Dubstepforum.com

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 78,00.html

Oh dear, oh dear - rationality out of the window today. Was hoping that in light of evidence against that people might question their beliefs - ho hum.

Apparently due to political correctness towards religious groups and their "sensitivities" (i.e. inability to consider their guide book wrong)

so what you trying to say?

your an atheist? isn't that a belief in itself?

It does seem pretty strange that certain people are so willing to point out the minor holes in evolutionary theory, and yet cite things such as the Bible or Q'ran (ancient and medieval texts from a time in history when we thought that the earth was flat, etc) as 'evidence' for their beliefs.

The age of enlightenment only lasted for a short amount of time. Our world is run by people who believe in faith more than proof. BIG DEAL. We are devolving culturely rather than evolving. .
I want to revolve. Ye get meh

its' funny how america a bastion for modern thinking, science and development, is such a fervernt supporter of religion.

metalboxproducts wrote: I want to revolve. Ye get meh

ill go for the rewind selecta, personally

goddamnit everyone should read francis wheen's 'how mumbo jumbo conquered the world' right NOW:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007 ... y&v=glance

best book i've read in aaaaaaages. it's like enlightenment fundamentalism, and it's absolutely brilliant.

"As a Christian, I have believed in it for a long time and I have no reason to doubt it."

Yeah mate, thats how wars start.

Spaceboy wrote:so what you trying to say?

your an atheist? isn't that a belief in itself?

Atheism isn't a belief - it's an understanding of the world based on logic and reason against superstition and dogma. There is no evidence of god, thus it doesn't exist - the "existence" is a belief, the non-existence is verifiable. If the existence could be proven, then belief would not be required.

It's possible that a supreme being created the universe and everything in it, but there's no evidence for it (and no, Intelligent Design doesn't explain it either - pseudo-science at it's most pronounced)

the non-existence is verifiable

it's not though, is it. you can't be in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife unless you die. in which case, you're not in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife. lack of evidence does not disprove a theory or belief

i thought the 'intelligent design' stance was the belief that evolution occurred, but was planned by god?

Yes and no. Good ol' George W bigs up intellinent design, but not evolution.
Really, that seems open to interpretation.

Renaissance scientists (eg Galileo) worked not to diprove the existence of god, but to 'become closer to god'

pk- wrote:

the non-existence is verifiable

it's not though, is it. you can't be in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife unless you die. in which case, you're not in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife. lack of evidence does not disprove a theory or belief

i thought the 'intelligent design' stance was the belief that evolution occurred, but was planned by god?

Well, seeing as all of the people that say that there is an afterlife are alive, what basis do they base their views on then? Of course if you do die and there's a supreme being and we enter infinity, this again wouldn't require belief to sustain it as it would be able to be experienced and quantified.

To say that something that we can't explain must be god doesn't make any sense logically. It just means that we have no explanation for it yet.

Might also be worth wiki-ing unintelligent design too and see what you make of that. I think that the intelligent design thing was created as a way of somehow trying to add religious beliefs into science, so that you could somehow avoid the notion that ancient texts may not be true. As creationism becomes increasingly laughable with genetic research, this is a way of refusing to face down the fact that Christians might be wrong, yet trying to make it seem like scientific fact.

Agnosticism would perhaps be a more honest stance then, unless you do have some evidence one way or another.

Thing is, for most of us who have not devoted our lives to studying fossil records, genetics and the like, to unquestioningly believe in evolution in the Darwinian sense is also largely an act of faith.

What should distinguish science from faith based systems is that it absolutely acknowledges that all it can ever come up with are theories, however well they may appear to fit the evidence.

"May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton's sleep!"
William Blake

"It's a paramechanical world."
Amon Duul

"It ain't necessarily so that it ain't necessarily so."
Sun Ra

To say that something that we can't explain must be god doesn't make any sense logically. It just means that we have no explanation for it yet.

i completely agree with you there, i just meant that

There is no evidence of god, thus it doesn't exist

wasn't strictly true. i'm not really sure why i mentioned being dead, it's been a long day. there really is no proof for it, because proving it is impossible, but that lack of proof doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

if that makes sense, which i sincerely doubt.

masstronaut wrote:Agnosticism would perhaps be a more honest stance then, unless you do have some evidence one way or another.

Thing is, for most of us who have not devoted our lives to studying fossil records, genetics and the like, to unquestioningly believe in evolution in the Darwinian sense is also largely an act of faith.

What should distinguish science from faith based systems is that it absolutely acknowledges that all it can ever come up with are theories, however well they may appear to fit the evidence.

I think agnosticism's a cop-out to be honest, as it still posits a belief that there might be something there, but what is this assumption based on?It might be a hangover from the old beliefs, where shaking off this whole idea of a "creator" can't quite be acheived, even though it may not be a god as suggested in the Bible, Quran, Tora, etc. Seems to be more of a yearning for something to be there than anything more concrete.

I'm not totally convinced by the Big Bang theory in all honesty, and it's doubtful we'll ever know, but with evolution, it does seem to me that there are too many people coming up with linking theories of explanation of how life evolved for it to be dismissed as a belief system. Richard Dawkins may well explain it better than me, but with the amount of research put in by so many over the years, it seems unlikely that this is coincidence. Unless of course it's a very complex test of faith

I believe the idea of god is the byproduct of our own consciousness, you are trying to explain an unexplainable void in your own head. I also think that religion has progressed rapidly over time from something that was trying to explain peoples own reality and things that science couldnt explain to something that is exploited as a use of control to the masses, even from back when some fat witchdoctor sat in his cave dishing out spiritual advice/blessings and in alot of cases useless remedies for food and respect.

Shonky wrote:I think agnosticism's a cop-out to be honest, as it still posits a belief that there might be something there, but what is this assumption based on?

Agnosticism can read to mean quite a few different things I guess.

I would say it's not 'a belief that there might be something there', just a simple belief that you cannot logically make claims to know the truth of something that is unknown.

yeah but try debating the evolution of music into dubstep and see how willing people are to agree

debating the existence of God is the most futile thing you can do to yourself. Infact this would be a never ending post...long after dubstep has died...

moderator lock this post.