Split from Welcome FAQ thread - Is there a God? Discuss

[singhr]

I agree with Mich the Tester's post that stuff like that is childish and unnecessarily provocative but that does not in any way excuse the reaction. Getting annoyed is understandable, threatening violent reprisal over a symbolic gesture is unnaceptable.

In return for an insult by one tiny nutjob church that has been condemned by all the major church leaders, a Middle Eastern paper is talking of "a fire of rage that could consume swathes of the globe" and nobody would be surprised at more totally random attacks on Christians.

Do you really want to run the constant risk of attack because somebody somewhere thinks, in his view, that Islam has been insulted, even if the provocation was not deliberate as it was in this case? This case illustrates the threat that the shear irrationality and fanaticism of this religion poses for us all.

Moreover, it is not simply gratuitous insults that these fanatics and activists seek to ban. If we continue to make concessions to it in our own countries, how long will it be before one cannot criticise Islam at all?

Have only just had a chance to read through this thread and have been mightily impressed with your calm, reasoned responses xoggoth. As an atheist myself and getting on in years I despair at man ever shedding the shackles of organised religion and the poor sods who follow it because their mums and dads made them do it (as they did before them).

[Mich the Tester]

Have only just had a chance to read through this thread and have been mightily impressed with your calm, reasoned responses xoggoth. As an atheist myself and getting on in years I despair at man ever shedding the shackles of organised religion and the poor sods who follow it because their mums and dads made them do it (as they did before them).

There was a another chap here a while ago, I think it was Threaded, who suggested that many less educated folks derive their will to live and their ability to live peacefully from religion; I'm inclined to believe him as I think Atheism, Humanism, Science and rationally derived morality, while they work for me, are just a bit too abstract for some people. I've no idea of what percentage of the population 'need' religion, or at least the threat of a powerful god figure to keep them placid, but I imagine it's more than we may think; remember, if you're working in IT, you might be surrounded by geeks, but those geeks are some of the most intelligent people in any society. You would be shocked at how dumb some 'normal' people seem to be.

Note; I am not arguing for the truth or otherwise of any religious hypothesis.

[Platypus]

Need to read that again, I never heard anyone theorise that the finely tuned nature of the universe plays against a god. Interesting argument.

You really should read Dawkins, I implore you.

One analogy he comes up with is the puddle of water occupying a hole in the road. The puddle says to itself, "this hole must have been created specifically for me, because it's such a perfect fit in every way".

Or to put it another way, what we see in the Universe today, it's form and our own, are a consequence of its shape, size and nature. Were these "finely tuned parameters" different, then sure, everything would be different.

[Platypus]

And another thing, on the nature of religious belief itself. While Dawkins doesn't specifically say so (IIRC), my conclusion from reading 'The God Delusion' is that a propensity for religious belief could well be advantageous evolutionary trait, e.g. a mechanism which helps bind tribes and groups together and ensures (usually) "God fearing" behaviour such as that enshrined in the 10 Commandments.

[shoes]

a propensity for religious belief could well be advantageous evolutionary trait

A man without religion is not a man without morals. Morals came first, and came about as a part of our evolution as a social animal. Our genes instruct us how we 'should' behave and what behaviour demands preventative punishment, its simply about preserving our genes... the religious folks take this particular baton and run with it.

Ironically, the existence of religion is further evidence for the process of evolution itself.

[Moscow Mule]

That in a more eloquent way is what I have been arguing all along in this thread.

That's why he sold millions more books than you.

[Moscow Mule]

Our genes instruct us how we 'should' behave

I'm pretty sure behaviour is not a genetically inherited trait.

[xoggoth]

It probably is in social animals, no different to beavers making dams out of trees or whatever.

[Moscow Mule]

It probably is in social animals, no different to beavers making dams out of trees or whatever.

Well, there is behaviour & behaviour.

[d000hg]

Crap argument. Science and maths have showed loads of examples of how order can emerge out of very simple starting conditions. There are loads of pop science books that explain this if you are interested. Try "Synch" and "Emergence", can't recall authors.

You asked why proving/disproving God was more important than the same for the FSM. The answer to that question is that mankind has this built-in fascination with what caused us to exist. I was answering that question, not arguing specifically that order implies a creator.

Although on the subject (not one I have heard of, but sounds interesting), do those theories go far enough to account for the massive amount of order and entropy decrease? I suppose they do, you don't need to violate entropy laws to have a god, but just curious. Those terms are a bit multi-used, got a wiki link?