# General > General >  Do You Believe in a God?

## redeyedtreefrog

By God, I mean conscious or at one point conscious higher power who created life on this planet and has any interest in the human race, and that can punish or reward humans based on their moral choices.

Dont ask for a Dont Know option, if you are unsure as to the existence of a God then you have no belief in it, therefore no.

----------


## shazzap

No i don't believe in god.

----------


## ShelleyCowie

Its a big no from me! But i dont judge people who do. My mum is christian and 2 of her sisters are Ministers. My OH's family are religous too but he isn't. 

If people do believe in God then thats ok, but i just dont.

----------


## shazzap

> Its a big no from me! But i dont judge people who do. My mum is christian and 2 of her sisters are Ministers. My OH's family are religous too but he isn't. 
> 
> If people do believe in God then thats ok, but i just dont.


I am the same each to their own. As long as i am not preached to.
The thing that really gets on my nerves is when you get people knocking at your door preaching.

----------


## flyfifer

Yes I believe in God

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Its a big no from me! But i dont judge people who do. My mum is christian and 2 of her sisters are Ministers. My OH's family are religous too but he isn't. 
> 
> If people do believe in God then thats ok, but i just dont.


I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right.  i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident".  Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right. i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident". Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.


They came to my door earlier this year. I told them i wasnt interested, they still didnt leave. I went to close the door as i was in the middle of changing my sons nappy and they put their foot in the door. They soon ran off when my OH came down the stairs!  :: 

I also dont like when people try to "force" their beliefs on me. If i wanted to believe something i would do it on my own free will! 

My religion is legally actually classed as "Jedi"  :Wink:

----------


## shazzap

[quote=ShelleyBain;617641]They came to my door earlier this year. I told them i wasnt interested, they still didnt leave. I went to close the door as i was in the middle of changing my sons nappy and they put their foot in the door. They soon ran off when my OH came down the stairs!  :: 

I also dont like when people try to "force" their beliefs on me. If i wanted to believe something i would do it on my own free will! 

My religion is legally actually classed as "Jedi"  :Wink: [/quote
]My religion is legally actually classed as "Jedi"


You have been watching question time haven't you. :: 
__________________

----------


## upolian

no i do not

----------


## Iffy

I have The Lord Jesus Christ in my life for now and forever and, for that, I'm grateful.

I know of a few people on here, who know my *real* name (so obviously know me as a person) and I could well imagine their reaction to my post.  ::  ::   ! ! ! ! I think it may give them something to talk about come Monday morning at work ............ eh ??

As previously said though, on this thread, everyone to themselves, and everyone is more than entitled to an opinion of their own.....

If you do or if you don't have a Faith (of any kind ??) - I've no bother with either - cos I ain't gonna start preaching; so dinna worry  :Grin:  !!! 

I treat people the way I find them, and how they treat me and mine back in return is what counts, not what their religion may or may not be - kindness, in my book, is what we should base others on.

God Bless X

----------


## Stavro

> I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right.  i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident".  Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.


Yes, I believe in God.

Perhaps you could quote some of the facts from the JW leaflet that you think are wrong? Along these lines, there was a creation v evolution talk in Wick Baptist Church last winter which covered a lot of this material.

----------


## Invisible

I'm a believer

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Perhaps you could quote some of the facts from the JW leaflet that you think are wrong?


Binned the leaflet a while ago, but the general jist of it was that evolution is a chance process, which is untrue.  Quite clearly, an animal will adapt it's body to it's surroundings to make itself actually survive.  Not chance at all.

----------


## Iffy

*Oh*, by the way, I'm *not,* a Jehovvah's Witness !! (Good greif, I canna spell hid anyway, even if I were one !!!! )   ::  :: 

I'm a Protestant, of the Christian variety, and proud o' it too !!!!

----------


## Stavro

> Binned the leaflet a while ago, but the general jist of it was that evolution is a chance process, which is untrue.  Quite clearly, an animal will adapt it's body to it's surroundings to make itself actually survive.  Not chance at all.


That's just adapting, not a new species. I think you may find that the chance they are referring to in their leaflet is that concerned with getting a protein molecule, say, from a bunch of amino acids. That kind of thing.

----------


## squidge

Where is the option for "sometimes"?

----------


## Angel

God is not the problem... it's the religon's all based around control...

Angel

----------


## changilass

I believe in something but it most certainly doesn't come within your definition.

----------


## Rheghead

I would believe in a god if I could see a point in it.

----------


## brandy

yes, i believe. I love God, and I know God loves me. sometimes I get a little lost and loose hope, and when it looks really bleak my faith is what picks me up again.  I dont have a problem with others faith, I hope that other dont have a problem with mine. 
one of my fav. verse is this:
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
i really do try to live by this, and its amazing how hard it is at times. im not perfect, but its a good rule of thumb, and a great guide line. 
but saying that my fav. verse in the bible is.........
6:11  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

6:13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.



those three verses mean a lot to me and have done since i first read them at age 17. 
it may be because im from the bible belt and have been brought up with God as a part of my everyday life. 
But, I am happier for it. I am content. and at the end of the day im still standing. 
and I wish that for everyone, even if it is hard at times.

----------


## Vistravi

Don't believe in god. i went to sunday school and know the christain stories but i choose not to believe in it and take it as gospel. 

Too much of life is to chance and opportiunitys. The biggest factor of being a non-believer is that how would a god let someone suffer the way my dad did. 

I had a interesting discussion with a friend that believes that we are the way we are through genes. i think we are the way we are through genes, the environment we grow up in and life experiences. i've had a few expereinces that have changed me.

I don't think god and religion have much place in how we live our lives now. It's how we live our life that counts not what religion we follow.  :Wink: 

But then again thats not what you were asking!  :Wink:

----------


## Gizmo

No, it's an utterly ridiculous concept

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

I believe God is the Sun. With it's energy, we are who we are today. Without it's energy, we're nothing...

----------


## Bobinovich

> I don't think god and religion have much place in how we live our lives now. It's how we live our life that counts not what religion we follow.


Have to agree.  Like many here I'm not a believer myself but have no problem with others if they choose to believe, so long as they don't try and preach their beliefs to me.

I'm also against religion being 'forced' upon todays youngsters - school services (no real choice but to attend), Cub Scouts (part & parcel if they want to enjoy the rest on offer) etc.  IMO most are too young to understand what religion is about.  My two have questioned why I don't believe, yet when I ask them if they do they are undecided.  It's a similar situation to Santa and the Tooth Fairy - they choose to believe because otherwise they may lose out on extra Christmas presents and tooth money!

----------


## poppett

Yes I am a believer, but have had problems with family members who are christians of the born again type and feel the need to thrust their beliefs down everyones throats, like it or lump it.   I tell them in order to be born again one must have lost their faith, and I never have, although it has been tried to distraction many times in my life.

"attending church doesn`t make one a Christian, any more than standing in a garage would make one a car".

----------


## brandy

i love  your post poppet! going to church does not make you a Christian..in fact some of the  most unchristian people i have ever met were the most upstanding of church goers! *G* 
faith is simply that.. faith. 
although, i have been baptised and saved, ive never lost my faith either. 
however, i am raising my children to believe in God, and as they grow older if they decided dif. while i will be upset, what can you do?
anyway, getting off subject... personally, ive stood in many garages.. even slept in one once in my youth.. but nope never turned into a car!

----------


## Alan16

I do not believe in a god. Such a belief is completely illogical.

----------


## joxville

Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion.  :Frown:

----------


## Alan16

> Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion.


People can delude themselves with the illusion of hope, but at the end of the day it's still an illusion.

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> It's a similar situation to Santa and the Tooth Fairy - they choose to believe because otherwise they may lose out on extra Christmas presents and tooth money!


Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real though!!! Santa is a nice guy. I still get presents from him, fair enough his writing is very similar to my mums but im 21 years old and i still believe!  :Wink:

----------


## horseman

Great posts brandy,just a straight forward yes for me though. :Smile:

----------


## hercs22

i dont believe although i would really like to think there is something more i certainly dont believe in the christian view of God. I dont mind if people are religious or not but what really gets on my nerves is religious people who gurn because people have a go at them for believing in God and then turn round and have a go at me because i dont believe i mean hypocryts or what.

----------


## crayola

I believe in Nature.

----------


## canuck

> By God, I mean conscious or at one point conscious higher power who created life on this planet and has any interest in the human race, and that can punish or reward humans based on their moral choices.
> 
> Dont ask for a Dont Know option, if you are unsure as to the existence of a God then you have no belief in it, therefore no.


You've offered an interesting definition of God.  Following what you have said I have to vote 'no', I don't believe in that kind of god.  As a Christian for me God in not a punisher or rewarder of adherence to a moral code. 




> I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right.  i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident".  Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.


I think that you must have mis-understood something.   Evolution is just that: 'chance' and 'accident'.   It is by chance or by accident that genes don't replicate properly and end up producing a new form of organizism in the offspring.  If this subsequent generation survives better than the parent then the species keeps going.

----------


## golach

> I believe in Nature.


Oh Crayola......have you just admitted you are really a Cabbage Patch Doll ::

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> I think that you must have mis-understood something.   Evolution is just that: 'chance' and 'accident'.   It is by chance or by accident that genes don't replicate properly and end up producing a new form of organizism in the offspring.  If this subsequent generation survives better than the parent then the species keeps going.


Sorry should've said that it said in the leaflet that there was a slim chance, highly unlikely.  The truth is that it happens frequently, not rarely.

----------


## Stavro

> Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion.


The question was about God, not religion. Religion is a man-made method of dividing people.

----------


## Alan16

> I think that you must have mis-understood something.   Evolution is just that: 'chance' and 'accident'.   It is by chance or by accident that genes don't replicate properly and end up producing a new form of organizism in the offspring.  If this subsequent generation survives better than the parent then the species keeps going.


That isn't entirely true. There is "chance" and "accident" involved in evolution, but precisely what you said in your last sentence shows that it isn't simply "chance" and "accident". Survival of the fittest. That isn't "chance".

----------


## weeboyagee

> No i don't believe in god.


The question was do you believe in A GOD?  I voted no.  Not a god.  I believe in God, capital G and the one and only.  The question didn't address that belief.

WBG  ::

----------


## Stavro

The question was weighted, but I think that you should have voted yes all the same.

----------


## Rheghead

> It's a similar situation to Santa and the Tooth Fairy - they choose to believe because otherwise they may lose out on extra Christmas presents and tooth money!


Different carrot and stick with religion, them being everlasting life or eternal damnation, what a mind job!  ::

----------


## shazzap

> The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
> 
> WBG


Ok then.
I do not believe in a god or god does that clear things up for you. ::  :Wink:

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> That isn't entirely true. There is "chance" and "accident" involved in evolution, but precisely what you said in your last sentence shows that it isn't simply "chance" and "accident". Survival of the fittest. That isn't "chance".


The survival of the fittest is all about chance.

The chance of a particular mutation occurring in the right location at the right time to enable the owner of that changed characteristic the chance to survive. There are so many imponderables that all survival of any living organism is a totally random chance.

Far more organisms die without reproducing than ever survive to pass on their unique genes.

----------


## Rheghead

> The survival of the fittest is all about chance.
> 
> The chance of a particular mutation occurring in the right location at the right time to enable the owner of that changed characteristic the chance to survive. There are so many imponderables that all survival of any living organism is a totally random chance.
> 
> Far more organisms die without reproducing than ever survive to pass on their unique genes.


There is nothing about natural selection that involves chance.  If the mutation (that occurs randomly) contributes to the survival of the species then the mutation will be passed on, it is as simple as that.

----------


## weeboyagee

> Ok then.
> I do not believe in a god or god does that clear things up for you.


Nah - you missed out the capital G.  :: 

WBG  ::

----------


## Lavenderblue2

Yes, I believe in God.

----------


## shazzap

> Nah - you missed out the capital G. 
> 
> WBG


Seen as i do not believe in either it does not warrant a capital G ::

----------


## Vistravi

God and religion go together. I'm not a religious person but the only one that comes close is humainism. Even that i do not fully agree with as i do believe that there is life after death as i have sensed spirits and know that some people when they die become stuck/tied to the earth. But that is a diferent topic  :Wink:

----------


## BINBOB

> Yes I am a believer, but have had problems with family members who are christians of the born again type and feel the need to thrust their beliefs down everyones throats, like it or lump it. I tell them in order to be born again one must have lost their faith, and I never have, although it has been tried to distraction many times in my life.
> 
> "attending church doesn`t make one a Christian, any more than standing in a garage would make one a car".


Agree with u ,poppet...well said. :Wink:

----------


## Alan16

> The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
> 
> WBG


Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god. 




> Nah - you missed out the capital G. 
> 
> WBG


Not needed. Grammar is an amazing thing. Capital "g" required their.




> The survival of the fittest is all about chance.
> 
> The chance of a particular mutation occurring in the right location at the right time to enable the owner of that changed characteristic the chance to survive. There are so many imponderables that all survival of any living organism is a totally random chance.
> 
> Far more organisms die without reproducing than ever survive to pass on their unique genes.


Rheghead gave a very good reply, so I'm just going to simply say: no, you're wrong there.

----------


## Alan16

> Seen as i do not believe in either it does not warrant a capital G


It's really not about belief, it's more a matter of grammatical correctness.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

No I don't believe in God.My mothers family were close and loving.My Dads family were church goers,I was baptised outwith my mothers wishes.My Dad left us,he's dead and not remembered.His God has got him now so he will be alright.I won't criticise peoples faith for that is for the individual.For me I have a close and loving family,I'm happy. :Smile:

----------


## golach

> Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god.


What, O first year student of Physics, made you think WBG believes in a Christian God?...... ::

----------


## shazzap

> It's really about belief, it's more a matter of grammatical correctness.


If i dot not recognise a god, then whether it is grammatically correct or not does not matter to me.  :Grin: 

I do know that all names begin with a capital letter. :: 

There are far too many people on the Org who are too quick to pick others up on there ability to spell. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, as they are either dyslexic or just cannot read or spell at all, or not very well.

Sorry for going off subject, but this type of thing has been getting on my nerves for quite some time now. ::

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> There is nothing about natural selection that involves chance.  If the mutation (that occurs randomly) contributes to the survival of the species then the mutation will be passed on, it is as simple as that.


I'm not disputing that a mutation that contributes to the survival of the species will be passed - if the organism lives to reproduce.

I am simply stating that many more potentially beneficial mutations die out without being passed on to future generations because the individual organism with the mutation dies before reproducing. That is down to random chance, struck be lightning, eaten by a predator, die of disease, take your pick. I don't have a copy of The Origin of Species to hand, but I do remember that Darwin makes just that point.

So the statement  that evolution is down to chance is equally as true as the statement that it is not. It simply depends upon the scale of the picture you choose to look at.

----------


## canuck

> There is nothing about natural selection that involves chance.  If the mutation (that occurs randomly) contributes to the survival of the species then the mutation will be passed on, it is as simple as that.


Natural selection is about survival.

But the chance production of a new organism and its unfolding to see if it is viable is what evolution is really about.   Survival of a new fittest is only possible because of the chance mutation of a gene.

----------


## Alan16

> What, O first year student of Physics, made you think WBG believes in a Christian God?......


Well the chances are he is referring to the Christian god. He wasn't talking about Hinduism as Hinduism has many gods; he probably isn't Muslim as most Muslims I know don't refer to "God", they refer to "Allah"; and living in Caithness as I think he does, he is probably not Jewish.




> If i dot not recognise a god, then whether it is grammatically correct or not does not matter to me. 
> 
> I do know that all names begin with a capital letter.
> 
> There are far too many people on the Org who are too quick to pick others up on there ability to spell. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, as they are either dyslexic or just cannot read or spell at all, or not very well.
> 
> Sorry for going off subject, but this type of thing has been getting on my nerves for quite some time now.


I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I was not intending to mock you or be an arse about your grammar, I was merely pointing out that WBG's insistence that god have a capital "g" is grammatically incorrect.

----------


## Rheghead

> Natural selection is about survival.
> 
> But the chance production of a new organism and its unfolding to see if it is viable is what evolution is really about.   Survival of a new fittest is only possible because of the chance mutation of a gene.


There is no 'chance' production of new organisms, mutations do occur, that is a certainty. Where and when they are occur in DNA is a random event.

----------


## Rheghead

> I am simply stating that many more potentially beneficial mutations die out without being passed on to future generations because the individual organism with the mutation dies before reproducing.


Nature cares not for what is _potentially benefical_.  If it is beneficial then it is beneficial, if it's not then then it's not.  There is nothing left to chance there.  :Smile: 

If I'll only make you a cup of tea if you can throw a double 6 with some dice and you can have as many throws as you want.  I think you'll find that it is a certainty that you will get your cuppa.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

If the god being referred to is God then capital G is required to be grammatically correct. At least according to the OED which has always been fairly authoritative.

Proper nouns and all that  :Smile: 

Other gods don't require the capital as in other cases it is not a proper noun.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> Nature cares not for what is _potentially benefical_.  If it is beneficial then it is beneficial, if it's not then then it's not.  There is nothing left to chance there.


But a mutation can be of demonstrable benefit to the individual organism, and yet not be passed on as an evolutionary change simply because the individual organism fails to reproduce. ::

----------


## shazzap

> Well the chances are he is referring to the Christian god. He wasn't talking about Hinduism as Hinduism has many gods; he probably isn't Muslim as most Muslims I know don't refer to "God", they refer to "Allah"; and living in Caithness as I think he does, he is probably not Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I was not intending to mock you or be an arse about your grammar, I was merely pointing out that WBG's insistence that god have a capital "g" is grammatically incorrect.


No it was not aimed at you.

This just brought on a rant about certain people on here, who find great pleasure in pulling others down less fortunate than themselves in the brains department.

----------


## Rheghead

> But a mutation can be of demonstrable benefit to the individual organism, and yet not be passed on as an evolutionary change simply because the individual organism fails to reproduce.


Your point falls down when you mentioned individual. :Smile:

----------


## Hoida

Yes I believe in God and have been a Christian for many years  but respect those who don't really want to know and feel some sadness that they will never know the true meaning of peace!

----------


## Alan16

> If the god being referred to is God then capital G is required to be grammatically correct. At least according to the OED which has always been fairly authoritative.
> 
> Proper nouns and all that 
> 
> Other gods don't require the capital as in other cases it is not a proper noun.


A god is a thing. A concept. When referring to the Christian god I do not need to capitalize "god" because I am talking about an object - it's the same as if I am talking about the Christian teacup. I don't need to capitalize teacup. If, however, I say "Therefore God created man" the capitalization is necessary because I am using the word as a proper noun - I am talking about a person/being called "God". You're right, the OED is authoritative, but you still need to read it properly.




> Yes I believe in God and have been a Christian for many years  but respect those who don't really want to know and feel some sadness that they will never know the true meaning of peace!


And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?

----------


## golach

> And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?


You hate a lot of Christians do you? What does that make you? Do you actually comprehend how idiotic you sound. You IMHO need to grow up ::

----------


## joxville

> And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?


Quite a strong use of the word 'hate' Alan.  ::  

Instead of hating them, learn to love them-it'll annoy the hell out of them.  ::

----------


## shazzap

> Yes I believe in God and have been a Christian for many years but respect those who don't really want to know and feel some sadness that they will never know the true meaning of peace!


And what do you base this statement on please.

----------


## Rheghead

> And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?


I'm never insulted by christians but I know that some christians are insulted by the progress towards secularism and evidence based rationality.  Speaking for myself, I need good firm evidence for my beliefs.  Nothing more basic than that.  It is the difference between keeping your eyes wide openand walking around freely and that of looking through a prism with blinkers and wearing your chains for Christ.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> Your point falls down when you mentioned individual.


Any mutation that is of benefit to a species must be of benefit to the individual too.

----------


## Rheghead

> Any mutation that is of benefit to a species must be of benefit to the individual too.


So if an individual organism that carries a beneficial mutation is killed before it has the chance to reproduce means that the mutation is lost?  What about the others that carry it that do survive and pass it on?

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> The question was do you believe in A GOD?  I voted no.  Not a god.  I believe in God, capital G and the one and only.  The question didn't address that belief.
> 
> WBG


Alan16

The above is the direct quote that you state does not require the capital G.

_Res ipsa loquitur_

----------


## weeboyagee

> Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god.  (Ref capital G) ... Not needed. Grammar is an amazing thing. Capital "g" required their.


Exodus 20:1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me

God is the only one true God.  

Definition of a proper noun: nouns name people, places, and things. Every noun can further be classified as common or proper. A proper noun has two distinctive features: *1) it will name a specific, usually a one-of-a-kind, item,* and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.

Since God is the only one true God, the reference begins with a capital.  Since the question considers other gods, the question in the same way references that they exist in order to believe in them.  Since I believe in one true God, not any indiscriminant god, the question is therefore not relevant and I can't vote yes.  Maybe one day your eyes will be opened to that.

Reference the term "grammar" - a wee lesson, "There" indicates a place as in, "I live here not there." It is the opposite of "here." "Their" is the possessive of "they", as in "They live there but it isn't their house." 

WBG  ::

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> So if an individual organism that carries a beneficial mutation is killed before it has the chance to reproduce means that the mutation is lost?  What about the others that carry it that do survive and pass it on?


If the mutation is unique to the individual, yes, so for example a mutation in say an elephant calf (almost unheard of to experience multiple births) then if the individual dies without reproducing then that potential benefit to the species will be lost.

If the mutation is in an organism in which the reproduction is on a larger scale - say a cod which is capable of producing millions of eggs in a single spawning then the odds of that mutation being lost are smaller, but not impossible.

----------


## weeboyagee

> And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?


Do you comprehend how insulting you sound when you a) fail to understand through your own lack of comprehension and b) teach me a lesson in grammar and fail to realise your own inabilities with the same subject matter?

People like you Alan16 fed people to the lions centuries ago.  But you know what - here is the wonderful 11th commandment which, despite your hatred towards Christians, allows them to see past that - John 13:34

WBG  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> If the mutation is unique to the individual, yes, so for example a mutation in say an elephant calf (almost unheard of to experience multiple births) then if the individual dies without reproducing then that potential benefit to the species will be lost.


And that mutation is lost because it wasn't causal to its survival.  It just gets binned with all the rest, it wasn't beneficial.  Like I said before, there is no _potentially beneficial mutations_ there are only survivors and failures, winners and losers.

----------


## weeboyagee

> It is the difference between keeping your eyes wide open and walking around freely and that of looking through a prism with blinkers and wearing your chains for Christ.


Sorry Rheggers, had to laugh at that one - wondered why I was slowing down in old age - chains getting heavier and all that !  :: 

WBG  ::

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary *their*) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not needed. Grammar is an amazing thing. Capital "g" required *their*.
> 
> 
> 
> Rheghead gave a very good reply, so I'm just going to simply say: no, you're wrong there.


Anyone else noticing the irony in the grammar lesson?

----------


## Rheghead

> Sorry Rheggers, had to laugh at that one - wondered why I was slowing down in old age - chains getting heavier and all that ! 
> 
> WBG


Probably answers the observation of why the age of the typical cross section of congregation is of the older type.  Last throes of doubt and desperation?  ::   ::

----------


## shazzap

> Sorry Rheggers, had to laugh at that one - wondered why I was slowing down in old age - chains getting heavier and all that ! 
> 
> WBG


Sorry but your post brought this image to mind.

----------


## weeboyagee

> Sorry but your post brought this image to mind.


Aye - and there's (or is that "theirs"???  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): ) many a time I feel like that  :: 

WBG  ::

----------


## Saveman

Oh dear, I answered yes, but maybe I should've answered no! Grammar is such a tricky subject!  :Wink:

----------


## Alan16

> Quite a strong use of the word 'hate' Alan. 
> 
> Instead of hating them, learn to love them-it'll annoy the hell out of them.


Hate is just a word. The strength you choose to assign to it is up to you. If people want to say that they have sympathy for me, then I will say that I hate them, because I find it very very insulting.




> You hate a lot of Christians do you? What does that make you? Do you actually comprehend how idiotic you sound. You IMHO need to grow up.


I hate Christians that feel sympathy for me because I am an atheist. What that makes me does not bother me in the slightest. 




> Originally Posted by weeboyagee
> 
> 
> The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
> 
> WBG
> 
> 
> Alan16
> ...


Read the quote again, then read my answer: _Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god. 

_He tried to say that he voted no because the question referred to "a god", and he believed in "God". What my answer pointed out was that the question does address his belief. The question is I assume deliberately vague so as to allow all faiths to answer. He believes in a god, God (as he calls the being). What I said on capitalization stands. 




> Exodus 20:1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
> 
> God is the only one true God.  
> 
> Definition of a proper noun: nouns name people, places, and things. Every noun can further be classified as common or proper. A proper noun has two distinctive features: *1) it will name a specific, usually a one-of-a-kind, item,* and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.
> 
> Since God is the only one true God, the reference begins with a capital.  Since the question considers other gods, the question in the same way references that they exist in order to believe in them.  Since I believe in one true God, not any indiscriminant god, the question is therefore not relevant and I can't vote yes.  Maybe one day your eyes will be opened to that.
> 
> Reference the term "grammar" - a wee lesson, "There" indicates a place as in, "I live here not there." It is the opposite of "here." "Their" is the possessive of "they", as in "They live there but it isn't their house." 
> ...


The question asked if you believed in a god. The question makes no proclamations about how many gods there are, or even if there is one, it is merely looking for your opinion. You believe in a god, the Christian god. So the answer to the question "Do you believe in a god?" is yes. You do. You believe in the god talked about in The Bible. The question does not consider other gods. The question considers other people's opinions on other gods. So you should have answered yes.

Oh, and if we want to be annoying about grammar mistakes, "indiscriminant"... Not a word. And anyway, I wasn't trying to be annoying in talking about the grammatical correctness of "god" and "God" - it was relevant to the debate.




> Anyone else noticing the irony in the grammar lesson?


Well done, I made a typo. Ten points for observation. Also, "noticing"? That seems like a grammatical error to me.

----------


## Stavro

I must say, I admire the faith of the atheists here who believe in the religion of organic evolution.

It has no scientific foundation and requires blind faith in many, many aspects.  :Grin:

----------


## hails4

No proof of god anywhere. Bible doesnt like science and yet people still use this. Mind you i dont "religously celebrate" christmas. Its becoming more and more of a bank holiday. Also in regards to that you see no mention on Santa in the bible but yet hes more popular than jesus and in the eyes of kids, god.

----------


## Alan16

> I must say, I admire the faith of the atheists here who believe in the religion of organic evolution.
> 
> It has no scientific foundation and requires blind faith in many, many aspects.


The theory of evolution is scientifically logical and sound. And I'll quote the man I'm listening to right now, as he sums up my opinion here very nicely: _Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved._

----------


## upolian

i thought this was about DO YOU YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD?not a grammar lesson ::

----------


## Stavro

> The theory of evolution is scientifically logical and sound. And I'll quote the man I'm listening to right now, as he sums up my opinion here very nicely: _Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved._


How about -

"The chance of life evolving anywhere in the [15,000,000,000 l-y radius] universe is equivalent to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard would assemble a Boeing 747."   ::

----------


## Alan16

> How about -
> 
> "The chance of life evolving anywhere in the [15,000,000,000 l-y radius] universe is equivalent to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard would assemble a Boeing 747."


You can through out these numbers if you want, but as a science student, I can tell you that there is evidence of evolution, and that most of the numbers brandished by the intelligent design bunch are extremely misleading.

----------


## Rheghead

> How about -
> 
> "The chance of life evolving anywhere in the [15,000,000,000 l-y radius] universe is equivalent to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard would assemble a Boeing 747."


Can you name a form of air transport that is simpler than a Boeing 747?  ::

----------


## Stavro

> Can you name a form of air transport that is simpler than a Boeing 747?


Yes, I can, but I do not understand your point.

----------


## Stavro

> You can through out these numbers if you want, but as a science student, I can tell you that there is evidence of evolution, and that most of the numbers brandished by the intelligent design bunch are extremely misleading.


You mean "throw" out, but the quotation is not mine, it is from Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, both atheists when they investigated this problem. Their conclusion? "There MUST be a God."

----------


## arana negra

I do not and never have believed in any god whatever. The idea that something/one has any influence on the good bad and devasting events in anyones life is something I could/would never understand.  Now as I deal with the loss of new (just over 2 years) husband whom I only knew for 5 years any belief in any god is further from being at all feasible in my head.

----------


## shazzap

> I do not and never have believed in any god whatever. The idea that something/one has any influence on the good bad and devasting events in anyones life is something I could/would never understand. Now as I deal with the loss of new (just over 2 years) husband whom I only knew for 5 years any belief in any god is further from being at all feasible in my head.


I have for as long as i can remember never believed in a god.
I used to get sent out of religious education classes because i refused to have anything to do with them. When i lost my son i explained to the pastor or what ever you call them that before i went ahead with the funeral that he must know that i didn't believe and that my son had not been christened. I thought it was up to each of my children to decide when old enough what if any faith they wanted to be part of. My son did not get to decide this as he was only 12yrs when he died.Some might call me a hypocrite for having a church service for my son, but like i said he did not get the opportunity to choose for himself. I kept any prayers etc to a minimum and would not take part in them. So i can and do understand where you are coming from.

----------


## Phill

So, is *god* a Boeing 747 with bad grammar then?

I don't really do religion but I love these kinds of religious "debates".
There's a couple of good spin-off polls from this:
Which is the Right religion.
Which is the Best religion.
(think about it)

(*insert your choice of name/phrase here)

Anyway, a smart tornado just picks the right junk yard:


 ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes, I can, but I do not understand your point.


I thought as much.  The point is that you accept that there are intermediaries even with things that are designed.

----------


## rob1

Why should I believe in any form of god? 

I have no interest what so ever of following any deity even if they did exist.

----------


## Loraine

> Oh dear, I answered yes, but maybe I should've answered no! Grammar is such a tricky subject!


Ooops! I think I fell into that trap too....... ::

----------


## Stavro

> I thought as much.  The point is that you accept that there are intermediaries even with things that are designed.


Well, instead of "thinking as much," it would have been nice for you to comprehend the quote, which, by the way, was not from me, but from two world-class, atheistic scientists.

The analogy with the 747 has nothing to do with missing links or evolution of design on an engineer's drawing board, it was actually about the possibility of simple molecules forming from inorganic material anywhere in the universe in 15,000,000,000 years.

You see, you cannot have the chicken without the egg, for when the chicken dies there will be no more chickens. It must have been complete from the outset.

So you cannot have the tornado first assembling a tail fin or a light housing and then waiting for the next tornado to come along. The point was that it has to be assembled at once - all bits working - as they were designed to do.

----------


## Stavro

> So, is *god* a Boeing 747 with bad grammar then?


Does that question have any intelligent design to it?





> I don't really do religion but I love these kinds of religious "debates".
> There's a couple of good spin-off polls from this:
> Which is the Right religion.
> Which is the Best religion.
> (think about it)
> 
> (*insert your choice of name/phrase here)


As I said earlier, we must not confuse God with religion.





> Anyway, a smart tornado just picks the right junk yard:


A smart tornado?  ::

----------


## Olin

Of course there is no such thing as a god!

And I don't hate people who do believe in god. But I think they are being somewhat naive and idiotic.

If you want something to think about with relation to god then buy George Carlin's "Bad For ya" dvd. 

Yes he's a comedian but he questions a lot of relevant subjects and makes you think something serious.

One points he makes is that you have to take your hat off when you go into church because you're in the presence of god..... Then when you ask religious people "Where is god?" they say "Everywhere." He responds with "why would you buy a hat?" 

I think "god" was an excuse for the unexplainable back in the day when science wasnt around....

----------


## Olin

http://importreason.wordpress.com/20...elieve-in-god/

Pretty Much Sorts This Discussion Out.....

----------


## golach

> One points he makes is that you have to take your hat off when you go into church because you're in the presence of god..... ....


Strange I cannot remember any time I ever went to church wearing a hat, so thats one theory shot down, I have seen lots of wifies wearing hats in the kirk, do they get special dispensation  ::

----------


## Invisible

> Of course there is no such thing as a god!
> 
> And I don't hate people who do believe in god. But I think they are being somewhat naive and idiotic.
> 
> I think "god" was an excuse for the unexplainable back in the day when science wasnt around....


Doesn't everyone need something to believe in. It's the people who believe that World peace will happen are naive, in my opinion. Children aren't taught about Jesus and God in school for no reason. The nativity play isn't acted out every year with parents and child putting so much effort it. No God = No Christmas. 
However, you might be onto something about using god as an excuse. Personally made the earth in 7 days is a little far-fetched even for Chuck Norris.

----------


## Gizmo

> Doesn't everyone need something to believe in. It's the people who believe that World peace will happen are naive, in my opinion. Children aren't taught about Jesus and God in school for no reason. The nativity play isn't acted out every year with parents and child putting so much effort it. No God = No Christmas. 
> However, you might be onto something about using god as an excuse. Personally made the earth in 7 days is a little far-fetched even for Chuck Norris.


What absolute rubbish you talk, Chuck Norris would have had the job done in 4  :Smile:

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

This poll is turning out a lot more evenly than I expected it would, pretty much half and half.  I was expecting a strong religious victory, dont ask why.

----------


## Alan16

> You mean "throw" out, but the quotation is not mine, it is from Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, both atheists when they investigated this problem. Their conclusion? "There MUST be a God."


Although the ideas they express are interesting, I do not agree with them, or their conclusion. Also, for the number of scientists that you can find who reach that conclusion, I can find hundreds more which disagree with it. Their opinion, is not proof of a god of any sort. 




> The analogy with the 747 has nothing to do with missing links or evolution of design on an engineer's drawing board, it was actually about the possibility of simple molecules forming from inorganic material anywhere in the universe in 15,000,000,000 years.
> 
> You see, you cannot have the chicken without the egg, for when the chicken dies there will be no more chickens. It must have been complete from the outset.
> 
> So you cannot have the tornado first assembling a tail fin or a light housing and then waiting for the next tornado to come along. The point was that it has to be assembled at once - all bits working - as they were designed to do.


Although that is a nice analogy, it is meaningless. A human being is not a plane. For example, we share 97% (I think, check before quoting that, but it is fairly high anyway) of our genes with mice. So it's not as if a human being was made in one go like a plane. It took lots of small evolutionary steps, and this took time, something there was a lot of. 




> Does that question have any intelligent design to it?


That makes little sense, but if you really want an answer, then yes. The question was written by somebody, whether they are geniuses or not, they are more intelligent than the inanimate sentence, so it was designed intelligently (relative to the sentence) by somebody.




> As I said earlier, we must not confuse God with religion.


Because that would be ludicrous...




> A smart tornado?


You can believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, (and a few other omnis) being, yet the idea of wind having intelligence so perplexes you? Perhaps it's because there is no book about this smart tornado that you don't believe in it... I see a best seller!




> And I don't hate people who do believe in god.


Probably aimed at me, so I'll answer. I do not hate religious people, I hate religious people who either pity me or shove it down my throat.

----------


## Invisible

Doesn't god say to treat others as you would yourself. In that case we should go to all JW's houses and come in and drink their tea n biscuits and no take no for an answer. ::

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

hehe...

----------


## Stavro

> Although the ideas they express are interesting, I do not agree with them, or their conclusion.


That's fine, I have no problem with that.

Nor do I have a problem with redeyedtreefrog's diagram, because the Bible is not the word of God, it is mainly man-made lies and deception. Hence, I do not believe in God because the Bible tells me to.  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, instead of "thinking as much," it would have been nice for you to comprehend the quote, which, by the way, was not from me, but from two world-class, atheistic scientists.
> 
> The analogy with the 747 has nothing to do with missing links or evolution of design on an engineer's drawing board, it was actually about the possibility of simple molecules forming from inorganic material anywhere in the universe in 15,000,000,000 years.
> 
> You see, you cannot have the chicken without the egg, for when the chicken dies there will be no more chickens. It must have been complete from the outset.
> 
> So you cannot have the tornado first assembling a tail fin or a light housing and then waiting for the next tornado to come along. The point was that it has to be assembled at once - all bits working - as they were designed to do.


I agree with the tornado striking through a scrapyard and creating a Boeing 747 analogy, the odds are immensely against it happening, but that is what the creationists are proposing what happened and anything that can create such a odd-defying feat has to be even more odd-defying, there is no way out of that one if you want to explain it.

We always have something before the egg, the chicken is only an exercise in taxonomy for our benefit rather than to describe something fully in reality.

Take for instance crystal growth, when you get down to it, crystals aren't alive in the sense that we classically describe something as alive.  But they do grow using the same inter-molecular interactions that exist in the higher mammals.  Similarly, there are other biological agents such as prions and viruses which give scientists a certain difficulty as to whether to describe them as alive or not.  Higher up the biological chain we have similar dilemmas of classification.   So what I am getting at is that the odds aren't against it of happening in the past as we can already see examples of intermediary-like organisms in the world today. We just need to open our eyes and hearts to the idea that every living creature on theis planet has been proven to be originated from a common ancestor.  That is fact from analysis of our DNA.

----------


## Stavro

> I agree with the tornado striking through a scrapyard and creating a Boeing 747 analogy, the odds are immensely against it happening, but that is what the creationists are proposing what happened and anything that can create such a odd-defying feat has to be even more odd-defying, there is no way out of that one if you want to explain it.


I do not know of any creationist who would say that such a thing happened. Creationists point out that such a thing is impossible ... by chance.

A believer in God can go so far back and then has to say, "God did it." A believer in the idea of organic evolution can never stop with, "God did it," but has to keep going backwards. However, there is no way to get even "simple" molecules by chance.

Take, for instance, the necessity to get oxygen to our cells. There is one protein molecule which is used to place oxygen in the blood stream and another protein molecule for taking it out. Neither is of any use without the other, which means that cells needing oxygen can not survive unless they themselves, together with these two protein molecules, came into existence at the same time.

Crystal growth has nothing really to do with it. As for whether a virus is "alive" or not, I don't know, but I do know that something as complex as a reproductive system, even in a bacterium, did not just spring into existence.

----------


## Rheghead

> Take, for instance, the necessity to get oxygen to our cells. There is one protein molecule which is used to place oxygen in the blood stream and another protein molecule for taking it out. Neither is of any use without the other, which means that cells needing oxygen can not survive unless they themselves, together with these two protein molecules, came into existence at the same time.


I don't think that is the case.

----------


## Phill

I never thought I'd be a victim of my words being used as soundbites!!!




> That makes little sense, but if you really want an answer, then yes. The question was written by somebody, whether they are geniuses or not, they are more intelligent than the inanimate sentence, so it was designed intelligently (relative to the sentence) by somebody.


I'm not sure if how to take this, is this a compliment. Somewhat confused as to if I am/are geniuses, but then are we focusing on my mentality or grammar, and I understand little of both.
Anyway, the sentence wasn't supposed to make sense and was written by an ijeet.




> yet the idea of wind having intelligence so perplexes you? Perhaps it's because there is no book about this smart tornado that you don't believe in it... I see a best seller!


The smart tornado is my idea, go figure your own best seller.


Anyhow, Gizmo. I'll raise you.....the A team, 3 days!

 ::

----------


## mrjolly

o yes big God. little men

----------


## brandy

everyone keeps on saying that God isnt scientific, yet would God not be the greatest scienteist ever? God created everything, everything can be explained.. (well one day maybe?) it all links up together. just because we dont have the answers now does not mean we ever wont. 
why does people think that to Love God you have to think inside the box?
why can people be free thinkers, intelegent people who think out side the pre-consived notions of peoples long gone?
lets see.. i believe in God, i believe in aliens, I belive in ghosts and a spirit world.. is it relevant? i say yes. individually, we are a people that use onloy about 10-15 percent of our brain, in a universe so huge its beyound comprehension. who are we to say what is fact or fiction in a thing that we know nothing about. 
its a big world people, keep your minds open.

----------


## Gizmo

> Anyhow, Gizmo. I'll raise you.....the A team, 3 days!


How about, Chuck Norris joins The A Team, 2 days!  :Wink:

----------


## weeboyagee

> ...I do not agree with them, or their conclusion....I can find hundreds more which disagree with it...that makes little sense...the question was written by somebody (*singular*), whether they are geniuses (*plural*) or not, they are more intelligent than the inanimate sentence, so it was designed intelligently by somebody (*or should that be somebodies?*).......Because that would be ludicrous...You can believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, (and a few other omnis) being, yet the idea of wind having intelligence so perplexes you? Perhaps it's because there is no book about this smart tornado that you don't believe in it...Probably aimed at me, so I'll answer. I do not hate religious people, I hate religious people who either pity me or shove it down my throat.


What an ignorant, annoying, immature and unbelievably condescending manner in your postings and not just on this thread.  I have no pretence in the fact that I am no professor of grammar - but you were the one that started it and yet you couldn't take it when it was pointed out to you.  You strike me as being the spoiled little boy that has always got his own way, that has always thought that he can do no wrong and that whatever he says or does is always right.  I hate to tell you, but from what I can make out, you try to prove to yourself that you are someone you are not - that you know what you talk about but yet you still have a lot to learn.  I bet you're quite annoyed with yourself that you couldn't get "there" and "their" right, since it's so simple it makes a mockery of your ability to talk like Einstein in such a way as you are trying to on such a subject matter as this.

You contribute so much yet the actual substance of your contributions mean so little that they make me laugh.  You have no ability to self examine and no ability to consider that you maybe, just ever so slightly, wrong - because you can't stand the thought of that word applying in a descriptive sense to you.

Some time in life, you are going to find that you are quite insignificant and that your contributions given your attitude in your delivery, are even less so.  That's such a shame because you're probably a nice person really, if your ego just didn't get so much in the way.

God bless you.  Whether you believe in God or not.

WBG  ::

----------


## trix

i believe in god, but in the mother nature sense....the great goddess.

i da believe there was ever a man called jesus christ, i da believe he was crucified and i da  believe he was resurrected....i da believe mary wis a virgin an i da believe in 'e 3 kings...

i believe in many things but 'iss image o' man, our holy father, which art in heaven....i do not.

----------


## Alan16

> What an ignorant, annoying, immature and unbelievably condescending manner in your postings and not just on this thread.


I think you missed some...




> I have no pretence in the fact that I am no professor of grammar - but you were the one that started it and yet you couldn't take it when it was pointed out to you.


As I've explained before, when I pointed out the grammatical error in using the capital "g" where it shouldn't be it was of some relevance to the debate. Whoever it was who was using it the whole time, was doing it wrong, probably deliberately. I make mistakes in grammar the whole time, including many mistakes in this response probably. If people want to pick me up on tiny mistakes (ones not relevant to the debate) that's fine, but please at least proof read your own damn post criticising my grammar.




> You strike me as being the spoiled little boy that has always got his own way, that has always thought that he can do no wrong and that whatever he says or does is always right.


You may feel that way, but it is not the case. I know I'm not always right - and in fact I'm probably wrong more often than not. 




> I hate to tell you, but from what I can make out, you try to prove to yourself that you are someone you are not - that you know what you talk about but yet you still have a lot to learn.


I know the limits to my knowledge. But on this topic I can only say that I do know what I'm talking about. I've studied the theory of evolution, I've read Origin of the Species, I've read The Bible. Sometimes, on those rare occasions, I know what I'm talking about. Sometimes, on rarer occasions, I'm right. 




> I bet you're quite annoyed with yourself that you couldn't get "there" and "their" right, since it's so simple it makes a mockery of your ability to talk like Einstein in such a way as you are trying to on such a subject matter as this.


Yeah, I'm annoyed. Damn annoyed. Today I attended lectures on special relativity, yet I got primary school grammar wrong. Of course I'm annoyed. 




> You contribute so much yet the actual substance of your contributions mean so little


I contribute on average one post a day. Let's be honest, this significantly lowers the chances of me saying anything remotely interesting. And sorry if I'm bursting a bubble, but the same probably holds for you. 




> that they make me laugh.


If my posts do nothing more, I'll be happy.




> You have no ability to self examine and no ability to consider that you maybe, just ever so slightly, wrong - because you can't stand the thought of that word applying in a descriptive sense to you.


I can and quite often am wrong. It's to be expected is it not?




> Some time in life, you are going to find that you are quite insignificant and that your contributions given your attitude in your delivery, are even less so.


I think that happened quite a while ago sadly...




> That's such a shame because you're probably a nice person really,


Me in a nut shell.




> if your ego just didn't get so much in the way.


Sometimes I struggle to get out of bed, it's just so big!




> God bless you.  Whether you believe in God or not.
> 
> WBG


Sentiment appreciated.

----------


## Stavro

> everyone keeps on saying that God isnt scientific, yet would God not be the greatest scienteist ever? God created everything, everything can be explained.. (well one day maybe?) it all links up together. just because we dont have the answers now does not mean we ever wont. 
> why does people think that to Love God you have to think inside the box?
> why can people be free thinkers, intelegent people who think out side the pre-consived notions of peoples long gone?
> lets see.. i believe in God, i believe in aliens, I belive in ghosts and a spirit world.. is it relevant? i say yes. individually, we are a people that use onloy about 10-15 percent of our brain, in a universe so huge its beyound comprehension. who are we to say what is fact or fiction in a thing that we know nothing about. 
> its a big world people, keep your minds open.


Good points. I am reminded of a famous Polish professor of genetics who said something along the lines that, "the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that there exists an intelligence so very, very far above our own."

I have no problem with the fact that many people do not believe in God, only with those, like Prof. Richard Dawkins, who claim that organic evolution is a fact. If people want to believe in organic evolution and in what Prof. Dawkins preaches, that is their right, but it is a belief system, a faith, not a fact by any stretch of the imagination.

----------


## RecQuery

I don't believe in god, gods or anything supernatural. I have no problem with people believing in such things, if they harm no one. I do have a problem when people proslytise, preach and attempt to undermine science and reason.

Just because one or two scientists, have invoked or implied god, gods or supernatural forces in the past that does not translate as a belief. Many are probably referring to a deist god or simply making a stylistic choice so that a statement has better prose.

There are a few _true believers_ out there. but they are rare. As for the Polish geneticist hes one man from a different time, theres a large body of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection.

----------


## RecQuery

Um, okay... wow. I've been reading previous posts since my initial reply, and though I have no desire to start a flame war. I feel there are a few things I should say, and so in no particular:

My definition of harm includes forcing it on children, ever your own.I notice Christianity is discussed most; which is to be expected. Its entirely possible that a belief in almighty Thor is the correct one however.Any children reading this, or even people who can remember back to then - remember what your parents told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? and then told you they were making in up... They told you about $Deity also didn't they?Christmas really isn't Christian, it was co-opted by them. Also thats your argument, if you don't believe in a Christian god no presents or turkey for you.

----------


## Kevin Milkins

> if you don't believe in a Christian god no presents or turkey for you.


There must be a god, (turkey, yuck)  :Wink:

----------


## Lolabelle

You've just gotta love the org, if there is a way to either stir the possum or get a debate going! Someone will post it here! ROFL  :: 

And some of you know, that I definately do believe there is a God! And I think most do, in one way or another, so I will clarify my statement, I believe in God of the Bible!   :Smile:

----------


## Loraine

> Any children reading this, or even people who can remember back to then - remember what your parents told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?


I, as a Christian, don't tell my children lies - hence they have never been brought up to believe in imaginary people.




> Christmas really isn't Christian, it was co-opted by them. Also thats your argument, if you don't believe in a Christian god no presents or turkey for you.


Agree with you there - Christmas is nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus never asked us to celebrate his birth - the true date isn't even known! Which is why I also don't celebrate Christmas or any other so-called Christian festival!  :Smile:

----------


## Phill

Santa Claus isn't real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




 ::

----------


## Invisible

> Santa Claus isn't real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



whaaaaaaaaaaaat!

----------


## Rheghead

Just wondering whether to introduce bairn to teachings of father xmas and Jesus or Darwin and Dawkins. ::   ::

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Santa Claus isn't real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ach stop 'ed min!!! ::

----------


## gleeber

Although I may not agree with some of the vocabulary presented here by young Alan I would like to support his efforts in making himself understood. Reading between the lines I get the gist of his bumph and almost agree with most of it. Stick in there Alan. Your opposers are displaying more about their own natures than they are saying about yours, and for anyone with an interest in human behaviour, that's quite a lot. Some of it from grown men and directed towards a youngster is just awful. 
As for a God. Nope. Mind you I could be deluded and would do better to listen to the unconscious longings of my deepest personality although from experience I find that can be a minefield of conflicting emotions. All it needs is a holy book thats revered by people I respect and hey presto, before I iknow it I'll be coming onto the org with biblical quotes to back up those unconscious longings I refer to. God forbid!   ::

----------


## Gizmo

> [/LIST]I, as a Christian, don't tell my children lies - hence they have never been brought up to believe in imaginary people.


I hope you understand the irony of that statement  ::

----------


## Stavro

> My definition of harm includes forcing it on children, ever your own.


Do you mean in the way that the idea of organic evolution is forced upon children in schools?





> I notice Christianity is discussed most; which is to be expected. Its entirely possible that a belief in almighty Thor is the correct one however.


I am interested in the basis for this opinion. It may be right or wrong, but why do you consider it when you have made clear that you do not believe in God anyway?





> Any children reading this, or even people who can remember back to then - remember what your parents told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? and then told you they were making in up... They told you about $Deity also didn't they?


Not all Christians tell their children about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, do not. Nor do Muslims, nor Sikhs, nor Jews, ...





> Christmas really isn't Christian, it was co-opted by them.


Yes, this is perfectly true.

----------


## whaligoechiel

believing if their is a god 
me definitely no
you only have to look at the loss of life by wars etc all based on religion
you don't have far to look remember the conflict in Ireland 
just see what the Muslims are doing at the moment
the number of  people  killed and wars through religion is unbelievable 
simple if you don't believe in the same god as I do I will kill you 
and to the ones who say religion preaches peace and harmony look at the real word and possibly have a we read of the bible 
there is more killing, incest, rapes and fairy stories in it than in a modern paper back

----------


## Welcomefamily

> I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right.  i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident".  Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.



I am curious what part of evolution was not a chance and an accident, you not going to surely suggest it was a planned process?

It is also a very one sided abusive of scientific knowledge to suggest that the research does anything to suggest the JW version has any validity either. I am very busy so it might be a day or two for a response.

----------


## RecQuery

Okay:




> I hope you understand the irony of that statement


Yeah I was going to make that point but just left it.




> Do you mean in the way that the idea of organic evolution is forced upon children in schools?


Creation myths can not be taught in a science classroom, none conform to sciences principles. That being said what makes one creation myth more valid that the others - In addition to religious views, should the Raelian opinion also be taught.




> I am interested in the basis for this opinion. It may be right or wrong, but why do you consider it when you have made clear that you do not believe in God anyway?


I never said I believed in Thor, was just stating a point.




> Not all Christians tell their children about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, do not. Nor do Muslims, nor Sikhs, nor Jews,
> 
> Yes, this is perfectly true.


Yeah it isn't the best point but I was replying to an argument where the original was flawed, as it just annoyed me. Also FYI Muslims, Sikhs, nor Jews are Christian so I wouldn't expect them to.




> I am curious what part of evolution was not a chance and an accident, you not going to surely suggest it was a planned process?
> 
> It is also a very one sided abusive of scientific knowledge to suggest that the research does anything to suggest the JW version has any validity either. I am very busy so it might be a day or two for a response.


This is a fundamental Creationist/post-modern relativist misunderstanding, its not evolution via random chance but via natural selection.

----------


## Stavro

> Creation myths can not be taught in a science classroom, none conform to sciences principles.


Who was talking about Creation myths? There is plenty of real science done by real scientists supporting the concept of supernatural creation - as there is in support of a worldwide Flood, by the way. The idea of organic evolution is taught to schoolchildren as being a fact, whereas it is nothing of the sort. In this circumstance it is evolution that is the myth, taught as being science. You have only to consider the fact that evolutionists will not engage in open debate with creationists, because their case is inferior scientifically to that of creation.

So when I asked you if the idea of organic evolution should be taught in the schools, you have no answer. If evolution is taught as a myth, then creation can be taught as a myth. If evolution can be taught as science, then creation can be taught as science. What's good for one is good for the other - there is plenty of material.





> Also FYI Muslims, Sikhs, nor Jews are Christian so I wouldn't expect them to.


Thanks for that deep revelation, but they do profess a belief in a God (which is what this thread is about, isn't it?).





> This is a fundamental Creationist/post-modern relativist misunderstanding, its not evolution via random chance but via natural selection.


Ah, natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Let's see what that means again: The fittest survive, so the survival is of the fittest, and the survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive. All there is to it really. Stephen Hawking isn't overly fit though, is he?  :: 





> I never said I believed in Thor, was just stating a point.


So there was no substance to your statement. Okay.

----------


## Stavro

> I am curious what part of evolution was not a chance and an accident, you not going to surely suggest it was a planned process?
> 
> It is also a very one sided abusive of scientific knowledge to suggest that the research does anything to suggest the JW version has any validity either. I am very busy so it might be a day or two for a response.


The Jehovah's Witnesses used to produce a book on evolution as opposed to creation. Next time they knock on your door, maybe you could request a copy, if they still do it? Had a considerable list of references if I remember rightly and was quite good on this topic.

They did not used to charge for these books - you just made a small donation if you wanted to.  :Smile:

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nceptions.html is good for anyone who cares  Some people should do their research on REPUTABLE sites before being idiots.

----------


## Stavro

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nceptions.html is good for anyone who cares  Some people should do their research on REPUTABLE sites before being idiots.


Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.

Hmm, difficult choice that one!  ::

----------


## unicorn

I believe that I will see all my loved ones who have passed in heaven, I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy. So in short if I hope to see them again in heaven then I have to believe in god.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
> 
> Hmm, difficult choice that one!


What have the discoveries of those highly intelligent humans got to do with you not looking up established evidence and checking it before posting?




> I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy...


In the same way, a drunk man is much happier than a sober one.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
> 
> Hmm, difficult choice that one!


Who was their broadband ISP?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I believe that I will see all my loved ones who have passed in heaven, I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy. So in short if I hope to see them again in heaven then I have to believe in god.


That is the most honest admission I've read so far.

----------


## RecQuery

Can't really add anything to what redeyedtreefrog said.

*Stavro*: Was the JW book Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1997) or Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)? I'm familiar with the former but not the latter. The former uses the evolution is random chance argument.

I'd argue the veracity of the pro-creationist science, and I mean there is a large body of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection. Survival of the fittest is not what evolution states.

I was under the impression that evolutionists were more than happy to debate, provided the venue and moderators are neutral (or balance out at the very least) and if the debate does not turn into a protest or personal attack.

I've always understood science to be a quest for the truth. If you believe evolution by natural selection to be wrong, do you ascribe a motive to so many scientists believing it over creationism?

----------


## Stavro

> Who was their broadband ISP?


They did not have one, but do you think that they had not come across the idea of organic evolution when this idea has been traced back at least as far as the ancient Greeks?  :: 

Perhaps you think that evolution came about through Charles Darwin (whom Max Planck and Albert Einstein certainly would have heard of, of course).

----------


## Stavro

> *Stavro*: Was the JW book Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1997) or Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)? I'm familiar with the former but not the latter. The former uses the evolution is random chance argument.


The former. It's random chance agrument is still perfectly valid, particularly with regard to abiogenesis.





> I've always understood science to be a quest for the truth. If you believe evolution by natural selection to be wrong, do you ascribe a motive to so many scientists believing it over creationism?


Yes, I agree with you.

Not so much a motive, as per a conspiracy, but more a motivating force. I.e., the desire, for whatever reason, to deny the possibility of God's existence. Someone like Richard Dawkins seems to have a distinct passion for this, perhaps influenced by his financial gains.

----------


## Rheghead

> They did not have one, but do you think that they had not come across the idea of organic evolution when this idea has been traced back at least as far as the ancient Greeks? 
> 
> Perhaps you think that evolution came about through Charles Darwin (whom Max Planck and Albert Einstein certainly would have heard of, of course).


Ancient Greeks thought of evolution by natural selection and the above  knew about it?  Go on impress me.  I doubt it, I know this because Darwin is widely published across the Globe in modern media today yet children are still faced with a misrepresentation of his ideas or a complete blackout.  The Greeks thought of atoms but they'd hardly were experts on atom structure etc. I've heard of Lamarkian evolution, are you meaning that?

As for Max Plank and Einstein, I don't care if they had heard of it.  They were good at their own fields of study, that's about it and they weren't all right about that.  Einstein has been grossly been misquoted.  So has Darwin for that matter, and he was wrong about certain stuff, we have moved on since then, biochemical mechanics of inheritence were largely unknown to Darwin.  It is a pity that the wider public won't do their research.  Education is the key.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, creations don't just dispute the evidence for evolution, they deny it even exists despite puttting it under their noses.  Can we explain that mentality?

----------


## Anne x

I totally agree with unicorn in the early days of loss It certainly kept me sane I lost my mum at age 42 and my son 18 months later I felt I was going mad and got the comfort that we will meet again 

Having said that about about 10yrs earlier I overheard or was probably ear lugging to my parents argument my mum had just lost her dad my grandad and said to dad that was a lovely service etc dad replied agreeing about the content then he started to question in "my house there are many mansions "etc must be a big place that heaven he said anyhow the argument went on but it stuck with me for years and I questioned it 

that same Dad is now a church Elder past Session clerk etc for many years and his belief has kept him going well into his mid 80s and through his loss of my stepmum

Comfort is what we all want in loss be it through cards chatting ,poetry ,family or the church

----------


## RecQuery

> Just because one or two scientists, have invoked or implied god, gods or supernatural forces in the past that does not translate as a belief. Many are probably referring to a deist god or simply making a stylistic choice so that a statement has better prose.





> Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
> 
> Hmm, difficult choice that one!


Can't speak on the true beliefs of them all but:

I'll give you Kelvin and Faraday as _true believers_ for lack of a better word.

Mendel was a monk, but that was basically the equivalent of a research grant back then.

Einstein was definitely a deist if even that I'd say agnostic if not outright atheist, also saying things like "god does not play dice", just sounds better. He was criticised by many in the USA for his atheism.

Many scientists have also professed a belief because they had to for their own safety.

Trotting out famous atheists and believers is counter productive so lets not get caught up in that. The finest minds of a given period in history have believed and rationalised many things that have turned out to wrong. A claim made by Aristotle about a fly having eight legs comes to mind; numerous other claims by famous scientists and thinkers also.

----------


## Whitewater

Over the years I have read many books, and been involved in many debates regarding the 'God' question, whether one exists or not. Many people have very positive views on the  existance of a God and I guess equally as many do not beleive. Many of the theories on which much of our modern thought regarding the way the universe works are now being challenged. Stephen Hawking who wrote 'A brief history of time' and many other articles/books regarding black holes, quantum gravity etc, has been unable to find the complete answer to what he has been looking for, he is now beginning to incorporate the work of Prof. Juan Maldacena who is an expert on the 'string theory' into his thinking in an attempt to find his answer, I think Hawking will come up with something which will turn conventional thinking on its head.

However, I have been digressing, but what I am getting at is simply that as yet nobody has proved the God theory one way or the other, and as modern gravitational theories become more complicated who knows what the conclusions are going to be.

Perhaps, because I have been brought up in a christian home where I attended sunday school and at one time (in my younger days) was a member of the Salvation Army band, I struggle to understand the thought that this world just happened. In the beginning was the big bang, what caused the big bang, we have built a particle accelerator to repricate it, and it worked. Or did it? Where did the original particles which created the big bang come from?

I find it very hard to believe that the our solar system, and our planet, with it's perfect climate and atmosphere, revolving round our Sun, which gives life to our complicated bodies with its wonderful control centre (our brain) just happened. ''Order out of Chaos'' to quote Dan Brown. I guess I am a God believer, then you have to think what God is. The bible says God is in us. Does that mean we are all Gods? 

I'm very interested in this 'string theory' with its 10 dimensoinal space time  and how it can be linked with our 4 dimensional world. In the 1920-30s there were many yarns written about the fifth dimension, what was the thinking then? where did they get it from?. Think of what the other 6 dimensions have to offer, can it open the doors to our 'Heaven'? Will the past and future be happening all around us as in Dr Who? are we just temporary residents in this dimension?, when we die is our soul transferred to another dimension? are we just temporary residents in a dimension we call earth?
It seem to go on and on, with the extra dimensions of the string theory anything is possible, we do not know, we will never be allowed to know.

----------


## Stavro

> Trotting out famous atheists and believers is counter productive so lets not get caught up in that.


Okay, RecQuery, I'll give you that one. To get back on the (off-)topic evolution v creation discussion, I think that the biggest obstacle for the evolution camp is abiogenesis.


Whitewater - fascinating post, especially at this time of night !  :Smile:  Would only suggest that the Bible says it is the _kingdom_ of God that is within us, not God (him/her)-self.

----------


## RecQuery

> Okay, RecQuery, I'll give you that one. To get back on the (off-)topic evolution v creation discussion, I think that the biggest obstacle for the evolution camp is abiogenesis.


Okay, its just as off-topic but it gives me a sinking feeling; its probably okay to go down that avenue of discussion, but I'm wary it'll degenerate.

Anyway abiogenesis - for anyone who's just reading casually and is unsure what some people have been talking about, lets give some context - is essentially chemical evolution, the step before biological evolution, how the building blocks of life formed and how they combined to forw true life, think primordial soup.

Now the MillerUrey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.

I thought the forming of Ribonucleotides had been settled and tested a lot of which has been published in the journal Nature, see here for one of the experiments.

*Whitewater:* A lot of what your saying sounds similar to deism, the belief that someone or something, lets called it god defined and set the laws and constants of the universe, started the big bang and that was it. Such a god would not answer prayers or be directly involved with anything in the universe.

----------


## Stavro

> Now the MillerUrey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.


Now we are getting somewhere.

I have singled out this section of your post, because this is the key area, in my opinion, and I therefore want to focus on it.

We first of all have a problem with what you refer to as the "early Earth," because geology has demonstrated that throughout history the Earth has had an atmosphere very similar in composition to the present day. The formation of amino acids would not be possible in such an atmosphere, due to the high oxygen content.

Secondly, amino acids would be just as likely to form in a right-handed configuration as they would in a left-handed configuration, yet all protein molecules are exclusively left-handed. You are alluding to this yourself, I believe, amongst other things.

The amino acids formed in Stanley Miller's experiment had to be isolated in a trap, since otherwise they would be destroyed by the electrical discharge. However, the "early Earth" did not possess such a natural trap.

Then there is the dissolving, destruction and dissipation of amino acids in the oceans.

So we have many unresolved problems here, before we start going on to nucleic acids.

----------


## Rheghead

> Now the MillerUrey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.


I think it is possible, think of catalysts, whereby molecules are brought together sterically by electrostatic interaction with a naturally occurring mineral.  In this way, nature will have provided an environment that lowers the threshold energy for such a chemical reaction to proceed without destroying the long chain of the protein.  Just like in the organism that came from it.

----------


## Rheghead

> We first of all have a problem with what you refer to as the "early Earth," because geology has demonstrated that throughout history the Earth has had an atmosphere very similar in composition to the present day. The formation of amino acids would not be possible in such an atmosphere, due to the high oxygen content.


Do you make it up as you go along? :: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosph...est_atmosphere

----------


## Whitewater

In my post I said I was a believer in the God theory, but I find the bible as written in the 4th century by the Roman Emperor Constantine, particularly the new testiment, as nothing more than a control document, and it worked, the Roman Church dominated the world for many centuries. They destroyed Jesus the man, and produced Jesus the myth. I have no allegience to any church but I find all religions interesting. Unfortunately over the years the misinterpretation of the ancient languages as well as the Constantine corruption of the bible and gospels has ruined and lost us much of the ancient writings, which I believe had a lot to offer had they not been hijacked. The God of the bible has been limited by the greed of man.
My God is not as depicted in the bible, it/he/she is bigger than that. 
Also in my previous post I have noticed on a reread that I mentioned another 6 dimensions, it should have been 10, the four we are aware of, plus another 10 from the 'string theory'. The mind boggles. I have great confidence in the thinking of Stephen Hawking, I hope he lives long enough to get closure on his theories.

----------


## Rheghead

I think humans find great comfort in a belief in the afterlife with loved ones for ever.  It is a consequence of sentience.  Evolution by natural selection has produced a human brain that is hard-wired into making those beliefs real.  As comfort usually comes at a premium in our prehistory, anything that gives an individual member of a  small group who is in grief some comfort will be an advantage for survival.

----------


## Stavro

> Do you make it up as you go along?


Nope.

"There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):  Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible! 
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!"In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T). "References:
Denton 1985
Gish 1972
Gish 1984T"

(Source: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm )

----------


## Bazeye

Ooops.... thought this thread was about the atheist,dyslexic trawlerman.

----------


## Rheghead

> Nope.
> 
> "There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):  Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible! 
> Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!"In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T). "References:
> Denton 1985
> Gish 1972
> Gish 1984T"
> 
> (Source: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm )


Hardly impartial source being a creationist source. :: 

I see a problem with this anyway, ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I? lol

Have it your own way, if you think the wikipedia is balderdash then join it and change it.  I'll see how long it stays until vandalism accusations are being made.

----------


## Stavro

> Hardly impartial source being a creationist source.
> 
> I see a problem with this anyway, ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I? lol
> 
> Have it your own way, if you think the wikipedia is balderdash then join it and change it.  I'll see how long it stays until vandalism accusations are being made.



When I answer your questions, you do not seem to want to know the answer. You just laugh about things like, "ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I?"

Anyway, while I try and fathom what it is that you are talking about, here is a small question for you:

Given that the "simple" ribonuclease protein molecule has 124 amino acids in it and that these amino acids all have to be left-handed and all have to be in precisely the right sequence, and given that in real mathematics any odds of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is considered to be nil, then what is the chance of one single ribonuclease protein molecule forming without deliberate intervention by an intelligent designer?

(There are a lot more than 20 amino acids, but for this exercise, just assume that there are only 20.)

----------


## Tom Cornwall

> I have The Lord Jesus Christ in my life for now and forever and, for that, I'm grateful.
> 
> As previously said though, on this thread, everyone to themselves, and everyone is more than entitled to an opinion of their own.....
> 
> If you do or if you don't have a Faith (of any kind ??) - I've no bother with either - cos I ain't gonna start preaching; so dinna worry  !!! 
> 
> I treat people the way I find them, and how they treat me and mine back in return is what counts, not what their religion may or may not be - kindness, in my book, is what we should base others on.
> 
> God Bless X


perhaps Jesus was the John Lennon or Bob Dylan of his day...a bit of a Hippie

----------


## Rheghead

> Anyway, while I try and fathom what it is that you are talking about, here is a small question for you:
> 
> Given that the "simple" ribonuclease protein molecule has 124 amino acids in it and that these amino acids all have to be left-handed and all have to be in precisely the right sequence, and given that in real mathematics any odds of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is considered to be nil, then what is the chance of one single ribonuclease protein molecule forming without deliberate intervention by an intelligent designer?
> 
> (There are a lot more than 20 amino acids, but for this exercise, just assume that there are only 20.)


Intelligent?  baloney.

There is no chance involved, it was all done by natural selection but the chance of them been made by an intelligent designer must be astronomically against since whatever made the DNA must be more flawed and more complex.

----------


## Rheghead

> perhaps Jesus was the John Lennon or Bob Dylan of his day...a bit of a Hippie


Right place, right time so yes just like Lennon and Dylan.

----------


## Leanne

> When I answer your questions, you do not seem to want to know the answer. You just laugh about things like, "ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I?"
> 
> Anyway, while I try and fathom what it is that you are talking about, here is a small question for you:
> 
> Given that the "simple" ribonuclease protein molecule has 124 amino acids in it and that these amino acids all have to be left-handed and all have to be in precisely the right sequence, and given that in real mathematics any odds of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is considered to be nil, then what is the chance of one single ribonuclease protein molecule forming without deliberate intervention by an intelligent designer?
> 
> (There are a lot more than 20 amino acids, but for this exercise, just assume that there are only 20.)


So if an intelligent designer does this, surely they would do it right from the start? Or if they needed a while to get it perfected, surely then all copies should be perfect? How do you account for deleterious genes in the world? If an intelligent designer made these then they have a sick sense of humour...

The world has been about for a long long time (a lot longer than the bible says). If one collision occurred every second there would be plenty of time for the reactions to occur. Also due to the hydrophilic and hydrophobic elements to amino acids, the long chain is able to assemble itself.

----------


## Stavro

> Intelligent?  baloney.
> 
> There is no chance involved, it was all done by natural selection but the chance of them been made by an intelligent designer must be astronomically against since whatever made the DNA must be more flawed and more complex.



Like I said, we believers can ultimately say, "God did it." This is perfectly rational and logical within the belief system. You evolutionists, on the other hand, have to explain how "simple" things came to be, since you refuse to allow intelligent design, you must explain it by chance. Abiogenesis is all about chance.

I take it that you are not going to attempt the simple probability exercise? If not, then don't waste any more of your time on the "evolution is a fact" rubbish.

----------


## Stavro

> So if an intelligent designer does this, surely they would do it right from the start?


God did do it "right" from the start. Why do you think the protein molecule works? Since you are a lab assistant, then please tell us all how many of the 124 amino acids in the ribonuclease protein molecule can be in another place, or right-handed rather than left-handed, and still allow the molecule to function. How many?





> The world has been about for a long long time (a lot longer than the bible says). If one collision occurred every second there would be plenty of time for the reactions to occur.


Attempt the calculation and you will see that you are wrong in your assertion.





> Also due to the hydrophilic and hydrophobic elements to amino acids, the long chain is able to assemble itself.


So just answer the question. Everyone knows that you are claiming that the chain assembles itself - this is what abiogenesis is all about - but what is the probability involved?

----------


## Rheghead

> I take it that you are not going to attempt the simple probability exercise? If not, then don't waste any more of your time on the "evolution is a fact" rubbish.


Evolution is a fact, we see it happening in real time and we can see the evidence in our genetic code.

----------


## cesare

We are nothin more than bacteria in a ever evolving soup...who knows mabey in 1000 million years we will grow wings and fly....and no i for one dont belive in a god if they was such a creation why let so many people ..kids...animals suffer say in day out even worse die.......just 1 opinion they is no need to reply to this either as i wont be reading anymore of this forum now i have had my say  :Smile:

----------


## golach

Getting back on to the original question do you believe in *A* god? Well I am not sure what I believe in, I belive in something, not sure what to call it, Fate, Kismet, or whatever, what ever it is that takes care of me and see's me through life, has been kind to me most of my life and I have never questioned (Its) power/decisions, but lately my life changed dramatically, not for the better, but who should I blame...God?  I dont know, but I do want to blame someone.

----------


## RecQuery

Okay lets see

*Amino Acids*:

 I've seen that argument a few times its misguided to begin with:

_While L-amino acids represent the vast majority of amino acids found in proteins, D-amino acids are found in some proteins produced by exotic sea-dwelling organisms, such as cone snails

_There are a few things to consider:

The main reason all life shares left-handed amino acids is that they go back to a common ancestor. If an organism was to exchange one amino acids handedness, a lot of proteins which use that acid would become nonfunctional. Selection thus generally keeps this from happening (there are a few groups where this has been altered; they lucked out in having a protein benefiting so much from a switch that the dis-functionality of others did not stop this, Its very rare and would of happened in the common ancestor of the group. IIRC in all of history this has happened 4 times).

To borrow from what Stavro said:

Lets imagine life picked the 20 amino acids with their chirality. There were about 200 naturally occurring amino acids around almost all chiralic (so 400), so picking 20 out of 400 gives you a probability of 1 in 1033. The odds of our current mix were low before it arose. But once you figure that selection keeps organisms from changing that mix, you realize that no matter what combination was picked, we would see it almost universally, with at best a handful of minor alterations. And thats exactly what we do see. Creationists on the other hand have to explain, why their designer would use only 20 out of 400 parts for every engineering problem. Those other 380 amino acids could make a whole of of functional proteins far more efficient than the ones made out of the 20 used

Some other things to consider are:

The Amino Acid Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which select other amino acids of like handedness by substituting them for serine.Calcite tends to adsorb just a single handedness in an environment of right and left handed amino acids.Ultraviolet Circularly Polarized Light may have contributed to homochirality as well. (Meteorites often have more left handed amino acids because of U.C.P. Light)Check here

----------


## Rheghead

If belief in your God cannot be compromised and that is reciprocated with persons of different faiths then it is clear to me that religion will continue to be a constant source of conflict throughout a world which is getting closer together.  It is best to know what you see and can test to be true, that is a system which is truly universal and liberating from the chains of dogma.

----------


## Anne x

> If belief in your God cannot be compromised and that is reciprocated with persons of different faiths then it is clear to me that religion will continue to be a constant source of conflict throughout a world which is getting closer together. It is best to know what you see and can test to be true, that is a system which is truly universal and liberating from the chains of dogma.


no one can test any belief to be true as for conflict in religion I agree it has had a profound effect on peoples lives and changes people forever
I personally spoke from experience my life my sorrow my belief my anger I suppose but I found comfort 
all of the junior members of my family are humanists thats okay thats what they believe each to there own 
everyone needs someone or something to believe in or else we would never dream !!!

ah George Michael ,Will Young, FREDDIE

----------


## joxville

> Getting back on to the original question do you believe in *A* god? Well I am not sure what I believe in, I belive in something, not sure what to call it, Fate, Kismet, or whatever, what ever it is that takes care of me and see's me through life, has been kind to me most of my life and I have never questioned (Its) power/decisions, but lately my life changed dramatically, not for the better, but who should I blame...God? I dont know, but I do want to blame someone.


Wasn't Fate Kismet in Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio?  :Wink:

----------


## Stavro

> The main reason all life shares left-handed amino acids is that they go back to a common ancestor.


Yes, this is the evolutionists' belief system and that it why I brought the topic up.





> To borrow from what Stavro said:
> 
> Lets imagine life picked the 20 amino acids with their chirality at random. There were about 200 naturally occurring amino acids around almost all chiralic, so picking 20 out of 400 gives you a probability of 1 in 1033. The odds of our current mix were low before it arose. But once you figure that selection keeps organisms from changing that mix, you realize that no matter what combination was picked, we would see it almost universally, with at best a handful of minor alterations. And thats exactly what we do see. Creationists on the other hand have to explain, why their designer would use only 20 out of 400 parts for every engineering problem. Those other 380 amino acids could make a whole of of functional proteins far more efficient than the ones made out of the 20 used


You have completely skirted the question. My question allowed for 20 amino acids. I believe that the simplest is neither right- nor left-handed, but I said we would assume them all to be available in both forms. The total number of amino acids being between 200 and 300, depending upon what you classify as being an amino acid (incidentally, it is the Creationist who should go for the 200 figure, since the Evolutionist relies upon laboratory synthesis - Miller et al.), has nothing to do with the question after the assumption of 20 had been supplied.

The chance of the first amino acid being in the right place and of the right type is thus 1 in 40. The first two being in the right sequence and of the right type is thus 1 in 1,600 and so on.





> Some other things to consider are:
> 
> The Amino Acid Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which select other amino acids of like handedness by substituting them for serine.Calcite tends to adsorb just a single handedness in an environment of right and left handed amino acids.Ultraviolet Circularly Polarized Light may have contributed to homochirality as well. (Meteorites often have more left handed amino acids because of U.C.P. Light)Check here


Your's is a quality post, as I expected it would be, but you are evading the question. You and I both know why you are evading it - because the probability of this protein molecule forming by chance is mathematically zero. You also should know that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And this is just a "simple" molecule. There are loads of more complicated ones than this. This is light-years away from anything as complicated as a cell wall or simple binary fission.

You have chosen to evade the question, rather than honestly answer it, as I said before, because you already know that the probability of getting this one "simple" protein molecule by chance in 4,600,000,000 years is nil.

----------


## Rheghead

> You have chosen to evade the question, rather than honestly answer it, as I said before, because you already know that the probability of getting this one "simple" protein molecule by chance in 4,600,000,000 years is nil.


Where's your proof of that?  ::

----------


## Stavro

> Where's your proof of that?


Yet another ill-founded question, Rheghead? Do the calculation and find out for yourself.

----------


## Rheghead

> Do the calculation and find out for yourself.


OK, give me the numbers and the equation to punch into my calculator and I will.

----------


## Aaldtimer

If all else fails, baffle them with science and statistics! ::

----------


## Stavro

> OK, give me the numbers and the equation to punch into my calculator and I will.



There are always 40 amino acids for each position (20 x 2) and there are 124 positions. So the odds of us getting a ribonuclease protein molecule are

1 chance in 40^124 = 4^124 x 10^124  <<<<  1 chance in 10^50

Hence the probability of obtaining this molecule by chance is zero.

On your calculator:

Probability = 1 / (40 ^ 124) =  ...

Goodnight.

----------


## RecQuery

So tackling the probability head on:

The math is correct *if* Abiogenesis were random and a single step process, but evolutionists don't make that claim. The evolutionist equivalent calculations with examples are discussed and expanded here

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

What the the creationist argument states:

building blocks--->bacteria

What the evolutionist argument states:

building blocks--->polymers--->replicating polymers--->hypercycle--->protobiont--->bacteria

So the creationist argument from the evolutionist perspective is like someone asking "Could a new born baby father or give birth to a child?" evolutionists aren't making that argument; there are many other steps inbetween.

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

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by    chance.  However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated    odds meaningless.  Biochemistry produces complex products, and the    products themselves interact in complex ways.    For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the    conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a    role in the formation of the first life.

Chemical reactions aren't random processes, they obey well defined and testable laws that chemists have known about for a long time. Which attacks the creationist premise. If chemical reactions are not random processes, then probability calculations don't apply from the outset.

The calculation of odds assumes that a molecule must take one    certain form.  However, there are innumerable possible proteins that    promote biological activity.  Any calculation of odds must take into    account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function    to promote life.

The argument is also based upon the one true sequence claim, in which creationists state the gene coding for a particular protein can only have one sequence, which is incorrect

The numerous insulin genes in vertebrates, several of which are not even the same length as human insulin, yet all produce a working insulin molecule would be one example of this.

What is selected for is any sequence that produces a working protein, and there are thousands of combinations of these for many proteins, including proteins that are critical to life such as insulin. The moment any one of these sequences arises and produces a working product, it will be selected for.

The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present    form.  The first life would have been very much simpler. 

The creationist argument mandates looking at the genes of a modern organism, which has had 3.5 billion years of evolution behind it, and trying to use that as a means of determining the likelihood of a much simpler organism in the past arising. Life started with simple protocells requiring very few components in order to function, and complexity was added to these protocells over long periods of time.

Applying calculations of a prior probability to an event that has already happened is a misuse of probability. If a something alread exists, then the probability of it having been produced by some process in the past is by definition 1. All that remains to be determined, once we know a given molecule exists, is what processes are capable of producing it.

The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would    have been occurring simultaneously.

It relies upon the Serial Trials Fallacy. To expand creationistis assume that you only have one molecule to work with, or one organism in the case of genes in an existing lineage. On the pre-biotic Earth, there existed a large expanse of ocean within which billions of molecules were engaging in the requisite chemistry. Once life truly came into existence, populations of organisms quickly reached millions, even billions (there are several billion bacteria living in an average stomach, which contains a lot less volume than the world's oceans), this means that even an event with a small prior probability has a lot of trials to work with.

A basic rule of probability is that if you have an event whose prior probability is 1/X, where X is some integer, then after X trials, you are guaranteed to see that event occurring at least once. So even if you have an event with a prior probability of 10^-9, the moment you have 10^9 trials conducted, you should see that event occurring once.

This creationist probability calculations also make the assumption that if any given desired molecule doesn't appear first time, you have to start all over again from scratch. All that is needed is for _some_ molecule that provides useful function to appear, which can then be used as the basis for developing more useful molecules. Which on a side note is how the pharmaceutical industry works.

Okay well I think thats enough for this post

----------


## Rheghead

> There are always 40 amino acids for each position (20 x 2) and there are 124 positions. So the odds of us getting a ribonuclease protein molecule are
> 
> 1 chance in 40^124 = 4^124 x 10^124  <<<<  1 chance in 10^50
> 
> Hence the probability of obtaining this molecule by chance is zero.
> 
> On your calculator:
> 
> Probability = 1 / (40 ^ 124) =  ...
> ...


But there is a mechanism which creates the DNA in such a way, it's not like you chuck a load of protein molecules on a table and they magically spring together!  ::

----------


## Stavro

Again, RecQuery, you have demonstrated an understanding of the problem with your quality post, and you have accepted that the probability of obtaining even a "simple" ribonuclease molecule is zero if abiogenesis is random. We now move on slightly as to whether it is random.

For the benefit of others, we are still leaving aside the necessity of a trap on the "primitive Earth," the composition of the "primitive atmosphere" and the like.





> So tackling the probability head on:
> 
> The math is correct *if* Abiogenesis were random and a single step process, but evolutionists don't make that claim.


This is the essence of the whole issue. It is perfectly acceptable for the Creationist to say that the process is not random, because the Creationist/believer acknowledges that "God did it." And that God's intelligence is infinitely above our own.

When the Evolutionist states that a process is not random, they just move the problem of randomness somewhere else. It HAS to come in somewhere. What is it that places the selective choice of a Designer onto a mix of chemical elements and a source of energy?





> What the the creationist argument states:
> 
> building blocks--->bacteria
> 
> What the evolutionist argument states:
> 
> building blocks--->polymers--->replicating polymers--->hypercycle--->protobiont--->bacteria


These are by chance or they are by design, there is no way around it.





> So the creationist argument from the evolutionist perspective is like someone asking "Could a new born baby father or give birth to a child?" evolutionists aren't making that argument; there are many other steps inbetween.


And here, with all due respect, you fall down. If the newborn baby has not the potential within it to father a child, then that's the end of the line. The child lives for a while, dies, and that's it. This is why, many posts earlier, I think I stated that everything has to be right and in place from the beginning. What use is your eye without a lens? What use is the lens without the muscles? What use is focusing the lens without the retina? What use is the retina without the rods and cones? What use are the rods and cones without the optic nerve? What use is the optic nerve without the brain? What use is the brain without the ability to reproduce?

----------


## Rheghead

What use is a brain if you don't use it?

----------


## Stavro

> What use is a brain if you don't use it?



What use is yer bike if you don't get on it?

----------


## Rheghead

> What use is your eye without a lens? What use is the lens without the muscles? What use is focusing the lens without the retina? What use is the retina without the rods and cones? What use are the rods and cones without the optic nerve? What use is the optic nerve without the brain? What use is the brain without the ability to reproduce?


Some species have eyes but they don't function, what is the use in that? Intelligent design?

----------


## Rheghead

> What use is yer bike if you don't get on it?


But I do get on it! ::

----------


## RecQuery

Stavro, I think you may be skirting round the issue now, what about the link and the paragraphs below the baby example?

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

I really don't want to have many issues up in the air, with lots or arguments being discussed at once. I'll ignore discussing the eye unless you want to move onto it, however some quick thoughts and points on the atmosphere issues.

Since the original experiment, Miller and others have experimented with  different compositions. Complex organic molecules have formed in each, under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.

Its possible that life arose away from the atmosphere one example being, deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This would make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.

The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidising, was nowhere near as oxidising as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules

Theres arguments and proof regarding free oxygen, reducing gases and that an atmosphere consisting only of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor does produce amino acids also but again I'd rather not get side tracked unless you want to.

To anyone reading this thread and wondering why its been turned into an evolution vs creation argument, or to anyone wondering why people keep coming back. First debate is important, even if the issue isn't resolved it allows people to construct arguments, refine and test them etc. I'm also slightly hopeful I may be able to convince someone who would of otherwise not believed in evolution.

----------


## Saveman

ASDA anyone?   :Wink:

----------


## RecQuery

Heh yeah in many ways its like arguing:

Vi vs Emacs
Ninjas vs Pirates
etc

I don't expect either of us harbours any delusions about convincing the other.

----------


## Gleber2

> ASDA anyone?


They're not Gods, are they???? ::

----------


## Stavro

> Stavro, I think you may be skirting round the issue now, what about the link and the paragraphs below the baby example?


Okay, let's review those.





> The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by    chance.  However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated    odds meaningless.  Biochemistry produces complex products, and the    products themselves interact in complex ways.
> 
> Chemical reactions aren't random processes, they obey well defined and testable laws that chemists have known about for a long time. Which attacks the creationist premise. If chemical reactions are not random processes, then probability calculations don't apply from the outset.


So you are claiming that amino acids just arrange themselves into molecules to perform extremely specific functions? Where did this take place? In the ocean? In the presence of sugars? In the presence of the energy source that allowed them to form in the first place? Did they form in the atmosphere? How long do they take to reach the ocean?





> The calculation of odds assumes that a molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
> 
> The argument is also based upon the one true sequence claim, in which creationists state the gene coding for a particular protein can only have one sequence, which is incorrect
> 
> The numerous insulin genes in vertebrates, several of which are not even the same length as human insulin, yet all produce a working insulin molecule would be one example of this.
> 
> What is selected for is any sequence that produces a working protein, and there are thousands of combinations of these for many proteins, including proteins that are critical to life such as insulin. The moment any one of these sequences arises and produces a working product, it will be selected for.


Here you are making use of the fundamental law of biology: that life only comes from life. Protein molecules in general are completely specific - change the sequence around and they do not work and in fact can be harmful. Since the probabilities that you are alluding to must take into account this detrimental mess, you have to admit that the Evolutionist needs oceans full of amino acids in order to arrive at a chance of getting a working protein molecule which is still zero.





> The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present    form.  The first life would have been very much simpler.


Yes, that is correct. To the Evolutionist, first life had to be very much simpler. This is an essential conjecture.





> The creationist argument mandates looking at the genes of a modern organism, which has had 3.5 billion years of evolution behind it, and trying to use that as a means of determining the likelihood of a much simpler organism in the past arising. Life started with simple protocells requiring very few components in order to function, and complexity was added to these protocells over long periods of time.
> 
>  Applying calculations of a prior probability to an event that has already happened is a misuse of probability. If a something alread exists, then the probability of it having been produced by some process in the past is by definition 1. All that remains to be determined, once we know a given molecule exists, is what processes are capable of producing it.
> 
>  The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would    have been occurring simultaneously.
> 
>  It relies upon the Serial Trials Fallacy. To expand creationistis assume that you only have one molecule to work with, or one organism in the case of genes in an existing lineage. On the pre-biotic Earth, there existed a large expanse of ocean within which billions of molecules were engaging in the requisite chemistry.


You are here replying to my questions above. You need an ocean full of all relevant molecules all at the same time, isn't that right?





> Once life truly came into existence, ...


Meaning?





> A basic rule of probability is that if you have an event whose prior probability is 1/X, where X is some integer, then after X trials, you are guaranteed to see that event occurring at least once. So even if you have an event with a prior probability of 10^-9, the moment you have 10^9 trials conducted, you should see that event occurring once.
> 
>  This creationist probability calculations also make the assumption that if any given desired molecule doesn't appear first time, you have to start all over again from scratch. All that is needed is for _some_ molecule that provides useful function to appear, which can then be used as the basis for developing more useful molecules. Which on a side note is how the pharmaceutical industry works.
> 
>  Okay well I think thats enough for this post


You can take the length of time as 4,600,000,000 years (the evolutionary age of the Earth) or 12,000,000,000 years (the "Big Bang" age of the universe) and have only the right type of amino acids floating about in the ocean and rearranging themselves billions of times per second for that whole period and still end up with a probability of zero that they will align themselves into one single ribonuclease protein molecule.

----------


## Stavro

> They're not Gods, are they????


Evolution or Creation, Gleber2, what do you reckon?

----------


## Rheghead

Faith may be in your genes anyway, yer canna help it...

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_...e_genetic.html

----------


## Stavro

> Faith may be in your genes anyway, yer canna help it...


"No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means." - Richard Dawkins, _The Selfish Gene_, 1989, p.23.

----------


## Rheghead

> "No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means." - Richard Dawkins, _The Selfish Gene_, 1989, p.23.


Thank goodness, you are starting to learn something. :Wink: 

Since you're a fan

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
Richard Dawkins

----------


## Gleber2

> Evolution or Creation, Gleber2, what do you reckon?


Could argue from both sides but don't believe in either. It's not as simple as this choice. Firstly you have to believe that this shared reality is, in fact, real. I become more and more convinced that we live in a virtual reality which has no real existence. The Maya state for the Indian philosophers or the Matrix for the science faction brigade.
In the end, it matters not to me where we came from but I am fascinated by where we might end up.
I'd go for Asda every time.

----------


## whaligoechiel

Me thinks that Rheghead wants to become God

----------


## Leanne

> Since you are a lab assistant


Ha ha - that what you think?




> So you are claiming that amino acids just arrange themselves into molecules to perform extremely specific functions?


This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed. The molecules don't do anything with purpose - incidental occurences either fail (and the organism/molecule dies out) or they have an evolutionary benefit and they are passed on. That is where the chance happens...

As Terry Pratchet says - million to one chances happen 9 times out of ten. Some people have such a small view on the world that they just can't visualise such large odds. The odds are not 0 - over billions of years (and even more billions of seconds) there is every possibility that favourable occurances happen. And that evolution is skewed as they are favourable.

At the end of the day what does it matter if there is a god or not? If someone takes comfort in it because they can't explain the world then good for them! Sometimes I would like to believe - I just find more holes in faith than in science. I like science because you can question flaws - with religion it is always just "because that's how it is". Even as a 3 year old in Sunday school that wasn't a good enough answer for me  :Frown:

----------


## RecQuery

Okay so for a large part of this thread I've been only responding, this is partly by design if you'll pardon the pun. To see where the argument went and avoid some insults generally thrown at aggressive atheists. I'll go on the attack at the end.

Okay so a good chunk of your post was probability, I'vo said it a few times but probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless. Also again you come at it from the *chance* angle and not the *selection* angle I'll link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) this referenced discussion again which goes in-depth with examples. Heres (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html) a refutation of Borel's so called law, should you reply with that.

As for how evolutionists prove simpler life I'll go into that later, when I pose some questions of my own.

I wasn't replying to your question merely stating that there was a massive sampling should that be needed, which incidentally is far more than needed.

Okay now moving onto my questions and linked to the statement about simpler life.

Theres a lot of evidence for evolution and modern life existing and evolving form earlier forms, many books could be wrote any of these, so I'll try not to go overboard:

*Fossil Record:*

Shows very simple organisms at the bottom with depth evolving as time passes in to fewer but more complex organisms, with temporal stratification as evolution says it should be.

One doesn't see an equal distribution; human and dinosaur fossils are not found on the same layer as creation says they should be. You never see a Poodle in the permian era. How does creationism explain that?

*Organic Structure:*

If all life was designed - then to take just two out of many examples - why do chickens have the genes and introns for making teeth? why do humans have the genes and introns for making fully functionas tails with vertebra and under skeletal muscle control?

These are vestiges left over from previous organisms, as evolution says there should be. How does creationism account for that?

Thats just two out of many arguments and bodies of evidence.

----------


## Leanne

> *Fossil Record:*
> 
> Shows very simple organisms at the bottom with depth evolving as time passes in to fewer but more complex organisms, with temporal stratification as evolution says it should be.
> 
> One doesn't see an equal distribution; human and dinosaur fossils are not found on the same layer as creation says they should be. You never see a Poodle in the permian era. How does creationism explain that?


My RE teacher at school had a very simple answer to that. The bible doesn't claim that dinosaurs even existed - they were put on earth to test our faith. My reply got me banned from RE  :Wink:

----------


## Stavro

> *Fossil Record:*
> 
> Shows very simple organisms at the bottom with depth evolving as time passes in to fewer but more complex organisms, with temporal stratification as evolution says it should be.
> 
> One doesn't see an equal distribution; human and dinosaur fossils are not found on the same layer as creation says they should be. You never see a Poodle in the permian era. How does creationism explain that?


Creation explains this by having all these creatures buried in sediment at about the same time and very rapidly. I.e., it accepts the worldwide Flood as stated in Genesis. Various creatures will be found at different depths, but could all have been buried in the same wave of sedimentary material. (Bertault, G.)

In my opinion, some "dinosaur fossils" are very suspect, as you would no doubt agree that dinosaur and (giant) human footprints found in the same dried up riverbed are suspect.






> *Organic Structure:*
> 
> If all life was designed - then to take just two out of many examples - why do chickens have the genes and introns for making teeth? why do humans have the genes and introns for making fully functionas tails with vertebra and under skeletal muscle control?
> 
> These are vestiges left over from previous organisms, as evolution says there should be. How does creationism account for that?


Creation explains this via the spitual aspect of the universe. How any particular gene works may not be simply a matter of where it is, the whole DNA structure may be constrained by some field, which I refer to as a spiritual field. As regards embryo development in the womb, for example, what determines how the original cell division is allowed/constrained to proceed? Some have called this a "morphic field."

To a believer in God, this whole influence is a mystery which does not lend itself to an explanation within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding.

----------


## Stavro

> As Terry Pratchet says - million to one chances happen 9 times out of ten.


Wow, that's impressive maths. I'd better try the lottery then.  :: 





> The odds are not 0 - over billions of years (and even more billions of seconds) there is every possibility that favourable occurances happen.


There are 4,600,000,000 x 365.24 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds to play with, so do the calculation yourself as regards the "simple" ribonuclease molecule.





> I like science because you can question flaws - with religion it is always just "because that's how it is". Even as a 3 year old in Sunday school that wasn't a good enough answer for me


We are not talking about religion, we are talking about whether God exists. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

----------


## Stavro

> Me thinks that Rheghead wants to become God


 :Grin:  It's certainly a pity that he's not on his bike more.  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> It's certainly a pity that he's not on his bike more.


miaow!  ::

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

Surprised this hasn't been brought up:

If creation is true, who created the creator?

----------


## gleeber

> Surprised this hasn't been brought up:
> 
> If creation is true, who created the creator?


Now now Froggie you think your being smart. Stavros way ahead of your game. He said; 
 "To a believer in God, this whole influence is a mystery which does not lend itself to an explanation within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding."

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Now now Froggie you think your being smart. Stavros way ahead of your game. He said; 
>  "To a believer in God, this whole influence is a mystery which does not lend itself to an explanation within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding."


Thats just a clever way of worming out of an unanswerable question  :Wink:

----------


## northener

> Thats just a clever way of worming out of an unanswerable question


Nah, it's not that clever. More like predictable, I'd say.......

----------


## kimmie

> Surprised this hasn't been brought up:
> 
> If creation is true, who created the creator?


 not only that but if there is a god...is it one god or many, and which religion has the right god...if each religion states that their god is the one true god, then there are several gods, and if thats the case we are all going to hell anyway, because each religion recons that if you dont believe in their religion then your going to hell...so on that bases and by default...we are all going to hell  ::  and before ou all ask...no i am not religious...but i do believe that religious or not....everyone has a belief of sorts :wink:  ::

----------


## George Brims

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.- Albert Einstein 

I'm with Albert.

----------


## RecQuery

I was avoiding the deeper question; who created the creator as I usually get the same answer. I mean I generally respond with a deism argument speculating on the creator but I've generally found it to be an unproductive avenue.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised my, well that should be atheist/evolutionist morality hasn't been questioned or been insulted in general. The last time I took part in a similar debate at Uni a multi-faith cadre was ready to lynch me.

----------


## Stavro

I see that the 'Nos' have it, at least for the moment, but it has been an enjoyable discussion.

As for the question, "who created God," perhaps to answer that would require a different way of thinking. Who knows?  ::

----------


## northener

> I see that the 'Nos' have it, at least for the moment, but it has been an enjoyable discussion.
> 
> As for the question, "who created God," perhaps to answer that would require a different way of thinking. Who knows?


Hear, hear to that. Nice to see this topic discussed in an intelligent manner as opposed to the usual entrenched foaming at the mouth fist-waving that takes place.

----------


## Phill

> "within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding."


I was lost after the Yes / No bit, never mind the organic thingymebobs and molecular structures formed from amino acids. What 'av moles got to do with it?
And all those silly calku, kalcul, calcali...those big long sums n' stuff.

And the Bible, isn't it just a bit too wordy?
Don't get me started on the Qur'an, you gotta read it t'other way round. What's all that about? 

 ::

----------


## gleeber

Now now Phill. I can get into enough trouble with my own quotes without being held responsable for someone elses quotes especially one as damning to God belief as that one.

----------


## crayola

> As for the question, "who created God," perhaps to answer that would require a different way of thinking. Who knows?


That's an easy question to answer.....

An omnipotent God could create himself. Honestly, there's a distinct lack of lateral thinking going on around here.  ::

----------


## northener

Can anyone explain how in the beginning, there was nothing...which then exploded......? :: 

Am I missing something?

----------


## badger

I voted yes at the beginning of all this although I don't agree with the definition of a God that was posed.  The God I believe in is unconditional Love for all.  His principal commandments are love God and love your neighbour - even if you don't believe in God, surely most people would agree that the second commandment would solve all the problems of the world at a stroke.  

I am a Christian, I'm not a creationist and I don't believe the Bible was dictated by God.   The church I belong to says it is "God-breathed" but even that goes too far for me with much of it and the OT doesn't even pretend to be Christian.  We believe that interpretation changes with time.  Although I belong to a church, I'm afraid organised religion of any kind is too often a complete disaster and totally contrary to the true message but that's what happens when people want power and will twist anything to get it.  

I can't pretend to understand how the universe came to be, what God is and many other things but take comfort from something my father used to say - if you could understand God you would be God.  The older I get the less I understand.  Faith doesn't need explanation - you either have it or you don't.  You can find it and lose it, sometimes it's weak and sometimes it's strong.  Jesus came to put a face on God - I only know that if I put out my hand, He is always there.  I certainly don't believe I am better than anyone else but that's one of the nice things about Christianity - it's a religion for sinners  :Smile:  .  We just have to keep trying.

----------


## northener

This will settle all arguments about evolution versus creation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Y...F8CC5D7E2A5011

----------


## youoldduffer

> This will settle all arguments about evolution versus creation:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Y...F8CC5D7E2A5011



Superb find  :Grin:

----------


## crayola

I love Christianty for its broad church. You get the fundamentalists like Stavro on one side and the liberals (well, relatively) like badger on the other side. Badger's post uses a lot of words to say such a lot about nothing, or is it nothing about such a lot? I'm not sure.

I believe in Nature. I don't know where Nature comes from or why we are here, but She is beautiful and I try to understand Her and take care of Her as best I can.

----------


## RecQuery

Heres an evolutionist YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 might be a bit easier than relatively dry technical discussions.

----------


## Rheghead

> I believe in Nature. I don't know where Nature comes from or why we are here, but She is beautiful and I try to understand Her and take care of Her as best I can.


I believe in nature as well, my family are Quakers they believe in nature, I just think I am a Quaker who doesn't think God is worthwhile thinking about.  :Grin:

----------


## RecQuery

> That's an easy question to answer.....
> 
> An omnipotent God could create himself. Honestly, there's a distinct lack of lateral thinking going on around here.


Argh come on, I was happy the thread had died gracefully. BTW thats circular reasoning but even if it wasn't its not lateral thinking. If we can conclusively prove a god then we ask that question.

Belief in nature is another example of deism also.

*EDIT:* Also omnipotence and omniscience actually cancel each other out.

----------


## crayola

> I believe in nature as well, my family are Quakers they believe in nature, I just think I am a Quaker who doesn't think God is worthwhile thinking about.


I went to a Quaker meeting once. Nothing happened.  ::

----------


## crayola

> Argh come on, I was happy the thread had died gracefully. BTW thats circular reasoning but even if it wasn't its not lateral thinking. If we can conclusively prove a god then we ask that question.
> 
> Belief in nature is another example of deism also.


Ha, that's a typical scientist's lack of imagination and even worse a total inability to think outside the box of classical Greek causality.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I went to a Quaker meeting once. Nothing happened.


Maybe we are are as one but don't realise?  ::

----------


## crayola

> *EDIT:* Also omnipotence and omniscience actually cancel each other out.


Good grief man, I was almost impressed by your posts until you wrote that.  ::

----------


## Moira

> Argh come on, I was happy the thread had died gracefully.....


Very little dies gracefully on the Caithness dot Org forums.  The polls are usually skewed too.  :Smile:

----------


## RecQuery

> Good grief man, I was almost impressed by your posts until you wrote that.


Its more a just for fun thing, but I suppose its more correct to say he can't be both:

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

If a hypothetical god knows everything about the universe that will ever happen, then he also knows ahead of time when he will change that universe in some way to make something else happen. After all, he knows everything that will ever happen in that universe. But if he knows ahead of time (which is the definition of omniscient) everything that will happen in that universe, then he is really powerless to do anything new since, by definition, something new is something he didn't know ahead of time. Therefore, he isn't omnipotent, i.e., he can't do anything new. If he did, he wouldn't be omniscient.

He can't be both omnipotent and omniscient with respect to the universe he is controlling. He can be one or the other, but not both. He can change the universe but if he does, he introduces an outcome he can't know about until after it happens.

----------


## crayola

A truly omnipotent God can temporarily suspend his omniscience. The converse must also be true. A true God can do both at once and at the same time create a logic system which avoids all paradoxes that mere Orgers deem problematic.

----------


## northener

> .... I just think I am a Quaker who doesn't think God is worthwhile thinking about.


More in the Humanist camp then, Rheggers?

----------


## Stavro

> If a hypothetical god knows everything about the universe that will ever happen, ...



God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.

This thread has certainly deteriorated during my brief absence.  :Grin:

----------


## northener

> God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
> 
> .


So you are saying that God (taken that he exists as a single entity) is not omniscient?

Regarding salvation and pre-determinism (and I know this is drifting into religion as opposed to the existance of God):
Who is to say that the Islamic premise that all things are already known to God, or that the belief of the C16th and C17th Calvinistic Christian Elect in a predetermined path for the Chosen, is incorrect?

----------


## Rheghead

> God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
> 
> This thread has certainly deteriorated during my brief absence.


Why do you think free will and a deterministic universe are mutually incompatible?  God ultimately determines which path we take.

----------


## oldmarine

> This will settle all arguments about evolution versus creation:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Y...F8CC5D7E2A5011


This has become a controversial question. This video presents a good arguement for believing in a Creator, but it will not satisfy everyone. I am 84 years of age and I have watched a believing world change into an unbelieving world. I was raised as a Christian and even though I slipped away from my Christian beliefs during WW2, an event that nearly took my life during a battle caused me to have a vision and brought me back to the fact that I am a sinner and needed my salvation. I will not apologise to unbelievers, but I believe there will be a time when we will have to face up to the Creator who created me and the world in which I live. I wish to be prepared for that time.

----------


## crayola

> God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
> 
> This thread has certainly deteriorated during my brief absence.


On the contrary, it has moved on from old and mostly misunderstood arguments for and against religious didacticism towards broader philosophical issues of the true nature of gods.




> This video presents a good arguement for believing in a Creator, but it will not satisfy everyone.


Oops.

----------


## RecQuery

Both are valid and worthy of consideration, but I'd argue the philosophical and metaphysical arguments are old compared to the others, a few of my sources were from recent studies proving, confirming and expanding stuff we didn't know before.

Yes it wasn't accessible and the general public wouldn't understand it but thats part of the problem.

I suppose I should of began this argument by asking those that believe and especially the creationists.

Is there anything I can say, any proof I can provide, any experiment I can run, anything at all I can provide you with that would making you stop believing in god or start believing in evolution?

----------


## crayola

> Both are valid and worthy of consideration, but I'd argue the philosophical and metaphysical arguments are old compared to the others, a few of my sources were from recent studies proving, confirming and expanding stuff we didn't know before.


Yes they are old but so are the didactic Gods of the the Old and New Testament. Isn't it about time we in the West broadened our concept of Gods with powers to create? Classifying all possible such gods, examining their powers and properties and searching for evidence for their deeds would be the scientific way to proceed.

You alluded to the Raelians some pages ago. They may be mad but they may be on the right track.

----------


## Stavro

> So you are saying that God (taken that he exists as a single entity) is not omniscient?


My opinion is that God is omniscient inasmuch as the general outcome of the good v evil struggle is foreknown, and that the answer to every question could be provided by God, but not as to which spirits are going to survive their testing.





> Regarding salvation and pre-determinism (and I know this is drifting into religion as opposed to the existance of God):
> Who is to say that the Islamic premise that all things are already known to God, or that the belief of the C16th and C17th Calvinistic Christian Elect in a predetermined path for the Chosen, is incorrect?


The problem with predetermination, as I see it, is twofold. Firstly, it means that God is made a scapegoat for all of the man-made, but supposedly predetermined, suffering going on in the world. Secondly, it means that there is no free will, which is contrary to our own life experiences.

----------


## Abewsed

In my opinion God is just another name for hope. We need hope when we are in trouble, i.e. if you come around the next morning in the police cells. Then you start praying to someone, i.e. God. But once the trouble passes we become atheist again, no need for a God and so on. 

As on person told me there are three stages in life. 
1/ Youth. Mum is God. 
2/ Teens to Middle Age. No need for a God. 
3/ Middle Age to Old Age. Need for a God. 
In the last stage we realise we are getting closer to death, so some hope is needed and religion (God) is a small but slender hope, so we decide to get a bit religious, just in case there is really a God. It would not do to die and then find yourself standing in front of St Peter and the Pearly Gate, only to read the sign, NO ATHIESTS ALLOWED. 

As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an atheist on the battlefield. When the number twos are hitting the fan, who do we turn to? Its not the Ghost Busters.

----------


## RecQuery

> In my opinion God is just another name for hope. We need hope when we are in trouble, i.e. if you come around the next morning in the police cells. Then you start praying to someone, i.e. God. But once the trouble passes we become atheist again, no need for a God and so on. 
> 
> As on person told me there are three stages in life. 
> 1/ Youth. Mum is God. 
> 2/ Teens to Middle Age. No need for a God. 
> 3/ Middle Age to Old Age. Need for a God. 
> In the last stage we realise we are getting closer to death, so some hope is needed and religion (God) is a small but slender hope, so we decide to get a bit religious, just in case there is really a God. It would not do to die and then find yourself standing in front of St Peter and the Pearly Gate, only to read the sign, NO ATHIESTS ALLOWED. 
> 
> As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an atheist on the battlefield. When the number twos are hitting the fan, who do we turn to? Its not the Ghost Busters.


Thats called Pascal's wager I find it distasteful:

A play on words is nothing to base your entire belief system from.

It represents an arms race amongst religions for who can come up with the most terrible eternal damnation. Why should religion X get all the converts just because they thought of something so bad you shouldn't risk.

Isn't believing "just to be safe" an insult to the potential creator

There is no way to meet the terms of the wager: one cannot force oneself to believe, even if it would be beneficial for one to do so. You either believe or not, you can't fake it before an all-knowing entity.

There are thousands of gods for me to be potentially wrong about. And that goes for you too: if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, I would say we're both screwed

----------


## northener

> ........ if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, I would say we're both screwed


 

All hail His Noodly Appendages!

----------


## northener

> As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an atheist on the battlefield.......


I can say, with my hand on my heart, that this statement is incorrect.

----------


## Stavro

> Isn't believing "just to be safe" an insult to the potential creator



Yes.

(That would have been the entire post, but for the 10-character requirement.)

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTB...F8CC5D7E2A5011

----------


## crayola

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTB...F8CC5D7E2A5011


This dude is a peach.

Here's another one from him.

----------


## JimH

I have just watched the clip on Utube. I reckon that just about sums up what I believe. 
You do not have to believe in God to live by good moral standards, as the majority of people do.
However, I will not fall out with anybody over their beliefs, providing they do not thrust them on to me.

----------


## Rheghead

Interesting article

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/we...wade.html?_r=2

----------


## weeboyagee

> Now now Phill. I can get into enough trouble with my own quotes without being held responsable for someone elses quotes especially one as damning to God belief as that one.


You're in for it from Alan16!  Guess why?

WBG  ::

----------


## Stavro

> Now now Phill. I can get into enough trouble with my own quotes without being held responsable for someone elses quotes especially one as damning to God belief as that one.



A little glibness from gleeber. I must have missed that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&h...&v=QERyh9YYEis

 :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

People who don't want their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.  ::

----------


## Moira

> <snip> 
> We are not talking about religion, we are talking about whether God exists. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.


We're not....., we are.......?  
It hasn't.......?

I think your reply to Leanne is extremely rude.   

I've not entered this debate because I have no wish to keep up with the Stavros's (or the Jones's) of this world.  'Nuff said.

The Spelling and Apostrophe Police are welcome to tear my post apart.  ::

----------


## RecQuery

> I have just watched the clip on Utube. I reckon that just about sums up what I believe. 
> You do not have to believe in God to live by good moral standards, as the majority of people do.
> However, I will not fall out with anybody over their beliefs, providing they do not thrust them on to me.


My standard way of countering this is:

You mean to tell me the only reason you're not killing, pillaging and raping is because you believe some guy is watching you and making notesIf the 10 commandments are so moral why do 4 of come from the angle of a jealous and insecure god.The evolutionist explanation has to do the with the strength of the group and the fact that behaviour such as that would weaken it.Depending on the person and debate I occasionally quote the bible to attack it but thats a dodgy tactic.

----------


## Stavro

> If the 10 commandments are so moral why do 4 of [them] come from the angle of a jealous and insecure god.



I agree with you (and Dawkins) that the Old Testament god is jealous, vindictive and insecure (I would also add, bloodthirsty).

But the question was not "do you believe in the god of the Old Testament," to which I would have answered 'no', it was "do you believe in a God?" This is why I answered 'yes'.

----------


## oldmarine

When I examine the vast universe and see the complexity of things around me. When I read about the complexity of the human body and how it is put together. The more mankind learns about everything, I believe there has to be an almighty being out there somewhere that has to know more than any human being to put all of this together. It is difficult for me to understand that it was all just an accident or that it just evolved from nothing. I have studied engineering from which I received a college degree and to me the world about me is too complex for there not to be an almighty God who created everything.

----------


## Olin

> When I examine the vast universe and see the complexity of things around me. When I read about the complexity of the human body and how it is put together. The more mankind learns about everything, I believe there has to be an almighty being out there somewhere that has to know more than any human being to put all of this together. It is difficult for me to understand that it was all just an accident or that it just evolved from nothing. I have studied engineering from which I received a college degree and to me the world about me is too complex for there not to be an almighty God who created everything.


You are right to believe in an almight being....

He goes by the name of Mr. C Norris.

You can call him Chuck....

----------


## RecQuery

> You are right to believe in an almight being....
> 
> He goes by the name of Mr. C Norris.
> 
> You can call him Chuck....


Your right, I've come to realise recently that there is no theory or evolution, only a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to exist.

He can apparently divide by 0 also.

More here

----------


## JimH

> My standard way of countering this is:
> 
> You mean to tell me the only reason you're not killing, pillaging and raping is because you believe some guy is watching you and making notesIf the 10 commandments are so moral why do 4 of come from the angle of a jealous and insecure god.The evolutionist explanation has to do the with the strength of the group and the fact that behaviour such as that would weaken it.Depending on the person and debate I occasionally quote the bible to attack it but thats a dodgy tactic.


I think you have the wrong end of the stick guvnor, I DO NOT believe any of it. But I do try to live to a reasonable moral standard. I also believe that people the preach the religions are the best set of con merchants there are. That is another story. What ever you believe - may your God go with you.

----------


## rockchick

> Creation explains this by having all these creatures buried in sediment at about the same time and very rapidly. I.e., it accepts the worldwide Flood as stated in Genesis. Various creatures will be found at different depths, but could all have been buried in the same wave of sedimentary material. (Bertault, G.)


If even ONE rabbit fossil is found in the Cambrian layer, which is the oldest rock layer of the Paleozoic (rocks where animal fossils have been found), this argument could be true.  If you believe that the theory of evolution is false, then rabbits back at the time of the flood would have the same proliferation characteristics as rabbits today, they would have been drowned in their dens during the flood, and the fossil record would be peppered with them.

This would be considered strong evidence for the creation/great flood theory.

None, as yet, have been discovered.  So what happened to all the rabbits?  They couldn't all make it onto the Ark.

----------


## Gleber2

> They couldn't all make it onto the Ark.


Ark? By the bibles dimensions, the ark would have gone beneath the waves with a couple of elephants, hippos, rhinos and a few others. ::

----------


## Olin

May I ask is evolution something that doesn't exist in the views of people who believe in the bible, God, etc?

Also who created God?

And how come God supposedly walked with Noah when the explanation of the building of the ark happened yet he hasn't made an appearance since?

----------


## canuck

> ... I also believe that people the preach the religions are the best set of con merchants there are. ...


That hurts!   





> May I ask is evolution something that doesn't exist in the views of people who believe in the bible, God, etc?
> 
> Also who created God?
> 
> And how come God supposedly walked with Noah when the explanation of the building of the ark happened yet he hasn't made an appearance since?


Most Bible believing Christians do also recognize evolution as an credible scientific theory.   I think that one day the physicists will be able to so completely define energies and matter that they will be able to give the biochemists the information they need to inform the psychiatrists and psychologists about the human concept of faith.  And then there can be a full discussion with theologians.  I really look forward to that day.  

My first university degree was in biology and chemistry, my second and third in theology.  I have never had a personal faith crisis over the concept of evolution.   They explain totally different things for me.

As to the other Biblical stories which you mention, it helps to understand that the Bible is not a science text book.  It was written in a time and in a style hundreds of years before anything remotely approaching modern science.  The science of evolution is aided by the science of genetics.  And genetics was born from the thoughts of a Christian monk, a very religious person and a person of scientific investigation.

God is beyond this earth and not bound to it.  We are limited to our descriptions of God by our human understanding of the life around us and the language we have to express our understanding.

----------


## Olin

Just wondering because even without evolution there is no way that mr Noah could build a boat big enough to house all of the hundreds of thousands of animals and then redistribute them accordingly throughout the world.

And since religion is built on faith that opens up the arguement that you can also have faith that something doesn't exist. Which means there are faith arguements for and against religion/god. 

The only problem is that the faith against religion and god has scientific proof for occurences that claim to be acts of god, etc.


And where abouts do the dinosaurs fit into this story?

----------


## canuck

> Just wondering because even without evolution there is no way that mr Noah could build a boat big enough to house all of the hundreds of thousands of animals and then redistribute them accordingly throughout the world.


Sorry, I cannot answer that question.  I wasn't there.





> And where abouts do the dinosaurs fit into this story?


I've thought of three possibilities:

1) dinosaurs were the precursors of rabbits.

2) dinosaurs were a theory that some very clever geologists worked out to explain the fossilized bones which they found in their rock collections.

3) dinosaurs were the product of the imaginations of Michael Crichton and Stephen Spielburgh as they produced Jurasic Park as a means to address one of the social issues of the day - _cloning_.

----------


## northener

> .......3) dinosaurs were the product of the imaginations of Michael Crichton and Stephen Spielburgh as they produced Jurasic Park as a means to address one of the social issues of the day - _cloning_.


 
Blimey, you're right!

And it was sooo obvious all the time. ::

----------


## Stavro

> May I ask is evolution something that doesn't exist in the views of people who believe in the bible, God, etc?


Speaking for myself (of course), evolution is a fairytale.





> Also who created God?


No one. God has always existed.





> And how come God supposedly walked with Noah when the explanation of the building of the ark happened yet he hasn't made an appearance since?


I am not familiar with that account - please reference where that is recorded.

----------


## Rheghead

> Speaking for myself (of course), evolution is a fairytale.
> 
> No one. God has always existed.
> 
> I am not familiar with that account - please reference where that is recorded.


Don't take this the wrong way but your replies are getting more dogmatic as the thread lengthens.  If you aren't prepared to engage in the evidence that is out there then I think we're done.  I'm not prepared to talk to a tape recording.

----------


## Stavro

> I'm not prepared to talk to a tape recording.



I was answering Olin, who posed three general questions. If Olin has not read the foregoing posts, then take it up with them.  :Smile: 

Can't have the 'frog-to-a-prince' fairytale proclaimed as some sort of theory.

----------


## JimH

[quote=canuck;621795]That hurts!   
The truth usually does. But it is nothing personal - I have some very good friends of the cloth, but they know better than to try and con me. They are a great comfort to those that believe.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can't have the 'frog-to-a-prince' fairytale proclaimed as some sort of theory.


I agree and no evolutionist is proposing such a silly idea.

----------


## Abewsed

I can argue that there is not a supreme being, whether it is God with a long white beard or the force as in Star Wars. The biggest question I have is if God made humans in his own image. Then who made him? The most common answer is that he was there from the beginning. But this leads to another question, when was the beginning? 

Then on to evolution, why is it then so hard to accept that the human race evolved from a fish? As this could be Gods plan to evolve a species to perfection. The only flaw with this is that the bible tells us (Genesis 1:1 24) Then God said Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness So if we take the word literally then we are clones of God, or rather in more than one Gods image, as it states in our image not in my image. 

We tend to take the Bible/s too literally. So why cant we accept in evolution of species, as part of God/s great plan?

----------


## oldmarine

> May I ask is evolution something that doesn't exist in the views of people who believe in the bible, God, etc?
> 
> Also who created God?
> 
> And how come God supposedly walked with Noah when the explanation of the building of the ark happened yet he hasn't made an appearance since?


And so you believe you evolved from an ape. They tried to teach me that theory in school and I did not buy it.

----------


## Stavro

> I can argue that there is not a supreme being, whether it is God with a long white beard or the force as in Star Wars. The biggest question I have is if God made humans in his own image. Then who made him? The most common answer is that he was there from the beginning. But this leads to another question, when was the beginning? 
> 
> Then on to evolution, why is it then so hard to accept that the human race evolved from a fish? As this could be Gods plan to evolve a species to perfection. The only flaw with this is that the bible tells us (Genesis 1:1 24) Then God said Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness So if we take the word literally then we are clones of God, or rather in more than one Gods image, as it states in our image not in my image. 
> 
> We tend to take the Bible/s too literally. So why cant we accept in evolution of species, as part of God/s great plan?



Evolution is an idea. An idea that is as old as the hills. People investigate this idea. Some believe it, like Rheghead and RecQuery, and some do not, like myself.

The Bible is a collection of books. Some stories in these books are as old as the hills. People investigate the stories and where they came from. Some believe the stories and some do not.

I have said before and I will say again, whether Rheghead likes the repetition or not  :Wink: , that the god of the Old Testament is the Devil. This is why people cannot reconcile the Old Testament stories (most of which were copied from the Egyptians and others and mutilated to serve the purpose of a particular group) with SOME of the teachings attributed to a character called Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Your life experiences are just as important to you as anything you will read in "holy" books.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

Evolution is not a matter of belief, the conclusive evidence for it is in our genes and in the fossil record, if you believe otherwise then you are extremely gullible , in denial because you don't like it or both.

----------


## Rheghead

> And so you believe you evolved from an ape. They tried to teach me that theory in school and I did not buy it.


If they taught you that you evolved from an ape then they were wrong to teach you that.  

The correct way to phrase it is that modern apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.  

I'm heartened that religious groups are so offensive to evolution because I agree with them wholeheartedly that rational thought about evolution is extremely corrosive to religious thought.  Every time a person goes on about how evolution is a load of tripe (like stavro) then that is another person who takes up the theory of evolution.  In the end bible bashers just end up looking very silly.

----------


## lister

> I think you have the wrong end of the stick guvnor, I DO NOT believe any of it. But I do try to live to a reasonable moral standard. I also believe that people the preach the religions are the best set of con merchants there are. That is another story. What ever you believe - may your God go with you.


 
. That is another story. What ever you believe - may your God go with you

Ahhh...the late great Dave Allen who had a very real but insanely comic view on religion and all its add ons..priceless.
May he rest in peace with his god who i would imagine is cracking up with him an his jokes an observations on human beings an there stupidity!

----------


## weeboyagee

On looking up the term "singularity" for a wind up at Rheggers on another thread (so sack me for trolling  :Grin: ) I came across this:

_"Big Bang Theory - The Premise.  The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. 

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. 

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory."_

Now - after reading that I found that my ability to believe in God shouldn't be so dumbfounding.  I found my ability to believe in God a heck of a lot easier to understand than that mind exploding experience.  And once you understand it (which I don't believe anyone could) you then have to try and understand it!  And that I'm afraid that thought just blew my brain away (which is not very hard given the size it is!).

What I found hilarious was the bit where it says "astronomy and physics have shown beyond reasonable doubt" (to me that's not a fact) "that our universe did *in fact* have a beginning".  Dear, dear, what a mess the mind that wrote that, is in!  Is the theory a fact or just beyond reasonable doubt - there is a MASSIVE difference between the two when it comes to the creation!!!!

I'd rather believe that God is eternal - that rests easier (and it's easier to accept when you think about it) than trying to fathom out what made what to the nth degree in Physics and astronomy.

Time to sit down and rest a while - I'm knackered!

WBG  ::

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> On looking up the term "singularity" for a wind up at Rheggers on another thread (so sack me for trolling ) I came across this:
> 
> _"Big Bang Theory - The Premise. The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment._ 
> 
> _According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know._ 
> 
> _After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory."_
> 
> Now - after reading that I found that my ability to believe in God shouldn't be so dumbfounding. I found my ability to believe in God a heck of a lot easier to understand than that mind exploding experience. And once you understand it (which I don't believe anyone could) you then have to try and understand it! And that I'm afraid that thought just blew my brain away (which is not very hard given the size it is!).
> ...


For me, The Big Bang Theory makes perfect sense. Everything has a begining & an end, everything is born, then dies. We are made up of zillions of "singular" atoms, as is everything around us. The minute the sun dies, everything around us will descintegrate, including us.

But maybe "God" will pick up these broken pieces...

----------


## Metalattakk

> (and it's easier to accept when you *can't be arsed* *to* think about it)


Fixed your typo there WBG. No need to thank me.  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

@WBG

So I get it now, just because you don't understand something so the logic goes that you ridicule it, deny it, plaguerise it then go back believing in a 2000 yr old fairy story.   ::

----------


## Rheghead

This is what faith can do to you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8375591.stm

----------


## M R

Sick,   just sick.



If only the poor goat new what was comming next.

----------


## floyed

Nope i dont! Unless someone can prove he existes ::

----------


## oldmarine

I'll take my chances with believing in a God rather than some of the other beliefs, ie., everything happened by accident. Our universe is too well structured for it to be an accident. There had to be a universal Creator to bring such a complex universe together, including our small planet that we call Earth. That's about as much as my non-infinite mind can handle. Some of you who appear to have infinite minds can believe what you want, but I will take my chances with believing in a God who has done it all for the least of us. When I was taught in school that I had to believe man descended from an ape with a series of pictures showing the transcendation from ape to man made a believer in God for me. I just had to choose the religion that I wanted to believe. That I have done. Let me add that my education and training as an Electronics Engineer helped fortify my belief......

----------


## weeboyagee

> Fixed your typo there WBG. No need to thank me.


Thankyou Metalattakk - same thing right enough!

WBG  ::

----------


## weeboyagee

> @WBG
> 
> So I get it now, just because you don't understand something so the logic goes that you ridicule it, deny it, plaguerise it then go back believing in a 2000 yr old fairy story.


Awww,....Rheggers pal,..... how right you are.  But somehow I don't think it's a fairy story.  You're gonna have some explaining to do when you meet your maker - and call Him a fairy.

WBG  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Awww,....Rheggers pal,..... how right you are.  But somehow I don't think it's a fairy story.  You're gonna have some explaining to do when you meet your maker - and call Him a fairy.
> 
> WBG


If He loves me as much as I'm told then He'll not hold it against me, so it's  open season on the old guy and I've nothing to be worried about.

Mind you it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, since we in Caithness are rich compared to most peoples of the world then we'll be damned to all eternity.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

If God loves us ALL so much, then why do some folk get thrown into Hell? Because if God was so fair & wonderful, wouldn't everyone get treated the same?

----------


## Eagleclaw68

I see God everytime I look in to the sky on a sunny day, he gives us light?

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> I see God everytime I look in to the sky on a sunny day, he gives us light?


Exactly, the Sun! :Smile:

----------


## Kenn

Which god?............................................

----------


## Stavro

> If God loves us ALL so much, then why do some folk get thrown into Hell? Because if God was so fair & wonderful, wouldn't everyone get treated the same?


We all go to hell eventually, because "hell" is simply the grave, not a place of torture.

----------


## Stavro

> Which god?............................................


The Way, The Truth and The Life.  :Smile:

----------


## floyed

> If God loves us ALL so much, then why do some folk get thrown into Hell? Because if God was so fair & wonderful, wouldn't everyone get treated the same?



They get thrown in to hell because they are evil, there is bad people and good. You cant treat everyone the same when no two people are alike!

----------


## Stavro

> So I get it now, just because you don't understand something so the logic goes that you ridicule it, deny it, plaguerise it then go back believing in a 2000 yr old fairy story.


You shouldn't deride yourself in that way, Rheghead.  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

Well Pat says it as it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4d...layer_embedded

----------


## gleeber

Your link never opened for me Rheghead but was your clip about Pat Robinson? He has a smile that'll slit your throat.

----------


## Alan16

> Your link never opened for me Rheghead but was your clip about Pat Robinson? He has a smile that'll slit your throat.


It's Pat Condell. An atheist who states his points quite firmly, and occasionally quite aggressively, but he normally has valid things to say.

----------


## crayola

> Your link never opened for me Rheghead but was your clip about Pat Robinson? He has a smile that'll slit your throat.


You should make an effort to see it gleeber. You will enjoy it.  :Smile: 

Try his own site if you still can't get it on YouTube.

http://www.patcondell.net/

----------


## Whitewater

I have resurrected this thread purely out of curiosity. 

There have been so many of you denying the existant of a God and Jesus Christ, which of course is your own decision to accept or not to accept. I just wonder what you do at Christmas time. Do you accept the holidays which you are given?? or if you are working do you refuse the triple time payment?? Do you give presents to your children?? Do you have Christmas dinner??  There are many things which could be asked of you, or do you just say that before the birth of Christ, Dec 25th was already a pagan celebration. Fine, but the pagans had many gods which they thanked at this celebration. How many Gods (if any) do you thank??

Maybe you will just answer and say you go along with the flow for the sake of your children or because it is the accepted thing. That sort of answer is not really acceptable, and if you join in the celebrations are you not being hypocrites to your "Non Faith" which you are so poud to proclaim.

----------


## Tubthumper

I'm a staunch.

----------


## gleeber

I do Christmas but I dont do religion. I dont feel hypocritical any more than a Christian may who does'nt turn the other cheek. I would have to be a misery guts, or a fundamental Wee Free not to get caught up in the Christian holidays. I often think of the nativity and the power behind it whether symbolic or real.

----------


## Rheghead

> There have been so many of you denying the existant of a God and Jesus Christ, which of course is your own decision to accept or not to accept. I just wonder what you do at Christmas time. Do you accept the holidays which you are given?? or if you are working do you refuse the triple time payment?? Do you give presents to your children?? Do you have Christmas dinner??  There are many things which could be asked of you, or do you just say that before the birth of Christ, Dec 25th was already a pagan celebration. Fine, but the pagans had many gods which they thanked at this celebration. How many Gods (if any) do you thank??
> 
> Maybe you will just answer and say you go along with the flow for the sake of your children or because it is the accepted thing. That sort of answer is not really acceptable, and if you join in the celebrations are you not being hypocrites to your "Non Faith" which you are so poud to proclaim.


I come from the position which recognises that religious thought has had an evolutionary benefit on the minds of humans.  It has given us hope, solice and comfort in the days of prehistory where knowledge of the world about us was poor.  It has bound humanity and given us the spiritual life blood to keep surviving from year to year.  And Christmas to me is the most notable marker of the calender.  It was taken to be the shortest day of the year and spiritually the birth of the new year when the days get longer.  We all know the effect on us when we start to see the days get longer, it is fulfilling spiritually.  So Christmas is worth celebrating  as I see it as a turning point, a rebirth of the year.

----------


## Boozeburglar

Whatever you all think, I believe there is a spiritual side to life that is much more important that the physical, and does not need to meet the demands of normal explanation. I don't care if it is God or not, I judge only on my experience so far, and it tells me there is something more than the visible.

----------


## Whitewater

> I do Christmas but I dont do religion. I dont feel hypocritical any more than a Christian may who does'nt turn the other cheek.


I don't turn the other cheek, I did once, got it smacked as well. Not any more, I now beleive more in an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth etc. (The old testiment stuff)

----------


## crayola

> I come from the position which recognises that religious thought has had an evolutionary benefit on the minds of humans.  It has given us hope, solice and comfort in the days of prehistory where knowledge of the world about us was poor.  It has bound humanity and given us the spiritual life blood to keep surviving from year to year.  And Christmas to me is the most notable marker of the calender.  It was taken to be the shortest day of the year and spiritually the birth of the new year when the days get longer.  We all know the effect on us when we start to see the days get longer, it is fulfilling spiritually.  So Christmas is worth celebrating  as I see it as a turning point, a rebirth of the year.


You'd make a fine pagan Rheg.  :Smile:

----------


## northener

> I have resurrected this thread purely out of curiosity. 
> 
> There have been so many of you denying the existant of a God and Jesus Christ, which of course is your own decision to accept or not to accept. I just wonder what you do at Christmas time. Do you accept the holidays which you are given?? or if you are working do you refuse the triple time payment?? Do you give presents to your children?? Do you have Christmas dinner?? There are many things which could be asked of you, or do you just say that before the birth of Christ, Dec 25th was already a pagan celebration. Fine, but the pagans had many gods which they thanked at this celebration. How many Gods (if any) do you thank??
> 
> Maybe you will just answer and say you go along with the flow for the sake of your children or because it is the accepted thing. That sort of answer is not really acceptable, and if you join in the celebrations are you not being hypocrites to your "Non Faith" which you are so poud to proclaim.


Sorry, Whitewater, but I'm not a Christian (I'm a card-carrying member of the Scottish Humanist Society), but I do celebrate Christmas after a fashion. And I don't see any conflict of beliefs.

I wish people a Merry Christmas as a mark of respect and as an acknowledgement that to Christians this is a major event. I may not agree with their beliefs but I think it only proper to respect them. Also, I believe that _any_ festival that encourages peace and goodwill deserves some support.

And I quite like mince pies. :: 



Regarding taking holidays and pay, let me ask you this:

If St Andrews Day was made a public holiday, would you refuse to accept the days holiday if you believed that Nationalist celebrations were divisive and led to nothing but bigotry and a narrow minded backward-looking mindset?

I know I'd still take the day off.......

----------


## Stavro

> There have been so many of you denying the existant of a God and Jesus Christ, which of course is your own decision to accept or not to accept. I just wonder what you do at Christmas time.



There is no doubt that God exists, but there is a doubt that a man called Jesus Christ existed.

December 25 was well-accepted long before Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin in a stable. In astrology, December 25 marks the rebirth of the Sun of God, after resting 3 days (December 22, 23, 24) at its lowest point - the grave. The 12 constellations are the 12 disciples. The four segments formed by the two equinoxes and the two solstices form a cross (cruxifix). And so on.

I therefore stay clear of Christmas, but my family and I do celebrate the pagan festival of Yuletide - hence we do have a Yule tree for example.  :Smile:

----------


## golach

> There is no doubt that God exists, but there is a doubt that a man called Jesus Christ existed.
> 
> December 25 was well-accepted long before Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin in a stable. In astrology, December 25 marks the rebirth of the Sun of God, after resting 3 days (December 22, 23, 24) at its lowest point - the grave. The 12 constellations are the 12 disciples. The four segments formed by the two equinoxes and the two solstices form a cross (cruxifix). And so on.
> 
> I therefore stay clear of Christmas, but my family and I do celebrate the pagan festival of Yuletide - hence we do have a Yule tree for example.


Yep I got that right, Stavro = a disciple of Crayola and her nutter followers  ::

----------


## Alan16

> There is no doubt that God exists...


Oh please stop being so idiotic. There is plenty of doubt. What you meant to say was that "there is no doubt *in my mind* that God exists."

----------


## Stavro

> What you meant to say was ...


Nope. I said exactly what I meant to say.

----------


## Alan16

> Nope. I said exactly what I meant to say.


OK then, a small amendment: The correct thing to say was "there is no doubt *in my mind* that God exists."

----------


## Aaldtimer

> There is no doubt that God exists, but there is a doubt that a man called Jesus Christ existed.
> 
> December 25 was well-accepted long before Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin in a stable. In astrology, December 25 marks the rebirth of the Sun of God, after resting 3 days (December 22, 23, 24) at its lowest point - the grave. The 12 constellations are the 12 disciples. The four segments formed by the two equinoxes and the two solstices form a cross (cruxifix). And so on.
> 
> I therefore stay clear of Christmas, but my family and I do celebrate the pagan festival of Yuletide - hence we do have a Yule tree for example.


That is the biggest load of bollix I've read since I read the bible! ::

----------


## Saveman

Some really interesting points of view in this thread. It's nice to have some reasonable discussion here without there being personal attacks.

Almost everything about Christmas is pagan. Into this pagan festival they've dumped Jesus Christ. So I don't mark Christmas as a personal choice. I give presents at any time of the year and I try to promote peace and goodwill all year round  :Smile:

----------


## Chobbersjnr

> Some really interesting points of view in this thread. It's nice to have some reasonable discussion here without there being personal attacks.
> 
> Almost everything about Christmas is pagan. Into this pagan festival they've dumped Jesus Christ. So I don't mark Christmas as a personal choice. I give presents at any time of the year and I try to promote peace and goodwill all year round


Pagan perhaps, but the influence of Mithrism should not be overlooked. Mithra was the God of the Roman legions at the time of Constantine's conversion and much of the Mithran belief system was used in the writing of the Gospels. Mithra was born on the 25th December, a vigin birth and had 12 followers. Tie this up with the Pauline doctrine and you have the fairy story of Christ as was preached by the Catholic church after the Synod of Nicea.
This is a Gleber2 post. Didn't realise Chobbersjnr was logged in. Sorry!!!!!

----------


## canuck

> Some really interesting points of view in this thread. It's nice to have some reasonable discussion here without there being personal attacks.
> 
> Almost everything about Christmas is pagan. Into this pagan festival they've dumped Jesus Christ. So I don't mark Christmas as a personal choice. I give presents at any time of the year and I try to promote peace and goodwill all year round


The org expressed points of view concerning faith and non-faith have always being fascinating reading and learning for me.

I have no problem celebrating Christmas with what you call pagan expressions as long as the user understands that they represent an attempt to, in a tangible way, explain the meaning of Christ's birth into the world.  Return of the light works in the Northern Hemisphere, but for those in the south where light begins disappearing at the end of December there must be some alternate local symbols which better represent the theology of the nativity. 

The gift giving associated with Christmas, which stems from the gift giving of God, is fine in my thoughts.   Where I draw the line, and a heavy dark line at that, is in the chaotic gift exchange that takes over so many lives this time of year.  The once simple practise of celebrating God's sharing of love has been hijacked by the commercial world.   It feeds the modern god of materialism and is the largest religion in our world today.

----------


## canuck

> Pagan perhaps, but the influence of Mithrism should not be overlooked. Mithra was the God of the Roman legions at the time of Constantine's conversion and much of the Mithran belief system was used in the writing of the Gospels. Mithra was born on the 25th December, a vigin birth and had 12 followers. Tie this up with the Pauline doctrine and you have the fairy story of Christ as was preached by the Catholic church after the Synod of Nicea.
> This is a Gleber2 post. Didn't realise Chobbersjnr was logged in. Sorry!!!!!


Hi G2.  I was about 5 words into reading your post when I thought, "ah, this isn't Cjnr posting - its G2.  Cjnr must have been using the computer and forgot to log off."  You cannot get away with anything on the org!  :Smile:

----------


## Stavro

> Pagan perhaps, but the influence of Mithrism should not be overlooked. Mithra was the God of the Roman legions at the time of Constantine's conversion and much of the Mithran belief system was used in the writing of the Gospels. Mithra was born on the 25th December, a vigin birth and had 12 followers. Tie this up with the Pauline doctrine and you have the fairy story of Christ as was preached by the Catholic church after the Synod of Nicea.



Yes, but not only Mithra, but several others all share these attributes. For instance, Horus and Krisna.





> The once simple practise of celebrating God's sharing of love has been hijacked by the commercial world. It feeds the modern god of materialism and is the largest religion in our world today.


I'd agree with that.

----------


## Chobbersjnr

> Yes, but not only Mithra, but several others all share these attributes. For instance, Horus and Krisna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


But only Mithra would have been of any consequence to the Romans who created Christianity as we have been force fed it.
Gee whiz, I forgot to log in again. G2

----------


## Stavro

> But only Mithra would have been of any consequence to the Romans who created Christianity as we have been force fed it.



I believe that it was the Jews who created Christianity, not the Romans.

----------


## Gleber2

> I believe that it was the Jews who created Christianity, not the Romans.


Christianity, as we have been fed it, was almost entirely the work of Consantine and ST Paul although the original Church of Jerusalem was a Jewish abberation.

----------


## Serenity

> By God, I mean conscious or at one point conscious higher power who created life on this planet and has any interest in the human race, and that can punish or reward humans based on their moral choices.
> 
> Dont ask for a Dont Know option, if you are unsure as to the existence of a God then you have no belief in it, therefore no.


You can't ask for people's opinions and them limit their answers based on your own  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

Watched Desmond TuTu today, now there is a good definition of a Christian and a good reason to believe.

----------


## Moira

> I have resurrected this thread purely out of curiosity.


I thank you for your curiosity  in resurrecting this thread Whitewater and applaud you on a mighty fine post. 



> The org expressed points of view concerning faith and non-faith have always being fascinating reading and learning for me.
> <snip> 
> The gift giving associated with Christmas.......


Canuck, again, well said.   
I doubt you will learn much here however.  Many have already fallen at the feet of the Fat Jolly Man dressed in Red.   :: 




> Christianity, as we have been fed it,. <snip>


I guess it all depends on how you were fed it.

----------


## Serenity

> I see God everytime I look in to the sky on a sunny day, he gives us light?


Seen George Carlin's viewpoint?

----------


## Faraway Angus

> yes, i believe. I love God, and I know God loves me. sometimes I get a little lost and loose hope, and when it looks really bleak my faith is what picks me up again. I dont have a problem with others faith, I hope that other dont have a problem with mine. 
> one of my fav. verse is this:
> But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
> i really do try to live by this, and its amazing how hard it is at times. im not perfect, but its a good rule of thumb, and a great guide line. 
> but saying that my fav. verse in the bible is.........
> 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
> 
> 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
> 
> ...


 

Whilst I respect your beliefs, sadly, I have read many disturbing religious texts. Even in the old testament, where Moses inflicts religious genocide after he returned with the tablets from the mount on a scale that rengade African tribal leaders would be familiar with.Then there are copious counterpoints of good deeds reported in texts elsewhere, this always seems to reveal the binary nature of religion everywhere on this lonely planet. You are either in our sect or out. Friend or alien, warrior or priest, saved or damned. 
Perhaps the faith you speak of is the reflection of that ''good'' that rests and is to be found in all of us, rather than some alien external presence. 
''Seeking holy armour and fighting percieved evils'' makes the job of war mongers easy, gives mothers cause for grief over her family, sons and fathers the opportunity to die for some misplaced noble or religious cause, soon to be forgotten.
Hopefully, the real journey is about treating those around you with compassion and respect. As you point out, too often we forget the frailty of the human condition.

----------


## Saveman

> Christianity, as we have been fed it, was almost entirely the work of Consantine and ST Paul although the original Church of Jerusalem was a Jewish abberation.


I agree with you to a certain extent Gleber2. Certainly things like the immortality of the soul, the trinity, christmas etc. etc. all have been additions to the original Christian beliefs. The big question is: are those who say they are Christians really followers of Christ?

Gandhi said something along the lines of, "I love Christ, but I hate Christians. They're so unlike Christ."

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

I don't believe in a God.I believe we've just been lucky on where we are.The Sun is just the place we revolve around.A planet of marvel.Of different creatures,ma favourite scientist is Sir David Attenborough,his love for this planet.The Earth created us.Well ma Mum and Dad created me,but that just freaks me out thinkin about it!!!!! ::  ::

----------


## Alan16

> I don't believe in a God.I believe we've just been lucky on where we are.The Sun is just the place we revolve around.A planet of marvel.Of different creatures,ma favourite scientist is Sir David Attenborough,his love for this planet.The Earth created us.Well ma Mum and Dad created me,but that just freaks me out thinkin about it!!!!!


We are exceedingly lucky. Just for example, if it wasn't for Jupiter we would probably be getting smashed to pieces by asteroids - the positioning of Jupiter is all that's stopping this. If you consider just how perfect out world is in the sense that it is positioned just the right distance from the sun etc, it is absolutely astonishing. Taking this in to account, as well as the natural wonders which take place on this planet, it never fails to amaze me how people can be so un-amazed by it, and feel the need to create reasons for existing. Can't people just be thankful that all the necessary variables have come together and given us this wonderful planet?

----------


## joxville

> We are exceedingly lucky. Just for example, if it wasn't for Jupiter we would probably be getting smashed to pieces by asteroids - the positioning of Jupiter is all that's stopping this. If you consider just how perfect out world is in the sense that it is positioned just the right distance from the sun etc, it is absolutely astonishing. Taking this in to account, as well as the natural wonders which take place on this planet, it never fails to amaze me how people can be so un-amazed by it, and feel the need to create reasons for existing. Can't people just be thankful that all the necessary variables have come together and given us this wonderful planet?


Well said Alan, that is quite possibly the best post you're ever likely to make, in fact maybe the best ever on t'org, (apart from mine). Worthy of some good rep.  :Smile:

----------


## Gleber2

> I agree with you to a certain extent Gleber2. Certainly things like the immortality of the soul, the trinity, christmas etc. etc. all have been additions to the original Christian beliefs. The big question is: are those who say they are Christians really followers of Christ?
> 
> Gandhi said something along the lines of, "I love Christ, but I hate Christians. They're so unlike Christ."


Strange as though it may seem, we are of a like mind and I agree with Ghandi also. Strip away the garbage and the basic teachings of Christ are just common sense but how many 'Christians' carry these teachings into everyday life? I can believe in Christ the teacher but can't swallow the claim to Godhood or the Trinity.
Christians slaughtered the Cathars for refusing to acept this Trinity. Very forgiving!!!

----------


## Gleber2

> We are exceedingly lucky. Just for example, if it wasn't for Jupiter we would probably be getting smashed to pieces by asteroids - the positioning of Jupiter is all that's stopping this. If you consider just how perfect out world is in the sense that it is positioned just the right distance from the sun etc, it is absolutely astonishing. Taking this in to account, as well as the natural wonders which take place on this planet, it never fails to amaze me how people can be so un-amazed by it, and feel the need to create reasons for existing. Can't people just be thankful that all the necessary variables have come together and given us this wonderful planet?


Well said but don't you think that it is a great pity that we, as a race, seem to be intent upon destroying it.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can't people just be thankful that all the necessary variables have come together and given us this wonderful planet?


OK, so who are we gonna _thank_?

----------


## trix

> OK, so who are we gonna _thank_?


mother nature

----------


## Serenity

> Well said but don't you think that it is a great pity that we, as a race, seem to be intent upon destroying it.


Not wanting to divert from the main discussion into another which is already ongoing in other posts but I think you are underestimating the Earth and overestimating the Human species.

As to Rheghead's question - who do we thank. Inevitability? In this huge universe that is.

----------


## Rheghead

> mother nature


Does she require _thanking_?  ::

----------


## Alan16

> OK, so who are we gonna _thank_?


Luck. The theory of probability. Chance. Take your pick, any would do.

----------


## trix

> Does she require _thanking_?


no really. i suppose a bit o' respect is in order tho.

we are all made up o' recycled matter, energy which comes fie 'e universe, every thought bubble that we produce is made up o' sub-atomic particles. 
we could respect mother nature by eatin well, livin "green," thinkin positive thoughts and helpin other people til produce guid thoughts.

----------


## Gleber2

> you are underestimating the Earth and overestimating the Human species.
> 
> .


But this is the fable that we all cling too. Mother Earth becomes more and more ravaged and we become more and more destructive. Right now, we are winning. How long can an ecological balance last before it collapses completely. The Mother is finite.

----------


## Serenity

> But this is the fable that we all cling too. Mother Earth becomes more and more ravaged and we become more and more destructive. Right now, we are winning. How long can an ecological balance last before it collapses completely. The Mother is finite.


The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and has survived through several mass extinctions and many extreme climate cycles.

----------


## Kenn

I find all this fascinating, there are Christians quoting from The Old Testament ( The Books of Judaism,) there have been mentions of the old religions and others religions that exist or have existed.
Surely that in itself should be a warning to us, we have through out history torn down the temples and errected new ones, desecrated what were once sacred sights , fought wars in the name of religion, which makes no sense as all the major religions teach that we should respect one another.
I'm sorry but having seen the effects of religion and the non compliance with it's rules that even ardent attenders flout, I threw it out with the bath water.
I can find things I equate to in many religions but have yet to find one that answers my questions about the whys and where fors of this earth.
Unless some one can convince me otherwise I remain an aetheist.

----------


## Gleber2

> The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and has survived through several mass extinctions and many extreme climate cycles.


But she is still finite.

----------


## Stavro

> Christianity, as we have been fed it, was almost entirely the work of Consantine and ST Paul although the original Church of Jerusalem was a Jewish abberation.



It does not appear that a disciple called Peter ever went to Rome, but Paul (Saul of Tarsus) certainly did. Thus the Catholic Church (Christianity) was founded by Paul and Paul was a Jew.

----------


## Stavro

> I find all this fascinating, there are Christians quoting from The Old Testament ( The Books of Judaism,) there have been mentions of the old religions and others religions that exist or have existed.
> Surely that in itself should be a warning to us, we have through out history torn down the temples and errected new ones, desecrated what were once sacred sights , fought wars in the name of religion, which makes no sense as all the major religions teach that we should respect one another.
> I'm sorry but having seen the effects of religion and the non compliance with it's rules that even ardent attenders flout, I threw it out with the bath water.
> I can find things I equate to in many religions but have yet to find one that answers my questions about the whys and where fors of this earth.
> Unless some one can convince me otherwise I remain an aetheist.



Truth remains true, no matter how many people try their best to distort it with lies. Religions have all introduced their own dogma and therefore, whether deliberately or not, introduced falsehoods. God is totally unaffected by any man-made religion. Thus I say again, religion can be thrown out of the window, but God remains true.

Take the Bible for example. This is a book of two main sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. Christians believe that the 'god' described in each section is the same, but they are very different indeed. Your own conscience and experiences will tell you which is correct.

----------


## Rheghead

> Truth remains true, no matter how many people try their best to distort it with lies.


Facts are independent of truth, you can speak the truth which can be factually incorrect.

----------


## Stavro

> Facts are independent of truth, you can speak the truth which can be factually incorrect.



No, the truth will always be factually correct. I think that what you are talking about are people's *interpretation* of facts.

----------


## Rheghead

> No, the truth will always be factually correct. I think that what you are talking about are people's *interpretation* of facts.


Wrong. A person's honest interpretation of facts _is the truth_ even if it is factually correct or not.  Witnesses to a crime can speak the truth as they see it and be proven by forensic science to be telling a falsehood.  They aren't telling lies as they are telling an _honest_ falsehood.  

Just like when Tony Blair thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. ::

----------


## Gleber2

> It does not appear that a disciple called Peter ever went to Rome, but Paul (Saul of Tarsus) certainly did. Thus the Catholic Church (Christianity) was founded by Paul and Paul was a Jew.


No, founded by a Roman based on the teaching of a Jew with very doubtful bona fides. Constantin did not rule in Rome, he ruled in Constantinople and his convenient conversion to the Christian church was purely a political move to reinstate himself in Rome.
The Christian Church I refer to, which is the basis of most orthodox Christian teachings, is the Roman Catholic church which was founded in the fourth century by a Roman.

----------


## Saveman

> OK, so who are we gonna _thank_?


Who are you _gonna_ thank? I dunno. But you should thank your Creator, Almighty God.  :Smile:

----------


## Saveman

> Strange as though it may seem, we are of a like mind and I agree with Ghandi also. Strip away the garbage and the basic teachings of Christ are just common sense but how many 'Christians' carry these teachings into everyday life? I can believe in Christ the teacher but can't swallow the claim to Godhood or the Trinity.
> Christians slaughtered the Cathars for refusing to acept this Trinity. Very forgiving!!!


Indeed, Jesus never claimed to be part of a Trinity or God. In fact he prayed to God, his Father. The Apostle Paul said that an "apostasy" would come in. This happened at the end of the first century and carried on for many, many hundreds of years......

----------


## Rheghead

> Who are you _gonna_ thank? I dunno. But you should thank your Creator, Almighty God.


I'll thank my parents thank you very much.

----------


## Saveman

> I'll thank my parents _ thank you very much._


I'm not one of your parents........but I'll say "you're welcome" anyway........   :Wink:

----------


## oldmarine

> Wrong. A person's honest interpretation of facts _is the truth_ even if it is factually correct or not. Witnesses to a crime can speak the truth as they see it and be proven by forensic science to be telling a falsehood. They aren't telling lies as they are telling an _honest_ falsehood. 
> 
> Just like when Tony Blair thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.


I still believe there were weapons of mass destruction. I remember seeing the vans of which the weapons of mass destruction were supposedly carried buried. Why did he bury the empty vans. I also believe that the weapons of mass destruction went to Syria and/or Iran. This may be conjecture on my part, but I do believe that Saddam was up to no good.

----------


## Stavro

> Wrong. A person's honest interpretation of facts _is the truth_ even if it is factually correct or not.  Witnesses to a crime can speak the truth as they see it and be proven by forensic science to be telling a falsehood.  They aren't telling lies as they are telling an _honest_ falsehood.



No, a fact is a fact. Someone's interpretation of a fact is open to question, and can thus be said to be true or false, but if we restrict ourselves purely to facts, without the associated interpretations, then these will always be truth.

For example, there is a chair in my bedroom. That is a fact and is true. If you then asked me whether it came from some other room in the house, I would give you an answer that I believed to be true, but I might be mistaken. Hence, opinions associated with facts are not absolute truths, but the facts themselves are.

----------


## Stavro

> No, founded by a Roman based on the teaching of a Jew with very doubtful bona fides. Constantin did not rule in Rome, he ruled in Constantinople and his convenient conversion to the Christian church was purely a political move to reinstate himself in Rome.
> The Christian Church I refer to, which is the basis of most orthodox Christian teachings, is the Roman Catholic church which was founded in the fourth century by a Roman.



How could Constantine have converted to Christianity if Christianity were not already established? Constantine was responsible for the Council which determined which books made it into the canon and which did not. This Council made Christ divine (although he was already being regarded thus) and so established the Trinity concept.

Christianity, however, is a Jewish invention, just like Islam is a Jewish invention.

----------


## Stavro

> ... you should thank your Creator, Almighty God.


Absolutely agree.

----------


## Rheghead

> No, a fact is a fact. Someone's interpretation of a fact is open to question, and can thus be said to be true or false, but if we restrict ourselves purely to facts, without the associated interpretations, then these will always be truth.
> 
> For example, there is a chair in my bedroom. That is a fact and is true. If you then asked me whether it came from some other room in the house, I would give you an answer that I believed to be true, but I might be mistaken. Hence, opinions associated with facts are not absolute truths, but the facts themselves are.


You've just contradicted yourself.  How can you say it is a fact that a chair is in your room when it is you that is interpreting that the chair thus is open to question?

Bottom line is that truth is independent of fact as truthand lies are open to question. ::

----------


## Alan16

> You've just contradicted yourself.  How can you say it is a fact that a chair is in your room when it is you that is interpreting that the chair thus is open to question?
> 
> Bottom line is that truth is independent of fact as truthand lies are open to question.


Surely the best, and most appropriate example of this would be the following. Starvo considers: "God exists" to be a fact. However, Rheghead & myself would consider "God does not exist" to be a fact. God can either exist or he can't, so one of us believes the truth, and the other believes a lie.

----------


## Stavro

> You've just contradicted yourself.  How can you say it is a fact that a chair is in your room when it is you that is interpreting that the chair thus is open to question?



You need to read the post again, such that you might understand it.

It is where the chair came from that is open to question, not the fact that it is currently in my room.

----------


## Stavro

> Surely the best, and most appropriate example of this would be the following. Starvo considers: "God exists" to be a fact. However, Rheghead & myself would consider "God does not exist" to be a fact. God can either exist or he can't, so one of us believes the truth, and the other believes a lie.



If that is your best example, then it does not say much for the rest of the examples you might throw in.

Say the three of us were walking along a pavement and we stop to cross the road. A lorry is coming and we wait for it. The fact that I am talking about is an undeniable truth - the lorry exists and is heading our way. What you are talking about is that I would say that someone conceived of, designed, modified and built that lorry, whereas you and Mr. Head would say that the lorry just sprang into existence from nowhere - like you think that we sprang into existence from nowhere.  ::

----------


## steeko

Its good to see you all go on walks together  :Smile:

----------


## Errogie

Its entirely your choice if you need the comfort of an invisible support system in your life so long as you don't frighten horses, molest children or make a nuisance on my doorstep!

----------


## trix

> Surely the best, and most appropriate example of this would be the following. Starvo considers: "God exists" to be a fact. However, Rheghead & myself would consider "God does not exist" to be a fact. God can either exist or he can't, so one of us believes the truth, and the other believes a lie.


i da think 'iss is a very guid example....god exists in so many different ways, til so many different people. yer only takin intil consideration 'e stereotypical "god" that 'e government wants us til believe.

everyone is individual an unique in their own way. i do believe in a god but i also believe that the man portrayed in 'e bible as jesus didna exist.

ma god is female, an not one person could convince me that she disna exist, cos iv seen her, iv felt her an iv communicated wi her.

albeit, alot o'ed is during deep meditation...i can hear ye's laughin scornfully....but im laughin back at ye's...cos i choost know that am rite  :: 

i even hear yer arguements aboot mind-bendin, deep meditation crap...blah blah....but thro it all, i choost know.

its called faith, man  ::

----------


## Stavro

> i do believe in a god but i also believe that the man portrayed in 'e bible as jesus didna exist.


I agree with that.





> ma god is female, an not one person could convince me that she disna exist, cos iv seen her, iv felt her an iv communicated wi her.


My concept of God is a composite of both male and female - a complete whole, neither one nor the other but both in unity.

----------


## trix

> My concept of God is a composite of both male and female - a complete whole, neither one nor the other but both in unity.



ye are absolutly correct....i agree, a hun'er percent.
for some reason i hev focused, homed in if ye lek til 'e female aspect o' things. its wis maybe 'e initial attraction or somethin that i could relate til....who can explain??

in wicca, a goddess and a horned god are 'e deities worshipped. its a matriarchal religion an, so 'e female principle is the main object o' invocation.

'e goddess represents the fertility of nature, as weel as rebirth intil a new life (reincarnartion).
the god is representative o' huntin an deith, an what lies beyond. (masculin stuff)

within 'e scant mythology of 'e wicca, its said that He wis once supreme. oot o' his great love for 'e goddess, he resigned all his powers til Her, kenin that she wid use them wisely an justly.....

girl power ma peoples  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

If God is a woman then that makes sense now why She made me.  

I'm a convert. ::

----------


## Stavro

> ye are absolutly correct....i agree, a hun'er percent.
> for some reason i hev focused, homed in if ye lek til 'e female aspect o' things. its wis maybe 'e initial attraction or somethin that i could relate til....who can explain??
> 
> in wicca, a goddess and a horned god are 'e deities worshipped. its a matriarchal religion an, so 'e female principle is the main object o' invocation.
> 
> 'e goddess represents the fertility of nature, as weel as rebirth intil a new life (reincarnartion).
> the god is representative o' huntin an deith, an what lies beyond. (masculin stuff)
> 
> within 'e scant mythology of 'e wicca, its said that He wis once supreme. oot o' his great love for 'e goddess, he resigned all his powers til Her, kenin that she wid use them wisely an justly.....
> ...


Good Yule to you, Trix!  :Smile:

----------


## steeko

> Its entirely your choice if you need the comfort of an invisible support system in your life


My favourite is oxygen, such a comfort

----------


## gleeber

There's a tool I use to help me understand why I think some of the things I think.  ::   It fits a variety of different size nuts and turns clockwise or anti clockwise. Its a specialist tool and is very expensive to buy and like prayer, doesnt always work.
Its called psychoanalysis and it helps me to understand why people need Gods. One of it's basic premises is that as adults our inner lives are little more than a projection of the lives we led as children with mummy and daddy. There's more but that's enough to help me understand why we need to create Gods. It's a neurotic symptom. An unconscious need to be looked after.  :: 
Having said that theres non more neurotic than maself but I hevna got a God which is a peety cos it's always good when Mummy or Daddy are there to pick up the pieces.

----------


## canuck

> There's a tool I use to help me understand why I think some of the things I think.   It fits a variety of different size nuts and turns clockwise or anti clockwise. Its a specialist tool and is very expensive to buy and like prayer, doesnt always work.
> Its called psychoanalysis and it helps me to understand why people need Gods. One of it's basic premises is that as adults our inner lives are little more than a projection of the lives we led as children with mummy and daddy. There's more but that's enough to help me understand why we need to create Gods. It's a neurotic symptom. An unconscious need to be looked after. 
> Having said that theres non more neurotic than maself but I hevna got a God which is a peety cos it's always good when Mummy or Daddy are there to pick up the pieces.


That's an interesting analysis gleeber.   I have had a different experience of God.  I was aware of such a component of my life just about the same time I was becoming aware of Mummy and Daddy.  

What I have discovered over the years is that the component of my life which is there to pick up the pieces is my friends.   I suppose one could extend that and ask 'does that make my friends gods?'   Some days I think that some of them are!  And some of them are reading this post.

----------


## gleeber

A friend of mine once described friendship as someone who watches your back. It's almost like an extension of our own personalities but much more objective. 
Gods on the other hand are purely subjective. The mix in the pot is apparent from this thread alone.  
It cant be easy being a preacher lady whose friends dont embrace your God. 
Does'nt mean we cant be friends though. Perhaps  freindship is indeed stronger than any God.

----------


## Gleber2

'God is the universe and we are all part of him/her therefore we are all gods.' Heard this many times and sort of agree with it.

----------


## horseman

> My favourite is oxygen, such a comfort


 Some of your stuff is priceless  :Smile:

----------


## crayola

> ye are absolutly correct....i agree, a hun'er percent.
> for some reason i hev focused, homed in if ye lek til 'e female aspect o' things. its wis maybe 'e initial attraction or somethin that i could relate til....who can explain??
> 
> in wicca, a goddess and a horned god are 'e deities worshipped. its a matriarchal religion an, so 'e female principle is the main object o' invocation.
> 
> 'e goddess represents the fertility of nature, as weel as rebirth intil a new life (reincarnartion).
> the god is representative o' huntin an deith, an what lies beyond. (masculin stuff)
> 
> within 'e scant mythology of 'e wicca, its said that He wis once supreme. oot o' his great love for 'e goddess, he resigned all his powers til Her, kenin that she wid use them wisely an justly.....
> ...


I left Wicca behind and joined a broader Pagan group. In my experience Wiccans are too hung up on interpretation, they are too literal instead of using mythology in the allegorical symbolic way many of us prefer.

----------


## Welcomefamily

We are on a tiny plant going around a tiny star.

Our tiny star is in a galaxy with the size of galaxies ranging from dwarf galaxies with 10 million stars up to the larger ones that have over 1 trillion stars. That is 1,000,000,000,000

Just to give some idea of that number there are 3600 seconds in an hour, 86400 in a day, 31,536,000 in a year. 3,153,600,000 in a 100 years

How many galaxies do we have? at present there are 100,000,000,000 however more get added each day because light travels 16,000 million miles a day so over the next year many more will reach us.

Will we ever understand? viability would require a different state. Mankind has a cognitive need to try to put all unknown into his limited knowledge, to try to make sense of something beyond our bounds of understanding.

There are many Scientists who do not believe in Darwin, there is much evidence to say his theories are incorrect, there is very little evidence for God, both can be concieved as our attempts to put understanding to what we cant explain.

----------


## Rheghead

> There are many Scientists who do not believe in Darwin, there is much evidence to say his theories are incorrect, there is very little evidence for God, both can be concieved as our attempts to put understanding to what we cant explain.


Basically what you are saying is that God is another word for ignorance.

However, the theory of natural selection is not a belief system so I would agree that real scientists do not _believe_ in Darwin as his ideas there to be seen and experienced in real time as the evidence is all around us. 

Take the example of the recurrent larynxeal nerve in the giraffe.  Its physiology could not be described as having been designed intelligently, in fact it is bloomin' stupid.  ::

----------


## Welcomefamily

I would say that both are belief systems, Darwins work held together the scientific community for many years until knowledge disproved much of it just in the same way in the previous century religion held together much of the community.

Mankind longs for consistancy because it allows us to put meaning into the unknown so are not both based upon ignorance? for what ever method we use to find meaning. Scientific knowledge is like madness both are time and cultural bound.

The irony of mankind is that when faced with a new situation, we spend the first two seconds unconsciously building a concept model before then spending the rest of our time consciously justifying it. 

Knowledge is developing faster than at any time and so is the gap between our cognitive abilities and knowledge could lead us to seek the reassurance of the familiar

----------


## Rheghead

> I would say that both are belief systems, Darwins work held together the scientific community for many years until knowledge disproved much of it just in the same way in the previous century religion held together much of the community.


Evolution through natural selection is not a belief system because it is possible to refute it if evidence crops up like finding a fossil of a shrew in pre-cambrian rocks etc and for 150 years we've been waiting for something like that.

Religion is a belief system because it isn't possible to come up with evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

If you think that Evolution is a belief system because you think it is impossible to refute it then that is a big tick in the box for Darwin.

----------


## Saveman

> Basically what you are saying is that God is another word for ignorance.
> 
> However, the theory of natural selection is not a belief system so I would agree that real scientists do not _believe_ in Darwin as his ideas there to be seen and experienced in real time as the evidence is all around us. 
> 
> Take the example of the recurrent larynxeal nerve in the giraffe.  Its physiology could not be described as having been designed intelligently, in fact it is bloomin' stupid.


That's a tad arrogant Rheghead. Do you believe we have nothing left to discover about the laryngeal nerve?
I remember a certain Mr Dawkins going on about the bad design of the eye. Until it was proved that it under his model of the eye we'd all be blind!

Several comments on this thread have stated that there is no evidence for a Creator. I find that incredible. I see evidence for a Creator everywhere I look! I'm not going to go on about the fine tuning of the universe or sciences failure to replicate process they alledged happen spontanously in a prehistoric world. (Not in this post anyway  :Wink: ) But for me the evidence is all to clear to see and I know I'm not alone.

BTW if the laryngeal nerve is so troublesome why hasn't evolution fixed it??

----------


## joxville

Personally, I think we are all Numskulls living inside a huge being, (like they do in The Beano), but how and why we are there is beyond me.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> That's a tad arrogant Rheghead.


And right on cue come the ad hominem attacks.  I thought you were a Christian?

----------


## Saveman

> And right on cue come the ad hominem attacks.  I thought you were a Christian?


I said _that's_ a tad arrogant....I didn't say _you_ were a tad arrogant.

I try my best to be a Christian. At times that may involve defending my beliefs.

----------


## Rheghead

> BTW if the laryngeal nerve is so troublesome why hasn't evolution fixed it??


Evolution usually works on small moves, the  rerouting of the recurrent laryngeal nerve would take a massive leap in evolution to the point of very improbable than to lengthen.  Similiarly the opposite would apply.

The evolutionary advantage of stretching into the trees for food outweighs any disadvantage of putting more energy into growing a nerve that can be 15 feet longer than it needs to be.  Giraffes don't say much any way (even when chased by predators) except in mating when it doesn't matter that they can only vocalise ~3 seconds later than intended.

----------


## Rheghead

> At times that may involve defending my beliefs.


Why do you need to defend them?  If they don't stand up to honest scrutiny, you can just simply drop them, job done.  You'll feel so much better, liberated in fact.

----------


## Saveman

> Evolution is not a matter of belief, the conclusive evidence for it is in our genes and in the fossil record, if you believe otherwise then you are extremely gullible , in denial because you don't like it or both.


Plus you started it!  :Wink:

----------


## Saveman

> Why do you need to defend them?  If they don't stand up to honest scrutiny, you can just simply drop them, job done.  You'll feel so much better, liberated in fact.


I defend them because they are under attack. "Honest scrutiny" as you call it is rarely impartial research and so often jumping on other people's band wagons. My beliefs certainly stand up to my scrutiny.

All to often the liberty you speak of is interpreted as freedom from moral responsibilty. 

"We all came from animals.....might as well act like one......"

----------


## Rheghead

> Plus you started it!


Arrogance and gullibility are both human conditions, they have no influence in the absence of us humans, yet humans have only been in existence in a tiny fraction of the Earth's history.

Arrogance suggests that the human is right without recourse for self-adjustment even in the face of being proved wrong.  Science doesn't work that way. 

You confuse assertiveness with arrogance.

Gullibility suggests a lack of critical thinking.  Again, science has no place for that either.  

I'm not confusing gullibility with anything else bar a propensity to delusion.

----------


## Saveman

> Arrogance and gullibility are both human conditions, they have no influence in the absence of us humans, yet humans have been in existence in a tiny fraction of the Earth's history.
> 
> Arrogance suggests that the human is right without recourse for self-adjustment even in the face of being proved wrong.  Science doesn't work that way. 
> 
> You confuse assertiveness with arrogance.
> 
> Gullibility suggests a lack of critical thinking.  Again, science has no place for that either.  
> 
> I'm not confusing gullibility with anything else bar a propensity to delusion.


In my opinion you have already been proved wrong by the weight of evidence against evolution. Your assertiveness is not in doubt.

My gullibility/propensity for delusion is remarkably common even among scientists and critical thinking has done nothing to change that.

----------


## gleeber

> All to often the liberty you speak of is interpreted as freedom from moral responsibilty.


Are you really saying that those of us who would call your faith a personal delusion are morally irresponsable?

----------


## Stavro

> Several comments on this thread have stated that there is no evidence for a Creator. I find that incredible. I see evidence for a Creator everywhere I look!


Yes, very true.





> BTW if the laryngeal nerve is so troublesome why hasn't evolution fixed it??


Whilst we are waiting for an answer to that one, I think I'll just grow an extra arm and hand to help me play the lute better.  ::

----------


## Saveman

> Are you really saying that those of us who would call your faith a personal delusion are morally irresponsable?


No. You're free to call it whatever you will. Rheggers was saying that by dropping my beliefs I would experience liberty. I was saying that all to often that liberty can express itself in people feeling free from any moral responsibilty.

"Anything goes......follow your heart and do what feels right! You answer to noone!"

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> In my opinion you have already been proved wrong by the weight of evidence against evolution.


What evidence against evolution?  have you seen the evidence _for_ it?




> My gullibility/propensity for delusion is remarkably common even among scientists and critical thinking has done nothing to change that.


Any creationist scientist isn't really regarded as a proper scientist.

----------


## gleeber

> No. You're free to call it whatever you will. Rheggers was saying that by dropping my beliefs I would experience liberty. I was saying that all to often that liberty can express itself in people feeling free from any moral responsibilty.
> 
> "Anything goes......follow your heart and do what feels right! You answer to noone!"


I'm sure those of us who dont have a supernatural source to cleanse our sins are  answerable to ourselves. We alone are responsable.

----------


## Saveman

> What evidence against evolution?  have you seen the evidence _for_ it?


Yeah I've seen it, plenty of it. Have you seen the evidence for creation?






> Any creationist scientist isn't really regarded as a proper scientist.


LOL, Sir Isaac Newton is just one name that springs to mind. So because they don't agree with the prevailing scientific winds their qualifications are null and void? 
Laughable.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheggers was saying that by dropping my beliefs I would experience liberty. I was saying that all to often that liberty can express itself in people feeling free from any moral responsibilty.


That is true because true morality comes from the ground up, not from the sky down.

----------


## gleeber

> Yeah I've seen it, plenty of it. Have you seen the evidence for creation?
> LOL, Sir Isaac Newton is just one name that springs to mind. So because they don't agree with the prevailing scientific winds their qualifications are null and void? 
> Laughable.


 Sir Isaac Newton was also into alchemy. He would have been run out of Oxford today if he showed an interest in such delusions. He was a child of his time and would never had questioned the existance of God or the authority of the bible. He was also very unpopular with his religious contempories because by exposing the mechanics of the universe he unfolded the mysteries which were Gods domain alone.
Theres no excuse for you saveman to denounce sound scientific practice and support a growing cult of creationist propeganda. You have the ability to access all the knowledge in the whole wide world but theres something inside your  skull that says, there must be a creator. I have it too but for me that creates more questions like who created the creator or why is there no sentimentality in nature or why are there disasters and untold cruelties in our world if theres a loving God watching over everything? 
Sometimes those of us who are agnostic also have to defend our position otherwise some of you would have us living in a world where nothing we do in real life is of little consequence because ultimately God has everything under control.

----------


## Saveman

> Sir Isaac Newton was also into alchemy. He would have been run out of Oxford today if he showed an interest in such delusions. He was a child of his time and would never had questioned the existance of God or the authority of the bible. He was also very unpopular with his religious contempories because by exposing the mechanics of the universe he unfolded the mysteries which were Gods domain alone.
> Theres no excuse for you saveman to denounce sound scientific practice and support a growing cult of creationist propeganda. You have the ability to access all the knowledge in the whole wide world but theres something inside your  skull that says, there must be a creator. I have it too but for me that creates more questions like who created the creator or why is there no sentimentality in nature or why are there disasters and untold cruelties in our world if theres a loving God watching over everything? 
> Sometimes those of us who are agnostic also have to defend our position otherwise some of you would have us living in a world where nothing we do in real life is of little consequence because ultimately God has everything under control.


I'm not a creationist. But I do believe in a intelligent Creator, there is a difference. I don't denounce sound scientific practice, I just believe that at times scientist can draw the wrong conclusions about the evidence they are presented with. I also don't believe that science can explain everything, or answer the really big questions.

The Bible clearly explains why there is disasters and untold cruelty in the world. PM me if you're interested in learning the answer.

----------


## Stavro

> Sir Isaac Newton ... would have been run out of Oxford today ...



Or even Cambridge.

Sir Isaac Newton also actually wrote more on the Bible than he did on maths and physics.

----------


## gleeber

> I'm not a creationist. But I do believe in a intelligent Creator, there is a difference. I don't denounce sound scientific practice, I just believe that at times scientist can draw the wrong conclusions about the evidence they are presented with. I also don't believe that science can explain everything, or answer the really big questions.
> 
> The Bible clearly explains why there is disasters and untold cruelty in the world. PM me if you're interested in learning the answer.


Just a couple of points.
What are the big Questions?
Please dont patronise me with your offers of enlightenment.

----------


## gleeber

> Or even Cambridge.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton also actually wrote more on the Bible than he did on maths and physics.


Go and play with the traffic Stavro.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm not a creationist. But I do believe in a intelligent Creator, there is a difference. I don't denounce sound scientific practice, I just believe that at times scientist can draw the wrong conclusions about the evidence they are presented with. I also don't believe that science can explain everything, or answer the really big questions.
> 
> The Bible clearly explains why there is disasters and untold cruelty in the world. PM me if you're interested in learning the answer.


Why would you believe/quote anything in the Bible if you reject Creationism?

----------


## Saveman

> Just a couple of points.
> What are the big Questions?
> Please dont patronise me with your offers of enlightenment.


Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Why is there suffering in the world? etc.

----------


## gleeber

> Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Why is there suffering in the world? etc.


Well, the pulpits all yours Saveman.

----------


## Saveman

> Why would you believe/quote anything in the Bible if you reject Creationism?


I wouldn't want to patronise you with offers of enlightment.

----------


## Rheghead

> Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Why is there suffering in the world? etc.


These questions are strange in that it is us that ask them and it is us that can only answer them how we can.  But the _here_, _life_ and the _suffering_ have been around for a lot longer than us.  So who could ask those questions and answer them before us?  No one could so there is no answer to the question as the questions don't really mean anythng.

----------


## Rheghead

> I wouldn't want to patronise you with offers of enlightment.


Please, I'm all ears

----------


## Saveman

> Please, I'm all ears


Creationism says that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. Whereas the Hebrew word "day" can relate to an undetermined length of time. 

A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.

----------


## Moira

> Go and play with the traffic Stavro.


Not enough traffic to make it remotely interesting IMO Gleeber.  Interesting thought all the same.   :Smile:

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Yeah I've seen it, plenty of it. Have you seen the evidence for creation?


Please, point me to this steaming pile you speak of  :Grin: 








> LOL, Sir Isaac Newton is just one name that springs to mind. So because they don't agree with the prevailing scientific winds their qualifications are null and void? 
> Laughable.


Same sort of thing as if a scientist believes in unicorns or fairies or magic dwarves who pollinate your toes with honey before unleashing horned bees driving flying caravans.

----------


## gleeber

> fNot enough traffic to make it remotely interesting IMO Gleeber. Interesting thought all the same.


I hope stavros forgives me for being so blunt. I had just realised I needed to go out and get ruskoline. I notice he's taking a bit of flack tonight from a few different corners. Poor chap. ::  




> Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Why is there suffering in the world? etc.


  I would love to hear your answers to those questions you pose.Im sure Rheghead could answer those questions in his way and me in mine but as we are on opposing sides and you brought it up lets answer the questions! You say science canna answer them I say it can.
Ill answer the first one. 
Why are we here? 
I dont even know if there is a why? The fact is we are here and life is difficult. People find a variety of ways to get through life and often they cause conflict when those opposing beliefs meet but its all got to do with a search for the truth. Some people have found their truth and in my experience religion is a definite truth. Science has truths too  but they are all open for debate. Religion isnt. Your offer of enlightenment is evidence of that. 
Would you agree?

----------


## canuck

> Why are we here? 
> I dont even know if there is a why? The fact is we are here and life is difficult. People find a variety of ways to get through life and often they cause conflict when those opposing beliefs meet but its all got to do with a search for the truth. Some people have found their truth and in my experience religion is a definite truth. Science has truths too  but they are all open for debate. Religion isnt. Your offer of enlightenment is evidence of that. 
> Would you agree?


I suspect in the course of this ongoing discussion that often when the term 'religion' is used the author really means 'theology'.   In the classical Oxford curriculum, 'theology' was known as the Queen of the Sciences.  In that respect it would be open for debate, just like all the other sciences.   

I long ago stopped asking (if I really ever did) the question 'why am/are I/we here.'   Far more important to me is, now that we are here, what are we meant to be doing.   How can I most fully enjoy my time on earth?   How can I most usefully contribute to the community of which I am a part (from family, through country to the full world scene)?   How can I most fully be me?   Those are the questions with which I engage theology.

And I'm still getting a little help from my friends.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”


So the thought process is this.

We have the _interpretation_, ie the Bible, now we must find find an explanation of the interpretation to make it more sense in a modern world?  That is a top-down approach which does not lie comfy with me as contrarian info will not get adopted.

To find the true interpretation, we need a bottom-up approach because interpretattions need sound facts about the real world  as the loosest stone will bring down the mightiest building.

----------


## canuck

> So the thought process is this.
> 
> We have the _interpretation_, ie the Bible, now we must find find an explanation of the interpretation to make it more sense in a modern world?  That is a top-down approach which does not lie comfy with me as contrarian info will not get adopted.
> 
> To find the true facts, we need a bottom-up approach which provide un deniable facts and we get an interpretation.


It is very difficult (okay impossible) when anything from antiquity is being investigated to get 'undeniable facts'.   There is just no way all the details can be known.   The Bible was written not just in a defined time in history, but over many generations.  New bits were added, some old bits were edited and updated.   It communicates an experience of God by individuals and communities.   It communicates an attempt to live out a lifestyle which reflects for that community what the people of that community imagine a life with God to look like.   

It is impossible to impose on a modern community the 'way' an ancient community did things.  We just don't have the 'facts'.   So we try the best we can using the best knowledge we can find to distil the truth of the ancient stories for application in a world far removed.   Sometimes we come up with creative ways of doing it.   Sometimes we rely on old, even ancient tried and tested forms, routines and disciplines.

----------


## Gleber2

> I suspect in the course of this ongoing discussion that often when the term 'religion' is used the author really means 'theology'. In the classical Oxford curriculum, 'theology' was known as the Queen of the Sciences. In that respect it would be open for debate, just like all the other sciences. 
> 
> I long ago stopped asking (if I really ever did) the question 'why am/are I/we here.' Far more important to me is, now that we are here, what are we meant to be doing. How can I most fully enjoy my time on earth? How can I most usefully contribute to the community of which I am a part (from family, through country to the full world scene)? How can I most fully be me? Those are the questions with which I engage theology.
> 
> And I'm still getting a little help from my friends.


Such honesty, such clarity and so true.

----------


## gleeber

It's the nature of belief itself that I find interesting. Truth doesnt seem to matter so much. Mind you I'm aware theres a deep truth in everyones religion.

----------


## Rheghead

> It is very difficult (okay impossible) when anything from antiquity is being investigated to get 'undeniable facts'.   There is just no way all the details can be known.   The Bible was written not just in a defined time in history, but over many generations.  New bits were added, some old bits were edited and updated.   It communicates an experience of God by individuals and communities.   It communicates an attempt to live out a lifestyle which reflects for that community what the people of that community imagine a life with God to look like.   
> 
> It is impossible to impose on a modern community the 'way' an ancient community did things.  We just don't have the 'facts'.   So we try the best we can using the best knowledge we can find to distil the truth of the ancient stories for application in a world far removed.   Sometimes we come up with creative ways of doing it.   Sometimes we rely on old, even ancient tried and tested forms, routines and disciplines.


Indeed, so if those certain _facts_ of the desert religions can't be verified then they must be discarded as being unsafe as a basis to form one's life around.  The message has been lost over the generations, in fact, none of the New Testament was written until 200 years after the death of Christ.

----------


## Stavro

> I hope stavros forgives me for being so blunt.



Yes, no problem. Perhaps I should go to the roundabout in Wick and make it REALLY dangerous.  :Grin:

----------


## Moira

> Yes, no problem. Perhaps I should go to the roundabout in Wick and make it REALLY dangerous.


Please do.  Will your Dad be in the driving seat?

----------


## canuck

> Indeed, so if those certain _facts_ of the desert religions can't be verified then they must be discarded as being unsafe as a basis to form one's life around.  The message has been lost over the generations, in fact, none of the New Testament was written until 200 years after the death of Christ.


The Ancients had a unique way of passing along information even without writing it down.  Granted what finally got written down was seen through the glasses of third century people and that likely brought in a lot of skewing.  (I think that 'skewing' is a legitimate word and not some variation on stewing ie cooking the books.)

----------


## Stavro

> Please do.  Will your Dad be in the driving seat?


Wow - 3,107 posts. And when are you going to contribute something worthwhile?  :Smile:

----------


## golach

> Wow - 3,107 posts. And when are you going to contribute something worthwhile?


with your 441, when are *you* going to start?  ::

----------


## Stavro

> with your 441, when are *you* going to start?



And with your 4,970 (over 11 times my figure), when are *you* going to start?  ::

----------


## Moira

> I hope stavros forgives me for being so blunt. I had just realised I needed to go out and get ruskoline. I notice he's taking a bit of flack tonight from a few different corners. Poor chap.<snip>


Ach I've no worries about the new kid on the block.   If he holds Daddy's hand long enough we'll all be doubting there was ever a Sun shining in the sky at all.

Btw I could do with some ruskoline, if you have some spare.

----------


## golach

> And with your 4,970 (over 11 times my figure), when are *you* going to start?


wow the laddie can count, well done sonny  ::

----------


## northener

> ..........
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton also actually wrote more on the Bible than he did on maths and physics.


 
Not really a valid observation (regarding this discussion), Stavros. 
In the C17th the existance of God in a Christian sense was a foregone irrefutable conclusion in Western Society. The Renaissance chaps were still trying to work things out for themselves at this point, whilst still burdened with Medieval Christian doctrine and oppression.

----------


## Stavro

> Not really a valid observation (regarding this discussion), Stavros. 
> In the C17th the existance of God in a Christian sense was a foregone irrefutable conclusion in Western Society. The Renaissance chaps were still trying to work things out for themselves at this point, whilst still burdened with Medieval Christian doctrine and oppression.



Well, northener, I don't really think that we can claim that great thinkers of their day were not enlightened, as we supposedly are.

In relation to the discussion, a claim was made that scientists who believe in creation were not 'real' scientists, and Isaac Newton was used as an example by the responder (Saveman). I do not believe for one moment, for instance, that Newton would accept the 'Big Bang' and without the 'Big Bang' where is your secular science anyway?

----------


## Alan16

> I do not believe for one moment, for instance, that Newton would accept the 'Big Bang' and without the 'Big Bang' where is your secular science anyway?


But as the post that this was in response to said, that is as much to do with the time in which he lived, as anything else.

----------


## Stavro

> But as the post that this was in response to said, that is as much to do with the time in which he lived, as anything else.



No, I was talking about scientific issues in the small part that you have quoted, not Newton's socio-political environment.

----------


## Moira

> Wow - 3,107 posts. And when are you going to contribute something worthwhile?


I already have.  What about you? 
Does it pain you to realise that some of us have sussed out your true identity & agenda?

----------


## northener

> Well, northener, I don't really think that we can claim that great thinkers of their day were not enlightened, as we supposedly are.
> 
> In relation to the discussion, a claim was made that scientists who believe in creation were not 'real' scientists, and Isaac Newton was used as an example by the responder (Saveman). I do not believe for one moment, for instance, that Newton would accept the 'Big Bang' and without the 'Big Bang' where is your secular science anyway?





> But as the post that this was in response to said, that is as much to do with the time in which he lived, as anything else.


Indeedy, Newton and his contempories were bound by their own time. They were questioning the world around themselves in a way that threw the major religious doctrine of the time into turmoil. And it led to Newton being dismissive of mainstream Christianity.
Had they attempted this a couple of hundred years earlier they would have had serious problems with the religious establishment. It follows that their views upon the existance of God would be predictable - He exists. Period.

Many of the discoveries we have made in, say, the past hundred years would have left Newton doubting (if he were told about them during his life), he would be confronted by inventions and physics that would be completely alien to him. 
Though I feel your dismissal of him regarding the 'big bang' theory is somewhat presumptive. A questioning mind is always questioning - there's not much chance of him being as dismissive of an idea so fundemental that it would shake the very core of his belief as you would have us believe.

Newton came to the conclusion thet God created the Universe - _because he couldn't find a rational scientific answer to the start of the Universe_. Hardly suprising, given the time he was living in.

I wonder what his view would be if he was around these days?

----------


## Saveman

> I hope stavros forgives me for being so blunt. I had just realised I needed to go out and get ruskoline. I notice he's taking a bit of flack tonight from a few different corners. Poor chap. 
> 
> 
>   I would love to hear your answers to those questions you pose.Im sure Rheghead could answer those questions in his way and me in mine but as we are on opposing sides and you brought it up lets answer the questions! You say science canna answer them I say it can.
> Ill answer the first one. 
> Why are we here? 
> I dont even know if there is a why? The fact is we are here and life is difficult. People find a variety of ways to get through life and often they cause conflict when those opposing beliefs meet but its all got to do with a search for the truth. Some people have found their truth and in my experience religion is a definite truth. Science has truths too  but they are all open for debate. Religion isnt. Your offer of enlightenment is evidence of that. 
> Would you agree?


My answers to these questions are purely Bible-based. They are based on the faith that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore when I answer these questions using scriptures we have no common ground. 
I'm not sure about the ownership of truth. "I have my truth and you have yours." It doesn't ring.....er...true to me.
We are here and life is difficult. That is the truth. The sky is blue, that is the truth. Either God exists or he doesn't. One is truth and one is not.

What are we doing in discussing this subject but trying to offer each other enlightenment?

Of course as mentioned near the start of this thread there is very little chance of us influencing each other either way. But it is fun  :Smile:

----------


## Saveman

> So the thought process is this.
> 
> We have the _interpretation_, ie the Bible, now we must find find an explanation of the interpretation to make it more sense in a modern world?


Still searching for that missing link to fit the interpretation?




> That is a top-down approach which does not lie comfy with me as contrarian info will not get adopted.
> 
> To find the true interpretation, we need a bottom-up approach because interpretattions need sound facts about the real world  as the loosest stone will bring down the mightiest building.


Shall we get into a debate about which explaination of existence has the most number of loosest stones??   ::

----------


## canuck

> What are we doing in discussing this subject but trying to offer each other enlightenment?
> 
> Of course as mentioned near the start of this thread there is very little chance of us influencing each other either way. But it is fun


It isn't just others we are influencing, but perhaps in thinking about our answers to others' questions and formulating our thoughts into coherent sentences that we learn ourselves.

That is what theology is about - expressing our experiences and feelings about God.  Sometimes we find understanding and words for ourselves in what people wrote of their own experiences hundreds even thousands of years ago.   That is one huge function of the Bible.   Even for those people who have absolutely no experience of God they are still doing theology by thinking and talking about it.

----------


## Stavro

> Indeedy, Newton and his contempories were bound by their own time. They were questioning the world around themselves in a way that threw the major religious doctrine of the time into turmoil. And it led to Newton being dismissive of mainstream Christianity.


Yes, you are right I think. I know that my Mum and Dad are now very dismissive of mainstream Christianity through reasoning and experience. (They have no doubt about God though.) I seem to fluctuate between rejecting large chunks of it and clinging on to others. But still, it is a personal journey - as Newton's no doubt was. Like you say.

This very fine post says better what I have just tried to convey-




> It isn't just others we are influencing, but perhaps in thinking about our answers to others' questions and formulating our thoughts into coherent sentences that we learn ourselves.
> 
> That is what theology is about - expressing our experiences and feelings about God. Sometimes we find understanding and words for ourselves in what people wrote of their own experiences hundreds of thousands of years ago. That is one huge function of the Bible. Even for those people who have absolutely no experience of God they are still doing theology by thinking and talking about it.


 :Smile:

----------


## Flashman

I don't believe in the all seeing traditional God of intervention.

But I am not arrogant enough to think my viewpoint is right because there is zero proof for or against.

But historically nation states based on atheism such as the Soviet Union have ended in cruelty,tyranny and disaster. It's track record is not good compared to nations based on a religious moral code.

----------


## Aaldtimer

> I don't believe in the all seeing traditional God of intervention.
> 
> But I am not arrogant enough to think my viewpoint is right because there is zero proof for or against.
> 
> But historically nation states based on atheism such as the Soviet Union have ended in cruelty,tyranny and disaster. It's track record is not good compared to nations based on a religious moral code.


Like the Taleban's in Afghanistan? ::

----------


## Alan16

> But historically nation states based on atheism such as the Soviet Union have ended in cruelty,tyranny and disaster.


I know there is religion in America, but it is supposed to be a secular nation, and its avoided, on the whole, the cruelty, tyranny, and disaster, you talk about.




> It's track record is not good compared to nations based on a religious moral code.


Like Iran? Palestine/Israel?

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> I already have.  What about you? 
> Does it pain you to realise that some of us have sussed out your true identity & agenda?


What, his true identity of an anti-science wacko with an obsession of believing everything _without_ any evidence supporting it and not even quoting actual reputable websites from which he gets his fresh-from-the-cow still-slightly-warm steaming brown piles




> <<stuff cut out>>They are based on the faith that the Bible is the word of God. <<stuff cut away>>


to answer that I refer you to an earlier post of mine:




>

----------


## Loraine

Here's one for you:

----------


## Flashman

> I know there is religion in America, but it is supposed to be a secular nation, and its avoided, on the whole, the cruelty, tyranny, and disaster, you talk about.
> 
> 
> Like Iran? Palestine/Israel?


As opposed to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? Are you saying Isreal is a Tyranny which abuses it's own people?

America is a Christian Country, you could claim Britain has a sercular "society" but the country itself is still Christian and its values derive from this religion. 

Your mixing up Sercular Society as the same as a Sercular State

My point is that Atheists in small numbers are usually quite nice and benign living in countries with religions.

What you have missed is that I refer to those nation states which promate aethism as government policy..."State Atheism". And there is a world of difference between the Tyranny of the Soviet State and conflict between two nations such as Isreal and Palestine

Atheism is a belief system aswell, and has and will discriminate against Religious believers if ever given the power within a nation state to do so. The socialists peoples Republic of Albania banned religion.... is it right to surpress someones right to practice a religion? This is the true face of Aethism whenever it has been put to the test in real terms.

----------


## Alan16

> As opposed to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? Are you saying Isreal is a Tyranny which abuses it's own people?


No, you are making me say that.




> America is a Christian Country, you could claim Britain has a sercular "society" but the country itself is still Christian and its values derive from this religion.


I know that the majority of American's would probably consider themselves Christian, but the first amendment clear states that there is a "freedom of religion" in America. There is also a "no religious test clause" in the constitution which allows anybody, whether a believer or not, to hold a position in a public office.




> My point is that Atheists in small numbers are usually quite nice and benign living in countries with religions.


You mean when atheists (just a note, there is no need to capitalize it) are in the minority it is easier to shout louder?




> What you have missed is that I refer to those nation states which promate aethism as government policy..."State Atheism". And there is a world of difference between the Tyranny of the Soviet State and conflict between two nations such as Isreal and Palestine


No, I did not miss that. My point was that you said "_It's track record is not good compared to nations based on a religious moral code,_" and if you look at nations where religion is the core, they are not a hell of a lot better. Look at my other example, Iran. It is as tyrannical as any country in this day and age, and what's at the core of their beliefs? Religion. Well done religion.




> Atheism is a belief system aswell, and has and will discriminate against Religious believers if ever given the power within a nation state to do so.


That is your opinion. Unless you have a time machine, and can travel into the future, you don't know that that will happen.




> is it right to surpress someones right to practice a religion?


You mean like religion has suppressed peoples right to *not* practice?





> This is the true face of Aethism whenever it has been put to the test in real terms.


Again, an opinion.

----------


## Rheghead

> Shall we get into a debate about which explaination of existence has the most number of loosest stones??


Yes, let us start with the Beginning.

----------


## Saveman

Ok, what started the Big Bang?

----------


## Rheghead

> Ok, what started the Big Bang?


The Universe.

----------


## gleeber

It would be unfair to start with the big bang. Lets go back to where God came from.

----------


## Saveman

Ps 90:2  "....from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Job 36:25 "How great is Godbeyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out."



Is there any point in us going through this process?

----------


## Rheghead

> It would be unfair to start with the big bang. Lets go back to where God came from.


Indeed

I seem to remember reading that the Neanderthals were buried in graves which had items placed inside which suggests they had a religion which involved an afterlife.  That is over 30,000 years ago, so definitely I think that human anatomy has evolved in such a way that religious thinking has given us a evolutionary advantage.  It is a pity that certain people can't accept that they have an addiction that they can't get out of.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Here's one for you:


Looks lek a hen party walkin in til eh Camps... ::

----------


## gleeber

> Ps 90:2 "....from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
> 
> Job 36:25 "How great is Godbeyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out."
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any point in us going through this process?


No point at all saveman.

----------


## canuck

> Yes, let us start with the Beginning.


Great!  My favourite baseball story is entitled "In the Big Inning".   But somehow I don't think you want to talk about diamonds and home runs.

In the Biblical beginning we have an account of sorting things out. When that passage was written they didn't know much about biology, but if they had perhaps it would have been more along the lines of taking the chemical soup and making it into liver cells and muscles tissue cells and brain cells and blood cells.   And then the words would be 'stay in your own zone until called upon.'   
Another way to look at the sorting of things 'in the beginning' would be to use a modern expression 'what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours except that which we need to share to make things better for us all.'   So: don't come take my cattle and I won't go take your children.   And everyone leave everyone else's spouses along.   




> Indeed
> 
>  ... It is a pity that certain people can't accept that they have an addiction that they can't get out of.


Where did that come from?   Maybe I missed something, but when did we start talking about 'addiction'?   And what is the addiction to which you are referring?

----------


## Rheghead

> Where did that come from?   Maybe I missed something, but when did we start talking about 'addiction'?   And what is the addiction to which you are referring?


It is well documented how Faith can put people into a spiritual frenzy, all that endorphin rush etc. You aren't experiencing God if it doesn't have this effect on you ; Endorphins are produced by the brain and are actually the substances that can be addictive.  Drugs just produce those euphoric endorphins like religious hysteria as well.

----------


## canuck

> It is well documented how Faith can put people into a spiritual frenzy, all that endorphin rush etc. You aren't experiencing God if it doesn't have this effect on you ; Endorphins are produced by the brain and are actually the substances that can be addictive.  Drugs just produce those euphoric endorphins like religious hysteria as well.


That's not faith, that is biochemical change which happens when you put your hands over your head.  It happens at rock concerts too.

And who says that you aren't experiencing God if it doesn't have this effect on you?   You don't have to be high to experience God.

----------


## gleeber

> Great! My favourite baseball story is entitled "In the Big Inning". But somehow I don't think you want to talk about diamonds and home runs.
> 
> In the Biblical beginning we have an account of sorting things out. When that passage was written they didn't know much about biology, but if they had perhaps it would have been more along the lines of taking the chemical soup and making it into liver cells and muscles tissue cells and brain cells and blood cells. And then the words would be 'stay in your own zone until called upon.' 
> Another way to look at the sorting of things 'in the beginning' would be to use a modern expression 'what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours except that which we need to share to make things better for us all.' So: don't come take my cattle and I won't go take your children. And everyone leave everyone else's spouses along.


I'm sure Rhegheads talking about happy clappy Christians and not Church of Scotland ministers although there have been a few fiery eyed church of Scotland ministers around Thurso.It must be a thankless job sometimes?
I liked that beginning  canuck. That's pretty much how I see human thought evolving although obviuously it took a lot longer than 6 days to sort out. 
Anyone who believes in evolution will also have to believe that human thought evolved from instinctual animal behaviour to measured human actions over hundreds of thousands of years. Weve learnt a lot in those thousands of years but still today the animal  can come out in us. Mind you I know some people dont believe in evolution but for me the only difference between me and my cockatiel is consciousness. I suppose most religions would say consciousness is God given?
Religion obviously evolved too and now today what we have is the finished job unless some new messiah pops his head up and starts doing miracles on the shores of the pentland Firth. and then gets crucified on Spittal Hill. I might even believe it myself if it were to happen. Ill keep my ears open for stories of Virgin Births over the next couple of weeks.
I dont find it hard to imagine a creator but there's another part of me rejects the authority of the bible. 
Some Christians would say the devil has me and sometimes I think he does.

----------


## Rheghead

> And who says that you aren't experiencing God if it doesn't have this effect on you?


Why not a good old burning bush or a booming voice from the sky?  That I could believe in.

----------


## trix

> It is well documented how Faith can put people into a spiritual frenzy, all that endorphin rush etc. You aren't experiencing God if it doesn't have this effect on you ; Endorphins are produced by the brain and are actually the substances that can be addictive.  Drugs just produce those euphoric endorphins like religious hysteria as well.


am wonderin now if 'iss thried hes anythin til do wi 'e "buzzin sound in weik" thried??  ::

----------


## northener

> am wonderin now if 'iss thried hes anythin til do wi 'e "buzzin sound in weik" thried??


Aye, Witchcraft.

I'm keeping a close eye in you, WitchyPoo. :Wink:

----------


## Flashman

> It is well documented how Faith can put people into a spiritual frenzy, all that endorphin rush etc. You aren't experiencing God if it doesn't have this effect on you ; Endorphins are produced by the brain and are actually the substances that can be addictive. Drugs just produce those euphoric endorphins like religious hysteria as well.


 
It's funny watching those healing frenzy gatherings.

It's all quite sad really those God channels that exsist on TV, all they do is flog prayer hankies and garbage to people who have lost loved ones or have hit hard times. Giving them false belief at the expense of thier hard luck or misery.

It's the exact thing Jesus was meant to have preached against

----------


## oldmarine

> Well, northener, I don't really think that we can claim that great thinkers of their day were not enlightened, as we supposedly are.
> 
> In relation to the discussion, a claim was made that scientists who believe in creation were not 'real' scientists, and Isaac Newton was used as an example by the responder (Saveman). I do not believe for one moment, for instance, that Newton would accept the 'Big Bang' and without the 'Big Bang' where is your secular science anyway?


 
The way I observe the 'Big Bang' is when God said "let it happen,", BANG it happened.  Rather a simplistic explanation, but perhaps being a graduate engineer, my science may be limited.

----------


## northener

One thing I have noticed about this discussion is the constant referral to God as a singular being. There has been no mention of the possibility that there is more than one Creator.
Yet there are a number of religions that have a number of Gods as opposed to one. 

So should I assume that this is really a discussion skewed towards the Christian/Jewish/Islamic _belief system_ of One God and not actually a discussion about the possibile existance of being(s) who created us?

There seems to be a sizeable assumption by some in the Creation camp that their particular version of 'Creation' is correct. But bearing in mind how many creationist religions there are on the planet - I fail to see how one group can claim to be the true authority upon this subject. Sheer weight of followers does not make something right, be it religion or politics.

----------


## Flashman

> The way I observe the 'Big Bang' is when God said "let it happen,", BANG it happened. Rather a simplistic explanation, but perhaps being a graduate engineer, my science may be limited.


Well it really is as simple as that, roll things back to the big bang.. was it natural? Was it done with a purpose? We dont know so anyone who believes in God or doesent believe in god is acting on blind faith only as science supports neither side to any clear conclusion.

Maybe the non believers will say that evidence so far points to the likelyhood there may be no god, but it's a mere projection on the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of information we know about the Universe and our own exsistance.

But these arguments always boil down to the dislike of the actual man made institution of religion rather than the belief in a God or Gods.

----------


## oldmarine

> Unless you have a time machine, and can travel into the future, you don't know that that will happen.


Reading the Book of Revelations in the New Testament gives me a pretty good view of what will happen in the futurre. There will be a time when Christ will return and we will see events worse than what happened during Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe many places in the world have approached those circumstances. After Christ returns, He will judge all, including the non-believers as well as the believers. Revelations describes the "lake of fire" where many will be cast. Reading those verses can be a look into the future whether you want to believe it or not.

----------


## northener

> .....But these arguments always boil down to the dislike of the actual man made institution of religion rather than the belief in a God or Gods.


In one.

My personal belief is that there is no afterlife, that we should make our time on this planet count as much as possible as that is all we have. 
Whether God(s) exist or not is outside my own scope, and based on current religious doctrines and an inability by them to explain in rational terms why I _should_ believe, I see no reason to believe there is a God(s).

I see more sense and truth in Animism than I do in modern 'mainstream' anthropocentric religion.

If God exists, I'll soon find out and I'd like a bloody good chat with him. If he doesn't, then I haven't wasted my life being controlled and governed by jabbering quasi-majick claptrap.

----------


## Flashman

[quote=northener;633260]One thing I have noticed about this discussion is the constant referral to God as a singular being. There has been no mention of the possibility that there is more than one Creator.
Yet there are a number of religions that have a number of Gods as opposed to one. quote]


Also how do you define a God?

If we as Humans have the ability to manipulate the building blocks of life and create life outwith the confines of natural reproduction dont we therefor start entering the territory of Godlike status. 

We are undoubtly going down the route of growing limbs and organs to prolong our own lives, we have an obsession as a race for living as long as possible.

If therefor we can create life outwith what nature intended then is it not fair to assume (assuming we are not completly alone in the universe) another race before us reached this point and that the mere exsistance of us as a race proves that gods or creators at least can exsist.

A clone of a human is after all creating life in ones own image. 

If we did create clones with no natural parents...how would they look upon us who created them?

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

God?

Nobody can answer these questions, nobody has any proof, it's all theories, heresay...Some folk look upon "God" as their saviour, their "friend", & their "Faith"...

"Sirius", the star from the east, the brightest star in the night sky which on Dec 24th alines with the three brightest stars in Orion's Belt, known today as they were in ancient times as..."The Three Kings"

Sirius & The Three Kings all point to the place of the Sun Rise on Dec 25th. This is why The Three Kings follow The Star In The East, in order to locate The Sun Rise...The birth of the Sun!

"On the third day he rose from the dead & was born again"...Read a bit about astrology & this makes perfect sense as on Dec 22nd the Sun dies for three days & on Dec 25th the Sun rises & is born again...& during these three days, the Sun resides in the vacinity in the Southern Cross or "Crux" constellation...Hence, the Sun died on the Cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again...

Jesus??? hhhmmm...Read about Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra to name barr a few, there's at least another 30 individuals who share the same biography as Jesus...

My opinion...God is the universe, therefore WE are all Gods in our own right. & God's "Son" should be God's "Sun"...The Sun Of God, as without the sun, we're nothing...

The Big Bang?

Hawking proved that there was a "Big Bang" & that everything around us, & including us, started out as a a tiny atom the size of a grain of sand. Everything grows, gets bigger, expands...it's called nature...

Why do folk want to know where we came from? It makes more sense to look at what we're heading towards, & that's Global Destruction! We are at the end of our time, & we're all contributing to the end...

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> God?
> 
> Nobody can answer these questions, nobody has any proof, it's all theories, heresay...Some folk look upon "God" as their saviour, their "friend", & their "Faith"...
> 
> "Sirius", the star from the east, the brightest star in the night sky which on Dec 24th alines with the three brightest stars in Orion's Belt, known today as they were in ancient times as..."The Three Kings"
> 
> Sirius & The Three Kings all point to the place of the Sun Rise on Dec 25th. This is why The Three Kings follow The Star In The East, in order to locate The Sun Rise...The birth of the Sun!
> 
> "On the third day he rose from the dead & was born again"...Read a bit about astrology & this makes perfect sense as on Dec 22nd the Sun dies for three days & on Dec 25th the Sun rises & is born again...& during these three days, the Sun resides in the vacinity in the Southern Cross or "Crux" constellation...Hence, the Sun died on the Cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again...
> ...


Well check u oot!  ::  Someone needs til lay off e caffine me thinks!  ::

----------


## Alan16

> Reading the Book of Revelations in the New Testament gives me a pretty good view of what will happen in the futurre. There will be a time when Christ will return and we will see events worse than what happened during Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe many places in the world have approached those circumstances. After Christ returns, He will judge all, including the non-believers as well as the believers. Revelations describes the "lake of fire" where many will be cast. Reading those verses can be a look into the future whether you want to believe it or not.


The scary thing is you're not joking...

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Well check u oot! Someone needs til lay off e caffine me thinks!


Shell ye ken me, i cane keep ma mouth shut... :Wink: 




> The scary thing is you're not joking...



Alan16 yer right, this is scary that folk actually believe this...Religion is nothing but slavery! The Christian religion is a direct take from the Egyptian religion, Constantine erased the word Egyptian & changed it to Christianity...

Do people honestly believe that there's a man in the sky, watching our every move, & if we're "good" we go to heaven & if we're "bad" we go to hell? Ach min this is crazy! There's no such thing as good & evil. Good & evil started with Daytime, defeating Nightime, only for the Dark to defeat Light & so on & so on. As with daylight, crops grow & darkness...well you see the picture! Look at dogs & cats for example. Lovely, gorgeous household pets, that will cuddle you & follow you about because they love you, but they wouldn't think twice about attacking if you were to attack it! Is that evil? NO! It's a natural reaction to stay alive!

Humans, like animals before us, do what we have to do in order to survive. We do this by using our own initiative. Now we have Religion & a Government to FILL OUR HEADS WITH TRIPE! So where's the natural initiative now? We can't think for ourselves, do anything for ourselves, speak free & proud without a "superior" saying it to be "blasphemus"

& as for seeing in the future...mathematics...do the maths & you'll see right to the end of time!

----------


## Stavro

> Religion is nothing but slavery!



Yes, I agree with this bit of your post if nothing else.

----------


## Stavro

> The scary thing is you're not joking...


Perhaps the scary thing is the state of the world?

----------


## Alan16

> Perhaps the scary thing is the state of the world?


To tie this back in to a previous post of me: do you mean like in Israel or Palestine, where religion has played no pa... Wait a second!

----------


## Gleber2

> Alan16 yer right, this is scary that folk actually believe this...Religion is nothing but slavery! The Christian religion is a direct take from the Egyptian religion, Constantine erased the word Egyptian & changed it to Christianity...
> 
> !


It is more likely that Constantine replaced Mithra, a Persian diety, with Christ as the Roman legions were Mithrans. Christianity bears little or no resemblance to the Egyptian religions.

----------


## Stavro

> To tie this back in to a previous post of me: do you mean like in Israel or Palestine, where religion has played no pa... Wait a second!


I think that if you understand what is happening in Palestine, then you will see a very much bigger picture. That would need a thread to itself.  ::

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> Yes, I agree with this bit of your post if nothing else.


So u believe there is a manny up in e sky watching over you?  ::

----------


## Alan16

> I think that if you understand what is happening in Palestine, then you will see a very much bigger picture. That would need a thread to itself.


Are you trying to say that you feel that religion has had nothing to do with what's happening over there?

----------


## Stavro

> Are you trying to say that you feel that religion has had nothing to do with what's happening over there?


No.




> So u believe there is a manny up in e sky watching over you?


If you look back at my posts on this thread, you will get a vague picture of what I believe.

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> If you look back at my posts on this thread, you will get a vague picture of what I believe.


Not really wanting to rake back however many pages to be honest...cant be bothered actually.

----------


## Alan16

> No.


Well then you are either naive or stupid, and I know where I'm putting my money.

----------


## Flashman

The question is do you believe in God!! NOT do you believe in Christianity,Islam, Judaism ect.... which are human institutions.

If a god is mearly a more advanced organic life form then the probability is for it's exsistance as we are living proof ourselves as the more we advance the closer we become to opening the secrets of creating life rather than nature evolving it.

If we exsist then why should a God or God's not exsist?

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> It is more likely that Constantine replaced Mithra, a Persian diety, with Christ as the Roman legions were Mithrans. Christianity bears little or no resemblance to the Egyptian religions.


I didn't say that Christianity bore resemblances from Egyptian Religions, I said that Christianity was a _Direct Take_ from Egyptian believes. Meaning that Christianity is primarily based upon that off Egyptian Religions...

http://www.egyptcx.netfirms.com/

Horus - Jesus
Gilgamesh - Noah
Sargon - Moses
I Have Not Stolen - Thou Shall Not Steal
I Have Not Killed - Thou Shall Not Kill
I Have Not Told Lies - I Shall Not Bear False Witness

The similarities between these particular religions go on for page after page after page, I kid you not...Christianity is based upon many different religions, but it's basic foundations come from Egypt...

The whole cycle of the planet repeats itself over & over again, some say we've been here many times, some even say that we've been here & had this very conversation many times before! & the reason we go back is to correct our mistakes, but we've failed every time, hence why we keep coming back! This theory works like a computer game, you start to play, you die, & you keep repeating the level your on until you pass over to the next stage. Very similar to The Matrix...

Stavro - I said in a previous post that nobody can answer these questions, nobody has any proof, it's all theories, heresay...Why do folk want to know where we came from? It makes more sense to look at what we're heading towards, & that's Global Destruction! We are at the end of our time, & we're all contributing to the end...

ie. We'll never be able to prove whether there's a God or not, so forget about it & move on...

----------


## achingale

> Just wondering whether to introduce bairn to teachings of father xmas and Jesus or Darwin and Dawkins.


All of them then he can decide for himself!! :Wink:

----------


## Flashman

Scorpio12thNov

Religion evolves over time and they all borrow and raid from each other as religion is human and created by humans, God never created religion we did. Jesus never created Christianity..we did.

If you read the Sci-Fi novel Dune which is a great book if you want to understand humans and our reltionships with religion you will see that the religions set in the future in the book are a melting pot of todays religions... like mohammed and Buddah both being Gods within the same religion.

Humans create religion and saying Christianity is just Egyption religion with a slant does nothing to disprove or prove the exsistance of a god.

----------


## northener

> ......If a god is mearly a more advanced organic life form then the probability is for it's exsistance as we are living proof ourselves as the more we advance the closer we become to opening the secrets of creating life rather than nature evolving it.
> 
> If we exsist then why should a God or God's not exsist?


Fair comment, but the problem is that there are those amongst us who view this 'God(s)' existance as an irrefutable fact and not something to be questioned/discovered by rational means.

Also, if God  (accepting for a moment that there is such a being) is an organic entity in the accepted sense and not some conciousness or other form that is unknown to us - doesn't this take them/it from the supernatural world and into the natural world? Thus rendering them nothing more than a clever life-form? 
This takes us back to your point about humans playing at being God. Who'd worship that?

----------


## Stavro

So let's get this straight.

You ask,



> Are you trying to say that you feel that religion has had nothing to do with what's happening over there?


and I reply, "No."

And then you say,



> Well then you are either naive or stupid, and I know where I'm putting my money.


Since you do not even understand your OWN question, you must be both naive AND stupid.

----------


## Phill

> Do people honestly believe that there's a man in the sky, watching our every move


But of course.

(in best geordie accent) Day 733772, Mary Smith is doing her Christmas Shopping, little Jack brown is picking his nose........................

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Scorpio12thNov
> 
> Religion evolves over time and they all borrow and raid from each other as religion is human and created by humans, God never created religion we did. Jesus never created Christianity..we did.
> 
> If you read the Sci-Fi novel Dune which is a great book if you want to understand humans and our reltionships with religion you will see that the religions set in the future in the book are a melting pot of todays religions... like mohammed and Buddah both being Gods within the same religion.
> 
> Humans create religion and saying Christianity is just Egyption religion with a slant does nothing to disprove or prove the exsistance of a god.


I know religion is man made, & I know one religion takes exerpts from other religions. & I believe my God to be the Universe. 

However, my point is that we've been led to believe that God & Religion (any religion) are two of the same. "Jesus is the Son of God" We have been led to believe this for so many years. 

Why? 

Control man!

Religion is slavery, it's controlling the world. The Vatican is the most profitable company in history, & the auld kiddies dying in care homes give their donations to the Church week in/week out because they think they're doing the right thing for their God! ::

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> But of course.
> 
> (in best geordie accent) Day 733772, Mary Smith is doing her Christmas Shopping, little Jack brown is picking his nose........................


Facepalm moment! :: 

But yer 100% correct...reality is a figment of our imagination :Wink:

----------


## Aaldtimer

But yer 100% correct...reality is a figment of our imagination :Wink: [/quote]

Nah!...Way I heard it was...
Reality is an illusion caused by the lack of alcohol!" :Wink:

----------


## Phill

> Do people honestly believe that there's a man in the sky, watching our every move


(in best geordie accent) Day 733772 part MMCXVI, ....................and the human are facing another secret eviction and another 357,000 housemates.

----------


## Flashman

> I know religion is man made, & I know one religion takes exerpts from other religions. & I believe my God to be the Universe. 
> 
> However, my point is that we've been led to believe that God & Religion (any religion) are two of the same. "Jesus is the Son of God" We have been led to believe this for so many years. 
> 
> Why? 
> 
> Control man!
> 
> Religion is slavery, it's controlling the world. The Vatican is the most profitable company in history, & the auld kiddies dying in care homes give their donations to the Church week in/week out because they think they're doing the right thing for their God!


 
I disagree because thats far too sweeping a statement and does not take into account any positives, it is man that is corrupt not Religion itself. Like anything created by man it has good and bad.

Religion gave education to many who would of been too poor to afford an education, religion has helped countless of people in extreme poverty in paticular during times when our own ruling elite lorded over the masses.

It was honest men with strong Christian beliefs that fought to put an end to slavery of our fellow men in this world. 

Christians up and down America risked thier very lives to smuggle black slaves to freedom in Canada.

There is good and bad in every human insitution not just religion... Humans will abuse Religion for our own ends... but you cant damn everyone.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> I disagree because thats far too sweeping a statement and does not take into account any positives, it is man that is corrupt not Religion itself. Like anything created by man it has good and bad.
> Religion gave education to many who would of been too poor to afford an education, religion has helped countless of people in extreme poverty in paticular during times when our own ruling elite lorded over the masses.
> It was honest men with strong Christian beliefs that fought to put an end to slavery of our fellow men in this world. 
> Christians up and down America risked thier very lives to smuggle black slaves to freedom in Canada.
> There is good and bad in every human insitution not just religion... Humans will abuse Religion for our own ends... but you cant damn everyone.


Religion is corrupt, education is corrupt, media is corrupt, government is corrupt, banks are corrupt! We are living in a corrupt world man! 

Man created all this, so yes man is corrupt too. What I learned in school I now understand to be lies, the media lie, banks lie, the government lie & religion is a lie...

Jesus fed 5000 men with a loaf of bread & two fish...............

But maybe, just maybe, it's true......

Personally, I don't give a monkeys

----------


## tonkatojo

> But of course.
> 
> (in best geordie accent) Day 733772, Mary Smith is doing her Christmas Shopping, little Jack brown is picking his nose........................



Write it in Geordie for authenticity

"Mary Smith wes deein hor Christmas shoppin, Smal Jackie Broon was howkin his snek"  :Wink:

----------


## Tubthumper

Do I believe in a god?
Not until I get an inkling that there's a god that believes in me.
To all you believers out there, a schoolgirl question: If there's an all-powerful god, how come all this bad stuff keeps happening??

----------


## Rictina

I believe that there is something, but not too sure what ! If that makes sense ?

----------


## Rheghead

> I believe that there is something, but not too sure what ! If that makes sense ?


If that is the case, how are you going to expand on your experience? ::

----------


## Gleber2

[quote=Flashman;633452] 

It was honest men with strong Christian beliefs that fought to put an end to slavery of our fellow men in this world. 


quote]
Most of the slaveowners were very strict Christians also and most of the slavers were  Christians.

----------


## joxville

God is a D.J., it's just that many of us have chosen not to listen.

----------


## Aaldtimer

[quote=Gleber2;633602]


> It was honest men with strong Christian beliefs that fought to put an end to slavery of our fellow men in this world. quote]
> 
> 
> Most of the slaveowners were very strict Christians also and most of the slavers were Christians.


And a lot of them were guid Scots Protestants! ::

----------


## Flashman

[quote=Gleber2;633602]


> It was honest men with strong Christian beliefs that fought to put an end to slavery of our fellow men in this world. 
> 
> 
> quote]
> Most of the slaveowners were very strict Christians also and most of the slavers were Christians.


Most people observed strict Christian Doctrine in that time, was not the done thing not to..... but rather Christianity and its teachings are what inspired those people the fight the insitution of slavery you just have to look at the speeches at the time.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

[quote=Flashman;633685]


> Most people observed strict Christian Doctrine in that time, was not the done thing not to..... but rather Christianity and its teachings are what inspired those people the fight the insitution of slavery you just have to look at the speeches at the time.


Yer right about one thing, Christianity did inspire fighting...

http://www.hermes-press.com/DAtruth.htm

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

Ha! I da ken how yer name got there Gleber2, eh Org must be oot til get ye too :Wink: lol

----------


## canuck

Both the churched and the unchurched have a lot to answer for historically.  But they are not here to defend themselves so it is time to learn not to make their mistakes and then to move on.

What is important for Christians in this day and age is how we live our lives, how we promote justice in our communities, how we are models of love to the world.

----------


## Flashman

[quote=Scorpio12thNov;633716]


> Yer right about one thing, Christianity did inspire fighting...
> 
> http://www.hermes-press.com/DAtruth.htm


 
As did Communism, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, Nazism, The Scottish Wars of Independence.... ect ect

Why single out Religion? I dont see the point, it is just another one of many things Humans fight over and I dont think any Holy War has ever come close to the mass Slaughter of World War I! 

There were alot of dark things in the dark ages...not just Religion. Islam at this time was quite enlightened.

----------


## Saveman

> Do I believe in a god?
> Not until I get an inkling that there's a god that believes in me.
> To all you believers out there, a schoolgirl question: If there's an all-powerful god, how come all this bad stuff keeps happening??



That is one of the most important questions you could have asked. You'll be pleased to know that the Bible provides the answer to that question.

Here's a starter for ten.....

1 John 5:19

----------


## Gleber2

> Ha! I da ken how yer name got there Gleber2, eh Org must be oot til get ye toolol


Beats me too!!! I did slightly upset the quote so I am probably to blame.
Canna get paranoid aboot e' Org.

----------


## Stavro

> Both the churched and the unchurched have a lot to answer for historically.  But they are not here to defend themselves so it is time to learn not to make their mistakes and then to move on.


But the same old mistakes are being made throughout history, over and over again, based upon the same deception.

----------


## canuck

> But the same old mistakes are being made throughout history, over and over again, based upon the same deception.


Yet because of the perseverance of many who do believe a great number of those mistakes have been overcome, even reversed.  I choose to plod on with the hope that the ancient stories have set for humankind.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> As did Communism, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, Nazism, The Scottish Wars of Independence.... ect ect
> Why single out Religion? I dont see the point, it is just another one of many things Humans fight over and I dont think any Holy War has ever come close to the mass Slaughter of World War I! 
> There were alot of dark things in the dark ages...not just Religion. Islam at this time was quite enlightened.


Maybe you don't see the point as your iggnorance won't let you take you to the next level! However, if you're prepared to look at the bigger picture, & go back to the start, you'll see how religion is the foundations for our corrupt world. We've been spoon fed lies from every direction since we've been in nappies, & things are getting worse rather than improving.

Ego, power & control. That's what religion is, as is every organisation. The last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious, informed public, capable of thinking for ourselves. Hence why we're kept amused with magical biblical fairytales, television, computers, phones, cars etc. etc. Completely unnesseccary & pointless information going in to our heads, & this is the "Game Plan"! To keep us amused & to shut us up. This is a game, & we are the puppets, we are caught in a bubble that we can't get out of. This is what our religion has created, a public obsessed with ego, power & control.

I'm a human being, I'm no better than anyone else, & nobody is better than me. I don't need to worship any God or follow any faith in order to be free, or to go to...ahem..."heaven"  :: 

I hear what you're saying, but you're just scratching the surface while I'm rummaging deep in the roots...

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> Maybe you don't see the point as your iggnorance won't let you take you to the next level! However, if you're prepared to look at the bigger picture, & go back to the start, you'll see how religion is the foundations for our corrupt world. We've been spoon fed lies from every direction since we've been in nappies, & things are getting worse rather than improving.
> 
> Ego, power & control. That's what religion is, as is every organisation. The last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious, informed public, capable of thinking for ourselves. Hence why we're kept amused with magical biblical fairytales, television, computers, phones, cars etc. etc. Completely unnesseccary & pointless information going in to our heads, & this is the "Game Plan"! To keep us amused & to shut us up. This is a game, & we are the puppets, we are caught in a bubble that we can't get out of. This is what our religion has created, a public obsessed with ego, power & control.
> 
> I'm a human being, I'm no better than anyone else, & nobody is better than me. I don't need to worship any God or follow any faith in order to be free, or to go to...ahem..."heaven" 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but you're just scratching the surface while I'm rummaging deep in the roots...


FAO Flashman....this will never end with "scorpio12thNov". 

He is a scorpio....stubborn as they come i think!  ::  (Sorry scorp) 

But yer right, uv defo dug deep with this religion thing.

----------


## Gleber2

> Maybe you don't see the point as your iggnorance won't let you take you to the next level! However, if you're prepared to look at the bigger picture, & go back to the start, you'll see how religion is the foundations for our corrupt world. We've been spoon fed lies from every direction since we've been in nappies, & things are getting worse rather than improving.
> 
> Ego, power & control. That's what religion is, as is every organisation. The last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious, informed public, capable of thinking for ourselves. Hence why we're kept amused with magical biblical fairytales, television, computers, phones, cars etc. etc. Completely unnesseccary & pointless information going in to our heads, & this is the "Game Plan"! To keep us amused & to shut us up. This is a game, & we are the puppets, we are caught in a bubble that we can't get out of. This is what our religion has created, a public obsessed with ego, power & control.
> 
> I'm a human being, I'm no better than anyone else, & nobody is better than me. I don't need to worship any God or follow any faith in order to be free, or to go to...ahem..."heaven" 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but you're just scratching the surface while I'm rummaging deep in the roots...


Maybe, in your ignorance,you need to take it up quite a number of levels before you find anything of consequence in the roots. 
The game goes way beyond religion.

----------


## joxville

> Do I believe in a god?
> Not until I get an inkling that there's a god that believes in me.
> To all you believers out there, a schoolgirl question: If there's an all-powerful god, how come all this bad stuff keeps happening??


Some people have learnt to conform, in whatever society they live and follow a religion, while others rebel as their default position in life. Some have learnt to be cynical and to distrust, others to be naively open and to trust everyone and everything inapropriately. To really awaken to the possibility of life we need to develop a flexible and aware consciousness of each other, and respect for one-another. Then we cease to live unconsciously and have the potential to create peace and joy instead of pain and suffering based on religion.

Here endeth the lesson.

----------


## Stavro

> The game goes way beyond religion.


Yes, it does. Religion is only one man-made structure amongst many man-made structures that were created to serve the same goal/object.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> FAO Flashman....this will never end with "Scorpio12thNov". 
> 
> He is a scorpio....stubborn as they come i think! (Sorry scorp) 
> 
> But yer right, uv defo dug deep with this religion thing.


*Facepalm* :: 

Stubborn? Me? Niver!!! I'm choost...erm...erm...well...ach aye maybe I'm a _wee taddy_ stubborn, but I portray a Scorpio perfectly so I've been telt... :Wink: 

I know that the game goes beyond religion, but someone once told me in order to move forward, you need to go back to the start, & only then will you be able to see forward clearly. You wouldn't open a book & start at the end would you? :: 

The point I was making is that religion, like everything around us is corrupt. Founded upon lies, in order to control.

----------


## Stavro

> I know that the game goes beyond religion, but someone once told me in order to move forward, you need to go back to the start, & only then will you be able to see forward clearly. You wouldn't open a book & start at the end would you?


Yes, that's true.




> The point I was making is that religion, like everything around us is corrupt. Founded upon lies, in order to control.


Yes, that's also very true.  ::

----------


## northener

Uh-oh...we're drifting into collusion and conspiracy territory here.

And we know where that'll end up, don't we?

Resist the temptation!

----------


## danc1ngwitch

War?........

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> *Facepalm*
> 
> Stubborn? Me? Niver!!! I'm choost...erm...erm...well...ach aye maybe I'm a _wee taddy_ stubborn, but I portray a Scorpio perfectly so I've been telt...
> 
> I know that the game goes beyond religion, but someone once told me in order to move forward, you need to go back to the start, & only then will you be able to see forward clearly. You wouldn't open a book & start at the end would you?
> 
> The point I was making is that religion, like everything around us is corrupt. Founded upon lies, in order to control.


Bring yerself oot e facepalm! 

Everything is a lie, nobody can actually guarentee that God ever existed or still does. If he does tho can someone ask him if i can get a shot at bein God? I wud be ace at that i think! lol. 

anyways...i agree with the stubborn one i mean scorpio...

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Bring yerself oot e facepalm! 
> 
> Everything is a lie, nobody can actually guarentee that God ever existed or still does. If he does tho can someone ask him if i can get a shot at bein God? I wud be ace at that i think! lol. 
> 
> anyways...i agree with the stubborn one i mean scorpio...


This is true, no matter what anyone says, we can't prove whether there's a God or not, never mind trying to prove what God is, or even the purpose of God.

So if ye were God, ShelleyB, do I get eh chob as yer under study...? :Wink:

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> This is true, no matter what anyone says, we can't prove whether there's a God or not, never mind trying to prove what God is, or even the purpose of God.
> 
> So if ye were God, ShelleyB, do I get eh chob as yer under study...?


Oh we will have til see aboot that! Hand in yer CV and i will see wat i can do for you.  :Grin:

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Oh we will have til see aboot that! Hand in yer CV and i will see wat i can do for you.


Ye ken yersel dawl...my CV hes it all...& i do eh dishes mind? :Wink:

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> Ye ken yersel dawl...my CV hes it all...& i do eh dishes mind?


erm....yer hired! Lol  :Smile:

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

Eric Liddell refused to run on a Sunday.It was the Sabbath,God's Day.He was made out to be a 'traitor' to his country,because he refused to do what his country wanted him to do.An American handed him a note before he won the 400m gold medal.A quote from Samuel,"If you honour me,I will honour you."

Two religious guys,one handing a letter to the other showing his respect for the other one's faith.

I'm not religious in the slightest,I still think this story of faith is brilliant :Smile:

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> erm....yer hired! Lol


ye can pay me in kind sweetie... :Wink:

----------


## golach

> Eric Liddell refused to run on a Sunday.It was the Sabbath,God's Day.He was made out to be a 'traitor' to his country,because he refused to do what his country wanted him to do.An American handed him a note before he won the 400m gold medal.A quote from Samuel,"If you honour me,I will honour you."
> 
> Two religious guys,one handing a letter to the other showing his respect for the other one's faith.
> 
> I'm not religious in the slightest,I still think this story of faith is brilliant


Another Scottish sportsman who puts his beliefs first Cedric,

http://sport.scotsman.com/rugby/Euan...-of.5918707.jp

----------


## Rheghead

My Lord turned the water into wine.  So the crowd went along with what my lord doth said.

----------


## Flashman

> My Lord turned the water into wine. So the crowd went along with what my lord doth said.


The Lord Blair turned natural climate change into man made climate change. So the crowd went along with what the Lord Blair said.  ::

----------


## Flashman

> I'm a human being, I'm no better than anyone else, & nobody is better than me. I don't need to worship any God or follow any faith in order to be free, or to go to...ahem..."heaven" 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but you're just scratching the surface while I'm rummaging deep in the roots...


I dont disagree in the slightest.

But your rummaging deep in human issues, what was asked was "Do you believe in God?"  Not do you believe in the Jewish God, or do you believe in Buddah.

You would be quite right if the question was do you believe in the God of the Jews, but the word God means many different things to many different people. It is something that trancends mere earth based religion.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> I dont disagree in the slightest.
> But your rummaging deep in human issues, what was asked was "Do you believe in God?" Not do you believe in the Jewish God, or do you believe in Buddah.
> You would be quite right if the question was do you believe in the God of the Jews, but the word God means many different things to many different people. It is something that trancends mere earth based religion.


Yeah, I can hear exactly where you're coming from here Flashman.

I believe God to be the Universe, therefore we're all Gods, therefore our actions will reflect Gods plan. We should be working as a team, rather than individuals in order to get higher & to understand what's really out there, where we're going & how we're going to get there.

As to where we came from & whether there's a God or not, I'm stopping myself from thinking about it, because it's impossible to answer these questions. It's all speculation & theories, & to get lost in this way of thinking WILL drive an individual to insanity.

----------


## Rheghead

> The Lord Blair turned natural climate change into man made climate change.


Yeah, I think that is precisely the problem.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

A human wants answers.Is there a God?Will I wake up tomorrow?What is the meaning of life?

Three questions.

My answers

Is there a God?.No,its a planet.
Will I wake up tomorrow?.Yes I have to work
What is the meaning of life?.To enjoy

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

Not many more replies until this is the most commented upon thread in the General section.

----------


## Rheghead

There is a good programme on iplayer atm featuring the views of Baruch di Spinoza a pantheist of the 17th century

----------


## Kenn

Is n't The Sabbath Saturday and a Jewish celebration?

----------


## 2little2late

Thank God I'm an Atheist.

----------


## Rheghead

> We should be working as a team.


Is that as in a _team_ which only corroborates your personal opinion.  ::

----------


## buggyracer

> Is that as in a _team_ which only corroborates your personal opinion.


havent read the whole thread, but..... 

if we all lived by the bible im quite sure it would be a better world to live in  ::

----------


## Aaldtimer

> havent read the whole thread, but..... 
> 
> if we all lived by the bible im quite sure it would be a better world to live in


Oh yeh! "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"! Great stuff! ::

----------


## Rheghead

> havent read the whole thread, but..... 
> 
> if we all lived by the bible im quite sure it would be a better world to live in


Well we could get rid of a few witches on the org.  :: 

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.--Lev.20:27

----------


## trix

> Well we could get rid of a few witches on the org.


hey....!!! most offended  ::

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Is that as in a _team_ which only corroborates your personal opinion.


Why the confused look? Did my posts go over your head? :: 

If you look at the current state of this world, it doesn't take an educated genius to see that we're all fighting against each other. So if we worked as a team, rather than fighting, we'd see an improvement.

Plus by working as a team, that means that you have to be open minded to different opinions & theories etc. etc. You'd certainly be in the "B-team"...

----------


## Bobinovich

In order to work together as a harmonious team, religion and money, amongst other things, would need to be removed from everyones equation.  Even then it would be virtually impossible to do because you'd still need leaders and structure and, as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It'll take something profound and immediate to unite mankind into working together as one, and to remind us we can be individuals as well as part of the human race.

----------


## Rheghead

> If you look at the current state of this world, it doesn't take an educated genius to see that we're all fighting against each other. So if we worked as a team, rather than fighting, we'd see an improvement.


We'd see an improvement by the rejection of all belief systems and pursuing a life of secularism.  Science is starting to unite humanity since it is the only thing that is based on what can be seen and corroborated.  Faith can't do that as being faithful to God is having the ultimate closed mind.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> In order to work together as a harmonious team, religion and money, amongst other things, would need to be removed from everyones equation. Even then it would be virtually impossible to do because you'd still need leaders and structure and, as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> It'll take something profound and immediate to unite mankind into working together as one, and to remind us we can be individuals as well as part of the human race.


Exactly. Religion, Government, Banks & Media need to be removed from society altogether. & yes we need structure, & a leader to follow, but we follow God, & God's Sun.

Power certainly corrupts, but who says any of us need power in order to survive? Working as a harmonius team however, without religion, governments, banks & the media & so forth, will see a happier, more peaceful environment. 

A New Age Hippy - all joking aside, but we need to be free, free from this jail we're all locked up in...

----------


## gleeber

I dont accept we don't work together. The human race would not exist as conscious humans without cooperation between individuals and nations. Conflict is as mich a part of human experience as is art or religion or science. Maybe someday we will evolve that particular trait out of our psyche but pretending its not an integral part of human experience is niave.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> We'd see an improvement by the rejection of all belief systems and pursuing a life of secularism. Science is starting to unite humanity since it is the only thing that is based on what can be seen and corroborated. Faith can't do that as being faithful to God is having the ultimate closed mind.


Exactly, we need to be free from this control we are all under. We need to be able to use our minds to the maximum & learn the truth about our foundations. As most of us now know, we've been spoon fed lies from every direction for thousands of years...

& with science, we've proved we don't need religion or government, as they've nothing to do with science. In retrospect, if humans were to stand up for what they believed in & fought against the controlling powers, I reckon we'd certainly win! We are powerful, we are beautiful, & we are capable of doing incredibly wonderful things...

----------


## danc1ngwitch

If we were to live by the Bible that would not make this world a better place.
We bang on about beleiving in God, etc, etc.
Most don't even beleive in themselves.
We use Drink and drugs as an excuse, instead of taking responsibility for our actions.
No offence to any religion, each to their own.

----------


## elastic band

Yes i too believe in God.

----------


## Stavro

> & with science, we've proved we don't need religion or government, as they've nothing to do with science.


Are you saying that you desire to replace man-made socio-political structures (religion, banks, media, government, etc) with another man-made structure (science)?

If so, why would this structure be any different from the others?

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Are you saying that you desire to replace man-made socio-political structures (religion, banks, media, government, etc) with another man-made structure (science)?
> 
> If so, why would this structure be any different from the others?


Science isn't man made,  it's natural for humans to invent things in order to make their lifes easier. Learning is science, thinking is science...therefore science isn't a man-made structure.

----------


## Stavro

> Science isn't man made,  it's natural for humans to invent things in order to make their lifes easier. Learning is science, thinking is science...therefore science isn't a man-made structure.


Well, we have seen with the global warming fiasco that scientists devise ways to keep views that are contrary to the ones they are promoting out of the science journals. That they hide data that conflicts with their model and that they promote themselves as gods and saviours.

Do you think that there is a difference between learning something and knowing something?

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Well, we have seen with the global warming fiasco that scientists devise ways to keep views that are contrary to the ones they are promoting out of the science journals. That they hide data that conflicts with their model and that they promote themselves as gods and saviours.
> 
> Do you think that there is a difference between learning something and knowing something?


Scientists have spoke of global pollution for years, it's only this last few years they've spoke of global warming. Now the Government is making millions from it. So are they getting made to say it?

& who hides the information from these journals? If a scientist was to make a groundbreaking discovery, you'd think he'd be bragging it around the place. But, the men behind the curtain only want us knowin particular bits of information.

Do I think there's a difference between learning something, & knowing something? Well, you need to learn before you know...

----------


## Welcomefamily

Science cant unite Science let alone humanity, the divisions between objective qualitative data and subjective quantitative rages in the grey recesses of advancement. 

However science is no more than a system of belief formed upon concept that may as it did in Darwins case led us down in-correct pathways until knowledge can prove otherwise. Theory is only as good as the limitations of inquiry.

From a concept I formed a theory and I formed my methods of testing and my measures of reliability and validity and yet without the concept (which cant be tested) the extension of scientific knowledge cannot progress.

Concept is an idea, not always black and white, if you believe only in black and white, progress in science will never happen.

Back tomorrow







> We'd see an improvement by the rejection of all belief systems and pursuing a life of secularism.  Science is starting to unite humanity since it is the only thing that is based on what can be seen and corroborated.  Faith can't do that as being faithful to God is having the ultimate closed mind.

----------


## canuck

> We'd see an improvement by the rejection of all belief systems and pursuing a life of secularism.  Science is starting to unite humanity since it is the only thing that is based on what can be seen and corroborated.  Faith can't do that as being faithful to God is having the ultimate closed mind.


I disagree.  I think that being faithful to God is the ultimate open mind.

----------


## Rheghead

> I disagree.  I think that being faithful to God is the ultimate open mind.


What limits of probability do you place on the existence of God?  I've read Richard Dawkins works and he says there is a miniscule probability.  But to come to a rational decision you've got to weigh up the evidence from all directions and come to a conclusion.

If you come from a pantheistic stand point then there is no way of making any progress between this discussion as a pantheist says God created the Universe and let it run on and on long after he walked away disinterested in his work.

As for a loving Christian God who looks over us and welcomes us when we enter the afterlife and we spend eternity at his feet being comforted, then forget all that rubbish.

----------


## canuck

> What limits of probability do you place on the existence of God?  I've read Richard Dawkins works and he says there is a miniscule probability.  But to come to a rational decision you've got to weigh up the evidence from all directions and come to a conclusion.
> 
> If you come from a pantheistic stand point then there is no way of making any progress between this discussion as a pantheist says God created the Universe and let it run on and on long after he walked away disinterested in his work.
> 
> As for a loving Christian God who looks over us and welcomes us when we enter the afterlife and we spend eternity at his feet being comforted, then forget all that rubbish.


I think that you have made my point.  'Rational' implies a well defined set of parameters which the mind can comprehend.   That little box called rationality suggests the opposite of an open mind.

An open mind towards God means that you don't have to buy into the portrait which you paint of the afterlife.   That is a picture created by one rational mind trying to explain earth bound ideas.   I think that there is far more to it than that.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think that you have made my point.  'Rational' implies a well defined set of parameters which the mind can comprehend.   That little box called rationality suggests the opposite of an open mind.
> 
> An open mind towards God means that you don't have to buy into the portrait which you paint of the afterlife.   That is a picture created by one rational mind trying to explain earth bound ideas.   I think that there is far more to it than that.


Well by your reasoning, Richard Dawkins has an closed mind?  There is a difference between closed-mindedness and inductive reasoning. ::

----------


## northener

> I disagree. I think that being faithful to God is the ultimate open mind.


Being 'faithful' to one idea, cause, or line of reasoning, could be a good indicator of a closed mind, Canuck. 

I have 'faith' in the reasoning that there is no diety or supreme being that takes an active interest in - or cares about - humankind.

So we both have 'faith', yet we both cannot be right. So therefore faith is not a realistic indicator of truth or an open mind. It merely shows that we have the capability to believe in something that is questioned by others.

----------

