Behaviour report by the London school of economics

michaels

The religious are obviously often a great force for good but nevertheless I suspect religion has caused more death and suffering than anything else man has ever invented.
Crucifixion, the crusades, Palestine, Northern Island and of course no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition...

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm happy with people being religious, if that's what floats their boat (and this includes my Nan). As you say Really, most religious people seem to follow a code of being generally nice and charitable, which is great.

Really2

Cleaver wrote: »

I think that as time goes on, there is more and more 'evidence' to suggest that God doesn't exist. It's not a case of "well, you don't know, I don't know, so let's say we're all agnostic and it's 50/50", there is simply no evidence for a man living in the sky creating stuff. There is, on the other hand, lots of scientific evidence and convincing theory about how stuff does get created.

As I said above though, I have no truck with religious people. Most seem lovely, it's just that their beliefs aren't for me.

I agree, but in reality we only have science to prove this to us. Unless you carry out the work yourself the weight of the written word of science and religion are exactly the same (we are believing what they say happened).

The problem science has is it has no solid answer why all matter was in one lump and exploded and fill space and create what we see now.

As I said I am not religious but if you want to really mess with people minds...
If chance, religion fate did note exist what is the scientific chance of you being where you are now from the start of the big bang.

Numbers that big soon get people thinking perhaps other things can exist as the chances of you ever existing seem less realistic than the chance of there ever being a god.

I don't know the number but i would say the 0's required at the end would take me years to write.

Cleaver

Malcolm. wrote: »

If it serves a beneficial purpose, happiness, comforting, social network e.t.c.
I would consider it neither dumb nor stupid..

As I said, from an 'objective' point of view it's stupid. I fully agree that from a social point of view there are a lot of beneifts of religion and belief in God for society and individuals. It works well for my Nan for example, and I'm pleased it does.

Malcolm.

Cleaver wrote: »

As I said, from an 'objective' point of view it's stupid. I fully agree that from a social point of view there are a lot of beneifts of religion and belief in God for society and individuals. It works well for my Nan for example, and I'm pleased it does.

Depends on the 'objective'?

michaels

Luckily there is no external reality - I can not prove that any of you are anything other than figments of my imagination...as am I.

Cleaver

Really2 wrote: »

The problem science has is it has no solid answer why all matter was in one lump and exploded and fill space and create what we see now.

You're right, and we may never know. But if I have the choice of two options:

a) some form of natural force we don't know about
b) a man in the sky made it all

then I just think that option a) is the far more logical choice.

I've just realised that we're arguing about the existance of God on an internet forum. Shall we stop? I like you, Malcolm and Treliac, let's not fall out.

Cleaver

Malcolm. wrote: »

Depends on the 'objective'?

It does indeed.

Malcolm.

Cleaver wrote: »

You're right, and we may never know. But if I have the choice of two options:

a) some form of natural force we don't know about
b) a man in the sky made it all

then I just think that option a) is the far more logical choice.

I've just realised that we're arguing about the existance of God on an internet forum. Shall we stop? I like you, Malcolm and Treliac, let's not fall out.

What about Really2? Don't you like him too?

Cleaver

treliac wrote: »

I believe what I see and don't believe what I don't see.

Is it as simple as that? Or, even in everyday life, do you use a load of scientific evidence and theory to make pretty safe assumptions about what is around you? For example, you can't see the nitrogen and ogygen in the air around you and I suppose that you haven't done any scientific tests yourself to test for their presence. But you probably still believe it's there, rather that the air around you being made up of very small yellow baked beans that only you believe in.

Let's quit this now, I think only Hamish is certain of his own opinion enough to prove / disprove the existance of God, and he doesn't seem to be around.

chewmylegoff

Cleaver wrote: »

You don't have any real proof that there aren't invisible, pink, elephants flying around my lounge. Would you describe yourself as agnostic as to their existence? If someone asked you if you believed in invisible, pink, flying elephants would you state that you weren't sure as you have no real proof either way?

i believe the term you are looking for is "flying spaghetti monster" .

dawkins is a bit of a retard. they took the p!ss out of him quite well in south park, i thought. i read a couple of his books, the selfish gene was ok at least it was about science, i.e. his subject. the god delusion was just an angry rant, it was all over the place, lacked cohesion and just make him sound like a petty little sod.