you wrote:universe

dawkins actually wrote:life on earth

Seems reasonable to assume that any intelligence involved would be from a unlikely yet plausible source (aliens) rather than a physical/mathematical impossibility (yahweh or baby jesus).

"Big science". Haha.

Of course it's possible that life had an intelligent designer. Of course it's possible. It's just a long way from possible to reasonable.

It's possible that we're all brains in jars being stimulated by electrodes to have the sensations of independent lives. That something is possible doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.

Of the two, life being designed by spacemen and life being designed by a magic dude in a robe, I'd say the spacemen theory is relatively less ridiculous.

But still ridiculous.

i can't for the life of me under-fucking-stand why anyone would bother arguing what cannot be proved.

unless you have concrete evidence in your hand you have no evidence.

there's no evidence for god. there's no evidence for intelligent design.

there is a lot more evidence for evolution. monkeys using tools. snakes with little leg nubbins. fish with lungs.

argue whatever the fuck you want, it's your right to be a shit filled blowhard and i don't intend to step on anyone's will or desire, just keep the shit out of my face.

p.s.-fuck you, ben stein.

Rick Reuben wrote:

that damned fly wrote:there is a lot more evidence for evolution.

Evolution does not rule out intelligent design. Intelligent design does not rule out evolution.

yes, but the point in arguing what can't be known?

secondly, doesn't one of those ideas sort of require a faith/belief in a higher power? as i recall there's no fucking evidence for a god whatsoever.

Rick Reuben wrote:When your best answer to the question 'How did the universe begin?' is 'I don't know', from what do you derive your authority to categorize other explanations as 'reasonable' and 'not reasonable'?

Whether or not it makes me laugh at its stupidity.

that damned fly wrote:i can't for the life of me under-fucking-stand why anyone would bother arguing what cannot be proved.

To create ideology, of course. And via ideology you can assert authority over society.

Man creates God, then that gives rise to the ideology that God created Man.

Why else would you propagandize such a patently retarded idea?

that damned fly wrote:i can't for the life of me under-fucking-stand why anyone would bother arguing what cannot be proved.

I agree that it can be exhausting and pointless; however, arguments are inevitable and necessary in order to confront and prevent christianists from forcing creationism into the schools and from making their fairy tale religion and its holy book the law of the land.

AFAIK, most of the ID proponents believe that the designer is the Christian god.* ID is a psuedo-scientific way of arguing for Creationism, and for promoting Christianity. Why is Christianity more likely to be true than any of the thousands (at least) of other religions?

Dawkins said maybe there is a designer. Let's see the evidence. Right now, the evidence for Evolution is very compelling. Where's the scientific evidence to support ID?

Maybe there is an intelligent designer, but not a god--maybe the intelligent designer is a being from another planet, from another galaxy. Why is that less plausible than the argument that god is the intelligent designer?

* From the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design:

# ^ a b c "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse's Mouth by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.

ETA: There is some interesting information at the Wikipedia article regarding "Expelled." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_ ... ce_Allowed

my best bet is a mass exodus of people with brains from this ridiculous goddamned country.

Rick Reuben wrote:If Man was created purely by atheistic science, then why would the majority not see science as their Creator? Instead, it's the opposite. The majority seek a Creator as their ancestor or designer, not an exploding rock.

According to atheistic bigot Cranius, anyone who seeks a Creator is retarded. Where did this retardation come from? Why did atheistic creation generate malfunctional creatures who pursue a Creator, which is, according to atheistic bigot Cranius, 'retarded'?

Why did evolution produce retarded creatures that chase silly supernatural Gods?

The short answer is that it's easier to believe in a mythology than it is to understand complex scientific theories.

However, I actually think the question you've posed is a really interesting one which is unfortunately overlooked by all of the rational atheists.

Why do so many people instinctively search for or believe in a God? I myself have at times believed in God. Just ridiculing the belief as a crazy one is to sidestep the question, which I think would lead us down interesting roads if we stuck with it.

I think that, as a psychological issue, it is packed with lots of interesting things to be discovered. For example, I tend to think that our aesthetic sense and our urge to use our imagination are very akin to what religious believers feel. My enjoyment of reading a novel is a direct psychological descendant of peoples' enjoyment of the Bible thousands of years ago. The only difference is that, today, we can differentiate reality from fiction. But when you read the novel, you are still caught up in that fictional world. I don't see this as all that different from being an acolyte of a mythology or of a conspiracy theory.