Yeh, I’m Agnostic

I’ve started reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I have only read the first two chapters. Already I have found a lot of arguments (especially against fundamentalist religion) that I have thought of myself in my own reasoning when thinking about this subject.

However, I think that (so far), Dawkins has written in too much of an aggressive tone. On the other hand, its refreshing to see an atheist who will back their believes as hard as most religious people do. He encourages readers of the book to not be ashamed of their believes. I think that a lot more of the population are atheists (or at least Agnostic) then what census figures might indicate. They are too afraid (or lazy) to admit it.

The first thing that I was impressed with was how he has gone about his arguments. Treating every one as if it was a science experiment. Giving all the background evidence (of both sides) and looking at it with skeptics eyes. I believe everything must be looked at through skeptics eyes, including normal science. Unfortunately the side effect of his great writing (and the fact he is a great scientist), is the fact he uses really big fucking words. Needless to say, English wasn’t my strongest subject in school. So Wikipedia / Dictionary.com has been a good help for me.

I think the reason I was drawn to reading this book was the fact the Dawkins is an evolutionist. This is one of the most interesting subjects to me, because I (like a lot of the people this book angers) too would like to know how and why we are all here. Just because that question can be easily answered using religion, doesn’t mean that I am going to jump on that bandwagon just because it might put my mind at ease. “Someone else has figured this out and believed it for 2000 years. I’ll just run with that”. I hate that people can be happy with other people’s believes without having looked into alternate answers (or questions) for themselves. “If I was born into Christian family then thats what I have to be because A. Its all I know and B. It will disappoint my parents if I choose to think freely”. This is disgusting in my opinion.

Another thing that is mentioned at the start of the book is the different variations of believes. So for example, I considered myself to be an atheist before I started reading this book. However, I learned that I’m actually Agnostic. I’m not ready to rule a God out 100%. As you can’t rule out the existence of something absolutely. While this might seem that I’m sitting on the fence on the subject, its not. Just as I’m not ruling out the existence of aliens. I think its highly unlikely that they are visiting us every day. But if a UFO landed right in front of me now and aliens walked out, I would go “Wow there really was aliens.” The fact that religious people will say “Its the 100% truth that my version of God is correct” is so far fetched that it annoys me consistently.

Hopefully there will be more subjects to blog about as I continue through the book.

The debate continues….

After my last post I received a comment which I would like to respond to. I’m glad my post has sparked some interest and I’d like to thank “SlashGordon” for expressing his point of view. Here are some of the things he/she said (in italics) and my responses.

Where do you get the idea that 99% of all chemists believe in Darwinism? If you have hard facts on that I’d like to see it. For that to be known, every chemist would have to be asked what he believes.

If you’re looking for a record testimony of every scientists view then obviously your not going to get what you need from me, are you? I’m not claiming that exactly 99% of chemists believe one way or another. What I’m doing, is making an informed guess on what the figure might be. Unlike the Creationist believes, I don’t assert that I know the exact way things are. Either do Evolutionists for that matter. What Evolutionists do is gather information which they can use to guess and what is going on. Just like every other type of science. The information I have gathered would be life experience that through every level of my education I was taught evolution. I could give you 1000+ links that point to science papers on the matter. I didn’t really think that it would be necessary. Most new science is theory, just because it is a theory doesn’t mean it can’t be true.

Also, to say that “religious” ppl are closed minded when it comes to science. I don’t agree with that. Religious ppl are don’t believe that Darwinism is a science, and for good reason.

Here’s is a growing list of 600+ scientists that don’t believe in Darwinism:
http://discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I never said that all religious people are closed minded. Maybe read over what I said again carefully. I know religious people who believe in Evolution. I’m not (unlike Creationist people) going to use this as a reason why Creationism must not be true. Again, I’m not saying the Creationism isn’t true. I’m saying that from the evidence that has been put in front of me (from both sides) I have made an assertion that Evolution theory is more likely. A growing list of 600 scientists that are “skeptical” (direct quote from title) doesn’t prove anything. I’m skeptical about the Evolutionary theory being 100% correct as well. That’s why I’m glad we have people out there looking for evidence to support/disprove some of the things being said. Creationists are happy not to look for this evidence and stand strong with what they have been taught and not seen. It’s funny how the Creationist view keeps changing over time as things get proven without a shadow of a doubt. If you look back in history religion has been doing this to every single type of science. Since the persecution of Galileo for saying that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. Then once it has been proven the church changes its view on it. Science only says something is correct until something proves it wrong (or more precisely). Religion says things are the “truth” until science makes them use another “truth”.

To believe that every complex thing we see today, evolved or came into being, from a single dot, billions of years ago, that came from nothing and nowhere, and then somehow exploded into all the planets, stars, moons, meteors etc (without ever observing it) by energy that came from nowhere and by nothing, takes great faith.

 

I’m sure there aren’t astrophysicists out there that say the energy for the big bang came from “no where”. They say “I don’t know”. Creationists can’t say that. They proclaim to know all until someone higher in their church tells them to believe in something different. I’m not sure why you think we haven’t observed plants and solar systems being made. Maybe you should check the countless science news sites. We are observing them every day.

 

The Big Bang is discredited for the simple fact that some planets and moons rotate in different directions, and not in the same direction. In fact, Uranus spins like a wheel.

This is completely untrue. There also is a mountain of evidence to support this theory, red shifting for example (and I’m not even an astrophysicist).

It takes faith, to believe in the primeval soup that came from nowhere and by nothing

Again, religion is the only supporter of these “nowhere and nothing” claims.

after millions of years of raining (where did the rain come from? Nowhere and by nothing?)

That’s actually up there with the stupidest argument ever. Where did rain come from? Would you like an address? I’ll give you where rain might have come from. Rain, is actually water. Once you’ve comprehended that, move on and keep reading. Water, is made from base elements (which Creationism doesn’t disagree with). Just like every other material in this universe, it is created by elements coming together to form molecules. We can reproduce this in labs. Its basic chemistry that has been used to make drugs and lots of other things you might be familiar with.

If the Intelligent Creator is all powerful, and all knowing, He doesn’t need to have a beginning. He would be the uncreated Creator, which makes better sense than the all mighty “Dot”.

Well I’m sure just by you saying “He doesn’t need to have a beginning” that you have proved a “truth” as religion might say. Ok, I’m going to use your logic and “prove” that the big bang happened. Its very clever, watch. Big Bang doesn’t need a beginning…WOW I did it. Just by saying I don’t need to have an answer, I have completely proved what I’m trying to say. What great “sense” I’m making, as you put it. I’d make a great scientist. I could prove that pigs actually rule the world from underground bases. When I’m asked where they are I’d simply say “I don’t need to show you”.

The thing about the Big Bang is again, its scientific theory. People are actively trying to figure it out. Because guess what, it’s really hard. Remember that the earth revolving around the sun was once a theory that was hard to understand too. Now its fact. Unlike the word “truth” that Creationists use.

There should be “missing links” and transitionals running around today, for everyone to see, if evolution was true. There would be so many transitionals, that there wouldn’t be any debate about it. But, cuz there aren’t any transitionals running around, and none ever found underground (except those found in the evolutionists’ imaginations), it takes faith just to believe they ever existed.

 

I don’t proclaim to know the exact ins and outs of fossils and the mutation of species. Although I would argue that IMO, there are “transitionals” running around. Just because there aren’t animals that look like both people and fish doesn’t disprove we evolved from them. Creationism likes to make big jumps so it seems more unlikely to those they are trying to teach (usually kids). Survival of the fittest suggests that “transitionals” die out because they cannot compete with the new species that is created. Therefore the link between a lizard and a bird could have been made extinct by the bird itself. The bird would be more capable of obtaining food and mating then a lizard with only half evolved wings.

“Lucy” is a hoax, and most ppl probably don’t know it. She was found with NO feet or hands, yet she is displayed having human hands and feet at the St. Louis Museum, making it appear that Lucy is a missing link. Evolutionists have a nasty habit of using drawings, and not actual bones, as evolutionary evidence.

Recently, an entire village was created by just a few bones found in Indonesia. Evolutionists called these ppl, “hobbits”. They proceeded to draw a “hobbit” man, woman and child, from the few bones found. These types of hoaxes seem to be never ending.

Again you’re using hoaxes to disprove things. That is the perfect example of a closed mind. I can name heaps of religious hoaxes (i.e. Mary statues crying blood etc). That doesn’t mean that I am going to use them to “disprove” there is a God. It’s a stupid way of thinking and Evolution doesn’t need to resort to those kinds of pathetic attempts.

Creationists also believe in variations. or microevolution, as evolutionists like to call it. A big dog, giving birth to a small dog, isn’t evolution. A bird evolving into a bat would be evolution (macroevolution), but that’s not being observed anywhere on this planet.

 

This is a perfect example of what I was saying before. Creationists didn’t believe this 100 years ago. Now it has been show to them with enough proof that they accept it. It seems backward to me that religious people need to have science unequivocally proven and show to them right in front of their faces to believe it. However when I comes to a higher power they are happy to just believe because they were told to. They don’t realize that they would have completely different believes if they had been brought up in a (insert another religion here) family.

The Theory of Evolution, or Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism, is religious, in the highest degree.

No religion is “truth”.

Evolution is theory. Most people can pick that up in it title. The Theory of Evolution.

As far as that debate. I don’t think Bower is that good. He spent most of his time being disrespectful, making dumb jokes, and making predictions what Pendleton was going to say. At the start of the debate, it appeared to me, that Bower was making excuses why he was going to lose the debate.

Bower actually won the debate so I’m not sure why he needed to make excuses for losing it. As for making predictions for what Mr Pendleton was going to say, its not hard when he just recited the exact same things word for word as his video on YouTube.

Open minds only

YouTube really does get you watching lots of different stuff with the “Related Video’s” section that is next to a video your watching. The thing I search on YouTube the most is robotics videos. As I started to look at related videos from a MIT robot this was the path I ended up on…

MIT Robot – > Mars Rovers -> Video about Life on Mars -> a Creationist Video

I have no beef with religion in its basic form. Be good to your neighbor, don’t steal shit etc etc. If you believe in a higher power, thats your choice. What I do have a problem with is people using religion to make money or force other people to do what they want. This includes trying to convert people to their way of thinking.

I believe the bible was created to show people examples of why you should be a good person. People have used the bible and their interpretations of it for personal gain.

One aspect of religion that I hate, is the closed mind most religious people have about science. Creationism is the worst of it IMO. I’m going to go through a “few” points this guy brings up and why I think he is wrong.

• At the start of the video his name appears with “Chemist” under it. Although it turns out he does have a chemisty degree, this is obviously a way of showing the audience that he is a chemist and knows what he’s talking about. Forgetting the fact that 99% of chemists disagree with what his saying. I think it’s a bit backwards using a science title to fight against science.
• He then goes on to explain why he thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. He uses the bible to get the ansestry all the way back to Adam and Eve. One point he makes is that there are 75 generations back from Jesus and gives an estimate of 50 years for each generation. This is “around” 4000 years which seemingly validates his point. The life expectecy in Roman times (the 1500 year period around the birth of christ) was only 28. Clearly the only figure he could use to get the figure he needs without it sounding stupid is 50 years.
• He then “proves” the scientific geological clock wrong by saying that at the grand canyon only has half of the layers of rock that geologists suggest should be there. Forgetting the point that when new rock is distributed around the earth from violent events in the past, that the rock isn’t distributed perfectly around the entire earth. When a volcano erupts, the lava doesn’t flow across the face of the planet. This isn’t even taking into account erosion from wind and water.
• He then starts to explain how Evolution works. He makes jumps from fish to cats and from cats to apes. Clearly trying to show how huge of a difference there is between the species.
• He then finds things in nature that are 6000 years old. Therefore proving the earth is only 6000 years old. I can find things that are 2 years old as well.
• Then he goes onto explain why we have 6 billion people on the earth today. He uses the figure of 150 years for a population to double. He then halves the population every 150 years to get a population of 5.5 when the great flood happened. He doesn’t give any reason whatsoever to explain why the population would double every 150 years. The only reason I can think of is thats the number that gives him the answer he needs. Actual population figures show that the population growth has been quickly increasing for the last 1000 years. Not staying as a linear constant.
• He also discredits fossils age because they don’t come out of the ground with tags on them with the date they were created. Such a brilliant tactic.
• He then uses examples of carbon dating that gave wrong results. This somehow proves that carbon dating doesn’t work. Even though every single type of test thats ever been created has given a false result before. I’m sure there have been plenty of examples where a pregnancy test has given a false result. I don’t see him saying that pregnancy tests aren’t to be trusted.
• He then asks people to ask “Were you there?” when people say things are over 6000 years old. When he suggests what to do when the question is turned back on the person, he only offers the bible as proof that you can use. 2000 years of Chinese whispers translated through many languages. This is the proof you should use when science asks you a question thats to hard for you.

After sitting through this video I came across a comment from someone to this link. It’s a video of a 2.5 hour debate between this guy and a professor with a PhD in Biology at a college in the USA.

If your interested in this blog then the 2.5 hours is well worth it. He gets owned completely on every topic they discuss.