By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why don't you believe in a god?

Rath said:
trestres said:

Here's an excellent video for anyone interested in the subject. I tend to have this approach, it's the most reasonable and sensible and it doesn't deny the theory of no intelligent God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA


At the moment there is nothing too wrong with this sort of belief, as there is no proof for or against it. If science ever manages to advance to the stage where we understand what causes universes (it seems very likely that there are many) though it is quite plausible that it would be proven wrong.

Of course that would only be another step back for God, another gap filled for the God of gaps.

Edit: But the entire thing about millions of people having experience spirituality is not evidence that those experiences are supernatural in any way.

There's also the fact that people of all religions experience them. And what are "spiritual" experiences anyways? Aren't they just some form of high, like when you take drugs?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Scoobes said:
Smidlee said:

Yeah , the Big Bang is like a balloon full of hot air. The more hot air the bigger the bang.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big-bang-universe-beginning-100319.html

 From the article:

 "I would say that there is 100 percent consensus, really,"

Consensus does not count as evidence for God but it sure does when it comes to the Big Hot Balloon theory.

"It means everything and anything that can happen, will," Steinhardt told SPACE.com. "So basically everything could be a prediction of inflation. This to me is a fundamental problem and we don't know how to get away from it."

Wow you can't miss when your target is as big as the universe. A funamental problem - you think.

You love to take things out of context. You did in the other thread on evolution too. Also in the same article 

"There is overwhelming evidence [for the big bang] – all of the predictions are true."

Fact is that there is evidence that supports the big bang theory. If new evidence is discovered then the theory will be revised, changed, altered or new ones created etc. On the other hand there is no evidence for the existence of god or a creator being. With the evidence available, which is the more logical to believe in at this point?

Keep reading where they even admit a successful prediction can help both theories yet a failed prediction does no hurt to the theory. In cards this is called "Stacking the Deck" in your favor. Of course a theory will have "overwheming" evidence when contradiction evidence is disregarded.

As someome  wrote when someone stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing but believe in anything. They will go to great length to protect what they replace "God" with.



Rath said:

Euglena, simple photo-receptors (step 1 in diagram)

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

 

Nautilus, pinhole eyes (step 3)

etc. etc.

 

Wikipedia is great =P

Edit: Also your argument on 'the more the photo-reciptor is pointing towards the light' doesn't work. A photon arriving at a photoreceptor causes the same signal no matter what angle it arrives at. That's the reason for the evolution of the 'pinhole' eye which allows direction to be known.

These are all modern creatures with modern eyes.According to ToE Human didn't evolve from modern apes nor did modern eyes evolve from modern eyes. The article I read was about  a sea creatures which had these simple photoreceptors yet knew the direction of the light and swim toward it.



Smidlee said:
Scoobes said:
Smidlee said:

Yeah , the Big Bang is like a balloon full of hot air. The more hot air the bigger the bang.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big-bang-universe-beginning-100319.html

 From the article:

 "I would say that there is 100 percent consensus, really,"

Consensus does not count as evidence for God but it sure does when it comes to the Big Hot Balloon theory.

"It means everything and anything that can happen, will," Steinhardt told SPACE.com. "So basically everything could be a prediction of inflation. This to me is a fundamental problem and we don't know how to get away from it."

Wow you can't miss when your target is as big as the universe. A funamental problem - you think.

You love to take things out of context. You did in the other thread on evolution too. Also in the same article 

"There is overwhelming evidence [for the big bang] – all of the predictions are true."

Fact is that there is evidence that supports the big bang theory. If new evidence is discovered then the theory will be revised, changed, altered or new ones created etc. On the other hand there is no evidence for the existence of god or a creator being. With the evidence available, which is the more logical to believe in at this point?

Keep reading where they even admit a successful prediction can help both theories yet a failed prediction does no hurt to the theory. In cards this is called "Stacking the Deck" in your favor. Of course a theory will have "overwheming" evidence when contradiction evidence is disregarded.

As someome  wrote when someone stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing but believe in anything. They will go to great length to protect what they replace "God" with.

Sigh. Your three quotes in order.

"I would say that there is 100 percent consensus, really,"

Consensus isn't evidence in science, it comes from evidence though. The more evidence there is the more consensus there is.

"It means everything and anything that can happen, will," Steinhardt told SPACE.com. "So basically everything could be a prediction of inflation. This to me is a fundamental problem and we don't know how to get away from it."

He's talking about the multiverse theory here. It isn't saying that they can say anything and claim it's correct. You're taking it massively out of context.

 

As for your last part, that's because not finding gravitational waves doesn't contradict the theory - only some versions of it. Whether or not they find waves would determine which of the current version of the theory would be favoured. Those studies are a matter of refinement.

 

You really are hopeless for cherry picking quotes.

 

{These are all modern creatures with modern eyes.According to ToE Human didn't evolve from modern apes nor did modern eyes evolve from modern eyes. The article I read was about  a sea creatures which had these simple photoreceptors yet knew the direction of the light and swim toward it.}

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for. Any source on the article? I can't think how it would work unless the eye had some directionality such as a cup or pinhole.



(code fractured) " There's also the fact that people of all religions experience them. And what are "spiritual" experiences anyways? Aren't they just some form of high, like when you take drugs?"

They indeed are, you should research DMT, I did a school report on it last summer as a final.  DMT is DiMethylTryptamine and it may very well be the most important chemical that we have studied in relation to human consciousness.  DMT can be made in the brain quite easily, but our brain has defenses that keep that from happening.  You see we have a gland in our brains called the Pineal gland (so called because it resembles a pine cone, it is the only part of the brain that is singular and does not have a part for each half of the brain) which produces melatonin.  Melatonin is released when there is a perceived absence of light and causes somnolence, drop in body temperature, and at extreme doses mild hallucination (hallucination from sleep deprivation is more caused by exhaustion than by the continued release of this chemical.)

 

To form DMT all you need is two melatonin molecules to bind together (melatonin being acetyl5-methoxytryptamine) and the conditions for this bonding is superb within the human brain.  But like I said our brain has defenses against the accidental production of DMT.  Now I wish I was at home (I'm at work) so I could pull out a couple of sources I have (DMT:the spirit molecule is an excellent read and I reccommend it to everyone who has attended the discussion in this thread) but I'm not so I can't delve into the specifics about the defenses. 

However I can describe the effects of DMT.  It is a powerful psychedelic drug (yes a powerful psychedelic drug can be easily made within your own brain, shocking I know), in fact it can be easily considered the most powerful of all psychedelics.  DMT in America is commonly smoked or eaten, but when eaten it must be consumed with an MAOI (monoamine oxidase inihibitor) or else these enzymes will break it down before it reaches the brain (I believe they're the same enzymes that are used as a defense in the brain but not totally sure.)  Outside of the US/EU shamans having been using it ritualistically for millenia in the form of Ayahuasca and Yage (these are drinks that contain both an MAOI and DMT, some cultures also include psilocybin mushrooms.)  The effects of smoking or injecting (which I've only heard of being done in test subjects) are a rapid onset occurring within 30 seconds a peak at 5 minutes and a return to normal after 30.  The experience is highly spiritual (thus it's classification as an entheogen) usually involves the vision of a diety or perfect being, oftentimes visions of creatures from distant worlds who will even engage in conversations.  Time becomes altered and subjects often report feeling as if they had spent an hour or even a couple where they were when in reality it lasted not more than 5-10 minutes and everyone who has done it has reported feeling a freedom from fear of death (even if that fear was not prevalent before hand.)

 

It's quite clear to me that these religious experiences are the product of accident DMT production within the human brain, DMT relieves anxiety (the definition of an anxiety attack is an overwhelming sense of impending doom) and stress, we know now that DMT releases when we sleep.  Thus sleep, and DMT release, is necessary for a healthy human psyche.  Large doses of DMT causes memory to stop being recorded during it's effects, this is why we don't remember our trip to the stars we take every night, just the lingering after effect of a dream.  So from the observed data we can understand why we have DMT, why it is important enough to our species for evolution to have kept it within our genetic structure, and now we not only have a plausible solution to the question of 'why is there religion?' we have the answer to 'where do religious experiences come from?'

 

I also did another report on the correlation of DMT release and glossolalia (which through some effort I was able to induce in myself.)



Around the Network

nothing became something and how? evolution seems more possible than the thought of a god. from what i can tell science supports everything after the big bang. the biggest problem with all of this is not nowing.

no heaven no hell no reincarnation just death and nothing after.



Akvod said:

I don't because I like to make as few assumptions as possible, and because I like simplicity.

One can go all nihilist and say that reality itself can't be proven, since observation itself is in question.

Okay then, but I'm sure both religious and non-religious people aren't nihilist. I'm sure we all don't believe that we're in some kind of matrix.

So we all assume the existence of the world, and that our observations are reliable. That's the axiom we all live off of in my opinion, our one big assumption.

From this axiom (that the world exists and our observations are reliable) we can do inductive and deductive reasoning. We can induce the fundamental rules and laws of our reality (inducing the law of gravity by seeing an apple fall, or dropping two objects of different mass from a building), and then use those laws to deduce things that we might not be able to see or observe. That's science in my opinion, and in my opinion everyone's a scientist. We all accept reality for what it is, we remember what reality is, and we make predictions based on that memory.

So the thing is, why don't we bring a god into our big picture?

A)To explain the unexplainable.

B) To explain the origin of reality

Simply saying that goddit isn't an explanation. In fact, that's just a more complicated answer. Here's how it looks in my mind:

?->God exists->Reality exists

vs

Reality exists

 

Even if we go with:

God always existed->Reality exists

vs

Reality exists

That's 2 things vs 1.

 

It's the same reason why I don't believe that little people live in my fridge, and hide when I open the door anymore. It's why I don't believe that everytime I go back to my car, someone may have replaced it with an exactly same looking car. It's simply unneeded to believe such a thing. Nothing changes, and it's just unnecessary.

Also, to me god is just the same as replacing one unknown with another unknown, as Thuderf00t says it.

?->God->Universe

?->Universe

Why do we need a middle man? Why believe in one extra, unnecessary thing?

For somebody that likes simplicity, that was an overly convoluted response. The simple response is "...because God made it that way". 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



??? I dont get the opening paragraphs :(



Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:

I don't because I like to make as few assumptions as possible, and because I like simplicity.

One can go all nihilist and say that reality itself can't be proven, since observation itself is in question.

Okay then, but I'm sure both religious and non-religious people aren't nihilist. I'm sure we all don't believe that we're in some kind of matrix.

So we all assume the existence of the world, and that our observations are reliable. That's the axiom we all live off of in my opinion, our one big assumption.

From this axiom (that the world exists and our observations are reliable) we can do inductive and deductive reasoning. We can induce the fundamental rules and laws of our reality (inducing the law of gravity by seeing an apple fall, or dropping two objects of different mass from a building), and then use those laws to deduce things that we might not be able to see or observe. That's science in my opinion, and in my opinion everyone's a scientist. We all accept reality for what it is, we remember what reality is, and we make predictions based on that memory.

So the thing is, why don't we bring a god into our big picture?

A)To explain the unexplainable.

B) To explain the origin of reality

Simply saying that goddit isn't an explanation. In fact, that's just a more complicated answer. Here's how it looks in my mind:

?->God exists->Reality exists

vs

Reality exists

 

Even if we go with:

God always existed->Reality exists

vs

Reality exists

That's 2 things vs 1.

 

It's the same reason why I don't believe that little people live in my fridge, and hide when I open the door anymore. It's why I don't believe that everytime I go back to my car, someone may have replaced it with an exactly same looking car. It's simply unneeded to believe such a thing. Nothing changes, and it's just unnecessary.

Also, to me god is just the same as replacing one unknown with another unknown, as Thuderf00t says it.

?->God->Universe

?->Universe

Why do we need a middle man? Why believe in one extra, unnecessary thing?

For somebody that likes simplicity, that was an overly convoluted response. The simple response is "...because God made it that way". 


Actually taking the statements logically it would break down to "universe exists" and "Universe exists because God created it"  means that the latter statement is more complex.



Rath said:

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for.

But why hasn't that worm's eyes evolved further since the Cambrian age? Doesn't he want to see better?