I asked an theist this and didn't get an answer. Can you help?

[Skeleon]

Although Mitochondria are considered organelles, they show very many signs of prokaryotic cells, bacteria. Their genome is differently organised than ours (plasmids instead of chromosomes and slightly different base pairs, different membrane layer) and so on. They show how many hundreds of millions of years ago, bacteria and eukaryotic cells began symbiosis, they are basically proof of the slow process of evolution, they are remnants of that time. It's called the endosymbiosis theory.

 

[sleekie]

ITT we mine for quotes and fail to grasp the difference between facts and scientific theories.

Suddenly, Youtube-level debating.

 

[Baby Tea]

there is historical evidence that gravity also existed.. for example.. no book/glyph or whatever says anything about people flying .. and yeah there is no historical evidence that god existed, idiot, just because someone sayd: god gave me a child in a 300 year old book doesn't mean god existed.. i hate you

Seriously?

First of all, 300 year old book? Well, that's certainly accurate.
Second of all, there is more historical evidence for Jesus being alive then Julius Caesar.

Man, sometimes you get people in these talks who actually offer something to the conversation...then then you get guys like this who don't understand grammar, much less anything even remotely related to theology or history.

 

[Skeleon]

Well, as far as science is concerned, approved theories are fact. Until a better theory with more evidence comes along. How else would you progress in a world of uncertainties?

Now don't say belief, 'cause that's not progress.

 

[Thanatos34]

Wait hold on who were you asking? A atheist or a theist, i.e. A Muslim.

Christians are theists as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

...monotheists to be more precise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

/S

Naw Christians believe in 3 gods that are linked, plus in the case of some forms of christianity heavenly beings that can intervene. It's very much like the Hindu belief system.

You need to get a different Bible, if that's what yours says. That might be the most hilarious thing I've heard for awhile.

 

[necryd215]

Many scientists would disagree, Sir Isaac Newton stated that science could not exist without God, so there's a scientific mind who also believed in God, there are several others who believe in both, and why not religion doesn't explain everything, science tries to explain everything but sometimes changes its mind(i.e tectonic plates, heliocentricity,and more others than I care to list here)better to be safe than sorry I guess.

 

[EchetusXe]

"an theist"? Do you mean 'a theist' or 'an atheist'?

In answer to your question the answer is no.

Last night I had a dream that this girl I know (who has religious parents) asked me "What do you think god looks like?", we then had an argument and I said "Why do you not believe in Zeus? Or Poseidon? I just believe in one less god than you!".

I took the moral of that dream to be that religion is discussed far too much on the internet. Even though that was a dream and not the internet but meh.

I don't care if god is real or not, i just want people who believe or don't believe in him to get of my way.

You heading somewhere?


Anyway, what annoys me is people who claim to believe something but then don't know the first thing about it. I remember a conversation where one girl told "No, I'm not a Christian. I'm a Catholic". Jesus wept.

It annoys me in general that people can say 'Yeah, I believe that god wants this and that...'. Err, excuse me? How the *** do you know what he wants?

Either:
a. God has told you what he wants (seek psychiatric help).
or
b. Your following religious scripture e.g. Bible.
or
c. Your talking out your arse.

It annoys me that people say thins like 'I choose to believe...'. Err. you CHOOSE to believe? Isn't that just another way of saying you HOPE thats the way things are?

No matter what I could try and do I could not choose to believe in unicorns, at least not without causing myself serious mental damage. I could hope that there were unicorns. Of course there is more chance of there being a god then there being unicorns, at least on this planet (there are billions of planets out there, but lets not get distracted).

A lot of things annoy me. I guess the only ways to avoid annoying me are to be true to a religion and yet not start demanding that others do the same or to simply not to believe in anything- hope all you want. Soon as you start trying to twist the words of your prophet (e.g. Osama) or start demanding others adapt to your religion (e.g. shops must by law shut on Sundays) or start breaking your own laws (e.g. paedophile priests) then your starting to annoy me.

If your a Christian, great, superb. Just don't expect me to respect you as a person if you go around spouting about how your going off to Heaven, yet all the while your having an affair (eating meat on Fridays or whatever isn't an issue with me, just as long as you are obeying the "important" rules). If your a Muslim, fantastic, just as long as you let homosexuals live their lives.

If you have a religion thats fine, as long as comedians can tell jokes about it and that you accept debate and criticism when you start trying to actively spread your religion. I won't go into a church and say "hmm, bit of a coincidence that your living in a Christian country and also Christianity is the one true religion isn't it? Your really struck lucky there eh? If your were born in Saudi Arabia you'd be heading to Hell when you die!" Just the same, I expect that if people open discussions on religion I don't get accused of being a "militant atheist" for daring to criticize those poor persecuted religious majorities.


For the record, I think Billy Connelly is spot on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY

 

[granatmof]

It wasn't just Newton. Descartes (the guy who said I think therefore I am) had to set up a belief in a benevolent deity in order to trust that his senses were not just deceiving his thinking part. And Descartes can be considered the father of modern scientific doubt. Applied everywhere religions start to look shaky, and the known views from ancient philosophers started to look shaky, and through that doubt, modern science emerged and done some amazing things, that ended with mixed results. Nuclear energy can meet so many needs, but in pathetic or hateful hands, can be very destructive. Just as destructive as religious fervor has caused so many wars.
Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. It is no mere chance that our older universities developed from clerical schools. Both churches and universities ? insofar as they live up to their true function ? serve the ennoblement of the individual. They seek to fulfill this great task by spreading moral and cultural understanding, renouncing the use of brute force.
The essential unity of ecclesiastical and secular institutions was lost during the 19th century, to the point of senseless hostility. Yet there was never any doubt as to the striving for culture. No one doubted the sacredness of the goal. It was the approach that was disputed.
"Moral Decay" (1937); Later published in Out of My Later Years (1950)
Science is rational, logical thought. Humanity is much more that rational logical thought. If one has basic compassion for one's fellow person, then one is already on the initial steps of most of the world's religions.
I am theist, and a Christian, and am currently seeking a degree in physics, but I know I cannot absolutely prove to you that God exists, and when I get down to it I also can't prove to you that I exist either or that you exist.(see Descartes)

 

[mike1921]

You "need" to believe in God to have Faith and to get into Heaven. But you don't need to believe in religion. If you're the best person in the world, yet don't have Faith, you won't be let into His kingdom, instead hanging out the rest of days in Limbo. Not really bad, but not all that great either. Think 'boring', but beats Hell where you get to spend eternity in torture.

.....how is an eternity of nothing not torture?

Also, I'm atheist, guess the answer.

 

[ThreeWords]

Wait hold on who were you asking? A atheist or a theist, i.e. A Muslim.

Christians are theists as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

...monotheists to be more precise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

/S

Naw Christians believe in 3 gods that are linked, plus in the case of some forms of christianity heavenly beings that can intervene. It's very much like the Hindu belief system.

You need to get a different Bible, if that's what yours says. That might be the most hilarious thing I've heard for awhile.

Agreed. Granted, God (somewhat irrationally) claims to be both 3 separate beings, and one single being, and that each of the separate beings is still the whole, complete God.

Wierd as it sounds, I kinda understand it, and I seriously doubt it reflects Hinduism

Hinduism believes in over 3 million gods and goddesses, all of whom have very separate powers, authorities, desires, purposes, attitudes and styles of worship. Each is a complete individual, and they unite only in the way that all life unites: by being, at a fundamental level, an expression of the one true spirit, Brahman.

Correct me if I got a few details wrong, it's been a while since I learnt about Hinduism, and my memory isn't totally trustworthy...

 

[GloatingSwine]

Prove that gravity exists and that invisible flying spaghetti monsters are not just pulling everything to the floor.

Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. (aka Ockham's razor)

The effect of a curved spacetime on bodies does not require an entity (which would require further explanation). It is, therefore, the preferred theory, and the one more likely to be correct.

Well, all Dawkins said is that basically nobody can know for sure but he doesn't believe in it. I don't see the problem, it's impossible to disprove god or anything supernatural for which there is no prove, either.

It's also unnecessary to disprove god or anything supernatural. The person advancing the claim is required to provide evidence to support it. No evidence has been advanced to support any god which has not either been shown to be false or to be explained by some other theory which requires less entities.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Many scientists would disagree, Sir Isaac Newton stated that science could not exist without God, so there's a scientific mind who also believed in God, there are several others who believe in both, and why not religion doesn't explain everything, science tries to explain everything but sometimes changes its mind(i.e tectonic plates, heliocentricity,and more others than I care to list here)better to be safe than sorry I guess.

Isaac Newton was also demonstrably fucking nuts. He was, for many years, a practising alchemist. Alchemy is as big an unscientific boondoggle as it is possible to get. It is, like astrology, utterly backwards in approach, determining the result first and then basically performing chemical reactions at random to see if you can get the result you decided, a priori was not only possible at all but also likely.

He was also a member of a hardcore Protestant sect who believed that all Catholics were subhuman idolators who would quite justly feel the fires of hell for their sins.

He is not someone you want to be claiming as a "religious scientist", especially when there were some actual scientists, like Joseph Priestley, who were church of england clergy and also actual scientists (Priestley was a physical chemist who did a lot of work on various gases, his work led Antoine Lavoisier to the experiments from which he discovered the existence of Oxygen, for instance).

There were many other clergymen scientists in the 18th century, because the clergy were educated and had their livelyhood provided by the church, so they didn't have to work to live, and had plenty of time to actually contemplate the Creation (which was seen, at the time, as very much part of Man's duty to his creator, rather than abominable treading on His toes)

 

[GloatingSwine]

.....how is an eternity of nothing not torture?

Is eight hours of nothing a night torture?

 

[mike1921]

.....how is an eternity of nothing not torture?

Is eight hours of nothing a night torture?

you're unconscious. If you were awake those 8 hours it'd be torture.

 

[GloatingSwine]

It wasn't just Newton. Descartes (the guy who said I think therefore I am) had to set up a belief in a benevolent deity in order to trust that his senses were not just deceiving his thinking part. And Descartes can be considered the father of modern scientific doubt.

Only if you're extremely liberal with giving him credit.

Kant was really the father of modern scientific doubt, as he was the first person to really identify that our senses are inadequate to the job of describing the "thing in itself".

He was, of course, massively underestimating just how poor our senses and concepts are.

If one has basic compassion for one's fellow person, then one is already on the initial steps of most of the world's religions.

Compassion for one's fellow person appears to be something that arrives late to most religions, mostly they are concerned with authoritarian brutality, which shows exactly the society in which they grew up. The early part of the Talmud (and therefore also the Old Testament of the Bible, which is the same book), for instance, is a litany of conquests and genocides in the name of and with the direct blessing of the creator (many of these, given the lack of archaeological evidence for them despite the great industry of Christian and Jewish archaeologists in the holy land, appear to be fabrications or repurposings of other stories to fit the ends of the writers, who were inevitably writing many centuries after the events they purport to chronicle in any case).

 

[GloatingSwine]

.....how is an eternity of nothing not torture?

Is eight hours of nothing a night torture?

you're unconscious. If you were awake those 8 hours it'd be torture.

And since death means even less brain activity than unconsciousness, you also won't be experiencing the eternity of nonexistence after it happens, any more than you do the period of deep sleep you undergo every single night.

 

[mike1921]

.....how is an eternity of nothing not torture?

Is eight hours of nothing a night torture?

you're unconscious. If you were awake those 8 hours it'd be torture.

And since death means even less brain activity than unconsciousness, you also won't be experiencing the eternity of nonexistence after it happens, any more than you do the period of deep sleep you undergo every single night.

I highly doubt that christians believe that you're always unconcious in heaven.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I highly doubt that christians believe that you're always unconcious in heaven.

If they thought about it, they'd realise that unconsciousness would be the only way to experience heaven at all. After all, who could be contented in heaven when they have friends, acquaintences and loved ones suffering eternal torment in hell? Only the worst kind of sociopath could appreciate heaven, and they wouldn't be allowed in. A quandary indeed.

 

[thedelightfulme]

Can someone explain something about Christianity to me...

The Bible states Jesus was a Jew. Now, If he WAS the son of God, surely it would make sense to follow his religous path and be a Jew.
I know Christianity was spawned by the Roman Pagans to stop the collapse of an empire using symbology and bits of old mythology from countless other religons.

IF religion is real, then why does it have some many holes in it?
Why if God does exist does it make out he either likes you or hates you?
If God is an all knowing, all intelligent being, then why would he be annoyed that someone didnt pray to him?
I find it difficult that this all knowing and all forgiving God would send you to hell if you didnt go to church on sunday.

To be honest if God is like that, he is abit of a bastard.

 

[Skeleon]

It's also unnecessary to disprove god or anything supernatural. The person advancing the claim is required to provide evidence to support it. No evidence has been advanced to support any god which has not either been shown to be false or to be explained by some other theory which requires less entities.

Yep, I'm just saying. The way this moderator asked, Dawkins had to reply something.

As for compassion, I like to point to Ancient Greece where, at least among philosophers, there already was an established code of ethics unaffected by religion, but based on reason.
I know many religions teach compassion (although they don't necessarily act on it) and it is one of the positive things about them, but their continued claim to being, say, the creators of compassion is bull.

And concerning unconsciousness, well it is very difficult to imagine your own non-existence (which is kind of funny if you think about it). We can more easily imagine eternity than our own non-existence, but okay. Personally, I like to think of it similar to the way it was before you were born, it's like sleeping without a dream, it's like that feeling you have after a night out with a blackout, except you don't get to reflect on your blackout afterwards.
It's still almost impossible to explain but I hope you get the picture.
I wouldn't call this kind of oblivion torture, basically it's just... nothing. That's not too bad.

Can someone explain something about Christianity to me...

Well, Christianity started off as a Jewish sect if I remember correctly and was later adopted by the Romans, true. I suppose he basically wanted a reformed Judaism instead of a different church altogether. Think of Martin Luther, who only wanted to improve Catholicism, but things went out of control.

The main thing that I think when religion comes to mind is this: There's many of them. Very, very many and they are contradicting each other a lot. They can't all be true.
So, without any evidence, how are you to say any religion is "real", "true" or "the right one"?
Basically, you can't, it's a matter of faith.
But when you get to faith, you can't still call it real, since you're thereby minimizing all other religions, which are, just like yours, also based on faith and have the same right to claim "truthfulness" as yours do.
Basically: As long as you don't try to force your religion on others, everyone is happy.