interested in your opinion on this?

This is what happens when the superstitious try to tell atheists what atheism is. Hilarity always ensues.Science demonstrates that what we label as “intelligence” is nothing more than the current end product of a long evolutionary process. He would need to demonstrate how his “intelligent source” came to be apart from an evolutionary process, the only one we know that produces “intelligence”. Anything less than this is pure speculation, which Mr. Chopra is really adept at asserting as truth.
Plus, if he were to believe that his “intelligent source” did actually evolve, why would anyone call it god? As an atheist I will reserve my belief until evidence is shown. Unlike Mr. Chopra, i’m not inclined to label my ignorance ”god”.
To me it is still a mystery why people waste their time listening to this person…In reason:-FA

interested in your opinion on this?

This is what happens when the superstitious try to tell atheists what atheism is. Hilarity always ensues.

Science demonstrates that what we label as “intelligence” is nothing more than the current end product of a long evolutionary process. He would need to demonstrate how his “intelligent source” came to be apart from an evolutionary process, the only one we know that produces “intelligence”. Anything less than this is pure speculation, which Mr. Chopra is really adept at asserting as truth.

Plus, if he were to believe that his “intelligent source” did actually evolve, why would anyone call it god? As an atheist I will reserve my belief until evidence is shown. Unlike Mr. Chopra, i’m not inclined to label my ignorance ”god”.

To me it is still a mystery why people waste their time listening to this person…

In reason:
-FA

atheistcartoons
atheistcartoons:

It’s futile to argue with creationists over details of the fossil record, or carbon-dating, or anything based on a logical analysis of the many flaws in their argument (including willful ignorance of what science is). The problem is not one of evidence. The problem is that they begin with the conclusion of their argument (“God made the world”) and work backwards: everything else is irrelevant.
Until they can be made to understand that beginning an argument with its conclusion is worthless, every other discussion is rendered moot.

atheistcartoons:

It’s futile to argue with creationists over details of the fossil record, or carbon-dating, or anything based on a logical analysis of the many flaws in their argument (including willful ignorance of what science is). The problem is not one of evidence. The problem is that they begin with the conclusion of their argument (“God made the world”) and work backwards: everything else is irrelevant.

Until they can be made to understand that beginning an argument with its conclusion is worthless, every other discussion is rendered moot.

emergingtechblogger
emergingtechblogger:

Religion can be bad. Science can be bad.The point here is…. both things, at their extreme can be very bad. Morality motivates humans, either in the context of science, or the context of religion, to do good or bad.

What a dumb comparison. It was not science that motivated the Nazis to send V-2 rockets. It was a political ideology mixed with a personality cult directed at Hitler. In other words, the Nazis had more in common with religion than with science. Science is a process we used to discover what is true about the universe. How science is used is another matter. It is asinine to ascribe intention to science when it cant have any to begin with. Is like saying that calculus, trigonometry or fractions can be bad. It makes no sense.
With religion we can’t say the same thing. Religious beliefs informs peoples actions. When the 911 hijackers said “Allahu Akbhar” they said it for a reason.
Sam Harris said it best:
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and  Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with  fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of  religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such  regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality  cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.  Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what  happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of  political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society  in human history that ever suffered because its people became too  reasonable."
-FA

emergingtechblogger:

Religion can be bad. Science can be bad.

The point here is…. both things, at their extreme can be very bad. Morality motivates humans, either in the context of science, or the context of religion, to do good or bad.

What a dumb comparison. It was not science that motivated the Nazis to send V-2 rockets. It was a political ideology mixed with a personality cult directed at Hitler. In other words, the Nazis had more in common with religion than with science. Science is a process we used to discover what is true about the universe. How science is used is another matter. It is asinine to ascribe intention to science when it cant have any to begin with. Is like saying that calculus, trigonometry or fractions can be bad. It makes no sense.

With religion we can’t say the same thing. Religious beliefs informs peoples actions. When the 911 hijackers said “Allahu Akbhar” they said it for a reason.

Sam Harris said it best:

"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

-FA

Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

Great article. Check it out.

-FA

Have you read or heard about the Raelians? This is a religion, and atheistic religion. They don’t believe in gods (aliens created us) but still have a book that comes from beyond the stars that explains their beliefs (aliens need an embassy for example) as well as a messenger (known as prophets in other religious circles).
Is such a movement an accurate description of reality? Are there any facts to support any of their claims? Simple answer: No. Lets say we take out the beliefs that have no evidence for them. What do we end up with? Not raelianism. Maybe just plain atheism which is not a belief but a lack of such.
Lets say we take out the beliefs that have no evidence in Hinduism. What do we end up with?
In reason:-FA

Have you read or heard about the Raelians? This is a religion, and atheistic religion. They don’t believe in gods (aliens created us) but still have a book that comes from beyond the stars that explains their beliefs (aliens need an embassy for example) as well as a messenger (known as prophets in other religious circles).

Is such a movement an accurate description of reality? Are there any facts to support any of their claims? Simple answer: No. Lets say we take out the beliefs that have no evidence for them. What do we end up with? Not raelianism. Maybe just plain atheism which is not a belief but a lack of such.

Lets say we take out the beliefs that have no evidence in Hinduism. What do we end up with?

In reason:
-FA

jesseyonfong-deactivated2013041

Evolutionist make me laugh.

jesseyonfong:

When all of you get on the right page of how you think life started here on earth, or how the universe came to be, come back and argue. lol

Creationists make me laugh.

When all of you get on the right page of how you think god works on earth, of how god came to be, come back and argue. lol

Belief in god. When not knowing is substituted by made up myths that have no evidence to support it.