I don’t believe in the bible (way too many versions edited to adjust to the personal believes of whoever was in charge at the time IMHO), however I have no issue with people using it a guide of moral and ethical codes if they need it, my issue is when they start using the bible as a historical document with more pull than scientific and historic documentations.

I see that some people get offended by what Virus says, however, is his (or anybody else’s who doesn’t believe in “God”) position of “no belief” so bad, I mean I would guess if god is real, and is also all loving and understanding, as long as Virus is leaving a “good” life (where “good” is subjective), I see no reason why he shouldn’t get into heaven (or Disneyland), hell, I think is more credit to him (an other atheist) because even without the promise of a prize at the end of the road, he still manage to live a good life.

Regarding Creationism, my point of view is better explained with a quote by the always funny Lewis Black: “These people are watching the Flinstones like it is a documentary”

There’s no reason to believe that humans and dinosaurs live together in the same time period, let alone living in harmony, however this is what the creationism school of thought (or lack there off) wants to teach to kids across the nation, leaving the religious BS aside, what is the reason why I should take Creationism above evolution? And if we’re gonna make adjustments to accommodate the Abrahamic religions, why shouldn’t we accommodate other religions and theories (and where do we draw the line)?

All BS aside, I think the problem with religion (an what turns off many people like me) is not the actual values and pretty stories included in their book, I think the problem with religion is the wide array of double standards, contradictions, self righteousness and general stupidity that comes tied to it when it passes from being a set of beliefs, and becomes the almighty “Organize religion” (tm).

This is my honest opinion, feel free to disagree.

I would have a problem with someone using the bible or koran to get their morals.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

It's a good thing that most people don't.

I don't know if anyone here is "offended" by what I say. But if I have inadvertently offended any religious people on the forum, then all the better. I think what people find objectionable is the certainty with which I state that gods don't exist. To me, it's just like saying goblins don't exist and the underlying reasons are identical. It's still taboo to criticize people's religion, and religious people have come to expect a degree of respect for their beliefs. I don't respect people's beliefs so that doesn't apply to me.

It's also true that most criticism of religion, even by some atheists, has to be appropriately couched. You can't say "god doesn't exist" you have to say "I don't know if god exists or not". Nobody says that they can't say whether CHALCHIUHTLICUE, HUITZILOPOCHTLI or MICTLANTECUHTLI exist or not.

I'm not particularly a good person, or a bad person, just kind of neutral. Like most people. But even if I was a good person the bible is pretty explicit that you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. The interesting thing about hell is that it doesn't appear in the Old Testament. The early Jews were not big on hell, sure their god inflicted floods and plagues on people and turned them into salt when they annoyed him, but after he was done with you, that was it.

Then Jesus came along and told people that you don't get off so easily. Anyone who doesn't repent and bow down to th3 r34l god goes to hell. And if you don't do it properly you go to hell. Don't agree? Then you go to hell for that too. And maybe if you do do everything right god might send you to hell anyway just to **** with you.

Yes, creationism is deeply, deeply stupid. But who can predict the consequences of dogma? Some people really do believe that the bible is the written word of the guy that magicked up the universe. If you believe it's the most important book ever written and is true by inherent virtue then of course you're going to think that adding up the ages of people in its genealogy and coming to the conclusion that the world is 6000 years old is a sensible notion.

Maybe 500 years ago it didn't matter whether you thought it was 6000 years old or a million or a billion. But now we require a more accurate framework of the age of the earth
to function at our level of advancement and creationism represents a potential threat to that. It's like saying that the soul enters the zygote as soon as fertilization has occurred. 100 years ago it wouldn't have mattered if lots of people thought that. But now that we have stem cell research it is hampered as a result of people adhering to dogma.

Ok, I stand corrected, and I refrase that comment, I wouldn't mind if a believer gets his/her set of morals from certain parts of the book they believe in and leave out all the outdated, hateful BS on them.

Personally I don't believe in all that "hell" shenanigans.

I don't know if you're a good or bad person, is irrelevant to me as an individual, I believe that if there's such thing as an "Inmortal Soul", it should be my problem to care or ignore for mine, not some asshole asking me if I had accepted Jesus into my life.

I got a question though, why is it that a book written and edited by man is "Divine" and the Word of god? (I'm not being an asshole here, I'm really can't understand this one)

Actually I was curious about that very question as well. The bible is a collection of letters, stories ect. when did people get the idea that it was dictated by god?

I asked that over on the Internet Infidels forum and someone said that in the bible it says "All scripture is god-breathed." which could mean anything.

So right now I'm using google to see what sort of nonsense people say about that. I reckon it will be along the lines of "fulfilled prophecies" which some boneheads find convincing.

These dicksmacks say; http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html


There can be no doubt about the fact that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is clearly seen in verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17, which say, “. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

they then say;


Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more that 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words as God moved men in such a way that they recorded His very words.

Wrong, and fail.


Another of the internal evidences that indicate the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in the detailed prophecies contained within its pages. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, to the future of certain cities, to the future of mankind, and to the coming of one who would be the Messiah, the Savior of not only Israel, but all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those done by Nostradamus, the biblical prophecies are extremely detailed and have never failed to come true. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament alone. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and what family He would come from, but also how He would die and that He would rise again on the third day. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible has.

Wrong. Jesus is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Only vague references to a divine savior that will come to earth, which is a common theme in many religions.


A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is seen in its unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than the first two internal evidences, it is no less a very powerful testimony of the divine origin of the Bible. The Bible has a unique authority that is unlike any other book ever written. This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by reading the Bible. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals have been set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats have been transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners are rebuked by it, and hate has been turned to love by reading it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.

Completely irrelevant and not unique to the bible. Star Wars and Star Trek have changed people's lives. They must have been written by invisible wizards too.


Besides the internal evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word there are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One of those evidences is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events its truthfulness and accuracy is subject to verification like any other historical documentation. Through both archaeological evidences and other written documents, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best documented book from the ancient world. The fact that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim that it is the very Word of God.

This assertion is idiotic but when talking about Christians such an obvious admission is superfluous. Firstly, it's not historically accurate on a great deal of things. Secondly the notion that it must have been authored by a wizard because it says things that are true is retarded. So if someone writes a book that mentions the war in Iraq then 2000 years in the future people verify that a war took place there, those people should assume the book was magic.


Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of the human authors. As mentioned earlier, God used men from many walks of life to record His Words to us. In studying the lives of these men, there is no good reason to believe that they were not honest and sincere men. Examining their lives and the fact that they were willing to die (often excruciating deaths) for what they believed in, it quickly becomes clear that these ordinary yet honest men truly believed that God had spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6) knew the truth of their message because they had seen and spent time with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. The transformation of seeing the Risen Christ had a tremendous impact on these men. They went from hiding in fear, to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God’s Word.

Um, a bunch of guys flew some planes into a building. They died for what they believed in. I suppose that proves they can talk to invisible wizards too. People die for stupid **** all the time.


A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still the most widely published book in the world today.

So if people attack it, it must be a magic book. I guess the Satanic Verses must be a magic book too. Origin of the Species must be really magic.

In summary: Christians believe the bible is a magic book because their heads are wedged firmly up thier arsecracks.

we do have a soul. Its just made up of little robots :)

Secondly, if supernatural beings exist then that radically alters our perception of the universe at the most fundamental level. Physics, cosmology, biology, history, all of this changes if gods make universes at will, living things have souls that survive death and demigods used to walk the earth doing magic and were crucified by the Roman Empire. The existence of such things, if actually confirmed, must profoundly alter our conception of the natural world. Let me re-iterate that millions of people actually think these things are true. And all of these things trespass onto scientific territory quite blatantly.

Again, you're using the general term "gods" to refer to the kinds of incompetent small-minded gods that are posited by the salvationist religions. The main point at which we disagree is that you see the stories of these religions as the cause of the murderous, illogical, and genocidal actions of "civilized" people. I see them as exactly the kinds of gods that would be imagined by people whose story of who they are compels them to act in such ways. The kind of gods I'm talking about seem unimaginable to you. It appears you can only posit gods who are incompetent bunglers and involve themselves in day-to-day affairs of things. I'm talking about gods who haven't had to jump in and rearrange the experiment of creating the universe. There is no conflict with science here (especially since I don't claim to know the number of gods, and 0 is perfectly acceptable).

People who see themselves as the world's subjects rather than its rulers, who leave the rule of the world in the hands of their competent gods represent the only successful social organization in human history. 3 million years of unbridled success for them vs. bringing the whole world to the point of collapse in 10-13,000 years for people who see themselves as the world's rulers, and masters and stewards.

All cultures contain mythology. Our "scientific explanation" of the origins of the universe are no different. We tell it as a story that ends with our creation, which is pure mythology. We imagine ourselves coming up with solutions to a flawed system while ignoring the only successful one in history, which is pure mythology. The rule of the world is still and always will be in the hands of the kind of competent gods that I'm talking about.


Let's remember the ignorance that our species of primate has found itself in. Gods held explanatory power in the past. That power has since then been eroded by methods that are actually valid. Of course, some people were deluded into thinking that they can speak for Space Wizards, and when this was able to grant privilege and power to the individuals this re-affirmed the delusion.

The delusion can be useful, no doubt about that. Mcdojos can be useful too. Some people like training in Mcdojos. It gives them happiness. But it's still a delusion. Cults are useful. The people that are in cults, like being there. Who are you to say that cults are bad when they give people's lives meaning?

Again, it's about a choice of mythology. You choose to ascribe to a mythological system where a woman doesn't know how to raise a child until she reads a book written on the subject by a man. I personally find that embarrassing. In the case of McDojos, is not useful to believe you can defend yourself when you indeed cannot. It is extremely useful to believe that the world is a sacred place that is a suitable home for man, rather than a testing ground to get to heaven or a waiting room to enter nirvana or a spiritually meaningless place that will be better off once we render ourselves and most other large mammals and millions of species across all the kingdoms extinct.


I'm glad you're having a blast with bronze-age tribal myths.

I'm glad you're having a blast with science-age "civilized" myths. 500 years ago, 75% of the world's landmass was inhabited by people whose mythology didn't compel them to destroy our home. Not Bronze Age at all, but Stone Age. Today there's a few scattered thousand, and they may believe some things that seem outrageous to us, but they know how to live in the social organization that came about as a result of natural selection. Tribal life is to humans what hive life is to bees, dam life to beavers, pack life to wolves. It is workable and the product of the elimination of failed attempts at social organization. Civilization is unworkable (see "collapse in a microsecond on a biological timescale"), created, and lauded by our mythology as "advanced."

If we can have any hope of there being people on this planet 200 years from now, we better learn to adapt some mythology that makes us live here without gobbling up the resources at an ever-increasing rate. The only people who ever had that mythology (read: the only people who lived here successfully for 3 million years without destroying their home) are all but eliminated. The rainforests are being bulldozed every day to feed the starving millions, who reproduce and create even more starving millions in the next generation. Your mythology says this is a winnable war on hunger. It is an unwinnable arms race. A positive feedback effect of increased food production --> increased population that cannot be sustained by last increase in food production --> increased food production. Unfortunately, you can't increase our food supply without decreasing someone else's. Hence despeciation of the earth at a rate of about 200 species per day.

This is all heresy to our modern scientific mythology. Hydrogen fuel cell cars will save us. Colonizing space will save us. More efficient crops will save us. Efficient water usage strategies will save us.

My mythology says to leave the rule of the world in the hands of the gods. If there are more people on a continent than the resources of that continent can support, it says they will probably die. But it's not up to me to save them. I'm not the earth's steward, I'm a subject living in the hands of the gods. This mythology provides no compulsion to increase food production to send crops to Africa (at a huge profit) to feed the starving millions. It leaves rule of the world in the hands of the gods. Competent hands.

1. Lets get this straight. Atheism = NO belief in god or gods. Not belief in no gods (although some atheists subscribe to that) and not belief in science (although many atheists subscribe to that).

2. Atheism is not about rating which mythologies are better or more capable than others. Again it is NO belief in any of the mythologies.

3. As an individual I may find certain belief systems more offensive than others.

4. As an individual I may find certain belief systems to be more unlikely than others.

5. From my point of view Pantheism is a weaker argument than Monotheism simply because instead of having one space wizard we now have many.

6. Because you believe in something that is more benign it doesn't make it better. Rather than one large malignant tumor I now have a bunch of smaller benign tumors. If I have a choice (I do) I will select none of the above. It would be easy to create a philosophy that has the attributes of your religion without the addition of the supernatural entities. The problem with a philosophy is that it has to be well thought out and is subject to debate. By making it a belief you can avoid engaging in critical thought. I statement I make about ALL religions.

Thanks for erecting this huge strawman.


Again, you're using the general term "gods" to refer to the kinds of incompetent small-minded gods that are posited by the salvationist religions. The main point at which we disagree is that you see the stories of these religions as the cause of the murderous, illogical, and genocidal actions of "civilized" people. I see them as exactly the kinds of gods that would be imagined by people whose story of who they are compels them to act in such ways. The kind of gods I'm talking about seem unimaginable to you. It appears you can only posit gods who are incompetent bunglers and involve themselves in day-to-day affairs of things. I'm talking about gods who haven't had to jump in and rearrange the experiment of creating the universe.

Firstly, the point which I was addressing was the assertion that it doesn't matter if people believe in gods and that such beliefs don't trespass on scientific territory. You seem to have missed that but I'll oblige you on your comments.

I am aware of a range of conceptions about the divine, from "prime mover" deistic gods to ones who sit on thrones of judgment shepherding souls to hell, to animal spirits to gods that aren't assumed to be real but useful poetic metaphors. To say that I am only aware of anthropomorphic conceptions of deities is inaccurate.

Even if you posit prime movers that don't intervene you still trespass on scientific territory. To say that something exists, as opposed to not existing, is within the bounds of scientific inquiry. If this phantom god can summon universes out of nothing by sheer magic then there must be a process by which this can happen, processes that are unknown and would knock scientific foundations to their core if such things are possible.



There is no conflict with science here (especially since I don't claim to know the number of gods, and 0 is perfectly acceptable).

How many invisible pink unicorns are there in the universe?



People who see themselves as the world's subjects rather than its rulers, who leave the rule of the world in the hands of their competent gods represent the only successful social organization in human history. 3 million years of unbridled success for them vs. bringing the whole world to the point of collapse in 10-13,000 years for people who see themselves as the world's rulers, and masters and stewards.

Firstly, humans have not been around for three million years. Secondly, I never claimed that religion is responsible for all of the worlds problems. I certainly never said it was to blame for things like climate change, overpopulation or militarization and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Thirdly, lets not get too starry eyed over tribal societies. They used to kill each other too you know.


All cultures contain mythology. Our "scientific explanation" of the origins of the universe are no different. We tell it as a story that ends with our creation, which is pure mythology. We imagine ourselves coming up with solutions to a flawed system while ignoring the only successful one in history, which is pure mythology. The rule of the world is still and always will be in the hands of the kind of competent gods that I'm talking about.

Scientific explanations are different and to believe otherwise is deeply and profoundly inaccurate. Scientists do not make things up then claim they are true. They weigh hypothesis according to evidence . Mythology has nothing at all to do with evidence. The big bang model is based on evidence. Not what sounds nice and not what we think will make children brush their teeth.



Again, it's about a choice of mythology. You choose to ascribe to a mythological system where a woman doesn't know how to raise a child until she reads a book written on the subject by a man.

When did I subscribe to this? I must have been drunk. But thanks for the strawman, it's very flattering.



I personally find that embarrassing. In the case of McDojos, is not useful to believe you can defend yourself when you indeed cannot. It is extremely useful to believe that the world is a sacred place that is a suitable home for man, rather than a testing ground to get to heaven or a waiting room to enter nirvana or a spiritually meaningless place that will be better off once we render ourselves and most other large mammals and millions of species across all the kingdoms extinct.

Useful does not equal true. But I do not believe that people are stupid animals that need a handful of enlightened individuals to invent myths for them to stop them tearing themselves apart. We can accomplish any good through secularism, but some evils need religion.




I'm glad you're having a blast with science-age "civilized" myths. 500 years ago, 75% of the world's landmass was inhabited by people whose mythology didn't compel them to destroy our home. Not Bronze Age at all, but Stone Age. Today there's a few scattered thousand, and they may believe some things that seem outrageous to us, but they know how to live in the social organization that came about as a result of natural selection. Tribal life is to humans what hive life is to bees, dam life to beavers, pack life to wolves. It is workable and the product of the elimination of failed attempts at social organization. Civilization is unworkable (see "collapse in a microsecond on a biological timescale"), created, and lauded by our mythology as "advanced."

Actually tribal life sucked because they didn't have any internets. But seriously, it wasn't that great although some aspects of it may be desirable. But what's all this got to do with religion? You're talking about the destructive influence of political and economic institutions.



If we can have any hope of there being people on this planet 200 years from now, we better learn to adapt some mythology that makes us live here without gobbling up the resources at an ever-increasing rate.

We need an economic system which is as sustainable as possible not myths.



The only people who ever had that mythology (read: the only people who lived here successfully for 3 million years without destroying their home) are all but eliminated.

Who did this three million years ago? This guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Homo_habilis.JPG/180px-Homo_habilis.JPG

Did they even have a religion?



The rainforests are being bulldozed every day to feed the starving millions, who reproduce and create even more starving millions in the next generation. Your mythology says this is a winnable war on hunger.

MY mythology? Which mythology is that? It's certainly not mine since I'm opposed to government subsidization of population growth and the endless exponential propagation of the species. I'm not having children and I've had a vasectomy so that is certainly not MY mythology. It's one of many stupid things that people think, or fail to think about. I agree it's retarded and something must be done about it. Is it the mythology of science? Let me ask you this, Mr T3h Skillful; is the scientific literature full of articles about how we can endlessly propagate the species with no adverse environmental impact? Is the scientific literature full of articles about how great deforestation is?



It is an unwinnable arms race. A positive feedback effect of increased food production --> increased population that cannot be sustained by last increase in food production --> increased food production. Unfortunately, you can't increase our food supply without decreasing someone else's. Hence despeciation of the earth at a rate of about 200 species per day.

True, but I still think that space wizards don't exist.

Re: Environmentalism

Deforestation is occuring in the countries which are poorest and or developing - south american countries, places like indonesia and south east asia. you won't find deforestation in north america, or australia, and most of europe I'm sure (maybe some dodgy ex soviet countries but I doubt it). Developed countries have sustainable forestry industries and active civil populations that protect areas of ecological or sentimental value. Do you really think there is some sort of moral imperative that allows you to have a high standard of living but you think you can deny a south american coffee farmer a better life?

Population growth is potentially a huge problem however in many developed countries the population growth is slowing or negative (for example italy and japan), and positive population growth is often the result of immigration from developing countries to developed ones.

If you want to know why indonesia is hacking down most of its forests, its actually to produce alternative fuel (biodiesel) from palm oil. Hooray environmentalism wins again! Alternative fuels actually destroying the environment? The crushing irony.

Food production worldwide is nowhere near maximum capacity and there is tremendous potential for growth. India has some of the most fertile and abundant land however 90% of the farming is not mechanized and is subsistance farming. The african continent is almost completely wasted in terms of its potential output compared to its actual output, and there are countries like mozabique where war has resulted in them now importing food instead of how they used to be a net exporter.

Humans will be around in 200 years, I have no doubt about it. Any environmental or technological challenges which emerge will be overcome by human ingenuity and passion. Modern civilization is in all respects superior to tribal societies, and there is no reason to worry about the environment for the environments sake. And our population is now large enough and spread far enough apart to survive any horrible viruses or natural disasters that occur.

People who worry about 'mother earth' for the sake of 'mother earth' lack long term vision and understanding of evolution. Any toxic or wasteful product that humans can create, or in any way damage the ecosystems of the earth - do you really think evolution will be halted by us? Thats a bit arrogant. Evolution is a force that wouldn't even sneeze if we wiped out all life except for a few microbial lifeforms. There are already fungi that will eat plastic (hmm wonder when god created them), bacteria that will live off of synthetic nylon, and I'm sure you've seen tree roots pushing up and cracking concrete.

The only important question to me is about human sustainability, I'm not worried about 'mother earth'. The earth can take care of itself - we have to look out for each other and protect the systems that support human life and civilization (our water, food and air supply).

And I am really god damn tired of people defending mega fauna (whales, dolphins, koalas) - the most important systems are insect, plant and microbial life - and its a lot harder to get funding to protect bees, worms and cockroaches than it is to cry about the species like pandas or some stupid **** like that.

And for some critical reflection, lets peer through the looking glass at some species that are thriving:

corn
rice
wheat
vegetables
pine
cattle
pigs
chickens
birds
rats
insects
dogs
cats

Something you will notice is that all of these species live in an emergent harmony with humans - either we depend on them for food or shelter, or they depend on us. And life is constantly changing - if the rat population in an area increases, then a local type of bird such as an owl might start to thrive (and the whole balance of the animal kingdom is constantly moving and adjusting to these changes).

You could even say about my previous statement about megafauna, that 'cuteness' relative to humans is a survival trait - if an animal is cute then humans are likely to preserve it for sentimental value. But I think thats stupid.

Oh yes and by the way many traditional cultures wiped themself out or lived 'unsustainably' (see native american tannery's).

Anyway, thats my little rant about the environment, but you can sleep soundly at night knowing that the environmental movement is international and huge, and very unpopular to oppose. In short, you are part of the moral majority and shouldn't lose sleep at night over this topic.

Firstly, the point which I was addressing was the assertion that it doesn't matter if people believe in gods and that such beliefs don't trespass on scientific territory. You seem to have missed that but I'll oblige you on your comments.

I am aware of a range of conceptions about the divine, from "prime mover" deistic gods to ones who sit on thrones of judgment shepherding souls to hell, to animal spirits to gods that aren't assumed to be real but useful poetic metaphors. To say that I am only aware of anthropomorphic conceptions of deities is inaccurate.

Even if you posit prime movers that don't intervene you still trespass on scientific territory. To say that something exists, as opposed to not existing, is within the bounds of scientific inquiry. If this phantom god can summon universes out of nothing by sheer magic then there must be a process by which this can happen, processes that are unknown and would knock scientific foundations to their core if such things are possible.

Phantom god(s) who summon universes out of nothing actually wouldn't knock scientific foundations to their core at all. Of course there's a process, and it doesn't change with the number of gods, whether it's 10,000 or 100 or 1 or 0.


How many invisible pink unicorns are there in the universe?

0. Being pink and being invisible are mutually exclusive conditions.


Firstly, humans have not been around for three million years. Secondly, I never claimed that religion is responsible for all of the worlds problems. I certainly never said it was to blame for things like climate change, overpopulation or militarization and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Thirdly, lets not get too starry eyed over tribal societies. They used to kill each other too you know

3 million years ago is a pretty commonly accepted estimate for the first members of the genus homo.

I'm not getting "starry eyed" over tribal societies, just pointing out that despite being the same people as you and I (people who are mostly good but capable of violence, greed, and generally being not nice), they had a social organization that worked. For hundreds of thousands of generations. We've brought the planet to the verge of collapse in 500 generations.

Tribal warfare is very different than modern day warfare. It is far more analagous to intraspecies competition amongst any non-human species than it is like civilized warfare. Typically a constant low level of warfare among neighboring tribes existed, with frequency of attacks varying from we attack you one week, you attack us the next to months and even years without a fatality. I'm not claiming these people were perfect, just that their social organization was the result of natural selection, and so it was workable. Our social organization is invented and intentional, and it will suffer the fate of any non-ESS (ESS= Evolutionarily Sustainable Strategy. See Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"), which is to say that it will be eliminated.


Useful does not equal true. But I do not believe that people are stupid animals that need a handful of enlightened individuals to invent myths for them to stop them tearing themselves apart. We can accomplish any good through secularism, but some evils need religion.

You don't appear to think that people are animals at all. I've repeatedly made the claim that salvationist religions are not responsible for giving civilization the mindset that leads to world wars and genocide, the mindset that leads to world wars and genocide leads to salvationist religions.


Actually tribal life sucked because they didn't have any internets. But seriously, it wasn't that great although some aspects of it may be desirable. But what's all this got to do with religion? You're talking about the destructive influence of political and economic institutions.

If you believe this, you need to read more anthropological studies of tribal peoples. Try "Stone Age Economics" by Marshall Sahlins, "The Continuum Concept" by Jean Liedloff, "Original Wisdom" by Robert Wolff, or anything else you can find that's not by Margaret Mead, whose book, "Coming of Age in Samoa" was responsible for a lot of our modern perception of tribal peoples as a result of practical jokes played upon her by said tribal people.


We need an economic system which is as sustainable as possible not myths.

In the long term (short of total environmental destruction via the earth running into the sun), there is no "as sustainable as possible." Sustainable is an absolute. Human beings, as a result of being group hunters who communicate with language and read animal tracks and derive information with a timeling (vs. a dog who smells a scent that is currently there and has no "story) are cultural beings. We imitate others (hence the existence of memes) and we enact a story based on mythology whether we like it or not. I pointed out earlier some evidence of the mythology upon which we base the story we enact in modern day culture. People who live in sustainable conditions have different mythologies. There's no such thing as being human and just choosing not to have mythology.


Who did this three million years ago? This guy?

Did they even have a religion?

3 million years ago, that guy and his cousins. And their hundreds of thousands of generations of descendants, including those we have yet to get around to conquering. As I've said, this was the population of 75% of the earth's inhabited landmass as recently as 500 years ago. We're their descendants too, of course, but we have the kind of advanced mythology and living situation that leads to nuclear weapons, famine, diseases like AIDS, etc...

Of course, if they didn't have a religion, they don't truly belong in the genus homo. Humans are culture-builders and storytellers. How can a culture-builder and a storyteller not have a story about how they came to exist? Again, even the way our scientists tell our version of this story is rife with mythology. Care to reiterate it and I'll point out where the mythology is?


MY mythology? Which mythology is that? It's certainly not mine since I'm opposed to government subsidization of population growth and the endless exponential propagation of the species. I'm not having children and I've had a vasectomy so that is certainly not MY mythology. It's one of many stupid things that people think, or fail to think about. I agree it's retarded and something must be done about it. Is it the mythology of science? Let me ask you this, Mr T3h Skillful; is the scientific literature full of articles about how we can endlessly propagate the species with no adverse environmental impact? Is the scientific literature full of articles about how great deforestation is?

Who is working to genetically engineer corn and rice to feed the starving millions? Is it not a scientist, who is lauded by our culture for his efforts? Isn't this considered a noble effort? That's the mythology of our culture and an example of science not being immune to mythology.


True, but I still think that space wizards don't exist.

Space wizards or not, we're better off if we believe the world is a sacred place that we belong in (and belong to) rather than seeing ourselves as its conquerors and masters. When we take "the rule of the gods" into our hands (presumably after eating the fruit of the tree of the gods own knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil), we necessarily end by destroying our home as a habitat for us (and too many of our neighbors).

Re: Environmentalism

Deforestation is occuring in the countries which are poorest and or developing - south american countries, places like indonesia and south east asia. you won't find deforestation in north america, or australia, and most of europe I'm sure (maybe some dodgy ex soviet countries but I doubt it). Developed countries have sustainable forestry industries and active civil populations that protect areas of ecological or sentimental value. Do you really think there is some sort of moral imperative that allows you to have a high standard of living but you think you can deny a south american coffee farmer a better life?

Population growth is potentially a huge problem however in many developed countries the population growth is slowing or negative (for example italy and japan), and positive population growth is often the result of immigration from developing countries to developed ones.

If you want to know why indonesia is hacking down most of its forests, its actually to produce alternative fuel (biodiesel) from palm oil. Hooray environmentalism wins again! Alternative fuels actually destroying the environment? The crushing irony.

Food production worldwide is nowhere near maximum capacity and there is tremendous potential for growth. India has some of the most fertile and abundant land however 90% of the farming is not mechanized and is subsistance farming. The african continent is almost completely wasted in terms of its potential output compared to its actual output, and there are countries like mozabique where war has resulted in them now importing food instead of how they used to be a net exporter.

Humans will be around in 200 years, I have no doubt about it. Any environmental or technological challenges which emerge will be overcome by human ingenuity and passion. Modern civilization is in all respects superior to tribal societies, and there is no reason to worry about the environment for the environments sake. And our population is now large enough and spread far enough apart to survive any horrible viruses or natural disasters that occur.

People who worry about 'mother earth' for the sake of 'mother earth' lack long term vision and understanding of evolution. Any toxic or wasteful product that humans can create, or in any way damage the ecosystems of the earth - do you really think evolution will be halted by us? Thats a bit arrogant. Evolution is a force that wouldn't even sneeze if we wiped out all life except for a few microbial lifeforms. There are already fungi that will eat plastic (hmm wonder when god created them), bacteria that will live off of synthetic nylon, and I'm sure you've seen tree roots pushing up and cracking concrete.

The only important question to me is about human sustainability, I'm not worried about 'mother earth'. The earth can take care of itself - we have to look out for each other and protect the systems that support human life and civilization (our water, food and air supply).

And I am really god damn tired of people defending mega fauna (whales, dolphins, koalas) - the most important systems are insect, plant and microbial life - and its a lot harder to get funding to protect bees, worms and cockroaches than it is to cry about the species like pandas or some stupid **** like that.

And for some critical reflection, lets peer through the looking glass at some species that are thriving:

corn
rice
wheat
vegetables
pine
cattle
pigs
chickens
birds
rats
insects
dogs
cats

Something you will notice is that all of these species live in an emergent harmony with humans - either we depend on them for food or shelter, or they depend on us. And life is constantly changing - if the rat population in an area increases, then a local type of bird such as an owl might start to thrive (and the whole balance of the animal kingdom is constantly moving and adjusting to these changes).

You could even say about my previous statement about megafauna, that 'cuteness' relative to humans is a survival trait - if an animal is cute then humans are likely to preserve it for sentimental value. But I think thats stupid.

Oh yes and by the way many traditional cultures wiped themself out or lived 'unsustainably' (see native american tannery's).

Anyway, thats my little rant about the environment, but you can sleep soundly at night knowing that the environmental movement is international and huge, and very unpopular to oppose. In short, you are part of the moral majority and shouldn't lose sleep at night over this topic.

No offense, but there is not a single intelligible point in this mess that I would even justify enough to refute.

All I'll say is that "environmentalism" is the province of man-the-steward-of-the-earth and living sustainably is the province of man-the-subject-of-the-earth.

Re: Environmentalism

Deforestation is occuring in the countries which are poorest and or developing - south american countries, places like indonesia and south east asia. you won't find deforestation in north america, or australia, and most of europe I'm sure (maybe some dodgy ex soviet countries but I doubt it). Developed countries have sustainable forestry industries and active civil populations that protect areas of ecological or sentimental value. Do you really think there is some sort of moral imperative that allows you to have a high standard of living but you think you can deny a south american coffee farmer a better life? Deforestation has already occurred in Europe. Britain and Northern Europe used to be 95% forest.

To say that something exists, as opposed to not existing, is within the bounds of scientific inquiry. If this phantom god can summon universes out of nothing by sheer magic then there must be a process by which this can happen, processes that are unknown and would knock scientific foundations to their core if such things are possible.

Science isn't so much into the game of saying things do not exist, science would rather say that there is no evidence of existence that we are capable of observing. For all we know it might exist on the other side of the expanding universe, far outside the space and time in which we are able to look.


How many invisible pink unicorns are there in the universe?

Considering the Drake equation I would say their existence is not improbable.


I still think that space wizards don't exist.

And therein lies the faith of atheism, and where it breaks with science. The burden of proof that the Dark matter is not God rests solely on the shoulders of the particle physicists.

And therein lies the faith of atheism, and where it breaks with science. The burden of proof that the Dark matter is not God rests solely on the shoulders of the particle physicists.

Atheism is not a belief, or a faith or any of that ****!

It is the lack of belief in god or gods, thats it.

If Virus chooses to say there are no gods fine. However atheism = no belief, beyond that is up to the individual.

:beatdead:

Atheism is not a belief, or a faith or any of that ****!

It is the lack of belief in god or gods, thats it.

If Virus chooses to say there are no gods fine. However atheism = no belief, beyond that is up to the individual.

:beatdead:

After Virus's tirades on the evils of religion this quote had me rolling, oh thank you for that delightful belly laugh.

Well, there's:

atheism

agnosticism

antitheism

Virus happens to take the first and the last.