Leader of Human Genome Project "finds God"

[Krynn72]

lolwut

 

[Eejit]

Pretty much sulkdodds.

Ventner's still a cockmonkey.

 

[MJ12]

ITT: interesting discussion about patenting genes derailed when usual apologist (I kid) crowd respond to antitheist circle-jerking that hasn't actually begun yet, thus imaginary.

...vas?

Dawkins is right, collins was simply unable to find an explanation, and so just made up the usual shit. Its just like when christians say "God existed forever".

-10 respect for Collins.

so making things up because you don't understand something is good thinking? you're joking right?

Geogaddi simply posted news that a respected scientist has become a theist for shitty reasons.

His personal beliefs don't invalidate or prove anything but that sadly for some reason he has jumped to erroneous conclusions that are completely outside scientific method.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Two of those come after you entered the thread for the second time, and posted, apropos of nothing:

*looks at thread* I've read my share of theist bashing threads this week. HL2.net knows how to beat a dead horse. *leaves thread*

Another atheist circlejerk/superiority complex thread?

Before this, there was actually - relatively speaking for hl2.net - a very low level of boring circlejerking. Two posts! Oh no! A highly amusing and interesting discussion about genetics in the corporate road then actually got derailed for a very strange event - the first time I have seen the usual 'apologist' crowd (forgive me the label) be the ones leaping in and spitting about with no discernible provocation. Not to mention that Atomic Piggy's post was actually really reasonable and you took out the bit where he said "I wasn't bashing theists". See also: Fierygoose sniping then-imaginary targets.

YOU RUINED CHRISTMAS.

 

[Eejit]

Craig Ventner eats babies.

 

[MJ12]

Pssh 2/4 is good enough, and anyways, they didn't start the circle jerk because I said anything, no one pays attention to me, you damn well know this

 

[Sulkdodds]

But there hasn't been any real circlejerk yet! It hasn't even begun! You noncegrinch.

I'm going to patent your jeans and then I'll own your ass.
That joke would have worked better if spoken.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm going to patent your jeans and then I'll own your ass.
That joke would have worked better if spoken.

No. Not even then.

 

[MJ12]

psh, being an agnost isn't good enough for ya sulk?!

fine, i'll go have a middle ground circle jerk somewhere by myself!

 

[Bad^Hat]

Well it just seems that people here are suggesting that in order to be a non-shitty theist they have to have some logical explanation, and we know the likelyhood of that as being incredibly slim.

No, but he claims to have a logical explanation whereas it's anything but, so some may feel kind of obliged to call him out on it.

If they don't have an explanation, they are deemed stupid. If they do have an explanation, they are deemed stupid. Lose/Lose? Seems a bit unfair.

Well yeah, if you don't have an explanation for believing in something, I'd consider that kind of stupid. Of course faith defies reason so you have to have a certain level of tolerance for theists, especially if they're not bothering anyone. As for someone who has an explanation, well that's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean they get an automatic pass even if it's bullshit with no factual basis. To me his reason is just a way to explain himself to other theists (like most of these 'explanations'), and isn't scientific in the slightest.

I just think for a people who claim to believe in open-thinking, they often do quite the opposite. I'd say nothing is wrong with theism until it harms or is forced upon someone. To assume that all theists are stupid, close minded, and harmful is silly and if anything "closed-thinking".

Seems like your definition of "open-thinking" is "never complain about anything if it might annoy people", which is kind of backwards but whatever. Agreed with the second part. As for that last bit you're making a pretty broad assumption based on this thread, which is a little bit closed-minded if you ask me.

 

[Krynn72]

The thing with atheists is that we're very rational about things. Which is why irrational beliefs (IE: Faith), makes many of us agitated. Its like a neat freak being forced to live along side a slob, there's always going to be tension.

 

[Krynn72]

I think you're misunderstanding a lot of people here then. Most of us here arnt saying that Theists are stupid and cant do anything right. We're saying Theists hold a huge irrational belief which we think is stupid.

 

[MJ12]

fair enough. still don't see how it's nessisary to bash nearly everyone of them, even the moderate.

 

[Krynn72]

Like I already said, we're not. We're bashing an irrational belief they hold, not the person. We think the belief in god is stupid, so when we say anything bad about it you see it as a bashing of anyone who holds belief, which is untrue.

 

[MJ12]

i'd disagree, whether people notice it or not they often hold a biased view on theists because of what they believe, therefore judging that individual as a person rather than just a belief.

i mean for example, i could have sworn someone made a thread last month that was titled something along the lines of saying religious people are dumber than atheists. seems pretty broad to me, it was eventually locked i think.

 

[Krynn72]

Trolls dont count.

 

[Bad^Hat]

No, not that at all. Look at it this way, it's much like how people will often complain about stoners. Some people are annoyed by stoners, and some people generalize that all stoners are stupid from the weed they smoke. That's "closed-thinking", no? Just like theists, making general assumptions about them as a whole.

Yeah, okay, but I didn't see anyone making those kind of broad accusations in this thread. We're talking about a single scientist and his beliefs, not theists in general.

I don't think you'll find many people here who'd agree that "all theists are stupid", it's just that theism and idiocy seem to correlate so very, very often. Or at least in a very obvious and poke-fun-at-able way.

Also, my idea of open-mindedness, for the record, is acceptance. I do accept most forms of theism (except for like, radical creationism or scientology), but accepting something doesn't mean you can't say it's stupid. If your friend is wearing a silly hat, you don't just leave it be because you respect him.

tl;dr - Religion is a silly hat.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You might even say - a bad hat.

Oho!

 

[Eejit]

The thing with atheists is that we're very rational about things. Which is why irrational beliefs (IE: Faith), makes many of us agitated.

Wait, what's rational about that?

 

[Bad^Hat]

You might even say - a bad hat.

Oho!

Come again?

You people and your obscure in-jokes. :arms:

 

[Krynn72]

Wait, what's rational about that?

Its not! Its irrational and that makes HULK SMASH!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Come again?

You people and your obscure in-jokes. :arms:

I'm still dumbfounded that your name comes not from Jaws, or the production company mark that comes after each episode of House, but from some obscure cartoon.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'm still dumbfounded that your name comes not from Jaws, or the production company mark that comes after each episode of House, but from some obscure cartoon.

Haha, I'm not aware of either of those... there was a Bad Hat on Jaws?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

?When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,? he said. ?But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along."

It's funny that some people call him an idiot for his personal beliefs.
Yet he's also a scientist where despite these beliefs, he continued to work on something that in the end, would benefit everyone irreguardless of faith or theism.

I just think some of the atheist's here need to tone down the prejudice a bit -- I mean, after all:
If God's not real -- why fight it?

 

[Pesmerga]

I just thought of an awesome television show about a handful of atheists scheming how to get God out of power.

 

[Sulkdodds]

"What are we going to do tonight, Mecha?"
"The same thing we do every night, skull duds...try to establish the Republic of Heaven!"

Haha, I'm not aware of either of those... there was a Bad Hat on Jaws?

"That's some bad hat, harry."

 

[kineaesth]

Bad^Hat consistently confuses me.

This guy should no longer believe in God. I disagree with his principles and beliefs, rah rah rah.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I just thought of an awesome television show about a handful of atheists scheming how to get God out of power.

Atheist One: ... but Atheist Two, how are we going to get God out of power if he doesn't exist?
Atheist Two: ... Exactly, Atheist One. He doesn't exist. But we still must fight him.
Atheist One: ... WTF?

 

[PvtRyan]

I read an article where Collins backed up his beliefs with the most pitiful and overused arguments you've ever read. It's funny how such a smart person can turn into such an idiot when the subject is his personal beliefs.

And I don't think science can coexist with religion. Just because some scientists like Collins manage to find an awkward poorly founded balance doesn't mean the two don't overlap with widely different conclusions. After all, both are - in the end - a claim about nature. And if you, as a scientist, are willing to accept religious explanations for things, then what prevents you from choosing religious explanations for everything? The answer is that Collins here picks a religious explanation for the things he can't explain, which makes him no different than any other religious person or more credible, despite him being a scientist, and it's a very unscientific position. At work, Collins is (presumably) rational, skeptic, questions everything and tests his claims, yet outside of work he suddenly lets all of that go and accepts that for which there is no evidence. How does that work? You can't be rational at work and irrational outside of work and claim there is no conflict.

There is no rational basis for a belief in God. If there was, then it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.

Also, the claim of God is scientifically testable and thus it's a scientific claim. Like I said, both religion and science are a claim about reality. Practically, you can't disprove God, there's always some little niche that the believers manage to push him into. But now assume that you have 100% complete knowledge of the universe, and I mean the position of every single atom and the complete history of every atom. Never practically attainable of course (nor theoretically due to quantum uncertainty and a universe that's not completely deterministic, but that's not relevant here), but lets assume. There's now a few options; there's atoms/energy whose position/state that you can't explain, even with the full knowledge of the universe, which means a supernatural force must have had influence (because you've ruled out all natural influence) or everything checks out and everything can be explained. That leaves two options: God does not exist or God does exist outside of nature but apparently has had no influence on nature ever and is thus rendered irrelevant and the assumption that he does exist is completely redundant.

Collins' God is a God of the Gaps.

 

[Eejit]

It all comes down to whether one accepts or rejects the idea of an infinite regression of causes.
That's it.

 

[evil^milk]

Let's all go to Peter ****ing Piper Pizza.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

There is no rational basis for a belief in God. If there was, then it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.

Also, the claim of God is scientifically testable and thus it's a scientific claim. Like I said, both religion and science are a claim about reality. Practically, you can't disprove God, there's always some little niche that the believers manage to push him into. But now assume that you have 100% complete knowledge of the universe, and I mean the position of every single atom and the complete history of every atom. Never practically attainable of course (nor theoretically due to quantum uncertainty and a universe that's not completely deterministic, but that's not relevant here), but lets assume. There's now a few options; there's atoms/energy whose position/state that you can't explain, even with the full knowledge of the universe, which means a supernatural force must have had influence (because you've ruled out all natural influence) or everything checks out and everything can be explained. That leaves two options: God does not exist or God does exist outside of nature but apparently has had no influence on nature ever and is thus rendered irrelevant and the assumption that he does exist is completely redundant.

It all comes down to whether one accepts or rejects the idea of an infinite regression of causes.
That's it.

This is why I registered with this forum. To quote two people who each had amazing idea's, all for the emphasis.