I am not a fan of statistics myself, I just think it would be an interesting thought experiment.-One of my first posts to this forum in... 2008? Dealt with statistics. In the entire debate regarding intelligent design, statistics are misused constantly. -David periodically posts a blogpost detailing some ID advocate's math; and invariably it is sloppy if not useless. (And I take my role as a reviewer seriously; I do my best to try and describe to a non-mathematician why exactly the mathematical arguments don't add up.) -But Occam swings both ways: Just because biblical claims against the physical world have been largely demoted doesn't mean that fundamentally--every idea we've ever had about God is wrong except for the fact that he exists. This is more or less David's position. -To recap one of my ancient posts, we need to know these things before we can calculate real odds.-1. We have to have created life artificially--in my opinion, in any method possible instead of trying to mimic conditions that we "think" existed. -The reasons for this are many, but for brevity, you need to have complete knowledge of your system of study, or at least have a model that predicts reality reasonably well. If you don't have this, you have an infinite factor of error. This is why I automatically discard any discussion of the likelihood of God's existence via mathematical means. Dawkins... Dembski, all have tried and all fail absolutely because they are reasoning about processes that we currently and honestly--don't know anything about. -2. Once we've created life, we can start calculating it's probability to have occurred. Then--and only then--will any discussion regarding mathematics be able to bear any fruit at all.

Well, atheists don't prove a negative, they simply point out that God as defined in the bible is very, very, unlikely to exist. Dawkins says frequently (and he is correct) that every supernaturalistic claim against the physical world has been categorically refuted. 
> > 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, for a decent mathematician out there: Statistically, what is the probability of a UI vs. the probability of Spontaneous Generation and variation of life?-A UI is not calculable.-Abiogenesis will only be calculable if and only if we can do it, and as david pointed out (before you joined us) we won't have any idea if it is THE mechanism that was the 'correct' one. -Statistics--that favorite tool of the foolish--will not help you here. It is a matter of faith.

Well, atheists don't prove a negative, they simply point out that God as defined in the bible is very, very, unlikely to exist. Dawkins says frequently (and he is correct) that every supernaturalistic claim against the physical world has been categorically refuted. 
> -Just out of curiosity, for a decent mathematician out there: Statistically, what is the probability of a UI vs. the probability of Spontaneous Generation and variation of life?


> > Life has a lot more to offer my dear friend.
> 
> Yes, life can be celebrated all by itself, with or without religion. Religion tries to answer 'the why question', but has done so in a very unsatisfactory way so far. Since no one knows, the answers dance in every direction, and the intensely religious folks fight with each other all the time over interpretations that have no basis in fact. A lot of it is wishful thinking. But atheists are just as bad. They are attepting to prove a negative, that God does not exist, and proving a negative is extremely difficult.-Well, atheists don't prove a negative, they simply point out that God as defined in the bible is very, very, unlikely to exist. Dawkins says frequently (and he is correct) that every supernaturalistic claim against the physical world has been categorically refuted. -Though this says more about the approach to dogmatists than it does about religion at large... though it is a relatively new phenomenon, to make God the center of creation... which I must again point out takes up 2 of some 900 chapters of the Torah.

any idea or thought when treated as the absolute truth without step by step evaluation is bad for mankind.
> 
> Questioning things in life in a positive way is the key. I certainly dont believe science or religion have all the answers to life. But that doesn't mean we ignore both science and religion. Following any one thought totally makes you an extremist. For me an ideal mixture of scientific thought along with religion is what makes life beautiful. That ideal mixture changes from person to person. extremism of thought is what destroys mankind for me. because extremism in acts stems from extremism in thought.-I cannot agree with you more. Science and religion both attempt to give us answers. You are very wise.


> Life has a lot more to offer my dear friend.-Yes, life can be celebrated all by itself, with or without religion. Religion tries to answer 'the why question', but has done so in a very unsatisfactory way so far. Since no one knows, the answers dance in every direction, and the intensely religious folks fight with each other all the time over interpretations that have no basis in fact. A lot of it is wishful thinking. But atheists are just as bad. They are attepting to prove a negative, that God does not exist, and proving a negative is extremely difficult.

I intend to add onto this list because i find both the new atheist movement followers and religious fanatics to be quite similar. I dont mean to say all of them are but quite a few that I see are actually having these similarities. Correct me if you think I am wrong or add more cause I know one thing they get pissed of easily.(LOL)
> 
> 1) arrogance
> 2) delusion: most of the new atheist movement followers i have met are convinced that religion is the root of all evil and religion should be completly done with just like religious nut jobs believe their religion is the only way to go ahead. there isnt any mid way its my way or the high way.
> 3) they both claim tolerance while in reality they arent tolerable to any other opinion because both are convinced that they actually know it all.
> 4) both use the slippery slope, straw man and ad hoimenum attacks to justify themselves.(Yah I have met religious people who use them hard to believe but the extreme ones use the same fallacies)
> 5) denial: they live in denial when they actually think they are listening to the other person when they are actually totally convinced and cannot even see that.
> 6) Both are more concerned with convincing others that they are more moral and wise than in actually seeking the truth.
> Again this is just a opinion-Alot of these are valid points, but I think they're superficial and attacking the wrong thing. Dogmatic thought patterns are what you should be attacking, not Atheists per se. -Many atheists in the world come from cultures where if not merely considered subversive (such as in America) they are considered enemies (mid east). -Generally speaking, I think a good portion of so-called "new atheists" have a tendency to blindly believe (as I did from ages 14-18), but if pressed, generally speaking you'd discover that some of their views are just as convoluted as anyone else's. -So in general, I refrain from making opinions similar to yours, as most of the time they are just in a different phase of development as a person. -If you're referring to Dawkins and the like, they build a solidly convincing case. Several points of theirs are very difficult to dismiss:-1. Nearly every supernatural claim about the natural world has been displaced by a materialistic explanation. -This is a fancy way of saying that we know that Zeus isn't the cause of lightning. But, in the same light, those who claim that their religions still accurately describe the natural world face an incredibly uphill battle. Note why our boards only theist has a God that is verified only through negative evidence and makes no claim at all on how this being interfaces with the world.-2. At least in the west, religion in the form of the Roman Catholic Church absolutely stifled and crushed any and all explanations that could not or would not place God and/or Christ at the center of their explanation. If you add to this the fact that generally, Atheism is looked down upon, this creates a volatile brew.-3. There are thousands of religions and only one science. Hardcore Atheists share one thing in common with their ultra-religious counterparts; they both want the world to make sense, and they don't feel well if the world cannot be put in order. If you're going to compare explanatory frameworks, you cannot defeat science. -4. The irrationality of faith. I--being an agnostic--hold this nearly as a sacred belief. It is why I became unable to call myself an atheist. (Saying "There is no God" to me, requires evidence, of which--there is none.) The most powerful point New Atheists make, is that faith is not a great method for solving problems. You can compare faith to random chance, which as everyone on this board recognizes--does not solve complex problems. -I understand that faith is often equated with hope, but I do not do this. -I also realize that you might consider this view dogmatic; in my own case I recognize that some basic amount of faith is required, especially when you meet new people--and I highly respect those that have faith in some deity--but that said, you can have respect for someone and think that they are incorrect. The most powerful point New Atheists make, is that the same tools we use to say, criticize a political view is commonly not used against one's own religious belief; hence the claim that "religious people are deluded." I don't agree with the latter, but I do with the former.-In the end, it is the point in #4 that earns them the most ire and hatred from religious people; because even when I was a believer in a God, I always found the notion irrational, though I was honest enough to admit that it was irrational. It was logical consistency combined with rebellion that declared me an Atheist, and age + wisdom that moderated me to an agnostic. -I hope you have a little more respect for where this thought comes from...

I agree if religion ceased there would still be disputes over territory and materials, but it wouldn't be made so much worse by a "them and us" mentality. There is very litle difference genetically between Jews and Arabs for instance; their conflict is based on their religious identities. Peace would become much more easily negotiable.
> > 
> 
> I have to disagree with you on this. People will always find a reason to hate each other. -This comes from the hunter-gatherer period of human development. One's local tribe was trusted and outsiders not at all. Survival was dependent on tribal cohesion.

I agree if religion ceased there would still be disputes over territory and materials, but it wouldn't be made so much worse by a "them and us" mentality. There is very litle difference genetically between Jews and Arabs for instance; their conflict is based on their religious identities. Peace would become much more easily negotiable.
> -I have to disagree with you on this. People will always find a reason to hate each other. You need only look at examples such as Nazism, the Black Panthers, KKK, anti-abortionists, ethnic cleansing in Africa, etc. It is not that people hate each other based on religious differences, they hate each other based on differences period. They have a need to feel superior to those around them and will find any reason at all to justify that feeling of superiority. If you remove religion from the equation, it will be race, if you remove race, it will be ideology, location, education, wealth, or some other triviality. Maybe it is just that I do not have an overwhelming faith in humanity, but my the reasoning behind that lack of faith is well justified. -This is probably one of the biggest problems I have with the Atheist community as a whole. They seem so focused on dealing a death blow to religion that they are blind to the fact that it is not the fundamental element that has to change. If you care to argue the statement on them wanting to oust religion, I would suggest a perusal of the Dawkins.net forums.