View Full Version : Atheist Census
I find it interesting that the atheist statistics show that men who are better educated (ie know a few more things than others) are shown to be the biggest group of atheist.
http://www.atheistcensus.com
Does this mean that women or people with a lack of higher education are more credulous?
I find it interesting that the atheist statistics show that men who are better educated (ie know a few more things than others) are shown to be the biggest group of atheist.
You possibly missed out a few words from the end of your sentence. Perhaps 'men who are better educated [...] are shown to be the biggest group of atheists who are online, have found the link to www.atheistcensus.com and are inclined to complete their survey' would have been more accurate?
You possibly missed out a few words from the end of your sentence. Perhaps 'men who are better educated [...] are shown to be the biggest group of atheists who are online, have found the link to www.atheistcensus.com and are inclined to complete their survey' would have been more accurate?
There wouldn't have been a bias in my question in that case! :lol:
I find it interesting that the atheist statistics show that men who are better educated (ie know a few more things than others) are shown to be the biggest group of atheist.
http://www.atheistcensus.com
Does this mean that women or people with a lack of higher education are more credulous?
How do you come to the conclusion that better educated means "know a few more things than others".......I'd be more inclined to say it meant they know different things to others. For example the majority of our MPs are very well educated...but don't actually know much about economics or statistics..and even less about real life as lived by the majority of people in the UK.
I'd say it means that women or people with a lack of higher education are more liable to be less dogmatic and less inclined to think they know it all than men with a self-proclaimed "better" education. There are, remember, lots of agnostics in the UK as well. :roll:
There is truth in the saying: "I think therefore I am an Atheist".
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 20:57
There is also much truth in the question: What proof and evidence do you, as an atheist, have that is accurate and correct, about there being no God? Come on you clever boys, I'm waiting! :D
There is also much truth in the question: What proof and evidence do you, as an atheist, have that is accurate and correct, about there being no God? Come on you clever boys, I'm waiting! :D
As Richard Dawkins would say....
What proof and evidence do you have that is accurate and correct, about there being no Invisible Dragon living in my garage? Come on you clever boy, I'm waiting! :grin:
You can't prove otherwise.... Does that make it true?
As Richard Dawkins would say....
What proof and evidence do you have that is accurate and correct, about there being no Invisible Dragon living in my garage? Come on you clever boy, I'm waiting! :grin:
You can't prove otherwise.... Does that make it true?
I want one, I want one!
There is truth in the saying: "I think therefore I am an Atheist".
Never heard that one before! Did an atheist come up with it? :lol:
There is also much truth in the question: What proof and evidence do you, as an atheist, have that is accurate and correct, about there being no God? Come on you clever boys, I'm waiting! :D
What proof and evidence do you, as a believer, have that is accurate and correct, about there being a God? Come on, I'm waiting!
By the way do you also believe in every other god? The Vishnus the krishnas, the Bhuddas, etc? If you don't, then you too are an Atheist.
The truth is that 'god' is just Santa Claus for grown-ups.
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 23:48
As Richard Dawkins would say....
What proof and evidence do you have that is accurate and correct, about there being no Invisible Dragon living in my garage? Come on you clever boy, I'm waiting! :grin:
You can't prove otherwise.... Does that make it true?
LOL. I'm not claiming your dragon exists, or doesn't! Why on earth would you think I have to prove anything? :lol: I don't suppose you're claiming that God doesn't exist, are you Al? I'll wait, shall I? ;)
grannymoose
03-Jan-13, 00:04
I like the idea of god from a believer's point of view, they even believe .. He has opening times like Tesco's. it's just a like a bus time table to go and pray.
God is in the mirror. Created in the likeness. does not matter how we got here, fact is we are here, enjoy it. A view is no more than a minds understanding of it's believes that it has learned through it's social structure along the view through the 5 sensory inputs we are gifted with. The beauty about WE has a whole is that we experience ,me as me, and you as you ;) Who care's where it is going enjoy the ride!
You do not watch a firework display saying with every boom.. " oh that is because it's 12 grams of explosive mixed with sulphate that's been compressed to 1 lb of pressure then another explosive that burns at a slower rate causing the delay.........." Instead you view in appreciation like a child. Why complicate it. Just breathe.
What proof and evidence do you, as a believer, have that is accurate and correct, about there being a God? Come on, I'm waiting!
By the way do you also believe in every other god? The Vishnus the krishnas, the Bhuddas, etc? If you don't, then you too are an Atheist.
The truth is that 'god' is just Santa Claus for grown-ups.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 00:10
The truth is that 'god' is just Santa Claus for grown-ups.
Really? What proof and evidence do you have of this Flynn? :D
There is also much truth in the question: What proof and evidence do you, as an atheist, have that is accurate and correct, about there being no God? Come on you clever boys, I'm waiting! :D
There is as much proof and evidence that is accurate and correct to promote atheism as there is to promote the believers' contention that a God, exists.....which is none......and you know that, I'm sure. Belief in something does not require or need proof and evidence...and nor does belief in nothing....that is the nature of belief......it is neither logical or rational. If it was the internet wouldn't be hoaching with Conspiracy Theories! :Razz
I do, from time to time call myself an atheist, depending on the level of religious irrationality of the person to whom I am posting and how dogmatic I want to appear to be...but atheism appears to be fast becoming a religion in its own right..and I'm not a believer in much..not even dogmatic unbelief.
Religion is the one subject on which I am ambivalent...because with a subject which can neither be proven or disproved, given nobody knows what we can't know before we die...seems to me that agnosticism is the way to go (in hedging bets mode!)
Epicurus said...... “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
I left the Church of Scotland as a member/communicant having thought about the above, in the context of things which were going on in my/our world over the 1960s/early 1970s.....Israel/Palestine and the Six Day War, Vietnam/Mai Lai, the assassinations in the USA of men who were trying to make a difference, Ceausescu in Romania, the jailing of Mandela in SA, etc....just the general atmosphere in the world at that time which made me doubt my belief in a "God".
Since then, nobody has ever been able to explain to me why religion has come up with God's "get out of responsibility for anything" card of granting us "free will" when a God who seemingly did once give a toss about the world he purportedly created would still be doing what he theoretically did in the Old Testament...smiting those who trashed his "Chosen People"...and if his Chosen People is not and has never been anyone but the Jews.....as the Bible they wrote infers...........why the hell are we worshiping God at all? And how come Israel isn't getting a free pass from the world to get what they want......even if it is from the US, UK and many in the West?
I like the idea of god from a believer's point of view, they even believe .. He has opening times like Tesco's. it's just a like a bus time table to go and pray.
God is in the mirror. Created in the likeness. does not matter how we got here, fact is we are here, enjoy it. A view is no more than a minds understanding of it's believes that it has learned through it's social structure along the view through the 5 sensory inputs we are gifted with. The beauty about WE has a whole is that we experience ,me as me, and you as you ;) Who care's where it is going enjoy the ride!
You do not watch a firework display saying with every boom.. " oh that is because it's 12 grams of explosive mixed with sulphate that's been compressed to 1 lb of pressure then another explosive that burns at a slower rate causing the delay.........." Instead you view in appreciation like a child. Why complicate it. Just breathe.
The difference being that pyrotechnics are a scientific fact, and 'god' is just a fairy tale.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 00:22
OQ said:- There is as much proof and evidence that is accurate and correct to promote atheism as there is to promote the believers' contention that a God, exists.....which is none......and you know that, I'm sure. Belief in something does not require or need proof and evidence...and nor does belief in nothing....that is the nature of belief......it is neither logical or rational. If it was the internet wouldn't be hoaching with Conspiracy Theories!
Indeed I do know, OQ. :Razz Which is why I have never said an atheist is right or wrong about what they believe, or don't! I care not a jot. Neither can be proven to anybodies satisfaction but oneself, through personal belief and faith, or disbelief and a faith placed elsewhere. Whatever gets you through your day is fine by me! And of course, atheists hold no fear for me. :cool:
I want one, I want one!
Just believe & Ye Shall Have....
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 00:28
The difference being that pyrotechnics are a scientific fact, and 'god' is just a fairy tale.
So have scientists proved that God is just a fairy tale, Flynn? I'd like a link to that. Can you prove this Santa Claus/fairy tale claim of yours?
Here endeth the lesson! :D
Now, now, what does it matter whether we are atheists,agnostics or believers?
What does matter is that we respect our fellow man and our environment and we can only do that if we recieve an education that promotes us to question,investigate,take nothing for granted and form our OWN judgemants.
So have scientists proved that God is just a fairy tale, Flynn? I'd like a link to that. Can you prove this Santa Claus/fairy tale claim of yours?
Here endeth the lesson! :D
Why should they? It is up to the fairy tale believers to prove their fairy tales are real/ In thousands of years they haven't yet. Meanwhile science progresses. While religion was shooting schoolgirls in the head, science was finding the Higgs Boson and safely dropping a man to Earth from space.
cptdodger
03-Jan-13, 01:33
So have scientists proved that God is just a fairy tale, Flynn? I'd like a link to that. Can you prove this Santa Claus/fairy tale claim of yours?
Here endeth the lesson! :D
And I would like you to provide a link that proves god exists, but I know for a fact you cannot do that. It is as simple as this - you either believe in god or you do not. If you do, you will spend your life asking people to prove god does'nt exist, just as you have done. In my case, I do not believe in god, and I will not unless I see substantial proof that god - any god exists. I have nothing against people believing in god, half my family are very religious, my late sister in law was the first female professor of theology at Edinburgh University. So, I have heard all the arguments for and against, and all you will do is end up going round in circles
I'm an atheist...and I pray to God I stay that way ;-)
Now, now, what does it matter whether we are atheists,agnostics or believers?
What does matter is that we respect our fellow man and our environment and we can only do that if we recieve an education that promotes us to question,investigate,take nothing for granted and form our OWN judgemants.
Exactly! (10 flaming characters)
So have scientists proved that God is just a fairy tale, Flynn? I'd like a link to that. Can you prove this Santa Claus/fairy tale claim of yours?
Here endeth the lesson! :D
I'd like a link to prove the existence of a giant invisible person in the sky with magical powers. Would you also have us believe the universe and everything in it was magicked into existence in seven days and that people were magicked out of mud by this genie you think lives in the sky?
I think Richard Dawkins said it best:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 10:16
I'm an atheist...and I pray to God I stay that way ;-)
LOL. Bless you Jox. :lol:
I'd like a link to prove the existence of a giant invisible person in the sky with magical powers. Would you also have us believe the universe and everything in it was magicked into existence in seven days and that people were magicked out of mud by this genie you think lives in the sky?
I think Richard Dawkins said it best:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."Is that the same Richard Dawkins who only attacks the Christian faith, because he fears for his life if he attacks the Islamic faith?
Is that the same Richard Dawkins who only attacks the Christian faith, because he fears for his life if he attacks the Islamic faith?No it must be a different one.
http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/4/-there-s-no-god-and-islam-is-evil-speech-earns-richard-dawkins-ovation-from-islanders
That is just the first of many from a quick Google search (and that link links to a Scotsman article as it's source but I couldn't copy the link).
Is that the same Richard Dawkins who only attacks the Christian faith, because he fears for his life if he attacks the Islamic faith?
That isn't true. He has attacked Islam in the past as well as other faiths.
Richard Dawkins accepts that there is a minute chance that there may be a god. But he says that the only one which is possible is one which set off the Big Bang and left us to it without further interference. There isn't one which answers your prayers or guides your life.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 13:32
Yes, Dawkins has attacked Islam. Isn't it strange though, that such an avowed atheist accepts "there's a minute chance that there may be a God?" He would attempt to destroy a persons faith on the premise that there might, or might not, be a God? And to reinforce this peculiar atheism he points to the Big Bang, which has not and never will in my opinion, prove there wasn't, or was a God. At the end of the day, all he, or any of us can claim, is the right to believe, or not, for ourselves, with no proof available either way. Anyway, Professor Higgs has challenged his position and good for him, I say:-
"Well, all that has changed, because the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who predicted the existence of the Higgs boson, or “God particle”, has entered the ring. “Iron Pete” Higgs is not only nimble on his feet, but has a tasty left hook. Not since the Thrilla in Manila has there been a more eagerly awaited bout.
Higgs has accused Dawkins of adopting a “fundamentalist” approach when dealing with believers. He argues that belief and science can co-exist and that a lot of scientists in his field are people of faith. “I don’t happen to be one myself, but maybe that’s just more a matter of my family background than that there’s any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two.” This is a low blow, because one of Dawkins’ favourite tricks is to exchange the word atheist for scientist, as if it is impossible for a scientist to be religious, as in his line .”
I like how people who 'believe' are very selective in their 'belief'. If they believe in their own 'god' then that means everyone else's 'god' must also be real. 'Believers' cannot say other 'gods' don't exist, that would make them hypocrites.
Does Peter Higgs believe in God?
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 14:00
No, but he doesn't have to in order to validate his position. That makes him much worthier of listening to than the Dawkins 'there may be a God, but like everybody else I can't prove it' atheist, imo. Professor Higgs has gone way up in my estimation. Good for him.
No, but he doesn't have to in order to validate his position. That makes him much worthier of listening to than the Dawkins 'there may be a God, but like everybody else I can't prove it' atheist, imo. Professor Higgs has gone way up in my estimation. Good for him.
Higgs is just saying along the lines of "live and let live Mr Dawkins, stop being so vocal about your views, please change the record". Would you expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to say the same sort of thing to the Pope? I don't think so.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 14:38
So what are you saying Rheg? That Higgs shouldn't have the right to an opinion and express it, on the grounds that Archie, (we have a history, :D) wouldn't be expected to hold similar ones on the Pope? The Boson has had religion thrust on to it and that gives Higgs the right to say whatever he likes on the subject, doesn't it? Dawkins hasn't been slow to take the 'God particle,' opportunity on-board and run with it. Has he?
Higgs is just saying along the lines of "live and let live Mr Dawkins, stop being so vocal about your views, please change the record". Would you expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to say the same sort of thing to the Pope? I don't think so.
I've never yet seen any religion or religious believer who can honestly say they live and let live - this thread being the classic example of theists not exercising live and let live - except perhaps for some zen buddhists.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 14:43
Then you should get out more Flynn! :D There's loads of us out there. Perhaps, you're too blinded by prejudice to see us? Live and let live does it for me and mine everytime! Believe me. :D
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 15:00
Before I have to fold my tent, I'd just add one final thing, Flynn. As I've previously mentioned, one of my family is an eminent scientist, who was the head of a team of researchers and is credited with a breakthrough in the treatment of cancer. He lectures and is known worldwide. He is also a practicing Christian. Live and let live? You'd better believe it.
Isn't it strange though, that such an avowed atheist accepts "there's a minute chance that there may be a God?" <font color="#282828"><span style="font-family: georgia"></span></font>
Not strange at all. Dawkins is a scientist. I am also a scientist and athiest and I see his reasoning. You can't, no matter how hard you try, prove that something does not exist. It doesn't matter whether it is a chair, Atlantis or a god. Therefore the only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn is that there is a possibility that in this case a god may exist. On the other side you can prove that something does exist. This is done by observation and interpritation of available data. To prove that a chair exists for example, you can see it, touch it, sit on it, measure its volume, mass. To date no credible observations have been made that can be interprited as the existance of a god.
Religion exist soley on its followers' belief and faith that their god is real without any evidance to support their claim.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 18:03
Not strange at all. Dawkins is a scientist. I am also a scientist and athiest and I see his reasoning. You can't, no matter how hard you try, prove that something does not exist.
That's about it in a nutshell, Rob. No argument here, except that Dawkins has declared himself an agnostic, not an atheist. Now that makes a lot more sense to me. Especially in the light of him stating that there is a chance, that God exists. Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about and why atheists are swinging from his shirt tails. ;)
I had to laugh, when at the end of an interview, he became so frustrated that he said, "Oh! God." :lol:
Especially in the light of him stating that there is a chance, that God exists. Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about and why atheists are swinging from his shirt tails. ;)
Well when a scientist draws a conclusion in a scientific way, shouldn't they explain their observations with the simplest explanation? If the chance of a god is extremely small then is it proper to jump to the god explanation? Who created god? And who created what created god? It seems there needs to be an ever increasing road of complexity if you go down the religious road. At least gleeber got it right when he said a simpler thing created a complex universe, it follows the laws of thermodynamics.
I wouldn't substitute lack of knowledge with a God if there is no evidence, and history has shown that enlightenment has pushed the space for a God beyond what can be touched and explored, Dawkins acknowledges this. God is in a book, written by an unenlightened man and that is all is to be said about that.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 18:55
How it's explained has nothing to do with it for me Rheg. The conclusion is simple enough. A chance of there being a God, is exactly that and there's no need for me to be interested in the size, or anything else the agnostic Dawkins has to offer. If that changes then so may my attitude to it. Not that I believe it will. I had hoped that by this stage we may have all found some common ground in agreeing that nothing can be proven, either way. It only needs to be complex if someone makes it so. It's easy for folks like me who believe in God. It's called faith and something that no atheist will ever truly understand, imo.
That's about it in a nutshell, Rob. No argument here, except that Dawkins has declared himself an agnostic, not an atheist. Now that makes a lot more sense to me. Especially in the light of him stating that there is a chance, that God exists. Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about and why atheists are swinging from his shirt tails. ;)
I had to laugh, when at the end of an interview, he became so frustrated that he said, "Oh! God." :lol:
Atheism is not necessarily a statement that there is no god, it is most generally that the person who calls themselves an atheist does not have a belief in a god. Look up hard vs soft atheism and the spectrum of thiestic probability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability for much more info. I am with Dawkins at somewhere between 6 and 7.
As for your last statement, how absurd. That phrase is part of language. Does everyone who has ever uttered the phrase "by Jove" believe in the Roman God of said name?
How it's explained has nothing to do with it for me Rheg. The conclusion is simple enough. A chance of there being a God, is exactly that and there's no need for me to be interested in the size, or anything else the agnostic Dawkins has to offer. If that changes then so may my attitude to it. Not that I believe it will. I had hoped that by this stage we may have all found some common ground in agreeing that nothing can be proven, either way. It only needs to be complex if someone makes it so. It's easy for folks like me who believe in God. It's called faith and something that no atheist will ever truly understand, imo.
I know there is little point to this, but isn't it funny how your faith is in the one man made god that you were (most probably) brought up to believe in and surrounded by culturally?
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 19:02
Thanks Serenity. I'm awa' for dinner, but I'll definitely check out your link later. :cool:
I found the use of the phrase funny. What's so wrong with that? :confused
I find it interesting that the atheist statistics show that men who are better educated (ie know a few more things than others) are shown to be the biggest group of atheist.
http://www.atheistcensus.com
Does this mean that women or people with a lack of higher education are more credulous?
Does it also mean people over the age of 45 are more credulous?
Maybe yes to all 3 of the above, but there will also be a certain bias towards people who are a - aware of such a census, and b - feel the need to sign it.
It only needs to be complex if someone makes it so. It's easy for folks like me who believe in God. It's called faith and something that no atheist will ever truly understand, imo.
I think Richard Dawkins understands it, only too well. You've illustrated his point yourself and you are right, it is easy for you to believe in God no matter how big the odds against it being reality. Dawkins would say that is intellectually lazy, most people with faith would take that as an insult but you've phrased it better, it is the easy thing to do.
Does it also mean people over the age of 45 are more credulous?
No, I just think people over the age of 45 are a few years closer to death and so they suspend their rationality out of a fear of the unknown.
billmoseley
03-Jan-13, 19:45
Does it really matter who believes in what as long as you lead a good life respect others and do your best.
Does it really matter who believes in what as long as you lead a good life respect others and do your best.
I agree 100% with that but when you see all the sectarian violence and religious intolerance around the world then it seems to me the best way to universal peaceful is a world without faith. It makes you think? Religious people like to quote Hitler, Stalin and others to dispute that but I think if we analyse each case then I think it is a disingenuous agument.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 20:13
I agree 100% with that but when you see all the sectarian violence and religious intolerance around the world then it seems to me the best way to universal peaceful is a world without faith. It makes you think? Religious people like to quote Hitler, Stalin and others to dispute that but I think if we analyse each case then I think it is a disingenuous agument.
"Disingenous," Rheg? LOL You blame religion and God, instead of Man, for "sectarian violence and intolerance," then so glibly dismiss the slaughter of an estimated 41 million poor souls at the hands of the atheists, Hitler and Stalin as "disingenuous?" How on earth did you arrive at that? And yes, I think their beliefs mattered a great deal.
billmoseley
03-Jan-13, 20:20
I'm with Rheg on this one. take religion out of the world and i wonder how many wars there would have been?
"Disingenous," Rheg? LOL You blame religion and God, instead of Man, for "sectarian violence and intolerance," then so glibly dismiss the slaughter of an estimated 41 million poor souls at the hands of the atheists, Hitler and Stalin as "disingenuous?" How on earth did you arrive at that? And yes, I think their beliefs mattered a great deal.
I don't blame God, how could I? I blame people with faith for sectarian violence.
Hitler wasn't an atheist, he was a roman catholic and he killed millions because of his sectarian views towards another religious group. Stalin was an atheist but he didn't kill millions because of his atheist views.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 20:27
Atheism is not necessarily a statement that there is no god, it is most generally that the person who calls themselves an atheist does not have a belief in a god. Look up hard vs soft atheism and the spectrum of thiestic probability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability for much more info. I am with Dawkins at somewhere between 6 and 7.
Sorry Serenity, but as far as I'm concerned the spectrum's a waste of my time. I think it's more of a case of can't provide the evidence, so let's dwell on the next best thing ..... probabilities. Definitely not for me!
I think it odd that Dawkins has a religious-style cult that follow him everywhere and seem to revere him as a God. It has an almost evangelical feel to it. :D Mind you, I've watched a couple of televised interviews and even if I was an atheist I think I'd be appalled at his lack of respect for other people's beliefs, because they don't match his. Still, each to their own!
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 20:41
I don't blame God, how could I? I blame people with faith for sectarian violence.
Hitler wasn't an atheist, he was a roman catholic and he killed millions because of his sectarian views towards another religious group. Stalin was an atheist but he didn't kill millions because of his atheist views.
Well, that's good Rheg, because it places the blame for sectarian violence firmly at the door of Man.
At the time that Hitler took control of Germany he was not a Christian. He certainly didn't do what he did, because of a Christian faith...... he didn't have one. He killed millions of religious folks, because he thought that they held too much power and wealth. But anyone was fair game, irrespective of their religion. As for Stalin, he hated religion and killed millions because of it. He was an atheist and responsible for possibly the worst barbarity ever. Why is it "disingenous," to state this?
Prove there is a 'god'. Any evidence will do. Something it made. Something it wrote. Soemeone who has seen it. In thousands of years someone must have seen it, right?
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 20:46
I'm with Rheg on this one. take religion out of the world and i wonder how many wars there would have been?
Hmmmmm! If I was a gambling woman, I'd put a few bob on just as many Bill. It would just be blamed on something else, that's the only difference I can see.
Hmmmmm! If I was a gambling woman, I'd put a few bob on just as many Bill. It would just be blamed on something else, that's the only difference I can see.
Without religion there would have been no crusades. No inquisitions. No middle east conflict. No witch hunts. No genocides. There is more blood on the hands of religion than anything else in history.
At the time that Hitler took control of Germany he was not a Christian. He certainly didn't do what he did, because of a Christian faith...... he didn't have one. He killed millions of religious folks, because he thought that they held too much power and wealth. But anyone was fair game, irrespective of their religion. As for Stalin, he hated religion and killed millions because of it. He was an atheist and responsible for possibly the worst barbarity ever. Why is it "disingenous," to state this?
It is disingenuous because what you said is simply not true.
There is a body of evidence that suggests that Hitler believed in God.
1. Nazi belts had inscribed 'Gott mit uns', why say that if Hitler was an atheist?
2. In his Mein Kampf, he thanks Heaven for having the opportunity to live in such times.
3. Herman Goering states that only a Catholic could unite Germany. Was he lying?
4. Hess in a letter said Hitler was a good Catholic
5. In a speech in Berlin 1933, he spoke of undertaking a 'fight' against the atheistic movement within Germany. Erm, that is against himself then? lol
6. He told Gerhardt Engel that he would remain a catholic forever.
The list goes on....
So yes, it is disingenuous to claim Hitler was an atheist.
And there is not a shred of evidence that shows Stalin killed because of other people's religious views.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 21:14
It can suggest what it likes Rheg, but the atheist Hitler wasn't as stupid as some would have us believe. He had to tap into the hearts and minds of many German believers in order for them to fight his war. Are you really surprised that in 1933 he should have made such a speech in Berlin? "And doesn't God is with us," also fit this criteria? Goering lie? Are you serious? I think the list had better stop here, if this is the top six, Rheg. :D
I've never yet met a Christian, or anyone else, who believed Hitler did what he did in the name of God. Or condoned it in any way, shape, or form!
It can suggest what it likes Rheg, but the atheist Hitler wasn't as stupid as some would have us believe. He had to tap into the hearts and minds of many German believers in order for them to fight his war. Are you really surprised that in 1933 he should have made such a speech in Berlin? "And doesn't God is with us," also fit this criteria? Goering lie? Are you serious? I think the list had better stop here, if this is the top six, Rheg.
I accept that individual atheists can do evil things but they don't do them in the name of atheism because that is absurd. Religious wars on the other hand are carried out in the name of their god.
No the list goes on including about Hitler claiming to carry out God's work etc etc.:eek: His language seems to be of a very religous sermon like manner. Of course he could be just doing that as a tool to get his followers on board to carry out his evil acts, but the evidence is what we have to go on and that is what he said and wrote. He did say things against Christianity, but who's brand of christianity? But he seems to distance himself from 'christianity' after 1941 but by no means renouncing his faith.
I've never yet met a Christian, or anyone else, who believed Hitler did what he did in the name of God. Or condoned it in any way, shape, or form!
I'm not surprised by that, would you want to claim to share the same religious views as Hitler :roll: It is much easier to deny the evidence about him.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 22:01
I accept that individual atheists can do evil things but they don't do them in the name of atheism because that is absurd. Religious wars on the other hand are carried out in the name of their god.
No the list goes on including about Hitler claiming to carry out God's work etc etc.:eek: His language seems to be of a very religous sermon like manner. Of course he could be just doing that as a tool to get his followers on board to carry out his evil acts, but the evidence is what we have to go on and that is what he said and wrote. He did say things against Christianity, but who's brand of christianity? But he seems to distance himself from 'christianity' after 1941 but by no means renouncing his faith.
I'm not surprised by that, would you want to claim to share the same religious views as Hitler :roll: It is much easier to deny the evidence about him.
Ah! You can carry out any war in the name of anyone you choose, but that does make who you nominate responsible for it, does it? Man makes wars and when it suits God is blamed for it.
As for your second paragraph, that's unbelievable. Beacuse the madman Hitler may, or may not have said something, (even in a "sermon like manner,") it might be true! Doh! I suppose you'd have us believe the same about his order to place the words, "Arbeit Macht Frei," on the gates leading into concentration camps, because
that might have been true? Come off it Rheg. You're coming across a tad desperate with this doofers!
I'm not surprised that anyone would want to claim to share the same atheistic views as Hitler! :roll: It's much easier to provide the "evidence," when it isn't worth the cyberspace it occupies.
It's much easier to provide the "evidence," when it isn't worth the cyberspace it occupies.
Evidence is evidence, you can accept it or deny it.
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 22:18
Or, you can see it for what it is! Flimsy and proving nothing! :D
Thanks for the chat Rheg. I shouldn't think either of us have made any converts, but we gave it our best shot! :cool:
Or, you can see it for what it is! Flimsy and proving nothing! :D
Thanks for the chat Rheg. I shouldn't think either of us have made any converts, but we gave it our best shot! :cool:
I wasn't trying to convert you to anything, atheism and rationality isn't something that is imposed on someone like religion brainwashes from an early age, on the contrary, rationality is by definition the act of actually thinking for one's ownself and coming to ones own conclusion. Whether you want to come to a rational conclusion or believe in the supernatural is entirely up to you. My beef really comes into fruition when people with faith impose their views on the wider society like their definition of marriage, sunday opening, veils, circumcision etc etc, I didn't ask them to comply with my views so why should I comply with theirs.
Prove there is a 'god'. Any evidence will do. Something it made. Something it wrote. Soemeone who has seen it. In thousands of years someone must have seen it, right?Try reading the books of Isiah,Daniel, Hosea, Micah and Revelation then turn and look at Israel, even Dawkins was at a loss to account for the accuracy of Biblical prophesy.
Ah! You can carry out any war in the name of anyone you choose, but that does make who you nominate responsible for it, does it? Man makes wars and when it suits God is blamed for it.
How can God possibly be blamed for it, he/it doesn't exist.... It's mans belief in a God that is being blamed for causing wars.
I'm an agnostic and Im comfortable with that. I've seen religion from close up and in my opinion it's a power for good. It also acts as a receptor for the human spirit. :eek:
I do'nt have to look far to see the truth in religious worship. Ive seen countless examples of people finding the truth in religion and thier lives have changed remarakably as a consequence. Some people will say its God and others may say a spark sparked, but something happened.
How does an atheist define spirituality?
I'm an agnostic and Im comfortable with that.
I'm an agnostic as well and I think atheists do as well as i think the 2 are the same.
I'm an agnostic as well and I think atheists do as well as i think the 2 are the same.
OK then. How does an agnostic define spirituality? :lol:
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 01:05
How does an atheist define spirituality?David Mitchell did it rather well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/05/atheists-camp-dawkins-somerset) a few years ago:
Spirituality Camp - For children of parents who believe in being open to everything, including what is self-evidently bullshit.
"Join us for a week of exploration in the New Forest! As well as seeking out crystal skulls and listening for flower spirits, we'll be discussing and enthusing about hundreds of sincerely held sets of belief. From reflexology to astrology, from ghosts to homeopathy, from wheat intolerance to 'having a bad feeling about this', we'll be celebrating all the wild and wonderful sets of conclusions to which people the world over are jumping to fill the gap left by the retreat of organised religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion)."
Is that you?
You might also like this one...
Conspiracy Theorists' Camp - For children of parents who believe in questioning everything, including what is self-evidently true.
"We'll be spending a week in the shadow of Sellafield nuclear processing plant (it's where THEY don't want us to go - this way we're off the grid). After scanning everyone for subdermal microchips, we'll hold sessions on why no one has landed on the moon, why Princess Diana was both murdered and is not dead, and how there's a prophesy about 9/11 on the back of the Turin shroud. Also hiking. Bring cagoules."
How many forum members can you spot in that? :cool:
Agnosticism is the laziest of all religions, although you seem to be an exception to most agnostics - running as fast as you can on the spot, in order to get you-know-not-where....
I dont see them as the same. I dont think theres a minute chance of a God I think its 50/50
lol. Im not going to bother reading what Mr mitchell says about spirituality, not yet anyway, but i can imagine. I was only asking how you account for the changes in peoples lives if they are converted, for want of a better word.
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 01:10
I dont think theres a minute chance of a God I think its 50/50I take it back - that is the laziest hypothesis of them all lol!
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 01:13
lol. Im not going to bother reading what Mr mitchell says about spirituality, not yet anyway, but i can imagine. I was only asking how you account for the changes in peoples lives if they are converted, for want of a better word.Didn't you behave well before Santa came at Christmas?
BTW The New Forest is a magical place - you should go there in Spring or early Summer. :cool:
cptdodger
04-Jan-13, 01:16
Seemingly this is the definition of an Agnostic -
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unknowable); broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonexistence) of God or a god
And, the definition of an atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity
I had to look agnostic up, because I had no idea what it meant, to me it sounds like sitting on the fence. as in - well there might be a god, there might not be. If my definition of agnostic is wrong, i'm sure some kind soul will pull me up on it.
Having read the definition of atheist, then that's me.
Aye thats an agnostic. Maybe there is, maybe there isnt:lol:
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 01:20
The vast majority of agnostics are fence sitters. Gleeber is the exception - on average he is sitting on the fence, but his posts suggest that he spends most of his time jumping one way, then the other, then the one, then the ....
He's the Human equivalent of a quantum particle in a box. :cool:
Are you going to tell me how you account for the healed lives when a person is converted? In case you think its a trap I'm setting. it's not. I wouldnt know the answer to tit either but somethings happening.
cptdodger
04-Jan-13, 01:33
OK then. How does an agnostic define spirituality? :lol:
Can an agnostic define spirituality ? because, seemingly if you are religious you belong to one faith - catholic or whatever. If you are spiritual, you are not confined to following one particular faith, if I understand spirituality correctly. So, if you are agnostic and are not sure if you believe there is a god - or not, then you will struggle with spirituality, Because presumably if an agnostic claims they are spiritual then they must think there is something there to find. If that makes sense.
Maybe there is maybe there isnt. :lol:
I can see the effect religion or conversion has on peoples lives. If you know someone who has changed their character for the better then something is hapening. Thats what I call spirituality.
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 01:54
Can an agnostic define spirituality ? because, seemingly if you are religious you belong to one faith - catholic or whatever. If you are spiritual, you are not confined to following one particular faith, if I understand spirituality correctly. So, if you are agnostic and are not sure if you believe there is a god - or not, then you will struggle with spirituality, Because presumably if an agnostic claims they are spiritual then they must think there is something there to find. If that makes sense.You can't argue with that sort of agnostic - they're more slippery than a Kircaldy jellied eel lol.
Agnostics are mostly harmless, the worst ones are the Humanists that make a religion of Nothing.
FWIW I'm not a fan of Darwin's Rottweiler, but his bite is worse than his bark, which only he can manage. :cool:
I wasn't trying to convert you to anything, atheism and rationality isn't something that is imposed on someone like religion brainwashes from an early age, on the contrary, rationality is by definition the act of actually thinking for one's ownself and coming to ones own conclusion. Whether you want to come to a rational conclusion or believe in the supernatural is entirely up to you. What if someone thinks for themselves and comes to their own conclusion that there is a God. It seems that athiests happily want people to think about the issues, the evidence and their feelings but only as long as they then decide there is no God. I dont know why atheists are so bothered about other people believing in God. Why do they care what works for others
cptdodger
04-Jan-13, 02:02
Maybe there is maybe there isnt. :lol:
I can see the effect religion or conversion has on peoples lives. If you know someone who has changed their character for the better then something is hapening. Thats what I call spirituality.
But if you believe the change in character for the better is due to them being religious or being converted to religion, then surely you must believe that it was them finding god that changed them for the better ?
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 02:02
Are you going to tell me how you account for the healed lives when a person is converted? In case you think its a trap I'm setting. it's not. I wouldnt know the answer to tit either but somethings happening.You must know the agnostic's answer - it's a linear superposition of finding True Peace in God and the Santa Claus/Placebo effect. :cool:
That could be the coolest demolition of agnosticism you'll ever see. :cool:
I wasn't trying to convert you to anything, atheism and rationality isn't something that is imposed on someone like religion brainwashes from an early age, on the contrary, rationality is by definition the act of actually thinking for one's ownself and coming to ones own conclusion. Whether you want to come to a rational conclusion or believe in the supernatural is entirely up to you. My beef really comes into fruition when people with faith impose their views on the wider society like their definition of marriage, sunday opening, veils, circumcision etc etc, I didn't ask them to comply with my views so why should I comply with theirs.
As someone with reasonable intelligence, and a fair bit of commonsense, who sits in the middle of the seesaw which, on one side says "you are taking crap re no God"..and on the other says " there is no God to talk crap about" I can see why the world is in the state it is....and I can see no way past it. (going by forums at least)....because dogmatism is unthinking, irrational and will not ever consider discussion or compromise...not a great deal different to the mindsets which have produced the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Afghanistan, Iraq....and will, not too long from now, be trashing Iran and maybe Syria.......if US companies can see a profit to be made there.
Atheism is no more rational than Religion!
There is NO rational conclusion as to a God or no God...but there is certainly a belief system on either side which delineates opinions. An atheist is no less irrational, imo, than someone who believes in a religion, whatever that religion happens to be. But neither can prove anything.....so why do they continue to post on forums as if they can...particularly as neither ever do links to proof....so just project their personal opinions as "proof" .
The sensible are the agnostics.......because they do not accept, without proof, the absolute certainty of either side but are not prepared to deny the possibility that they might just be wrong if they accept an unprovable thesis offered by either side of the "I know best" divide. As an agnostic of 40+ years standing......nobody has yet convinced me of either the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, whatever anyone wants to call him/her. And until someone comes up with more than continually posting their opinions as to the existence (or not) of a supreme being, who was invented by the Jews centuries ago to justify their self perceived importance in their limited world I will continue to be an agnostic.
Religion and atheism are only different from each other as in one believes ina supreme being......and the other doesn't....but both believe implicitly in what they think...so both are belief systems from polar opposite points of view.......but neither can prove their specific POVs...so what we have are nothing more than personal opinions....and, in the great scheme of things, what do personal opinions matter....bar producing a thread on a forum?
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 02:11
But if you believe the change in character for the better is due to them being religious or being converted to religion, then surely you must believe that it was them finding god that changed them for the better ?He doesn't know, and in my model of quantum agnosticism he'll probably have to be God himself to find out. :cool:
You must know the agnostic's answer - it's a linear superposition of finding True Peace in God and the Santa Claus/Placebo effect. :cool:
That could be the coolest demolition of agnosticism you'll ever see. :cool:
Dont be daft. I dont feel demolished. The placebo is certainly worth considering. Whoever bottles that is on a winner.
Its interesting that you describe an invisible unmeasurable power with a word we are all expected to understand immediatley and then move onto the next subject thank you very much and just forget the transformation that has just taken place. How would you define placebo?
But if you believe the change in character for the better is due to them being religious or being converted to religion, then surely you must believe that it was them finding god that changed them for the better ?
I missed this one. They found something thats for sure.
cptdodger
04-Jan-13, 02:17
It seems that athiests happily want people to think about the issues, the evidence and their feelings but only as long as they then decide there is no God. I dont know why atheists are so bothered about other people believing in God.
I am personally not bothered squidge, If I was I would have to disown half my family. I do not believe in God, but that's my right not to do so, as much as it is anybody else's right to believe in God. If somebody believes in god, then I am sure no atheist will change their mind and vice versa.
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 02:30
Dont be daft. I dont feel demolished. The placebo is certainly worth considering. Whoever bottles that is on a winner.
Its interesting that you describe an invisible unmeasurable power with a word we are all expected to understand immediatley and then move onto the next subject thank you very much and just forget the transformation that has just taken place. How would you define placebo?I think you know what the placebo effect is....
You won't (ever?) feel demolished. Only God or Nothing (or the part of God which collapses onto Nothing?) can demolish you and your fellow agnostics. :cool:
Dodgy religions bottled the placebo effect many thousands of years ago. Many others have copied the recipe (including David Mitchell's Spiritual people), but they all used different bottles to avoid being sued for copyright theft.
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 09:53
I'm an agnostic and Im comfortable with that. I've seen religion from close up and in my opinion it's a power for good. It also acts as a receptor for the human spirit. :eek:
I do'nt have to look far to see the truth in religious worship. Ive seen countless examples of people finding the truth in religion and thier lives have changed remarakably as a consequence. Some people will say its God and others may say a spark sparked, but something happened.
How does an atheist define spirituality?
You won't find the answer you're looking for here, Gleeber. You ask what makes the difference for some folks who have turned their lives round after finding religion. It's really very simple! It's something that transcends belief and is the true enemy of atheists .......... faith. They can't fight it, despite everything they try. Even science will never come to their rescue, but they have to see it as their best hope. The final proof that they were right, after all.
People's lives have been turned around so many times and who would begrudge them their transformation? Or, deny them peace? You've witnessed it with your own eyes. It's not so complicated. It's faith writ large and for what it's worth, I think you're 50% of the way there. :cool:
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 10:04
Dont be daft. I dont feel demolished. The placebo is certainly worth considering. Whoever bottles that is on a winner.
Its interesting that you describe an invisible unmeasurable power with a word we are all expected to understand immediatley and then move onto the next subject thank you very much and just forget the transformation that has just taken place. How would you define placebo?
Ah! But you're supposed to feel "demolished," Gleeber. See what a difference that 50% makes? :D What kind of belief system seeks to convert, when it's main remit is to destroy? I don't believe the placebo theory has any credibility. It's just another desperate attempt to fight faith and it won't, can't win. It's so easy to come up with pseudo-intellectual claptrap; we could all do that, with a little help from c&p. The problem comes when questions spring from it. It's atheism, or whatever, without conviction, imo. Move along the bus, please! :D
Try reading the books of Isiah,Daniel, Hosea, Micah and Revelation then turn and look at Israel, even Dawkins was at a loss to account for the accuracy of Biblical prophesy.
Those books were written by men, not by a supernatural being. Try again.
Or, you can see it for what it is! Flimsy and proving nothing! :D
Much like every argument theists give for the existence of supernatural creatures in the sky.
cptdodger
04-Jan-13, 13:16
Ah! But you're supposed to feel "demolished," Gleeber. See what a difference that 50% makes? :D What kind of belief system seeks to convert, when it's main remit is to destroy? I don't believe the placebo theory has any credibility. It's just another desperate attempt to fight faith and it won't, can't win. It's so easy to come up with pseudo-intellectual claptrap; we could all do that, with a little help from c&p. The problem comes when questions spring from it. It's atheism, or whatever, without conviction, imo. Move along the bus, please! :D
If your faith is as strong as you say it is, then why does it bother you so much if people, like myself do not believe in god? All any of us have done is ask you to provide proof that a god, any god exists, which you can't. As for converting people, I have no knowledge of atheists knocking on my door or anybody else's door for that matter trying to dissuade them from being religious. The same unfortuantely cannot be said for mormons and jehova witnesses. I have seen the destruction that has been caused in the name of religion in Northern Ireland. Children from birth being told you can't speak to that child for the simple reason he/she is catholic, or you can't speak to that child because he/she is protestant. That is now ingrained in them. And that is just one small example of the damage religion does.
Atheism is no more rational than Religion!
Believing in something without evidence is irrational perhaps even delusional under some circumstances. Not believing in something that lacks proof is rational
The sensible are the agnostics.......because they do not accept, without proof, the absolute certainty of either side but are not prepared to deny the possibility that they might just be wrong if they accept an unprovable thesis offered by either side of the "I know best" divide. As an agnostic of 40+ years standing......nobody has yet convinced me of either the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, whatever anyone wants to call him/her. And until someone comes up with more than continually posting their opinions as to the existence (or not) of a supreme being, who was invented by the Jews centuries ago to justify their self perceived importance in their limited world I will continue to be an agnostic.
I take it you are agnostic with regards to the toothfairy, father christmas, bogy monster and Russel's teapot as there is no evidence that they don't exist? You cannot prove that something does not exist, so you will never get the proof that god or anyother of the 3000 other gods for that matter, do not exist. I am athiest but I fully admit that because you can't prove that something does not exist, there is a tiny posibility that any and all gods may exist. They may exist, but I don't beleive they do. However under that logic we can't ignore the posibility that the unverse as we know it was only created 1 minute ago; an idea that we would all reject without too much thought.
So have scientists proved that God is just a fairy tale, Flynn? I'd like a link to that. Can you prove this Santa Claus/fairy tale claim of yours?
Here endeth the lesson! :D
How arrogant are you ! shall we start on the Churches and there sanctimonious antics
.....However under that logic we can't ignore the posibility that the unverse as we know it was only created 1 minute ago; an idea that we would all reject without too much thought.
Hey.... Let's start listing stupid theories that can't be disproved.... I'll start....
The only thing in existence is the reader of this conscience & everything else is just the product of their imagination. I, the physical world that they perceive around them, even their own physical presence within this world doesn't exist & never will. There is no universe, nothing, nada, just a single disjointed conscience.
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 14:48
I take it you are agnostic with regards to the toothfairy, father christmas, bogy monster and Russel's teapot as there is no evidence that they don't exist? You cannot prove that something does not exist, so you will never get the proof that god or anyother of the 3000 other gods for that matter, do not exist. I am athiest but I fully admit that because you can't prove that something does not exist, there is a tiny posibility that any and all gods may exist. They may exist, but I don't beleive they do. However under that logic we can't ignore the posibility that the unverse as we know it was only created 1 minute ago; an idea that we would all reject without too much thought.
Well said Rob. This is a good example of how any chat between believers and non-believers can have value. You state your case very well and there's not a hint of hatefulness, nastiness, or ignorance, imo. We can do business, because I feel exactly the same way. :cool:
I fully accept that you don't believe and have absolutely no problem with it, but I wonder if I could ask a question, please? Do you think that belief in something, anything, is necessary to live a fulfilled life? Does life have meaning, or purpose without it? What prompted me to ask, is that I Googled this same question and whilst many declared their atheism and trashed religion in the process, not one of them was prepared, or able, to answer, "How do we survive without a belief?"
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 14:57
How arrogant are you ! shall we start on the Churches and there sanctimonious antics
You get to decide how arrogant I am Gaz. I can't be fairer, or more disinterested than that! :D
Start wherever you choose. It could prove a popular move for some! I could probably even name them. :lol:
Those books were written by men, not by a supernatural being. Try again.You ask for evidence, when evidence is presented to you, you choose to ignore it, read the books then turn and look at Israel.If by then you choose to dismiss that which has been offered to you I promise to trouble you no more on the subject.
You ask for evidence, when evidence is presented to you, you choose to ignore it, read the books then turn and look at Israel.If by then you choose to dismiss that which has been offered to you I promise to trouble you no more on the subject.
They are books, written by people. You might as well say orcs, elves and goblins exist because they're in the Lord of the Rings. Show me actual proof, actual unrefutable concrete proof. Something actually done or created by this supposed giant invisible genie in the sky.
Religion is your belief, even Atheists have a belief, their religion is that of no God. Agnostics are like the Jews they must have a sign before they believe. Some of the most emminient scientists were Christians. Athesists are no more or less intellegent than anyone of faith and to imply otherwise would be wrong.
Science is theories and proofs, we have much that cannot be explained by science or proven by science.
They are books, written by people. You might as well say orcs, elves and goblins exist because they're in the Lord of the Rings. Show me actual proof, actual unrefutable concrete proof. Something actually done or created by this supposed giant invisible genie in the sky.Flynn read the books look at Israel " there is your proof"! concrete proof.
Well said Rob. This is a good example of how any chat between believers and non-believers can have value. You state your case very well and there's not a hint of hatefulness, nastiness, or ignorance, imo. We can do business, because I feel exactly the same way. :cool:
I fully accept that you don't believe and have absolutely no problem with it, but I wonder if I could ask a question, please? Do you think that belief in something, anything, is necessary to live a fulfilled life? Does life have meaning, or purpose without it? What prompted me to ask, is that I Googled this same question and whilst many declared their atheism and trashed religion in the process, not one of them was prepared, or able, to answer, "How do we survive without a belief?"
I don't think that belief in something is required for fulfilled life. I don't think that life has a meaning or purpose, such a notion suggests that the world was created by inteligent design - a theory I reject through lack of evidence. Suggesting that humanity has some sort of special place or purpose on this planet is somewhat arrogent. Well why should we have a purpose? What makes us so special? We are born, we grow, we reproduce, we die - what is wrong with that? All religions teach us that humanity is special and therefore we assume we have a purpose to us being here. As I don't have a religious conviction, I don't think we are anymore special than the ants that live in my garden.
Religion is your belief, even Atheists have a belief, their religion is that of no God. Agnostics are like the Jews they must have a sign before they believe. Some of the most emminient scientists were Christians. Athesists are no more or less intellegent than anyone of faith and to imply otherwise would be wrong.
Science is theories and proofs, we have much that cannot be explained by science or proven by science.
No, atheist lack beleif. That is how you define an atheist! You are confusing beleif and religious beleif
changilass
04-Jan-13, 17:24
Atheism is not a lack of belief, its a lack of belief in deities.
You can still have a belief in self, family, nature, even in the good in people - thought some of the threads on here certainly test that belief.
The idea that an atheist does not have any belief is ridiculous, most of us believe that tomorrow will follow today.
Flynn read the books look at Israel " there is your proof"! concrete proof.
No, it isn't. It's just stuff written by people. It is not proof of the existence of a giant sky-fairy.
Show me a photograph of 'god', show me something signed by 'god', show me actual evidence of this 'god'.
Religion is your belief, even Atheists have a belief, their religion is that of no God. Agnostics are like the Jews they must have a sign before they believe. Some of the most emminient scientists were Christians. Athesists are no more or less intellegent than anyone of faith and to imply otherwise would be wrong.
Science is theories and proofs, we have much that cannot be explained by science or proven by science.
Atheists have no 'religion'. Speaking as an atheist I like my life, I live for today, I do the most I can to make my life worth living, to enjoy life, to be happy, to enjoy my family and friends and see them happy too.
Theists on the other hand waste their entire lives not living and thinking only of death because they think they get another go when they die.
Here's the truth: you only live once and then it's over.
When bible religions understand why they dismiss all the other possible gods, deities from throughout history, zeus, ra, jupiter ,etc etc etc,, you will understand why atheists dismiss yours.;)
....Theists on the other hand waste their entire lives not living and thinking only of death because they think they get another go when they die....
& if they don't think like that it is because they Cherry Pick the bits that suit them & ignore the rest.....
Had a friend when I lived down the line who was Catholic, would defend the Catholic faith but when questioned on his actual beliefs he honestly believed that God was an Alien & when you died a flying saucer would come & take you to a better place.... I suppose that could be true, just as much evidence for that as any other of the more conventional Gods.
Show me a photograph of 'god', show me something signed by 'god', show me actual evidence of this 'god'.
E=mc2 :roll:
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 17:51
I don't think that belief in something is required for fulfilled life. I don't think that life has a meaning or purpose, such a notion suggests that the world was created by inteligent design - a theory I reject through lack of evidence. Suggesting that humanity has some sort of special place or purpose on this planet is somewhat arrogent. Well why should we have a purpose? What makes us so special? We are born, we grow, we reproduce, we die - what is wrong with that? All religions teach us that humanity is special and therefore we assume we have a purpose to us being here. As I don't have a religious conviction, I don't think we are anymore special than the ants that live in my garden.
Well I did have the temerity to ask the questions, so I must accept the answers! Even as depressing as it is! :lol: So, in a nutshell and by your estimation there's nothing special about people; why should any of us feel a purpose in life and atheists believe in nothing, outside of being born, growing, reproducing and dying. That's it? I don't believe most atheists feel and think this way, Rob. Is there a scientist somewhere involved in this philosophy, that I've never heard of? Does it have a name? I can research it, if there is. It certainly is a dangerous concept, imo! Trust me, your ant has a purpose in life, as do humans, birds, bees and all animals. That includes believers and non-believers.
BTW. Any idea how a random universe ends up creating a brain? I'll throw that one open to anyone! Thank God you're an atheist, Rob! :lol:
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 17:52
Atheism is not a lack of belief, its a lack of belief in deities.
You can still have a belief in self, family, nature, even in the good in people - thought some of the threads on here certainly test that belief.
The idea that an atheist does not have any belief is ridiculous, most of us believe that tomorrow will follow today.
Couldn't agree more, Changilass. Repped.
....So, in a nutshell and by your estimation there's nothing special about people; why should any of us feel a purpose in life and atheists believe in nothing, outside of being born, growing, reproducing and dying. That's it?
Yep, sounds right to me, if you must have a defined purpose then that purpose is to pass on your genes which is just biology nothing to do with spirituality.
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 18:03
E=mc2 :roll:
Einstein believed in God. ;)
Einstein believed in God. ;)
Would he be if he lived now?
Remember, it was social suicide back then to declare yourself an Atheist, still is these days in parts of the USA.
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 18:15
Would he be if he lived now?
Remember, it was social suicide back then to declare yourself an Atheist, still is these days in parts of the USA.
I don't know Al. Only he could answer that. Give him a ring and ask him! :lol:
I don't know Al. Only he could answer that. Give him a ring and ask him! :lol:
I'll ask him when I get to Heaven.... :lol:
M Swanson
04-Jan-13, 18:20
I'll ask him when I get to Heaven.... :lol:
:lol: I'll be sure to have the kettle on, Al! :lol:
No, it isn't. It's just stuff written by people. It is not proof of the existence of a giant sky-fairy.
Show me a photograph of 'god', show me something signed by 'god', show me actual evidence of this 'god'.why bother to ask for evidence of God if you are not prepared to examine any evidence when it is presented to you, you didn,t even take the time to consider what has been put in front of you. I can therefore conclude that your argument is already loaded with bias, you don't want evidence Flynn, you just want an argument.
enjoy your life Flynn, because in your case your right it's the only one your ever going to have.
why bother to ask for evidence of God if you are not prepared to examine any evidence when it is presented to you, you didn,t even take the time to consider what has been put in front of you. I can therefore conclude that your argument is already loaded with bias, you don't want evidence Flynn, you just want an argument.
enjoy your life Flynn, because in your case your right it's the only one your ever going to have.
You haven't presented any evidence, all you've said is, "Read a book of stories about it written by people." That is NOT evidence. Show me actual, physical evidence of 'god', any 'god' will do, it doesn't have to be a big one. One of the smaller Hindu gods will do.
Come on, proper physical evidence of any god. Any god at all.
Well I did have the temerity to ask the questions, so I must accept the answers! Even as depressing as it is! :lol: So, in a nutshell and by your estimation there's nothing special about people; why should any of us feel a purpose in life and atheists believe in nothing, outside of being born, growing, reproducing and dying. That's it? I don't believe most atheists feel and think this way, Rob. Is there a scientist somewhere involved in this philosophy, that I've never heard of? Does it have a name? I can research it, if there is. It certainly is a dangerous concept, imo! Trust me, your ant has a purpose in life, as do humans, birds, bees and all animals. That includes believers and non-believers.
BTW. Any idea how a random universe ends up creating a brain? I'll throw that one open to anyone! Thank God you're an atheist, Rob! :lol:
So you're going to deny evolution now too?
The Neanderthals are a now-extinct species or subspecies within the genus Homo and closely related to modern humans. They are known from fossil specimens dating to the Pleistocene period and found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia,
did the god of the bible, make these humans in his own image,or did man make god in his own image, any believers please, i wont slag you off for your beliefs its your right. any sensible debate welcome.
You haven't presented any evidence, all you've said is, "Read a book of stories about it written by people." That is NOT evidence. Show me actual, physical evidence of 'god', any 'god' will do, it doesn't have to be a big one. One of the smaller Hindu gods will do.
Come on, proper physical evidence of any god. Any god at all.The books of the Bible that I asked you to read contain the evidence of what God promised his people in the end times, what he would do for Israel and the Jews( his chosen people), the King James version of the Bible was translated in 1611. That translation has never been altered.
read the books Flynn what have you got to lose except an argument in cyberspace and whats that to a person of your stature.
The Neanderthals are a now-extinct species or subspecies within the genus Homo and closely related to modern humans. They are known from fossil specimens dating to the Pleistocene period and found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia,
did the god of the bible, make these humans in his own image,or did man make god in his own image, any believers please, i wont slag you off for your beliefs its your right. any sensible debate welcome.It would appear that anthropologists believe that Neanderthals were more human than first expected, it is my understanding that the DNA of the Neanderthals suggests that speach was common practise and that the MC1R gene may suggest that many had red and blonde hair, where previously they were considered to be knuckle dragging grunters, research has shown that the Neanderthal was quite a sofisticated being, discoveries in Spain suggests that the Neanderthals had a good understanding of their surroundings,eating plants that are known to have medicinal qualities, decorating their dead, having items of jewellry and the ability to paint and draw with perspective. did God create them? yes I believe he did.
This thread has provoked some of the most profound thought, humour and debate that has happened on this forem for some time.
secrets in symmetry
05-Jan-13, 01:44
You must know the agnostic's answer - it's a linear superposition of finding True Peace in God and the Santa Claus/Placebo effect. :cool:
That could be the coolest demolition of agnosticism you'll ever see. :cool:I don't know why I chose to use the word "demolition" last night. I think I was trying to be too clever, but it didn't really work. I should have stuck with the technical term, which is "collapse".
cptdodger
05-Jan-13, 02:44
The books of the Bible that I asked you to read contain the evidence of what God promised his people in the end times, what he would do for Israel and the Jews( his chosen people), the King James version of the Bible was translated in 1611. That translation has never been altered.
read the books Flynn what have you got to lose except an argument in cyberspace and whats that to a person of your stature.
I will be the first to admit, I have never owned or read the Bible (any version). My parents used to attend church, however that stopped after the 21st October 1966, and if you are not old enough to remember, that was the date of the tragic Aberfan Disaster which took the lives of 116 children and 28 Adults, basically it wiped out a generation. That was the first and last time I ever saw my father cry, and I can count the amount of times my father has entered a church since that date on one hand. He has never, ever spoken about that day, but I can only surmise, that any faith or belief in religion was lost that terrible day. However, I cannot answer for him. As I have said previously one half of my family is very religious the other have which includes me, is not. So I can understand where Flynn is coming from, and maverick, even you have to admit that it had to be a human being that wrote the Bible, regardless what is written in it. And this is only my opinion, if the Jews are his "chosen people" they have'nt really fared too well over the centuries, they must be the most persecuted race (if that is the right term) going, it seems every country has had a go at them. As I said, I have no idea what is written regarding Israel, but even today they seem to be in a permanent state of war with Gaza, surely that is not what God had planned for them ?
thanks for the reply maverick,i already no lots about Neanderthal man,and how intelligent they were, but were they gods chosen people, as we know for a fact they dominated this planet long before homosapiens evolved and what about homoerectus and all the other extinct human clans,do you think they were the first adam and eve of the bible,or was that left until about 1500bc and the jewish tribes of the levant and the beginning of the bible in written form. makes one wonder does it not, oh ps most of the jewish torah was not in its old testament form until around 450 500 bc, so god must have been floating about between 1500 and 400 bc looking after his chosen peeps, and he must have vanished before jerusalem was destroyed by titus in 70ad, maybe he was peed off about the crucifixion a 7 decades before and ending the jewish nation until just after ww1, i dunno about you but im glad that the scots have never been gods chosen people,pheww
anyway crux of the question did god make man in his own image-ie humankind in his own image or do you think modern man made god in his own image, bearing in mind there has been humans of some form or other on this planet for at least 2.5 million years,so does god look like Homo habilis, homo erectus or Neanderthal man or is he homosapien, or does he just look like what a jewish bronze age scribe could best imagine. the mind boggles, maybe as a man of god you could enlighten me on my journey.regards
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 10:23
I will be the first to admit, I have never owned or read the Bible (any version). My parents used to attend church, however that stopped after the 21st October 1966, and if you are not old enough to remember, that was the date of the tragic Aberfan Disaster which took the lives of 116 children and 28 Adults, basically it wiped out a generation. That was the first and last time I ever saw my father cry, and I can count the amount of times my father has entered a church since that date on one hand. He has never, ever spoken about that day, but I can only surmise, that any faith or belief in religion was lost that terrible day. However, I cannot answer for him. As I have said previously one half of my family is very religious the other have which includes me, is not. So I can understand where Flynn is coming from, and maverick, even you have to admit that it had to be a human being that wrote the Bible, regardless what is written in it. And this is only my opinion, if the Jews are his "chosen people" they have'nt really fared too well over the centuries, they must be the most persecuted race (if that is the right term) going, it seems every country has had a go at them. As I said, I have no idea what is written regarding Israel, but even today they seem to be in a permanent state of war with Gaza, surely that is not what God had planned for them ?
Aberfan was a very traumatic incident and I doubt there were many of us, male or female, who didn't shed tears for the poor children, Cpt. It was a very harrowing time. But, if you don't believe there's a God, how can you blame Him for the tragedy? And if He wasn't responsible, then who, or what was?
I think you're right about the Bible and I don't believe Maverick, or anyone else can prove 100% that God exists, except to their own satisfaction. The same holds true that nobody can prove He doesn't exist. It's a pity that we can't accept, that at least for now, (and I can't ever see that changing), that's as good as it gets. I don't begrudge anyone their lack of belief, many Christians just ask for the same in return. What I do believe is, that it's important to give children the chance to know of the teachings of religions and for them to decide for themselves, later on in life, if it's for them. Even though I'm a Christian, I never had my son christened when young. I wanted him to decide for himself. When he was 18 years old and with no prompting from us, he freely chose to be baptised. Good for him!
cptdodger
05-Jan-13, 10:39
Aberfan was a very traumatic incident and I doubt there were many of us, male or female, who didn't shed tears for the poor children, Cpt. It was a very harrowing time. But, if you don't believe there's a God, how can you blame Him for the tragedy? And if He wasn't responsible, then who, or what was?
I did'nt -
"My parents used to attend church, however that stopped after the 21st October 1966, and if you are not old enough to remember, that was the date of the tragic Aberfan Disaster which took the lives of 116 children and 28 Adults, basically it wiped out a generation. That was the first and last time I ever saw my father cry, and I can count the amount of times my father has entered a church since that date on one hand. He has never, ever spoken about that day, but I can only surmise, that any faith or belief in religion was lost that terrible day. However, I cannot answer for him."
I was'nt speaking about me, I was three years old when that happened. I know exactly what happened there, it was The National Coal Board who were blamed for extreme negligence. They were responsible, human beings not some entity.
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 10:46
I did'nt -
"My parents used to attend church, however that stopped after the 21st October 1966, and if you are not old enough to remember, that was the date of the tragic Aberfan Disaster which took the lives of 116 children and 28 Adults, basically it wiped out a generation. That was the first and last time I ever saw my father cry, and I can count the amount of times my father has entered a church since that date on one hand. He has never, ever spoken about that day, but I can only surmise, that any faith or belief in religion was lost that terrible day. However, I cannot answer for him."
I was'nt speaking about me, I was three years old when that happened.
But if you check back in the thread, you'll find that you have declared yourself an atheist, more than once. I could hardly ask your father the questions, could I? Therefore, naturally, I asked you for your opinion! I'd be very interested in your response to ......It was a very harrowing time. But, if you don't believe there's a God, how can you blame Him for the tragedy? And if He wasn't responsible, then who, or what was? How's that? ;)
cptdodger
05-Jan-13, 10:52
My mistake, while you were writing your post, I edited mine -
I was'nt speaking about me, I was three years old when that happened. I know exactly what happened there, it was The National Coal Board who were blamed for extreme negligence. They were responsible, human beings not some entity.
I will be the first to admit, I have never owned or read the Bible (any version). My parents used to attend church, however that stopped after the 21st October 1966, and if you are not old enough to remember, that was the date of the tragic Aberfan Disaster which took the lives of 116 children and 28 Adults, basically it wiped out a generation. That was the first and last time I ever saw my father cry, and I can count the amount of times my father has entered a church since that date on one hand. He has never, ever spoken about that day, but I can only surmise, that any faith or belief in religion was lost that terrible day. However, I cannot answer for him. As I have said previously one half of my family is very religious the other have which includes me, is not. So I can understand where Flynn is coming from, and maverick, even you have to admit that it had to be a human being that wrote the Bible, regardless what is written in it. And this is only my opinion, if the Jews are his "chosen people" they have'nt really fared too well over the centuries, they must be the most persecuted race (if that is the right term) going, it seems every country has had a go at them. As I said, I have no idea what is written regarding Israel, but even today they seem to be in a permanent state of war with Gaza, surely that is not what God had planned for them ?Aberfan was a tragic disaster and I can understand how this can undermine anyones faith, there has been many disasters that have claimed the lives of millions of people. Now the 66 books of the Bible were written by approx 44 authors over a period of about 1600 - 1800 years, it has always been considered that the Bible was the inspired word of God or Gods finished works. I would agree with you that the Jews have not fared well, and I believe the reason for this is, at the time of Christ's execution the Jews had a choice, they chose to nail Him to a cross, let his blood be on our hands, and I believe that God took them at their word. As for the prophetic text found in the various books that I mentioned in the Bible, God said that he would gather his people back to their promised land, that he would make Israel a green and fertile land, I believe that Israel exports more fruit etc from that region than any other country, google a satelite image of Israel and compare it to all the other countries surrounding it, God also said that he would make Jerusalem a cup of trembling for all those who would concern themselves with it. Israel has approx 1% of the worlds population, but all the resolutions passing through the UN about 33.3% concern Israel.
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 10:54
My mistake, while you were writing your post, I edited mine -
I was'nt speaking about me, I was three years old when that happened. I know exactly what happened there, it was The National Coal Board who were blamed for extreme negligence. They were responsible, human beings not some entity.
Thanks Cpt. Yes, that clarifies things.
thanks for the reply maverick,i already no lots about Neanderthal man,and how intelligent they were, but were they gods chosen people, as we know for a fact they dominated this planet long before homosapiens evolved and what about homoerectus and all the other extinct human clans,do you think they were the first adam and eve of the bible,or was that left until about 1500bc and the jewish tribes of the levant and the beginning of the bible in written form. makes one wonder does it not, oh ps most of the jewish torah was not in its old testament form until around 450 500 bc, so god must have been floating about between 1500 and 400 bc looking after his chosen peeps, and he must have vanished before jerusalem was destroyed by titus in 70ad, maybe he was peed off about the crucifixion a 7 decades before and ending the jewish nation until just after ww1, i dunno about you but im glad that the scots have never been gods chosen people,pheww
anyway crux of the question did god make man in his own image-ie humankind in his own image or do you think modern man made god in his own image, bearing in mind there has been humans of some form or other on this planet for at least 2.5 million years,so does god look like Homo habilis, homo erectus or Neanderthal man or is he homosapien, or does he just look like what a jewish bronze age scribe could best imagine. the mind boggles, maybe as a man of god you could enlighten me on my journey.regardsGods chosen people were the Jews. I do not believe that humans have been on the planet for 2.5 million years, the problem that I have is the dating methods employed by scientists I believe to be flawed, my evidence for this is, 14c has a half life of about 6000 years yet diamonds that are supposed to be 250-300 million years old have traces of 14c in them where there should be none. As for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem about 70-74 AD this was predicted by Christ in the book of Matthew. You should also consider that God told the Jews where to worship and make their sacrafices a location in Jerusalem known today as the Dome of the Rock. Now the Bible tell us that God struck Jesus once and for all, we are also told that upon the death of Jesus the veil in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, this is the veil which prevented people except the priest from entering the Holy of Holies, basically this meant that the sacrafice of animals was no longer needed for the redemption of sin, anyway the Jews carried on doing their practises they would not accept Christ as their Messiah, so once again the temple is destroyed and the Jews scattered, so God took the Jews at their word at the time of the crucifixion. As for your journey I wish you well and I hope that you find that which you seek. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Trajan for some reason part of my previous post was deleted. There are several prophesies in the Bible concerning Israel at the end times, God said that he would gather his people and return them to the promised land, I believe that in 1948-49 the state of Israel was reborn.
The books of the Bible that I asked you to read contain the evidence of what God promised his people in the end times, what he would do for Israel and the Jews( his chosen people), the King James version of the Bible was translated in 1611. That translation has never been altered.
read the books Flynn what have you got to lose except an argument in cyberspace and whats that to a person of your stature.
They do not contain 'evidence', they contain stories written by men. Show me something written by a 'god' itself. Anything will do, from any 'god'. The truth is you can't, because there isn't a single word in any writing, anywhere on this planet, that was written by a 'god'.
Aberfan was a tragic disaster and I can understand how this can undermine anyones faith, there has been many disasters that have claimed the lives of millions of people. Now the 66 books of the Bible were written by approx 44 authors over a period of about 1600 - 1800 years, it has always been considered that the Bible was the inspired word of God or Gods finished works. I would agree with you that the Jews have not fared well, and I believe the reason for this is, at the time of Christ's execution the Jews had a choice, they chose to nail Him to a cross, let his blood be on our hands, and I believe that God took them at their word. As for the prophetic text found in the various books that I mentioned in the Bible, God said that he would gather his people back to their promised land, that he would make Israel a green and fertile land, I believe that Israel exports more fruit etc from that region than any other country, google a satelite image of Israel and compare it to all the other countries surrounding it, God also said that he would make Jerusalem a cup of trembling for all those who would concern themselves with it. Israel has approx 1% of the worlds population, but all the resolutions passing through the UN about 33.3% concern Israel.
Is that an accurate prediction, or a country deliberately acting in a way so as to fit those stories? It isn't a 'god' doing those things, it's people.
.....God said that he would gather his people and return them to the promised land, I believe that in 1948-49 the state of Israel was reborn.
That's called a self fulfilling prophecy.... They used the Bible to justify the displacement of the Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state. Doesn't prove the Bible to be correct, just that it was believed to be correct.
Is that an accurate prediction, or a country deliberately acting in a way so as to fit those stories? It isn't a 'god' doing those things, it's people.I can see your point of view Flynn, but consider this, If it was only Israel acting in a way to fit the predictions, I would agree with you, but there are so many other countries that are involved in these predictions, countries I believe that could not be directly influenced by Israel. The information of these prophesies are in the books I mentioned in earlier posts, read them and decide for yourself.
That's called a self fulfilling prophecy.... They used the Bible to justify the displacement of the Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state. Doesn't prove the Bible to be correct, just that it was believed to be correct.good point Alrock, in 1948/49 Israel was a barren land, if you google a satellite image of Israel now it's no longer barren, my understanding of the Palestines at that time was most of them were Jews.
changilass
05-Jan-13, 13:49
Maverick, rather than trying to get folks to read something they are clearly not interested in (you have suggested a number of times now that they should read the bible), why not give a 'brief' synopsis of what you believe this 'proof' is?
Why do folks insist on forcing their belief on others, I am an atheist and am happy being one, I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to my belief, I just wish others would give me the same curtesy.
Maverick, rather than trying to get folks to read something they are clearly not interested in (you have suggested a number of times now that they should read the bible), why not give a 'brief' synopsis of what you believe this 'proof' is?
Why do folks insist on forcing their belief on others, I am an atheist and am happy being one, I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to my belief, I just wish others would give me the same curtesy.I do apologise it is not my intention to force my belief on anyone, unfortunately my synopsis of the evidence may not be accurate, it would be better to read it first hand and draw their own conclusions, all I have done is to supply proof in my opinion, whether the individual chooses to examine the said evidence or not is entirely up to them, and if they are clearly not interested then why post on the subject?
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 14:11
Maverick, rather than trying to get folks to read something they are clearly not interested in (you have suggested a number of times now that they should read the bible), why not give a 'brief' synopsis of what you believe this 'proof' is?
Why do folks insist on forcing their belief on others, I am an atheist and am happy being one, I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to my belief, I just wish others would give me the same curtesy.
Yes, I do see where you're coming from and I don't think Maverick, or Flynn will achieve anything, but M is trying to prove God exists, because for him He does. Flynn asks the same question, ad nauseum. Maverick is responding with offering his proof! Personally, it's a road to nowhere and I've moved on! Lord knows where! :D
The thing I don't understand, is who is "forcing," anything on you?
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 14:14
I do apologise it is not my intention to force my belief on anyone, unfortunately my synopsis of the evidence may not be accurate, it would be better to read it first hand and draw their own conclusions, all I have done is to supply proof in my opinion, whether the individual chooses to examine the said evidence or not is entirely up to them, and if they are clearly not interested then why post on the subject?
Not sure why you feel the need to apologise, Maverick. Flynn asks the same question repeatedly and you have done your best to answer it! You haven't "forced," anybody to believe in anything, but you have asked Flynn to consider your Biblical evidence. Nothing wrong with that, that I can see! :confused
changilass
05-Jan-13, 14:22
My first sentence only was directed at Maverick.
The second was a generalisation, so no apology needed.
Everyone should have the right to believe what they choose, the problem comes when they try to force those beliefs on others, that is where wars start.
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 14:47
Everyone should have the right to believe what they choose, the problem comes when they try to force those beliefs on others, that is where wars start.
Ah! That's what I didn't understand Changi. I thought that in your post you were stating, "I just wish others would give me the same curtesy," and you were speaking of specifics. This has been a very interesting, enjoyable thread, because nobody has tried to foist anything on anybody and that's quite rare when discussing religion. That's the way to do it! :cool:
good point Alrock, in 1948/49 Israel was a barren land, if you google a satellite image of Israel now it's no longer barren, my understanding of the Palestines at that time was most of them were Jews.
Your understanding is wrong.
Not sure why you feel the need to apologise, Maverick. Flynn asks the same question repeatedly and you have done your best to answer it! You haven't "forced," anybody to believe in anything, but you have asked Flynn to consider your Biblical evidence. Nothing wrong with that, that I can see! :confused
I make the same request repeatedly because the 'believers' in this discussion have uniformly refused to answer that request: Show me actual physical proof of the existence of a 'god'. Any 'god' will do.
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 16:39
Strewth. Speaking for myself I've answered your question and stated it many times throughout the thread, that there is no proof, other than to the believer, that God exists, as indeed you can't prove He doesn't. If you're pulling the old EU trick, of asking the question enough times, until the answer you will be satisfied with appears, then there are better ways to waste your life, Flynn. Doh! It is not rocket science! I notice, that you step-over so many questions, (in common with your fellow travellers,) because you probably can't answer them. I understand! :D
cptdodger
05-Jan-13, 18:00
Strewth. Speaking for myself I've answered your question and stated it many times throughout the thread, that there is no proof, other than to the believer, that God exists, as indeed you can't prove He doesn't. If you're pulling the old EU trick, of asking the question enough times, until the answer you will be satisfied with appears, then there are better ways to waste your life, Flynn. Doh! It is not rocket science! I notice, that you step-over so many questions, (in common with your fellow travellers,) because you probably can't answer them. I understand! :D
You asked me a question - and I answered it, that is if you are referring to me as a "fellow traveller". Sorry, you asked me for my opinion, and I gave it.
Strewth. Speaking for myself I've answered your question and stated it many times throughout the thread, that there is no proof, other than to the believer, that God exists, as indeed you can't prove He doesn't. If you're pulling the old EU trick, of asking the question enough times, until the answer you will be satisfied with appears, then there are better ways to waste your life, Flynn. Doh! It is not rocket science! I notice, that you step-over so many questions, (in common with your fellow travellers,) because you probably can't answer them. I understand! :D
Do you believe in Vishnu, Ganesh, Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Neptune, Apollo, Hera, Thor, Ra, Set, Thoth, Adonis, Venus, Aphrodite, Tyr, etc. too?
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 18:13
:lol: Oh! Yes! Even the ones I've never heard of! :lol: What on earth has this got to do with anything? :confused
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 18:19
You asked me a question - and I answered it, that is if you are referring to me as a "fellow traveller". Sorry, you asked me for my opinion, and I gave it.
Yes, thanks again for your answer, Cpt. No need to apologise ....... I appreciated you taking the time to respond. And no, I wasn't referring to you specifically.
:lol: Oh! Yes! Even the ones I've never heard of! :lol: What on earth has this got to do with anything? :confused
Well you keep talking about 'god' as if there's only one. According to different people there are hundreds. So surely if you believe in one you must believe in all, including all the pagan 'gods', the river and tree 'spirits' etc.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/never_arab.html
Your understanding is wrong.am I
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 19:57
Well you keep talking about 'god' as if there's only one. According to different people there are hundreds. So surely if you believe in one you must believe in all, including all the pagan 'gods', the river and tree 'spirits' etc.
LOL. You left Santa Claus out, Flynn. How could you? :lol: I've no problem with "different people," and what they think. I don't know who they are, but if their religion gives them the same peace and comfort as mine does, then it's none of my business! I am just one, of 2.1 billion people worldwide, who believe in our Christian God. What's it to you Flynn? How does my faith, or anyone elses affect you?
So does it follow, that because I think some followers of the atheist religion are nasty, hateful, bigots, I must believe they all are? Not me! I'm a Christian! :cool:
I've no problem with "different people," and what they think.
Do you believe that their Gods Exists?
...if their religion gives them the same peace and comfort as mine does, then it's none of my business! I am just one, of 2.1 billion people worldwide, who believe in our Christian God...
It's good that it gives you & many others peace & comfort but does that make it a reality? I know that it may feel real to you but that is different from it being an actual reality.
How does my faith, or anyone elses affect you?
In lots of ways... Whether or not you like it the Church does hold a lot of influence in the political running of this country (many other countries the same)....
cptdodger
05-Jan-13, 21:22
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/never_arab.htmlam I
Can one of you explain to me what Palestine is, as in, I know Israel is a country, and Egypt is a country, but Palestine seems to be spread all over the area, the Gaza Strip and West Bank seem to belong to Palestine, so if it is not a country what is it?
Can one of you explain to me what Palestine is, as in, I know Israel is a country, and Egypt is a country, but Palestine seems to be spread all over the area, the Gaza Strip and West Bank seem to belong to Palestine, so if it is not a country what is it? Israel is a state, Palestine is the Muslim name for Israel, much of the west bank and the gaza strip were set aside for the Muslims a lot of it was siezed by Egypt and Jordan.
Israel is a state, Palestine is the Muslim name for Israel, much of the west bank and the gaza strip were set aside for the Muslims....
A bit like The Warsaw Ghetto was set aside for the Jews?
cptdodger
05-Jan-13, 22:43
I take it then if you're Muslim you would consider yourself to be a Palestinian, and if you are Jewish, you would be an Israeli (I think). So why is the Gaza Strip and the West Bank not at war with Egypt and Jordan then if they stole their land,of course unless I missed it, it seems that it's the Gaza Strip and Israel that have a problem with each other.
A bit like The Warsaw Ghetto was set aside for the Jews?not really, Belsen was set aside for the Jews.
I take it then if you're Muslim you would consider yourself to be a Palestinian, and if you are Jewish, you would be an Israeli (I think). So why is the Gaza Strip and the West Bank not at war with Egypt and Jordan then if they stole their land,of course unless I missed it, it seems that it's the Gaza Strip and Israel that have a problem with each other. The problem is that the Muslims and Jews have a mutual hatred for each other which far outways any real estate arguements with their Egyptian and Jordanian neighbours. Both Muslims and Jews come from the lineage of Abraham, Ishmael was his son to Hagar and Issac was his son to Sarah. Ishmael went on to found the Muslim faith and Issac had a son named Jacob whose name was changed to Israel and founded the Jewish faith, Jacob had 12 sons who each founded the 12 tribes of Israel. Both faiths believe they recieved Gods blessing.
Ok I have not read all of this thread ... but I can tell you that some of the cleverest people I have known believe in God ... it has always suprised me.
M Swanson
05-Jan-13, 23:49
Why should you be surprised at what anybody believes, Richard? Ah! We seem to have lost our friend, but actually he raises a very interesting point. Do atheists think that only people below a certain level of intelligence can be expected to believe in God without it coming as something of a surprise? I certainly wouldn't apply that to the atheist religion, or any another. It's very unfair and quite offensive, imo. What do you think?
I'll leave that one with you! :)
cptdodger
06-Jan-13, 00:32
The problem is that the Muslims and Jews have a mutual hatred for each other which far outways any real estate arguements with their Egyptian and Jordanian neighbours. Both Muslims and Jews come from the lineage of Abraham, Ishmael was his son to Hagar and Issac was his son to Sarah. Ishmael went on to found the Muslim faith and Issac had a son named Jacob whose name was changed to Israel and founded the Jewish faith, Jacob had 12 sons who each founded the 12 tribes of Israel. Both faiths believe they recieved Gods blessing.
So from that then, can you understand from my point of view (non-religious, atheist, whichever you prefer) why I believe religion does so much harm? I mentioned in an earlier post the damage that has been caused in Northern Ireland, simply because somebody is either born into a Catholic or Protestant family, as in - you will not speak to or mix with that person because they are Catholic and vice versa. Personally speaking, I do not hate any individual because of their religion, in my family alone, I have atheists, members of the Church of Scotland, Catholics (my great - aunt was a nun), at one point my uncle was a buddhist ! and also family that are members of the Church Of England (Episcopalian) So, it would be a bit awkward at family gatherings, if half of us hated the other half just on the grounds of religion.
And that is just my opinion, I am not out to offend anybody on this thread.
cptdodger
06-Jan-13, 00:49
Do atheists think that only people below a certain level of intelligence can be expected to believe in God without it coming as something of a surprise? I certainly wouldn't apply that to the atheist religion, or any another. It's very unfair and quite offensive, imo. What do you think?
I'll leave that one with you! :)
I certainly do'nt -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcella_Althaus-Reid
http://www.althaus-reid.com/
http://www.althaus-reid.com/index1.html
If you are interested, the above are links about my late sister in law who sadly passed away in 2009, "she was Professor of contextual theology at New College, University of Edinburgh. When appointed, she was the only woman professor of theology at a Scottish University, and the first woman professor of theology at New College in its 160 year history" (I copied that bit from her wikipedia page in case I got it wrong)
As you know, I am an atheist, however I would take great offence if somebody implied my sister in law or any other member of my family was below a certain level of intelligence, just because they believe in God.
[QUOTE=cptdodger;998545]So from that then, can you understand from my point of view (non-religious, atheist, whichever you prefer) why I believe religion does so much harm? I mentioned in an earlier post the damage that has been caused in Northern Ireland, simply because somebody is either born into a Catholic or Protestant family, as in - you will not speak to or mix with that person because they are Catholic and vice versa. Personally speaking, I do not hate any individual because of their religion, in my family alone, I have atheists, members of the Church of Scotland, Catholics (my great - aunt was a nun), at one point my uncle was a buddhist ! and also family that are members of the Church Of England (Episcopalian) So, it would be a bit awkward at family gatherings, if half of us hated the other half just on the grounds of religion.
And that is just my opinion, I am not out to offend anybody on this thread.[/QUOTE You make some fine and interesting comments, family reunions must be very interesting.
My personal view on hate is that it is like a cancer, once it gets hold it is very difficult to cure. My view is that religion does not cause war, man does and he uses religion as a mechanism to wage war, if there was no religion in the world do you really think there would be no war? I have on several occassions been witness to two atheists beating lumps out of each other. To have belief as a Christian, you must have faith. For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God: Not of works , lest any man should boast: I am glad I have faith: may I wish you well cptdodger it's been a pleasure.
cptdodger
06-Jan-13, 01:29
And you too Maverick, and I honestly do hope you have not been offended by any of the comments I have made on here, it was certainly not my intention. And also, thank you for taking the time to explain Israel and Palestine to me, I'm not quite sure I have got my head round that one yet, It seems to be a very complicated region of the world !!.
And you too Maverick, and I honestly do hope you have not been offended by any of the comments I have made on here, it was certainly not my intention. And also, thank you for taking the time to explain Israel and Palestine to me, I'm not quite sure I have got my head round that one yet, It seems to be a very complicated region of the world !!.
You have not offended me in any way whatsoever.
I'm with Rheg on this one. take religion out of the world and i wonder how many wars there would have been?
Damn few..and I guarantee we can all list those which were started from a religious POV. That's not to say that religion per se has been the only reason for starting wars but it has often been the excuse promoted to schmoose a large vociferous religious demography into acceptance of wars which were really undertaken to profit US companies .
Can one of you explain to me what Palestine is, as in, I know Israel is a country, and Egypt is a country, but Palestine seems to be spread all over the area, the Gaza Strip and West Bank seem to belong to Palestine, so if it is not a country what is it?
This image best describes Palestine, and shows how it has been stolen over the last 65 years: http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stealing-land.png
LOL. You left Santa Claus out, Flynn. How could you? :lol: I've no problem with "different people," and what they think. I don't know who they are, but if their religion gives them the same peace and comfort as mine does, then it's none of my business! I am just one, of 2.1 billion people worldwide, who believe in our Christian God. What's it to you Flynn? How does my faith, or anyone elses affect you?
So does it follow, that because I think some followers of the atheist religion are nasty, hateful, bigots, I must believe they all are? Not me! I'm a Christian! :cool:
1. Atheism is not a religion.
2. Religious believers affect me every day because they are killing thousands in the name of their various religions every day.
3. So you believe in a 'god' but you don't believe in Santa? Why not? According to the standards of believers as to what constitutes 'proof', there is equal evidence for the existence of both.
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 10:58
I certainly do'nt -
If you are interested, the above are links about my late sister in law who sadly passed away in 2009, "she was Professor of contextual theology at New College, University of Edinburgh. When appointed, she was the only woman professor of theology at a Scottish University, and the first woman professor of theology at New College in its 160 year history" (I copied that bit from her wikipedia page in case I got it wrong)
As you know, I am an atheist, however I would take great offence if somebody implied my sister in law or any other member of my family was below a certain level of intelligence, just because they believe in God.
Thanks so much for the links, Cpt. Your sister-in-law must have been a very special lady and the family must miss her. I must say she looked a beautiful woman. You probably feel very proud of her achievements and quite right too.
I accept that you're an atheist, but you are one, who doesn't need to be nasty, or begrudge others their belief and, as Maverick quite rightly said, it's a pleasure to swap ideas and beliefs with you. You have the ability to see things from the other side, as I hope I do too. This thread isn't about conversion, but understanding, imo! :cool:
I wonder if I could ask another few questions, please? It wouldn't be me if I didn't! :) Who do you believe taught you right from wrong? Your parents, who were perhaps believers and who learned from their own parents who passed on their faith? Or maybe, school? Or, maybe both? Looking back, would you change anything?
cptdodger
06-Jan-13, 12:09
Thanks so much for the links, Cpt. Your sister-in-law must have been a very special lady and the family must miss her. I must say she looked a beautiful woman. You probably feel very proud of her achievements and quite right too.
I accept that you're an atheist, but you are one, who doesn't need to be nasty, or begrudge others their belief and, as Maverick quite rightly said, it's a pleasure to swap ideas and beliefs with you. You have the ability to see things from the other side, as I hope I do too. This thread isn't about conversion, but understanding, imo! :cool:
I wonder if I could ask another few questions, please? It wouldn't be me if I didn't! :) Who do you believe taught you right from wrong? Your parents, who were perhaps believers and who learned from their own parents who passed on their faith? Or maybe, school? Or, maybe both? Looking back, would you change anything?
Thank you, she was very special, and I was and am very proud of her achievements. She died of cancer far too young.
It was my parents that taught me right from wrong, most definitely ! It must have seemed a bit odd in one of my posts for me to mention the Abefan Disaster, but I was'nt saying it in the sense of - how could god let that happen. That was the point, my parents, especially my father, lost any faith or belief they had. As I said, I was three at the time, so, growing up, it was the relatives that were religious, not us. As for my grandparents, I had lost them all by the time I was four, but on my mothers side they were Church Of England, which my mother had been. This will probably surprise you, but I was a member of a church (episcopalian) choir when I was at school !! So, I have probably attended hundreds of services, my mother would occasionally come and hear me sing, my father never did, as I said I could count on one hand how often he has been inside a church since 1966. So, although I did'nt grow up in a house that was religious, I have always been surrounded by religion. I hope I am making some sense!!
No, I would not change anything, because I would not change my parents !!
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 14:33
I do understand how your father felt, after Aberfan, Cpt. So, it seems that although your parents weren't "religious," they did believe and taught you the Christian values they had been taught? Incidentally, I don't think anyone has to go to church, to be a follower of God. It's a personal choice and I credit the absentees with more faith, than those who park their backsides in church pews, because of some false sense of piety, or need for an insurance policy to maximise their chances of entry, when they reach the Pearly Gates. :) I think they do the Church a disservice!
So, it would seem that you benefited from the teaching of your parents, who showed you right from wrong, possibly through their Christian beliefs? Would that be a fair comment, Cpt? That education extended to religious studies in your school, which did you no harm? None of this brainwashed you, of course, because you have freely decided to become an atheist. I mention that, because that is a criticism often laid at God's door. Children will always choose beliefs for themselves, later on in life and I fully support that.
Did your children experience the same teaching? Did you pass on the same values as were handed down to you, from generations of your family? Did God have any worth for you? A lot of questions I know and there's no obligation whatsoever for you to answer any of them. But yes, you do make sense and I am truly interested in your opinions. :cool:
You don't need Christian values to know right from wrong & I hope that is not what you are trying to imply?
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 14:49
Point me to where I claimed you do need Christian values, Al. I asked Cpt if they formed any part of HER beliefs on right and wrong? Trust me, I don't do implications ...... too up front for that. :D How about you? How did you learn right from wrong? It's not something we're born with!
Point me to where I claimed you do need Christian values, Al. I asked Cpt if they formed any part of HER beliefs on right and wrong? Trust me, I don't do implications ...... too up front for that. :D How about you? How did you learn right from wrong? It's not something we're born with!
It's called Empathy.... We're all born with it & then using it we can develop a sense of right & wrong with no input from religion....
Religion can undermine such empathy through brainwashing its believers into thinking things are wrong when there is no moral justification for such beliefs.
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 15:14
LOL. Oh! Right! There must be another scientist behind this revelation! I can feel it in my H2o. :D So this wonderful gene instinctively decides right from wrong, from birth and all in our garden is lovely? Give us a break, Al. :D
LOL. Oh! Right! There must be another scientist behind this revelation! I can feel it in my H2o. :D So this wonderful gene instinctively decides right from wrong, from birth and all in our garden is lovely? Give us a break, Al. :D
Depends on your definition of right & wrong.... In it's most basic form wrong is doing harm to others against there will.... This should be the basis for all law making but it tends to get distorted by religion...
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 15:30
Depends on your definition of right & wrong.... In it's most basic form wrong is doing harm to others against there will.... This should be the basis for all law making but it tends to get distorted by religion...
Now you're motoring Al and I agree, "definitions," is the key word here. So, who educates the child to be able to form their own definition of right and wrong, from which hopefully, empathy is the end result? Who taught you and was there any Christian input?
Now you're motoring Al and I agree, "definitions," is the key word here. So, who educates the child to be able to form their own definition of right and wrong, from which hopefully, empathy is the end result? Who taught you and was there any Christian input?
You've got things the wrong way round there.... It starts with this innate sense of empathy that we are born with which is then manipulated by religion/parents/society to fit in with their beliefs.... I personally have no recollection of actually believing in God even when as a child I was forced to sit through RE at school.
cptdodger
06-Jan-13, 15:43
I do understand how your father felt, after Aberfan, Cpt. So, it seems that although your parents weren't "religious," they did believe and taught you the Christian values they had been taught? Incidentally, I don't think anyone has to go to church, to be a follower of God. It's a personal choice and I credit the absentees with more faith, than those who park their backsides in church pews, because of some false sense of piety, or need for an insurance policy to maximise their chances of entry, when they reach the Pearly Gates. :) I think they do the Church a disservice!
So, it would seem that you benefited from the teaching of your parents, who showed you right from wrong, possibly through their Christian beliefs? Would that be a fair comment, Cpt? That education extended to religious studies in your school, which did you no harm? None of this brainwashed you, of course, because you have freely decided to become an atheist. I mention that, because that is a criticism often laid at God's door. Children will always choose beliefs for themselves, later on in life and I fully support that.
Did your children experience the same teaching? Did you pass on the same values as were handed down to you, from generations of your family? Did God have any worth for you? A lot of questions I know and there's no obligation whatsoever for you to answer any of them. But yes, you do make sense and I am truly interested in your opinions. :cool:
Do you know, that is a very difficult question to answer, for the simple reason being, yes my parents taught me right from wrong, although they never attributed that to faith or god. However did they learn right from wrong through Christian values they had been raised with ? that also is a possibly. And yes I also had RE at school, and was also a member of the Girls Brigade who had links to the Baptist Church. So I can confirm, all my life (I am 50 this year)I have been around religion and religious people and I have never been brainwashed !
My children have also been taught the difference between right and wrong, and the only values I have passed onto them, is - treat people how you wish to be treated, and also respect people's views may differ from your own, but that does not make them a lesser person than you. And my kids have turned out all right!
Did God have any worth for me? personally speaking no, however, that does not take away the comfort (for want of a better word) I have seen that faith and religion has given to members of my family.
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 15:50
You've got things the wrong way round there.... It starts with this innate sense of empathy that we are born with which is then manipulated by religion/parents/society to fit in with their beliefs.... I personally have no recollection of actually believing in God even when as a child I was forced to sit through RE at school.
Unless you can link me to proof of your assertion regarding the empathy gene, then I'll maintain my position, Al. To sum up this post, then you're not advocating a parental influence, education, religious or social input in the life of a child! I actually believe that this is becoming quite a common belief and explains to me, why we have so much violence, hatred, intolerance and barbarism in today's world. Abdicating responsiblity and trashing traditional values and standards, (whilst never offering any better replacements,) rules .... OK? Ah! Well!
M Swanson
06-Jan-13, 15:55
Cpt. You are without doubt one of the most honest posters to the Org, imo. You're not reticent to give answers that few others here and prepared to give. For them, it's all about asking questions; so rarely answering them. You have my absolute respect. I'd rep your last post, but I've got to spread them. :cool:
Unless you can link me to proof of your assertion regarding the empathy gene, then I'll maintain my position....
I know Wikipedia is not always considered the most reliable of sources but it's a good starting point.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Development
....To sum up this post, then you're not advocating a parental influence, education, religious or social input in the life of a child! I actually believe that this is becoming quite a common belief and explains to me, why we have so much violence, hatred, intolerance and barbarism in today's world. Abdicating responsiblity and trashing traditional values and standards, (whilst never offering any better replacements,) rules .... OK? Ah! Well!
We've always had "so much violence, hatred, intolerance and barbarism" in the world, much of it done in the name of religion, the main difference now is that we have 24 hour global news so we are just so much more aware of it than in the past.
Now you're motoring Al and I agree, "definitions," is the key word here. So, who educates the child to be able to form their own definition of right and wrong, from which hopefully, empathy is the end result? Who taught you and was there any Christian input?
So Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. don't know right from wrong because they didn't have a 'christian' upbringing? The bible says to kill non-believers, kill adulterers, kill women who get pregnant outside of marriage, it says 'an eye for an eye',
None of that sounds very right to me. It makes me cringe when I see all those 'christians' 'praying' at the Cenotaph every November. If there was one 'christian' among them, there would be no Cenotaph and remembrance days.
So Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. don't know right from wrong because they didn't have a 'christian' upbringing? The bible says to kill non-believers, kill adulterers, kill women who get pregnant outside of marriage, it says 'an eye for an eye',
None of that sounds very right to me. It makes me cringe when I see all those 'christians' 'praying' at the Cenotaph every November. If there was one 'christian' among them, there would be no Cenotaph and remembrance days. The operative word here is "Christian", show me in the Bible where Christ advocates the afore mentioned by you.
You remind me of Richard Dawkins what he knows about Christianity he could write on a stamp, and what he doesn't know he could fill a library.
Oh but I forgot he's nothing more than a talking Chimp after all.
The operative word here is "Christian", show me in the Bible where Christ advocates the afore mentioned by you.
You remind me of Richard Dawkins what he knows about Christianity he could write on a stamp, and what he doesn't know he could fill a library.
Oh but I forgot he's nothing more than a talking Chimp after all.
There's lots of evidence that we are related to monkeys. I often see similarities when I look in the mirror. Have you ever considered that the mechanisms involved in life via evolution by natural selection was created by a God and the bible is talking poetically?
There's lots of evidence that we are related to monkeys. I often see similarities when I look in the mirror. Have you ever considered that the mechanisms involved in life via evolution by natural selection was created by a God and the bible is talking poetically? I have considered the theory of evolution, for me the evidence just doesn't stack up, the fossil record for example imo does not support it also for DNA to evolve there must be an information input, all examples of this that I have read about show that DNA tends to mutate which I believe is a hinderance to the evolution theory, there was also the discovery of Piltdown man, which was hailed as the missing link which managed to fool evolutionists for about 70 years, it turned out to be nothing more than a hoax, the sad thing about that hoax is it turned up in school text books. Lucy is another fraud in the evolutionists claim, in fact I believe much in the way of evolutionary science has been heavily censored, especially where the findings dont add up to what they believe.
I have considered the theory of evolution, for me the evidence just doesn't stack up, the fossil record for example imo does not support it also for DNA to evolve there must be an information input, all examples of this that I have read about show that DNA tends to mutate which I believe is a hinderance to the evolution theory, there was also the discovery of Piltdown man, which was hailed as the missing link which managed to fool evolutionists for about 70 years, it turned out to be nothing more than a hoax, the sad thing about that hoax is it turned up in school text books. Lucy is another fraud in the evolutionists claim, in fact I believe much in the way of evolutionary science has been heavily censored, especially where the findings dont add up to what they believe.
Which gives me the impression that you haven't studied the subject very closely.
secrets in symmetry
06-Jan-13, 22:03
Which gives me the impression that you haven't studied the subject very closely.Lol!
That beats your previous Understatement of the Year by a country parsec! :cool:
Which gives me the impression that you haven't studied the subject very closely. I have studied it enough to know that it is only a theory,
which is more than I suspect you have done on the subject of Christianity.
I have studied it enough to know that it is only a theory,
which is more than I suspect you have done on the subject of Christianity.
well on the subject of Piltdown Man, the specimen was locked away for many years so it couldn't be studied by independent scientists. Once the main proponents of the Piltdown man theory died then it was quickly revealed as a sham.
Shutting the specimen away from independent criticism goes against scientific principles that observations have to be repeatable.
You obviously missed that bit...
well on the subject of Piltdown Man, the specimen was locked away for many years so it couldn't be studied by independent scientists. Once the main proponents of the Piltdown man theory died then it was quickly revealed as a sham.
Shutting the specimen away from independent criticism goes against scientific principles that observations have to be repeatable.
You obviously missed that bit... No I think I mentioned quite clearly that Piltdown man was a sham.
The problem I have with evolution is that it can be bent and shaped anyway necessary to fit the beliefs of the evolutionist as long as the underlying assumption that evolution has occurred is not challenged, I believe the fossil record is the biggest challenge to evolution.
Not many people who believe in the threory of evolution by natural selection will have given much attention to the detail. Most laymen who believe it will have a read a bit, given it some thought, and made their minds up. I trust science, mostly. Once I get the gist of something I keep, it simple. It seems obvious the theory of evolution is very close to the truth of what happened. A wee spark 14 billion years ago and then all this.
Thats the easy bit.
Then there's conscious thought around 400,000 years ago. It's mind blowing how that developed.
Ultimately no one knows if there was anything before the big bang. My guess is as good as Richard Dawkins'. There may have been some kind of creating God who left us consciousness, mathematics and the internet, but maybe there wasnt. :lol: Even Rhegheads warming to the idea.
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 00:13
I don't actually think it's impossible for a Christian to believe in evolution. The only proviso is, that it refers to the biological theory, describing how God has created all living things and not to some secular philosophy. If an evolutionary process provides the best explanation for the origins of biological diversity, then I don't see a problem. Nor does my family member, who is a scientist and Christian. It doesn't cause him conflict or hinder his research. Nor does it diminish my belief that God created Man, in anyway at all.
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 00:14
55% and rising, Gleeber! :lol:
Nor does it diminish my belief that God created Man, in anyway at all.
My opinion is that Man created God. We do have the Bible to prove that.
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-13, 00:23
Ultimately no one knows if there was anything before the big bang.Take away the word "Ultimately", and I might agree with you. :cool:
It's conceivable that the Big Bang itself might be understood before the century is out. Various ideas for cyclic universes seem plausible at present, although we probably haven't yet worked out which one (if any) we actually live in.
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 00:29
My opinion is that Man created God. We do have the Bible to prove that.
Nope! I don't believe that Rheg. If you had the gift of faith, neither would you! Shame! I'll continue to pray to God, whilst you pray to the Law of Gravity. :D
My opinion is that Man created God. We do have the Bible to prove that.
Nope! I don't believe that Rheg. If you had the gift of faith, neither would you! Shame! I'll continue to pray to God, whilst you pray to the Law of Gravity. :D
I'm a good agnostic so I can agree with both of you. Man may have created God as he understands him but that doesnt mean he wasnt there already.
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-13, 00:42
I'm a good agnostic so I can agree with both of you. Man may have created God as he understands him but that doesnt mean he wasnt there already.If I didn't know better (thanks to your previous posts), I might have concluded you'd figured out what I meant by quantum agnosticism. :cool:
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 00:43
I can live with that Gleeber. Perhaps you, me and Rheg can have a group hug? :) 56% and rising. :cool:
If I didn't know better (thanks to your previous posts), I might have concluded you'd figured out what I meant by quantum agnosticism. :cool:
I knew what you meant but quantums still a mystery to me. I just keep it simple and am aware its there.
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-13, 00:48
Classical agnosticism is a cowardly intellectual cop out, quantum agnosticism is awesome - and almost certainly quite ridiculous lol!
Classical agnosticism is a cowardly intellectual cop out, quantum agnosticism is awesome - and almost certainly quite ridiculous lol!
Its got a 50/50 chance of being right
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-13, 00:51
Its got a 50/50 chance of being rightThat proves that you don't get it at all. My Quantum Agnosticism has either 100% or 0% chance of being right. Paradoxically, there is no in-between case. That's what makes it so awesome! :cool:
That proves that you don't get it at all. My Quantum Agnosticism has either 100% or 0% chance of being right. Paradoxically, there is no in-between case. That's what makes it so awesome! :cool:
You only think that. Prove it. :eek:
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-13, 01:01
You only think that. Prove it. :eek:I don't need to. It's built into Quantum Agnosticism. :cool:
I really dont like being 100% right but if you insist.:roll:
cptdodger
07-Jan-13, 02:31
Well, there you go, I must have been living in a bubble for the past x amount of years ! I had no idea there are people out there who do not believe evolution happened, I honestly thought that was a given. It is just something I have never questioned, I'm sure I must have been taught that at school, having said that though, I left school 30 odd years ago.
Not many people who believe in the threory of evolution by natural selection will have given much attention to the detail. Most laymen who believe it will have a read a bit, given it some thought, and made their minds up. I trust science, mostly. Once I get the gist of something I keep, it simple. It seems obvious the theory of evolution is very close to the truth of what happened. A wee spark 14 billion years ago and then all this.
Thats the easy bit.
Then there's conscious thought around 400,000 years ago. It's mind blowing how that developed.
Ultimately no one knows if there was anything before the big bang. My guess is as good as Richard Dawkins'. There may have been some kind of creating God who left us consciousness, mathematics and the internet, but maybe there wasnt. :lol: Even Rhegheads warming to the idea.
I find you comments very interesting, because it is commonly believed (because its taught in schools) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisims evolved from non-living chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the lab by scientists who study chemical evolution.
A famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in1953 is quoted as proof of this. These experiments designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certian conditions, show that certian organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds. In fact what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is " If I can just synthesize life in the lab, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the begining". I believe this experiment proves the opposite - that intelligence is required to create life.
What Miller did in his experiment. he took a mixture of gases( amonia, hydrogen, methane and water vapor) and passed an electric current through them, he did this to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he believed was the composition of the earths atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids, because amino acids are the building blocks of protiens and protiens are considered to be the building blocks of living systems. Millers experiment was hailed as proof the life evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago.
I have one or two problems with this conclusion. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller. The next problem is that in Millers experiment he was careful that no oxygen was present. If oxygen was present then the amino acids would not form, which adds to the problem if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer then ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionists can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen. The next problem concerns the so called handedness of amino acids, because of the way carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms- right handed and left handed, the two forms are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only the left handed amino acids are found. Yet Millers experiment produced a mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids in identical proportions, as only left handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalant to several thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information.
This obsevation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a scrap yard and assemble a jumbo jet.
The problems outlined above, show that, far from creating life in the lab, the chemical evolutionists have not shown that living systems arose by chance from non-living chemicals, furthermore, the vast amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cell shows that living systems could not have evolved from non-living chemicals.
The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created.
Yes your right mind-blowing. Dawkins must have missed that one
I have studied it enough to know that it is only a theory,
which is more than I suspect you have done on the subject of Christianity.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
I have to laugh when people claim to be intelligent and then deny evolution.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
I wish when people lift text wholesale from Wikipedia that they at least reference it.....and take cognisance that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
I have to laugh when people claim to be intelligent and then deny evolution. Many scientists today who have PHD after their names deny evolution, this is solely based on the fact that upon examination of the findings of evolutionists that their evidence just doesn't stack up.
I have to laugh when people claim to be intelligent then deny creation.
I believe in Evolution but i am not a scientist. I am however a good cook. Not a great cook, not a chef or a culinary expert. Seems to me that the theories of the begginings of life have a bit in common with cookery. You can take a whole pile of ingredients and stick them in a bowl but they need to be mixed together. It also depends on who does the mixing. Given a whole pile of ingredients I can create a lovely meal.. Gi e the same invredients to Michel Roux and he would create something MAGNIFICENT. Maybe the chemicals had a bit of help..... Who knows.
The problem I have with evolution is the amount of assumptions.
Life is assumed to have appeared on a planet that is assumed to have formed from a collapsing nebula that is assumed to have formed from a big bang which is assumed to have occurred without a cause. If any of the links in the chain of assumptions breaks, the whole story of naturalism unravels.
To add to the problems of the evolutionary story, life must have evolved from non-living chemicals.
No one understands how this could have happened, but it is accepted as true by evolutionists regardless of any evidence.
Many scientists today who have PHD after their names deny evolution, this is solely based on the fact that upon examination of the findings of evolutionists that their evidence just doesn't stack up.
I have to laugh when people claim to be intelligent then deny creation.
If someone believes the Earth is only six thousand years old and was magicked into existence, and that people were magicked out of mud by a genie, then no, they are not very intelligent at all.
If someone believes the Earth is only six thousand years old and was magicked into existence, and that people were magicked out of mud by a genie, then no, they are not very intelligent at all. You have just exposed your level of intelligence and understanding of the Christian faith to be that of non- existant, some of us at least took the time to examine the evidence of evolution before comments were made, at least that ammount of respect was given. I find you so laughable Flynn that I just can't take you seriously. As I said to you before Flynn enjoy your life, it's the only one you will ever have.
You have just exposed your level of intelligence and understanding of the Christian faith to be that of non- existant, some of us at least took the time to examine the evidence of evolution before comments were made, at least that ammount of respect was given. I find you so laughable Flynn that I just can't take you seriously. As I said to you before Flynn enjoy your life, it's the only one you will ever have.
I don't believe in fairy tales, I believe in scientific fact. You have given not one single solitary fact to prove the existence of whichever genie it is you believe in. Instead all you have done is reference fairy tales.
Facts please. Cold, hard, facts.
I find you comments very interesting, because it is commonly believed (because its taught in schools) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisims evolved from non-living chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the lab by scientists who study chemical evolution.
A famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in1953 is quoted as proof of this. These experiments designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certian conditions, show that certian organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds. In fact what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is " If I can just synthesize life in the lab, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the begining". I believe this experiment proves the opposite - that intelligence is required to create life.
What Miller did in his experiment. he took a mixture of gases( amonia, hydrogen, methane and water vapor) and passed an electric current through them, he did this to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he believed was the composition of the earths atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids, because amino acids are the building blocks of protiens and protiens are considered to be the building blocks of living systems. Millers experiment was hailed as proof the life evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago.
I have one or two problems with this conclusion. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller. The next problem is that in Millers experiment he was careful that no oxygen was present. If oxygen was present then the amino acids would not form, which adds to the problem if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer then ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionists can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen. The next problem concerns the so called handedness of amino acids, because of the way carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms- right handed and left handed, the two forms are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only the left handed amino acids are found. Yet Millers experiment produced a mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids in identical proportions, as only left handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalant to several thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information.
This obsevation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a scrap yard and assemble a jumbo jet.
The problems outlined above, show that, far from creating life in the lab, the chemical evolutionists have not shown that living systems arose by chance from non-living chemicals, furthermore, the vast amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cell shows that living systems could not have evolved from non-living chemicals.
The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created.
Yes your right mind-blowing. Dawkins must have missed that one
Life creates oxygen. Early life was simply bacterium that did not require oxygen, but created oxygen as a by product. You can see this happening today in the deep oceans around black smokers where no light has ever penetrated.
You creationists do make me laugh when you try to get 'scientific'.
Here's one for you, if the Earth is only six thousand years old, then why can we see stars that are millions upon millions of years old? The speed of light is a scientific constant, so we KNOW those stars are millions or billions of years old because we know how long the light has taken to reach us.
Go on, tell it's your genie and his magic again. :roll:
I remember while at uni coming across some information regarding the number of chromosome in both a human and other apes. There are 23 pairs in humans and 24 in the other apes. Now the artical went on to say that this got the evolution scientist worried as it could mean that humans did not evolve from the ancenstors of apes and that the whole model of evolution could be very wrong indeed. However they were convinced that as there was so much evidence for evolution that there must be another explanation. They hypothesised that two of the chromosomes has fused together. At the end of each chromosome there are telomere which are essentually piece of nucleotide that hold not genic information and are used as a buffer to protect the imporatant information. Also each chromosome has a centromere where each chromatid joins each other. What they thought they would find would be telomeres in the centre of one of the human chromosome along with a second but redundunt set of centromere. Low and behold that is what they found. Now, it would be very odd for a creator to put usless genetic information in the middle of a chromosome and therefore give the impression that evolution is correct.
Peoples reason for not accpting evolution as the best model seems not to be based on creationism offering greater of better evidence, but rather they don't see how evolution is posible and automatically go back to the default setting of "we don't know so god did it".
I don't believe in fairy tales, I believe in scientific fact. You have given not one single solitary fact to prove the existence of whichever genie it is you believe in. Instead all you have done is reference fairy tales.
Facts please. Cold, hard, facts. I supplied you with reference from the Bible ( which you choose to call fairy tales ) if you were interested in the truth you would have at least given some consideration to the cold hard facts of the Bible, any real scientist or intelligent person would at least examined the evidence before them, you didn't instead you have dismissed the Bible a book I doubt you have the intellectual capasity to understand. On the otherhand evolution has been unable to explain how amoeba evolved to ape and then on to man.
Oh let me put this in layman's terms for you: "how did we get from goo to you via the zoo"? where did all the matter come from that caused the big bang if there was nothing before it. Science is asking me to believe in something from nothing. Whereas the Bible tells me that God created everything. Science fails to answer my questions, but the Bible does. In my opinion the only person who believes in fairy tales Flynn is yourself.
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 14:07
I remember while at uni coming across some information regarding the number of chromosome in both a human and other apes. There are 23 pairs in humans and 24 in the other apes. Now the artical went on to say that this got the evolution scientist worried as it could mean that humans did not evolve from the ancenstors of apes and that the whole model of evolution could be very wrong indeed. However they were convinced that as there was so much evidence for evolution that there must be another explanation. They hypothesised that two of the chromosomes has fused together. At the end of each chromosome there are telomere which are essentually piece of nucleotide that hold not genic information and are used as a buffer to protect the imporatant information. Also each chromosome has a centromere where each chromatid joins each other. What they thought they would find would be telomeres in the centre of one of the human chromosome along with a second but redundunt set of centromere. Low and behold that is what they found. Now, it would be very odd for a creator to put usless genetic information in the middle of a chromosome and therefore give the impression that evolution is correct.
Peoples reason for not accpting evolution as the best model seems not to be based on creationism offering greater of better evidence, but rather they don't see how evolution is posible and automatically go back to the default setting of "we don't know so god did it".
So, as a matter of interest, how did the 47th chromosome of people with Downs' Syndrome fit into the evolution theory, Rob?
I supplied you with reference from the Bible ( which you choose to call fairy tales ) if you were interested in the truth you would have at least given some consideration to the cold hard facts of the Bible, any real scientist or intelligent person would at least examined the evidence before them, you didn't instead you have dismissed the Bible a book I doubt you have the intellectual capasity to understand. On the otherhand evolution has been unable to explain how amoeba evolved to ape and then on to man.
Oh let me put this in layman's terms for you: "how did we get from goo to you via the zoo"? where did all the matter come from that caused the big bang if there was nothing before it. Science is asking me to believe in something from nothing. Whereas the Bible tells me that God created everything. Science fails to answer my questions, but the Bible does. In my opinion the only person who believes in fairy tales Flynn is yourself.
The bible isn't cold hard facts, it's fairy tales, written by people who thought magic existed.
So, as a matter of interest, how did the 47th chromosome of people with Downs' Syndrome fit into the evolution theory, Rob?
It's Down Syndrome and chromosome 21 actually. It's a genetic abnormality passed down through families that can be passed on to children. You can read more, and perhaps learn something, here: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Downs-syndrome/Pages/Causes.aspx
Down syndrome is a genetic abnormality Flynn but is NOT normally hereditary. There is only one specific type of this sort of genetic abnormality which is hereditory in any sense of the word and it is rare and accounts for a tiny number of cases. In most cases Down syndrome is an accident of birth and the only clear risk factor is the age of the mother.
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 14:26
1. Atheism is not a religion.
I missed this post, Flynn, but I hope you don't mind if I ignore points 2 and 3, on the grounds that I'm not a regurgitation groupie! ;)
As you, or anyone else can't prove that God doesn't exist, then it follows that atheism is based on faith. You are all united under the banner of science which has failed to prove He doesn't exist, but your faith in it is the basis of the atheist religion. It's the religion of anti-theism.
It's amazing how many different categories suddenly appear when atheism hits a brick wall and needs a new cover to escape a question they can't answer, isn't it? Due to he failure of scientists and atheists to prove that God doesn't exist, we now have the atheist/agnostic junkies. They definitely don't believe there's a God, but there might be. You know, the ones like Dawkins. :lol: It just goes to show that atheism is a religion in denial! Some countries, of course, have, or have had, atheism as their State religion.
Oh! Yes! It's a religion all right! ;)
I supplied you with reference from the Bible ( which you choose to call fairy tales ) if you were interested in the truth you would have at least given some consideration to the cold hard facts of the Bible, any real scientist or intelligent person would at least examined the evidence before them, you didn't instead you have dismissed the Bible a book I doubt you have the intellectual capasity to understand. On the otherhand evolution has been unable to explain how amoeba evolved to ape and then on to man.
I am a scientist and when I make a claim in my job I must back them up with references. Quite frankly quoting the bible as a reference is worse than quoting wikipedia. The Bible is not referenced. It is a collection of text that in most cases were written by people who were not at the event they were discribing, or writen many years after the event. There is no evidence to back up the claimes made. God "talks" to individuals rather than a group of people so it cannot be confirmed whether it was god, or they are mentally ill or are just making stuff up. It contradicts itself in many places. Its text is poorly writen and allows for multiple interpritation of it to be make.
Oh let me put this in layman's terms for you: "how did we get from goo to you via the zoo"? where did all the matter come from that caused the big bang if there was nothing before it. Science is asking me to believe in something from nothing. Whereas the Bible tells me that God created everything. Science fails to answer my questions, but the Bible does. In my opinion the only person who believes in fairy tales Flynn is yourself.
We don't know where we came from. There are people all round the world working to try and answer that very question. In science saying "i don't know" is a perfectly normal and respectible response to a question. Just because we don't know something does not mean that "god did it".
I am a scientist.......discribing....writen....claimes... writen....interpritation.....respectible
May God help science if this is what a University education produces.
I missed this post, Flynn, but I hope you don't mind if I ignore points 2 and 3, on the grounds that I'm not a regurgitation groupie! ;)
As you, or anyone else can't prove that God doesn't exist, then it follows that atheism is based on faith. You are all united under the banner of science which has failed to prove He doesn't exist, but your faith in it is the basis of the atheist religion. It's the religion of anti-theism.
It's amazing how many different categories suddenly appear when atheism hits a brick wall and needs a new cover to escape a question they can't answer, isn't it? Due to he failure of scientists and atheists to prove that God doesn't exist, we now have the atheist/agnostic junkies. They definitely don't believe there's a God, but there might be. You know, the ones like Dawkins. :lol: It just goes to show that atheism is a religion in denial! Some countries, of course, have, or have had, atheism as their State religion.
Oh! Yes! It's a religion all right! ;)
The onus is not on atheists or science to prove your imaginary genie doesn't exist. The onus is on you to prove it does.
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 14:33
It's Down Syndrome and chromosome 21 actually. It's a genetic abnormality passed down through families that can be passed on to children. You can read more, and perhaps learn something, here: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Downs-syndrome/Pages/Causes.aspx
I shan't be visiting the site, thanks Flynn. I trained as a psychiatric nurse and am well aware of the abnormality. It would be rather good though, if just for once, you actually answered a question that was asked. If, as I suspect, like so many other things you haven't a clue, it may be a better idea to read more and learn in the process. Just a little friendly advice. :cool:
Down syndrome is a genetic abnormality Flynn but is NOT normally hereditary. There is only one specific type of this sort of genetic abnormality which is hereditory in any sense of the word and it is rare and accounts for a tiny number of cases. In most cases Down syndrome is an accident of birth and the only clear risk factor is the age of the mother.
I did not say it was hereditary, I said it was passed down through families. Did you read the linked NHS piece about Down Syndrome?
The risk of a translocation carrier passing on the condition to their child depends on their sex (this is due to the way that chromosomes are passed down through families). That is:
male carriers have around a 1 in 35 chance of passing on the condition
female carriers have around a 1 in 8 chance of passing on the condition
However, it is thought that most cases of translocation Down’s syndrome are not inherited in this way.
you haven't a clue,
This from someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and people were magicked out of mud by fairies.
:lol:
cptdodger
07-Jan-13, 14:39
In most cases Down syndrome is an accident of birth and the only clear risk factor is the age of the mother.
I thought that as well squidge, but when my daughter was pregnant, she was in her early 20's, her partner was in his late 30's at the time, she was advised to have an amniocentesis, to rule out down's syndrome. There was no history of that in either family, it was purely due to her partner's age.
So, as a matter of interest, how did the 47th chromosome of people with Downs' Syndrome fit into the evolution theory, Rob?
Firstly Down syndrome, as someone has already pointed out is regarding chromosome 21. My example above is on chromosome 2. Down syndrome does not prove or disprove evolution. However what it does show is that mistakes do happen during the replication of chromosomes. Surely if we were created then the "almighty" would not make such a basic mistake!
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 14:50
Rob Said:-
"God talks to individuals rather than a group of people so it cannot be confirmed whether it was god, or they are mentally ill or just making stuff up."
I say:- You would include atheists in the "or they are mentally ill," conjecture too, wouldn't you? And also atheists "are just making it up?"
Rob said:-
We don't know where we came from. There are people all round the world working to try and answer that very question. In science saying "i don't know" is a perfectly normal and respectible response to a question. Just because we don't know something does not mean that "god did it".
Pleased you don't claim science has proved anything. "In science saying "i don't know," is a much more honest statement than some on the Org who think they know it all! AND, shouldn't that also read, "Just because we don't know something does not mean," God couldn't have done it?" Scientist? Yeah! Right! :lol:
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 14:59
May God help science if this is what a University education produces.
LOL. "Science," doesn't Slickly. For a starter, my eminent family member, who has a PhD, struggled at the beginning of his education to pass an English 'O' Level, which he needed to move to an 'A' Level and subsequently a University degree. He was brilliant in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, but this was not enough. A private tutor and I helped him with English spelling and grammar and he passed at the fourth attempt. Without it he could not have achieved his goal to be a scientist. At no time since, has his command of English ever been as poor, as what we witness from at least one of our resident claimants to the title! :lol:
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 15:02
This from someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and people were magicked out of mud by fairies.
:lol:
You seriously need to grow up, Flynn. You must be an embarrassment to the atheist team! Believe me! [lol] God, I'm bored! :roll:
Rob Said:-
"God talks to individuals rather than a group of people so it cannot be confirmed whether it was god, or they are mentally ill or just making stuff up."
I say:- You would include atheists in the "or they are mentally ill," conjecture too, wouldn't you? And also atheists "are just making it up?"
Rob said:-
We don't know where we came from. There are people all round the world working to try and answer that very question. In science saying "i don't know" is a perfectly normal and respectible response to a question. Just because we don't know something does not mean that "god did it".
Pleased you don't claim science has proved anything. "In science saying "i don't know," is a much more honest statement than some on the Org who think they know it all! AND, shouldn't that also read, "Just because we don't know something does not mean," God couldn't have done it?" Scientist? Yeah! Right! :lol:
I hold my hands up. Both your points I would say yes.
[QUOTE=rob1;998908]I am a scientist and when I make a claim in my job I must back them up with references. Quite frankly quoting the bible as a reference is worse than quoting wikipedia. The Bible is not referenced. It is a collection of text that in most cases were written by people who were not at the event they were discribing, or writen many years after the event. There is no evidence to back up the claimes made. God "talks" to individuals rather than a group of people so it cannot be confirmed whether it was god, or they are mentally ill or are just making stuff up. It contradicts itself in many places. Its text is poorly writen and allows for multiple interpritation of it to be make.
I am not a scientist rob1, I am a man of faith, the Bible is what I have to reference my faith, I believe that there is evidence that supports the claims of the prophesies of the Bible.
I have no intention of discrediting the scientific community.
I have been told that creationism or the teaching of it holds back scientific progress, I do not believe this either.
Scientists have invented TV, Rockets, planes, atomic bombs, cures for all sorts of ailments and the list goes on, but I do not accept that an understanding of evolution is critical to any of them, or a belief in Christ to be a hinderance.
Here's one for you, if the Earth is only six thousand years old, then why can we see stars that are millions upon millions of years old? The speed of light is a scientific constant, so we KNOW those stars are millions or billions of years old because we know how long the light has taken to reach us.
Go on, tell it's your genie and his magic again. :roll:[/QUOTE] from Flynn
When God created the Earth, He would have created the stars at such a time that their light would have reached Earth on day 4 of creation.
Here's one for you.
if the Earth and the Moon were over 6 billion years old ( as big bang supporters teach) due to the fact that it moves away from the earth each year is it not the case then that the moon must have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago?
M Swanson
07-Jan-13, 18:02
I knew what you meant but quantums still a mystery to me. I just keep it simple and am aware its there.
Gleeber, can I ask if you were a Christian, prior to discovering an interest in science? Or have you always been an agnostic?
[QUOTE=Flynn;998892]Life creates oxygen. Early life was simply bacterium that did not require oxygen, but created oxygen as a by product. You can see this happening today in the deep oceans around black smokers where no light has ever penetrated.
Sorry Flynn your deep sea theory doesn't work either.
Keep at it maverick, you're doing a better job than I could do.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.