Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cryonicleech wrote:This thread will never die, will it?

Not this particular thread, but the religion topic.

Look, people either believe in God or don't, or they believe in organized religion or don't. It's a simple yes-no question, but we as a species make it more than that, hence why there's so much controversy over what's really a minor difference.

People need to be more open and reasonable with this topic. Seriously, if people kill and argue over religion, why not kill and argue over hair color or chin size. While what I'm asking for is essentially impossible, I'd like to think that if humanity was more reasonable and open about this topic and just dropped the subject and accepted that people are different than hell, we're one step closer to a better Earth.

Good thing the topic of the thread was to state your religious affiliation and not to try to convert others.

Christian Apologist

4M2A wrote:
1. Relative to the size of the universe it isn't that hard for a planet to be suitable for life. As we have evolved to fit our planet it's moe of a case of life suited to the planet. If earth had come out differently and was not suitable for the sort of life we see now, life wouldn't have evolved as it did. Instead we would see hugely different types of life.

So where's the life on mars and venus? Or any other planet that we've observed for that matter?

4M2A wrote:
2.The laws of physics are just the way things are. They are completely random, and only appear order if we put them into a patern.

Have you every studied chaos theory?

4M2A wrote:
3.As for our continued existance, we are just lucky. Compared to earth, we are still very young. There have been many occurances that would have destroyed human life but we just haven't been around long enough for one to occur.

Debatable. Lots of the test that they use for aging the earth give impossible ages for recently created objects.

4M2A wrote:
Here is a counter question. I don't mean to critisie religion but It's good to look at both sides.

True

4M2A wrote:
Why is it that while we have strong scientific proof for many apsects of the universe and life around us which can easily be proved do people still choose a to believe something with no solid proof (nothing that can be held or studied)? Surely something which is unlikely but is proven to be possible is easer to follow than something with no proof.

Oh Look this question again. Refusing to accept evindence is not the same as not having evidence.

micahaphone wrote:-- If you don't believe in God, can you actually believe that the universe, the laws of physics, the creation of a planet perfectly suited to sustaining life, and even mankinds' continued existence are just random chance??? I mean, the universe is a big place and all, but there's gotta be someone or something behind it.

Absolutely. Why does there have to be anything behind it other than man's need to make sense of things? As for the creation of a planet perfectly suited to sustaining life...in a universe where there is estimated to be over a 150 billion galaxies and each one of those galaxies having anywhere from tens of millions to a hundred TRILLION stars, most with some sort of planet-like objects orbiting them, how could there not be?

micahaphone wrote:For those who point to radicals, like, yes, Hitler, or the KKK, or the Taliban, these are people who are abusing religions that promote peace in order to promote hatred. They are, and always have been, bad examples of what a religion is.

I'm not even sure that's the case. I mean, they use religion, but if there was no religion they all would have found other ways to justify killing the people they hated.

-- If you don't believe in God, can you actually believe that the universe, the laws of physics, the creation of a planet perfectly suited to sustaining life, and even mankinds' continued existence are just random chance??? I mean, the universe is a big place and all, but there's gotta be someone or something behind it.

Yes, I can believe it is all random chance. I look at the sheer scale of the universe, with solar systems scattered very occasionally, and it doesn't look like some grand plan. If there is a plan, it certainly doesn't feel to me like the plan was to put a small number of humans on some small planet hidden away in the corner.

And I don't see a planet perfectly suited for life. I can look at a car, and I see a machine where every single part is there for a reason - to move the machine forward or to provide comfort for the occupants. I look at the planet and I don't see that, most of the planet cannot be inhabited. I see species that have adapted to life in the environment presented, and an environment that is entirely neutral to their presence here.

I understand you see it differently, and that's cool.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Zoroastrian

Really? Cool.

So are we back to actually just listing our religious or philosophical preferences, because it seems most of this has been another religion (well, mostly Christian) and atheist thread.

Red9 wrote:So where's the life on mars and venus? Or any other planet that we've observed for that matter?

You misunderstand the question. The point is that there is around 100 billion stars in the galaxy, so even if the odds of a single planet having life is remote, there are a lot of planets out there. This argument isn't refuted by the absence of life from one planet in our solar system. That's a bit like someone saying "I think if I roll this D100 a million times it'll come up with 100 on one or more times" and you refuting "well I rolled it one time and I got a 7, so I don't think that's true".

Debatable. Lots of the test that they use for aging the earth give impossible ages for recently created objects.

Please don't listen to the young earth people, they mischaracterise scientific tests to mislead you.

Yeah Carl Sagan... the infinite improbability drive populated the earth too...

Personally, I am a discordian subgenius, and an official card-carrying POEE pope. I have no beef with the various official religions tring to make sense of things like sin or heaven or hell (or tithe) just no trust that anyone really knows what they are talking about. When I believe I have to whip myself for my sins and give 10% of my crop to the church, then maybe I'll understand what the heck they are talking about. Untill then... J.R. Bob Dobbs baby!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is a wierd thought though about the aliens and the size of this place... but animals, as far as we know of, don't show any sense of self-conscious right and wrong. They can be cunning or loving but they don't understand the concept of "why?" like we do. I think this is good ammo in favor of the idea of there being a god (not that that indicates any sensibility or management on its part). We may be the only sentient beings... "god" chosen or god's wierd little experiment that he forgot about, because so far as we have seen, nobody else in any species has established a moral code.

Oh, state the affiliation eh?

Catholic then.

And ultimately, just because we are wired to discern and scorn differences doesn't mean we have to.

Well... have fun with your origional sin then I guess. I believe we are perfectly capable of being perfect and were made with that intent in mind. We screw it up for ourselves through our actions and our own sense of guilt when we do something we know was not helpful. Whatever that may be. That is the essence of free will, which is what makes us the 'chosen' of god, rather than some wierd vegetable life forms on some far off planets. Hoomaans have been gifted with our ability to rationalize, or have the reason to rationalize their actions.

sebster wrote:You misunderstand the question. The point is that there is around 100 billion stars in the galaxy, so even if the odds of a single planet having life is remote, there are a lot of planets out there. This argument isn't refuted by the absence of life from one planet in our solar system. That's a bit like someone saying "I think if I roll this D100 a million times it'll come up with 100 on one or more times" and you refuting "well I rolled it one time and I got a 7, so I don't think that's true".

How about absence of life from each planet we've observed? Does that work? What about absence of life from every planet in the universe? Would that satisfy the argument? I hate went debates boil down to this position of "You can't prove my example/evidence wrong, but I can't prove it right either! " Typically that's when it boils down to name calling, personal attacks and humorous pictures on the thread.

I was questioning this part:

If earth had come out differently and was not suitable for the sort of life we see now, life wouldn't have evolved as it did. Instead we would see hugely different types of life.

It comes off as sounding "if the planet had a different evironment then life would evolve differently." So I responded accordingly.

Please don't listen to the young earth people, they mischaracterise scientific tests to mislead you.

Are you implying that different groups spin or bias scientific studies to mean what they want it to mean/support?

4M2A wrote:
Why is it that while we have strong scientific proof for many apsects of the universe and life around us which can easily be proved do people still choose a to believe something with no solid proof (nothing that can be held or studied)? Surely something which is unlikely but is proven to be possible is easer to follow than something with no proof.

This is the reason why I believe in a creator. The more science definitively proves how things work, the more likely that there was a creator. This is because the step necessary for a scientific theory to become a scientific proof is mans ability to replicate such under controlled conditions. The more man is able to replicate the universe and its creative processes, the more we prove the possibilty of someone/somerace/some sentient thing having created all of this.


As to limiting our selves to only what can be proven, doing such is to follow a path to stagnation. Faith is not limited to religion, the ability to believe in something considered unproven or uprovable is the foundation for advancement. It is the people that have faith in the wild ideas cast aside by rational thought that have lead us into this world of constant advancement. The ability to have faith in an idea, concept, yourself, or any other of a multitude of things is an integral pert of our very existence.


Edit: Spacing

Red9 wrote:How about absence of life from each planet we've observed? Does that work?

When the total of observed planets is 3 out of 100 billion, then no, it really doesn't work. I wrote that in plain text above, please follow the conversation.

Are you implying that different groups spin or bias scientific studies to mean what they want it to mean/support?

There is spin attached to some scientific information, yes. Are you going to attempt to claim that there is some kind of scientific spin involved in findings that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:It is a wierd thought though about the aliens and the size of this place... but animals, as far as we know of, don't show any sense of self-conscious right and wrong.

We've observed monkeys exhibiting a sense of 'fair'. Scientists built a system where monkeys would have to perform labourious but simple tasks in order to receive a treat. The monkeys did this. After a while the scientists some monkeys treats whether they performed the task or not. The other monkeys became distressed, and most stopped performing the task at all.

Off Topic

sebster wrote:We've observed monkeys exhibiting a sense of 'fair'. Scientists built a system where monkeys would have to perform labourious but simple tasks in order to receive a treat. The monkeys did this. After a while the scientists some monkeys treats whether they performed the task or not. The other monkeys became distressed, and most stopped performing the task at all.

Sorry for going off Topic but I found this to be highly amusing. It gave me a mental image of how the news would report this study, that just made me laugh.
Picture this Headline: "Scientific Study Shows That Socialist Programs Are Demotivational to Simian Larbourers".

All joking aside, this study "as described" has no scientific basis to make such a claim. From what was described, the monkeys exhibited the usual anamilistic survival behaviour of conservation of energy and the deduction comes across as a feel-good attempt at Anthropomorphism.


On Topic:

@ Guitardian- Nice to see a fellow member of the cult of sub-genius. (Chants, Bob is our God, God is our Hope, our god is Bob Hope. )

Edited to clarify what I found humourous.

focusedfire wrote:Off Topic

sebster wrote:We've observed monkeys exhibiting a sense of 'fair'. Scientists built a system where monkeys would have to perform labourious but simple tasks in order to receive a treat. The monkeys did this. After a while the scientists some monkeys treats whether they performed the task or not. The other monkeys became distressed, and most stopped performing the task at all.

Sorry for going off Topic but I found this to be highly amusing. It gave me a mental image of how the news would report this study, that just made me laugh.
Picture this Headline: "Scientific Study Shows That Socialist Programs Are Demotivational to Simian Larbourers".

All joking aside, this study "as described" has no scientific basis to make such a claim. From what was described, the monkeys exhibited the usual anamilistic survival behaviour of conservation of energy and the deduction comes across as a feel-good attempt at Anthropomorphism.

Or, the fact that the term fair was in quotes, indicated that the very concept is flimsy. What is right or wrong? What is fair? There are more than a few ways to compare us to animals, and our sense of 'fair', whatever that really means, could be no less than an advanced form of exactly what you suggest. It wasn't a study involving monkeys wearing tuxedos, even though I kind of wish it was. Highly amusing.

Red9 wrote:

sebster wrote:You misunderstand the question. The point is that there is around 100 billion stars in the galaxy, so even if the odds of a single planet having life is remote, there are a lot of planets out there. This argument isn't refuted by the absence of life from one planet in our solar system. That's a bit like someone saying "I think if I roll this D100 a million times it'll come up with 100 on one or more times" and you refuting "well I rolled it one time and I got a 7, so I don't think that's true".

How about absence of life from each planet we've observed? Does that work? What about absence of life from every planet in the universe? Would that satisfy the argument? I hate went debates boil down to this position of "You can't prove my example/evidence wrong, but I can't prove it right either! " Typically that's when it boils down to name calling, personal attacks and humorous pictures on the thread.

I was questioning this part:

If earth had come out differently and was not suitable for the sort of life we see now, life wouldn't have evolved as it did. Instead we would see hugely different types of life.

It comes off as sounding "if the planet had a different evironment then life would evolve differently." So I responded accordingly.

Please don't listen to the young earth people, they mischaracterise scientific tests to mislead you.

Are you implying that different groups spin or bias scientific studies to mean what they want it to mean/support?

Its closer to if the earth environment was different then life wouldn't be here at all. The problem with your argument is that we have yet to observe a planet with similar conditions to earth, so it is impossible to show evidence for either side until a planet with similar conditions is found.

The best way to state and analyse the theory is this

If a planet has similar conditions to Earth then life will develop.

Evidence so far life developed on earth, so until we find a planet with similar conditions to earth were life did not develop the theory stands.

youbedead wrote:Its closer to if the earth environment was different then life wouldn't be here at all.

We don't know that. Given the diverse conditions in which life has succeeded on Earth, it's a huge assumption that Earth conditions are the only conditions in which life can develop. It's a huge assumption that this is even the best set of conditions for life to develop. We continue to be amazed by the alien nature of life on this planet, imagine how diverse it could be elsewhere.

The problem with your argument is that we have yet to observe a planet with similar conditions to earth, so it is impossible to show evidence for either side until a planet with similar conditions is found.

Even if life on an Earth type planet was an extremely unlikely thing, there would still be billions of other planets where it might have happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:Sorry for going off Topic but I found this to be highly amusing. It gave me a mental image of how the news would report this study, that just made me laugh.
Picture this Headline: "Scientific Study Shows That Socialist Programs Are Demotivational to Simian Larbourers".

You should have seen the one I read the other day about scientists discovering that putting squirrels into monkey cages was a good way to piss off the monkeys. That was it. They found out a way to piss of monkeys.

All joking aside, this study "as described" has no scientific basis to make such a claim. From what was described, the monkeys exhibited the usual anamilistic survival behaviour of conservation of energy and the deduction comes across as a feel-good attempt at Anthropomorphism.

I see what you're saying, but it has to be remembered that I'm recounting a study from several years back, and I'm no animal behaviourist. I'm pretty certain they engineered the experiment so that individual monkeys were aware that if they stopped they wouldn't get treats, while the other monkeys would keep getting their's. But they stopped doing it because it wasn't 'fair' that other monkeys received the benefit without working.

Besides, try feeding dogs sometime. Give them pieces of food in turn. Skip one of them, then tell me they can't understand 'fair'.

Also, you don't understand socialism.

Red9 wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Why is it that while we have strong scientific proof for many apsects of the universe and life around us which can easily be proved do people still choose a to believe something with no solid proof (nothing that can be held or studied)? Surely something which is unlikely but is proven to be possible is easer to follow than something with no proof.

Oh Look this question again. Refusing to accept evindence is not the same as not having evidence.

That you are using a computer to communicate on this forum is evidence that you are a communist atheist liberal lesbian.

That you don't accept it as evidence doesn't mean that it's not evidence, right?

focusedfire wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Why is it that while we have strong scientific proof for many apsects of the universe and life around us which can easily be proved do people still choose a to believe something with no solid proof (nothing that can be held or studied)? Surely something which is unlikely but is proven to be possible is easer to follow than something with no proof.

This is the reason why I believe in a creator. The more science definitively proves how things work, the more likely that there was a creator. This is because the step necessary for a scientific theory to become a scientific proof is mans ability to replicate such under controlled conditions. The more man is able to replicate the universe and its creative processes, the more we prove the possibilty of someone/somerace/some sentient thing having created all of this.

...What?

sebster wrote:

youbedead wrote:Its closer to if the earth environment was different then life wouldn't be here at all.

We don't know that. Given the diverse conditions in which life has succeeded on Earth, it's a huge assumption that Earth conditions are the only conditions in which life can develop. It's a huge assumption that this is even the best set of conditions for life to develop. We continue to be amazed by the alien nature of life on this planet, imagine how diverse it could be elsewhere.

However the initial development of life had to occur under very specific conditions, certain chemical compounds (often referred to as the primordial soup.), h2o and a electrically charged atmosphere, are required to form the the basic compounds of life (ameno acids, lipids etc.)

The problem with your argument is that we have yet to observe a planet with similar conditions to earth, so it is impossible to show evidence for either side until a planet with similar conditions is found.

Even if life on an Earth type planet was an extremely unlikely thing, there would still be billions of other planets where it might have happened.

.

The whole idea is that with the vast amounts of planets there are bound to be similar planets to earth, which if the theory holds true should have life.

And I do agree with you that there is life out there just so your sure.



Also im Jewish, I figured i should contribute to the thread somehow

youbedead wrote:However the initial development of life had to occur under very specific conditions, certain chemical compounds (often referred to as the primordial soup.), h2o and a electrically charged atmosphere, are required to form the the basic compounds of life (ameno acids, lipids etc.)

Sure... to produce life as we see it on Earth. I think it's a mistake to assume that the basic chemical processes used in life on Earth are the only possible form of life. I don't know much organic chemistry, but it still seems a big assumption.

The whole idea is that with the vast amounts of planets there are bound to be similar planets to earth, which if the theory holds true should have life.

Sure.

And I do agree with you that there is life out there just so your sure.

I can't say that I know there is, it just seems very likely. Sadly, it also seems very likely we'll never reach it.

micahaphone wrote:Well, thanks to all who participated for keeping it (mostly) clean. This has (so far) (mostly) given me some good data as to my original query. I would personally like to give a good smack to some people on this thread, but that's their personal choice, and they have their freedom of religion, let them use it.
Keep up the good work, and remember, no hatin.

For those who point to radicals, like, yes, Hitler, or the KKK, or the Taliban, these are people who are abusing religions that promote peace in order to promote hatred. They are, and always have been, bad examples of what a religion is.

As long as this thread is going to be derailed, I'd like to be the one doing it. so:

-- If you don't believe in God, can you actually believe that the universe, the laws of physics, the creation of a planet perfectly suited to sustaining life, and even mankinds' continued existence are just random chance??? I mean, the universe is a big place and all, but there's gotta be someone or something behind it.

Hmm, seeing as the OP's original question has been resolved, and as we've done this particular dance 12,345 times before and, unless someone can provide a link showing me otherwise, there's been no dramatic new evidence or ideas either way ( and I'm reasonably certain that the 2nd coming or mathematical proof of God's non existence would have made the news even in the barren wastes of the OT board ) this thread, alas, is done for now.

Tune in...ohh.... next week in all probability.. when this exact same topic is either raised directly or comes out of another discussion, and then the exact same people make the exact same points ALL OVER AGAIN.