had definite "proof" that everyone
accepted, it would be printed somewhere? In any
"truth" or "belief", there is a point where logic stops and faith takes over.
Which is exactly why I'm agnostic. Because no real proof exists for either side. I just feel that Athiesm is the less hole-ridden of the two. In fact, if a higher power did exist, I doubt it would be anything like what is mentioned in Judaic or Christian texts (I only say these to because they are the ones I am most familiar with, and have to see the others before I talk about their flaws).
You seem to speak a lot of my lack of Religious experience, which you are assuming. Indeed, I am studying Torah and am having a Bar Mitzvah later this year, and still have found no compelling facts or arguments. I have frequent discussions with my Rabbi, and seem to run in circles around him. Thank whatever God may or not exist he is so accepting of other views.
I'm not sure where I ever made a comment on your lack of religious experience.
I see constant talk of how I need to look at it from both sides.
Thanks for your post, and I wish I could show some "perfect proof", but I can't, nor can anyone.