One thing this site is not about is using ASDs to excuse people's misdeeds.  So a religious leader who used to be a member of the Hitler Youth who then goes on to falsely accuse atheists of supporting Nazism isn't going to get a free pass for it based on a possible neurological difference.

i'd go farther than calling such actions and statements merely "misdeeds" -- i'd call it malfeasance.  he should be jewish, he's so guilty.

If there is a non-racist explanation for this then please post it ASAP.

This post was last modified: 09-28-2010 03:24 AM by et.

i was being facetious -- you know, "jewish guilt."  it's my particular sense of humor, a play on stereotyping.  i meant the part about malfeasance, though.

[sarcasm]Yes thats really what the big bang is. [/sarcasm]
The big bang is a term nothing more it wasn't an explosion.

Whatever. The whole universe came out of nothing, with no cause and for no reason is what it amounts to.

Science cannot really speculate on where the universe came from, or in fact if there even was an explosion.

The Big Bang theory covers the expansion of the universe from 10**-43 seconds (** means "to the power of") after the expansion began until now. We don't know what caused the big bang or what really happened in that tiny period of time after the big bang.

Religion has all the answers to everything, and the answer is always pretty much the same ("God did it"). I can see how this appeals to people who feel the need for a nice, straightforward answer to everything.

too right!  religion requires answers, while science and reason require questions, which they attempt to answer, and when and if they do answer them, there are more questions arising out of those answers, ad infinitum.  answers are very comforting -- "comfort" means "with strength" -- but the universe is made up of questions, not answers.

religion is for those who need to know there is a reason; they need the "because i said so" answer that the reasonable amongst us have outgrown.  i think that's why Douglas Adams said that (1) the answer is "42," and (2) the question is "what is 9 times 6?"  he gave the answer -- perfectly nonsensical -- before the question -- perfectly legitimate (but still nonsensical) question, but one which the answer does not fit.

science = curiosity; religion = comfort.  we are all orphans in the maelstrom; get used to it.  it's not bad at all, really.  it's damned exciting, in fact.  notice i said "in fact"?  i have had one father; i do not need another -- to obey, to listen to, to reassure (i.e., comfort) me, etc.  i am god-free, and very happy to get that weight off of my shoulders and back.

as Alison said earlier in this thread -- "Imagine what we'll know tomorrow."

in addition, as an aside, it's the "Framers," not the "founding fathers" -- another attempt to have a sire.

This post was last modified: 09-28-2010 02:00 PM by Hollis Ramsey.

All we're trying to cover at the moment is whether there's any god. Religion may or may not accurately portray any god that does exist but that's not yet the issue. If there is no god, no religion can be right. If there is a god, then the one that does exist determines which religion, if any, gets closest to him/her/it. If science can't really investigate it, there are other methods. Which were we choosing?

perhaps i didn't make my point well.  god is the ultimate answer.  god is sire, father, comforter, answerer of all questions.  god is the red light, the stop sign, the "cease and desist questioning" order.  god is the enemy of curiosity, of inquiry, of exploration, of investigation.  gods make all that unnecessary; even unwelcomed.

Doesn't that depend what sort of god? Many may use religion that way. It should still be possible to consider that it MAY be that god DID do it. For the beginning of the universe, for instance, what ideas can we consider for that? There don't seem to be many but put forwards whichever you like. Presumably, we're allowed to ask!

If there exists a God who has chosen to hide from all human contact to such a degree that no scientific investigation can find any evidence of it's existence, when why should we even care about it?

Invisible friends don't matter, not even if they happen to resemble someone who really exists.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, I feel that this argument is about to disappear in a puff of illogic...
Alison

By finding that the universe must have had a beginning, science HAS found evidence for god.

Quantum fluctuations create something out of nothing. No need for god there.