So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

by Jsmythe Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:47 pm

Can order arise out of chaos given enough time? (I'm asking because I know nothing about chaos theory)

Hello Snowy,that is a good question,especially regarding time. I do believe in evolution but also the universe is so formulated that it becomes a funtionality. One part can not exist with out the other. I can only put that down to design.(IMO)

Good to see you again BTW

Smile

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:53 am

Entropy (order and disorder)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system.

In recent years, in chemistry textbooks there has been a shift away from using the terms “order” and “disorder” to that of the concept of energy dispersion to describe entropy, among other theories. In the 2002 encyclopedia Encarta, for example, entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; as well as a measure of the disorder in the system. In the context of entropy, “perfect internal disorder” is synonymous with “equilibrium”…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:24 am

My question then would be; "How does one accept natural law by its own rules and regulations to have been formulated from chaos or bigbang? Logically this should not make sense using evolution as the model even be dared a claim by the cleverest of minds on the planet. This would indeed be impossible! Life and matter by evolution is understandable but not the very formation of the laws itself.

What are laws ?

They are only a mathematical description or explanation of cause and effect, the events and the laws are one and the same, the laws did not form the events, the laws are the events.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:43 am

Such laws, being human in the way they are expressed, do not in any way affect the occurrence to which they apply. A spun Coin can have no awareness of the Law of Probability, so even though it may have come down "Heads" on ten consecutive occasions previously, the odds on the next spin are still no better than 50/50.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:12 pm

Don't forget the uncertainty principle.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:34 pm

Ah yes. Mustn't forget Heisenberg. Merely by studying something we may alter what is happening within the thing being studied.

The universal "Get out of jail free" card.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:13 pm

What all this means is, that information will be lost from our region of the universe, when black holes are formed, and then evaporate. This loss of information will mean that we can predict even less than we thought, on the basis of quantum theory. In quantum theory, one may not be able to predict with certainty, both the position, and the speed of a particle. But there is still one combination of position and speed that can be predicted. In the case of a black hole, this definite prediction involves both members of a particle pair. But we can measure only the particle that comes out. There's no way even in principle that we can measure the particle that falls into the hole. So, for all we can tell, it could be in any state. This means we can not make any definite prediction, about the particle that escapes from the hole. We can calculate the probability that the particle has this or that position, or speed. But there's no combination of the position and speed of just one particle that we can definitely predict, because the speed and position will depend on the other particle, which we don't observe. Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

by Shirina Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Can order arise out of chaos given enough time?

It can, yes.

A good example is our own solar system. It started off as random gas molecules orbiting a star, they randomly float around until congealing into ever larger chunks of matter until planets form - and once planets form, they whiz around the star in all kinds of chaotic ways. Elongated and eliptical orbits, some planets orbit in the opposite direction, some orbit nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic, etc. etc. They fly around for millions of years, colliding, falling into the star, being whipped out of the system altogether by gravitational forces - and through it all lie the debris that never formed into planets, asteroids, comets, that constantly smash into the planets. Mercury had its mantle blown off by an impact, Earth received a nice moon out of an impact with a Mars-sized planet called Theia, Mars was similarly struck, Uranus orbits on its side due ostensibly to a massive impact, etc. etc.

Yet it all came to order eventually so that now our solar system is nice and orderly, and it is through that chaos-to-order transition that allowed life to evolve.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:33 pm

Can order arise out of chaos given enough time?

WE ARE LIVING PROOF THAT ORDER CAN COME FROM CHAOS, AND NO VOODOO REQUIRED.

Humans just have an intuitive dislike for randomness, it lacks purpose.

by polyglide Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:38 pm

I can give a theory that it is possible to build a ladder that will enable me to reach the moon, the material is available and with present technology in theory this is possible.

Now just what are the odds of it ever happening?

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:08 pm

Now just what are the odds of it ever happening?

Its your theory, you are supposed to know the odds.

Look you nitwit, if something has odds of a billion to 1 and it is attempted a billion billion times then the odds become a certainty of it happening.

We do not know how many attempts it took to create our universe, some are suggesting in M theory and infinite number of attempts.

Your analogies are terrible, please stop using them.

by Jsmythe Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:00 pm

They are only a mathematical description or explanation of cause and effect, the events and the laws are one and the same, the laws did not form the events, the laws are the events.

I sort of agree with you,and could also say events can not happen without laws. If the big bang itself was indeed true then the big bang event occured when the laws were already there. In physical terms we would say there was nothing.

If we are talking of chaos,(after the big bang) is it also possible to say that natural law has always been the same,and was already inplace meaning it is only the physical elements that evolve,where life later appears?

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:27 pm

If the big bang itself was indeed true then the big bang event occured when the laws were already there. In physical terms we would say there was nothing.

In Hawkings theory ( Grand Design), seemingly the universe created itself within the laws of physics, this suggests the universe and the laws occurred simultaneously or are one and the same.

The term nothing is his attempt at humor, you cannot have a time before time, and you cannot have a space before space time, for something to exist it must exist in space time.

He uses the point of space time like a geographic coordinate, there is nothing north of the north pole.

by Jsmythe Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:14 pm

Here's the thing. Let us suppose the Big bang was true. In time all the matter spead outward from a pinpoint centre in a trajectory to all the corners of the universe.

Yes we understand that matter and elements floating about get affected by unseen forces and gases combine and bodies form. Even with all the time possible,"Why does one corner of the universe behave like the opposite corner of the furthest universe? Why do the most distances of galaxies spin in spirals as do those looking the otherway in direction?

A crucial point -Chance happenings and evolution outcomes 'repeated' like our solar sytems,planets and moons,should NOT be possible outside our galactic localization by this thought. There should be no similarities of other galaxies spinning in spirals. This is only possible when there is an equal undeline invisible guidline that is through out the entire universe. An invisible web of premade laws, equal from one end to furthest end of the universe.

by Jsmythe Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:23 pm

I call it 'Intelligent Mapping'

I.M. if you will.
Wink

by snowyflake Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:27 pm

Hi JSmythe Smile

The problem here is we don't know that the laws in this part of the universe apply to other parts of the universe. We assume they do. There is no evidence that physical laws behave any different in any other part of the universe, but the truth is we don't know for certain.

I agree that chance happenings occurred in the 13.7 billion year history of our universe. We know nothing, Jon Snow. How many civilisations have come and gone that we earth humans think we are so special as to be the only ones ever in the universe. We don't know this! We might be the millionth, billionth civilisation.

Humans are just a bit up themselves.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:47 pm

Snowy,

They are universal Laws, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and numerous observations at finer and finer levels of resolution, have revealed a universe that looks the same in every direction no matter where you are in it. Meaning that the laws of physics would be the same no matter where are you in the universe.

But we cannot prove it.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:51 pm

Well, I think you are probably right, Tosh. I was just throwing it out there. A couple of glasses of wine and my mind is expansive and just a tad melodramatic and philosophical.....

Yup... Smile

by Jsmythe Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:12 pm

Hello Snowy, It is good thought that different Galaxies having differing properties has been thought about even amongst the universal laws as Tosh mentioned.

I remember coming across the idea some years back that it is possible when we think of evolution. By this I mean; Each galaxy is at different stages in its life ,shall we say,and this is an evolutionary process.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:18 pm

There are OTHER threads????...............

by Jsmythe Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:23 pm

There are OTHER threads????...............

Yes the universe is a big place!
Razz

by Jsmythe Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:38 pm

continuing..

Coinciding with the science of frequency that when matter vibrates faster or differently as you know,changes the properties of physical elements.

By a study,vaguely remembering the mention of galaxies emitting tones or 'singing'. The earth has its pitch and is apparently shifting higher in tone. This coincides with the idea of faser vibration.

Jumping ahead in mind, can you imagine if our galaxy vibrates so fast by multitudes of shifts we would all be another dimension of sorts. The fastest possible we become light according and coinciding with another idea.
(I must be drinking similar to what you're drinking)
Embarassed

by snowyflake Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:48 pm

Noooo........I think you're smokin' somethin' Smile

I am not so up on my science fiction as say you and Tosh (or my husband) but I quite liked Professor Brian Cox's book: The Quantum Universe: Everything that can Happen Does Happen.

But I loved the implied message: That doesn't mean Anything Can Happen.

So I think we are bound by the laws of physics and that law extends to the outer limits of our universe. although, if anyone finds anything, I would be very interested in learning.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Oooh. Vibrators. You are wicked!

by Tosh Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:17 am

There is a scientific theory that most consider universal, if complex life exists somewhere in the universe then it can only have come about by one method, evolution. Complex life must come from simpler life, Darwin's theory of common ancestry and natural selection is a universal fact of life.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:50 pm

We are ‘at heart desperate, fragile, vulnerable, sinful creatures, a good deal less wise than we are knowledgeable, always on the verge of anxiety, tortured by our relationships, terrified of death.

These are the human reasons why God and religion are needed by some.

by polyglide Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:11 pm

So Tosh thinks there are not odds recognised as possibilities and probabilities.

Just what planet does he think he is on?.

Many scientists get their theories based odds.

And there is no foundation that proves evolution is the sourse of life.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:05 pm

So Tosh thinks there are not odds recognised as possibilities and probabilities. Many scientists get their theories based odds.

Give me a scientific theory based purely on odds, and we will discuss its relevance to my post, you do like to invent and distort my position. According to you the odds prove the Big Bang theory is improbable but science considers it probable despite the odds, care to explain ?

And there is no foundation that proves evolution is the source of life.

You seem to be the only who is claiming this so you can refute it, it is truly bizarre.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:21 pm

Don't forget the uncertainty principle.

You know, I've never been 100% sure about the uncertainty prinicple....

by snowyflake Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:33 pm

Many scientists get their theories based odds.

Like who for instance? What theories are based on odds. I'd like an example please.

And there is no foundation that proves evolution is the sourse of life.

No one on this forum has ever said that evolution is the source of life. Evolution is the source of diversity of species. If you want to talk about the origins of life we have several theories. One of those is:

The early conditions of the earth, hot, volatile, volcanic, violent might have provided the right conditions for molecules to come together in the primordial soup and form the first replicating molecule.

OR

We have Magic - God did it. Don't need to investigate any further. Just accept it on faith and don't ask questions.

Hmmmmmmmmmm somehow that second one just leaves so many questions. At least, the first one is viable and there is some evidence supporting it. The second one doesn't have any evidence, but what the hell, let's just believe in magic even though the world doesn't operate through magical priniciples.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:28 am

Religious wackos fail to understand that science cannot just assume the existence of some agent in their deliberations without cause, and to date there is no evidence of any external force interfering or interacting with our deterministic physical universe.

It is not the fault of science that Elohim has chosen to hide himself within the natural world and for all intensive purposes is hidden to science. Science does not consider inserting this agent into every gap in our knowledge as proof that he exists, if one wishes to assume this agent exists then one assumes on faith, not science, probability or reason.

by polyglide Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:15 pm

God is not hidden to science, all living things are evidence of the creativeness of God.

You can take any scientific theory, and they are theories you like and not one can explain in any factual detail how life came about.

I know I keep on about the butterfly as an example but anyone with one iota of comman sense , after the study of it's life cycle, who can think this animal, it is only one example of thousands, can possibly have evolved, either from a single cell or even a double cell is in my opinion well on the way to the mental department for urgent treatment.

The world is flat, how do you get a round that one. the earth is the centre of the universe, just a little way out, both would have the Tosh's of the time screaming blue murder at anyone who thought otherwise.

by polyglide Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:57 pm

Most scientific theories are based on odds and assumptions or they would not be theories they would be fact.

by polyglide Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:05 pm

Hey, Hoe, we now have the prospect of numerous universes. through black matter, what next then ?.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:07 pm

Most scientific theories are based on odds and assumptions or they would not be theories they would be fact.

Scientific theories are based on evidence not odds, and common ancestry is a theory and an evidence based fact, your ignorance is mind boggling.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:10 pm

God is not hidden to science, all living things are evidence of the creativeness of God.

If everything is evidence then its just not evidence, the exception tests the rule ring any bells ?

by Shirina Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:26 pm

God is not hidden to science, all living things are evidence of the creativeness of God.

No, that is your opinion. Science is not about merely making unsupported declarative statements or believing in something. If God were not hidden from science, then there wouldn't even be a debate about God's existence. In addition, all living things do NOT provide evidence for your particular God much less your specific religion. At absolute BEST, all living things are evidence of a Creator and nothing more. Seeing a lion take down a gazelle does not inspire me to reach for a Bible.

You can take any scientific theory, and they are theories you like and not one can explain in any factual detail how life came about.

You are probably unaware of this, but what you just said with this statement is: "As long as we don't have any facts, we can make up any story we want to in order to explain it."

I know I keep on about the butterfly as an example but anyone with one iota of comman sense

Common sense tells me that magic has consistently failed as an explanation for anything that takes place in our natural world. Common sense most likely tells you the same thing since I'm fairly certain you don't explain anything else outside of religion in magical terms. You've been indoctrinated to accept magic as a legitimate explanation for the origin of life - and you aren't even aware of it. Perhaps if you actually reflected upon the dichotomy between your belief in magic in terms of life's origin and your lack of belief in magic in regards to everything else, you'd see precisely what I'm talking about.

The world is flat, how do you get a round that one. the earth is the centre of the universe, just a little way out, both would have the Tosh's of the time screaming blue murder at anyone who thought otherwise.

These were beliefs, polyglide, not scientific principles. A flat earth and a geocentric universe were not only impossible to test and verify using the scientific method, they were inspired by religion.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:32 pm

Polyglide, do you howl at the full moon, just mental.

by polyglide Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:24 pm

No, but I do laugh a lot at your inability to consider the facts rather than theories.

As I have said previously, if I am correct in believing in God as the creator, and I am sure I am, then everything is explained.

You have no explanation for the origin of life that will stand up to even the most basic questsions.

I brought the eye as one exam,ple.

The eye has 17 seperate components which all have to be in the right place at the same time.

Not taking into consideration where they came from in the first place, the odds of them comming together and connecting themselves to the brain
are beyond any sensible thought, then you have to take the liver, heart, lungs, kidneys and all the other components involved and anyone who thinks this could all come about by chance is ????????????.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:53 pm

You have no explanation for the origin of life that will stand up to even the most basic questsions

But you don't have an explanation either. You believe the origin of life was magic! Poof! Done. We can stop there.

The origin of life is a big question. The religions of the world would have us just accept ancient writing as the explanation. But how can we do that when science has introduced a method of finding out about the universe and it doesn't involve magic. Why would anyone go back to magic? The answers are there, we just have to find them. I would have thought that if God was the answer he would have let us know by now. Instead, we hear nothing from him because he doesn't exist. (I can make this categorical statement for the same reasons that believers make the alternative categorical statement).

The eye has been explained to you and numerous links to the relevant videos are there for your examination.

Not taking into consideration where they came from in the first place, the odds of them comming together and connecting themselves to the brain are beyond any sensible thought, then you have to take the liver, heart, lungs, kidneys and all the other components involved and anyone who thinks this could all come about by chance is ????????????.

You're funny. We're not made of lego, polyglide. We're biological creatures that evolved from simple single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms over billions of years. I appreciate that you consider the origin of life to be an instaneous event involving magic but evolution is very slow, minute changes over a very long period of time. 17 separate components of the eye did not 'come together' to become an eye. Watch the evolution of the eye on youtube and watch for yourself the way eyes could have come about. They certainly didn't involve magic.

by Tosh Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:43 pm

You have no explanation for the origin of life that will stand up to even the most basic questsions.

I do not know requires no further explanation or answers.

by Sponsored content