Has politics replaced religion?

Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
I certainly hope not
Are you sure? What exactly have you proven that you believe in?

I think you will find that proof is found mainly in a math class. Outside of that, we tend to rely on evidence that seems plausible.

But that is not a bad thing, if we demanded proof for everything, we could not function in the world. Our worldviews, or belief system, is the matrix through which we make sense of what we think is the reality around us. Through this worldview or belief system, we not only categorize what we think are "facts", we assign those facts value. Then we make decisions accordingly.
 
Jul 2008
18,429
12,158
Virginia Beach, VA
Here is a taste. The whole edifice of The God Delusion rests squarely on the foundation of the alleged improbability of God. But despite recently being voted one of the three greatest intellectuals in the world by the readers of Prospect magazine, Dawkins’ main argument for the improbability of God is not much far advanced from the childish question, “If God made me, who made God?” As he says at the close of chapter 2, “The whole question turns on the familiar question, ‘who made God?’ A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity, because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape. This argument … demonstrates that God, though not technically disprovable, is very very improbable indeed.”

Dawkins goes on to say that the existence of God is only a scientific question, he says this despite the Bible repeatedly saying that God is an immaterial God and requires faith.

The problem here is, science only studies the material universe. Also, the question of "who created God" is child like and rather easy to answer. The Big Bang shows us that the material universe had a beginning and time was created once the material universe was created. Thus, God is the one who created time, not vice versa.

Naturally, we cannot understand this timeless dimension, but science assures us that there are other dimensions for which we have no point of reference.

So let's say that science did prove that God existed. According to the Bible, that would do very little in terms of people placing their faith in God. Adam and Eve was said to have walked and talked with God in the Garden, so they had no question as to his existence, yet they lost faith and partook of the forbidden fruit. The Hebrew nation in Egypt saw the miracles of the plagues and the Red Sea parting before them and manna coming from heaven to eat, yet they also lost faith and built a golden calf to worship in his stead.

So as we can see from a theological perspective, the issue of God is not a science issue due to the fact that God is immaterial and due to the fact that proving God does virtually nothing in terms of people placing their faith in God.
Once again showing you have no clue about atheism.

“The whole edifice of The God Delusion rests squarely on the foundation of the alleged improbability of God.”

No. The possibility/probability/improbability/impossibility has nothing to do with it.

The ONLY thing atheism concerns itself with is evidence. Show sufficient evidence a god exists and an atheist will become a theist
 
Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
Once again showing you have no clue about atheism.

“The whole edifice of The God Delusion rests squarely on the foundation of the alleged improbability of God.”

No. The possibility/probability/improbability/impossibility has nothing to do with it.

The ONLY thing atheism concerns itself with is evidence. Show sufficient evidence a god exists and an atheist will become a theist
Problem is, Dawkins never gave a number for that improbability, did he?

So now that we are talking about probability, what is the probability that a living cell could come to life out of inorganic matter?
 
Nov 2012
2,715
1,661
Rhondda
Well if you notice, the communist atheistic dictators all have a propensity to mummify themselves under glass. Lenin did it, Mao did it, even Chavez did it, etc.

It's almost as if they have created a body to live eternally under glass because the people still need them.
If you examine their times, you'll admit, I think, that 'respect' was established only by mass killing and wide-scale censorship. Being kept around like great-aunt Jane's antimacassar doesn't make anyone very godlike, in my view. If you look at current conditions in Russia, maybe there are a few people who like to remember Lenin, but, Good God, some weirdoes just put up a statue to Thatcher! :)
 
Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
If you examine their times, you'll admit, I think, that 'respect' was established only by mass killing and wide-scale censorship. Being kept around like great-aunt Jane's antimacassar doesn't make anyone very godlike, in my view. If you look at current conditions in Russia, maybe there are a few people who like to remember Lenin, but, Good God, some weirdoes just put up a statue to Thatcher! :)
Respect was established by mass killing? Well there is no doubt that the state is the most murderous of institutions in human history. Most men have either been slaves to it, fought and died for it, or suffered oppression in various forms from it.


Religion is often blamed for the world's troubles but really it was the state that uses religion that is the culprit. Atheist despots like Stalin and Moa proved that who murdered far more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.

Christ warned his followers that his kingdom was not of this world nor could be of this world system, yet yahoos like Constantine created one anyway.

Unfortunately, Islam never learned this lesson. In fact, due to Sharia law the state and Islam must be as one.
 
Nov 2012
2,715
1,661
Rhondda
Problem is, Dawkins never gave a number for that improbability, did he?

So now that we are talking about probability, what is the probability that a living cell could come to life out of inorganic matter?
For British people, I think, Dawkins, like his opponents, does tend to feel very Nineteenth Century. How would you set about establishing such a possibility? As presented by the relevant scientists it certainly sounds quite a high one.
 
Nov 2012
2,715
1,661
Rhondda
Respect was established by mass killing? Well there is no doubt that the state is the most murderous of institutions in human history. Most men have either been slaves to it, fought and died for it, or suffered oppression in various forms from it.


Religion is often blamed for the world's troubles but really it was the state that uses religion that is the culprit. Atheist despots like Stalin and Moa proved that who murdered far more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.

Christ warned his followers that his kingdom was not of this world nor could be of this world system, yet yahoos like Constantine created one anyway.

Unfortunately, Islam never learned this lesson. In fact, due to Sharia law the state and Islam must be as one.
Hitler killed for the sake of killing, and figures are hard to establish to compare with the killings of State Capitalism. Are you an anarchist? Capitalism can't exist without a state, and when threatened, it establishes the likes of Hitler fast. Jesus, of course, was a good socialist, and the later use of his name by scumbags is squalid,
 
Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
For British people, I think, Dawkins, like his opponents, does tend to feel very Nineteenth Century. How would you set about establishing such a possibility? As presented by the relevant scientists it certainly sounds quite a high one.
How do you calculate the probability of an event that has never been witnessed? That in itself is problematic for scientists since science is based upon observation and experimentation. As of yet, no living cell has been manufactured, thus it has not been observed

Having said that, I took the liberty of finding an article that defends the notion of abiogenesis.

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ

Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

Please note: this article uses a hypothetical self-replicating peptide as a model molecule for these calculations. The current theories of abiogenesis are usually based on the "RNA World" theory, where in fact self-replication was first acheived through RNA molecules, rather than DNA molecules.
See the references below for more information on the RNA World Theory.

So if this seems plausible to you then have at it.
 
Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
Hitler killed for the sake of killing, and figures are hard to establish to compare with the killings of State Capitalism. Are you an anarchist? Capitalism can't exist without a state, and when threatened, it establishes the likes of Hitler fast. Jesus, of course, was a good socialist, and the later use of his name by scumbags is squalid,
Hitler got a bad wrap. In fact, every evil that was inflicted upon the Jewish people had been done before Nazi Germany. That means the interment camps, the ghettos the mass killings of Jews, having to wear the Star of David, the expulsion of Jews from entire countries, all of this occurred well before the Nazi era. In fact, you might call the Holocaust the natural progression of anti-Semitism in Western Europe.

Am a an anarchist? No, anarchy only leads to despotism. The problem is, all forms of government seem to lead to despotism, but anarchy simply gets you there faster.

No, I believe in government that is limited as humanly possible. The problem lies in the immorality of society Only a moral people can be a free people, otherwise, the state must impose civility on the population in order to maintain civility.

So the key is the moral state of society in defending individual freedom. If you can't monitor yourself in terms of your own morality, the state will be forced to do it for you

But this is what the Left wants, they want full government control over pretty much everything. Their idea to save man from himself is to pass laws, regulations, taxes, etc. Problem is, with each law freedom wanes.

It's like I always joke about, the ideal Left wing utopia is a prison cell. It is a gun free zone, all your meals are free, your room and board is free, even medical care is free. The greatest part of all is, every day is gay pride day.
 

Similar Discussions