Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[Tone Deft]

For someone to believe that the universe wasn't created from the saucy tentacles of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to deny the obvious similarities between his meatballs and the shapes of everything from the planet we live on to our very own male reproductive organs. Only a diety with such long noodly appendages could create such a wide variety of animal and plant life that we see around us daily. Sure, plants and animals can mutate but only an intelligent plate of spaghetti could create the beauty of a sunset or the peacock's feathers.

To deny the FSM as the only true god is to deny the obvious facts of daily life.

[edge100]

For a person who thinks the virgin birth is impossible, they are only thinking of half of the equation - the miracle of the virgin birth, not the nature of God. If you understand the universe was created by a personal god who can interact with this world directly, such a miracle is not necessarily a stretch.

For a person who thinks evolution is just random chance, they are only thinking of half of the equation - random mutation, not natural selection. If you understand that an organism's genetics directly influence it's chances of reproducing its genetic code, and that this, coupled with genetic mutation, produces a tendency for organisms to become more complex and better suited to their environment, then you can imagine that such evolution could lead to the development of humans, who have developed an entirely new sets of tools for ensuring our own evolutionary goals.

I'm not entirely in agreement with the comparison of the "half the equation" issue here. I am in total agreement that we should try to understand each others' arguments, before rushing to judgement. However, this comparison is a bit of a stretch. Let me elaborate:

'Randomness' is a part of evolution ONLY insofar as the mutations that are the ultimate effector of evolution are random. Even this is a stretch, since certain mutations are VERY common (Google "Delta F508" to see one example), and decidedly non-random. Also, the processes that brings about mutation (DNA copy errors, environmental input, etc) are non-random. NAtural selection is the conlcusion to a system where resources are not uniformly available, and some individuals are more able to reproduce than others. Nevertheless, random or not, there is no element of evolution that is inconsistent with known physical reality. Natural selection can be mimicked in the laboratory; I've done it many times, and is also directly observed in nature (the best example being antibiotic resistant bacteria). Put another way, no miracles are required.

Virgin birth, resurrection, and transsubstantiation are, perhaps, misunderstood. However, even when understood in the purest light possible, they are not compatible with our physical reality in any literal sense. Their occurence can only be explained through miracle.

Back to the virgin birth, Jesus's lineage traces back to David by his mother genetically, and by his father by virtue of the fact that Joseph adopted Jesus, which makes Jesus his heir according to the legal customs of the day.

As for how the virgin conception jives with what we know about how humans become pregnant, I can't say. Based on what we know about genetics, Jesus must have had X and Y chromosomes, so he was not a genetic replica of Mary. Where the other DNA came from, no one can say, other than that the one who created DNA put it there. The virgin birth has never been a big issue with me, so I haven't put a lot of thought into how it might have happened....I accept that it happened and it was miraculous and mysterious, but its a peripheral issue to me.

This is where it all breaks down for me, and where the literal truth of any particular religion is just as improbable as the next. Without some kind of external confirmation, Jesus' divinity (and birth from a virgin) is as unlikely as any other idea you can name. Even if you accept that Jesus' divinity was technically POSSIBLE (given the occurance of a miracle), doesn't make it any more PROBABLE than the divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since neither is supported by any direct external evidence, or even on any theoretical basis (i.e. their existence isn't predicted by theory, like black holes are predicted by general relativity, for instance).

This discussion really has been great; it's taught me a lot about the way others think and view 'god'. And I hope others have learned a little about the truth about evolution, and about the ideas of 'randomness' and 'chance'.

[NorthernMonkey]

For a person who thinks the virgin birth is impossible, they are only thinking of half of the equation - the miracle of the virgin birth, not the nature of God. If you understand the universe was created by a personal god who can interact with this world directly, such a miracle is not necessarily a stretch.

For a person who thinks evolution is just random chance, they are only thinking of half of the equation - random mutation, not natural selection. If you understand that an organism's genetics directly influence it's chances of reproducing its genetic code, and that this, coupled with genetic mutation, produces a tendency for organisms to become more complex and better suited to their environment, then you can imagine that such evolution could lead to the development of humans, who have developed an entirely new sets of tools for ensuring our own evolutionary goals.

I'm not entirely in agreement with the comparison of the "half the equation" issue here. I am in total agreement that we should try to understand each others' arguments, before rushing to judgement. However, this comparison is a bit of a stretch. Let me elaborate:

'Randomness' is a part of evolution ONLY insofar as the mutations that are the ultimate effector of evolution are random. Even this is a stretch, since certain mutations are VERY common (Google "Delta F508" to see one example), and decidedly non-random. Also, the processes that brings about mutation (DNA copy errors, environmental input, etc) are non-random. NAtural selection is the conlcusion to a system where resources are not uniformly available, and some individuals are more able to reproduce than others. Nevertheless, random or not, there is no element of evolution that is inconsistent with known physical reality. Natural selection can be mimicked in the laboratory; I've done it many times, and is also directly observed in nature (the best example being antibiotic resistant bacteria). Put another way, no miracles are required.

Virgin birth, resurrection, and transsubstantiation are, perhaps, misunderstood. However, even when understood in the purest light possible, they are not compatible with our physical reality in any literal sense. Their occurence can only be explained through miracle.

Back to the virgin birth, Jesus's lineage traces back to David by his mother genetically, and by his father by virtue of the fact that Joseph adopted Jesus, which makes Jesus his heir according to the legal customs of the day.

As for how the virgin conception jives with what we know about how humans become pregnant, I can't say. Based on what we know about genetics, Jesus must have had X and Y chromosomes, so he was not a genetic replica of Mary. Where the other DNA came from, no one can say, other than that the one who created DNA put it there. The virgin birth has never been a big issue with me, so I haven't put a lot of thought into how it might have happened....I accept that it happened and it was miraculous and mysterious, but its a peripheral issue to me.

This is where it all breaks down for me, and where the literal truth of any particular religion is just as improbable as the next. Without some kind of external confirmation, Jesus' divinity (and birth from a virgin) is as unlikely as any other idea you can name. Even if you accept that Jesus' divinity was technically POSSIBLE (given the occurance of a miracle), doesn't make it any more PROBABLE than the divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since neither is supported by any direct external evidence, or even on any theoretical basis (i.e. their existence isn't predicted by theory, like black holes are predicted by general relativity, for instance).

This discussion really has been great; it's taught me a lot about the way others think and view 'god'. And I hope others have learned a little about the truth about evolution, and about the ideas of 'randomness' and 'chance'.

i can see you've obviously given this some thought

[Machinesworking]

On to another odd take on religion from an adult comic, the Sandman. In the comic there are eternals; basically base things, sleep, death, desire, pain, etc. Then there are the gods. The gods change, their existence is based entirely on how many people on earth believe in them, so the Greek and Roman gods are almost faded out entirely with no ability to control existence, whereas the Judaeo-Christian god is in high reign.Any idea has power if you allow it to.

Personally, I get tired of defending my gay friends in these conversations, but let's face it, any person who believes in the Judaeo-Christian god, (or muslim versions etc..) believes that homosexuals are sinners, and propagates that hatred whether they want to admit it or not, period. You tell me that you personally don't hate gays, fine, but your belief system states clearly that their version of love, and really who would want to deny love? is not only inappropriate, it is not what the creator wants etc.
Now in nature there are these deviations, and our closest relative the bonobo is a practitioner. Funny thing about the bonobos, they are pretty much nonviolent, and matriarchal, the females, being even more prone to homosexual behavior are tighter knit, and control their groups. They tend to not be war like, and generally get along well.
So in my thinking, gays are OK, people who place sin on adult consensual relations are doing their part to place more pain in this world, not love. I cannot, and do not see a way around this. You can believe in your gods etc. but your actions, or the actions of people who are reading the same thing you do, but take it to heart are creating a situation where people are subjugated to second class citizen status, abused in school, and even murdered etc. I simply do not see any way around that. You can say you don't do those things, but the religious text you adhere to preaches that people who are gay are sinners, and the simple fact is people have died because of that belief, propagated by that text.

[Tone Deft]

Not ALL christians are homophobic, that's a pretty big blanket statement. On the other hand, most main stream gay bashing comes from christians. Go figure. People suck, bang beats.

[Machinesworking]

Not ALL christians are homophobic, that's a pretty big blanket statement. On the other hand, most main stream gay bashing comes from christians. Go figure. People suck, bang beats.

All christians believe homosexuality is a sin. If that is a blanket statement, well it comes from the bible. A christina who has decided that homosexuality isn't a sin is simply interpreting it to their specifications. I can be open to any person wanting to believe whatever they want to believe, no problem, but the bible condemns homosexuality period. That condemnation is used as a weapon by weak minded bigots. Sure there are christians that have decided to look at the question from the larger perspective and say that it's a sin, but we all sin etc. but the simple fact is there are as many, or more who do not. There is no such blanket condemnation of any group currently from the atheist community.

[djadonis206]

Not ALL Christians are homophobic, that's a pretty big blanket statement. On the other hand, most main stream gay bashing comes from Christians. Go figure. People suck, bang beats.

All Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. If that is a blanket statement, well it comes from the bible. A christian who has decided that homosexuality isn't a sin is simply interpreting it to their specifications. I can be open to any person wanting to believe whatever they want to believe, no problem, but the bible condemns homosexuality period. That condemnation is used as a weapon by weak minded bigots. Sure there are Christians that have decided to look at the question from the larger perspective and say that it's a sin, but we all sin etc. but the simple fact is there are as many, or more who do not. There is no such blanket condemnation of any group currently from the atheist community.

OK MW, you're way way off base - not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin...I can't believe you said that

but you do realise you just basically said you believe in something the bible says, is that true? you believe in the bible, now?

but most if not all opening and affirming churches read and worship straight out of the bible so for them to say all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin would be to believe they themselves are a sin

I used to to belong to a open and affirm church - I'm really shocked you believe that

weird, but I'm not going to be the one to try and change your mind - I'm mixing in Ableton right now

[Tone Deft]

All christians believe homosexuality is a sin.

There's a lot of the bible that many christians don't follow, ways to cut your hair, how many handles to put on a cup so you can wash it, preparation of pork, on and on old testamnt stuff, <ahem shtreimel!!>... It's been a while since I've read the bible but there's a lot in those rice paper thin pages.


and now a word from XTC...

Dear god,
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
cause they dont get enough to eat

From god,
I cant believe in you.

Dear god,
Sorry to disturb you,
But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About god,
I cant believe in you.

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!

Dear god,
Dont know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it aint and so do you,
Dear god,
I cant believe in,
I dont believe in,

I wont believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
Youre always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And its the same the whole world round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
That the father, son and holy ghost,
Is just somebodys unholy hoax,
And if youre up there youll perceive,
That my hearts here upon my sleeve.
If theres one thing I dont believe in...

Its you,
Dear god.

If that's not god's favorite song, she doesn't get it.

[Machinesworking]

OK you guys are not following. What I'm saying is that if you believe the bible is the word of god, then god condemns homosexuality as a sin. If you decide you believe only certain aspects of the bible, then more power to you, but that's simply not what I'm talking about.
There are churches that don't follow the bible word for word, but try to get the good stuff out, and leave the weird stuff to the fanatics, sure. The fact is though it's cherry picking. I appreciate it as being open to change, and I'm glad those churches exist, but let's face it, 99% of the churches out there preach the bible as the word of god.

It's like saying that there are some atheists that are against abortion. Sure there are some, but the basic atheistic belief is that life is a matter of ability to survive outside a host, so most would not be against abortion in theory, if not practice.

[kramerica]

How does "Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin" = "Christians are homophobic" or "...hate homosexuals"? I don't see the logic there.

I'm not a practicing Christian but I know enough about the belief system to understand that hating the sin is not the same as hating the sinner. In fact, throughout the New Testament, Jesus commands that we love the sinner.

[debu]

the music in the end of the you tube link was Boards of Canada. The link was still very cool tho
ahem one more time (credit knotcranky)
http://www.youtube.com/w/?v=BteSSLN_8UI ... VkIXEJYXUu

[edge100]

How does "Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin" = "Christians are homophobic" or "...hate homosexuals"? I don't see the logic there.

I'm not a practicing Christian but I know enough about the belief system to understand that hating the sin is not the same as hating the sinner. In fact, throughout the New Testament, Jesus commands that we love the sinner.

I believe what MW is trying to say (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is something along the lines of this:

Religious moderation is simply bad faith.

Clearly not all Christians are homophobic, nor do all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Many Christians eat shellfish, handle mixed fibres, and do business on the Sabbath. Most Christians feel that slavery is not right. The vast majority of Christians do not believe that stoning is the appropriate punishment for disobeying the 10 commandments.

But, that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't pronounce all of these things to be sinful. If you've chosen to ignore these tenets of your religion, I think that's wonderful; you've clearly made the recognition that slavery, gay bashing, and ritual stoning are incompatible with human civilization.

Of course, the Bible is very clear on these issue. Anti-abolitionists used the Bible to justify slavery, since both the OT and the NT (!) are very clear on this issue. But we recognize that ownership of other human beings is simply not right.

Of course, many religions have not yet come to the recognition that many of the core beliefs codified in their religious texts have to be put aside for the sake of the future of humanity. In this respect, the vast majority of Christians have done a very good job. But that doesn't mean they aren't practicing bad faith. If god thinks homosexuality is a sin, and slavery is acceptable, then they are. End of story. No amount of maneuvering can change this.

[edge100]

i can see you've obviously given this some thought

Yes. My training is as a molecular biologist, but I've always seen a vast amount of philosophical insight through science. For me, the more we learn about the literal nature of the universe, the less and less important WE become, and the more insight we gain on the fundamental nature of 'being'.

Science isn't all test tubes and beakers; or at least, it shouldn't be. Of course, when you're actually DOING science on a day to day basis, all that matters is your results. For most people, 'how' to do scientific things is far more important than what you can gain from knowledge; in terms of practicality, perhaps they're right (although I stand by my strong publication record). But I also try to extract a lot more from science than just plain data; to me this is missing the point.

[Seyser Koze]

I like that Edge.

It was one of my earliest thoughts on the subject of religion:

Why do we think we are so special that a god would create all this and put us here to witness it, like we are the centre of all things and the only important thing that exists in this universe.

I could not believe this arrogance, an arrogance that is simply brushed aside by religion by saying that no, we are actually humble. Not at all. For me simply inventing a god and then imagining he m,ade us and everything for us to live in is arrogance in the extreme.

The reality is probably very different. That in fact we are insignificant lifeforms on a tiny planet in a distant galaxy without any real relevance to the scheme of things. And when our sun goes pop and our planet disappears and we no longer exist the universe will go on as before without so much as a blink in our general direction.

Another example of the arrogance is religions take on our superiority over other animals. Why do we think we are superior to other animals? Our sentience and slightly more advanced intelligence?

as far as i recall the bible states there is no place in heaven for dead animals, it's just for people.

What?

Why are they so inferior they don't get a heaven?

If that's the case why would a god bother making them at all?
Utter nonsense.

[NorthernMonkey]

i can see you've obviously given this some thought

Yes. My training is as a molecular biologist, but I've always seen a vast amount of philosophical insight through science. For me, the more we learn about the literal nature of the universe, the less and less important WE become, and the more insight we gain on the fundamental nature of 'being'.

Science isn't all test tubes and beakers; or at least, it shouldn't be. Of course, when you're actually DOING science on a day to day basis, all that matters is your results. For most people, 'how' to do scientific things is far more important than what you can gain from knowledge; in terms of practicality, perhaps they're right (although I stand by my strong publication record). But I also try to extract a lot more from science than just plain data; to me this is missing the point.

That's interesting you say that, I had a friend at University who also studied molecular biology and he had a similar outlook on life as you. But I totally agree with you, at the end of the day we as humans are nothing more than insignificant little specs of matter that have existed for less than a microsecond in the day of the universe.

As an apathetic christian, the one thing that has always troubled me about my pre-determined choice of religion is this - why is Jesus, the so-called son of god, human? Why not a fish, or a bat or a goat? That to me confirms what I've always believed - god and religion are man-made, pure and simple. And I also don't like the religious phrases, for example 'to be a good christian' - you don't need to be religious to be kind, thoughtful, helpful, whatever, you just need to have respect for other people.