[Ashes1396]

There have certainly been anti-religious extremists: Communist states of the 20th century, for example. Yes, atheism has been taken to horrible extremes (but much less than religion has been taken to horrible extremes.. every beliefs hands are dirty if you look at it like that).... ...but modern atheism is usually defined by progressive liberals, not haters. They want support for women, gays, science, and they don't think the religion pushed by old society is true. Yet, they'd protect religious people in society. I think even the most asshole atheist around here would support the religious person's right to exist, and believe what they do.

Perhaps I wasn't so clear, last time you brought it up, but that historical example: I'm trying to go beyond that.

This whole versus thread I guess creates conflicting camps, out to get one and another, rather then argue the points per say.

Say in the future, 99% of religion disappears. And then a couple of centuries after this, theists in their minorities rise up again. How would the right wing look then?

[Necromanti]

Far-right atheists certainly exist. My father is one of them. He seems to dislike Muslims more than Christians, though, so there's an element of xenophobic bigotry to him as well. He's also a homophobe.

[BocoDragon]

Perhaps I wasn't so clear, last time you brought it, but that historical example: I'm trying to go beyond that. This whole versus thread I guess creates conflicting camps, out to get another, rather then argue the points per say. Say in the future, 99% of religion disappears. And then a couple of centuries after this, theists in their minorities rise up again. How would the right wing look then?

Well, atheism is a great minority on this planet, so I wouldn't call your example plausible. The majority of humanity will be "religious" or "spiritual" for centuries to come.

I would think that the establishment of atheism in society would go along with rationalism, science, progressive politics etc.... I think they would most certainly tolerate any minority who doesn't believe what they do. It seems pretty clear to me that they would tolerate that minority.. just as the religious majority tolerates atheism today. Seems like they would be even more likely to tolerate. I don't sense a desire to stamp out religious believers, even in this fantasy scenario.

But if you're getting really out there into sci-fi land... could a society exist in which people had become atheist and couldn't even conceive of religion? Maybe. There have been many powerful ruling groups who have used a particular ideology to condemn others... but so far in human history, that has been like 99% religious, and 1% atheist. We're talking a few 20th century communist states versus countless religious kingdoms throughout history... and extremist atheism sure isn't popular today.

It's not a realistic worry.

[Ashes1396]

You say worry, where I'm thinking thought experiment.

[BocoDragon]

You say worry, where I'm thinking thought experiment.

Fair enough. I was pretty much thinking of it like that.

[Ashes1396]

Fair enough. I was pretty much thinking of it like that.

I think society can be corrupt or immoral with religion and without religion. But you appear to hold a brighter future, by simply eliminating the presence of religion.

edit: Maybe I should rephrase that... I mean the lack there of religion. basically secularism, without any religion.

[BocoDragon]

I think society can be corrupt or immoral with religion and without religion. but you appear to hold a brighter future, by simply eliminating the presence of religion.

No actually. Based on that statement, I agree with you.

It's just that I think that governments, going into the future, are not likely to support any kind of persecution, whether that be toward religious or non-religious.

I don't think atheistic governments of the future will persecute religious believers. But by the same token, I find the persecution of people for any religious beliefs implausible at this point in time, if they are in the tradition of most modern governments, anyway.

[Ashes1396]

No actually. Based on that statement, I agree with you. It's just that I think that governments, going into the future, are not likely to support any kind of persecution, whether that be toward religious or non-religious. I don't think atheistic governments of the future will persecute religious believers. But by the same token, I find the persecution of people for any religious beliefs implausible at this point in time, if they are in the tradition of most modern governments, anyway.

If we're using history as evidence, Governments change at the flick of a revolution.

edit: The point being, if people hated and despise religion in that society, I think it likely, that these conservatives, who do not want a return to the dark ages, might support politics that deter the rise of theists.

[Raist]

No fine tuning = no life at all, of any kind.

Prove it?

And consider this:

- If the "fine-tuning" of the universe for life made any sense, life would be everywhere. It quite obviously isn't.

- If it (FT) was real, evolution (as a fact, not the theory) would not exist.

[BocoDragon]

If we're using history as evidence, Governments change at the flick of a revolution. edit: The point being, if people hated and despise religion in that society, I think it likely, that these conservatives, who do not want a return to the dark ages, might support politics that deter the rise of theists.

Well maybe, in a fantasy situation, that could be so.

But we are just as likely, more likely, to see a persecution and deterrence of atheists, based on the fact that atheists are a vanishingly small minority in nearly all societies on earth.

[Necromanti]

I feel that, at its core, this thread is more about Atheism vs. Religion rather than vs. Theism. You can be theistic without adhering to a specific religion. And it's the doctrines employed by various religions that causes the tension between believers and nonbelievers.

Atheist X is not going to face any moral conflicts from the get-go with someone who merely professes to believe in a higher power, until that higher power becomes a standard of morality that may differ from that of Atheist X's.

[Ashes1396]

Well maybe, in a fantasy situation, that could be so. But we are just as likely, more likely, to see a persecution and deterrence of atheists, based on the fact that atheists are a vanishingly small minority in nearly all societies on earth.

I see. Though vanishingly small, suggests athiest numbers are falling.

I feel that, at its core, this thread is more about Atheism vs. Religion rather than vs. Theism. You can be theistic without adhering to a specific religion. And it's the doctrines employed by various religions that causes the tension between believers and nonbelievers. Atheist X is not going to face any moral conflicts from the get-go with someone who merely professes to believe in a higher power, until that higher power becomes a standard of morality that may differ from that of Atheist X's.

I guess so.

[BocoDragon]

I see. Though vanishingly small, suggests athiest numbers are falling.

Those numbers have been growing for centuries now, and have grown even in this decade.. But compared to the way of life for most of the planet, Atheists are a fringe.

[Ashes1396]

Those numbers have been growing for centuries now, and have grown even in this decade.. But compared to the way of life for most of the planet, Atheists are a fringe.

And the great liberty of fiction/philosophy is that you can topple that on its head, and see how the dusts of sand land after the shake.

Alright folks. See ya around.

[BocoDragon]

And the great liberty of fiction/philosophy is that you can topple that on its head, and see how the dusts of sand land after the shake. Alright folks. See ya around.

true.

peace man.

[WorriedCitizen]

Right wing atheists certainly exist. Here in eastern Germany the majority of the population is atheist. So i would assume that also the majority of right wingers that live here is atheist. But then neonazis often have a fascination with old Scandinavian and Germanic mythology. I think if they ever were in power again they would like the nazis try to replace established religion with some old mystic rituals. Do they actualy believe in this stuff? I don't know.

[Nocebo]

I feel that, at its core, this thread is more about Atheism vs. Religion rather than vs. Theism. You can be theistic without adhering to a specific religion. And it's the doctrines employed by various religions that causes the tension between believers and nonbelievers. Atheist X is not going to face any moral conflicts from the get-go with someone who merely professes to believe in a higher power, until that higher power becomes a standard of morality that may differ from that of Atheist X's.

I think at it's core there is a conflict of reality between theists and atheists. I'm not sure why you would limit it to the moral sphere? Why would an atheist have problems with a religion that does not profess belief in a god or gods? Maybe it's confusing since most atheists are skeptics/secularists as well as rejecting god claims.

[Narcosis]

Right wing atheists certainly exist. Here in eastern Germany the majority of the population is atheist. So i would assume that also the majority of right wingers that live here is atheist. But then neonazis often have a fascination with old Scandinavian and Germanic mythology. I think if they ever were in power again they would like the nazis try to replace established religion with some old mystic rituals. Do they actualy believe in this stuff? I don't know.

The closest I, an American, have come to these types is online in a small chunk of the black metal fanbase from Europe who endorse the NSBM (National Socialist Black Metal) genre, a segment of the genre dedicated to neo-nazi and fascist ideology. These people also tended to use alot of pagan imagery but weren't literal believers in it. They were basically propping up the symbolism of the ancient regional religions as a means of asserting their racial supremacy, like their people had been oppressed from "others" in the past and they were reclaiming their birthright or something.

[WorriedCitizen]

Do you have a link for this? My understanding was that the amount of dark energy has to be tuned precisely for life to be possible (see extract from Harpers article above).

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...ce-Krauss-/673

He mentions it near the end of the video.

I don't agree...I think physicists and cosmologists know quite a bit more about the universe than what you are letting on. They know that if some constants of certain natural laws were any different, life would not be possible. This is recognised and acknowledged by a laundry list of some of the top scientists in the world, including the following atheist / agnostic scientists:

They actualy know very little yet about how all the powers work together and they are not shy to confess to it when you watch some lectures. So how would anyone be able to model accurate different scenarios? Sure someone can play around in their mind with our already "finished" universe and come to all kinds of conclusion. But the interesting stuff i think happens within the first couple seconds of the big bang which we know so little about. Only from there one could extrapolate how an universe would look afterwards.

And don't make the mistake to misinterpret it when a scientist uses the word "appears". Even Dawkins will say this and that feature appears to be designed but what he means is literaly the appearence on the surface not how it actualy came to be.

The irony is that you are calling me a 'god of the gaps' person, when I am the one appealing to what we do know about the relevant science. I'm not relying on gaps - you are the one pointing to the gaps in science to support your atheism! Is this 'atheism of the gaps' at work?

Interesting analogy but it's deeply flawed. Since Galileo when there is a scientific gap it has been closed eventualy. Never was found a supernatural source as the explanation. There is no reason to assume that this time it will be different. That's the complete opposite of how gaps have worked out for religion since.

[Mgoblue201]

Fine. Where are the far right atheists?

The left-right dichotomy is normally meaningless even under generous circumstances, but especially in this particular case I'm not sure what you mean by it. Do you mean those who are intolerant, nationalist, and inwardly tribal in their thinking? Do you mean non-humanist atheism and the outright oppression of religion (which was actually associated with Communism)? Or do you mean Ayn Randian atheism? And why is it every time you post that this thread goes in circles for page after page?

Edit: By the look of the previous posts, it seems as if you just mean intolerance and hostility toward other ethnic and gender groups, correct?

[makingmusic476]

I'm pretty sure Something Wicked on this very forum is a right wing atheist, and I'd gather that the frontman of the band he got his name from (Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth, specifically the album Something Wicked This Way Comes) is also a fairly right wing, Southern-sympathizing atheist (in the states rights, libertarian vein as opposed to a racist douchebag). Which is somewhat odd, given you'd think a guy that tours all over the world and whose biggest fans are from places like Greece would be a bit more a of liberal.

Amazing band. Probably my favorite of all time.

[Log4Girlz]

Prove it? And consider this: - If the "fine-tuning" of the universe for life made any sense, life would be everywhere. It quite obviously isn't. - If it (FT) was real, evolution (as a fact, not the theory) would not exist.

The logic goes something like this.

The universe is fine tuned for life. That's why there are so many planets and organic molecules everywhere. So naturally a god exists that wants life to flourish everywhere.

But if life is not common, that just means we're special. So naturally a god exists who created us and us alone and we truly are the children of god.

Religious beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore are inherently flawed. It is infantile levels of logic and reasoning.

[Dice]

Got a reply back from my mom. Fortunately, it's about what I expected, which is your standard faithful denial response. She is convinced I'm just in a "spiritually dark time" and God did not and will not let me go, and at some point in the future he will cause me to have faith again. I guess that's better than being disowned like some people get as a response, and she seems to understand my concerns for others so I think she won't tell others before I do.

Funny part is she brought up Mere Christianity and A Case for Faith as things to maybe look into... Come on ma, you think I'm playing amateur hour? I said I had scholarly objections that my friend's seminary professors couldn't sort out. Oh well...

[Log4Girlz]

Got a reply back from my mom. Fortunately, it's about what I expected, which is your standard faithful denial response. She is convinced I'm just in a "spiritually dark time" and God did not and will not let me go, and at some point in the future he will cause me to have faith again. I guess that's better than being disowned like some people get as a response, and she seems to understand my concerns for others so I think she won't tell others before I do. Funny part is she brought up Mere Christianity and A Case for Faith as things to maybe look into... Come on ma, you think I'm playing amateur hour? I said I had scholarly objections that my friend's seminary professors couldn't sort out. Oh well...

Tell her you will remain atheist until god performs a miracle in your presence. Divert responsibility to the imaginary friend in the sky.

[CatPee]

Ask her to pray with all her might and make you believe and let her know what happens (nothing).

[Lesath]

Ok, I think I know where you are going here. You're invoking the so-called 'Weak Anthropic Principle' right? Ie it is impossible to observe a universe that does not permit the existence of observers; only a universe that permits the existence of observers could be observed. We are observers in a universe, so obviously our unvierse permits the existence of observers...so there's nothing to be explained by fine tuning. Is that right?

Sounds like it.

As far as I am aware there's no serious debate about whether our universe is fine-tuned for life. To get a universe in which life is even possible, ie, atoms, stars, chemistry and planets on which life can evolve, you need fine-tuning. This is why the puddle analogy from the poster above fails. No fine tuning = no life at all, of any kind.

If physicists agree that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life, it does not mean anything more than "facilitative" nor "permissive." It's as if a creationist redefined the words "natural selection" as "intelligent design", and in so doing claimed that all sane biologists agreed with him.

Check out this article from Harpers, it gives some interesting examples.

No, it really doesn't (at least from the excerpt you provided). The argument here pretty much boils down to repetitive assertions that the parameters for life are slim (what physicists agree on), so there lies no possibility but fine tuning via some conscious force (which is a position not all, and I dare say, few physicists agree on).

In other words, the author's idea is that since life as we know it cannot exist without the appropriate parameters, that no life of any kind could exist without them. Then it takes another ridiculous leap to state that those appropriate parameters were necessarily determined by some supernatural entity. There is no example to be found; just some facts of physics and a bundle of misinterpretations and jumped conclusions.

The only explanations I can conceive of for these remarkable scientific facts are: 1. God created and designed the universe OR 2. there are trillions (perhaps an infinite) number of invisible, unobservable universes, each with different parameters. Again, I find the idea of an infinite number of universes too incredible to believe. For me, theism explains fine tuning, along with various other data, better than atheism.

Your distinction is an arbitrary one. Disregarding previous discussion, just how is a singular being of infinite everything more plausible than what appears to be a draw from a set of finite (perhaps near infinite) possibilities? Elucidate me.

And even if a creator is a possible explanation, it is certainly unlikely that it is your god, or any human god. You start throwing on philosophical baggage the moment you assume its existence, and even after you bend over backwards and scuttle around that, you have to somehow accept contradictions within holy texts, whether they be contradictions with logic, with reality, or within the text itself.

[Dice]

FUCK IT! Told everyone on Facebook. Gimmie dat tough pill!



Come what may.

[Klocker]

FUCK IT! Told everyone on Facebook. Gimmie dat tough pill! Come what may.

congrats. you are among the first of many that will help lead us from our crippled denial to evolving into a true thinking being society.


won't happen in my lifetime and there will be a huge conflict at somepoint but it has to start somewhere.

[Count Dookkake]

Nice, Dice.

[SquiddyCracker]

FUCK IT! Told everyone on Facebook. Gimmie dat tough pill! Come what may.

Do post some responses (good and bad) here :D

[Kinitari]

FUCK IT! Told everyone on Facebook. Gimmie dat tough pill! Come what may.

Hopefully your friends and family pull through and show you some support.

Better yet, hopefully no one gives a damn.

[BruiserBear]

FUCK IT! Told everyone on Facebook. Gimmie dat tough pill! Come what may.

Sometimes I wish I had the balls to do the same. Congrats.

But this other, extremely compassionate part of me, thinks of it as cruel to tell others that the things they've believed their whole lives aren't true. Even my own mother, who hopes to one day be reunited with her mother. It's that which keeps me from expressing my true feelings to everyone.

I guess at heart there are moments where I wish I could go back to their world, and believe a god exists again. :/

[SquiddyCracker]

Sometimes I wish I had the balls to do the same. Congrats. But this other, extremely compassionate part of me, thinks of it as cruel to tell others that the things they've believed their whole lives aren't true. Even my own mother, who hopes to one day be reunited with her mother. It's that which keeps me from expressing my true feelings to everyone. I guess at heart there are moments where I wish I could go back to their world, and believe a god exists again. :/

You don't have to make them cease believing in a God you know.
They will probably think that you'll return to the flock eventually, so you might as well let them rather than try to debate the merits of the belief itself.

[Ruas]

i believe in God cause I just feel it

[krioto]

i believe in God cause I just feel it

Well, I guess we should all just stop posting. /thread

[Ruas]

Well, I guess we should all just stop posting. /thread

take care

[CatPee]

Sometimes I wish I had the balls to do the same. Congrats. But this other, extremely compassionate part of me, thinks of it as cruel to tell others that the things they've believed their whole lives aren't true. Even my own mother, who hopes to one day be reunited with her mother. It's that which keeps me from expressing my true feelings to everyone. I guess at heart there are moments where I wish I could go back to their world, and believe a god exists again. :/

She'll likely believe you're just going through a phase. :\

But don't live a lie. You'll just end up hating yourself unnecessarily.

[Vaporak]

FUCK IT! Told everyone on Facebook. Gimmie dat tough pill! Come what may.

That's very brave of you, I hope you don't get any hateful responses.

[Dice]

Nothing hateful so far, that's good. I did have a nice open back and forth with my friend who is in seminary since he's used to the balls-out philosophy scholars are known for. Perhaps we'll become the next Christopher Hitchens & Douglas Wilson. I'm glad he's around to help me demonstrate to others how brazen you can get without offending me. I hope everyone can be relatively comfortable.

[Doomskull]

They actualy know very little yet about how all the powers work together and they are not shy to confess to it when you watch some lectures. So how would anyone be able to model accurate different scenarios? Sure someone can play around in their mind with our already "finished" universe and come to all kinds of conclusion. But the interesting stuff i think happens within the first couple seconds of the big bang which we know so little about. Only from there one could extrapolate how an universe would look afterwards.

I'm not a physicist or cosmologist myself, but I do understand that the overwhelming consensus of physicists and cosmologists is that the universe is 'fine tuned' for life.

This is not a religious idea - it's a scientific one. All I can do is point back to the quotes from the atheist experts that I posted earlier on. Clearly they are all saying the same thing - the universe is fine tuned for life.

Again, this is not meant to imply a 'fine tuner'. All it means is that to get a universe in which life is even possible, certain paramaters (which are free to vary) have to fall within a very precise range, otherwise you can't get atoms, chemistry or planets upon which life might evolve. There's really no serious dispute about this, but again, this by itself has nothing to do with God, it's just a scientific observation.

And don't make the mistake to misinterpret it when a scientist uses the word "appears". Even Dawkins will say this and that feature appears to be designed but what he means is literaly the appearence on the surface not how it actualy came to be.

Sure, but the word 'appears' means the same thing whether a scientist is using it or we are using it.

In the context of the Dawkins quote, it just means that biological life looks like it was designed for a purpose (which it does).

Interesting analogy but it's deeply flawed. Since Galileo when there is a scientific gap it has been closed eventualy. Never was found a supernatural source as the explanation. There is no reason to assume that this time it will be different. That's the complete opposite of how gaps have worked out for religion since.

As I said earlier, an argument for God based on scientific observations (including atheist scientists) that the universe is fine tuned for life does not appeal to gaps in knowledge or ignorance.

Let me put it in the form of a deductive argument.

1. The universe is fine tuned for life.
2. The fine tuning of the universe for life is either due to chance, necessity or design.
3. It's not due to chance.
4. It's not due to necessity.
5. Therefore, it is due to design.
6. Therefore, God exists.

There's no appeal to ignorance or gaps in knowledge here.

[Orayn]

1. The universe is fine tuned for life.

If by this you mean that the conditions for life as we know it to exist are relatively specific and that the universe currently supports those conditions, I agree.

2. The fine tuning of the universe for life is either due to chance, necessity or design.

And we come to a screeching halt already. Why would you say this? Why can't it be a mix of two or more of those factors?

3. It's not due to chance. 4. It's not due to necessity.

The burden of proof is very much on you to support these arguments. Unless the details are in a paper you've published that I just haven't found yet, this hasn't been done.

[BruiserBear]

Let me put it in the form of a deductive argument. 1. The universe is fine tuned for life. 2. The fine tuning of the universe for life is either due to chance, necessity or design. 3. It's not due to chance. 4. It's not due to necessity. 5. Therefore, it is due to design. 6. Therefore, God exists. There's no appeal to ignorance or gaps in knowledge here.

Would a fish ever find itself swimming in a desert? Likewise, beings like us would never find themselves alive anywhere it wasn't suited for such life.

For me, the evidence for god is nonexistent, so none of this really matters. If god is as he is described, he wouldn't leave people in such a place there would even be a need for us to be having this debate. The very existence of this thread is proof there is no god to me. The scientific knowledge humanity has aquired just cements that for me.

[Doomskull]

If physicists agree that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life, it does not mean anything more than "facilitative" nor "permissive." It's as if a creationist redefined the words "natural selection" as "intelligent design", and in so doing claimed that all sane biologists agreed with him.

I see what you are saying here, but even atheist scientists use the term 'fine tuned'.

It's not meant to imply a fine tuner - it's just a term that cosmologists and physicists use to refer to the observation that certain constants in the laws of nature and parameters have precise values that, if they were different, would result in a universe that could not support any life (a universe with no stars, planets and chemistry, etc).

No, it really doesn't (at least from the excerpt you provided).

I humbly suggest you take another look. It definitely does explain how the universe is fine tuned for life.

The argument here pretty much boils down to repetitive assertions that the parameters for life are slim (what physicists agree on), so there lies no possibility but fine tuning via some conscious force (which is a position not all, and I dare say, few physicists agree on).

You have to separate 2 things here:

1. The scientific fact that the unvierse if fine tuned for life (which almost all physicists and cosmologists, inclduing atheist ones like Stephen Hawking et al, agree on); and
2. The signifiance or implications of that fact, ie what does this mean?

In other words, the author's idea is that since life as we know it cannot exist without the appropriate parameters, that no life of any kind could exist without them. Then it takes another ridiculous leap to state that those appropriate parameters were necessarily determined by some supernatural entity. There is no example to be found; just some facts of physics and a bundle of misinterpretations and jumped conclusions.

The article is from a science journal that is naturalistic / atheistic. I don't think you actually read the article because in no way does it suggest that there is a supernatural explanation for fine tuning.

Your distinction is an arbitrary one. Disregarding previous discussion, just how is a singular being of infinite everything more plausible than what appears to be a draw from a set of finite (perhaps near infinite) possibilities? Elucidate me.

For me, the idea of a God creating the universe is much more plausible than the alternative, being an infinite number of universes. Why not just go for the simpler and more elegant solution here? The universe looks like it was designed. Maybe that's because it was? Why would you invoke an infinite number of universes to explain it? That just seems irrational to me.

And even if a creator is a possible explanation, it is certainly unlikely that it is your god, or any human god. You start throwing on philosophical baggage the moment you assume its existence, and even after you bend over backwards and scuttle around that, you have to somehow accept contradictions within holy texts, whether they be contradictions with logic, with reality, or within the text itself.

I'm not assuming anything.

I'm looking at the evidence and deciding that the best explanation for various data of human experience and observation is God. I think the alternative explanations offered by atheism are, to be blunt, absurd.

[cutmeamango]

Here's the point: if we consider the huge maze of possible universes, the vast majority will not have conditions hospitable to life, or at least to anything remotely akin to life as we know it. For drastic changes in familiar physics, it is clear, if our universe didn't conform to the rules it does, life as we know it, would not exist.

Even rather conservative changes to physics would interfere with the formation of stars for example, disrupting their ability to act as cosmic furnaces that synthesise complex life supporting atoms, such as carbon and oxygen, that normally are spewed throughout the universe by supernova explosions.

In the light of the sensitive dependance of life on the details of physics if we now ask, for instance, why the forces and particles of nature have the particular properties we observe, a possible answer emerges. Across the entire gamut of possibilities, these features vary widely. Properties could be different.

What's special about the particular combination of particle and force properties we observe is that clearly they allow life to form, and life, intelligent life in particular, is a prerequisite even to ask the question of why our universe has the properties it does.

In plain language, things are the way they are because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to notice.

I love this song, Lecture on Nothing by Mt.

[zethren]

I feel like to accept God as an answer is an inhibitor in our real quest for scientific truths. If we already know the answer, what's the point in solving the problem? I already know it's 4, so why should I add 2 and 2?

Not to mention that coming to the conclusion of God as a creator is simply the product of man's attempt to explain the universe around him, and there is no actual evidence of intelligent creation unless you believe the supernatural tales of the bible.

I don't think it's very logical to look at the world around you scientifically, observe the natural phenomena and all that we have learned over the course of our civilization, all the while accepting that we don't know everything yet, and then jump to the conclusion of an intelligent creator. So everything can be explained scientifically, except the source? I don't buy it. Just because we don't know, or can't explain everything yet, doesn't mean we should fill in the gaps with god. The Greeks believed a god brought the sun up into the sky and back down again each and every day; that was their way of filling in the gap, and explaining their world.

I'm not going to be an asshole to anyone who is religious, and they are free to practice their beliefs. But I tend to get irked when someone says that they've come "logically" to the conclusion that there must be a creator or that a creator is the most "logical" answer.

[Log4Girlz]

The Universe is fine tuned to create computers. Life is just the middleman.

[RiverBed]

For me, the problem with any 'religion' is the petty humanization of it. If there is a diety, why the fuck would it have humanistic features? Why in the fuck would a 'god' make servants? If you could do ANYTHING you fucking wanted, would you create people to take your clothes to a dry cleaner? That makes no sense to me, because if I were all powerful, I would just snap my fingers and transfer my dirty laundry into dry cleaned pressed ones. Heck, I wouldn't even allow my clothes to get dirty or wrinkled in the first place.

If ANYTHING makes ANYTHING to make it feel better, I already despise it.

Also, I would be surprised if I find ANY fucking intelligent brain that would consider 'religion' as anything but 'real' if they understand the basics of astrophysics and psychology. Astrophysics for elaborating our existence and psychology for why we think the way we do. Any argument of 'religion' or a deity crumbles at that point.

[Log4Girlz]

For me, the problem with any 'religion' is the petty humanization of it. If there is a diety, why the fuck would it have humanistic features? Why in the fuck would a 'god' make servants? If you could do ANYTHING you fucking wanted, would you create people to take your clothes to a dry cleaner? That makes no sense to me, because if I were all powerful, I would just snap my fingers and transfer my dirty laundry into dry cleaned pressed ones. Heck, I wouldn't even allow my clothes to get dirty or wrinkled in the first place. If ANYTHING makes ANYTHING to make it feel better, I already despise it. Also, I would be surprised if I find ANY fucking intelligent brain that would consider 'religion' as anything but 'real' if they understand the basics of astrophysics and psychology. Astrophysics for elaborating our existence and psychology for why we think the way we do. Any argument of 'religion' or a deity crumbles at that point.

I love the arrogance behind the "fine tuned" theory of life. As if life is something magical and can only be explained by some fine tuning by a deity. Dude, at best you live 100 years and you turn to ash. You are a walking talking chemical reaction and it lasts practically no time at all in the context of the history of the universe.

We are nothing.

[Raist]

Fine tuning

Fine tuning is BS, and no, it doesn't have any support from the scientific community, except in creationists' minds.

Life is "fine tuned" for the universe, not the other way around.

[zethren]

We are nothing.

What we are, what we do, why we are: it's all up to us. We provide our own meaning for our own lives, and we shouldn't need a deity to do that for us. I don't need a deity to tell me why I live on each day, or what I exist for. I don't need a divine, cosmic purpose.

I once had a conversation with a good friend who said something along the lines of "without god there is no morality", implying that life would be chaos without god to stabilize us and give us direction. I don't believe that.

I think that religion, ironically, largely discredits the actual miracle and phenomena of life and humanity. I think it discredits what we are capable of on our own.