# General > General >  Atheist Census

## Rheghead

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?

----------


## JoeSoap

> 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?

----------


## Rheghead

> 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!  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> 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.   ::

----------


## Flynn

There is truth in the saying: "I think therefore I am an Atheist".

----------


## M Swanson

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!  :Grin:

----------


## Alrock

> 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!


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!  :: 

You can't prove otherwise.... Does that make it true?

----------


## ducati

> 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! 
> 
> You can't prove otherwise.... Does that make it true?


I want one, I want one!

----------


## Oddquine

> 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?   ::

----------


## Flynn

> 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!


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

> 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! 
> 
> 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?  ::  I don't suppose you're claiming that God doesn't exist, are you Al? I'll wait, shall I?  :Wink:

----------


## grannymoose

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  :Wink:  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

> The truth is that 'god' is just Santa Claus for grown-ups.


Really? What proof and evidence do you have of this Flynn?  :Grin:

----------


## Oddquine

> 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!


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!  :: 

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?

----------


## Flynn

> 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

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.  ::   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.  ::

----------


## Alrock

> I want one, I want one!


Just believe & Ye Shall Have....

----------


## M Swanson

> 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!  :Grin:

----------


## Kenn

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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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!


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

> 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!


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

----------


## joxville

I'm an atheist...and I pray to God I stay that way ;-)

----------


## Oddquine

> 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)

----------


## Flynn

> 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!


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

> I'm an atheist...and I pray to God I stay that way ;-)


LOL. Bless you Jox.  ::

----------


## maverick

> 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?

----------


## Serenity

> 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_artic...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).

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

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 .”

----------


## Flynn

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.

----------


## Rheghead

Does Peter Higgs believe in God?

----------


## M Swanson

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.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

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,  :Grin: ) 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?

----------


## Flynn

> 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

Then you should get out more Flynn!  :Grin:  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.  :Grin:

----------


## M Swanson

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.

----------


## rob1

> 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.&nbsp; Dawkins is a scientist.&nbsp; I am also a  scientist and athiest and I see his reasoning.&nbsp; You can't, no  matter how hard you try, prove that something does not exist.&nbsp;  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. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

----------


## M Swanson

> Not  strange at all.&nbsp; Dawkins is a scientist.&nbsp; I am also a  scientist and athiest and I see his reasoning.&nbsp; You can't, no  matter how hard you try, prove that something does not exist.&nbsp;


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.   :Wink: 

I had to laugh, when at the end of an interview, he became so frustrated that he said, "Oh! God."  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

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.

----------


## Serenity

> 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."


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/Spectru...ic_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?

----------


## Serenity

> 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

Thanks Serenity. I'm awa' for dinner,  but I'll definitely check out your link later.  :: 

I found the use of the phrase funny.  What's so wrong with that?  ::

----------


## Serenity

> 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.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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_.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

Does it really matter who believes in what as long as you lead a good life respect others and do your best.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

> 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

I'm with Rheg on this one. take religion out of the world and i wonder how many wars there would have been?

----------


## Rheghead

> "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

> 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/Spectru...ic_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.  :Grin:  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

> 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?

----------


## Flynn

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

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

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.  :Grin: 

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!

----------


## Rheghead

> 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. ::   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  ::   It is much easier to deny the evidence about him.

----------


## M Swanson

> 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.  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   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!  ::  It's much easier to provide the "evidence," when it isn't worth the cyberspace it occupies.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

Or, you can see it for what it is! Flimsy and proving nothing!  :Grin: 

Thanks for the chat Rheg. I shouldn't think either of us have made any converts, but we gave it our best shot!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Or, you can see it for what it is! Flimsy and proving nothing! 
> 
> Thanks for the chat Rheg. I shouldn't think either of us have made any converts, but we gave it our best shot!


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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Alrock

> 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.

----------


## gleeber

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.  :: 
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?

----------


## Rheghead

> 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.

----------


## gleeber

> 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?  ::

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> How does an atheist define spirituality?


David Mitchell did it rather well 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."


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?  :: 

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....

----------


## gleeber

I dont see them as the same. I dont think theres a minute chance of a God I think its 50/50

----------


## gleeber

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

> I dont think theres a minute chance of a God I think its 50/50


I take it back - that is the laziest hypothesis of them all lol!

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> 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.  ::

----------


## cptdodger

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; _broadly_ *:* one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the 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.

----------


## gleeber

Aye thats an agnostic. Maybe there is, maybe there isnt ::

----------


## secrets in symmetry

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.  ::

----------


## gleeber

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

> OK then. How does an agnostic define spirituality?


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.

----------


## gleeber

Maybe there is maybe there isnt.  :: 
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

> 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.  ::

----------


## squidge

> 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

> Maybe there is maybe there isnt. 
> 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

> 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.  :: 

That could be the coolest demolition of agnosticism you'll ever see.  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> 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

> 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.  ::

----------


## gleeber

> You must know the agnostic's answer - it's a linear superposition of finding True Peace in God and the Santa Claus/Placebo effect. 
> 
> That could be the coolest demolition of agnosticism you'll ever see.


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?

----------


## gleeber

> 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

> 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

> 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.  :: 

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

> 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. 
> 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.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> 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?  :Grin:  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!  :Grin:

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> Or, you can see it for what it is! Flimsy and proving nothing!


Much like every argument theists give for the existence of supernatural creatures in the sky.

----------


## cptdodger

> Ah! But you're supposed to feel "demolished," Gleeber. See what a difference that 50% makes?  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!


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.

----------


## rob1

> 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.

----------


## gaza

> 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!


How arrogant are you ! shall we start on the Churches and there sanctimonious antics

----------


## Alrock

> .....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

> 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.  :: 

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

> 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!  :Grin: 

Start wherever you choose.  It could prove a popular move for some! I could probably even name them.   ::

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## maverick

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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## rob1

> 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. 
> 
> 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.

----------


## rob1

> 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

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

> 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'.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Trajan

_
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.


_

----------


## Alrock

> ....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.

----------


## gleeber

> Show me a photograph of 'god', show me something signed by 'god', show me actual evidence of this 'god'.


E=mc2  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> 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!  ::  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!  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> 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.

----------


## Alrock

> ....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

> E=mc2


Einstein believed in God.  :Wink:

----------


## Alrock

> 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

> 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!  ::

----------


## Alrock

> I don't know Al. Only he could answer that. Give him a ring and ask him!


I'll ask him when I get to Heaven....  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> I'll ask him when I get to Heaven....


 ::  I'll be sure to have the kettle on, Al!  ::

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> Well I did have the temerity to ask the questions, so I must accept the answers! Even as depressing as it is!  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!


So you're going to deny evolution now too?

----------


## Trajan

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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Kenn

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

> You must know the agnostic's answer - it's a linear superposition of finding True Peace in God and the Santa Claus/Placebo effect. 
> 
> That could be the coolest demolition of agnosticism you'll ever see.


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

> 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 ?

----------


## Trajan

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

> 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

> 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

> 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?_  :Wink:

----------


## cptdodger

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.

----------


## maverick

> 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

> 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.

----------


## maverick

> 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


Gods 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.

----------


## maverick

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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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'.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Alrock

> .....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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## maverick

> 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

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

> 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

> 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!  :Grin: 

The thing I don't understand, is who is "forcing," anything on you?

----------


## M Swanson

> 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!  ::

----------


## changilass

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

> 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!  ::

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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!


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

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!  :Grin:

----------


## cptdodger

> 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!


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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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!


Do you believe in Vishnu, Ganesh, Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Neptune, Apollo, Hera, Thor, Ra, Set, Thoth, Adonis, Venus, Aphrodite, Tyr, etc. too?

----------


## M Swanson

::  Oh! Yes! Even the ones I've never heard of!  ::  What on earth has this got to do with anything?  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> Oh! Yes! Even the ones I've never heard of!  What on earth has this got to do with anything?


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.

----------


## maverick

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/never_arab.html


> Your understanding is wrong.


am I

----------


## M Swanson

> 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?  ::  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!  ::

----------


## Alrock

> 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

> 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?

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Alrock

> 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

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.

----------


## maverick

> A bit like The Warsaw Ghetto was set aside for the Jews?


not really, Belsen was set aside for the Jews.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## richardj

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

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!  :Smile:

----------


## cptdodger

> 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

> 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.

----------


## maverick

[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

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 !!.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Oddquine

> 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 .

----------


## Flynn

> 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.c...aling-land.png

----------


## Flynn

> LOL. You left Santa Claus out, Flynn. How could you?  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!


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

> 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!  :: 

I wonder if I could ask another few questions, please? It wouldn't be me if I didn't!  :Smile:  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

> 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! 
> 
> 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

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.  :Smile:  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.  ::

----------


## Alrock

You don't need Christian values to know right from wrong & I hope that is not what you are trying to imply?

----------


## M Swanson

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.  :Grin:  How about you? How did you learn right from wrong?  It's not something we're born with!

----------


## Alrock

> 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.  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

LOL. Oh! Right! There must be another scientist behind this revelation! I can feel it in my H2o.  :Grin:  So this wonderful gene instinctively decides right from wrong, from birth and all in our garden is lovely? Give us a break, Al.  :Grin:

----------


## Alrock

> LOL. Oh! Right! There must be another scientist behind this revelation! I can feel it in my H2o.  *So this wonderful gene instinctively decides right from wrong*, from birth and all in our garden is lovely? Give us a break, Al.


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

> 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?

----------


## Alrock

> 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

> 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.


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

> 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

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.   ::

----------


## Alrock

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## gleeber

> 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?

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

> 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!  ::

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Rheghead

> 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...

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## gleeber

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.  ::  Even Rhegheads warming to the idea.

----------


## M Swanson

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

55% and rising, Gleeber!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> 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

> Ultimately no one knows if there was anything before the big bang.


Take away the word "Ultimately", and I might agree with you.  :: 

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

> 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.  :Grin:

----------


## gleeber

> 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.


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

> 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.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

I can live with that Gleeber. Perhaps you, me and Rheg can have a group hug?  :Smile:  56% and rising.  ::

----------


## gleeber

> 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.


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

Classical agnosticism is a cowardly intellectual cop out, quantum agnosticism is awesome - and almost certainly quite ridiculous lol!

----------


## gleeber

> 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

> Its got a 50/50 chance of being right


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!  ::

----------


## gleeber

> 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!


You only think that. Prove it.  ::

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> You only think that. Prove it.


I don't need to. It's built into Quantum Agnosticism.  ::

----------


## gleeber

I really dont like being 100% right but if you insist. ::

----------


## cptdodger

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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.  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

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Slickly

> 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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## squidge

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.

----------


## maverick

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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## maverick

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.  ::

----------


## rob1

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".

----------


## maverick

> 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

> 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?

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

----------


## Flynn

> 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-s...es/Causes.aspx

----------


## squidge

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

> 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!  :Wink: 

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.  ::  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!  :Wink:

----------


## rob1

> 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".

----------


## Slickly

> I am a scientist.......discribing....writen....claimes...  writen....interpritation.....respectible


May God help science if this is what a University education produces.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.  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

> 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-s...es/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.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> 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 conditionfemale carriers have around a 1 in 8 chance of passing on the conditionHowever, it is thought that most cases of translocation Down’s syndrome are not inherited in this way.

----------


## Flynn

> 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.

 ::

----------


## cptdodger

> 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.

----------


## rob1

> 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

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!  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> 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!  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> This from someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and people were magicked out of mud by fairies.


You seriously need to grow up, Flynn. You must be an embarrassment to the atheist team! Believe me!  ::  God, I'm bored!  ::

----------


## rob1

> 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".
> ...


I hold my hands up.  Both your points I would say yes.

----------


## maverick

[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.

----------


## maverick

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.  :: [/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

> 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?

----------


## maverick

[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.

----------


## Rheghead

Keep at it maverick, you're doing a better job than I could do.

----------


## Alrock

> .....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.


Have you ever heard the one about the infinite monkeys, typewriters & the works of Shakespeare?

Well.... Given that there are an estimated 500,000,000,000 Galaxies each with an average of 300,000,000,000 Stars & for arguments sake lets estimate just 1 planet per star on average then that is 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets....
So odds of 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is all you need to produce a planet with life....
Then factor in the fact that there *could be* an infinite number of universes (we have no way of knowing this at present) making the odds 1 in ∞ then it does strike me with odds like that you can almost say that it is inevitable that a planet like ours with oxygen breathing intelligent life would happen somewhere with no input needed from a 3rd party.

----------


## maverick

> Have you ever heard the one about the infinite monkeys, typewriters & the works of Shakespeare?
> 
> Well.... Given that there are an estimated 500,000,000,000 Galaxies each with an average of 300,000,000,000 Stars & for arguments sake lets estimate just 1 planet per star on average then that is 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets....
> So odds of 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is all you need to produce a planet with life....
> Then factor in the fact that there *could be* an infinite number of universes (we have no way of knowing this at present) making the odds 1 in ∞ then it does strike me with odds like that you can almost say that it is inevitable that a planet like ours with oxygen breathing intelligent life would happen somewhere with no input needed from a 3rd party.


with odds like that you should be a bookie

----------


## gaza

> 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!



There`s your arrogance again

----------


## gaza

> 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.


More arrogance

----------


## gaza

> Gleeber, can I ask if you were a Christian, prior to discovering an interest in science? Or have you always been an agnostic?





Mister Swanson....... spend some time and go back and read all of your threads, then take a long hard look at your-self.

----------


## Neil Howie

> Shame! I'll continue to pray to God, whilst you pray to the Law of Gravity.


Pray to who you want but you'll probably find the Law of Gravity more reliable

----------


## Flynn

> You seriously need to grow up, Flynn. You must be an embarrassment to the atheist team! Believe me!  God, I'm bored!


I need to grow up? You're the one who has the imaginary friend.

----------


## Flynn

[QUOTE=maverick;998973]


> 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.


Wy? Because you say so? Please qualify your statement. And don't refer us to more fairy stories.

----------


## ducati

People seem to get very upset by other people's beliefs. Sounds to me like quite a few are not quite as comfortable with their own as they would have _us_ believe.

----------


## M Swanson

Did anyone watch Lewis tonight?  ::  I know it's fiction, but my word it certainly struck a few chords. It portrayed a University lecturer teaching his young students of the irrationality (today's favourite buzz word for non-believers imo), of believing in God. One of the youngsters stated she didn't believe in God, but just prior to meeting a grizzly end, she asked the police officer to pray with her! You may think, so what? Well, if I hadn't witnessed this behaviour many, many times from dying patients, who considered themselves atheists prior to their final moments, I may too! As it is, it was a truthful account, of my own experiences. 

I haven't sussed who the killer is, so any ideas?  :Wink:

----------


## Neil Howie

I haven't seen an episode of Lewis used as a defence of religion before!  The only way I can counter that is to tell you that Inspector Morse was an atheist!

But nah too middle class WASP-ish for me.  I prefer Sherlock .... oh wait that's middle-class WASP-ish too!  Still like it tho.

And yes, Pascal's Wager would make it more rational to believe in a God / Goddess / He whose name shall not be written ...

----------


## Alrock

> Did anyone watch Lewis tonight?   I know it's fiction, but my word it certainly struck a few chords. It  portrayed a University lecturer teaching his young students of the  irrationality (today's favourite buzz word for non-believers imo), of  believing in God. One of the youngsters stated she didn't believe in  God, but just prior to meeting a grizzly end, she asked the police  officer to pray with her! You may think, so what? Well, if I hadn't  witnessed this behaviour many, many times from dying patients, who  considered themselves atheists prior to their final moments, I may too!  As it is, it was a truthful account, of my own experiences...


Then they must have been agnostic & are just hedging their bets.... (No, I'm not a bookie... lol)





> ....I haven't sussed who the killer is, so any ideas?


Whoever may have carried out the deed, ultimately God did it.... lol

----------


## cptdodger

> Did anyone watch Lewis tonight?  I know it's fiction, but my word it certainly struck a few chords. It portrayed a University lecturer teaching his young students of the irrationality (today's favourite buzz word for non-believers imo), of believing in God. One of the youngsters stated she didn't believe in God, but just prior to meeting a grizzly end, she asked the police officer to pray with her! You may think, so what? Well, if I hadn't witnessed this behaviour many, many times from dying patients, who considered themselves atheists prior to their final moments, I may too! As it is, it was a truthful account, of my own experiences. 
> 
> I haven't sussed who the killer is, so any ideas?


I have'nt seen it so I'm afraid I can't help you with who the killer is !! I have seen similar things in documentaries about (of all things) mass murderers who amazingly find religion when they are on death row. As you know I can't comment about anybody else, but I was diagnosed with an incurable illness back in 2008, and I still consider myself an atheist, and I cannot see that changing. As morbid as this may sound, death does not frighten me, it never has. It could be the patients you encountered were scared of dying. Lets face it, it's a topic nobody likes discussing.

----------


## maverick

[QUOTE=Flynn;999007]


> Wy? Because you say so? Please qualify your statement. And don't refer us to more fairy stories.


In a previous post I used the Stanley Miller experiment as an example of the model that was used to promote evolution theory, it would appear that the same chemistry limitations would apply in the deep sea theory also.
Now I am not going to insult you any more Flynn, and I would like to apologize to you now if I have caused you any offence, I am not setting a good example of myself as a Christian, even although this is cyberspace and I don't know Flynn, I do realise that my behaviour is not acceptable. In all your posts you have held firm to your belief in the theory of evolution and I respect your right to hold those belief's, simply because I do not agree with them does not mean that I should be insulting to you or anyone else.
I have a question that I would like to ask respectfully, " Would it mean that you take it as a matter of faith that science will one day prove that life arose naturally"?

----------


## maverick

The original point of this thread was to suggest that Atheists were more intelligent than people with faith or religious belief's, there has been some very interesting comments along with the usual insults ( and I'm as guilty of that as anyone else). What I would like to do is to attempt, if I can, to put a Christian perspective on science, as opposed to a naturalist one.

I believe that Christianity provides the basis for certain scientific research.
The Christian expects the universe to obey laws because God created those laws - the " ordinances of heaven and earth". (Jeremiah 33:25)
The creationist expects that the laws of nature that applied yesterday will apply in the future as well; this is because God is consistent (Malachi 3:6) and does not arbitrarily change His mind ( Numbers 23:19 ).
We expect the universe to be understandable, because God created it and He created us with the ability to reason (Isaiah 1:18) and understand.
However, the naturalist cannot account for these properties of the universe.
What reason do they have for expecting the universe  to be consistent and predictable?
Why should the naturalist be able to assume that the same laws that apply here on earth also apply on , for example, the surface of the star Alpha Centauri?
Applying such assumptions has been overwhelmingly successful, but they are not assumptions that arise out of naturalism, but from the Bible.
If the universe had not been designed by God, then why should it obey any laws of nature?
Where did the laws of nature come from, and why do they obey logical mathematical relationships ?

----------


## Alrock

> .....Now I am not going to  insult you any more Flynn, and I would like to apologize to you now if I  have caused you any offence, I am not setting a good example of myself  as a Christian, even although this is cyberspace and I don't know Flynn,  I do realise that my behaviour is not acceptable. In all your posts you  have held firm to your belief in the theory of evolution and I respect  your right to hold those belief's, simply because I do not agree with  them does not mean that I should be insulting to you or anyone else....


I  don't think you would have offended.... When approaching anything from a  scientific perspective, questioning & doubt are more than welcome.  It is that questioning & doubt that drives science forward...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




> What reason do they have for expecting the universe  to be consistent and predictable?


Because it is run on mathematical rules that are consistent and predictable




> Why should the naturalist be able to assume that the same laws that apply here on earth also apply on , for example, the surface of the star Alpha Centauri?


See answer above




> Applying such assumptions has been overwhelmingly successful, but they are not assumptions that arise out of naturalism, but from the Bible.


Ehhh! Come again?




> If the universe had not been designed by God, then why should it obey any laws of nature?


See answer to first question again... & they are the laws of nature.




> Where did the laws of nature come from, and why do they obey logical mathematical relationships ?


They started at the Big Bang.... Maybe it was inevitable that they are what they are or maybe it was chance, but if they weren't right then we wouldn't be here to discuss such matters..... Maybe there are other universes out there with different laws of nature that are totally different to ours because of that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




> The original point of this thread was to suggest  that Atheists were more intelligent than people with faith or religious  belief's.......


I'll give you that one, there is no reason to assume that Atheists were more intelligent than people with faith or religious  belief's....

Maybe would be better to say that Atheists are more logical than people with faith or religious  belief's.... Can you give me a logical reason why anyone should believe in this God thing other than that it was written in a book with questionable origin, questionable editing & questionable translation?

----------


## bcsman

Wow maverick,next you will be telling us all you believe in talking snakes



> The original point of this thread was to suggest that Atheists were more intelligent than people with faith or religious belief's, there has been some very interesting comments along with the usual insults ( and I'm as guilty of that as anyone else). What I would like to do is to attempt, if I can, to put a Christian perspective on science, as opposed to a naturalist one.
> 
> I believe that Christianity provides the basis for certain scientific research.
> The Christian expects the universe to obey laws because God created those laws - the " ordinances of heaven and earth". (Jeremiah 33:25)
> The creationist expects that the laws of nature that applied yesterday will apply in the future as well; this is because God is consistent (Malachi 3:6) and does not arbitrarily change His mind ( Numbers 23:19 ).
> We expect the universe to be understandable, because God created it and He created us with the ability to reason (Isaiah 1:18) and understand.
> However, the naturalist cannot account for these properties of the universe.
> What reason do they have for expecting the universe  to be consistent and predictable?
> Why should the naturalist be able to assume that the same laws that apply here on earth also apply on , for example, the surface of the star Alpha Centauri?
> ...

----------


## M Swanson

> I haven't seen an episode of Lewis used as a defence of religion before!  The only way I can counter that is to tell you that Inspector Morse was an atheist!
> 
> But nah too middle class WASP-ish for me.  I prefer Sherlock .... oh wait that's middle-class WASP-ish too!  Still like it tho.
> 
> And yes, Pascal's Wager would make it more rational to believe in a God / Goddess / He whose name shall not be written ...


Well, I think you've completely missed the point, Neil. I didn't use 'Lewis,' as a "defence for religion." It reminded me of a point that hasn't been raised on the thread about how some folks, who declare themselves to be atheists, can change their beliefs in their final moments. As I said, I've witnessed, and (through my charity work,) still do witness, this on occasion. 

Also, because Morse, Lewis and that brilliant wordsmith Colin Dexter are all atheists, this particular programme didn't cast the religion in a very good light ........ so far!  :Smile:  That was definitely a move away from the norm. It seemed to fly in the face of everything that has gone before. 'Though I did notice, that when the DS was asked if he was a believer, he declined to answer, although the viewers all know that he is! It happens! It will be interesting to see how the scriptwriter unfolds the mystery.

Thanks for your input Neil. It's always good to have some fresh ideas!  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> I have'nt seen it so I'm afraid I can't help you with who the killer is !! I have seen similar things in documentaries about (of all things) mass murderers who amazingly find religion when they are on death row. As you know I can't comment about anybody else, but I was diagnosed with an incurable illness back in 2008, and I still consider myself an atheist, and I cannot see that changing. As morbid as this may sound, death does not frighten me, it never has. It could be the patients you encountered were scared of dying. Lets face it, it's a topic nobody likes discussing.


I'm so sorry to read of your illness, Cpt, but please don't think that I would begrudge you, or anyone else, the comfort of their chosen beliefs, at such a time. If atheism works for you then I couldn't be more delighted. All this thread has ever been about for me, is that believers are given the same respect, which I'm sure you would endorse yourself. I don't think it's "morbid," at all, to be unafraid of death. I think that's as good as it gets! If by sharing your thoughts, it helps one person to come to terms with their own reality, then that is a supreme act of giving. Yet again, my respect to you.

----------


## maverick

The argument between Atheism and Christianity will rage on.
Both require faith.
My own conclusion of evolution is that it didn't happen as the secular scientists would have us believe, the evidence so far suggests that human life must have had some help to develop (i.e created). The common denominator between Christianity and Atheism, creationism and evolution is belief.
I read somewhere that " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I feel this sentiment applies in both cases.
With that I must leave the party, it's been a blast or a big bang. 
Hope to catch up again sometime soon.

----------


## M Swanson

> The argument between Atheism and Christianity will rage on.
> Both require faith.
> My own conclusion of evolution is that it didn't happen as the secular scientists would have us believe, the evidence so far suggests that human life must have had some help to develop (i.e created). The common denominator between Christianity and Atheism, creationism and evolution is belief.
> I read somewhere that " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I feel this sentiment applies in both cases.
> With that I must leave the party, it's been a blast or a big bang. 
> Hope to catch up again sometime soon.


Yes, agreed Maverick. It's time to call it a day. Thanks to everyone for a good, lively debate and God bless you all!  ::

----------


## Slickly

It takes 271 posts for you to come to the rather obvious conclusion that you can't win an emotional argument with logic.

----------


## cptdodger

> I'm so sorry to read of your illness, Cpt, but please don't think that I would begrudge you, or anyone else, the comfort of their chosen beliefs, at such a time. If atheism works for you then I couldn't be more delighted. All this thread has ever been about for me, is that believers are given the same respect, which I'm sure you would endorse yourself. I don't think it's "morbid," at all, to be unafraid of death. I think that's as good as it gets! If by sharing your thoughts, it helps one person to come to terms with their own reality, then that is a supreme act of giving. Yet again, my respect to you.


It certainly takes a while to come to terms with an illness,you find you go through stages,  the first one being denial ! However, I'm at the stage now - why worry about something I can't change, so I suppose that's acceptance. And realistically speaking, there is only one certainty in life, and that is death.

 And I certainly do think that believers should be given the same respect. It would never enter my head to belittle somebody with religious convictions. If I have asked questions on this thread, it is because I genuinely did not know the answer (i.e Palestine and Israel) not to catch anybody out!! And as I said before, I have never thought to question evolution, I have always taken that as fact, I had no idea until reading this thread, people thought differently, but again, that's fine. I think people just have to learn to live together and accept that the other person may not share the same beliefs as they have, or do'nt have, as the case may be. But then, that's how I grew up, I was not shunned by my extended family because I was not religious, and I certainly did not shun them because they were. 

And although we are at different ends of the spectrum I respect your views, and thank you for respecting mine !

----------


## rob1

> Both require faith.


Atheism does NOT require faith.  Faith is the belief in god(s) and the teachings of religion without the need for evidence. That is not my opinon but the definition of the word "faith".  Atheism is simply the rejection in the belief of gods.

----------


## gleeber

It would be silly for anyone to reject God considering no one knows what happened before the big bang. If you believe the big bang ignited from nothing then that is an article of faith.

----------


## rob1

> It would be silly for anyone to reject God considering no one knows what happened before the big bang. If you believe the big bang ignited from nothing then that is an article of faith.


Sure, but if you want to apply that logic, then it would be silly to reject the notion that the universe was farted out by a giant Captain Kirk wouldn't it?  Clearly a load of poo.  But perhaps if i wrote this down, made a few rule, claimed to talk to the bum of Captain Kirk, said that if anyone who disobeyed the holy word that they would be assymilated into the borg and recruted a few vunrable people to spread the word then perhaps in a thousand years we will be worshipping that great gust of wind that emminated deep within the bowels of Capt. Kirk.

If someone that the big bang ignited from nothing then that is indeed faith.  I do not know what happened before the big bang, I will wait until those that are working on that question provide an answer.

----------


## gleeber

> People seem to get very upset by other people's beliefs. Sounds to me like quite a few are not quite as comfortable with their own as they would have _us_ believe.


No one can say where all this began. It's mind blowing to think about it.  For me religions a bit like mathematics. It fits into a wee niche somewhere in the overall scheme of things. Its a darn good fit too. So is science. It fits perfectly, almost.
Richard dawkins turned me onto science and turned me off scientists.   ::  That's a generalisation but there's plenty budding Dawkinses on the go. It's not God that bugs them, but religion.
Maybe Ducati has a point?

----------


## bcsman

Look at the Bible,God is a pretty angry,vindictive and judgemental guy who will send all non believers to an infinity of torture in hell for finite crimes.



> No one can say where all this began. It's mind blowing to think about it.  For me religions a bit like mathematics. It fits into a wee niche somewhere in the overall scheme of things. Its a darn good fit too. So is science. It fits perfectly, almost.
> Richard dawkins turned me onto science and turned me off scientists.   That's a generalisation but there's plenty budding Dawkinses on the go. It's not God that bugs them, but religion.
> Maybe Ducati has a point?

----------


## Flynn

> Originally Posted by flynn
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
>  from Flynn
> 
> ...


You seriously believe that hogwash? How do you find your way out of bed each day?

----------


## Flynn

> People seem to get very upset by other people's beliefs. Sounds to me like quite a few are not quite as comfortable with their own as they would have _us_ believe.


It's the wilful ignorance that disturbs me.

----------


## Flynn

> Did anyone watch Lewis tonight?  I know it's fiction, but my word it certainly struck a few chords. It portrayed a University lecturer teaching his young students of the irrationality (today's favourite buzz word for non-believers imo), of believing in God. One of the youngsters stated she didn't believe in God, but just prior to meeting a grizzly end, she asked the police officer to pray with her! You may think, so what? Well, if I hadn't witnessed this behaviour many, many times from dying patients, who considered themselves atheists prior to their final moments, I may too! As it is, it was a truthful account, of my own experiences. 
> 
> I haven't sussed who the killer is, so any ideas?


The use of 'irrationality' is reference to your denial of rational thought.

----------


## maverick

> You seriously believe that hogwash? How do you find your way out of bed each day?


 Dr Jason Lisle PHD in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado, debunks most of the accepted evolutionary ideas about astronomy, he gives some excellent explanations which debunk your starlight theory, I would quote some excerpts from his books here, but I would probably be infringing his copyrights in doing so, but you can always google him, or as a scientist youself I'm sure you will be familiar with his works. He also believes in hogwash and fairy stories as you put it, he is after all a Christian, and like myself has no problem getting out of his bed in the morning.
Then there is Dr Francis Collins, researcher into the Human Genome, who as it would happen, works for The National Human Genome Research Institute in the USA, a scientist who most likely has more academic qualifications in his hip pocket, than you will probably ever attain in your life time. He was a commited atheist, who set out to prove the non-existence of God, through the application of logical science to the problems of the existence of a Deity/ God or your defination ( genie in a book) he worked on the problem for several years and in the end became a Christian.
Albert Einstein, considered by many scientists, to be one of the greatest minds of the 20th centuary.
Einstein firmly denied atheism, he recognised the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Einsteins famous epithet on the " uncertainty principle" was, " God does not play dice"- and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed.
Although  Einstein was not a Christian, he had a great respect for Jesus, and recognised that he was an amazing figure in history, Einstein went on to say " I initially saw Jesus as a brilliant teacher when I read the Gospels for the first time at age 32"
This poses a question were Lisle, Collins and Einstein really wilfully ignorant, or maybe some need to sweep their own firesides first?


 Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind: Albert Einstein.

----------


## maverick

> This from someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and people were magicked out of mud by fairies.


Here is another post that shows not only your ignorance, but just how ignorant you are
.

----------


## Flynn

> Dr Jason Lisle PHD in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado,


The well known Creationist who believes the bible is literal from beginning to end. A fairy tale believer who is laughed at by real scientists.

----------


## M Swanson

Blimey! Flynn's a scientist? Now I've read everything.  :: 

I'd like to add this statement from a very eminent scientist and holder of a Nobel Prize.


“The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?”“Can a person be a scientist and a Christian? *Yes.* As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.”“God is the explanation for the miracle of existence.”_
-_ _Allan Sandage__, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner_

----------


## Flynn

> Here is another post that shows not only your ignorance, but just how ignorant you are
> .


You claim the bible is true from beginning to end, therefore you believe people were magicked out of mud by a giant sky fairy.

----------


## maverick

> Atheism does NOT require faith.  Faith is the belief in god(s) and the teachings of religion without the need for evidence. That is not my opinon but the definition of the word "faith".  Atheism is simply the rejection in the belief of gods.


 So you have no faith in the belief that science will one day prove that life arose naturally?
Funnily enough neither do I.

----------


## maverick

> You claim the bible is true from beginning to end, therefore you believe people were magicked out of mud by a giant sky fairy.


 It's my understanding that we are all made from the same stuff as stars, Einstein recognised the impossibility of a non-created universe.

----------


## maverick

> The well known Creationist who believes the bible is literal from beginning to end. A fairy tale believer who is laughed at by real scientists.


 I suppose Einstein and Collins are laughed at by real scientists too.

----------


## M Swanson

> So you have no faith in the belief that science will one day prove that life arose naturally?
> Funnily enough neither do I.


Nor me. As 'atheists,' have no proof that God didn't create the universe, then they are all joined by faith. It's a religion just like any other. It's the only 'rational,' explanation, isn't it?  :Grin:

----------


## maverick

> You claim the bible is true from beginning to end, therefore you believe people were magicked out of mud by a giant sky fairy.


I am sure that a man of your intelligence will be able to disprove the Bible, to claim something is not true you should first study it, even Einstein read the Gospels, but then he was a real scientist.

----------


## rob1

> So you have no faith in the belief that science will one day prove that life arose naturally?
> Funnily enough neither do I.


Now you get it!

----------


## maverick

> Nor me. As 'atheists,' have no proof that God didn't create the universe, then they are all joined by faith. It's a religion just like any other. It's the only 'rational,' explanation, isn't it?


 That's about as rational a statement as you can make about rational people like atheists who are all joined by their rational belief that God does not exist!
 Are they in for a rude awakening.

----------


## M Swanson

::  Rob. But unfortunately, I don't believe you do! Read the post again, please.  ::

----------


## maverick

> Now you get it!


 I got that a long time ago.

A wise man once said " education is wasted on fools!"

----------


## Flynn

> That's about as rational a statement as you can make about rational people like atheists who are all joined by their rational belief that God does not exist!
>  Are they in for a rude awakening.


I'm still waiting for any of you lot with voices in your heads to show one shred of proof that this imaginary giant sky fairy exists.

----------


## Flynn

> I got that a long time ago.
> 
> A wise man once said " education is wasted on fools!"


For it to be wasted you first have to have had it. Creationists have clearly not had any education, preferring to invent fairy tales.

----------


## Alrock

> Dr Jason Lisle PHD in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado, debunks most of the accepted evolutionary ideas about astronomy, he gives some excellent explanations which debunk your starlight theory, I would quote some excerpts from his books here, but *I would probably be infringing his copyrights in doing so*...


No... that should be fine, it's called "Fair Use", allows you to quote copyrighted works to allow you to comment on them.

----------


## gleeber

> Dr Jason Lisle PHD in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado, debunks most of the accepted evolutionary ideas about astronomy, he gives some excellent explanations which debunk your starlight theory, 
> 
>  Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind: Albert Einstein.


Are you a young earth creationist maverick? I cant get my head around that any more than Dr Lisle can get his head around that his grandad was a monkey.  :: 
Maybe your not though. Maybe your a picknmix. Most of us are.

----------


## maverick

> For it to be wasted you first have to have had it. Creationists have clearly not had any education, preferring to invent fairy tales.


as much as would like to I can't take any credit for the Bible, but if this is the best retort you have, might try reading some of the Bible before you dismiss it as evidence of God's existence, put that education of yours to some use, you clearly feel that you have some superior intellect. 
Let's consider some facts, there are and have been 1000's of scientists in the world, who have been Christians, who have and are blazing a trail in the scientific communities, whose works have stood the test of time, whom you should consider to be your fellow comerades, yet you do neither yourself or them any credit by claiming that they were or are intellectually inferior because they are Christians.

----------


## maverick

> Are you a young earth creationist maverick? I cant get my head around that any more than Dr Lisle can get his head around that his grandad was a monkey. 
> Maybe your not though. Maybe your a picknmix. Most of us are.


 dont you worry about getting your head around anything, is pick'n'mix no in the co-op for 30 bob a tub.

----------


## maverick

Perhaps this could be something of a consideration.http://www.gradresources.org/worldvi..._for_god.shtml

----------


## gleeber

> Perhaps this could be something of a consideration.http://www.gradresources.org/worldvi..._for_god.shtml


I dont need convinced there may be a creator. Theres evidence all around. Science doesnt say there isnt a God, only scientists. Dr Lisle is a well known creationist and his particulars give him a degree of authority.  I find his take on evolution puzzling. He appears to be in complete denial. He doesnt do the image for God any good for people like me. His thing is religion just like Richard Dawkins. Their both tarred with the same brush.

----------


## M Swanson

> I dont need convinced there may be a creator. Theres evidence all around. Science doesnt say there isnt a God, only scientists. Dr Lisle is a well known creationist and his particulars give him a degree of authority.  I find his take on evolution puzzling. He appears to be in complete denial. He doesnt do the image for God any good for people like me. His thing is religion just like Richard Dawkins. Their both tarred with the same brush.


Isn't it ironic, that the champion of atheism, doesn't believe in it?  Yet, a large chunk of his estimated fortune of £100 Million, has come from a theory he knows can't be proven. Have you read, 'The God Delusion,' Gleeber? It's the biggest load of silly suppositions and total irrelevances I've ever read. Any old nonsense was used as padding. I can't believe anyone could take it seriously. How can any fool expect to convince somebody that believing in God is delusional, when they believe there's a chance that He did create the universe? It's irrational, but lucrative, of course.

----------


## gleeber

> Isn't it ironic, that the champion of atheism, doesn't believe in it?  Yet, a large chunk of his estimated fortune of £100 Million, has come from a theory he knows can't be proven. Have you read, 'The God Delusion,' Gleeber? It's the biggest load of silly suppositions and total irrelevances I've ever read. Any old nonsense was used as padding. I can't believe anyone could take it seriously. How can any fool expect to convince somebody that believing in God is delusional, when they believe there's a chance that He did create the universe? It's irrational, but lucrative, of course.


Ive read it. Mind you I'm an agnostic. he may be right  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> Ive read it. Mind you I'm an agnostic. he may be right


Ah! But you're right - he could be wrong, too!   ::  That would be in keeping with his thinking!  :Wink:

----------


## Alrock

> Perhaps this could be something of a consideration.http://www.gradresources.org/worldvi..._for_god.shtml





> *A.  The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.* 
> 
>     I will begin by laying out the argument:  
> 
> 1. There are things which come into existence.Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence.  In other words, the first cause always existed.


Now that is Baloney.... 
If "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else" then what caused your God to come into existence?
But "Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence.  In other words, the first cause always existed.".... Is he saying that God has always existed despite the previous statement?
If it's possible for God to have always existed then why not the Universe?

----------


## Rheghead

> If it's possible for God to have always existed then why not the Universe?


May be the Universe _is_ the God that people seek?

----------


## Trajan

I think you need to read this we selection:all from the bible people quote so much, which is why i dont believe in any gods and there are more than one in said book,why worship such pure evil behaviour, suppose its your right to be a satanist if you want.

The BIBLE teaches RAPE
It's ok to rape Women, as long as you pay (Their Father)
[Deuteronomy 22:28-29] (Note the verse says "IF he is caught")
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." 

The Bible God loves to kill human babies
[Psalms 137:9]
"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."

God commands Killing children and unborn babies for not loving him. 
(Who in their right mind can love this maniac?)
[Hosea 13:16]
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

More Rape and Baby Killing Ordered by God
[Isaiah 13:15-18]
"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children."

Beat Your Children to save them from evil magic
[Proverbs 23:13-14]
"Withhold not chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with a rod he will not die. Beat him with the rod, and you will save him from the nether world."

The Bible teaches slavery<---This is for you, african american Xtians, I feel sad for you.
[Titus 2:9-10]
Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them or stealing from them, but exhibiting completely good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slave Beating<----How much of an idiot you need to be to believe in this religion?
[Exodus 21:20-21]
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." 

Slaves Should Obey Their Masters
[Colossians 3:22]
"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord."

Beat Your Slaves 
[Proverbs 29:19]
"By words no servant can be trained; for he understands what is said, but obeys not" 

Does God, take away womens rights? (This one is for you silly religious gals!)
Women's right to speak, or hold authority over a man denied
[Timothy 11-12]
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (Sorry girls haha!)

The Xtian God likes incest?
The Bible teaches incest, here, it looks as if Abraham is on a roll, human sacrifice and incest?
[Genesis 20:11-12] 
Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.

OWNED by your OWN little sick Book.

----------


## Trajan

The Biblical God Is Evil :: 
                                                                                                                                     (Do You Define Your God By These Deeds?)

I, the Lord, make peace and I create evil.God repented of the evil He thought to do to His people.God brings upon you all evil things.God sent an evil spirit.God sent Saul an evil spirit.God said: I will raise up evil against you out of your own house.God brought upon them all this evil.God will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam.God has spoken evil concerning you.Behold, this evil is of the LORD.I God am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah.God said: Behold, I will bring evil upon this place.God said: I will bring evil upon this place and the inhabitants.God said: I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.God said: Hear and behold, I will bring evil upon this people.God said: I will bring evil upon them.God said: For, lo, I begin to bring evil.God will bring evil upon Judah and all Jerusalem.God said: I will bring evil upon all flesh.God said: I will bring evil upon them in my fierce anger.Out of the mouth of God proceeds not evil and good?They showed Job sympathy for all the evil that God brought him.Did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?Evil came down from God.God said: Against this family do I devise an evil.God said: I am planning an evil against this race.Shall there be evil in a city; the Lord hath not done it?God said: I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do.*
Thomas Paine*: "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."

----------


## Trajan

*God's Lies & Deception*
The Lord said I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.God said: I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets.The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of thy prophets.Oh Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived.God sends a strong delusion to make them believe what is false.God killed / drowned all but 8 Human Beings and a boat-load of animals.God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.God killed Lot's wife, mother of 2 virgins, by turning her into a pillar of salt.God killed Onan who refused to knock-up his sister-in-law.God killed by hail every man that was outdoors.God killed all of Egypt's firstborn.God drowned the Egyptian army.God directed how to sell your daughter.God wants all killed who curse their father & mother.God condoned the killing of slaves.God directed to kill witches.God ordered to murder any who sacrificed to another God.God wants the first-born of your sons.God wants the first-born of animals sacrificed to Him.God said: Obey Me, do what I say, I will hate and murder your enemies.God ordered: Who dares to work on the Sabbath day shall be murdered.God had Moses to slay 3,000 of their own relatives.God murdered two of Aaron's sons by fire.Bare your heads or tear your clothes and God will murder you.Anyone unclean defiling Gods dwelling, God will murder.God ordered: Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death.God commands: If you commit adultery, you shall be put to death.If a man has sex with his father's wife shall be put to death.God ordered: If a man has sex with his daughter-in-law, murder them both.God commands to murder gay men.God commanded: If a man marries a woman and her mother, murder all 3.God commanded: If a man has sex with an animal, murder both of them.God commanded: Murder women who have sex with animals.God commanded: If a man or woman acts as a fortuneteller, murder them.God ordered: A priest's daughter who fornicates - burn her to death.God said: Any one with a handicap shall not profane God's sanctuary.God commands: Obey my rules or I will murder you.God ordered an Israelite who and blasphemed God's name murdered.God ordered the whole community murder a man.God said: I brought the Israelites out of Egypt and they are My slaves.Slaves, male and female you may indeed possess.God said: If you disobey Me, I will make you eat your sons and daughters.God said: I will have them eat their sons and daughters.God said: Fathers shall eat sons and sons shall eat fathers.God said: Murder any stranger who comes near God's dwelling.God documented: I murdered all the first-born in Egypt. I am God.God claimed whom He would murder if they look at sacred objects.God can't stand sick, suffering people.The people complained, so God murdered many of them.God made them eat meat until they died.God said: I will murder all who saw what I did in Egypt but who still don't obey Me.God saved people from Egypt and later murdered those who did not believe.God told Moses: You, and all out of Egypt over 20, shall die in the desert.God murdered men who gave a bad report about The Promised Land.Caleb and Joshua were the only 2 God spared of 600,000 infantry. CatholicGod ordered to murder a man found gathering sticks on The Sabbath.250 Israelite leaders disobeyed Moses. God burned them all alive.Israelites complained against Moses. God murdered 14,700.

----------


## Trajan

God ordered: Any layman coming near the alter will deserve murder.God sent poisonous snakes against His people. They were bitten and died.God said: I command the serpent and he shall bite them.God ordered Moses to kill all the King's people and to take their land.God said: I would have murdered you - but I would have spared your ass.God stopped killing after murdering 24,000 more of His chosen.God ordered Moses: Treat the Midianites as enemies. Crush them.God murdered all males, mothers and babies and kept the 32,000 virgins.God made the Israelites wander 40 years in the desert til they all died. God: Drive them out or I will do to you what I thought to do to them.38 years later, God had murdered the whole generation of soldiers.God: Begin murdering. Provoke war. I will make all nations fear you.God destroyed all men, women, and little ones. God left no survivor.God delivered Og and we killed all the men, women and children of 60 cities.Moses said: God is angry. I will die, not make it to The Promised Land.God commanded: If you make a statue / image, you will be destroyed.Without pity, murder all the people who God delivers to you.God will send hornets to destroy your enemies. Kill nations little by little.Like nations God destroys, you shall be murdered, if you do not obey God.God, a consuming fire, will subdue them so that you can murder them quickly.God said: You shall destroy / murder places God chooses.If brother, son, daughter, wife, friend entices you to other gods - kill them.If a city serves other Gods - murder the city.God ordered: Murder any man or woman who worships the Sun / Moon.God said: At an execution, the witnesses kills first and then all join in.God said: Any who doesn't listen to God's priests / Judges shall be murdered.God said: The cities I give you, you must murder them all.God ordered: If a father has a stubborn, rebellious son, murder the son.God ordered: If a father has a stubborn, rebellious son, murder the boy.God ordered: If the tokens of virginity be not found in a girl, murder her.God ordered: If a man has sex with a married woman, murder them both.God commanded: If a man has sex with a betrothed virgin, murder them.God ordered: If a man rapes a virgin he must marry, never divorce her.God will defeat every enterprise you undertake until you are destroyed.God will make disease attach to you until you are murdered.God shall murder you by consumption, inflammation, fever, burning, sword.God will make your land powder and dust until you die.God will cause your enemies to murder you.God said: They will eat your animals and crops until you are destroyed.You will eat your own sons and daughters for food.

God said: The most delicate woman will eat her afterbirth and her infant.God said: I will make my arrows drunk with blood.They didn't obey God to murder all men, women, children. God destroyed them.God ordered Joshua's army to slaughtered men, women and children.A'chan took war-spoils. God burned A'chan and his children.God tells Joshua to murder the city of A'I, to take its spoils, livestock as booty.God said to Joshua: When you have taken the city, set it on fire. God murders, by ambush, all 12,000 men and women and hanged their King.God slew cities. Victims fled, God cast down great stones from Heaven.Joshua ordered God make the Sun to stand still to finish God's killing.5 kings remained alive Prisoners Of War. God's Joshua killed the POWs.Joshua and God slaughtered the cities person leaving no survivors.God hardened the hearts of the people God wanted killed for their land.Joshua captured and murdered over 30 countries and their Kings.

----------


## Trajan

God boasted: Then I, God, sent Moses and Aaron and murdered Egypt.God said: I gave you land that you did not till and cities you did not build.God slew 10,000 and cut off Adonibek's thumbs and big toes.Shamgar (God's savior) slew 600 Philistines.God murdered 120,000 men that drew sword.Abimelech, God's chosen, murdered his 70 brothers.The anger of God was hot against Israel and God sold Israel out.God had Jephthah kill 20 cities and his 13-year-old daughter sacrificed.Israelites offended God. God sold-out the Israelites to Philistines for 40 years.God had Samson born and he become a weapon to murder the Philistines.God inspired Samson to murder 30 men for their tunics to pay off his debt.God released Samson's hands to murder 1,000 men.Samson killed men and women bringing down the temple and died himself.God had His Israelites attacked Laish, a quiet and trusting people.Israelites asked God: Should I again war with my brother? God said yes.The 2nd time, God had the Benjamites kill another 18,000 Israelites.Israelites offered sacrifice. God said: Attack. I will deliver them to you.On the 3rd day the Israelis killed 25,100 Benjamites.Israelites murdered Benjamite cities. They destroyed, by fire, all their cities.God ordered 12,000 soldiers to murder women and children.Except for 400 virgins, God murdered all the Benjamite women.God kills, and makes alive. God makes the rich and the poor.God's priests had sexual relations with women. God put them to death.God had the enemy Philistines murder about 4,000 Israelites.God killed 30,000 more Israelites and His 2 bad priests.God slaughtered 50,070 men who looked into the Arc of God.God said: Smite Amalek, utterly destroy both man, woman, babies and suckling.King Saul killed but spared King Agag. God regretted having made Saul King.God's prophet said: Saul, murder them. Why have you disobeyed God?Samuel said to Saul: You rejected God's command to murder them all.Samuel cut King Agag to pieces. God regretted having made Saul King.God's chosen David murders and circumcises 200 Philistines.God said: Attack the Philistines! I will deliver them to you.Uzzah guided the tipping Arc of God. God murdered Uzzah.God told David: I have murdered your enemies before you.David knocked-up Uriah's wife, Bathsheba and ordered Uriah murdered.David shall not die. God, instead, murdered David's & Bathsheba's baby.God told David to choose of 3 punishments. God murdered 70,000 Israelites.God used a destroying Angel to murder 70,000 men.God had His prophet, Elijah, murder 450 prophets of Baal.God caused a lion to kill His prophet's companion.God had two she bears tear 42 of the children to pieces.God kills and God makes alive.God sent lions to kill people who did not know how to sacrifice to God.God's (Death) Angel murdered 185,000 Assyrians.God said to Satan: You enticed / moved / tempted Me to ruin Job without cause.God, who smote great nations and slew mighty Kings.God inspired: Happy is he that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.God said: Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers.God said: Cursed be he who holds back his sword from blood.God said: Slaughter and doom them. Do all that I commanded you.God said: With you, My weapon of war, I will murder man, wife, old and young.God said: Fathers shall eat sons, sons shall eat fathers.God said: I will rob you of your children. I have jealousy, anger and fury.God said: Slay old, young, maids, little children and women. Wipe them out.God said: All souls / lives are Mine. All sinners shall die.God: I gave them statutes and ordinances that were not good so they could not live.God: I let them sacrifice their first-born. I smell children passing through fire.In sacrifice, the fragrance of the burning fat is God's.I claim the first fruits of your offerings. As a pleasing odor, I accept you.God: I pour out My wrath on you. I hand you over. You shall be fuel for the fire.God said: I will let loose My jealousy against you, they will cut off your nose and your ears.God said: Hack them to pieces and slay their sons and daughters.God said: Know I am God when I wreak My vengeance. Daughters shall be slaughtered.

----------


## Trajan

God: I will bring against you enemies that will murder you. I, God, inflict punishments.God said: I gave Egypt to him (Moses) so they will know I am God.God said: They shall know that I am God when I set fire to Egypt and break all who help her.God said: My command to terrify unsuspecting Ethiopia is coming. I shall put an end of Egypt.God said: You shall have flesh to eat and blood to drink until you are drunk.God said: Little ones - dash to pieces and expectant mothers - rip open.God said: I loved Jacob but hated Esau.It is written: Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.God said: I will corrupt your seed and spread dung () upon your faces.God: The day is coming, all the proud evildoers will be set on fire, murdered.God and / or Peter murdered Ananias and Sapphira for not giving all their money.*Jesus Christ* said:My enemies, would not have Me be King over them, bring them before Me & slay them.The Son of Man / *Jesus Christ* said: "I will kill her children".

thanks but no thanks for your god of the bible,nuff said, me thinks a madman,devil in disguise,
 jesus surely took after his mother ehh :Wink:

----------


## Trajan

http://www.thegodmurders.com for anyone who is interested :: 


*Amen and Amen-Ra, Egyptian Gods, funny how the lords prayer ends in amen the jews stole everything including their belief systems from ancient egypt and babylonia, some palestinians would say some things never change, poor beggars.*

----------


## Flynn

> as much as would like to I can't take any credit for the Bible, but if this is the best retort you have, might try reading some of the Bible before you dismiss it as evidence of God's existence, put that education of yours to some use, you clearly feel that you have some superior intellect. 
> Let's consider some facts, there are and have been 1000's of scientists in the world, who have been Christians, who have and are blazing a trail in the scientific communities, whose works have stood the test of time, whom you should consider to be your fellow comerades, yet you do neither yourself or them any credit by claiming that they were or are intellectually inferior because they are Christians.


Primitive men sitting down thousands of years ago and writing stories about giant genies in the sky to try to explain things they had no comprehension of is not 'evidence', it's stories, mythology. Note I said men, because every single word of the bible was written by men. None of it was written by any supernatural being. How are you not understanding this? Just writing something down does not make it true. It has to be backed up with actual concrete evidence.

And if your 'god' loves all equally as you people regularly claim, why was none of the bible written by women? Why are the major religions inherently misogynistic? Does this mythological creature love men more than women? Here's one, when the punishment for adultery is death by stoning which is better: admit adultery or claim an 'angel' did the impregnating and hope to get away with claiming 'divine' intervention and a virgin birth?

Maybe I should disappear up a mountain and a few years later reappear saying a 'god' had been speaking to me and that everyone should heed my word. Would you believe me? I think not.

----------


## Flynn

> Have you read, 'The God Delusion,' Gleeber? It's the biggest load of silly suppositions and total irrelevances I've ever read. Any old nonsense was used as padding.


Much like the bible then.

----------


## M Swanson

If that's your opinion, Flynn, then fine. Whatever helps you get through your day, is all right with me.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> If that's your opinion, Flynn, then fine. Whatever helps you get through your day, is all right with me.


I see you ignore Trajan's posts.

----------


## golach

> If that's your opinion, Flynn, then fine. Whatever helps you get through your day, is all right with me.


Got to agree with this post, this thread has become a bore now IMHO

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.thegodmurders.com for anyone who is interested
> 
> 
> *Amen and Amen-Ra, Egyptian Gods, funny how the lords prayer ends in amen the jews stole everything including their belief systems from ancient egypt and babylonia, some palestinians would say some things never change, poor beggars.*


The thing that is interesting is that early Christian Art, apocryphal texts and the Bible depict stories that mirror other stories in much older stories like the Gilgamesh epic, Roman and Greek mythology.  The stories have evolved over time.  Jesus is identified as Apollo in one example with a wand.  

Several meetings over the last 2000 years in the Church have chucked out and changed texts, the Bible has been translated and relaunched a number of times until we get the one now.

----------


## Trajan

thanks for the reply rheg, early christian art is actually late roman era art , or byzantine , depending on where you were in the roman world,, and thanks for pointing out how the jesus story is just a pure copy of earlier god stories, born of a virgin etc,the resurrection story etc,,, one thing that always got me was, jesus sacrificed himself for us, dying a horrible death on a cross,,
but i cant see any kind of sacrifice for mankind ,as the man jesus knew he would be alive and in perfect health 3 days later,, thats a big sacrifice,, my erse it is,,
anyway have a look at this link ,i admired the man g carlin  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo

----------


## Flynn

> Got to agree with this post, this thread has become a bore now IMHO


Don't read it then. Simple really, no?

----------


## cptdodger

I have a question, for the people on this thread who are religious. I take it we all agree that Richard Branson is the Chairman and founder of the Virgin Group? And although maybe people do not agree with his work ethics, or practices, as I said, nobody will disagree with me it is fact that he founded the company. My question is this - If God created the universe, heaven and earth and animals and so on, why is it then, we do not all accept this as fact. If we are made in God's image, then why do we not all look the same? And also, if Jesus is the son of God, then why is the whole world not Christian?

----------


## gleeber

I have a question for the atheists on this thread. If there's no creator where did we all come from before evolution kicked in?  ::

----------


## Kodiak

> I have a question for the atheists on this thread. If there's no creator where did we all come from before evolution kicked in?


A Lot of people believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis.

----------


## gleeber

> A Lot of people believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis.


I can go along with that myself Kodiak but the earth was already a couple of billion years old before that happened and the universe was about 13 billion years. I meant before the big bang.  ::

----------


## Alrock

Another daft question....




> I have a question for the atheists on this thread. If there's no creator *where did we all come from before evolution kicked in?*


We weren't here before evolution kicked in so how could we come from somewhere? 
That's like asking where Ford Escorts came from before the invention of the internal combustion engine....

----------


## gleeber

So there was nothing before the big bang? We just self ignited from knowhere?

----------


## Alrock

> So there was nothing before the big bang? We just self ignited from knowhere?


That's not what you asked... You asked "where did *we* all come from before *evolution* kicked in?". Nothing about the big bang, but since you have now asked.... We simply don't yet know what came before the big bang but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it was a hyper-intelligent supernatural thing who on a whim decided to poof it into existence.....

But.... Even on the extremely slight chance that it was poofed into existence by a hyper-intelligent supernatural thing, how does that tie in with your "God" who supposedly poofed the whole universe & everything in it into existence over a period of 6 days about 6000 years ago?

----------


## gleeber

> That's not what you asked... You asked "where did *we* all come from before *evolution* kicked in?". Nothing about the big bang, but since you have now asked.... We simply don't yet know what came before the big bang but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it was a hyper-intelligent supernatural thing who on a whim decided to poof it into existence.....
> 
> But.... Even on the extremely slight chance that it was poofed into existence by a hyper-intelligent supernatural thing, how does that tie in with your "God" who supposedly poofed the whole universe & everything in it into existence over a period of 6 days about 6000 years ago?


You really must try and keep up Alrock. ::

----------


## Alrock

> You really must try and keep up Alrock.


Ehhh!!!!.....

----------


## cptdodger

> I have a question for the atheists on this thread. If there's no creator where did we all come from before evolution kicked in?


I was'nt being flippant, I was just asking, why we do not all automatically believe in God, if that, as you say is fact? As for, where did we all come from before evolution kicked in? we did'nt exist before evolution.

----------


## Corrie 3

I have been following this thread since it started but could not reply as I was "put out to grass"...(Suspended)!
I am not going to get involved in the arguments but I am more concerned of where we go when we die rather than worry about where we came from. Anyone have any views other than the old Heaven/Hell theory?

C3.

----------


## gleeber

> I was'nt being flippant, I was just asking, why we do not all automatically believe in God, if that, as you say is fact? As for, where did we all come from before evolution kicked in? we did'nt exist before evolution.


OK. I was being flippant i an attempt to keep the flavour of the thread humourous.
Evolution/nature/time/space all started the instant of the big bang. Anything could have happened before that and I believe the chances it was created is as good a guess as it wasnt. I believe that and that's why I'm an agnostic.

----------


## Alrock

> .....I am more concerned of where we go when we die rather than worry about where we came from. Anyone have any views other than the old Heaven/Hell theory?
> 
> C3.


We just simply cease to exist, nothing more, nothing less.... A difficult concept for some to get their head around, the logical conclusion to that is that life is really pointless (even more so than the Castletown carpark... lol). So in their unwillingness to accept such an idea they dream a God up & an afterlife to give it some meaning & a point.

ps. Welcome back Corrie, try not to get suspended again... lol

----------


## cptdodger

> I have been following this thread since it started but could not reply as I was "put out to grass"...(Suspended)!
> I am not going to get involved in the arguments but I am more concerned of where we go when we die rather than worry about where we came from. Anyone have any views other than the old Heaven/Hell theory?
> 
> C3.


I would imagine, that would come down to whether you have a faith or not, and what that faith has taught you. Personally speaking as an "atheist" I believe when somebody dies, that's it, end of.

----------


## cptdodger

> OK. I was being flippant i an attempt to keep the flavour of the thread humourous.
> Evolution/nature/time/space all started the instant of the big bang. Anything could have happened before that and I believe the chances it was created is as good a guess as it wasnt. I believe that and that's why I'm an agnostic.


Apologies, I thought you thought I was having a dig at religion, and I really was'nt.

----------


## Corrie 3

> Personally speaking as an "atheist" I believe when somebody dies, that's it, end of.


Thats how I  feel but what bugs me is that we cant be sure can we?

C3.

----------


## M Swanson

> I have a question, for the people on this thread who are religious. I take it we all agree that Richard Branson is the Chairman and founder of the Virgin Group? And although maybe people do not agree with his work ethics, or practices, as I said, nobody will disagree with me it is fact that he founded the company. My question is this - If God created the universe, heaven and earth and animals and so on, why is it then, we do not all accept this as fact. If we are made in God's image, then why do we not all look the same? And also, if Jesus is the son of God, then why is the whole world not Christian?


Well, I don't know how those of the atheist faith would answer this, but here are my opinions, for what they're worth. Not everybody believes in God, 'tis true, but we were given the freedom to choose to believe, or not. I don't see any problem with that. Can I say as a matter of fact that God created the Universe? No, nobody can prove it either way. I believe, through my faith, that He did and I am more than content with that. It would seem that a few atheists on here are a little uncertain, to my way of thinking. I believe we are all made in God's image, inasmuch as we take the human form - a biological blueprint - but we have many differences too. And I thank God for them. 'Though, I wouldn't have minded swapping places with Elizabeth Taylor! I'm sure I could have kept Richard Burton happy. Maybe next time down!  ::  Hope some of this makes sense, Cpt.

----------


## Alrock

> Thats how I  feel but what bugs me is that we cant be sure can we?
> 
> C3.


Look at it like this.... Even if a God did create the Universe & an afterlife then that is not the God of the Bible (or any other religion) as we have no way of knowing who this God is & what he wants, so just live your life as if that is it, when it's done it is done. Then if there is no afterlife you won't be disappointed (not that you'd be capable of disappointment) & if there is then you will be pleasantly surprised.

----------


## Alrock

> ....I believe we are all made in God's image.....


The thing that bothers me about that statement is that vanity is supposedly a sin, yet creating a race of people in your own image strikes me as the ultimate vanity, just how much more vain can you get?
Or is it us that are the vain ones by assuming that we are so great that God must be just like us.

----------


## M Swanson

> Thats how I  feel but what bugs me is that we cant be sure can we?
> 
> C3.


You're 100% correct, Corrie. Nothing can be proven, either way. It's faith that holds the key for the individual, be it the Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or any other religion you care to name. Only you can find the answer within yourself. I care not what religion anyone is, past hoping that it brings them the peace and comfort my religion brings me.  :: 

BTW. Welcome to the thread. New ideas are always refreshing.

----------


## Trajan

but we were given the freedom to choose to believe or not,, 
what a heap of tosh yahweh or jehovah gives no freedom of choice,what about the freedom of choice in the old testament m swanson, all those people slain didnt see any freedom of choice did they :: 
massacred for trying to have freedom of choice, gods ,tyrants and evil men dont give choices, do as i say or else, is the message from your god. read your bible ::

----------


## M Swanson

> The thing that bothers me about that statement is that vanity is supposedly a sin, yet creating a race of people in your own image strikes me as the ultimate vanity, just how much more vain can you get?
> Or is it us that are the vain ones by assuming that we are so great that God must be just like us.


Oh! Strewth! "Vanity?" What are you chuntering on about now, Al? You don't even believe in God, so how can you be responsible for assuming anything, about someone who doesn't exist. Carly Simon had a hit with, "You're So Vain." I don't think for one moment she was referring to you or ............. me! Do you?  :Grin:  Sorry to digress, but you do come up with some rats' nonkers at times!  ::

----------


## Flynn

> Well, I don't know how those of the atheist faith would answer this, but here are my opinions, for what they're worth. Not everybody believes in God, 'tis true, but we were given the freedom to choose to believe, or not. I don't see any problem with that. Can I say as a matter of fact that God created the Universe? No, nobody can prove it either way. I believe, through my faith, that He did and I am more than content with that. It would seem that a few atheists on here are a little uncertain, to my way of thinking. I believe we are all made in God's image, inasmuch as we take the human form - a biological blueprint - but we have many differences too. And I thank God for them. 'Though, I wouldn't have minded swapping places with Elizabeth Taylor! I'm sure I could have kept Richard Burton happy. Maybe next time down!  Hope some of this makes sense, Cpt.


There is no atheist 'faith'. How many times do you need to be told that? If a person doesn't believe something exists, that's not an act of faith at all.

When animals die, that's it, they end, they cease to exist. We are just animals that talk. When we die it's over, that's it. We either rot in the ground or we disappear up a chimney, and there is as much awareness of that oblivion as we had of it before we were conceived.

----------


## Alrock

> rats' nonkers


lol.... Just like to throw in the occasional curve ball....

----------


## M Swanson

> but we were given the freedom to choose to believe or not,, 
> what a heap of tosh yahweh or jehovah gives no freedom of choice,what about the freedom of choice in the old testament m swanson, all those people slain didnt see any freedom of choice did they
> massacred for trying to have freedom of choice, gods ,tyrants and evil men dont give choices, do as i say or else, is the message from your god. read your bible


So, if you're right about no freedom of choice, then you're a believer in God? Welcome to my world and peace be with you Trajan!  :: 

But you're right about evil men, like the atheists, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot giving men no choice. We all know the choices they made! Not in the name of God, of course!  :Wink:

----------


## Flynn

> So, if you're right about no freedom of choice, then you're a believer in God? Welcome to my world and peace be with you Trajan! 
> 
> But you're right about evil men, like the atheists, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot giving men no choice. We all know the choices they made! Not in the name of God, of course!




Not in the name of atheism either. Actually Hitler was quite a devout Catholic, and the motto on the Nazi uniforms and equipment was Gott Mit Uns. Then there's Pope Sixtus IV who set off the Spanish Inquisitions, or Pope Urban II who started the centuries of bloodshed called the Crusades, and those WERE in the name of 'god'. Or how about the Spanish conquest of South America were untold thousands of south American natives were slaughtered in the name of 'god'?

----------


## M Swanson

> lol.... Just like to throw in the occasional curve ball....


LOL. I'd never forgive you if you didn't Al. It all adds to the fun.  ::

----------


## Trajan

hitler was a roman catholic ,, stalin just another madman who thought he was a god ,,
and read your bible where is there freedom of choice for anyone opposing yahweh.

----------


## Alrock

> LOL. I'd never forgive you if you didn't Al. It all adds to the fun.


OK.... How about this one.... Assuming that God does exist, we have no way of really knowing what he wants since we cant exactly have a proper conversation with him. Maybe, being the shy & humble being that he is he doesn't want all this fuss & praise  made of him & it is those who follow an organised religion to praise him that really pisses him off & it is them that will get banished to hell upon death whilst us atheists are the ones that will rise up to heaven.

----------


## cptdodger

> hitler was a roman catholic ,, stalin just another madman who thought he was a god ,,
> and read your bible where is there freedom of choice for anyone opposing yahweh.


This is getting confusing, I have just looked up who this character yahweh, is and according to wikipedia - " The Bible describes Yahweh as the god who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments," Is that another name for Moses then ?

----------


## M Swanson

> OK.... How about this one.... Assuming that God does exist, we have no way of really knowing what he wants since we cant exactly have a proper conversation with him. Maybe, being the shy & humble being that he is he doesn't want all this fuss & praise  made of him & it is those who follow an organised religion to praise him that really pisses him off & it is them that will get banished to hell upon death whilst us atheists are the ones that will rise up to heaven.


Nah! I'd put this one in the same nonkers category as the last one, Al.  :Wink:   For someone who professes not to believe in God's existence, you sure have plenty to say about Him. He's quite taken over your life. Get a grip man!  ::

----------


## Flynn

> This is getting confusing, I have just looked up who this character yahweh, is and according to wikipedia - " The Bible describes Yahweh as the god who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments," Is that another name for Moses then ?


No, that was Charlton Heston. He made monkeys talk too.

----------


## Trajan

Jehovah, Yahveh, Yehowah all the same god, just variants of the same name

----------


## M Swanson

> hitler was a roman catholic ,, stalin just another madman who thought he was a god ,,
> and read your bible where is there freedom of choice for anyone opposing yahweh.


Nope! On the lead-up to his barbaric campaign, Hitler was an atheist! We've done this before. Do keep up!  :Grin:

----------


## Flynn

> Nope! On the lead-up to his barbaric campaign, Hitler was an atheist! We've done this before. Do keep up!


It doesn't matter how many times you state that untruth it won't become true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler

It's a common tactic of theists to claim Hitler was an atheist - even though it is patently untrue - it's their equivalent of Godwin's Law.

----------


## Trajan

well what about the run up to yahwehs barbaric campaigns in the OT was he an atheist as he didnt believe in any gods but himself, and he killed a lot more than hitler,
and hitler was a roman catholic in private he just did not advertise the fact, for obvious reasons, he was also part jewish ,, how ironic

----------


## Trajan

and can you answer me on the freedom of choice question pretty please

----------


## Trajan

your yahweh is just a man an evil man, him and hitler had a lot in common ,, my way or the highway ,,lol

----------


## cptdodger

> well what about the run up to yahwehs barbaric campaigns in the OT was he an atheist as he didnt believe in any gods but himself, and he killed a lot more than hitler,
> and hitler was a roman catholic in private he just did not advertise the fact, for obvious reasons, he was also part jewish ,, how ironic


I must admit, I was told a few years back, there were Jews in Hitler's family. I can't answer for yahweh, because I had never heard of him before tonight, but in my opinion, it would not have mattered a jot if Hitler was religious or not, the man must have been insane, very powerful, but also very clever to get all these people to carry out inhuman acts in his name. I consider myself to be sane, because it would never enter my head to try to annihilate a race of people because of their religion.

----------


## Oddquine

> You're 100% correct, Corrie. Nothing can be proven, either way. It's faith that holds the key for the individual, be it the Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or any other religion you care to name. Only you can find the answer within yourself. I care not what religion anyone is, past hoping that it brings them the peace and comfort my religion brings me. 
> 
> BTW. Welcome to the thread. New ideas are always refreshing.


What makes you think that faith is simply an individual option? If it were, I would possibly stll be a believer. The census question re religion has pretty much removed faith _from_ the personal and transferred it to the organisational power-play...because that is how the figures are used...to set one religion against another regarding "numbers of adherents".

Faith, of all kinds, but particularly those based on the Bible, (the Abrahamic Religions), have since they became "organised", now just become another political  element in a numbers game, which allows the inventors of religions who  latched onto those "individuals of faith"  under specific circumstances, to become a centuries old, but still ongoing equivalent of our current parliamentary pressure groups.

Faith in a supreme being _as a personal belief_ is, to me, what faith is/should always be/have been about. Individuals with faith _actually living according to the best tenents of that faith_ *without* outside interference/interpretation, power-plays and organisational dictat.  I have no problem with individuals of faith getting together to do good ...but do fail to understand why they think they are obliged to do it under the auspices of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other of the plethora of man-invented religions. 

 I proclaim no faith, or even a belief in a supreme being...but I have never deliberately, with malice aforethought, done anything in my life which would contradict the ten commandments, simply because that seems to be a sensible way to live one's life....as in _do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you_. That is, imo, the obvious way to conduct yourself and faith has sod all to do with it.. commonsense and pragmatism does.

What hacks me off are people proclaiming their individual  "faith", as if _having_ faith automatically made them good, decent and empathetic and delineates their day to day behaviour, which we should all understand as being decent, moral and irreproachable, and as if everybody else should assume they do really gave a toss about anything but their own perception of themselves according to their "chosen religion's" interpretation of the Bible.  It doesn't.....having faith is a very different animal to having religion. And. imo, the problems in the world today don't arise from the faith of individuals...but the dictat of religons who harness the faith of individuals to give themselves a platform from which to control.

When religion becomes a power-play, religion becomes politics......and faith becomes little more than party membership, little different to the membership of any other party with a voice that Government heeds.  

I was interested in something I heard on Radio 4 the other day.....they started by saying that, out of all the countries in the world (which I assumed meant the countries which are UN members)  only THREE do not have a written constitution...us (the UK), New Zealand and Israel......and it went on to say that the only countries in the world which allow clerics of a specific religion a dedicated place in the Government set up and an automatic voice in the  running of the country....is us (The UK) and Iran. 

Nothing wrong with the faith of the individual.......but a helluva lot wrong with the organisations which harness the faith of the individual to acquire power. That is something which has been going on for millenia..and shows no sign of changing.

And the power-play of religions.....using the  individual people of  faith as fodder, is what is wrong with our world today, and to a greater or lesser extent, has been for centuries.

----------


## Trajan

nice post OQ i agree with you, religion is just a tool to control the masses, always was always will be, and why oh why are these priests given a place in our government, scary to know its only the uk ,and iran that let them in automatically,
what for, what i find even more scary though is how many religious politicians we have, like when tory blair decided to go to war, he had to consult god in his prayers to do the right thing, so god helped him make the decision to go to war, same as g w bush
so basically the gods of the bible is a warmonger as the old testament quite clearly proves.

----------


## squidge

Why does it matter what other people believe or dont believe. We all take what we need to get through life. For some its ciggies, drugs, a glass of wine, a good book, a bottle of whisky, computer games or God. Does it REALLY matter? As long as its not illegal then it is no one elses business except our own. So whether you spend Sundays on your knees praying, playing Gears of War, reading a book, getting off your face on booze, it is no business of anyone else to say whether you are right or wrong. As for heaven? Well earlier this year when Keith Bennets mum died I damn well hoped there was a heaven so she could hug her boy and I am not ashamed of feeling like that.

----------


## rob1

> Why does it matter what other people believe or dont believe. We all take what we need to get through life. For some its ciggies, drugs, a glass of wine, a good book, a bottle of whisky, computer games or God. Does it REALLY matter? As long as its not illegal then it is no one elses business except our own. So whether you spend Sundays on your knees praying, playing Gears of War, reading a book, getting off your face on booze, it is no business of anyone else to say whether you are right or wrong. As for heaven? Well earlier this year when Keith Bennets mum died I damn well hoped there was a heaven so she could hug her boy and I am not ashamed of feeling like that.


In priniciple it shouldn't matter what people believe and I have no problem with people following any religion or believing in a god.  What I have a problem is when theses religions and sometimes their followers tell me how I should live my life and try and dictate their morality on me.

----------


## Flynn

> nice post OQ i agree with you, religion is just a tool to control the masses, always was always will be, and why oh why are these priests given a place in our government, scary to know its only the uk ,and iran that let them in automatically,
> what for, what i find even more scary though is how many religious politicians we have, like when tory blair decided to go to war, he had to consult god in his prayers to do the right thing, so god helped him make the decision to go to war, same as g w bush
> so basically the gods of the bible is a warmonger as the old testament quite clearly proves.


And in doing so they ignored their own religion's rules, such as 'You must not kill'. There are no ifs or buts in that rule, simply 'You must not'. But politicians, religious leaders etc. and millions who claim to follow the 'word of god' routinely ignore it.

----------


## M Swanson

> I must admit, I was told a few years back, there were Jews in Hitler's family. I can't answer for yahweh, because I had never heard of him before tonight, but in my opinion, it would not have mattered a jot if Hitler was religious or not, the man must have been insane, very powerful, but also very clever to get all these people to carry out inhuman acts in his name. I consider myself to be sane, because it would never enter my head to try to annihilate a race of people because of their religion.


I can't agree with you about Hitler's religion, not being relevant to his murderous quest, Cpt. The thing that is common to the modern day slaughterers, is that they were all atheists. If this is not true in the case of Hitler, then why did this "devout," man order his goons to round up thousands of Catholic and Protestant priests and have them transported to concentration camps, in which many perished? That's hardly the work of somebody who believes in Christianity, is it? Why would he even pretend to commit such atrocities in the name of God, when in his diseased mind he was god? He had to get the predominantly Christian Germans on side, to fight his war. Is it really surprising that he should work so hard, to cover his ambitions? I would say nein!

----------


## M Swanson

I won't quote you OQ, on your last post, because I don't consider it necessary. But how you manage to attach that diatribe to my innocuous post, beggars belief!  :: 

Anyway, just one question for you, if you please. If organised religions are responsible for so many wrongs, then what hope and confidence would you place in disorganised atheism, when some of its' supporters are not hindered by the need for restraint, or discipline, responsibilities or consequences for their actions? All the time people need to believe in something, there will always be religions. Isn't that a fact of the human condition? You tell me!  :Grin:

----------


## M Swanson

> Why does it matter what other people believe or dont believe. We all take what we need to get through life. For some its ciggies, drugs, a glass of wine, a good book, a bottle of whisky, computer games or God. Does it REALLY matter? As long as its not illegal then it is no one elses business except our own. So whether you spend Sundays on your knees praying, playing Gears of War, reading a book, getting off your face on booze, it is no business of anyone else to say whether you are right or wrong. As for heaven? Well earlier this year when Keith Bennets mum died I damn well hoped there was a heaven so she could hug her boy and I am not ashamed of feeling like that.


Great post Squidge and it mirrors my feelings, which I've recorded almost from the start of the thread.  :: 

Repped.

----------


## M Swanson

> In priniciple it shouldn't matter what people believe and I have no problem with people following any religion or believing in a god.  What I have a problem is when theses religions and sometimes their followers tell me how I should live my life and try and dictate their morality on me.


Well, for myself Rob, I can't remember the last time anyone tried to sell me anything connected to religion. I wonder why you're being targeted? Not nice!  :: 

Shame about these atheist louts who desecrated graves in Glasgow, though, isn't it? I'm sure they don't represent all atheists, who I believe could very well condemn this dross too. Scum!

http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/24520/...ws-necropolis/

----------


## maverick

I am a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and all that he has done for me, nothing that has been posted on this thread has or will change my belief.
I accept that everyone has the right to choose freely, that path which they choose to walk.
Those who do not believe in God, I would suggest that you keep a close watch on Israel.
If those of you who would use the Bibles text as a means to attempt to berate God, might I suggest that you use the King James version.
I am literaly leaving my home in the next few minutes, and wont be back for some time, so any replies to this post will not be answered by me for quite some time.
I don't care about your race, colour, creed or religion. I would just like to say God bless you all anyway.

----------


## rob1

> Shame about these atheist louts who desecrated graves in Glasgow, though, isn't it? I'm sure they don't represent all atheists, who I believe could very well condemn this dross too. Scum!
> 
> http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/24520/...ws-necropolis/


There is something we agree on.  Disgusting.

----------


## bcsman

Typical fearmongering by a typical christian,you missed out we are all born worthless and full of sin and will burn in hell for all eternity if you do not accept jesus as your lord and master



> I am a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and all that he has done for me, nothing that has been posted on this thread has or will change my belief.
> I accept that everyone has the right to choose freely, that path which they choose to walk.
> Those who do not believe in God, I would suggest that you keep a close watch on Israel.
> If those of you who would use the Bibles text as a means to attempt to berate God, might I suggest that you use the King James version.
> I am literaly leaving my home in the next few minutes, and wont be back for some time, so any replies to this post will not be answered by me for quite some time.
> I don't care about your race, colour, creed or religion. I would just like to say God bless you all anyway.

----------


## Rheghead

> Why does it matter what other people believe or dont believe. We all take what we need to get through life. For some its ciggies, drugs, a glass of wine, a good book, a bottle of whisky, computer games or God. Does it REALLY matter? As long as its not illegal then it is no one elses business except our own. So whether you spend Sundays on your knees praying, playing Gears of War, reading a book, getting off your face on booze, it is no business of anyone else to say whether you are right or wrong. As for heaven? Well earlier this year when Keith Bennets mum died I damn well hoped there was a heaven so she could hug her boy and I am not ashamed of feeling like that.


It is OK saying that but how many times do we see people of faith insisting that everybody else should observe their religious practices?  Sunday trading, women wearing veils etc or even worse like Archbishops claiming to have the monopoly on ethical isses with respect to stem cell research and its use etc.  I don't tell them what to think and do, I just think folk should think critically for themselves.  It isn't my fault that they've been blooming brain-washed since birth!  :Smile:

----------


## squidge

That is not peculiar to people of faith though. We have people elected and non elected tell us what they think we should be doing. Celebrities, doctors, self proclaimed experts on everything..  How much to drink, how much to eat, how to excercise, not to smoke, how to bring up our children. Fortunately today there is as much interest and influence wielded by "the church' as there is by me. If someond says God bless you say thankyou, if someone says Ill pray for you then take it in good part, they care enough about you to think of your welfare and then Live and let live, smile and keep faith in what you believe in whilst respecting others right to do the same and life is a lot easier.

----------


## Trajan

It is OK saying that but how many times do we see people of faith insisting that everybody else should observe their religious practices? Sunday trading, women wearing veils etc or even worse like Archbishops claiming to have the monopoly on ethical isses with respect to stem cell research and its use etc. I don't tell them what to think and do, I just think folk should think critically for themselves. It isn't my fault that they've been blooming brain-washed since birth!

great post rheg, no mention though of when religious nutjobs decide to strap a bomb on themselves and go and kill other people for their faith in their god, god is great, my butt he is, gods are evil and just another way to make people do other peoples bidding.and i dont see any difference between an islamist a christain or jew they are all slaves to the same god, believers are not free thinkers, they let their bible,koran, torah do their thinking for them,its their get out of jail card.
and maverick 90% of the lists i posted earlier are from the KJV bible, lovely god you have there, likes to exterminate people on a regular basis. you should maybe study your chapter and verse a little more closely.
heres a question for any religous types,
can you show me anywhere in chapter and verse in your bible, where the god of the bible did something good for someone ,without hurting someone else, 
excluding the myth of creation, good luck :Wink:  you will need it.

----------


## Trajan

*God in three persons*In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three _persons_ or _hypostases_, but is one being, that is, has but a single divine nature.[97] Chalcedonians—Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants—hold that, in addition, the second person of the Trinity—God the Son, Jesus—assumed human nature, so that he has two natures (and hence two wills), and is really and fully both true God and true human.

bearing the above statement, it follows then that jesus got his own mother pregnant
how sick is that :: ,

----------


## Alrock

> ..... All the time people need to believe in something, there will always be religions. Isn't that a fact of the human condition? You tell me!


Fair enough, some people do.... Still doesn't make it true though.

----------


## M Swanson

> Fair enough, some people do.... Still doesn't make it true though.


Right, Al. I do tend to think that people have a need to belong to one group, or another.  I have a friend, who is an atheist and after he'd attended one of Dawkins' lectures, he felt that it had a definite evangelical atmosphere. He thought it was sickening! Whether it's intentional, or not, Dawkins has become something of the leader of atheists and has quite an army of foot-soldiers, despite him not even being an atheist. It's peculiar, imo!

----------


## Oddquine

> I won't quote you OQ, on your last post, because I don't consider it necessary. But how you manage to attach that diatribe to my innocuous post, beggars belief! 
> 
> Anyway, just one question for you, if you please. If organised religions are responsible for so many wrongs, then what hope and confidence would you place in disorganised atheism, when some of its' supporters are not hindered by the need for restraint, or discipline, responsibilities or consequences for their actions? All the time people need to believe in something, there will always be religions. Isn't that a fact of the human condition? You tell me!


That would be because the tenor of your posts on this thread do not give the impression that you are not a member of a religion.so I was kinda irritated at your individual faith stuff....and because my idea of individual faith appears to be different from yours. You don't *DO* innocuous posts, btw! 

I place no confidence *whatsoever* in _any_ organisation headed by people with an agenda....it is that simple. I dislike organised religions, political parties, conspiracy theories, pressure groups etc because I have become convinced, over my  65 years of lifetime, that the hierarchy in the vast majority of organisations are instituting and promoting an agenda set by them to the detriment of the individual voice but to the benefit of the hierarchy. Disorganised atheism is, by definition, individuals propounding their views/opinions with nobody in charge telling them what to do, how to think, the form of words acceptable etc.  I don't accept what they say  any more than I do the spewings from the mouths of organised arseholes.....but I am more inclined to _listen_ to them, because they are not working to an agenda set by any self-serving heid bummer.

Belief doesn't have to be religious belief.....only the religious think that their beliefs have anything to do with anything very much, tbh.  Got no problem with that though....until they try to shove their views down  my throat...in person or on forums.  I'd guess pretty much that many on here have the same perception of my views on Scottish Independence...but I do at least try to do factual where possible in among the  personal opinion.

So sure, I *do* agree that  people need to believe in something....I believe I am going to die  at some stage. What *would* I need to believe more than that?  Really and truly? And if you can come up with anything....I'd appreciate also being told *why* you think it is of any importance to non-believers or even the ambivalent. 

I don't need to have a religion to believe in the fact of death, unless I want to think that having a religion additionally gives me benefits on death (on the same lines as an insurance policy)..but frankly, continuing an existence after my death in a "heaven"  or a "hell" populated by the warring factions of various religions who are not sitting on the right hand of "God" when they have spent their lifetime maintaining they would be....or who are "burning in the fires of purgatory",  because their religion wasn't, in "God's" eyes "the truth and the light " and whine interminably about being too hot is much too reminiscent of being alive on this earth right here and right now.

I will be blunt here...I know personally a lot of Christians/born again Christians/Jehovah's Witnesses etc....and they irritate the crap out of me now while I am still alive.....the  idea of spending eternity in their company gars me grue! I don't appreciate their "I know everything, I know best and I'll tell you what everything and best is" attitudes.

----------


## Trajan

lol,, dawkins is just a simple man with an educated informed opinion, that seems to scare you and most christains to death, are you implying that he is some kind of messiah for atheists, lmfao,
he is an intelligent man, simples,why do you christians keep on going on about dawkins, ive met him and he is a right old posh twit,a right smart ass,but a very clever guy
but im pretty positive he aint party to mass murder, unlike your gods of the bible, when are you going to defend your bible and your god, you must have read it,
you have no answers, just blind ignorance, lol, why does your god not strike me down, like he did to all the innocents in the OT
your faith is no different than the german nation had in the nazis and the russians in stalin, dont ask questions, just believe or else,lol 
if one simple man can upset your applecart so much it shows how baseless your religion is , you know how evil your god is, just read your bible, lol,
ignorance is bliss they say, i say religion is ignorance, please read your bible and tell me who was the first exterminator of humankind.
i dare say you have no problems slagging off suicide bombers,when they are just doing the same thing that you believe in, god is great my erse he is, your god is a mass murderer
please stand up and be counted for your beliefs, this is not nkorea or iran we dont hang people for belief systems in the uk,
did your god murder all those people in the OT, a simple yes or no will do.
regards dear lady.

----------


## M Swanson

> 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?


What's with this "tenor of your posts," OQ?  I've stated from almost the go-get, that I'm a Christian. No need to second guess, at all.  :: 




> You're 100% correct, Corrie. Nothing can be proven, either way. It's faith that holds the key for the individual, be it the Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or any other religion you care to name. Only you can find the answer within yourself. I care not what religion anyone is, past hoping that it brings them the peace and comfort my religion brings me.


And again ...........!  Inoffensive? You betcha! Except to you, of course, OQ. 

[QUOTE=M Swanson;997891]

Indeed I do know, OQ. 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. /QUOTE]

My opening gambit to you OQ. Nothing changed throughout the thread. 

Oh! Strewth! I've just spent over half an hour trying to crack how to use multi-quotes and I'm not confident at all, that I've succeeded! I've no idea what the outcome will be. I'm going in! My apologies, in advance, if it all goes pear-shaped. 

Anyway, thanks for the response OQ. Suffice it to say, that you can twist as many things as you want to; invent as many things as you choose to and put as many words in my mouth as you'd like to. Not that you need my permission, of course ....... it's the thing you do best. The floor's all yours!  ::  

Let's see what happens, with the multi's.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

Whoops! 5 out of 10.  :Frown:  I'll try harder next time.  ::  My apologies folks.

----------


## ducati

> Whoops! 5 out of 10.  I'll try harder next time.  My apologies folks.


I never did get it.  ::  So I only do one at once, better value for money.

----------


## squidge

Lots of mentions of heaven and hell here.  My first Mother in Law.... An ordinary nothern woman. No airs or graces, no pretence to be anything other than what she was. Down to earth, plain speaking kind and full of common sense once told me this wee verse lol. 
In a broad lancashire accent....  

You only have two things to worry about - you are either well or you're ill
If you are Well then you dont have anything to worry about
If you are ill you only have two things to worry about- you'll either get better or you'll die
If you get better you have nothing to worry about
If you die you only have two things to worry about- you'll either go to heaven or to hell
If you go to heaven you have nothing to worry about and If you go to hell you will be so busy shaking hands and saying hello to people you once knew that you wont have time to worry about anything. 


Maybe she was right and maybe she wasnt but the arguing and grumping about this subject really is a completely pointless excercise and one of those threads that can suck the time away from your day. Im off out lol. If I get run over by a bus and exit this big adventure I promise to pop back and let you know what happens  :Smile:

----------


## M Swanson

> You only have two things to worry about - you are either well or you're ill
> If you are Well then you dont have anything to worry about
> If you are ill you only have two things to worry about- you'll either get better or you'll die
> If you get better you have nothing to worry about
> If you die you only have two things to worry about- you'll either go to heaven or to hell
> If you go to heaven you have nothing to worry about and If you go to hell you will be so busy shaking hands and saying hello to people you once knew that you wont have time to worry about anything. 
> 
> 
> Maybe she was right and maybe she wasnt but the arguing and grumping about this subject really is a completely pointless excercise and one of those threads that can suck the time away from your day. Im off out lol. If I get run over by a bus and exit this big adventure I promise to pop back and let you know what happens


LOL. I like the sound of your ma-in-law Squidge and the poem should be adopted by every agnostic! It's commonsense, but what makes it even more appealing to me, is that it contains humour! I've copied this one, if you don't mind!  :: 

Be honest, you enjoy the "arguing and grumping," don't you?  Isn't it why you read the thread comments, when there's no obligation for you to?  :Grin:  I'll expect an answer, despite wherever you are! LOL

Can't rep. I have to spread it.

----------


## M Swanson

> I never did get it.  So I only do one at once, better value for money.


Phew! I thought it was only me, Ducati!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> *If someond says God bless you say thankyou, if someone says Ill pray for you then take it in good part,* hey care enough about you to think of your welfare and then Live and let live, smile and keep faith in what you believe in whilst respecting others right to do the same and life is a lot easier.


Well that is not completely true, I've seen those witness people take offence at getting a christmas card

----------


## Alrock

> Well that is not completely true, I've seen those witness people take offence at getting a christmas card


My partner was recruited by the witnesses back at a low point in her life (religions do tend to pray on the vulnerable, they make easy recruits). She eventually saw through the hypocrisy between what they say & do....

Apparently when she dies, being a former witness who no longer believes she is going into a burning fire of sulphur upon death.... talk about trying to scare people witless to try to keep them from straying... lol

----------


## Flynn

Evolution cannot explain continued existence of Creationists, concedes Dawkins

----------


## billmoseley

Can i just say what a good thread this is everyone having their say and some interesting points made. What a refreshing change.

----------


## cptdodger

> Evolution cannot explain continued existence of Creationists, concedes Dawkins


From the above link -_ "The process of natural selection sees genes which provide an  advantage in the battle for survival being preserved across generations,  but scientists can find no useful purpose for the gene which leads  people to believe that the earth was created in only six days about  10,000 years ago. ‘It’s a flaw in our argument, for sure,’ said Dawkins today. ‘By any  reading of evolutionary theory, creationists ought to have died out ages  ago. They serve no function in the planet’s ecosystem, and no other  species has survived so long while in such fundamental disagreement with  observable reality."_ 

Until I read this thread, I had never heard of Dawkins, but speaking as an atheist, and unless I am not understanding what has been written -  I find that quite offensive. Religious people are not a different species from non religious people, we are all human beings. And surely, if this "gene" existed which "makes" people believe, then they always would believe, which at times is not the case.

----------


## linnie612

> Evolution cannot explain continued existence of Creationists, concedes Dawkins





> From the above link -_ "The process of natural selection sees genes which provide an  advantage in the battle for survival being preserved across generations,  but scientists can find no useful purpose for the gene which leads  people to believe that the earth was created in only six days about  10,000 years ago. ‘It’s a flaw in our argument, for sure,’ said Dawkins today. ‘By any  reading of evolutionary theory, creationists ought to have died out ages  ago. They serve no function in the planet’s ecosystem, and no other  species has survived so long while in such fundamental disagreement with  observable reality."_ 
> 
> Until I read this thread, I had never heard of Dawkins, but speaking as an atheist, and unless I am not understanding what has been written -  I find that quite offensive. Religious people are not a different species from non religious people, we are all human beings. And surely, if this "gene" existed which "makes" people believe, then they always would believe, which at times is not the case.


This is a sort of spoof news site - look at some of the other 'stories' on the right hand side of the page.

----------


## cptdodger

> This is a sort of spoof news site - look at some of the other 'stories' on the right hand side of the page.


Ah right, I was'nt paying attention to that!!

----------


## almo

> 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!


So, seeing your couple oz of explosive in the sky with your own eyes is less proof than that the fairytale with no proof but handed down hearsay that goes against any reasonable explanation saying the "invisible man did it!" 
 Keep living the dream, in your world.

----------


## gaza

> lol,, dawkins is just a simple man with an educated informed opinion, that seems to scare you and most christains to death, are you implying that he is some kind of messiah for atheists, lmfao,
> he is an intelligent man, simples,why do you christians keep on going on about dawkins, ive met him and he is a right old posh twit,a right smart ass,but a very clever guy
> but im pretty positive he aint party to mass murder, unlike your gods of the bible, when are you going to defend your bible and your god, you must have read it,
> you have no answers, just blind ignorance, lol, why does your god not strike me down, like he did to all the innocents in the OT
> your faith is no different than the german nation had in the nazis and the russians in stalin, dont ask questions, just believe or else,lol 
> if one simple man can upset your applecart so much it shows how baseless your religion is , you know how evil your god is, just read your bible, lol,
> ignorance is bliss they say, i say religion is ignorance, please read your bible and tell me who was the first exterminator of humankind.
> i dare say you have no problems slagging off suicide bombers,when they are just doing the same thing that you believe in, god is great my erse he is, your god is a mass murderer
> please stand up and be counted for your beliefs, this is not nkorea or iran we dont hang people for belief systems in the uk,
> ...



Well done TRAJAN my sentiments exactly.         Without religion we would be without MANY wars.

----------


## gaza

[QUOTE=M Swanson;999911]What's with this "tenor of your posts," OQ?  I've stated from almost the go-get, that I'm a Christian. No need to second guess, at all.  :: 



And again ...........!  Inoffensive? You betcha! Except to you, of course, OQ. 




> Indeed I do know, OQ. 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. /QUOTE]
> 
> My opening gambit to you OQ. Nothing changed throughout the thread. 
> 
> Oh! Strewth! I've just spent over half an hour trying to crack how to use multi-quotes and I'm not confident at all, that I've succeeded! I've no idea what the outcome will be. I'm going in! My apologies, in advance, if it all goes pear-shaped. 
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the response OQ. Suffice it to say, that you can twist as many things as you want to; invent as many things as you choose to and put as many words in my mouth as you'd like to. Not that you need my permission, of course ....... it's the thing you do best. The floor's all yours!  
> 
> Let's see what happens, with the multi's.



Again i feel such arrogance from Ms Swanson. On 4 occasions you have said you had finished with this thread, but still you insist on getting your preaching hat on and pushing your beliefs ( O BUT YOU ARE ) on others. 
This thread has continued to show and point out the despicable and murderess atrocity`s that all Gods are responsible for, and continuing to carry out. therefore if   HE, SHE, IT, THEY. do exist they should face the full weight of the LAW and pay for there actions and all though's who support them. luckily the society of today put up with and forgive though's that support, preach and cover-up these acts in the name of the so called God'S......fortunately I suffer FOOLS to lightly.
THAT IS MY SINGLE OPINION.

----------


## Flynn

> Well, for myself Rob, I can't remember the last time anyone tried to sell me anything connected to religion. I wonder why you're being targeted? Not nice! 
> 
> Shame about these atheist louts who desecrated graves in Glasgow, though, isn't it? I'm sure they don't represent all atheists, who I believe could very well condemn this dross too. Scum!
> 
> http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/24520/...ws-necropolis/


A story on the Scottish Catholic Observer site, so right off the bat it's an extremely biased opinion on an extremely biased website. The article does not say what the graffiti said and does not offer any evidence the vandals were actually atheists. 

Meanwhile I could go to any northern Irish city, and quite a few Scottish cities, and find hundreds of thousands of examples of extremely offensive religious sectarian graffiti.

----------


## Rheghead

"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."

Mark twain

----------


## Trajan

_Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful._ – Seneca the Younger - 4bc -69ad  :Grin: .

----------


## gleeber

> "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."
> 
> Mark twain





> _Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful._  Seneca the Younger - 4bc -69ad


Mark Twain came up with a few crackers. Another one was 'rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated'
There's 2 types of religion and everyones got one or the other to a degree although there are a certain breed of people who think they are different from the rest of us. :: 
There's religion with a God and religion without one and everything inbetween. Maybe thats 3 types.  Both are based on faith at point of belief.
This thread has become more anti religion than anything else. An attack on the religious by the religious.
Who said religion didnt cause trouble?   ::

----------


## Rheghead

So decrees the Holy Fence sitter Amen  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> Mark Twain came up with a few crackers. Another one was 'rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated'
> There's 2 types of religion and everyones got one or the other to a degree although there are a certain breed of people who think they are different from the rest of us.
> There's religion with a God and religion without one and everything inbetween. Maybe thats 3 types.  Both are based on faith at point of belief.
> This thread has become more anti religion than anything else. An attack on the religious by the religious.
> Who said religion didnt cause trouble?


All makes perfect sense to me, Gleeber. And I'm flirting with your "3 types." I think probably Mark Twain would fit into that one, because although he had a fair bit to say about religion and his atheist beliefs, he was also a joker and probably not to be taken too seriously. His own favourite book that he wrote, was 'Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.' It was a labour of love that took him 12 years to write and his research took him to France. He was fascinated by this Catholic Saint's spirituality and never challenged her belief in God, which it sprang from. Odd for a non-believer, huh?  ::  My favourite quote would be, "It's easy to quite smoking. I've done it hundreds of times." LOL.

I'd also add Dawkins to the 3rd type. I know he's not an atheist, but more of the agnostic persuasion, but isn't it strange that he celebrates Christmas? Why ever would he?  It's all very irrational, imo!  :Grin:

----------


## Camra

Thank God i'm an Atheist!

----------


## Trajan

*Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water. follow him into the house where he entereth in. (Luke 22:10  the Story of the Zodiac)*
A zeitgeist, or avatar, is a deity that comes to Earth in human form. A super human with miraculous powers who is known as the son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified and arose from the dead three days later. An avatars birth is forecast, marked by a star in the East and the child is visited by three kings, becomes a teacher and has 12 disciples.
Oh,  and was born on December 25th.
Jesus was an avatar. He wasnt the only avatar. Bush just THINKS he is an avatar.
There are actual records of many zeitgeist walking the Earth during the planets history. And most of them met the criteria -- including the birth date. Thousands of humans have made similar claims from societies all over the world, ranging from the most primitive to the most advanced cultures, throughout history.
Some of the most documented of these claims include Horus, who was born in Egypt on Dec 25th, 3,000 years before Jesus. The story of Osiris was recorded in pyramid texts written before 2500 B.C. Attis was born Dec. 25th, 1200 B.C., Mithra in Persia on Dec. 25th, 1200 B.C., Krishna in 900 B.C. Pythagorus is believed to have lived from around 580 B.C. to 490 B.C. Dionysus was born in Greece in 500 B.C.
The question is, why do so many people make such similar claims, such as the previously mentioned criteria, walking on water and the performance of miracles? And why did so many of them have virgin mothers named Mary?
The story of the birth of Jesus is actually rooted in mythology and is an astrological allegory for the Suns passage through the Zodiac each year. December 22nd, the Winter Solstice, is the shortest day of each year and when the Sun is at its lowest arc in the southern sky. The Sun apparently comes to a halt for three days and then reverses its direction. This is the birth, or the beginning, of the Sun's annual journey. By December 25th it will be climbing into the sky and will pass through all of the signs of the Zodiac during the year. Thus, the claims of Dec. 25th as the birth date of zeitgeists. It also accounts for the legend of resurrection three days after their execution.
During this period in December the night sky, completely devoid of light pollution in those days, offers several intriguing celestial displays. Sirius, the skys brightest star, is prominently displayed in the East and is believed to have been the Star of Bethlehem used by the three wise men to find the Christ Child.
Also in full view is the constellation Orion, with its belt of three bright stars pointing right to Sirius. And if you draw an imaginary line through the stars of the belt, which are known as the Three Kings, and continue it straight through Sirius to the Earth, it marks the spot where the ascending Sun will break over the horizon. This sun is referred to as the Gods Sun (Sun -- not son) and accounts for the mythical visits of the three Magi.

The constellation Virgo, which is Latin for virgin and has come to represent the Virgin Mary, is also brightly displayed in the eastern sky. Interestingly, Virgos ancient Zodiacal Symbol is an oddly shaped M, which is believed to account for the number of avatars mothers named Mary.
 
The 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the Zodiac that travel with the sun (Son), which is depicted as the center of the Zodiac. Popular signs include Taurus the Bull, Aries the Ram and the popular "fish" bumper sticker, which symbolizes the Age of Pisces, our current age.
Other Christian ties to astronomy include the celebration of the resurrection of the Sun on March 21st, the Vernal Equinox, and the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox.
The ancient Egyptian Religions are the primary basis of the Judeo Christian Religion and they share an historic basis in pagan myths. The Bible is an ASTROTHEOLOGICAL LITERARY HYBRID and quite similar to all religious myths before it. The Ten Commandments were taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead -- Spell 125. There were many religions prior to those of the Egyptians, but they are not nearly so well-documented.
This does not discredit the Christian claim of Jesus as the son of God. If anything, it reinforces Christian beliefs in the existence of God and the teachings are all the same, they come from the same origins, preach the same morals and come from much further back in human history.
The Procession of the Equinoxes is a recurring astrological cycle that marks the length of an Age. The Ages are closely tied to the Zodiac. Moses is known as the avatar of the Age of Aries. The birth of Christ marked the beginning of the age of Pisces, the current age, and Christ, himself, foretold the coming of the next age  the Age of Aquarius, which will not occur until the year 2150. Many people have falsely interpreted this prediction as the coming of the end of the world, but it will really just be the end of an age.
The origins of the zeitgeist were marked by history, but remain the stuff of legends. Were these people real? Were their claims verifiable and why were they so similar? Man has debated these issues throughout the ages and each of us may come to our own conclusions.
However, there is ample evidence of the Zodiac. Look up at the night sky and ponder these questions. The vast expanse of the universe is awe inspiring and thought provoking. The answers must be there somewhere

----------


## Alrock

> .....but isn't it strange that he celebrates Christmas? Why ever would he?  It's all very irrational, imo!


Why would a Christian celebrate Christmas? It's not even a Christian festival & Jesus wasn't even born on that day, more of a Pagan festival that the Church hijacked since it is easier to make converts out of people if you let them keep their festivals.

----------


## Rheghead

> but isn't it strange that he celebrates Christmas? Why ever would he?  It's all very irrational, imo!


Because he knows that Christmas means a lot more than just the Christmas story in the Bible.

----------


## M Swanson

Let's get a little real here and put in a few facts.  :: 

1.  Darwin, according to many historians and friends, was a Christian. For every Wiki 'tet' you give me, I'll give you a 'tat.'   :: 

2.  The first big-bang theorist, was a Catholic priest. 

3.  The leader of the modern atheist revival, Dawkins, is not an atheist. He even enjoys attending Carol Services, but doesn't care for the 'Jingle Bells,' types. Maybe
     'Silent Night,' does it for him?   ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Let's get a little real here and put in a few facts. 
> 
> 1.  Darwin, according to many historians and friends, was a Christian. For every Wiki 'tet' you give me, I'll give you a 'tat.'  
> 
> 2.  The first big-bang theorist, was a Catholic priest. 
> 
> 3.  The leader of the modern atheist revival, Dawkins, is not an atheist. He even enjoys attending Carol Services, but doesn't care for the 'Jingle Bells,' types. Maybe
>      'Silent Night,' does it for him?


I like a good sing song as well.  I have a few favorite carols.  I also enjoy listening to all sorts of music, religious or not.

I think today is Wednesday but we don't seem to pray to the norse gods, though I think the word Easter is a corruption of a norse word for another festival which has been over stamped by christianity.

----------


## M Swanson

I love nothing better than to watch young children singing Carol's and acting their Nativity Scenes. What are your "favourite" Carols, Rheg? 

Now, I would be quite interested in attending a meeting of atheists. I am interested in what they have to say and how they view the world. But, I'd probably see no point in staying, if I was asked to join hands in a rousing chorus of:-

'All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
And NOTHING made them all.

See what I mean, Rheg? I love music and the English language. When the two combine to express my faith, as Carols do, I can sing as loud as the rest of them! When they don't, I've no interest. 

As far as the 'Wednesday's,' go, then fine. They have my blessings to worship whomever they choose, as does every other faith. If they're ever attacked with the same venom as Christians then I shall speak up about that too.

----------


## ducati

> Now, I would be quite interested in attending a meeting of atheists.


We meet 2nd Thursday every month at the Castletown Drill Hall 7 for 7.30 bring buscuits.

----------


## gleeber

> 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?





> So decrees the Holy Fence sitter Amen


It wasnt a decree it was an opinion but of course you knew that and can't answer in an educated manner so revert to nonsense which brings me back to the original intention of this thread which seemed to suggest that male atheists are better educated than most and therefore have a better understanding of the ways and workings of the universe and presumably because of that assumption their opinions are more important and more relevant to human thought and interaction.  :: 
Now, I still have to be convinced that is the case but if the evidence of this thread is anything to go by I suspect the atheists understanding has reached it's zenith which allows me to confidentally suggest that the orgs male atheists show no more level of education and understanding of human interaction than my pet cockatiel, and he's been dead for 6 months.

----------


## gleeber

> Let's get a little real here and put in a few facts. 
> 
> 1.  Darwin, according to many historians and friends, was a Christian. For every Wiki 'tet' you give me, I'll give you a 'tat.'  
> 
> 2.  The first big-bang theorist, was a Catholic priest. 
> 
> 3.  The leader of the modern atheist revival, Dawkins, is not an atheist. He even enjoys attending Carol Services, but doesn't care for the 'Jingle Bells,' types. Maybe
>      'Silent Night,' does it for him?


It's unlikely Darwin was a Christian. after he researched and wrote his On the Origin of Species he locked it away for almost 20 years. He was forced to publish when a fellow scientist independantly came up with the same finding as himslef that evolution was fueled by natural selection. His name was Alfred Wallace.
Darwins wife was a devout Christian and in my opinion it was out of respect for her that he didnt want to publish in her lifetime.

----------


## Rheghead

> I suspect the atheists understanding has reached it's zenith which allows me to confidentally suggest that the orgs male atheists show no more level of education and understanding of human interaction than my pet cockatiel, and he's been dead for 6 months.


But that is entirely the whole point isn't it?  Atheism or agnosticism is precisely that, we have no knowledge, as opposed to theists who pretend to know all about it!  ::  Duh.

----------


## Alrock

> .... I also enjoy listening to all sorts of music, religious or not .....


Ditto here.... just love this....




Doesn't stop me being an Atheist though, just like listening to Black Sabbath doesn't make me a Satanist.

----------


## M Swanson

> We meet 2nd Thursday every month at the Castletown Drill Hall 7 for 7.30 bring buscuits.


LOL. I'll bake a batch of buscuits .... will 6 do it? LOL If I'm not there by 7.25 start without me!  :: 




> It wasnt a decree it was an opinion but of course you knew that and can't answer in an educated manner so revert to nonsense which brings me back to the original intention of this thread which seemed to suggest that male atheists are better educated than most and therefore have a better understanding of the ways and workings of the universe and presumably because of that assumption their opinions are more important and more relevant to human thought and interaction. 
> Now, I still have to be convinced that is the case but if the evidence of this thread is anything to go by I suspect the atheists understanding has reached it's zenith which allows me to confidentally suggest that the orgs male atheists show no more level of education and understanding of human interaction than my pet cockatiel, and he's been dead for 6 months.


Agreed, Gleeber.  I'd also apply this to Dawkins and his cohorts. His debates begin very calmly, but the minute he's backed into a corner and unable to give a rational, intelligent response, he pulls scientific rank and demands to know the credentials of his adversary. His case rests heavily on DNA, which is fine, but then he becomes aggressive when asked where is the evidence of evolution from one species to another?  He can't separate an opinion, or legitimate question from a decree either. Finally, he claims the intellectual high-ground, in the belief that the ignorant masses could never understand the principles and stupidly protests about "hidden agendas." Doh!




> It's unlikely Darwin was a Christian. after he researched and wrote his On the Origin of Species he locked it away for almost 20 years. He was forced to publish when a fellow scientist independantly came up with the same finding as himslef that evolution was fueled by natural selection. His name was Alfred Wallace.
> Darwins wife was a devout Christian and in my opinion it was out of respect for her that he didnt want to publish in her lifetime.


Whilst it's true, that I have read many accounts which claim that Darwin was a Christian, I don't believe either way is conclusive, so I was wrong to enter it as a "fact." My apologies for that. It's another area where I think we all get to choose whom to believe. I tend to favour Lady Hope! You have your opinion and I have mine!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I love nothing better than to watch young children singing Carol's and acting their Nativity Scenes. What are your "favourite" Carols, Rheg? 
> 
> Now, I would be quite interested in attending a meeting of atheists. I am interested in what they have to say and how they view the world. But, I'd probably see no point in staying, if I was asked to join hands in a rousing chorus of:-
> 
> 'All things bright and beautiful,
> All creatures great and small,
> All things wise and wonderful,
> And NOTHING made them all.
> 
> ...


Joy to the World is one of my favorites.

The first Atheist church in the UK has its first meeting, not as daft as you want to make out M Swanson

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2423590.html

----------


## M Swanson

> Joy to the World is one of my favorites.
> 
> The first Atheist church in the UK has its first meeting, not as daft as you want to make out M Swanson
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2423590.html


LOLOL.  Started by comedians; run by comedians, to promote comedians and held in a church. This is a spoof, right Rheg?  I'm not surprised some atheists are annoyed at the way their religion is being portrayed. It's all turning into a farce, imo. But I'm enjoying fun.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> LOLOL.  Started by comedians; run by comedians, to promote comedians and held in a church. This is a spoof, right Rheg?  I'm not surprised some atheists are annoyed at the way their religion is being portrayed. It's all turning into a farce, imo. But I'm enjoying fun.


Atheism isn't a religion when I last thought about it, they don't think a superior being exists or other mumbo jumbo despite your attempts with gleeber to claim it to make yourselves feel better at our expense.  

An atheist church is not for me, I'm not that gregarious but I can see why some would want to form something along those lines.  In fact we can draw comparisons with puritanism, just one person reading the bible on your own, not much fun in that and that is why it all died out.  It is the taking part that really matters for a lot of people.

----------


## M Swanson

How you draw a comparison between Monty Python's Flying Circus and the Puritan's and keep a straight face is beyond me Rheg.  ::

----------


## cptdodger

I have never made fun of, or belittled people who are religious. In my opinion atheism is not a religion (this from wikipedia - "*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deites. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists") 

Whether this article - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2423590.html is a spoof or not, it appears these people are not out to do anybody any harm - 

"It is championed as chance for disillusioned former believers,  nostalgic atheists and anybody searching for a sense of community, to  meet and "turn good intentions into action." 

  With the tag line 'live better, help often, wonder more' the  brainchild has the pastoral aims of provoking kindness and encouraging  people to volunteer in their local community"

I can't see how that's a bad thing.

----------


## Rheghead

> How you draw a comparison between Monty Python's Flying Circus and the Puritan's and keep a straight face is beyond me Rheg.


I wasn't, quite the opposite.  You misunderstood or chose to mock.

----------


## M Swanson

Serious question, Rheg. Do you do humour, at all?

----------


## Rheghead

> Serious question, Rheg. Do you do humour, at all?


Yes i do humour, but humour doesn't convey too easily in a forum like this.  I'm always pulling people's legs about all sorts of stuff.  Then you get the occasions when someone throws their toys out the pram (which is the real object of the exercise) because they can't take a joke and they try to do the 'shame thing'.  I think _here we go again_.

----------


## M Swanson

It does if you take heed of the smilies, Rheg.  I try my best to signal a humourous post, by using them as much as possible. It does help ........ or should. Would I be right in thinking you don't employ them very often, because herein may lie your problem?

----------


## gaza

> It does if you take heed of the smilies, Rheg.  I try my best to signal a humourous post, by using them as much as possible. It does help ........ or should. Would I be right in thinking you don't employ them very often, because herein may lie your problem?



OOOOooooooOOOOo You are a pusher MS SWANSON

----------


## M Swanson

Well, I've read and listened to quite a few things Dawkins has to say and have concluded that the sheer arrogance of this wannabe is astounding. He is abusive to those who believe in God on the grounds that His existence can't be proven and yet doesn't expect any of us to disbelieve what he says, despite it not being proven by science, or anything else. He actually goes as far as to say, believers in God don't believe, because he knows there isn't one and 2.1 billion people are deluding themselves. That, for me, is the greatest delusion of all. Have a listen to him being outed for the arrogant, deluded, bully, I believe he is.

Dawkins HUMILIATED by a Christian! - YouTube

----------


## Trajan

Most Christian believer's have been preached the Bible and its God. Some believe just because they want to belong and that it is deemed to be socially fashionable.
When it comes to the selected, controversial C&Vs of the Bible, many believers would declare something like: "I would not believe Bible controversy even if the controversy were true."
An expressed belief is a psychological projection, an attempt to will something into reality.
Many expressed beliefs  when measured against reality - are simply lies.
A lie is an expressed attempt to project something that is not real or factual into reality to produce a desired and manipulative effect on others.  
Although the selected, controversial Bible C&Vs exist in the believer's Bible, believers intentionally remain intellectually ignorant and emotionally resistant to their content and meaning.
The question is why? Why are believers resistant to know the content of these selected, controversial Bible C&Vs?
How about**: God can't be wrong? Believer's can't be wrong about their God?
But, many stories in the Bible cannot be true.
The controversial C&Vs are included in their Bible for all to see - aren't they? Believers believe their Bible - don't they?
The horrors and murderous deeds that the Bible God did are documented by C&V throughout The Old Testament.
Young minds receive this "holy" information and are religiously trained that God is good and that all of God's murdering is righteous, just, fair, necessary and good. It's God's will.



Believers personally experience the righteous deaths of millions at God's hand and then believers praise God for his power and for His murderous deeds. The Human conscientiousness becomes morally compromised. The Human value system unknowingly becomes distorted and biased. The believer consciously and unconsciously learns to praise the murderous God at all costs and to hate what he or she is told to hate.
Because of what God did in the Bible, when exposed, believers experience dilemma and psychological trauma.
The biggest source of Biblical "truth" comes to believers from clergy - not the Bible. Most clergy cherry-pick the C&Vs of the Bible.
The true source of C&V "fact" comes from contradictory Bible C&Vs - not from clergy.
For some deep thinkers, who do question the Biblical God and His Bible, it is not unreasonable to become an Atheist.
Why do believers resist selected, controversial Bible C&V information - the documentation that what the murderous God did is true? Collectively, as a nation, we succumb to the peer pressure of zealous, might-makes-right, you are either with me or against me, believers. "If you don't believe - you will go to Hell!"
As Humans, we each have a world view that is persistently drilled into us by religion, dictated by clergy, parents, our environment and by surrounding believers.
The murderous Bible C&Vs show the murderous God to not be a good God. Yet, believers resist these documented Bible C&Vs as if they were not true. When believers receive information that does not conform to their programmed world view, they respond in denial, avoidance, righteous indignation, hostility. Why?
First the believer is programmed that God is good and perfect in every way. Then, some Atheist exposes Bible C&V evidence that proves that God is murderous and evil. The C&V evidence proves that God is not perfect, not good - in fact - evil.
God's murders makes many believers view situational murder to be correct, righteous and good.
Upon being confronted with this blasphemous information, the believer starts to feel confused, uncomfortable and vulnerable.
They resent the messenger who exposed these controversial Bible C&Vs to them. Why? They believe the whole Bible - don't they?
Fundamental Biblical criticism presents selected, controversial C&V facts that God is not good. For the believer, exposing these controversial C&Vs creates believer fear and anxiety. Instead of the believer debating these C&Vs, this confrontation can lead him or her into lashing out with hostility. Authoritative denial usually kicks in. Confused believers don't know what to think. They want to believe. Perspective: Left brain and Ego cannot be wrong. When confronted, anger and an irrational attack mode becomes a priority. Many believers feel as if their ego's mind-set, belief-supported authority has been defiled. The believer's desire to question and to think shuts down. Believer vengeance becomes a priority. Most believers just deny any deviation from their mind-set belief and move on with their lives. They deny any new evidence and stick to their original story. Believers then wait to when they feel their ego is back in charge. Believers do not want to be open-minded. Believers want to be right.


Believer's want their beliefs to be their mental and emotional "home" and they, like vicious junk-yard dogs, will territorially protect their "home" at all costs. Don't mess with me! Don't mess with my home! Do not defy my assumed authority! The more well-researched and accurate the debate facts are, the more sick, emotional and angry the mind-set believer becomes. The mind-set beliefs seek clergy support to reinforce their remaining correct, and by disregarding, denying and avoiding any evidence to the contrary.
Many believers have not based their beliefs on the Bible's controversial C&Vs. They bought the feel-good dogma of clergy. Once established and committed to - they don't feel compelled to seek the Bible C&Vs that would disrupt their beliefs. Most reluctantly glance at "The God Murders" website and then run - never to return. They would never educate themselves nor educate others as to what the Bible documents in contrast to their feel-good mind-set beliefs. For the mind-set believer to consider that God is evil causes mental and emotional pain. Righteous denial and avoidance becomes the pattern. For a believer to allow their beliefs in God to be destroyed severely alters their view of the world they live in. They could react as if it was frightening beyond their ability to cope.
Feel-good believers do not want to know the controversial C&V truth in fear that they would lose their identity. If the new information would prove to be true, they fear that their world would become too different and too confusing and scary to cope with. Their strength would become weakness. As long as they have faith and believe - and not know - they cannot be wrong.
Beliefs keep believer's from looking at the evidence that destroy their beliefs.
Empirically educated people say: Show me the evidence and, if convincing, I will change my mind.
Believer's insist: This is the way God works. What I am told to believe - I believe. The controversial Bible C&V evidence does not fit into what I have committed to and decided. So, I don't need to look at the evidence because what I already believe is right.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, I've read and listened to quite a few things Dawkins has to say and have concluded that the sheer arrogance of this wannabe is astounding. He is abusive to those who believe in God on the grounds that His existence can't be proven and yet doesn't expect any of us to disbelieve what he says, despite it not being proven by science, or anything else. He actually goes as far as to say, believers in God don't believe, because he knows there isn't one and 2.1 billion people are deluding themselves. That, for me, is the greatest delusion of all. Have a listen to him being outed for the arrogant, deluded, bully, I believe he is.
> 
> Dawkins HUMILIATED by a Christian! - YouTube


If your belief isn't shaken by Dawkins then you will have no problem with him.  You doth protest too much.

----------


## rob1

> Well, I've read and listened to quite a few  things Dawkins has to say and have concluded that the sheer arrogance of  this wannabe is astounding. He is abusive to those who believe in God  on the grounds that His existence can't be proven and yet doesn't expect  any of us to disbelieve what he says, despite it not being proven by  science, or anything else. He actually goes as far as to say, believers  in God don't believe, because he knows there isn't one and 2.1 billion  people are deluding themselves. That, for me, is the greatest delusion  of all. Have a listen to him being outed for the arrogant, deluded,  bully, I believe he is.
> 
> Dawkins HUMILIATED by a Christian! - YouTube


Oh the  irony!  Jesus went out and spent most of his adult life doing public  speaking, telling people how to live their lives, how to think, how to  love and serve god in a perticular way and even claimed to be the son of  god.  How much more arrogent can you get!

Dawkins is far from  deluded.  He is a man of science and as such requires good, solid  evidance before making a conclusion.  Religion stems from early humans  wondering why the sun rises each morning, why there are eclipse,  earthquakes etc.  They has a hypothesis that someone was responsible -  that evolved into more complex religions which suppressed scientific  advancment the results were showing evidance to the contrary of the  religion.  The thing is we know why the sun rises in the morning, we  know why there are eclipses earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions  and much more and "god" does not feature anywhere.  Dawkins simply finds  it staggering that people still believe in gods when the evidence that  has been gathered to show how we came to be and how our planet works  fails to support the hypotheis of a supreme being.   

I watched the clip.  Can't seem to find the bit where Dawkins is "HUMILIATED".  Dawkins has a point - he asked people who claimed to be christian about the bible and being christian.  What he found was the a good number of those "christians" didn't know many of the things that are fundamental to the christian faith.  Its like saying you are a man u fan but not being able to name the players or manager or anything significant about their history - your not realy a fan after all are you?

----------


## cptdodger

I have spent my entire life around religious people, I had to do RE at school, I joined a church choir (Episcopalian) because my friend had joined, and spent years singing at services (twice a week, and two, sometimes three times on a Sunday, also Christmas Eve, if it fell on a Sunday was four services) To be honest I have probably spent more time in Church than a lot of people on this thread, religious or not. I did'nt believe in God then, and I do'nt now. I have never knocked any religious people I mixed with, or the religious people I am related to. Having said that, I will shut the door in Jehovah Witness's faces, anybody that will let their child die in the name of religion does not deserve any respect at all, and I will treat them accordingly. My father worked with someone who very nearly lost his son due to that, had the boys mother not stepped in he would be dead now. That man lost everything, his wife, his three children due to his faith. Is somebody's faith worth the life of a child ? I think not.

----------


## M Swanson

> If your belief isn't shaken by Dawkins then you will have no problem with him.  You doth protest too much.


Ah! I see, Rheg. Heads Dawkins wins; tails God loses! If I research Dawkins and publish my findings, I'm wrong about him and it's shaken my faith that I should need to do so in the first place. And if I don't then I'm in denial, because my faith is shaky and you've outed me, huh? Whilst the truth is, that my beliefs and faith haven't changed one iota as a result of subscribing to this debate. But, I know very much more about the current Messianic God Botherer, Dawkins and his twisted irrational thought process. What more can I say about a man who believes God may exist; believes in Jesus, calls for help from 'God' when he's in a hole he can't dig himself out of, (does it time and again) and sings hymns as he attends to his toiletries.  :: 




> I have spent my entire life around religious people, I had to do RE at school, I joined a church choir (Episcopalian) because my friend had joined, and spent years singing at services (twice a week, and two, sometimes three times on a Sunday, also Christmas Eve, if it fell on a Sunday was four services) To be honest I have probably spent more time in Church than a lot of people on this thread, religious or not. I did'nt believe in God then, and I do'nt now. I have never knocked any religious people I mixed with, or the religious people I am related to. Having said that, I will shut the door in Jehovah Witness's faces, anybody that will let their child die in the name of religion does not deserve any respect at all, and I will treat them accordingly. My father worked with someone who very nearly lost his son due to that, had the boys mother not stepped in he would be dead now. That man lost everything, his wife, his three children due to his faith. Is somebody's faith worth the life of a child ? I think not.


Another good, fair post Cpt and I agree with you about JW's, for the same reason as you have given. I think not, too!

----------


## ducati

Why the obsession with Dawkins? He doesn't represent any but his own views. Personally, I think he is a bit of a prat. Why else would you pliss off such a lot of people?

----------


## Flynn

> Well, I've read and listened to quite a few things Dawkins has to say and have concluded that the sheer arrogance of this wannabe is astounding. He is abusive to those who believe in God on the grounds that His existence can't be proven and yet doesn't expect any of us to disbelieve what he says, despite it not being proven by science, or anything else. He actually goes as far as to say, believers in God don't believe, because he knows there isn't one and 2.1 billion people are deluding themselves. That, for me, is the greatest delusion of all. Have a listen to him being outed for the arrogant, deluded, bully, I believe he is.
> 
> Dawkins HUMILIATED by a Christian! - YouTube


Yawn.


http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....wkinss-fumble/

----------


## M Swanson

Well, I can't speak for the obsessives, only for myself, Ducati. I don't see anything wrong in defending my beliefs when they are challenged by somebody, who uses science as a weapon to enforce and validate their views. Especially, when he doesn't have the evidence to back them up. On this thread, there is an overwhelming number of atheists, who are not afraid to challenge God and religion. Why should a couple of Christians not be able to do the same? Who is "plissing off, anyone? And in what way?

----------


## Trajan

the thing is m swanson you dont defend your beliefs, i use your own kjv bible as a tool to validate my views,not science but the bible, but you just ignore my posts, and why should anyone be AFRAID to challenge gods and their murderous religions, lmfao, your implying we all should be afraid of your bogey man in the sky, :Wink: 
did your god murder anyone in the bible , you know he did, millions of them,
as they say yee cannae educate pork. lol

----------


## Rheghead

What sort of twisted god creates a parasite which burrows itself into the eye of a 3 year old girl?

----------


## Alrock

> the thing is m swanson you dont defend your beliefs, i use your own kjv bible as a tool to validate my views,not science but the bible, but you just ignore my posts, and why should anyone be AFRAID to challenge gods and their murderous religions, lmfao, your implying we all should be afraid of your bogey man in the sky,
> did your god murder anyone in the bible , you know he did, millions of them,
> as they say yee cannae educate pork. lol


You're wasting your time, it's called "Blind Faith" for a reason.... They just turn a blind eye towards anything that counters their belief & just ignore it. Instead they just attack those that question it. That would be a bit like Atheists basing their argument against religion purely by doing a character assassination of Billy Graham.

----------


## Trajan

:Smile:  i aint wasting time alrock , i am just quoting from the bible the torah and the koran, and its more for people who dont really understand how evil the abrahamic religions really are :Smile:

----------


## Trajan

still no answer to this: 
heres a question for any religious types,
can you show me anywhere in chapter and verse in your bible, where the god of the bible did something good for someone ,without hurting someone else, 
excluding the myth of creation, good luck :Wink:  you will need it. :Grin: 
i will maybe give you the answer at a later date, go read your bible, i have, hundreds of times, i study ancient history yee see. :Grin:

----------


## maverick

1st Kings chapter 3.
As you are an Ancient Historian, perhaps you might answer a question for me, what was the purpose of the Great pyramid of Giza, and how was it built?

----------


## Trajan

well done maverick, it was solomon, :Smile: 
god gave him wisdom,,and what did solomon do with that wisdom ,, he started worshipping other gods.
some would say the wisdom took :Wink: 
and dont be so lazy i aint your teacher :Wink:

----------


## M Swanson

> What sort of twisted god creates a parasite which burrows itself into the eye of a 3 year old girl?


I'm not sure why you would ask me this question Rheg. As you appear to have no belief in God, then neither I, nor any other Christian could answer this to your satisfaction. All I can suggest, is that you look elsewhere to find somebody, or something, to blame and answer your query. Sorry, but that's logical and as good as it gets, I'm afraid.

----------


## Oddquine

> I'm not sure why you would ask me this question Rheg. As you appear to have no belief in God, then neither I, nor any other Christian could answer this to your satisfaction. All I can suggest, is that you look elsewhere to find somebody, or something, to blame and answer your query. Sorry, but that's logical and as good as it gets, I'm afraid.


Ah, but can you answer it to your *own* satisfaction..and if so, how do how do you explain it to yourself...or is most of the Bible just stuff Christians don't think about in case it makes them think.

----------


## cptdodger

> what was the purpose of the Great pyramid of Giza, and how was it built?


Not being an ancient historian myself, I rely on wikipedia ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza. If that does'nt answer your questions, the Discovery Channel has a lot of  good documentaries about Egypt.

----------


## M Swanson

> Ah, but can you answer it to your *own* satisfaction..and if so, how do how do you explain it to yourself...or is most of the Bible just stuff Christians don't think about in case it makes them think.


Yes to the first part. I'm only guessing here, but in much the same way you did when you were active in the church possibly! I'm not asking though, because it's none of my business. Lastly, can't answer for Christians in general, of course, but I'm a thinker. It was all part of a natural progression from my beliefs to my faith. I am blessed.  :: 




> Not being an ancient historian myself, I rely on wikipedia ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza. If that does'nt answer your questions, the Discovery Channel has a lot of  good documentaries about Egypt.


Good find Cpt and I'll certainly read the article later. Thanks.

----------


## Trajan

try this site if you want some more info http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/pyramid-air-shafts.html#clock
or this  http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html

----------


## Trajan

or if you really want to push the boundries ,, try this one,, http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...mid-of-Giza---

----------


## cptdodger

In a lot of the documentaries I have watched about how the Pyramids were built, it seemed the builders of them were held in high regard especially the stonemasons, but it was a job for life. I can watch anything about the Pharaoh's, and the Valley Of The Kings and so on, it just intrigues me. I would love to have seen the Tutankhamun exhibition when it was in Britain, but I do battle with myself, on one hand, it bothers me that his grave had been disturbed, on the other, it would be amazing to see the artifacts found within the tomb. For me it was just the same when the Titanic was found, (which is now effectively a grave), again it bothers me that people can dive down to the ship for whatever reason, having said that, the documentary James Cameron did  before making his film was very interesting.

----------


## Oddquine

> Yes to the first part. I'm only guessing here, but in much the same way you did when you were active in the church possibly! I'm not asking though, because it's none of my business. Lastly, can't answer for Christians in general, of course, but I'm a thinker. It was all part of a natural progression from my beliefs to my faith. I am blessed.


But the reason I am no longer in the church is because I *did* think about what was written in the Bible, for a long time, and compared it to what had been/was happening at the time.  I decided to leave...because I couldn't justify being a member of an organisation which promoted a Book so blatantly violent and which condoned the actions of others, who used the violence in the Bible as a justification for those actions.

So I repeat, _Ah, but can you answer it to your own satisfaction..and if so, how do you explain it to yourself...or is most of the Bible just  stuff Christians don't think about in case it makes them think._

And try not to sidestep the _ how do you explain it to yourself bit,_ this time.....as I am interested.......because I couldn't explain/interpret/justify any of the violence the bible was putting forward as acceptable behaviour..*.*which is why I left the Church.

----------


## cptdodger

I put my hands up to it, I have never read the bible, ever. But I did read passages that I think Trajan put on here earlier on in the thread. I must admit, I was quite shocked at some of the things that had been written in it. My concern is if there are people out there that take it literally. If you look at Sharia Law, while I know that is a different religion, these people follow it to the letter, so it can happen. Also, I think it was Maverick, that was asking us to look to the Bible for evidence that there is a God, I had no idea that there were so many different versions of the same book.

----------


## Trajan

cpt its the same religion, at least the first 5 books of the OT, its really the same book , but jesus is just another prophet in the koran, and a false messiah in the torah,
somewhere in the book of isaiah, another prophet, the god of the bible tells isaiah that the next messiah will be called immanuel not joshua or jesus in greek,
and quote,
Old Testament prophesy: Isaiah 7:14 The "virgin" (almah) shall be with child and his name shall be Immanuel.In Isaiahs day, the Hebrew word "almah" meant a young woman / a maiden - not a virgin.The Hebrew term "Immanuel" means "God With Us".So, why is the Messiah's name Jesus Christ instead of "Immanuel"? Who today calls Jesus Christ "Immanuel"? Did not Isaiah state: "His name shall be Immanuel." Does the Bible contradict itself?
they do say the greatest story ever told,, and they aint kidding :Smile:

----------


## Trajan

and cpt you dont need to be into ancient history , just pick up any bible and read some of the chapters in the OT, it makes hitler and stalin look like amateurs  :: ,
hitler was a roman catholic and stalin,
When Stalin was sixteen, he received a scholarship to attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Theological Seminary in Tbilisi, another christian,
where do you think these nutters got all their ideas from, if the god of the bible can kill millions of peeps on a whim , why not them,they were both brought up to believe in the bible,
funnily enough these nutjobs were looked upon as saviours of there nations ::

----------


## squidge

The bible is a book written in times when the behaviour contained within it was commonplace. I dont hold with it being the 'word of God' although I can accept that the men who wrote it believed that they were carrying out the will of God. For Christians though, I think that everything changes with the coming of Christ. All the sacrifices, all the punishments were nul and void because whereas before Jesus sin was cleansed with blood, after Jesus all sin was cleansed by HIS blood. Thats why people say that if you truly repent and take Jesus into your heart then you will be absolved of all your sins. The teachings of Jesus trump all the 'throw stones at them if they look at your cow' stuff and didnt he say that you should love your neighbour, do unto others as you would have done to you? That isnt THAT bad a philosophy even if you are NOT A Christian actually.

----------


## M Swanson

> And try not to sidestep the _ how do you explain it to yourself bit,_ this time.....as I am interested.......because I couldn't explain/interpret/justify any of the violence the bible was putting forward as acceptable behaviour..*.*which is why I left the Church.


Let's cut to the chase here OQ.  My opinion is, that you never quite managed to attain faith and have little, to no idea, of what it means. I'm not responsible for that, nor with the best will in the world could I, or anyone else ever bestow that gift on you. So, that makes me wonder where the seat of your torment is, that you would need to try and destroy my, or anyone elses faith. Because yes, that is what you do, in a desperate attempt to find some peace for yourself. For me, you don't seem to fit in any category. Not a dyed-in-the-wool atheist; nor a committed agnostic and not a Christian in terms of faith, but still holding some of its beliefs. It must be a scarey, lonely place. Let me just say, I am a Christian. I believe in God and our Lord Jesus. I fire from love, not hate. I do not begrudge anyone their beliefs - it's none of my business. Through my faith, I can sleep peacefully at night and I am not answerable to you, or anyone else. As I said previously, I am truly blessed. Amen.

That's the last I have to say to you OQ.  I hope you find peace.

----------


## cptdodger

[QUOTE=Trajan;1001531]cpt its the same religion, at least the first 5 books of the OT, its really the same book 


So, if it's the same book and the same religion, why is there so many different interpretations of it ? As in, Catholic, Muslim, Judaism, the list is endless. The thing I find hard to understand is, if God created heaven, earth and so on, why is there not just one religion?

----------


## Alrock

[QUOTE=cptdodger;1001879]


> cpt its the same religion, at least the first 5 books of the OT, its really the same book 
> 
> 
> So, if it's the same book and the same religion, why is there so many different interpretations of it ? As in, Catholic, Muslim, Judaism, the list is endless. The thing I find hard to understand is, if God created heaven, earth and so on, why is there not just one religion?


I guess, as you hinted at, it's all down to interpretation.... & I guess that all the religious posters on here think their interpretation is the correct one.... 

Does any one here care to explain why they think their interpretation is the correct one & why they think the other interpretations are wrong?

----------


## Oddquine

> Let's cut to the chase here OQ.  My opinion is, that you never quite managed to attain faith and have little, to no idea, of what it means. I'm not responsible for that, nor with the best will in the world could I, or anyone else ever bestow that gift on you. So, that makes me wonder where the seat of your torment is, that you would need to try and destroy my, or anyone elses faith. Because yes, that is what you do, in a desperate attempt to find some peace for yourself. For me, you don't seem to fit in any category. Not a dyed-in-the-wool atheist; nor a committed agnostic and not a Christian in terms of faith, but still holding some of its beliefs. It must be a scarey, lonely place. Let me just say, I am a Christian. I believe in God and our Lord Jesus. I fire from love, not hate. I do not begrudge anyone their beliefs - it's none of my business. Through my faith, I can sleep peacefully at night and I am not answerable to you, or anyone else. As I said previously, I am truly blessed. Amen.
> 
> That's the last I have to say to you OQ.  I hope you find peace.


So no explanation as to why you believe that the bible is not violent and a bad example to the gullible.....and an acceptance that you can happily go the "god gave us free will" route when considering the influence of the bible and religion on the world so you don't have to do thinking? Why am i not surprised? 

I managed to attain faith as long as I didn't think, M Swanson..and eleven years attending Sunday School regularly (and Sunday School was my choice only) does tend to reduce thinking to an irrelevance against the absolute certainty being pushed, and thought I had found  that certainty. 

I think I may have been  actually looking for something in which to believe, given that I also used to attend Salvation Army services and the Gospel tent which turned up periodically in my home area.. I spent a lot of my Sunday time over the years listening to preachers. But once I actually engaged my brain, the faith gradually disappeared.

It may have been unhelpful in the early preparation for unquestioning faith stakes that I wasn't brought up in a household which indoctrinated me ahead of time., but in one which would, in a census have put their religion down as Church of Scotland..but otherwise did not even get us baptised, far less expect us to do anything but treat others as we would prefer to be treated ourselves. My embracing religion was solely my choice, even from the age of five when I joined Sunday School..as was leaving the church completely 19 years later.

I have peace..M Swanson... why would you think I don't? But I wonder sometimes if you do.....because it always seems to me that those least comfortable with their religious beliefs are those who proclaim them to anyone who will listen, as if they are trying to convince themselves more than those listening to them.

----------


## Flynn

M Swanson is an atheist. They just don't realise it.

----------


## maverick

> cpt its the same religion, at least the first 5 books of the OT, its really the same book , but jesus is just another prophet in the koran, and a false messiah in the torah,
> somewhere in the book of isaiah, another prophet, the god of the bible tells isaiah that the next messiah will be called immanuel not joshua or jesus in greek,
> and quote,
> Old Testament prophesy: Isaiah 7:14 The "virgin" (almah) shall be with child and his name shall be Immanuel.In Isaiah’s day, the Hebrew word "almah" meant a young woman / a maiden - not a virgin.The Hebrew term "Immanuel" means "God With Us".So, why is the Messiah's name Jesus Christ instead of "Immanuel"? Who today calls Jesus Christ "Immanuel"? Did not Isaiah state: "His name shall be Immanuel." Does the Bible contradict itself?
> they do say the greatest story ever told,, and they aint kidding


perhaps you should have included Matthew 1:18-25 might shed some light on your contradiction theory.

----------


## cptdodger

[QUOTE=Alrock;1001881]


> I guess, as you hinted at, it's all down to interpretation.... & I guess that all the religious posters on here think their interpretation is the correct one.... 
> 
> Does any one here care to explain why they think their interpretation is the correct one & why they think the other interpretations are wrong?



Then Maverick, can you answer the question Alrock asks, (who put it better than I could!) ?

----------


## Trajan

well maverick thats an easy one ,, matthew lived after jesus 60 ad-100ad and is just an author who borrowed heavily from ,mark and luke,no mention of god speaking to him.
now Isaiah_ own the other hand was gods own prophet,,and was in contact with god himself or herself_ :Wink:  _ who do you believe,, god or the author of the first book of the new testament,_ :Grin: 
and also matthew was a clever jewish author,because he was the first to title jesus with the name emmanuel,,i wonder why, maybe he was a good reader of the OT.
anyway i like jesus he was a lovely MAN, ::  but just a man.

----------


## maverick

There have been a lot of very good points in this thread, I will do what I can to answer what I can, if I can?

With any debate there has to be a starting point, for me it's belief in God. "Faith".
For anyone who cannot understand this, it comes as no surprise to me.
1 Corinthians 2:14 we read;
                                     But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God:
                                     for they are foolishness unto him:
                                     neither can he know them, because thet are spiritually discerned.
Names in the Old Testament, in that time, had understandable meanings, for example Abram means "exalted Father", where as Abraham means " Father of a multitude".
When we come to Isaiah 7:14 we encounter a prophecy about the Messiah, saying that his name will be Immanuel.
Immanuel literally means "God with us", that is a statement of the Messiah's being, he will be "God with us" the text reads...
Isaiah 7:14 
               Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
So the Messiah ( the saviour of man) will be known as "God with us". This is significant to Christians because we believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.
(this is where we take seperate paths TRAJAN).
Jesus wasn't just a man, he was the saviour of man, God in the flesh, Jehovah is Salvation thats what Jesus means. Joshua fought a battle, he was known as Joshua not Jesus.
The prophecy of Isaiah pertains to a saviour who will be God with us.
That saviour was Jesus, Jehovah is God, in the book of John we read, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. 1 Timothy 3:16 Col 2:9  and not forgetting Revelation 21:3.

----------


## gaza

> there have been a lot of very good points in this thread, i will do what i can to answer what i can, if i can?
> 
> With any debate there has to be a starting point, for me it's belief in god. "faith".
> For anyone who cannot understand this, it comes as no surprise to me.
> 1 corinthians 2:14 we read;
>                                      but the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god:
>                                      For they are foolishness unto him:
>                                      Neither can he know them, because thet are spiritually discerned.
> Names in the old testament, in that time, had understandable meanings, for example abram means "exalted father", where as abraham means " father of a multitude".
> ...




a word became flesh ! ! ! ! How'd that happen ?

----------


## Rheghead

> a word became flesh ! ! ! ! How'd that happen ?


Have faith my son, it can happen, it did happen...

----------


## Oddquine

> There have been a lot of very good points in this thread, I will do what I can to answer what I can, if I can?
> 
> With any debate there has to be a starting point, for me it's belief in God. "Faith".
> For anyone who cannot understand this, it comes as no surprise to me.
> 1 Corinthians 2:14 we read;
>                                      But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God:
>                                      for they are foolishness unto him:
>                                      neither can he know them, because thet are spiritually discerned.
> Names in the Old Testament, in that time, had understandable meanings, for example Abram means "exalted Father", where as Abraham means " Father of a multitude".
> ...


You do not seem to accept that you cannot dictate the starting point and basis for debate any more than those diametrically opposed to you can....because neither POV _allows_ room for debate......just for argument.  If you want debate, and I never think that the commited  religious and the commited atheist do want debate, just the opportunity to shove their take on things down everybody else's throats, you'd both be making sensible posts trying to convince agnostics in one or other direction...but neither side does.maybe because both of you require faith in your different POVs..and one thing agnostics have in common is  difficulty making up their minds when faced with a choice of more than one......which could be termed ambivalence.  

I have that problem in decision-making even when shopping for a pair of trousers...why would you think a salesman trying to persuade me forcefully is going to help me to make up my mind on the existence or non-existence of a "God" when salesmen of trousers who take no notice of my "Go away! I will buy what I want to buy when *I* decide if/when I want to buy it...and your sales pitch is putting me right off!" still persists in pushing........and I leave the shop empty-handed? 

Believe me, spouting quotes from the Bible means nothing unless you actually believe the Bible is the Word of God and not a fairy story written decades/centuries later than the incidents reported in order to provide a method of control of a specific group (initially,the Jews) . I assume you are aware that not only is relatively little in the Bible confirmed by archeological findings...but many incidents in the bible are _contradicted_ by archeological findings. David and Solomon, for example, are conspicuous by their absence in Archeological records....but the likes of Omri is well documented...but is rarely mentioned in the Bible.  Heck, you'd have thought that there would be some small evidence of the Exodus....but there is none..zilch! Have you never noticed, btw, that people with an agenda can, with foreknowledge of a prophesy, deliberately create the circumstances which fulfill that prophecy? 

On other forums I read people spouting selected quotes from the Bible as you do...but they use that spouting to justify the Israel/Palestinian situation in favour of the Israeli POV and against the Palestinian right to have a life. And as I read all over the place "Christians" citing the *Old* Testament as justification for the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the justification for being anti-homosexual, not having women priests/ministers etc....and I do  :: .

At the end of the day, the Bible so many believe implicitly has been translated umpteen times over the centuries........and is by now, the written equivalent of Chinese Whispers (imho).  I'm not saying there may not have been something in it at some stage........because the history from Omri on (which is recorded history and verifiable to a greater or lesser extent) seems reasonably accurate, date-wise at least......but everything before Omri is dubious at best..and much of the Bible, whatever Christians think, was written, in hindsight (or to fulfill a specific agenda) centuries after the events.. and with as much authority as Alice in Wonderland has in dicatating life in the world today.

----------


## weezer 316

Nobody actually believes the bible. Ever met a christian fundamentalist? If you did they are commanded to kill you for your unbelief and wouldnt be here to tell the tale....

----------


## Oddquine

> Nobody actually believes the bible. Ever met a christian fundamentalist? If you did they are commanded to kill you for your unbelief and wouldnt be here to tell the tale....


If they don't believe it..why quote it?

----------


## Flynn

Einstein on god and the bible:




> The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, and religious scripture a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.

----------


## cptdodger

There is a joke doing the rounds on Facebook - A sign in a bookshop - "As from tomorrow, Lance Armstrong's books will be moved from Non-fiction to fiction" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720)

Alrock asked the question - "Does any one here care to explain why they think their interpretation is  the correct one & why they think the other interpretations are  wrong?"

The Bible is the written word - and from my understanding - over the years, it has been changed, bits added and bits taken away to suit whatever religion you believe in. We are just asking why. And why there is not just one Bible.

Maverick, you could quote the bible endlessly to me, it is still not answering the question. 

I'm not meaning to be disrespectful, but you can't honestly tell me you believe everything that is written in the Bible is fact, surely? Just because it is written, it does'nt make it true, or else there must be millions of children out there that thought Harry Potter was a documentary.

----------


## gaza

A word became flesh  ?????????? How'd that happen







> Have faith my son, it can happen, it did happen...


Dont be daft Rheghead.............its a real world out there.............not a story Like Mr Spock-Your profile picture.....ups have i burst another bubble

----------


## Rheghead

> Dont be daft Rheghead.............its a real world out there.............


No, the real world is.......so shall it be written and so it shall be believed.  In the Beginning there was a word so making flesh from a word which preexisted everything is just logical or just not that plain daft.

----------


## Rheghead

What proves the existence of God for me is that although He created the Universe out of nothing, he did need a rib from a man as starting material to create a woman...

----------


## ducati

Funny story that, the Lord said to Adam; "How would you like a companion?, a being so beautiful, so sexy, so intellegent, so loyal". Adam said oh yes Lord that would be tremendous! The Lord said to Adam "OK dude but it will cost you an arm and a leg a kidney and an eye. Adam said er....what can I get for a rib?

----------


## Rheghead

> 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.


Eh?  Oxygen is needed for amino acids to form as it is part of their structure.  Oxygen is present in the water in the Miller experiment.  Ultraviolet light doesn't readily react to all molecules including amino acids instantaneously, it is a low probablistic reaction but is essential for forming mutational chemical change in DNA.  So actually I would have thought that more UV would have speeded up the formation of life.




> 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.


No obstacle really to formation of life, both orientations being formed is not useless, it is just merely very wasteful, so the fact that one hand is favored over another is a sign of an adaptation through evolution.  





> 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 think you are in agreement with Dawkins as he also says that chance has very little to do with evolution.  Indeed a tornado going through a scrapyard and creating a jumbo jet would indeed be a definite sign that a higher intelligence is at work.  But that isn't what happened.

----------


## gaza

O boy, O boy. enough is enough.

----------


## cptdodger

This should be interesting -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21220007

----------


## Flynn

> This should be interesting -
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21220007



I'll be looking forward to watching that.

----------


## Flynn

Religion in a nutshell.  :Wink:

----------


## MerlinScot

> Religion in a nutshell.


Flynn that is the funniest thing I read in a while hahaha thanks for posting that!  :Smile:

----------


## secrets in symmetry

I was emailed a job ad for "Pontiff" today. I dare say it's highly offensive to Catholics, so I won't post it here lest I upset some sensitive souls.

----------


## cptdodger

I watched a film the other night, The Invention Of Lying with Ricky Gervais. I have to say, it was'nt my cup of tea, I thought it was quite cruel in places actually and thinking about it, I doubt religious people would find it funny either, but the concept was clever. If you have'nt seen it, It was about a world where everybody told the truth, they had no idea what a lie was, so everybody was taken at their word. Until that is, Ricky Gervais found he could lie. When his mum was dying, she was scared, so he basically made heaven up, and because, as I said nobody could lie, everybody believed him, so it was as if he invented religion. An interesting concept !

----------


## Flynn

> I watched a film the other night, The Invention Of Lying with Ricky Gervais. I have to say, it was'nt my cup of tea, I thought it was quite cruel in places actually and thinking about it, I doubt religious people would find it funny either, but the concept was clever. If you have'nt seen it, It was about a world where everybody told the truth, they had no idea what a lie was, so everybody was taken at their word. Until that is, Ricky Gervais found he could lie. When his mum was dying, she was scared, so he basically made heaven up, and because, as I said nobody could lie, everybody believed him, so it was as if he invented religion. An interesting concept !


What that film did was show religion for what it is: A lie so people don't worry about dying.

----------


## cptdodger

Exactly, That's why I said, I do'nt think religious people would be too fond of this film !!

----------


## Rheghead

> I was emailed a job ad for "Pontiff" today. I dare say it's highly offensive to Catholics, so I won't post it here lest I upset some sensitive souls.


Yeah that is as ridiculous as saving offence by not taking the micky out would-be Dumbledores at a Harry Potter convention.

----------


## Phill

> What that film did was show religion for what it is: A lie so people don't worry about dying.


That and to keep people under control, medieval style.
Apologies if that has already been said somewhere already but I really can't be bothered reading 25 pages of this thread.

----------


## M Swanson

> What that film did was show religion for what it is: A lie so people don't worry about dying.


You atheists are so funny. I thought this thread had run its' natural course, but here you all are again, obsessing about God. You seem incapable of living happily with believing in no God and leaving those of us that do, to benefit from our belief. It doesn't bother me one iota, what you, or anyone else thinks. If believing in nothing helps you get through a day, then you have my blessings. There are doubtless, many believers who read the forum, but do not choose to contribute. I can understand that. We have the kind of faith that you sadly have never, nor probably will ever, experience. It's a shame really, but you're not to know the tremendous difference it  makes. I wouldn't swap my gift of faith for all the riches of the world.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

I call it a delusion.

----------


## Rheghead

> You seem incapable of living happily with believing in no God and leaving those of us that do, to benefit from our belief. It doesn't bother me one iota, what you, or anyone else thinks.


That is a bit rich of you isn't it? Preach what you preach. Afterall this is a thread about an Atheist Census, so it is nothing to do with you.  Leave us alone, eh?

----------


## gleeber

> I call it a delusion.





> That is a bit rich of you isn't it? Preach what you preach. Afterall this is a thread about an Atheist Census, so it is nothing to do with you. Leave us alone, eh?


Thats too symplistic Rheghead. I used to call it a delusion even before dawkins but even if it is a delusion its still more complex than that. Anything that deals with human emotions is going to get a lot of stick. Delusion or not somethings happening to millions of people through a belief. Its not all bad in fact most of its for the good but fanatical people will warp anything, even atheism. Theres always more than religion behind every suicide bomber.
You asked a question at the start of this thread and the threads developed as it has and its thrown up some interesting answers, for me anyway, about the wisdom between New Atheists and religious people. The truth is ones as bad as the other.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

The world is ripped apart by religious division but we are one step away from being united together in one universal philosophy by answering one question truthfully.

----------


## gleeber

> The world is ripped apart by religious division but we are one step away from being united together in one universal philosophy by answering one question truthfully.


Its sounding like a new religion but ill ask anyway.

----------


## M Swanson

> The world is ripped apart by religious division but we are one step away from being united together in one universal philosophy by answering one question truthfully.


What???? I can't imagine any question that will unite the peoples and religions of the world. I'm intrigued, Rheg. What would that question be, or is this a wind-up?  ::  I've a feeling we may be looking at a huge delusion here.

----------


## Rheghead

> Its sounding like a new religion but ill ask anyway.


What new religion is that gleeber?

----------


## Rheghead

> What???? I can't imagine any question that will unite the peoples and religions of the world. I'm intrigued, Rheg. What would that question be, or is this a wind-up?  I've a feeling we may be looking at a huge delusion here.


Nothing will unite the religions of the world.  That is the whole point.  Imagine it, one delusional person trying to convince another...

----------


## M Swanson

Ah! So what is the question?

----------


## gleeber

> What new religion is that gleeber?


You declared the world was one step away from uniting. That sounds religious, but I was interested in the question that keeps us from uniting?

----------


## M Swanson

If I'm "delusional," for believing in God, when I can't prove it to a non-believers satisfaction, then that must also mean you are equally "delusional," for not believing in God, when you can't prove He doesn't exist either. Doesn't it?

----------


## Alrock

> Ah! So what is the question?


I'm guessing that one question would be....

Q: Is there a God?
A: No

Simples!!!!

----------


## Rheghead

> You declared the world was one step away from uniting. That sounds religious, but I was interested in the question that keeps us from uniting?


It is not the question that keeps us from uniting, it is the act of free thought for the truthful answer that will unite us.  Religion stifles free thought.  Faith is a brick wall in the mind, usually built and reinforced in childhood, an unimpenetrable barrier that keeps a person from telling the truth.  So when someone is telling us that they feel sorry that we don't have faith then they are saying that they feel sorry that we don't have this mental blockage.  It is a delusion.

----------


## Rheghead

> If I'm "delusional," for believing in God, when I can't prove it to a non-believers satisfaction, then that must also mean you are equally "delusional," for not believing in God, when you can't prove He doesn't exist either. Doesn't it?


No, evidence is sought to support the existence of stuff. No evidence, no assertion that stuff exists. To presuppose the existence of stuff without evidence is a delusion.

----------


## M Swanson

> It is not the question that keeps us from uniting, it is the act of free thought for the truthful answer that will unite us.  Religion stifles free thought.  Faith is a brick wall in the mind, usually built and reinforced in childhood, an unimpenetrable barrier that keeps a person from telling the truth.  So when someone is telling us that they feel sorry that we don't have faith then they are saying that they feel sorry that we don't have this mental blockage.  It is a delusion.


You couldn't be more wrong, Rheg. I was taught beliefs, but it took a long time and many tests to arrive at my faith. If there's a "mental blockage," then it's one you have in presuming you know more about their beliefs/faith than they do. Or, in this case, me!

----------


## Rheghead

> You couldn't be more wrong, Rheg. I was taught beliefs, but it took a long time and many tests to arrive at my faith. If there's a "mental blockage," then it's one you have in presuming you know more about their beliefs/faith than they do. Or, in this case, me!


So what was the result to the test to find evidence for your beliefs?

----------


## M Swanson

> No, evidence is sought to support the existence of stuff. No evidence, no assertion that stuff exists. To presuppose the existence of stuff without evidence is a delusion.


I have all the evidence I need, Rheg. Besides, to presuppose that God doesn't exist, without having evidence, is also delusional by your calculations. Who, or what, created the universe and us, then?

----------


## M Swanson

> So what was the result to the test to find evidence for your beliefs?


I'm not young Rheg and I've had many tests. All contributed to my receiving faith. I am blessed.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I have all the evidence I need, Rheg.


 Besides, to presuppose that God doesn't exist, without having evidence, is also delusional by your calculations. Who, or what, created the universe and us, then?[/QUOTE]

Come on tell us about the evidence you came up with, we'll analyse it.




> Besides, to presuppose that God doesn't exist, without having evidence, is also delusional by your calculations.


No, that is incorrect, I'm not interested in presupposing anything.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm not young Rheg and I've had many tests. All contributed to my receiving faith. I am blessed.


Are you not going to tell us?  come on, if it passed the test lets hear it.

----------


## M Swanson

Ah! So your need to analyse is the cross you bear Rheg. The end result of that, is to analyse everything to destruction. Not a happy place. I can live with your atheism ... it doesn't affect me, but what are you so frightened of, that you need to try and destroy my, or anyone elses faith in God? Hmmmmm!

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> I watched a film the other night, The Invention Of Lying with Ricky Gervais. I have to say, it was'nt my cup of tea, I thought it was quite cruel in places actually and thinking about it, I doubt religious people would find it funny either, but the concept was clever. If you have'nt seen it, It was about a world where everybody told the truth, they had no idea what a lie was, so everybody was taken at their word. Until that is, Ricky Gervais found he could lie. When his mum was dying, she was scared, so he basically made heaven up, and because, as I said nobody could lie, everybody believed him, so it was as if he invented religion. An interesting concept !


I'm far from a Ricky Gervais fanboy, and I hated "The Office" with a vengeance (because it was inane and so so goddamned boring), but I rather enjoyed The Invention of Lying. It's a simple but clever idea, and he pulled it off rather well.  ::

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Thats too symplistic Rheghead. I used to call it a delusion even before dawkins but even if it is a delusion its still more complex than that. Anything that deals with human emotions is going to get a lot of stick. Delusion or not somethings happening to millions of people through a belief. Its not all bad in fact most of its for the good but fanatical people will warp anything, even atheism. Theres always more than religion behind every suicide bomber.
> You asked a question at the start of this thread and the threads developed as it has and its thrown up some interesting answers, for me anyway, about the wisdom between New Atheists and religious people. The truth is ones as bad as the other.


You are guilty as charged gleeber.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Yeah that is as ridiculous as saving offence by not taking the micky out would-be Dumbledores at a Harry Potter convention.


That may be so, but at least we know that Dumbledore really existed - unlike some conjectured gods....

----------


## Phill

> I've had many tests. All contributed to my receiving faith.


Curious. Being a very subjective subject what would you consider a test? And is this a test of faith?
And wouldn't you find faith rather than receive it?

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah! So your need to analyse is the cross you bear Rheg. The end result of that, is to analyse everything to destruction. Not a happy place. I can live with your atheism ... it doesn't affect me, but what are you so frightened of, that you need to try and destroy my, or anyone elses faith in God? Hmmmmm!


No burden M Swanson.  The freedom to think critically is a nice place to be in.

I am frightened M Swanson.  You are right about that.  I'm frightened of what happens when faith gets in the way of thinking freely or hampering efforts to seek answers to the big questions on reality, health etc.  When teachers and parents teach scripture to innocent kids as fact, that frightens me.

----------


## Flynn

> I have all the evidence I need, Rheg. Besides, to presuppose that God doesn't exist, without having evidence, is also delusional by your calculations. Who, or what, created the universe and us, then?

----------

