# Religious debate?



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Dinosaurs? the bible doesn't state they exist, and apparently we where created in the garden of EDEN, I'm lost? how can this all be true if evolution is proven scientifically? Since we became smarter, more intelligent over years? why is there still belief in religion? is it just our way of remaining civil? and a book on how to behave? a way to calm us from our animal instincts? what exactly is it?

And if its true? why is the bible constantly being re-edited? if it was the book of god? why does the faults in the bible have to be re-edited? every now and again you hear about "THE NEW TESTAMENT" well what about the ORIGIONAL? why they changing it so often? it seems difficult to have a faith when theres so much obviousness going around, its like moving a pawn and cheating at chess whilst the other opponent is looking? this **** gets done right infront of these religious people, yet they just nod their heads and continue having faith? does it make life easier having it?

And what about the Einstein theory? does anyone believe in that? cause that makes little more sense, considering everything thats living has some sort of electrical current going through them, like our brain, example... so maybe we're just apart of something bigger, and perhaps our bodies are just vessles?

Then avatar theory comes to mind, this one quote "We're all just borrowed energy and one day we gotta give it back?" but i could re-quote that "We're energy, and one day we've got to release from our inner vessle??"

Hmm my faith at the moment has to be REALISM, cause am not gonna buy this crap anymore, the bible is a book of riddles, like a song with words but not much meaning, its just their for you to make your own opinion of the meaning in that book.

So things in the book do help, some quotes i love, heres one. "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, courage to change the things i can, and winsdow to know the difference" < Thats a lovely quote to keep you calm if you're considering Killing your ex girlfriends new boyfriend violently, Hahaha, and it does make good sense? but seriously? what the **** you meant to believe in these days, cause theres nothing that proves anything, and like i said earlier, you can see the flaws in it all, directly infront of you.

Also? look at how many wars its causing, we've got muslims bombing innocent people, we even have a riot or some crap down france over a cartoon cause the muslims think its ill manner'd to their religion.... so much ****s getting ****ed up, depresses me listening to the radio.


----------



## Big_Idiot (Feb 14, 2012)

I hate religion. It's all a load of BS to me.


----------



## 2H3ENCH4U (May 23, 2012)

Oh dear - this is gonna be a 50 pager !!!!!!

DOnt believe in god myself but if people want to get together and tell stories, sing songs and be nice to each other thats all fine by me.

The way I see it you get a55holes and evil in all guises, if people think that there is an easy way to justify their a55hole behavious they will take it. Be it race, religion, social status or even the size of their gunz.


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)




----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Big_Idiot said:


> I hate religion. It's all a load of BS to me.


Me too pal, its absolutely bollocks, the world would be a better place without it.

- - - Updated - - -



2H3ENCH4U said:


> Oh dear - this is gonna be a 50 pager !!!!!!
> 
> DOnt believe in god myself but if people want to get together and tell stories, sing songs and be nice to each other thats all fine by me.
> 
> The way I see it you get a55holes and evil in all guises, if people think that there is an easy way to justify their a55hole behavious they will take it. Be it race, religion, social status or even the size of their gunz.


I like this reply, and yeah nail on the head.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Did you ever marry empire boy? :whistling:


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

MutantX said:


> Did you ever marry empire boy? :whistling:


Nah i just ****ed him and dumped him, he was pretty devistated like when i took my ex back, but its all cool bro, he'll get over it, if not ill send you his way


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

From the time I have been on this board in my experience discussing religion is not a good idea.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Have l logged on to UK muscle here or some mad cult ?


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

The Vegetarian said:


> From the time I have been on this board in my experience discussing religion is not a good idea.


I'm just after opinions, no bad talk, just questioning, its like a game of ball, gonna throw it, see what i get hit back with really?


----------



## phoenixlaw (Mar 5, 2012)

This wipe out 20 pages and get straight to the point about the Church not accepting gay/lesbian marriage.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Dinosaurs? the bible doesn't state they exist, and apparently we where created in the garden of EDEN, I'm lost? how can this all be true if evolution is proven scientifically? Since we became smarter, more intelligent over years? why is there still belief in religion? is it just our way of remaining civil? and a book on how to behave? a way to calm us from our animal instincts? what exactly is it?
> 
> And if its true? why is the bible constantly being re-edited? if it was the book of god? why does the faults in the bible have to be re-edited? every now and again you hear about "THE NEW TESTAMENT" well what about the ORIGIONAL? why they changing it so often? it seems difficult to have a faith when theres so much obviousness going around, its like moving a pawn and cheating at chess whilst the other opponent is looking? this **** gets done right infront of these religious people, yet they just nod their heads and continue having faith? does it make life easier having it?
> 
> ...


when all this was going through your head at no point did you stop and think: "man i could be watching porn instead"


----------



## HAWKUS (Jan 11, 2012)

jesus was a peado :whistling:


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> I'm just after opinions, no bad talk, just questioning, its like a game of ball, gonna throw it, see what i get hit back with really?


A cow pat


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Milky said:


> Have l logged on to UK muscle here or some mad cult ?


No cult, i'm not that sad, im just curious to what all the fuss is about, hearing **** on the radio, and constantly see it on the news, i generally want peoples opinions on this. i'm a nice person, to be fair, I'm more concerned about the trees being cut down, and the fact we're building so many housing estates and taking away our green planet.

- - - Updated - - -



TG123 said:


> when all this was going through your head at no point did you stop and think: "man i could be watching porn instead"


well i did that about 10minutes before posting, so it was all good.


----------



## MF88 (Jul 1, 2012)

Religion is the cause of 99% of the world's problems. Would be much better off without any of it.


----------



## phoenixlaw (Mar 5, 2012)

AceOfSpadez your avi looks like you have taken a pic of yourself nicking a bottle of champers under a towel.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

HAWKUS said:


> jesus was a peado :whistling:


Now now, that's disrespectful lol, easy, theres people who'll take that way overboard, don't want all hell lose on here.

- - - Updated - - -



phoenixlaw said:


> AceOfSpadez your avi looks like you have taken a pic of yourself nicking a bottle of champers under a towel.


How do you know i didn't?


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)

phoenixlaw said:


> AceOfSpadez your avi looks like you have taken a pic of yourself nicking a bottle of champers under a towel.


Or he might be wiping his armpit while taking the photo,you would have thought he would wait before taking the photo.


----------



## guvnor82 (Oct 23, 2011)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Dinosaurs? the bible doesn't state they exist, and apparently we where created in the garden of EDEN, I'm lost? how can this all be true if evolution is proven scientifically? Since we became smarter, more intelligent over years? why is there still belief in religion? is it just our way of remaining civil? and a book on how to behave? a way to calm us from our animal instincts? what exactly is it?
> 
> And if its true? why is the bible constantly being re-edited? if it was the book of god? why does the faults in the bible have to be re-edited? every now and again you hear about "THE NEW TESTAMENT" well what about the ORIGIONAL? why they changing it so often? it seems difficult to have a faith when theres so much obviousness going around, its like moving a pawn and cheating at chess whilst the other opponent is looking? this **** gets done right infront of these religious people, yet they just nod their heads and continue having faith? does it make life easier having it?
> 
> ...


Good post tho I fear this thread will closed my the end of the day.

I personally don't have believe in god in any shape or form But if it gives people comfort in bad time then ok it ent bad thing. But I also think it causes more harm than good and like said above it gives evil people justification for there evil actions.

If your gonna believe that in something believe in yourself.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Sc4mp0 said:


> Or he might be wiping his armpit while taking the photo,you would have thought he would wait before taking the photo.


to justify, which i shouldn't bother, but just to kill the curiousity of my photo, its actually my red t-shirt i took off, but instead it looks like a red towel


----------



## TECH (Nov 30, 2011)

Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

guvnor82 said:


> Good post tho I fear this thread will closed my the end of the day.
> 
> I personally don't have believe in god in any shape or form But if it gives people comfort in bad time then ok it ent bad thing. But I also think it causes more harm than good and like said above it gives evil people justification for there evil actions.
> 
> If your gonna believe that in something believe in yourself.


great post, i appreciate it, and yeah comfort isn't something to be argued with, sometimes its easier to believe, then not to believe, and think the otherway around


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

TECH said:


> Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.


I like this post alot, its very true, rulers will use it as a way to remain powerful, common people will use it as a way to comfort the loss of loved ones, and wise people will see it for what it really is, and try be strong.


----------



## Dave 0511 (Feb 13, 2009)

I can't take anyone seriously if they believe in a god. They immediately lose all credibility to me.

It shows a basic lack of intelligence to believe your life is ruled by a cosmic space being, when there is so much evidence against this.


----------



## TECH (Nov 30, 2011)

Also religion doesn't really start wars. Religion is a useful excuse to get the masses to support a war. Religion is the disguise not the cause.


----------



## guvnor82 (Oct 23, 2011)

Milky said:


> Have l logged on to UK muscle here or some mad cult ?


Same thing en it


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

TECH said:


> Also religion doesn't really start wars. Religion is a useful excuse to get the masses to support a war. Religion is the disguise not the cause.


you really are a wise man TECH...

- - - Updated - - -



Dave 0511 said:


> I can't take anyone seriously if they believe in a god. They immediately lose all credibility to me.
> 
> It shows a basic lack of intelligence to believe your life is ruled by a cosmic space being, when there is so much evidence against this.


I don't believe its a lack of intelligence, i think its just desperate hope, to believe theres something more out there.


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> you really are a wise man TECH...


One of the originals,he's just aged well.


----------



## Matt*2010 (Nov 5, 2011)

In my opinion religion and religious books were the first laws. The 10 commandments for instance.

The reason people follow vary greatly, and it's not necessarily a bad thing and we must remember extremism will exist no matter the medium.

Live and let live I say.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Matt*2010 said:


> In my opinion religion and religious books were the first laws. The 10 commandments for instance.
> 
> The reason people follow vary greatly, and it's not necessarily a bad thing and we must remember extremism will exist no matter the medium.
> 
> Live and let live I say.


live and let live? lol its causing the opposite it disrupts our peace lol.


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

Never really cared for religion until I saw the video of what muslims do to animals before eating them

Can't really blame them, but from someone who wasn't brainwashed from birth it looks absolutely f*cking ridiculous, how do you tell someone who has been told from birth that if they agree they'll have eternal happiness/virgins? Makes me kinda wish I was blagged in to being a muslim :/


----------



## TECH (Nov 30, 2011)

I can't take credit for the first bit, that's a quote by Seneca. But the fact that it's as relevant now as it was 2000 years ago shows how religion has always been used, and probably will always be used.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

WilsonR6 said:


> Never really cared for religion until I saw the video of what muslims do to animals before eating them
> 
> Can't really blame them, but from someone who wasn't brainwashed from birth it looks absolutely f*cking ridiculous, how do you tell someone who has been told from birth that if they agree they'll have eternal happiness/virgins? Makes me kinda wish I was blagged in to being a muslim :/


Year too many fairy tails will blag anyone, should have seen the kick off when i was told santa wasn't real, i almost turned into bin laden that day.


----------



## murphy2010 (Dec 17, 2010)

I recon everyone has the right to believe what they want aslong as they are peacefull about it, and dont shove it down people's neck's.

I personally dont believe in god, but the idea of god gives people good moral's to live with which helps regardless


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

I think i got the answer i was looking for, not a single person has yet to stick up for religious believes, reason? only few choose to believe in this day and age, and we're becoming more aware of how things are going, unless i see something that proves with my own eyes otherwise, i'll remain unreligious.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

we are spirits in flesh, when our body dies our spirits will leave our bodies.....god is a spirit and we are created in his image, we share gods emotions, except gods emotions are pure, his love is unconditional for us and he will wait until the last breath in our physical bodies for us to turn to him and be accepted...when you let god into your life you can physically feel the spirit enter your soul and your life changes...for me there is nothing in this life as much as my love for Jesus..flame away.


----------



## Matt*2010 (Nov 5, 2011)

AceOfSpadez said:


> live and let live? lol its causing the opposite it disrupts our peace lol.


The reason people follow vary greatly, and it's not necessarily a bad thing and we must remember extremism will exist no matter the medium.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

justin case said:


> we are spirits in flesh, when our body dies our spirits will leave our bodies.....god is a spirit and we are created in his image, we share gods emotions, except gods emotions are pure, his love is unconditional for us and he will wait until the last breath in our physical bodies for us to turn to him and be accepted...when you let god into your life you can physically feel the spirit enter your soul and your life changes...for me there is nothing in this life as much as my love for Jesus..flame away.


I was once religious, you've got no idea how much i believed, i know that feeling you felt, and i miss it, i won't lie, but i realised it was Placebo, that feeling was like being a cancer patient and given the all clear, believing makes you feel relaxed and at ease like theres a weight off your shoulders, no stress with life, because you believe theres more, and theres a continuance after death, its a beautiful feeling to have, feeling that death its self isnt the end, it gives you a great feeling, you constantly feel happy, but its so much harder to turn away from your faith and face the truth, then it is to believe, and i chose to give mine up for common sense, knowing that it isn't real, i've also seen what religion has caused, its caused more suicides, war, then anything else, i've seen religion destroy peoples lives, i'm now burdened with reality, and i no longer share that false hope, if i went back to it, it wouldn't be the same again, cause deep down i know better then fairy tails.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> I was once religious, you've got no idea how much i believed, i know that feeling you felt, and i miss it, i won't lie, but i realised it was Placebo, that feeling was like being a cancer patient and given the all clear, believing makes you feel relaxed and at ease like theres a weight off your shoulders, no stress with life, because you believe theres more, and theres a continuance after death, its a beautiful feeling to have, feeling that death its self isnt the end, it gives you a great feeling, you constantly feel happy, but its so much harder to turn away from your faith and face the truth, then it is to believe, and i chose to give mine up for common sense, knowing that it isn't real, i've also seen what religion has caused, its caused more suicides, war, then anything else, i've seen religion destroy peoples lives, i'm now burdened with reality, and i no longer share that false hope, if i went back to it, it wouldn't be the same again, cause deep down i know better then fairy tails.


it sounds like you have simply adopted one religion for another....atheism is a religion and its followers are every bit as evangelical as any other religious belief.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

justin case said:


> it sounds like you have simply adopted one religion for another....atheism is a religion and its followers are every bit as evangelical as any other religious belief.


perhaps... i believe more in the current flow of electrical powers, energies, atleast thats been proven?


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> perhaps... i believe more in the current flow of electrical powers, energies, atleast thats been proven?


do you believe there is a life after this one?..and have you ever been with people when they die?


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

anyway I'm butting out of this debate because I've been in these debates before and they usually turn quite nasty and things are said when perhaps they shouldn't.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

Subbed


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

justin case said:


> do you believe there is a life after this one?..and have you ever been with people when they die?


I don't believe in death, i belive in the ever lasting flow, magnetic energy all around us, i believe what we truely are is energy, its the only thing thats living, that can create movement, and flow, i'm more into Scientology in some ways, but i mean? everything as small as small can be, even our cells, have a current of elerctro magnetic, which allows life... when someones heart stops for example, shockers will pump electricity into the heart causing it to contract again, the way motor neurons get sent to muscles to be moved, etc... everything we're able to do, see, hear, is all thanks to a magnetic energy, or some some of elecro energy, and that stuffs been proven, i believe when we die, we disbust back into the universe and become one with it? people must be thinking, WHAT A HYPOCRIT believing this **** and not religion, but just take a look at the sun? one big energy source... and everything around it was just gathered energy from the universe....

I believe it goes on forever, man was raised and made believe that nothings forever and everything that lives has an ended, however, i don't believe the universe and its energy has any end.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Watch the film called "Powder" thats got great meaning to my beliefs, obviously not all of it, just its meaning.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

justin [URL=case:3488972]case:3488972[/URL] said:


> do you believe there is a life after this one?..and have you ever been with people when they die?


No... How is it physically possible for someone to decompose and live on somewhere else?

Where exactly would the dead live on?

Man has been in space and heaven is nowhere to be seen

And in response to your second question... Yes. 1 deep breath and that's it


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

It's all bull simple as that all the bible is a guide to how the 'righteous' should live and conduct themselves. The rest of it is so far fetched its unbelievable litterally.

You have to remember 2000 years ago we knew jack technology didn't exist as such so it's not surprising it caught on in those times.

The only reason that it's still around today and not been debunked is those in power know exactly how useful religious belief is to make man do what ever they wish because 'god demands it' look at l the stuff done in the name of a religion and it's painfully obvious.

And do not forgo the fact that the christian church has been and still is some extent one of the richest and most powerful organisations in the world!

Strange how it's still around then surely?

This thread won't last it will be bound to offend someone of alternative beliefs and that will be that.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Pain2Gain said:


> It's all bull simple as that all the bible is a guide to how the 'righteous' should live and conduct themselves. The rest of it is so far fetched its unbelievable litterally.
> 
> You have to remember 2000 years ago we knew jack technology didn't exist as such so it's not surprising it caught on in those times.
> 
> ...


meanwhile lets get any many of our points and view's over as possible just to rub it in the complainers faces... religion shouldn't be something that people have a right to get offended over... it should be openly discussed, those who chose not to dislike what they hear cause they can't hack any evidence of their religion being untrue, its also a sign of denial.

- - - Updated - - -

funny thing is nothing i believe in offends my way of believing.


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

justin case said:


> do you believe there is a life after this one?..and have you ever been with people when they die?


Not really and yes I have more than once so what's the point your making??

I'm been completely serious I really would like to know mate if you would


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> meanwhile lets get any many of our points and view's over as possible just to rub it in the complainers faces... religion shouldn't be something that people have a right to get offended over... it should be openly discussed, those who chose not to dislike what they hear cause they can't hack any evidence of their religion being untrue, its also a sign of denial.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> funny thing is no i believe in offends my way of believing.


No it shouldn't your right but is and all the time even right now you won't ever change that


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Pain2Gain said:


> Not really and yes I have more than once so what's the point your making??
> 
> I'm been completely serious I really would like to know mate if you would


remembering religion can sometimes comfort people, in their loss, and sometimes the loss of a loved one can be hard, don't ask this man anymore questions, he may not want to answer please pain, sometimes the obvious comes to mind.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Pain2Gain said:


> No it shouldn't your right but is and all the time even right now you won't ever change that


Yeah im beginning to think if this debate was worth it, now that i think, maybe for some people religion is a good thing, it keeps hope in their heart, and can sometimes ease pain, so i kinda regret this debate now... when deaths brought up it becomes a touchy subject, and i wouldn't wana tell someone who's loved one passed that i don't believe they're where they'd most hope and wish they where.

I think we should just drop it from there.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2012)

Religious people go to mass.

This is a debate !!!

Make your own jokes


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Ooh what a lovely thread, jah bless!!


----------



## jay101 (Aug 9, 2011)

I think all the religions and religious books are just a there to control the people . Most of the morale rules we live our lives by have derived from one of these books whether ur religious or not.


----------



## ianm2585 (Mar 14, 2010)

they say god created the earth and on the seventh day created man now wimpeys would have had it built in three days and had more time to perfect man


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Your all daft if u think there isn't a god and that the bible isn't true. Heaven and earth was made in a week, man was made from dust and woman was made from a rib, a talking snake ruined it for everyone, Noah got billions of species of animals on a boat, mary got pregnant without a cock, spunk, ivf or test tube, Jesus (her kid) could do things that Paul Daniels would be proud of and even as the son of god he got punished and killed by gods (other but not the main one) children (nice going god u twit) but it's ok as the favourite he came back to life.

And u lot believe none of it happened, shame on u!!


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Yeah im beginning to think if this debate was worth it, now that i think, maybe for some people religion is a good thing, it keeps hope in their heart, and can sometimes ease pain, so i kinda regret this debate now... when deaths brought up it becomes a touchy subject, and i wouldn't wana tell someone who's loved one passed that i don't believe they're where they'd most hope and wish they where.
> 
> I think we should just drop it from there.


It won't make any difference if someone believes it they will belive it no matter what others say, to think someone would suddenly stop believing in religion the after life or what ever just because one thread amongst thousands on the Internet all along the same lines is, Well a strange thought process lets just say that. And IF it did would it not surely just be the case they never really belived it in the first place?



AceOfSpadez said:


> remembering religion can sometimes comfort people, in their loss, and sometimes the loss of a loved one can be hard, don't ask this man anymore questions, he may not want to answer please pain, sometimes the obvious comes to mind.


I'm sure that it can and if helps someone then I'm all for that use whatever tools are at your disposal! I've been the situation he's describing and I'm just curious as to why those events would or should of made my views any different.

What are you expecting me to do hound the fella into a response? He posted a open ended question to which I've requested a answer it entirely up to him if he chooses to do so or not.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2012)

Im not at all religious, what people believe is entirely up to them.

Do I believe in god? Being brought up in a majority catholic family morally id like to say yes, but Im yet to see / hear something to make me believe, so no.

I think its nice some people find peace believing, but as always, past and present it can and has been used as a tool to turn people against each other, that unfortunately will never stop.

People need to wake up!


----------



## User Name (Aug 19, 2012)

It seems most (Christians at least) people at church these days are pretty old...........

The good thing is, it's never too late for religion - so if anyone is worried about 'what lies beyond' just start going to church when you get into your coffin dodger' years. It's a win, win situation!! God forgives. :thumb:

Meanwhile, **** it! :tongue:


----------



## nowhereboy (May 22, 2012)

At work so can't read the whole thread. Religon is crackers man. I'm a firm atheist. Check out "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins, the book or the documentary, theirs a goodatheist talk show in America, can't remember the name of it just now but the vids are on YouTube. Worth a watch....


----------



## Machette (Oct 29, 2011)

I think this thread is offensive to those who believe!

Everyones entitled to there opinion but please all be civilised!


----------



## Ackee&amp;Saltfish (Mar 18, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> Ooh what a lovely thread, *jah bless*!!


yes i me nuh see god. Dey say you only fi serv him in a spirit an in truth... but you can't see him! A him a heaven dem say. An wer heaven supposed to be? Dem say, 'up a cloud'. 'Up a sky'! So... god up a sky... an you go serve him... an him no seen!! Me go look in me self an me say, 'dat a rubbish!' You wan to serve someone an you no see him? So you wouldn't know him! CHA!!!

yuh zimee @Fatstuff :lol:


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Because religion is about faith. And someone with faith doesn't need proof, they believe regardless.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Dave said:


> Im not at all religious, what people believe is entirely up to them.
> 
> Do I believe in god? Being brought up in a majority catholic family morally id like to say yes, but Im yet to see / hear something to make me believe, so no.
> 
> ...


Cracking post mate.

IMO if you want to believe and you dont try and ram it down my throat then fill your boots.

I personally dont, but l dont look down on those who do.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

Fatstuff:3489086 said:


> Ooh what a lovely thread, jah bless!!


Rastafari know!

Ras praise living man Haile Selassie the conquering lion of the tribe of Juda

Fire Fi bun, cleanse and purify

I and I is god ah di ert

Judgement


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

> yes i me nuh see god. Dey say you only fi serv him in a spirit an in truth... but you can't see him! A him a heaven dem say. An wer heaven supposed to be? Dem say, 'up a cloud'. 'Up a sky'! So... god up a sky... an you go serve him... an him no seen!! Me go look in me self an me say, 'dat a rubbish!' You wan to serve someone an you no see him? So you wouldn't know him! CHA!!!
> 
> yuh zimee @Fatstuff :lol:


A long time mi seeet


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

In all seriousness religion will be a thing of the past in years to come, not in our time but maybe in the next thousand years! Well..... that is if we don't all die in December this year:rolleye:


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

User Name said:


> It seems most (Christians at least) people at church these days are pretty old...........
> 
> The good thing is, it's never too late for religion - so if anyone is worried about 'what lies beyond' just start going to church when you get into your coffin dodger' years. It's a win, win situation!! God forgives. :thumb:
> 
> ...


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

google tough talk. a bunch of ex bodybuilders n powerlifters, now christians. the bible was changed niv etc so we didnt have to read it in arabic,greek its translated for us to understand,


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ianjay said:


> google tough talk. a bunch of ex bodybuilders n powerlifters, now christians. the bible was changed niv etc so we didnt have to read it in arabic,greek its translated for us to understand,


Ex BBers and PLers are Christian?? Sold, where did I put that bible


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

Jesus was a Rasta


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

This thread should continue & be moderated by us, by that I mean let's be 'sensible' about it & not start a scrap.

Try reading up on the Sumerians, that'l make your head spin.

Ok then, so god doesn't exist (not a fact, or a statement of truth), but what about spirituality?

Organic lifeforms aren't machines, they must be run by some sort of force? (please don't bring jedi into this)


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)




----------



## Ackee&amp;Saltfish (Mar 18, 2011)

Breda said:


> Jesus was a Rasta




:whistling:


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

So did he smoke herb?


----------



## DianabolLecter (Sep 9, 2012)

Milky said:


> Have l logged on to UK muscle here or some mad cult ?


you spelt cult wrong ;-)


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

DianabolLecter said:


> you spelt cult wrong ;-)


I missed the N.


----------



## DianabolLecter (Sep 9, 2012)

Milky said:


> I missed the N.


you got it ! ;-)


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

> View attachment 95004
> 
> 
> :whistling:


Hahaha I'm reppin for that



latblaster:3489349 said:


> So did he smoke herb?


Hell yea... So did Moses... The burning bush... The only reason it started talkin is cos he was high :rolleye:


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Breda said:


> Hahaha I'm reppin for that
> 
> Hell yea... So did Moses... The burning bush... The only reason it started talkin is cos he was high :rolleye:


Lol


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

if jesus didnt exist and its all nonsense. isnt it intresting 2000+years later he is still causing people to talk and have debates about someone who didnt exist.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

> View attachment 95004
> 
> 
> :whistling:


He's even got those blacknetics


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ianjay said:


> if jesus didnt exist and its all nonsense. isnt it intresting 2000+years later he is still causing people to talk and have debates about someone who didnt exist.


Lol, what silly logic! Jesus did exist anyway, he was just a very clever con man and his mom was a slag!


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)

ianjay said:


> if jesus didnt exist and its all nonsense. isnt it intresting 2000+years later he is still causing people to talk and have debates about someone who didnt exist.


Imagine if there was UK Muscle then what page would be on now??


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol, what silly logic! Jesus did exist anyway, he was just a very clever con man and his mom was a slag!


ok point taken. meanwhile we will keep on respecting muslims views and watch what happens. i will shut up now


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol, what silly logic! Jesus did exist anyway, he was just a very clever con man and his mom was a slag!


Where's Jeremy Kyle when u need him, eh!

So we asked the 'Virgin' Marry 3 questions about the immaculate conception of her son Jesus,

And the results are,

WELL,WELL,WELL

She's a dirty little liar!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Dinosaurs? the bible doesn't state they exist, and apparently we where created in the garden of EDEN, I'm lost? how can this all be true if evolution is proven scientifically?
> 
> *With all due respect, who says evolution is proven? It's still a theory, but it gets taught as fact in schools, which is just as bad as blind dogma. IMO it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does religion.*
> 
> ...


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

a good sensible answer, about time


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ianjay said:


> ok point taken. meanwhile we will keep on respecting muslims views and watch what happens. i will shut up now


Lol wtf does that mean? I hate all religions equally, Islam is just as bad as the rest IMO. The only difference is that Christianity has moved forward more and don't take it as literally.


----------



## Gorgeous_George (Apr 22, 2012)

Judaism. Islam, Christianity all middle eastern myths, along with all the rest


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol wtf does that mean? I hate all religions equally, Islam is just as bad as the rest IMO. The only difference is that Christianity has moved forward more and don't take it as literally.


Not sure about that. Opus Dei the business section of Catholicism & is quite nasty, despite the front. But a bit more subtle. It's a cult, but denied by the vatican.

Which incidentally, is the richest religion with wealth of around $15 billion. While some catholic south americans live in poverty!!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Gorgeous_George said:


> Judaism. Islam, Christianity all middle eastern myths, along with all the rest


Don't bite the hand that fed you imo lol. Our society is pretty much based on the ten commandments. The reason most people think stealing is wrong, and murder etc, is down to this teaching being a foundation years ago in our society. We also wouldn't have hospitals without christianity, they pioneered it. same goes with slavery. We take a lot for granted that these 'mythical' religions have done for us.


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

im pulling out of this debate:confused1: it is uk muscle isnt it? im gona put me sandles on and go to the gym lol. on a serious note though it is only a debate and we all have our beleifs, but thats just mine. sorry if ive offended anyone


----------



## switch (Jan 5, 2011)

Out of interest who has read the bible? I have its a great book!


----------



## Gorgeous_George (Apr 22, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Don't bite the hand that fed you imo lol. Our society is pretty much based on the ten commandments. The reason most people think stealing is wrong, and murder etc, is down to this teaching being a foundation years ago in our society. We also wouldn't have hospitals without christianity, they pioneered it. same goes with slavery. We take a lot for granted that these 'mythical' religions have done for us.


its called knowing right from wrong m8, and im sure without christianity, people would have a come up with the idea of a hospital, and just because the people who done these things where christian doesnt mean christianity itself done anything


----------



## QUEST (Sep 26, 2009)

wish the rule of pics or bullsh!t was out 2000 years a go .....there deffo wouldn't of been a book of sh!te doing its round brain washing cnuts


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

switch:3489519 said:


> Out of interest who has read the bible? I have its a great book!


I have had it read to me from baby to 18 and I have to disagree it bore the **** outa me

Now Jesus to nazereth... Crackin box set


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

ok i got a question, why do the people who dont believe in religeon have more of a problem then people who do? all the threads created on religeon are created by people who dont believe and have a problem with people who do forcing religous views down there throat, BUT ive never ever came across a thread on here where a religeous person has done that, the only threads i see created on religeon are by the people who dont believe in it saying how theyre sick of religous people and there ideolistic views? so technically the people on this board who dont believe in religeon start more problems then the people who do! :confused1: or is it just me who has realised this


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Breda said:


> I have had it read to me from baby to 18 and I have to disagree it bore the **** outa me
> 
> Now Jesus to nazereth... Crackin box set


Did these teachings assist you or did you use AAS?


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Gorgeous_George said:


> its called knowing right from wrong m8, and im sure without christianity, people would have a come up with the idea of a hospital, and just because the people who done these things where christian doesnt mean christianity itself done anything


of course it does. Christians ARE Christianity!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

zack amin said:


> ok i got a question, why do the people who dont believe in religeon have more of a problem then people who do? all the threads created on religeon are created by people who dont believe and have a problem with people who do forcing religous views down there throat, BUT ive never ever came across a thread on here where a religeous person has done that, the only threads i see created on religeon are by the people who dont believe in it saying how theyre sick of religous people and there ideolistic views? so technically the people on this board who dont believe in religeon start more problems then the people who do! :confused1: or is it just me who has realised this


good point, well made


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

biglbs:3489558 said:


> Did these teachings assist you or did you use AAS?


AAS have assisted immensely but would have been nothin if I did not have the foundation and knowledge based on these teachings


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Breda said:


> AAS have assisted immensely but would have been nothin if I did not have the foundation and knowledge based on these teachings


For power is nothing without control Luke 2;2:thumb:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

zack amin said:


> ok i got a question, why do the people who dont believe in religeon have more of a problem then people who do? all the threads created on religeon are created by people who dont believe and have a problem with people who do forcing religous views down there throat, BUT ive never ever came across a thread on here where a religeous person has done that, the only threads i see created on religeon are by the people who dont believe in it saying how theyre sick of religous people and there ideolistic views? so technically the people on this board who dont believe in religeon start more problems then the people who do! :confused1: or is it just me who has realised this


We dont have a problem per se.We (non-believers)just find it perplexing, how otherwise rational people can be so stupid.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

essexboy said:


> We dont have a problem per se.We (non-believers)just find it perplexing, how otherwise rational people can be so stupid.


i think thats the difference, people with religeon are at peace they dont judge you for the majority! there happy in there beliefs im happy in my religeon and my belief, but people without religeon are always judging and well how you put it perplexed as to how rational people can be stupid, but for the majority they dont bother you, they have no quarrel with you, they or we have inner peace, most of these threads wich have been closed and i admit ive been involved in a good few again have been people without religeon picking at people who do for being trouble makers, whereas it isnt, they arent


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

zack amin said:


> ok i got a question, why do the people who dont believe in religeon have more of a problem then people who do? all the threads created on religeon are created by people who dont believe and have a problem with people who do forcing religous views down there throat, BUT ive never ever came across a thread on here where a religeous person has done that, the only threads i see created on religeon are by the people who dont believe in it saying how theyre sick of religous people and there ideolistic views? so technically the people on this board who dont believe in religeon start more problems then the people who do! :confused1: or is it just me who has realised this


I've never thought of it like this tbh. You do find that on this forum at least people try to push others away from religion, rather than the religious pushing people toward religion. People also tend to get very abusive calling believers stupid and what not, if it was the other way around they'd get negged to death probably.

I'm not religious personally but doesn't mean I think I am better than people who are


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

bodybuilding seems stupid to some people who dont understand it. when you do it makes sense. i said i was pulling out of this debate lol. but keep comin back


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

Shady45 said:


> I've never thought of it like this tbh. You do find that on this forum at least people try to push others away from religion, rather than the religious pushing people toward religion. People also tend to get very abusive calling believers stupid and what not, if it was the other way around they'd get negged to death probably.
> 
> I'm not religious personally but doesn't mean I think I am better than people who are


BINGO good post mate, tbh i didnt even think about until i realised literally just before i posted it


----------



## StillTraining (May 7, 2012)

What do non religious people believe about why we exist and what we are doing here?


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

why is that alot of non christian countries r in turmoil? christianity works


----------



## switch (Jan 5, 2011)

ianjay said:


> why is that alot of non christian countries r in turmoil? christianity works


Because they dont have in this order:

1. Porn

2. bacon

3. Bars with beer and bacon butties

4. Porn


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

switch:3489631 said:


> Because they dont have in this order:
> 
> 1. Porn
> 
> ...


You forgot... In any order:

Alcohol

Drugs

Strippers

Night clubs

Liberty... To watch porn


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

zack amin said:


> i think thats the difference, people with religeon are at peace they dont judge you for the majority! there happy in there beliefs im happy in my religeon and my belief, but people without religeon are always judging and well how you put it perplexed as to how rational people can be stupid, but for the majority they dont bother you, they have no quarrel with you, they or we have inner peace, most of these threads wich have been closed and i admit ive been involved in a good few again have been people without religeon picking at people who do for being trouble makers, whereas it isnt, they arent


Spot on!


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

zack amin said:


> ok i got a question, why do the people who dont believe in religeon have more of a problem then people who do? all the threads created on religeon are created by people who dont believe and have a problem with people who do forcing religous views down there throat, BUT ive never ever came across a thread on here where a religeous person has done that, the only threads i see created on religeon are by the people who dont believe in it saying how theyre sick of religous people and there ideolistic views? so technically the people on this board who dont believe in religeon start more problems then the people who do! :confused1: or is it just me who has realised this


Again, spot on!


----------



## DianabolLecter (Sep 9, 2012)

if god didnt exist, man would create him !


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

I hate these debates as they are usually met with straw man arguments or ad hominem retorts.

I know that the magic guy in the sky didn't create us as it's an extremely absurd concept - religious people, that is my opinion, I'm open minded explain how in your opinion it is not?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

zack amin said:


> i think thats the difference, people with religeon are at peace they dont judge you for the majority! there happy in there beliefs im happy in my religeon and my belief, but people without religeon are always judging and well how you put it perplexed as to how rational people can be stupid, but for the majority they dont bother you, they have no quarrel with you, they or we have inner peace, most of these threads wich have been closed and i admit ive been involved in a good few again have been people without religeon picking at people who do for being trouble makers, whereas it isnt, they arent


Aye, those religious peace makers cause no troubles, wars or terror!


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> I hate these debates as they are usually met with straw man arguments or ad hominem retorts.
> 
> I know that the magic guy in the sky didn't create us as it's an extremely absurd concept - religious people, that is my opinion, I'm open minded explain how in your opinion it is not?


but thats excactly my point, i believe in god, but id never put you on the spot like that and call your belief stupid, ideoligcal, i mean im open minded i dont care what you believe, because i know what i believe, why does my belief cause so many people to bombard me with questions and demoralise my faith? isnt it enough that i dont bother you? or anyone else on this board, i dont offend anyone with a different religeon or view point, but constantly reading thread by people without religeon blaming religeon and basically making people out to be living in a fairy tale


----------



## GreedyBen (Mar 8, 2011)

We should get Reverend X on here to help us out with our discussion on this atheist forum :lol:


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

why is it that people all over the world for thousands of years, have prayed to a higher power? despite to which god they r praying too.it isnt because the next man does.im talking about people in remote parts of the world. it comes from somewhere.or is it by chance?


----------



## DianabolLecter (Sep 9, 2012)

If you hear voices, talk to an invisible friend then your classed as insane.

unless you call it religion ;-)


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

zack amin said:


> but thats excactly my point, i believe in god, but id never put you on the spot like that and call your belief stupid, ideoligcal, i mean im open minded i dont care what you believe, because i know what i believe, why does my belief cause so many people to bombard me with questions and demoralise my faith? isnt it enough that i dont bother you? or anyone else on this board, i dont offend anyone with a different religeon or view point, but constantly reading thread by people without religeon blaming religeon and basically making people out to be living in a fairy tale


OP started the thread and fcuked off lol. I just contributed as did you. These never end well tbh. But nothing passes the time like a good old fashioned debate. I don't mean anything mean or nasty, so don't take it that way.

I do find it slightly offensive to the human race though that people (not u) think that without religion we wouldn't know right from wrong, that's just daft. I like to think i do right because I'm a good person, not because we've had years of threat from a higher power.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> OP started the thread and fcuked off lol. I just contributed as did you. These never end well tbh. But nothing passes the time like a good old fashioned debate. I don't mean anything mean or nasty, so don't take it that way.
> 
> I do find it slightly offensive to the human race though that people (not u) think that without religion we wouldn't know right from wrong, that's just daft. I like to think i do right because I'm a good person, not because we've had years of threat from a higher power.


no mate i totally understand a debate is a debate, no offence taken either way, but for me i do believe people know the difference between right and wrong, but i did used to do alot of wrong, selling drugs, alchohol and so on, things im not proud of, religeon has always given me a consciounce and i think without it, i wouldve still been doing alot of wrong so in that sence im happy about it, youd be surpised the amount of people who do wrong because they arent good people, well you wouldnt be suprised im sure you know aswell as i do


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> OP started the thread and fcuked off lol. I just contributed as did you. These never end well tbh. But nothing passes the time like a good old fashioned debate. I don't mean anything mean or nasty, so don't take it that way.
> 
> I do find it slightly offensive to the human race though that people (not u) think that without religion we wouldn't know right from wrong, that's just daft. I like to think i do right because I'm a good person, not because we've had years of threat from a higher power.


its all good fun lol ive never spent so much time on a thread


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ianjay said:


> why is it that people all over the world for thousands of years, have prayed to a higher power? despite to which god they r praying too.it isnt because the next man does.im talking about people in remote parts of the world. it comes from somewhere.or is it by chance?


Are u asking the question? Or will u be offended.

They did/do because they know no better and people have a need to understand 'why'.

We are more socially and economically evolved to actually begin finding out why we are the way we are and where we come from etc.

Back in the day or in less evolved places people haven't got that knowledge or technology and believe all that they have ever believed.


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

i wont be offended at all its passing otherwise a boring night in for me, but as a christian, i have to try and defend it otherwise i wouldnt be a true beleiver.for me i have a lot more peace in my life.thats worth more than anything. that may seem strange to you? but like say alot of things people dont understand seem strange


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ianjay said:


> i wont be offended at all its passing otherwise a boring night in for me, but as a christian, i have to try and defend it otherwise i wouldnt be a true beleiver.for me i have a lot more peace in my life.thats worth more than anything. that may seem strange to you? but like say alot of things people dont understand seem strange


I don't even open these threads unless I'm at work lol it really does pass the time.

Do u not think u would be peaceful without your religion?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

I live in fear,,,,,,,,,,fookin wife would skin me if i sinned#1!


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

i was was allways chasing dreams. money fast cars, etc etc it was never enough, but in a way i thought thats what life was all about and it made me always restless,cause nothing,no amount of money was gona make me at peace with myself. christianity did. its hard to explain


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

i was was allways chasing dreams. money fast cars, etc etc it was never enough, but in a way i thought thats what life was all about and it made me always restless,cause nothing,no amount of money was gona make me at peace with myself. christianity did. its hard to explain. i know i will allways be chasing a perfect body. i can cope with that though


----------



## dannydean07 (Jun 14, 2012)

IMO Science is trying to disprove religion and religion is trying to disprove science, If im honest its all sun worship rising from the east and all that bs, but each to their own, but people co-existed quite peacefully until they decided to have different pictures of the same man.


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

anyway im off. deffo this time,shameless is on. thanks for a good debate.even if the kid who started it is probably fast asleep lol


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

For me I simply believe in individual responsibility... if people want to be kind and compassionate, generous, humble, loving, respectful of the liberty of others then they will find those values in any belief system placed in front of them when they are ready to... if however they want to find justifications to enforce their will on to others then they will also find that in whatever belief system they find in front of them, and I think religion is a perfect example of something vague enough to allow for both... different people get different things from it, and what each person gets reflects themselves more than the religion itself. Same with differing political philosophies.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> For me I simply believe in individual responsibility... if people want to be kind and compassionate, generous, humble, loving, respectful of the liberty of others then they will find those values in any belief system placed in front of them when they are ready to... if however they want to find justifications to enforce their will on to others then they will also find that in whatever belief system they find in front of them, and I think religion is a perfect example of something vague enough to allow for both... different people get different things from it, and what each person gets reflects themselves more than the religion itself. Same with differing political philosophies.


Left wing hippy :rolleye:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

zack amin said:


> but thats excactly my point, i believe in god, but id never put you on the spot like that and call your belief stupid, ideoligcal, i mean im open minded i dont care what you believe, because i know what i believe, why does my belief cause so many people to bombard me with questions and demoralise my faith? isnt it enough that i dont bother you? or anyone else on this board, i dont offend anyone with a different religeon or view point, but constantly reading thread by people without religeon blaming religeon and basically making people out to be living in a fairy tale


We dont have a "belief" thats the point.So you can not attack us, only judge us.We believe in science.If you want to dismiss science then fine.However, that would also mean dismissing, the air in your lungs, and the PEDS coursing through your veins.The problem with religion, is that "believers" choose whats convienient, and dismiss what they dont need.

Ive yet to see a car carsh victim, refuse pain killers, because his god will stop his pain.

You can either beleive in science or not.Just taking random parts, and not accepting it as a complete discipline doesnt work,


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

essexboy said:


> We dont have a "belief" thats the point.So you can not attack us, only judge us.We believe in science.If you want to dismiss science then fine.However, that would also mean dismissing, the air in your lungs, and the PEDS coursing through your veins.The problem with religion, is that "believers" choose whats convienient, and dismiss what they dont need.
> 
> Ive yet to see a car carsh victim, refuse pain killers, because his god will stop his pain.
> 
> You can either beleive in science or not.Just taking random parts, and not accepting it as a complete discipline doesnt work,


Your talking about the same people who take the convenient parts of their religion and interpret it to suit current social convention lol

There I go again :lol:


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

10 pages?! Guys.... You started without me? :sad:


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Was too early for u lol


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> Was too early for u lol


I've just had a quick browse, thrown around a few likes, refrained from a few negs because I'm not that much of a **** :001_tt2:

Must say though Essex has made a brilliant point. Moderates are ****ing hilarious characters....

"I support the [insert religious text] apart from this page, that page, this verse, the 2nd half of that book, the first 3 pages of this chapter, the entirety of that chapter, 4 verses from the middle of that page, 10 pages from the middle, oh and that bit at the start of that book and the second line of that verse" **** me what a dedicated, devout fellow you are your god must love you!


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I've just had a quick browse, thrown around a few likes, refrained from a few negs because I'm not that much of a **** :001_tt2:
> 
> Must say though Essex has made a brilliant point. Moderates are ****ing hilarious characters....
> 
> "I support the [insert religious text] apart from this page, that page, this verse, the 2nd half of that book, the first 3 pages of this chapter, the entirety of that chapter, 4 verses from the middle of that page, 10 pages from the middle, oh and that bit at the start of that book and the second line of that verse" **** me what a dedicated, devout fellow you are your god must love you!


Stubbornness and pride will not allow people to go against everything they believe in no matter how much evidence is in front of them. Ugly traits but I for one can relate fully to both of them.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> Stubbornness and pride will not allow people to go against everything they believe in no matter how much evidence is in front of them. Ugly traits but I for one can relate fully to both of them.


Secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance are the only 2 ingredients you need for religious moderation. In many ways they are more laughable and cringe-worthy than the "extremists" we always hear about. As mentally deranged as "extremists" may be you have to hand to them they really follow their books to the letter. Moderates equate to little more than half-assed, part-timers they are suddenly Christian, Jewish, Muslim or what ever else when it benefits them.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance are the only 2 ingredients you need for religious moderation. In many ways they are more laughable and cringe-worthy than the "extremists" we always hear about. As mentally deranged as "extremists" may be you have to hand to them they really follow their books to the letter. Moderates equate to little more than half-assed, part-timers they are suddenly Christian, Jewish, Muslim or what ever else when it benefits them.


Lol that's a bit unfair, I think for the most part people have had this sugar coated apologetic religious nonsense drummed into them from a young age for so long that they refuse to believe otherwise, in fact in their circles it would be frowned upon to believe any different. So although they may not practice the religion as such and certainly don't take it as 'gospel'  it's been deeply programmed into them over years and for them to believe otherwise would mean everything they have known is a lie and nobody wants to admit that to themselves.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol that's a bit unfair, I think for the most part people have had this sugar coated apologetic religious nonsense drummed into them from a young age for so long that they refuse to believe otherwise, in fact in their circles it would be frowned upon to believe any different. So although they may not practice the religion as such and certainly don't take it as 'gospel'  it's been deeply programmed into them over years and for them to believe otherwise would mean everything they have known is a lie and nobody wants to admit that to themselves.


"I'm Muslim but I don't really pray, I've never read the Quran, I've never read the Hadiths, I've never been in a mosque, I don't fast, I don't have a ****ing clue when Ramadan is, I quite like bacon, I've never been on pilgrimage, no idea what that big black stone is called, I love a few pints, I've no idea how old my religion is but I'm still a Muslim respect my beliefs! Wha, wha, winge, winge, intolerant racist you're questioning things I have no ****ing idea about myself leave me and my religion of peace that I know absolutely nothing about alone"

The creature above is a *Muslim Moderate * they come in Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu varieties too all equally as pitiful and amusing..


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Mighty.Panda said:


> "I'm Muslim but I don't really pray, I've never read the Quran, I've never read the Hadiths, I've never been in a mosque, I don't fast, I don't have a ****ing clue when Ramadan is, I quite like bacon, I've never been on pilgrimage, no idea what that big black stone is called, I love a few pints, I've no idea how old my religion is but I'm still a Muslim respect my beliefs! Wha, wha, winge, winge, intolerant racist you're questioning things I have no ****ing idea about myself leave me and my religion of peace that I know absolutely nothing about alone"
> 
> The creature above is a *Muslim Moderate * they come in Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu varieties too all equally as pitiful and amusing..


Lol, they are just a bit confused. Your a big meanie u r!!


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol, they are just a bit confused. Your a big meanie u r!!


I am a big meanie poo poo head


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Fundies/Literalists always seem to be the crazy unhinged ones, moderates (aka cherry-pickers) are the good ones. The moderates are more in-line with the evolved secular societies/morals/laws we've created over time, so the less of there particular holy book they take seriously leads them to be a more likeable and tolerable individual, weird that.

As for belief, it's not a choice more like an instinct or a culmination of our life's experiences. So it's pretty unfair if unbelievers are turned away at the pearly gates and sent to hell for something they had no choice in. It must nice to believe this life isn't the end and you'll see your family and friends again but unfortunately it's not an on/off switch and I can't force myself to believe.

Life will cease to exist in the universe at some point in the long distant future, if the universe continues expanding it will reach maximum entropy and all energy will run out and nothing can survive without an energy source. Inversly if the universe is spherical in shape and gravity pulled everything back into a single point another big bang could and happen and it could go on like that infinitely. Strange creation if this was all created by some deity.

God (the all encompassing unknowns) is science of the ancients, science in its current form doesn't have all the answers and may never have the answers to the big questions but look how far we've come in the past 200 years, the future could be very exciting but unfortunately we won't around to see what it holds. But who knows if humanity will even last the next 1000 years, religion will play its role that I'm sure of.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

essexboy said:


> We dont have a "belief" thats the point.So you can not attack us, only judge us.We believe in science.If you want to dismiss science then fine.However, that would also mean dismissing, the air in your lungs, and the PEDS coursing through your veins.The problem with religion, is that "believers" choose whats convienient, and dismiss what they dont need.
> 
> Ive yet to see a car carsh victim, refuse pain killers, because his god will stop his pain.
> 
> You can either beleive in science or not.Just taking random parts, and not accepting it as a complete discipline doesnt work,


Good grief, you really think that science can & does explain (or will) everything?

But in saying this I don't have time to attempt to expand my pov. However, try reading a little more about spirituality.

I have a very strong scientific background, but in the last few years have realised that "there is more to heaven & earth contained in your philosophy" Nelson

But then conversely, how can anything not have an organic basis, it doesn't just exist?


----------



## VeNuM (Aug 14, 2011)

what really went down 2000 years ago, video evidence below...


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

latblaster said:


> Good grief, you really think that science can & does explain (or will) everything?
> 
> But in saying this I don't have time to attempt to expand my pov. However, try reading a little more about spirituality.
> 
> ...


Lets assume science cannot explain everything.Does that mean, it automatically is explained by the existance of some, god who sits on a fluffy cloud with a beard? (or however you want to visualise a god)No it doesnt, it simply means, at this moment in time, there is no rational explanation, not that we must accept an irrational one.

Spirtuality. what does that mean exactly? If it refers to any religious subtext, then no i wont read anything about it thank you.I have Hans Christian Anderson, if I want to read fairy tales.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

MF88 said:


> Religion is the cause of 99% of the world's problems. Would be much better off without any of it.


What about greed and abuse of power? I think they might play a larger role then 1%.

I haven't read the whole of this thread but I find it interesting that it's been posted. I was thinking just the other day how it's becoming more and more acceptable in society to openly challenge and even insult religion. It wasn't long ago that a person would be chastised for it. I'm personally glad that people feel more able to openly challenge it and I credit Dawkins for his bold publications and documentaries; I do think he's influenced many people's stance on the subject.

I see science as fact and therefore doesn't require faith and I personally support Prof. Brian Cox's response to people believing in creationism; 'they're wrong'. I personally don't hold faith in much other than myself really and certainly do not have any faith in a religion. However, I have seen the value of faith for people who are in dire situations. I've seen people who have lost everything; their health, money, home, family, who have no one to love or support them and faith in religion has been what's given them the strength to keep going.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

essexboy said:


> Lets assume science cannot explain everything.Does that mean, it automatically is explained by the existance of some, god who sits on a fluffy cloud with a beard? (or however you want to visualise a god)No it doesnt, it simply means, at this moment in time, there is no rational explanation, not that we must accept an irrational one.
> 
> Spirtuality. what does that mean exactly? If it refers to any religious subtext, then no i wont read anything about it thank you.I have Hans Christian Anderson, if I want to read fairy tales.


Calm down love, I wrote that as a means to further discussion, not to say I'm right & you're wrong. 

But what you seem to be saying, is that there's only science & nothing else. I wonder, how you can know this?


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

Great read/thread so far, unfortunatly its not going to be long until the usual dimwits ruin it.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Mr_Morocco said:


> Great read/thread so far, unfortunatly its not going to be long until the usual dimwits ruin it.


Yea I reckon it could be a very good thread, but it'll get insulting before long then closed. I dunno, some people!! :confused1:


----------



## deec86 (Apr 7, 2012)

Hate all religion such bs if you want a nice fairy tale read Harry potter, if you want a good book buy Richard Dawkins, Christopher hicthens or Sam Harris then really question religion


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Evolution has been proven? and there was no ark, there was an ice age, not a 40days and nights of rain, so the first part of your justification on evolution porkchop has basically just been RAN....


----------



## -AC- (Jul 9, 2011)

does anyone ever watch the atheist experience videos on youtube? some of them are really good debates. of course there are also ones where religious morons just get spanked which are also quite funny.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

*With all due respect, who says evolution is proven? It's still a theory, but it gets taught as fact in schools, which is just as bad as blind dogma. IMO it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does religion.*

*The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. The Bible speaks about huge creatures called behemoths and leviathan, which correspond to dinosaurs. a lot of Christians believe they died in the flood, in other words God decided not to save their genetic pattern in the ark when he judged the world.*

*Evolution has been proven fact, it makes perfect sense, saying otherwise would be denial, science over a fairy tail, i think i know what i want to believe, and as for this flood you go on about? it never happened, theres also PROOF that it was an ICE AGE that caused everything to be wiped out, NOT, a flood, and theres also proof that a meteor hit, we've got evidence that proven this to us, so to go on saying that a man built a boat and took on each of every animal in the world on board his boat, its a little far fetched daft, and a little stupid to believe such nonsense, thats like believing in santa all over again for me.*

*Since we became smarter, more intelligent over years? why is there still belief in religion?*

*
*

*
Actually, this isn't quite true. If you look at the ancient languages, they are FAR more complex than anything we have today. Civilization has diluted, not been refined. If you study the Greek, Roman and Mesopotamian cultures you will see the truth of this.*

*Of course their language is going to be complex to us, its not like our own language is gonna seem complex to us is it? i mean, if in 2000years we forgot our old language this one right here and didn't no longer use these letters as a way to communicate we'd also be seen as HIGHLY complex, beyond belief, so that doesn't really make a difference, a language is just a language and a form of communication no matter how complex it is, so that doesn't mean they're of high intelligence like we are today? i mean... did they have the science we do today? could they cure illness? here man, they couldn't even cure leprosy, or make moving mobiles, so as far as complex is concerned, please....*


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

-AC- said:


> does anyone ever watch the atheist experience videos on youtube? some of them are really good debates. of course there are also ones where religious morons just get spanked which are also quite funny.


Im not sure if its the same channel or whatnot but the most annoying videos to watch on the subject are of kirk cameron and ray comfort, they just spout nonsense, pure nonsense, they are an absolute embarrassment to religious argument lol

Funny to watch from an atheists point of view though lol


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Katy said:


> What about greed and abuse of power? I think they might play a larger role then 1%.
> 
> I haven't read the whole of this thread but I find it interesting that it's been posted. I was thinking just the other day how it's becoming more and more acceptable in society to openly challenge and even insult religion. It wasn't long ago that a person would be chastised for it. I'm personally glad that people feel more able to openly challenge it and I credit Dawkins for his bold publications and documentaries; I do think he's influenced many people's stance on the subject.
> 
> I see science as fact and therefore doesn't require faith and I personally support Prof. Brian Cox's response to people believing in creationism; 'they're wrong'. I personally don't hold faith in much other than myself really and certainly do not have any faith in a religion. However, I have seen the value of faith for people who are in dire situations. I've seen people who have lost everything; their health, money, home, family, who have no one to love or support them and faith in religion has been what's given them the strength to keep going.


I like this post, greed and abuse of power is spot on, but it does fall hand in hand with religion, religion isnt the cause, its just the tool thats used.

also - nice avi katy


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

-AC- said:


> does anyone ever watch the atheist experience videos on youtube? some of them are really good debates. of course there are also ones where religious morons just get spanked which are also quite funny.


Check out 'the thinking atheist', different type of show but is very good.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

I'm not religious although I always find these types of debate "interesting" if kept civil. Lots of very emminent/intelligent people have beliefs as well as various theories (of which incidentally evolution is one). This site is quite interesting (in parts) minus the fact that these people are Christian's they are obviously intelligent people and some interesting articles for those interested. Fr the record I believe in some form of "intelligent" design although not a God in the sky type theory.

http://www.reasons.org/explore/type/todays-new-reason


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> I like this post, greed and abuse of power is spot on, but it does fall hand in hand with religion, religion isnt the cause, its just the tool thats used.
> 
> also - nice avi katy


Mmmm, I think that religion can be a driving force but I don't think it goes hand in hand. Greed for land, power and money is often a big fuel ... and that isn't about religion. Glad you like my avi though, and my post


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

I've never seen so many question marks in one post.

Are you the kinda guy who ends all sentences high pitched like an Australian or a dumb blonde American girl? Lol

This one time, at band camp...

Most people on here are not religious and a lot hate religion but it always makes the longest threads... Go figure.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> I've never seen so many question marks in one post.
> 
> Are you the kinda guy who ends all sentences high pitched like an Australian or a dumb blonde American girl? Lol
> 
> This one time, at band camp...


If thats aim'd at me then the end party was probably closer to the truth... i usually mimic my taste in women you see. (KIdding) prefer brunnettes who love cats, like air gutair, have nice curves, and their first name begins with K.

Shes two posts down, and shes friggin hot!


----------



## cudsyaj (Jul 5, 2011)

Religion is a load of sh!t put in place to manage peoples expectations and fears and explain the unexplainable etc.

No place in the modern world at all.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

An interesting article from the site link I posted

http://www.reasons.org/articles/intelligent-design-the-right-conclusion-but-the-wrong-reasons


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Katy said:


> Mmmm, I think that religion can be a driving force but I don't think it goes hand in hand. Greed for land, power and money is often a big fuel ... and that isn't about religion. Glad you like my avi though, and my post


Religion can also separate nations, although not the only driving force but definitely plays a role significant role.

Israel/Palestine

India/Pakistan

Ireland

Probably loads more.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Again not siding or defending either "corner" but surely its better to argue your case with sound reasoning rather than the its a load of bollox line as doesn't really give much credence to the person arguing "their case" lol.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

AceOfSpadez said:


> If thats aim'd at me then the end party was probably closer to the truth... i usually mimic my taste in women you see. (KIdding) prefer brunnettes who love cats, like air gutair, have nice curves, and their first name begins with K.
> 
> Shes two posts down, and shes friggin hot!


Am I being dense or have you just described me?


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Katy said:


> Am I being dense or have you just described me?


Hahahaha  took awhile.

Just a compliment, not being a whore. ^^


----------



## Sc4mp0 (Jun 17, 2012)

Katy said:


> Am I being dense or have you just described me?


Mind your head going through the door :lol:


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Hahahaha  took awhile.
> 
> Just a compliment, not being a whore. ^^


Smooth operator.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Hahahaha  took awhile.
> 
> Just a compliment, not being a whore. ^^


Ha ha...always nice to be complimented :blush:

Hope that isn't your girldfriend in your avi though...I doubt she'd be best pleased! :laugh:


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Katy said:


> Ha ha...always nice to be complimented :blush:
> 
> Hope that isn't your girldfriend in your avi though...I doubt she'd be best pleased! :laugh:


Yeah i changed my AVI just to remind me that i actually have a girlfriend after saying that  HAHAHHAA


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

AceOfSpadez said:


> If thats aim'd at me then the end party was probably closer to the truth... i usually mimic my taste in women you see. (KIdding) prefer brunnettes who love cats, like air gutair, have nice curves, and their first name begins with K.
> 
> Shes two posts down, and shes friggin hot!


Watch out mate...Lozza knows where you live!!!


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

latblaster said:


> Watch out mate...Lozza knows where you live!!!


Uh oh? whos lozza?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Uh oh? whos lozza?


Lorian - the administrator for this forum, lol Katy's man.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Yeah i changed my AVI just to remind me that i actually have a girlfriend after saying that  HAHAHHAA


You need reminding? Poor girl! :lol:

Sorry everyone else for going off topic...


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Lorian - the administrator for this forum, lol Katy's man.


Hahaha, bet hes build like rambo, and ex military, oh ****, am ****ed...

Ner man, don't be daft, when a mans woman is complimented its also his compliment, people tell me my girlfriends beautiful or attractive i find that as a compliment myself...


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Katy said:


> You need reminding? Poor girl! :lol:
> 
> Sorry everyone else for going off topic...


Am joking silly. hahaha :lol: figured i needed a change considering everyones been calling me gay since the whole empire incident, and the fact my display pic wasn't helping matters... P.S my other half was the reason that **** hit the fan, she raped my inbox and posted it on his wall.

Anyhow im fedup with this religious debate, its just well and truely pointless, they're either gonna believe or they ain't, and i know the truth at the end of the day so i don't care no more, just fedup with all the arguments it causes on national tv, and all the **** thats going on like hell mans and stuff.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

AceOfSpadez said:


> *Hahaha, bet hes build like rambo, and ex military*, oh ****, am ****ed...
> 
> Ner man, don't be daft, when a mans woman is complimented its also his compliment, people tell me my girlfriends beautiful or attractive i find that as a compliment myself...


No one really knows mate, but we do know he has the face of a tiger!

Some say he tackled and wrestled a tiger to the floor and killed it with his bare hands, hollowed out its head and wears it for anonymity, but this is all just speculation.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Ace...can you hear that loud knocking on your door?


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Hahaha, bet hes build like rambo, and ex military, oh ****, am ****ed...
> 
> Ner man, don't be daft, when a mans woman is complimented *its also his compliment*, people tell me my girlfriends beautiful or attractive i find that as a compliment myself...


That's how he sees it


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> No one really knows mate, but we do know he has the face of a tiger!
> 
> Some say he tackled and wrestled a tiger to the floor and killed it with his bare hands, hollowed out its head and wears it for anonymity, but this is all just speculation.


Then i'm calling liam neeson from the film TAKEN!


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Katy said:


> That's how he sees it


Figured he would. ^^


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

some say his biceps are bigger than a tree trunk and that he only shows himself on a full moon, all we know is he's called Lorian


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Mr_Morocco said:


> some say his biceps are bigger than a tree trunk and that he only shows himself on a full moon, all we know is he's called Lorian


Lorian yates should be his nick name then  LOL


----------



## Lorian (Apr 9, 2003)

Porkchop said:


> With all due respect, who says evolution is proven? It's still a theory


Evolution is not a theory.



Porkchop said:


> The fossil record doesn't prove evolution.


Yes it does - conclusively. That argument is decades out of date. You can literally go to museums and see the evidence for yourself if so inclined. Additionally, years of research looking at E. coli have shown evolution occurs under stringent lab conditions. Sure people refuse to look at the evidence and then deny it exists, but that's just ignorance, not an argument.



Porkchop said:


> I did *a diploma in religious studies*, I studied the big six religions in depth and came to respect how much evidence there was to support the Christian faith


Well that won't have been biased will it ...


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Mr_Morocco said:


> some say his biceps are bigger than a tree trunk and that he only shows himself on a full moon, all we know is he's called Lorian


Some say he's the father of Chuck Norris and that he will decide when judgement day is.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OH SH!T HE'S HERE!!


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

Lorian said:


> Evolution is not a theory.
> 
> Yes it does - conclusively. That argument is decades out of date. You can literally go to museums and see the evidence for yourself if so inclined. Additionally, years of research looking at E. coli have shown evolution occurs under stringent lab conditions. Sure many people refuse to look at the evidence and then deny it exists, but that's just ignorance, not an argument.
> 
> Well that won't have been biased will it ...


Took your time on arrival now didn't you? lol, and well said.

- - - Updated - - -



F.M.J said:


> Some say he's the father of Chuck Norris and that he will decide when judgement day is.
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OH SH!T HE'S HERE!!


LMAOOO, god i love chuck norris.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

AceOfSpadez said:


> Took your time on arrival now didn't you? lol, and well said.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> LMAOOO, god i love chuck norris.


You should watch Expendables 2 mate, hilarious in parts, especially when Chuck Norris is on scene! I was proper giddy watching that lol.


----------



## AceOfSpadez (May 6, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> You should watch Expendables 2 mate, hilarious in parts, especially when Chuck Norris is on scene! I was proper giddy watching that lol.


HAHAHAHA YEAH i seen it, i was creased, hes a 1man army, hahahahha the lone wolf. hes my idol that bloke


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

AceOfSpadez said:


> HAHAHAHA YEAH i seen it, i was creased, hes a 1man army, hahahahha the lone wolf. hes my idol that bloke


I was like a kid in a candy shop when they were all on scene together. And the part where Bruce Willis says "I'll be back" then Arny says "Yipikaye" lol.

Me and the wife were talking for ages trying to think of who else they could have had in the movie but couldn't think of anyone really other than Clint Eastwood.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

AceOfSpadez said:


> *With all due respect, who says evolution is proven? It's still a theory, but it gets taught as fact in schools, which is just as bad as blind dogma. IMO it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does religion.*
> 
> *The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. The Bible speaks about huge creatures called behemoths and leviathan, which correspond to dinosaurs. a lot of Christians believe they died in the flood, in other words God decided not to save their genetic pattern in the ark when he judged the world.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Lorian said:


> Evolution is not a theory.
> 
> Yes it does - conclusively. That argument is decades out of date. You can literally go to museums and see the evidence for yourself if so inclined. Additionally, years of research looking at E. coli have shown evolution occurs under stringent lab conditions. Sure people refuse to look at the evidence and then deny it exists, but that's just ignorance, not an argument.
> 
> Well that won't have been biased will it ...


Then why is it called the 'theory of evolution' lol. You forget what science actually is. It involves a theory, then testing that premise with experiments. it is an ongoing process, which needs to be constantly looked at because new evidence comes up all the time which refutes what was earlier taken for granted. Take the genetic code for example. Scientists didn't believe in it at all until discoveries were made last century.

And yes, of course my view well be biased, just like yours will be! That doesn't make what I say unbelievable. That's like saying a scientist hasn't got anything relevant to say to this because he did a diploma in evolutionary science!


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Just a thought Katy..Lorian made an excellent post (not creeping) & you gave him a 'like'.

Have you ever negged him.....on here I mean!!!


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> Then why is it called the 'theory of evolution' lol. You forget what science actually is. It involves a theory, then testing that premise with experiments. it is an ongoing process, which needs to be constantly looked at because new evidence comes up all the time which refutes what was earlier taken for granted. Take the genetic code for example. Scientists didn't believe in it at all until discoveries were made last century.
> 
> And yes, of course my view well be biased, just like yours will be! That doesn't make what I say unbelievable. That's like saying a scientist hasn't got anything relevant to say to this because he did a diploma in evolutionary science!


'Theory' is understood differently by creationists and scientists so you're not actually speaking the same language.



latblaster said:


> Just a thought Katy..Lorian made an excellent post (not creeping) & you gave him a 'like'.
> 
> Have you ever negged him.....on here I mean!!!


Nope. He's not the kind of person to write anything that would warrent it to be honest. Even if I don't agree with something he writes he never launches personal attacks or anything.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Porkchop said:


> Then why is it called the 'theory of evolution' lol. You forget what science actually is. It involves a theory, then testing that premise with experiments. it is an ongoing process, which needs to be constantly looked at because new evidence comes up all the time which refutes what was earlier taken for granted. Take the genetic code for example. Scientists didn't believe in it at all until discoveries were made last century.
> 
> And yes, of course my view well be biased, just like yours will be! That doesn't make what I say unbelievable. That's like saying a scientist hasn't got anything relevant to say to this because he did a diploma in evolutionary science!


Evolution and the theory of evolution are separate things. Evolution of a species can, and has been observed... therefore it is fact. The theory of evolution is the theory of why it happens, which is backed up by considerable evidence.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> Then why is it called the 'theory of evolution' lol. You forget what science actually is. It involves a theory, then testing that premise with experiments. it is an ongoing process, which needs to be constantly looked at because new evidence comes up all the time which refutes what was earlier taken for granted. Take the genetic code for example. Scientists didn't believe in it at all until discoveries were made last century.
> 
> And yes, of course my view well be biased, just like yours will be! That doesn't make what I say unbelievable. That's like saying a scientist hasn't got anything relevant to say to this because he did a diploma in evolutionary science!


This is the funny thing about atheists and theists, atheists HAVE to explain and prove everything in extreme detail, missing nothing out, cant explain 99%, cant have any holes whatsoever otherwise its bollox, doesnt matter that there is zero proof that god exists, u believe anyway.


----------



## Lorian (Apr 9, 2003)

Porkchop said:


> evolution hasn't been proven fact at all. People take it as fact and forget that most of the top scientists sol regard it as a theory.


Now you're just making things up. Top scientists do not regard evolution as a theory. That's simply nonsense.



Porkchop said:


> Carbon dating is unreliable, a teddy bear was fossilized by a certain process twenty years ago, and when it was carbon dated the test started it was a hundred thousand years old!


Carbon dating may not be accurate but radioactive clocks are (they average a 1% margin or error.)



Porkchop said:


> There are some really good studies by top scientists who also have faith, looking into the concept of intelligent design etc.


Nature is littered with examples which disprove 'Intelligent Design'. They show mistakes which simply wouldn't be there if there was an intelligent designer but they have occurred as a result of evolution For example (one of MANY), the tube that carries semen from the testes to the penis is not direct. It take a ridiculous detour around the ureter first. This is a result of evolution, when the testes descended into the scrotum this tube got hooked the wrong way around the ureter and we've been stuck with this 'design' ever since.



Porkchop said:


> There is no concrete proof of evolution between species





Porkchop said:


> And you never see a change from species to species on natural selection, i.e from bird to fish, or monkey to horse.





Porkchop said:


> Scientists, even atheists will have to admit that the fossil record does not show any stages of a species evolving into a completely different species. It just doesn't happen.


Those last 3 comments show that you do not understand evolution and have never so much as made any effort to read any information on the topic.

You are bandying about the same old incorrect nonsense which is outdated, biased and quite simply, wrong.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Katy said:


> 'Theory' is understood differently by creationists and scientists so you're not actually speaking the same language.
> 
> Nope. He's not the kind of person to write anything that would warrent it to be honest. Even if I don't agree with something he writes *he never launches personal attacks or anything*.


Maybe I should take that back :lol:

- - - Updated - - -



2004mark said:


> Evolution and the theory of evolution are separate things. Evolution of a species can, and has been observed... therefore it is fact. The theory of evolution is the theory of why it happens, which is backed up by considerable evidence.


That's what I meant. You smart @rse explained it better! :laugh:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

2004mark said:


> Evolution and the theory of evolution are separate things. Evolution of a species can, and has been observed... therefore it is fact. The theory of evolution is the theory of why it happens, which is backed up by considerable evidence.


It hasn't been observed. It's only been supposed from trying to piece together a fossilized jigsaw, which has been inconsistent and false. The missing link is still missing! There is no observable evidence of evolution that crosses the species gap, ONLY of evolution within a species itself, but they still remain the same species. If you do actually observe it, feel free to tell the newspapers as you would no doubt make a lot of money.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> It hasn't been observed. It's only been supposed from trying to piece together a fossilized jigsaw, which has been inconsistent and false. The missing link is still missing! There is no observable evidence of evolution that crosses the species gap, ONLY of evolution within a species itself, but they still remain the same species. If you do actually observe it, feel free to tell the newspapers as you would no doubt make a lot of money.


LOL u sound like this bellend


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Lorian said:


> Now you're just making things up. Top scientists do not regard evolution as a theory. That's simply nonsense.
> 
> Carbon dating may not be accurate but radioactive clocks are (they average a 1% margin or error.)
> 
> ...


I understand evolution quite well, probably more than you understand religion.

Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive

decay of another element) atoms; 5 5

2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and

3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.

If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any "dates" are false.

The potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating method is often used to date volcanic rocks (and by extension, nearby fossils). In using this method, it is assumed that there

was no daughter radiogenic argon ( 40 Ar*) in rocks when they formed. For volcanic rocks which cool from molten lavas, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Because argon is a gas, it should escape to the atmosphere due to the intense heat of the lavas. Of course, no geologist was present to test this assumption by observing ancient lavas when they cooled, but we can study modern lava flows.

Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996-two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche

deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow 7 > (Figure 6). The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone. All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged, clinkery surfaces.

The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating-first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June

1954 flow. 7 To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.

Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K-Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K-Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.

The "dates" obtained from the K-Ar analyses are listed in Table 1. 7 The "ages" range from 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25-50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded "ages" of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave "ages" of millions of years. The low "age" samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct "date", but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct "age" if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!

Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K-Ar "ages" are due to "excess" argon inherited from the magma source

area deep in the earth.7 Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of

"normal" 40 Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40 Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent

40 K. This violates assumption (1) of radioactive dating, and so the K-Ar method fails the test. This same failure

is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics 8 and ancient crustal rocks. 9

Conclusions

The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory's K-Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield "ages" up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same "dating" method on rocks whose ages we don't know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?

Your argument is outdated, people that argue evolution just say the same things


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

well copy and pasted from here

http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

And Porkchop goes straight to the top of the class!!!! :bounce:

Was a good post tho mate!

Bloody hell you fooled me. Minus 10 for cheating!!

I feel violated now...


----------



## Lorian (Apr 9, 2003)

Porkchop said:


> It hasn't been observed.


Yes it has. Conclusively in labs with bacteria. There was even a program on it last week literally showing bacteria evolve a resistance to antibiotics. Studies have also shown E. coli randomly evolving to survive depending on food source.



Porkchop said:


> The missing link is still missing!


For a start, evolution is a proven fact even without fossils. The fossils that we do have substantiate and support it - they do not disprove it.

There is no missing link, simply making that statement once again highlights your lack of knowledge in this area.

I'm not trying to be rude but you seem to have very little understanding about what evolution actually is, how it occurs and the evidence supporting it.

If you want to hold a different belief then fine, but at least make some effort to understand what it is you are arguing against so that you can make an informed judgement.

Copying and pasting from a biased website doesn't count.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> I understand evolution quite well, probably more than you understand religion.
> 
> Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
> 
> ...


^^Copy and pasted from here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating... is it really your own understanding or just that you've read the link and found it convincing because it supports your belief system?

Am not sure how identifying possible issues in radioactive dating (only one of several methods for dating) disproves evolutionary science? Fossil evidence is only a small part of evolutionary science anyway, the process is observed in many other ways.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

No, I use answers in Genesis website it's very good.

So what is that supposed to prove? That I use the internet? Many people do you know.

It does amaze me how people that have faith based beliefs in arguments like these tend not to resort to calling people bellends or something derisive. I'm entitled to my opinion. I've done a lot of research on it. Who cares if it's different to yours?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> ^^Copy and pasted from here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating... is it really your own understanding or just that you've read the link and found it convincing because it supports your belief system?
> 
> Am not sure how identifying possible issues in radioactive dating (only one of several methods for dating) disproves evolutionary science? Fossil evidence is only a small part of evolutionary science anyway, the process is observed in many other ways.


I dont even believe he has read it i think he has just googled it to support his belief


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

It's 16:50 atm how long til this thread goes t!ts up then?

Place your bets please.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

latblaster said:


> It's 16:50 atm how long til this thread goes t!ts up then?
> 
> Place your bets please.


think that ships sailed


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> ^^Copy and pasted from here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating... is it really your own understanding or just that you've read the link and found it convincing because it supports your belief system?
> 
> Am not sure how identifying possible issues in radioactive dating (only one of several methods for dating) disproves evolutionary science? Fossil evidence is only a small part of evolutionary science anyway, the process is observed in many other ways.


Like...?

I've used that website for years, also studied with a scientist victor Pearce, I have great respect for evolutionists and their beliefs, but I'm not convinced of them myself.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

a good scientific way of stating whether something exists or not is not to actually prove that it does exist, but to try and prove it doesnt exist. im not sure that anyone had/will prove 100% that there is nothing more because nature is always full of anomolies


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> No, I use answers in Genesis website it's very good.
> 
> So what is that supposed to prove? That I use the internet? Many people do you know.
> 
> It does amaze me how people that have faith based beliefs in arguments like these tend not to resort to calling people bellends or something derisive. I'm entitled to my opinion. I've done a lot of research on it. Who cares if it's different to yours?


Well likewise, just as you are entitled to your opinion so others are entitled to theirs... so there's no justification, by your own logic, for you attacking evolution just because you don't believe in it - accept it's a different opinion to your own and simply move on.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> *Like...?*
> 
> I've used that website for years, also studied with a scientist victor Pearce, I have great respect for evolutionists and their beliefs, but I'm not convinced of them myself.


Other methods: http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> I dont even believe he has read it i think he has just googled it to support his belief


Right, you expected me to just type all that from memory? Get real. I used the website that I know has what I wantedto say on it.

haters keep on hating :-D


----------



## Lorian (Apr 9, 2003)

Porkchop said:


> I'm entitled to my opinion. I've done a lot of research on it.


You are, and I support that 100% even if I disagree.



Porkchop said:


> Who cares if it's different to yours?


I only care when people post incorrect biased information proclaiming it to be fact.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> Well likewise, just as you are entitled to your opinion so others are entitled to theirs... so there's no justification, by your own logic, for you attacking evolution just because you don't believe in it - accept it's a different opinion to your own and simply move on.


Wasn't attacking evolution, I was addressing certain assumptions the OP had stated.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

In religious debates I think the best line to follow is Hackskii's signature for me anymore...

''Never argue with an idiot, he'll just drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience''.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> Right, you expected me to just type all that from memory? Get real. I used the website that I know has what I wantedto say on it.
> 
> haters keep on hating :-D


Really, well if u 'knew' what u was typing, u would type it all from memory, dtlv74 knows a lot of stuff and u cant stop him from droning on lol i doubt he googles it and passes it off as his own. For the future, if u post from another website, its polite to credit your source


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Really, well if u 'knew' what u was typing, u would type it all from memory, dtlv74 knows a lot of stuff and u cant stop him from droning on lol i doubt he googles it and passes it off as his own. For the future, if u post from another website, its polite to credit your source


At the rate this thread is moving? Lol

I didn't try to pass it off as my own, what, posting all that after 1 minute reply!! It contained info that was relevant to the debate, which actually hasn't been addressed lol.

Bet OP is reading all this laughing from a distance!

I


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> At the rate this thread is moving? Lol
> 
> I didn't try to pass it off as my own, what, posting all that after 1 minute reply!! It contained info that was relevant to the debate, which actually hasn't been addressed lol.
> 
> ...


Hes probably writing a reply still the long winded twit 

Just credit your source next time, no harm done ... (no matter how biased it may be)


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Hes probably writing a reply still the long winded twit
> 
> Just credit your source next time, no harm done ... (no matter how biased it may be)


No worries, will do. Apologies


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Then why is it called the 'theory of evolution' lol.


because when Darwin came up with it it was a theory

since then we've found these massive things deep down in the earth called dinosaurs which has proven it


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> Really, well if u 'knew' what u was typing, u would type it all from memory, dtlv74 knows a lot of stuff and u cant stop him from droning on lol i doubt he googles it and passes it off as his own. For the future, if u post from another website, its polite to credit your source


You saying I have verbal diarrhea? I do sometimes, succinctness is often not my strong point :lol:

Yep, i do give references where I quote stuff - the rest is just my ramblings!

A credit to a reference is polite and considered the scientific way to present cited material, but lets just let that go now... missing a reference isn't exactly the biggest crime in the history of the world!


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> You saying I have verbal diarrhea? I do sometimes, succinctness is often not my strong point :lol:
> 
> Yep, i do give references where I quote stuff - the rest is just my ramblings!
> 
> A credit to a reference is polite and considered the scientific way to present cited material, but lets just let that go now... missing a reference isn't exactly the biggest crime in the history of the world!


 :yawn: u still talking

Haha only messing det, u know I love ur posts, too smart for your own good lol


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

These debates always start out well but invariably degenerate into craziness. Must....not....get....drawn...in......!!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

TG123 said:


> because when Darwin came up with it it was a theory
> 
> since then we've found these massive things deep down in the earth called dinosaurs which has proven it


dinosaurs? Ah, you must be referring to fatstuff and Lorian


----------



## Cythraul (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> because when Darwin came up with it it was a theory
> 
> since then we've found these massive things deep down in the earth called dinosaurs which has proven it


I dont know if thats a joke or not


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Cythraul said:


> I dont know if thats a joke or not


i've got a diploma in dinosaurs, my favorite cartoon growing up was denver the last dinosaur and i've seen jurassic park 4 times, i think i know what i'm talking about, just tell me what bit you didn't understand and i'll explain it for you


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Whew, this debate was better than grenade thermo detonator for making you sweat lol.


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

science changes all the time,theory after theory. the bible,or science in the bible has remained the same.it said all allong the world was round.up until christopher columbas discoverd it is round people thought the earth was flat.theres loads of stuff where the bible was way ahead of science.the cliffs of dover loses a few feet a year.if we had bin around millions of years britain wouldnt be here.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

ianjay said:


> the bible,or science in the bible has remained the same.it said all allong the world was round.up until christopher columbas discoverd it is round people thought the earth was flat.


so why then, in a time when people didn't have a clue about science and pretty much everyone was religious, if the bible always said the earth was round did everyone think it was flat?


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

We are evolved bacteria

Just like jellyfish. Do jellyfish have life after death?

Do jellyfish worship God?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

WilsonR6 said:


> We are evolved bacteria
> 
> Just like jellyfish. Do jellyfish have life after death?
> 
> Do jellyfish worship God?


Thing is though, they actually might have a belief system..no I'm not crackers!!


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Damnit I tried, but couldnt stay out....

View attachment 95096


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

latblaster said:


> Thing is though, they actually might have a belief system..no I'm not crackers!!


i might be mistaken but i don't think jellyfish have that level of thought/consciousness


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Bloody hell this is still going! :thumb:

I would also like to say I'm not taking the p1ss here but I'm glad to see so many MODS crawling out the woodwork. I know you're moderators so generally are busy and don't have as much time to post in "leisure threads" like us but it's awesome seeing so many replies. You're a very intelligent bunch of guys with an intelligent woman too, Katy, oh and Hackskii too :whistling: enjoyed reading the replies basically you guys should do it more. It seems to be the rejection of evolution which was the final straw in bringing some of the forums bigger, more private brains into the thread. My respect has soared, too many people are afraid to defend the obvious out of fear of being judged and ridiculed by the ignorant masses. Some may consider it an insult but creationists really are, there are only so many ways you can put it politely.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Bloody hell this is still going! :thumb:
> 
> I would also like to say I'm not taking the p1ss here but I'm glad to see so many MODS crawling out the woodwork. I know you're moderators so generally are busy and don't have as much time to post in "leisure threads" like us but it's awesome seeing so many replies. You're a very intelligent bunch of guys with an intelligent woman too, Katy, oh and Hackskii too :whistling: enjoyed reading the replies basically you guys should do it more. It seems to be the rejection of evolution which was the final straw in bringing some of the forums bigger, more private brains into the thread. My respect has soared, too many people are afraid to defend the obvious out of fear of being judged and ridiculed by the ignorant masses. Some may consider it an insult but creationists really are, there are only so many ways you can put it politely.


Nicely put Mighty Panda...very succinct withut being offensive mate!! You've just encouraged me to start at the beginning of the thread and 'ave a looook.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

mixerD1 said:


> Nicely put Mighty Panda...very succinct *withut being offensive mate*!! You've just encouraged me to start at the beginning of the thread and 'ave a looook.


It's something I've been working on :lol:


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Bloody hell this is still going! :thumb:
> 
> I would also like to say I'm not taking the p1ss here but I'm glad to see so many MODS crawling out the woodwork. I know you're moderators so generally are busy and don't have as much time to post in "leisure threads" like us but it's awesome seeing so many replies. You're a very intelligent bunch of guys with an intelligent woman too, Katy, oh and Hackskii too :whistling: enjoyed reading the replies basically you guys should do it more. It seems to be the rejection of evolution which was the final straw in bringing some of the forums bigger, more private brains into the thread. My respect has soared, too many people are afraid to defend the obvious out of fear of being judged and ridiculed by the ignorant masses. Some may consider it an insult but creationists really are, there are only so many ways you can put it politely.


fairplay to porkchop though for fighting his corner in what was/is a virtually unwinnable argument for him, especially against the mods etc it's harder not to just cave

although obv i'm still of the mind that porkchop knows absoloutly sh1t :whistling:


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> fairplay to porkchop though for fighting his corner in what was/is a virtually unwinnable argument for him, especially against the mods etc it's harder not to just cave
> 
> although obv i'm still of the mind that porkchop knows absoloutly sh1t :whistling:


Essentially he and the majority of the world are wrong. It's very hard to say that without looking pretentious. But hey the truth is sat there irrespective of how many or how few wish to recognise it.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:
 

> Essentially he and the majority of the world are wrong. It's very hard to say that without looking pretentious. But hey the truth is sat there irrespective of how many or how few wish to recognise it.


entertaining though, even if you don't bunk in it's a good read, especially when both sides feel passionatly, if all those non believers over night gave up their religious beliefs and acknowledged darwinism as being correct the world would be pretty boring, i would say there'd be less suicide bomings etc but people like that will always find a reason to blow sh1t up


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

TG123 said:


> entertaining though, even if you don't bunk in it's a good read, especially when both sides feel passionatly, if all those non believers over night gave up their religious beliefs and acknowledged darwinism as being correct the world would be pretty boring, i would say there'd be less suicide bomings etc but people like that will always find a reason to blow sh1t up


Don't call it Darwinism lol it's just plain old evolution.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> entertaining though, even if you don't bunk in it's a good read, especially when both sides feel passionatly, if all those non believers over night gave up their religious beliefs and acknowledged darwinism as being correct the world would be pretty boring, i would say there'd be less suicide bomings etc but people like that will always find a reason to blow sh1t up


Without religion I very much doubt suicide bombings would even exist. To volunteer for something like that you need to be brainwashed into some incredibly irrational sh1t, real bombers don't believe they'll be dieing that's why they do it. Without religion there would still be some violence but people would be far less bold to be honest... You can justify anything with religion, politics has it's limits but religion doesn't really have any....


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Don't call it Darwinism lol it's just plain old evolution.


i like to leave the door slightly open just in case :whistling:


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> i like to leave the door slightly open just in case :whistling:


I wouldn't call it Darwinism either I don't really like theories named after people to be honest. Darwin was the first person to write about it formally but he was very unlikely to be the first person to ever think this up. A lot of people have probably thought it up thousands of years before but lacked the coherence to put it into writing, lacked the literacy skills, lacked a safe environment etc.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Without religion I very much doubt suicide bombings would even exist. To volunteer for something like that you need to be brainwashed into some incredibly irrational sh1t, real bombers don't believe they'll be dieing that's why they do it. Without religion there would still be some violence but people would be far less bold to be honest... You can justify anything with religion, politics has it's limits but religion doesn't really have any....


i agree essentially and it may sound like i'm not but i do, i just don't think the limits you suggest about politics are entirely accurate, when people think somethings not right many folk will happily sign up and march off to defend political beliefs like democracy, a lot of times to their death and a lot of times knowing that will be the case. i know there's debate about what sparks the biggest wars in history, my contention is that it's usually political and power orientated, their are always religious undertones but ultimatly it's the philosophy of politics that dictates major and world wars and people on both sides will happily stand killing and ready to be killed for years, also people talk about persecution in the name of religion and deaths as a result of that, i don't despute those numbers would be on a huge scale too but if you look at stalin and chairman mao for example, killed about 50 million of their own people combined in the name of communism.

why did the first man ever pick up a stick against another man etc etc, it's human nature, folks, on a huge scale and for whatever reason, will always find a reasons to kill eachother


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I wouldn't call it Darwinism either I don't really like theories named after people to be honest. Darwin was the first person to write about it formally but he was very unlikely to be the first person to ever think this up. A lot of people have probably thought it up thousands of years before but lacked the coherence to put it into writing, lacked the literacy skills, lacked a safe environment etc.


it's just symantics

it's possible that someone thought of it first but who's to say

Newton could've called gravity Newtonism instead, what difference would it have made, a rose by any other name and all that jazz


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> i agree essentially and it may sound like i'm not but i do, i just don't think the limits you suggest about politics are entirely accurate, when people think somethings not right many folk will happily sign up and march off to defend political beliefs like democracy, a lot of times to their death and a lot of times knowing that will be the case. i know there's debate about what sparks the biggest wars in history, my contention is that it's usually political and power orientated, their are always religious undertones but ultimatly it's the philosophy of politics that dictates major and world wars and people on both sides will happily stand killing and ready to be killed for years, also people talk about persecution in the name of religion and deaths as a result of that, i don't despute those numbers would be on a huge scale too but if you look at stalin and chairman mao for example, killed about 50 million of their own people combined in the name of communism.
> 
> why did the first man ever pick up a stick against another man etc etc, it's human nature, folks, on a huge scale and for whatever reason, will always find a reasons to kill eachother


Religion/faith and politics are all centred around authority and are mutual extensions of one another, they are far more similar than most people realise. Religion and statism both deprive people of their natural liberties and I personally don't think we'll ever hit anything close to our full potential until they are both torn down. Religion needs to go first though it's always been the easier of the two to fight. As far as anarchist rants go I generally avoid them because I'm currently suckling on the loving teat of the state myself which makes me something of a hypocrite. But meh I am able to accept temporary hypocrisy if it means not starving to death. Religion whithers and dies by itself very easily and should be the first point of attack to be honest.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> it's just symantics
> 
> it's possible that someone thought of it first but who's to say
> 
> Newton could've called gravity Newton instead, what difference would it have made, a rose by any other name and all that jazz


You're spot on it is essentially just semantics :001_tt2: but I still think widely used theories and constructs should be given neutral titles and descriptions because they are supposed to represent logical and/or empirically testable realities so I personally think it's a little wrong to attach the name of an individual in front of them. If I discovered something tomorrow, world shakingly awesome I wouldn't let them call it Pandarism :cool2:


----------



## Mez (Jul 31, 2012)

Not gonna read 13 pages, but I'm an atheist.

Besides, can't you just repent on your deathbed and all is forgiven ?


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> You're spot on it is essentially just semantics :001_tt2: but I still think widely used theories and constructs should be given neutral titles and descriptions because they are supposed to represent logical and/or empirically testable realities so I personally think it's a little wrong to attach the name of an individual in front of them. If I discovered something tomorrow, world shakingly awesome I wouldn't let them call it Pandarism :cool2:


fcuk that, if i discover/invent something epic tomorrow i'd insist on it being called TG-ism

how else would everyone know how awesome i was after i died


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

What about if you believe in God (i will call him/her God as that seems the norm but he/she could be called Dave or Doris for all i know) but also believe in evolution? Ive read most of the bible and found it repetitive and boring and could only of been written by man!

I do not believe the theory of evolution can be argued against as it all pretty much adds up to me but i do believe in a god, i have no idea how to explain it as its just a feeling i have and its a feeling im very thankful i have but can i prove he/she exists? nope and neither can anyone who doesnt believe prove he/she doesnt, we can only argue (i cant be ****d) because if any of us could prove either way we would be minted lol

Hopefully one day we will all find out but no one can say im wrong and i cant say that about anyone either, i cant prove it and neither can any of you!


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

TG123 said:


> fcuk that, if i discover/invent something epic tomorrow i'd insist on it being called TG-ism
> 
> how else would everyone know how awesome i was after i died


The Church of TG..now that will be good. Perhaps the Rev Panda might start morning service too!!


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

lukeee said:


> What about if you believe in God (i will call him/her God as that seems the norm but he/she could be called Dave or Doris for all i know) but also believe in evolution? Ive read most of the bible and found it repetitive and boring and could only of been written by man!
> 
> I do not believe the theory of evolution can be argued against as it all pretty much adds up to me but i do believe in a god, i have no idea how to explain it as its just a feeling i have and its a feeling im very thankful i have but can i prove he/she exists? nope and neither can anyone who doesnt believe prove he/she doesnt, we can only argue (i cant be ****d) because if any of us could prove either way we would be minted lol
> 
> Hopefully one day we will all find out but no one can say im wrong and i cant say that about anyone either, i cant prove it and neither can any of you!


I wouldn't call you religious despite the fact you believe in a God. I would define you as theist or deist in isolation which is just a personal belief not a religion as such. Annoyingly people regard religions and personal divine beliefs as the same things sometimes but they aren't. I have more respect for theists than I do any adherent of the major world religions, I also have more respect for deists than I do for theists.

I need to drift off a bit, hopefully be back before this gets closed :lol:


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I wouldn't call you religious despite the fact you believe in a God. I would define you as theist or deist in isolation which is just a personal belief not a religion as such. Annoyingly people regard religions and personal divine beliefs as the same things sometimes but they aren't. I have more respect for theists than I do any adherent of the major world religions, I also have more respect for deists than I do for theists.
> 
> I need to drift off a bit, hopefully be back before this gets closed :lol:


Oi dont you go putting a label on me sunshine, you can define me as Lukeee the champion crab fisherman, big fish lifter and wake smasher extraordinaire and nothing fcuking else or i shall unleash hell on you! Capisce?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I need to drift off a bit, hopefully be back before this gets closed :lol:


The thread is safe so far as no one has yet started discussing the merits of religicide against an entire belief system... that's when threads start to get closed down. :lol:

All fairly polite and respectful in here so far... makes a nice change!


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Anyone got any thoughts on Joseph kony, I'm halfway through reading a book on him and he is a right religious nutcase!!


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Anyone got any thoughts on Joseph kony, I'm halfway through reading a book on him and he is a right religious nutcase!!


not on his religious beliefs but i know he's a nutcase, head of the LRA and caused havoc in uganda

there was the most ridiculous twitter campaign earlier on in the year calling for his capture, obv him being captured isn't a bad thing but the way it was being suggested they do it and how it was being presented was perplexing, even stranger was everyone just sort of went along with it


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Anyone got any thoughts on Joseph kony, I'm halfway through reading a book on him and he is a right religious nutcase!!


Just looked him up, what a nutter!

Uganda has some major issues and factions, well most of Africa for that matter. So much civil war


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

TG123 said:


> not on his religious beliefs but i know he's a nutcase, head of the LRA and caused havoc in uganda
> 
> there was the most ridiculous twitter campaign earlier on in the year calling for his capture, obv him being captured isn't a bad thing but the way it was being suggested they do it and how it was being presented was perplexing, even stranger was everyone just sort of went along with it


He isn't right in the head, I'm not blaming religion btw lol he has lost the plot entirely - he believes the spirits talk to him. Apparently he was normal as he grew up but as he got older the 'spirits' spoke to him more and more. His religious beliefs are based on the ten commandments so no wonder he's evil with his insanity lol


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I wouldn't call it Darwinism either I don't really like theories named after people to be honest. Darwin was the first person to write about it formally but he was very unlikely to be the first person to ever think this up. A lot of people have probably thought it up thousands of years before but lacked the coherence to put it into writing, lacked the literacy skills, lacked a safe environment etc.


Darwin wasn't the first the notice the similarities between species and the variations, so I see it as evolution, not Darwinism.



lukeee said:


> What about if you believe in God (i will call him/her God as that seems the norm but he/she could be called Dave or Doris for all i know) but also believe in evolution? Ive read most of the bible and found it repetitive and boring and could only of been written by man!
> 
> I do not believe the theory of evolution can be argued against as it all pretty much adds up to me but i do believe in a god, i have no idea how to explain it as its just a feeling i have and its a feeling im very thankful i have but can i prove he/she exists? nope and neither can anyone who doesnt believe prove he/she doesnt, we can only argue (i cant be ****d) because if any of us could prove either way we would be minted lol
> 
> Hopefully one day we will all find out but no one can say im wrong and i cant say that about anyone either, i cant prove it and neither can any of you!


Thing is though, I could fabricate any fairytale story like 'a big pink elephant from another universe built the earth and all beings on it...it even created the Big Bang'. If you can't disprove the existence of this big pink elephant then does that make it true? The absence of disproof doesn't make it true...and if something doesn't exist it's pretty hard to prove it doesn't exist.

I'd rather have faith in what can be proved not what can't be disproved. But I do see that faith is beneficial to many.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Aimed at everyone.

How you prove that your partner loves you, when you know that they do?

You can't get a piece of paper & write down a formula/equation that proves love, can you?

If you can't prove it, how do you know they do? What I mean is you know they love you, but how do you know if it can be proven?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

latblaster said:


> Aimed at everyone.
> 
> How you prove that your partner loves you, when you know that they do?
> 
> ...


U just have to trust that they do as u have no other choice!


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Yes, what I'm saying is there is no physical proof of the love, but you know they do.

God can't be proven, but people also believe his existence.

You can prove that there is oxygen in the atmosphere & etc, do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

latblaster said:


> Yes, what I'm saying is there is no physical proof of the love, but you know they do.
> 
> God can't be proven, but people also believe his existence.


But you have no other real options than to believe ur mrs loves u. Love is a feeling not a being. It's a strange comparison tbh


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Fatstuff said:


> But you have no other real options than to believe ur mrs loves u. Love is a feeling not a being. It's a strange comparison tbh


No it isn't because both are intangibles.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Katy said:


> Darwin wasn't the first the notice the similarities between species and the variations, so I see it as evolution, not Darwinism.
> 
> Thing is though, I could fabricate any fairytale story like 'a big pink elephant from another universe built the earth and all beings on it...it even created the Big Bang'. If you can't disprove the existence of this big pink elephant then does that make it true? The absence of disproof doesn't make it true...and if something doesn't exist it's pretty hard to prove it doesn't exist.
> 
> I'd rather have faith in what can be proved not what can't be disproved. But I do see that faith is beneficial to many.


I quite like the idea of a big pink elephant!! Leave the elephants alone you!

I cant prove it mate, and i know my feeling could be wrong but its a feeling i cant help, ive never worried about it or got confused about it and im quite at ease with it all so to me its all good.

Quite like the pink elephant idea though!


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

latblaster said:


> Yes, what I'm saying is there is no physical proof of the love, but you know they do.
> 
> God can't be proven, but people also believe his existence.
> 
> You can prove that there is oxygen in the atmosphere & etc, do you see what I'm getting at?


I'm guessing you're a fan of Descartes


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

People know that there partner loves them because they feel it. So to them it's true.

People who believe in god, say they feel his love, therefore to them it's true.

But we are unable to physically prove/disprove either.

- - - Updated - - -



TG123 said:


> I'm guessing you're a fan of Descartes


Yup, just starting my second year in philosophy at uni.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

TG123 said:


> I'm guessing you're a fan of Descartes


Isnt he a brazilian footie player?:laugh:


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Nah he's british it's Desmond Cartes.. I think.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> U just have to trust that they do as u have no other choice!


I guess you could say that's the essence of faith. Notice I said faith, not religion.

if God really is God, he's not something that can just be proven through an experiment, otherwise he'd be a phony (or a Joseph kony haha). that would be like a clay pot trying to decide if the potter existed, when the potter is the one who decides if the clay pot exists in the first place

Or something like that lol


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Porkchop said:


> I guess you could say that's the essence of faith. Notice I said faith, not religion.
> 
> if God really is God, he's not something that can just be proven through an experiment, otherwise he'd be a phony (or a Joseph kony haha). that would be like a clay pot trying to decide if the potter existed, when the potter is the one who decides if the clay pot exists in the first place
> 
> Or something like that lol


And so it is with love.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

latblaster said:


> Calm down love, I wrote that as a means to further discussion, not to say I'm right & you're wrong.
> 
> But what you seem to be saying, is that there's only science & nothing else. I wonder, how you can know this?


Yes there is only one science.If universal laws were not consistant, then science as a discipline could not exist.We would not be to predict the weather, nor prescribe medicine.We can because of the constant parimeters that exist.(Mike Mentzer, does this so much better than me)


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

essexboy said:


> Yes there is only one science.If universal laws were not consistant, then science as a discipline could not exist.We would not be to predict the weather, nor prescribe medicine.We can because of the constant parimeters that exist.(Mike Mentzer, does this so much better than me)


That's known as materialism.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Porkchop said:


> That's known as materialism.


No its not?


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

essexboy said:


> No its not?


Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

I thought you were saying that there is only science and nothing else? So only what you can measure and quantify?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Porkchop said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
> 
> I thought you were saying that there is only science and nothing else? So only what you can measure and quantify?


that IS what im saying,materialism isnt the same thing though.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

essexboy said:


> that IS what im saying,materialism isnt the same thing though.


I'm quoting from a dodgy source, wikipedia, but correct me if I'm wrong?

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

latblaster said:


> People know that there partner loves them because they feel it. So to them it's true.
> 
> People who believe in god, say they feel his love, therefore to them it's true.
> 
> ...


i'm sticking with my dinosaus in the ground argument, makes me feel sorry for a lot of descartes type philosophers who came up with a lot of their god proving philosiphies before we dug those big fckers up, yeah there was newton, darwin and other people banging on about science but there was still a lor of ambiguity about their scientific theorys and room to repudiate them, but when you dig the bones up all of a sudden of these massive fckers and date them back to millions of years ago when most of the religions agree the world isn't more than 10k years old and it was adam and eve who kicked it all off there's not much room for movement on that, i think first religious folk said that they were fake, then when it became accepted they were real they said ok but they're not older than 10k years old, lol bless em


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

It is very simple; if you are too stupid to understand science you try religion instead.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> I'm quoting from a dodgy source, wikipedia, but correct me if I'm wrong?
> 
> In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.


you're looking at the idea of words and what they mean too stringently

if the more common connotation of the word materialism is the one that we're all more widely aware of then you have to be more flexible when quoting the literal denotation of words and their interpretation in applicable situations


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

TG123 said:


> i'm sticking with my dinosaus in the ground argument, makes me feel sorry for a lot of descartes type philosophers who came up with a lot of their god proving philosiphies before we dug those big fckers up, yeah there was newton, darwin and other people banging on about science but there was still a lor of ambiguity about their scientific theorys and room to repudiate them, but when you dig the bones up all of a sudden of these massive fckers and date them back to millions of years ago when most of the religions agree the world isn't more than 10k years old and it was adam and eve who kicked it all off there's not much room for movement on that, i think first religious folk said that they were fake, then when it became accepted they were real they said ok but they're not older than 10k years old, lol bless em


Lol, I do hear you on that.

so, to sum up- your entire worldview and belief system rests on these dinosaur bones (not criticizing, sorry if it sounds condescending). For me, it takes more faith to believe that than it does Christian beliefs, especially seeing as the logical conclusion of it all leads to existence being utterly pointless and nothing we do in this life has any consequence as we all just die and that's it.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

TG123 said:


> you're looking at the idea of words and what they mean too stringently
> 
> if the more common connotation of the word materialism is the one that we're all more widely aware of then you have to be more flexible when quoting the literal denotation of words and their interpretation in applicable situations


I don't know tg, maybe I could have said 'that's known as the philosophy of materialism', but anyway it seems that a few people that believe in materialism as a philosophy don't actually know that's what they believe.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> It is very simple; if you are too stupid to understand science you try religion instead.


Whats your excuse then?


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Lol, I do hear you on that.
> 
> so, to sum up- your entire worldview and belief system rests on these dinosaur bones (not criticizing, sorry if it sounds condescending). For me, it takes more faith to believe that than it does Christian beliefs, especially seeing as the logical conclusion of it all leads to existence being utterly pointless and nothing we do in this life has any consequence as we all just die and that's it.


let me explain where i come from, i believe in science but i don't discount entierly the idea that god exists, or a higher power, something that created the univers billions of years ago etc, but i don't know, based on what i know probably not but if i ever get up to the pearly gates and st peter is standing there and doesn't want to let me in he's not going to get me on times when i completely and definitivly denounced the idea of god because i don't think i have, i just never gave a sh1t, i'm what you'd class as "irreligious".

I'm always fascinated when everyday people sit around discussing how the universe started, the big bang theory etc and asking eachother what they believe, if you asked me that how the fcuk do i know, i'll say to you whatever it says in hawkings a brief history of time i'll go along with that, i mean how the fcuk do i know better than him, conversley i don't know whether there's a god or not, if you want to push me on it then i'll tell you ask the pope or the dalai lama what they say on it and i'll go along with them, they know a sh1t load more about it than i do.

what i don't like is the example you've used above, you've jumped from the fact that i don't believe in god (whether it's because of dinosaurs or not) straight to the conclusion that because i don't i must believe that the life is pointless, then you take it further to say that because of that actions have no consequences, i disagree that that's the logical conclusion to not devoutly believing in god, life isn't black and white like that, however convienient an argument it is for you


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

*"If God answers your prayers, he is increasing your FAITH. If he delays, he is increasing your PATIENCE. If he doesn't answer, he has something BETTER for you!"*

A frequent Facebook status I see by Muslims.... Am I the only one that cringes so hard that it physically starts to hurt?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

TG123 said:


> let me explain where i come from, i believe in science but i don't discount entierly the idea that god exists, or a higher power, something that created the univers billions of years ago etc, but i don't know, based on what i know probably not but if i ever get up to the pearly gates and st peter is standing there and doesn't want to let me in he's not going to get me on times when i completely and definitivly denounced the idea of god because i don't think i have, i just never gave a sh1t, i'm what you'd class as "irreligious".
> 
> I'm always fascinated when everyday people sit around discussing how the universe started, the big bang theory etc and asking eachother what they believe, if you asked me that how the fcuk do i know, i'll say to you whatever it says in hawkings a brief history of time i'll go along with that, i mean how the fcuk do i know better than him, conversley i don't know whether there's a god or not, if you want to push me on it then i'll tell you ask the pope or the dalai lama what they say on it and i'll go along with them, they know a sh1t load more about it than i do.
> 
> what i don't like is the example you've used above, you've jumped from the fact that i don't believe in god (whether it's because of dinosaurs or not) straight to the conclusion that because i don't i must believe that the life is pointless, then you take it further to say that because of that actions have no consequences, i disagree that that's the logical conclusion to not devoutly believing in god, life isn't black and white like that


I'd ask the dalai lama and go with him lol


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> I'd ask the dalai lama and go with him lol


who the fcuk would argue with the dalai lama 

apart from the chinese obv :whistling:


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

lukeee said:


> Whats your excuse then?


"What's"


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

TG123 said:


> let me explain where i come from, i believe in science but i don't discount entierly the idea that god exists, or a higher power, something that created the univers billions of years ago etc, but i don't know, based on what i know probably not but if i ever get up to the pearly gates and st peter is standing there and doesn't want to let me in he's not going to get me on times when i completely and definitivly denounced the idea of god because i don't think i have, i just never gave a sh1t, i'm what you'd class as "irreligious".
> 
> I'm always fascinated when everyday people sit around discussing how the universe started, the big bang theory etc and asking eachother what they believe, if you asked me that how the fcuk do i know, i'll say to you whatever it says in hawkings a brief history of time i'll go along with that, i mean how the fcuk do i know better than him, conversley i don't know whether there's a god or not, if you want to push me on it then i'll tell you ask the pope or the dalai lama what they say on it and i'll go along with them, they know a sh1t load more about it than i do.
> 
> what i don't like is the example you've used above, you've jumped from the fact that i don't believe in god (whether it's because of dinosaurs or not) straight to the conclusion that because i don't i must believe that the life is pointless, then you take it further to say that because of that actions have no consequences, i disagree that that's the logical conclusion to not devoutly believing in god, life isn't black and white like that


Thanks, great post.

What I mean about the whole pointless thing is that, to me, it is a logical extension of evolutionary theory. I didn't mean that's what you believe specifically tg.

If only dinosaurs weren't extinct!

But then we would be lol.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

MattGriff said:


> It is very simple; if you are too stupid to understand science you try religion instead.


youd be surprised just how many scientists are also very religious. bit of a conundrum really lol.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> It is very simple; if you are too stupid to understand science you try religion instead.


Tell that to Einstein, Newton and Pasteur to name a few.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

a.notherguy said:


> and youd be surprised just how many scientists are also very religious. bit of a conundrum really lol.


I wouldn't really. It always interests me that in the face of overwhelming evidence even some intelligent people still try to find another way in which 'It has only happened because of God'.

One of the most interesting things about religion is the Christians in my view - Christ was 'King of the Jews' and Judaism according to him was the one true faith - so Christians in being just that are already following a bastardised segment of Catholicism which itself is a bastardised version of Judaism.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> "What's"


Sorry, just seen your avvy


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

lukeee said:


> Sorry, just seen your avvy


"Sorry*;* just seen your avvy*.*"

If you find it this hard to get a bite here you should stick to fishing.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> I wouldn't really. It always interests me that in the face of overwhelming evidence even some intelligent people still try to find another way in which 'It has only happened because of God'.
> 
> One of the most interesting things about religion is the Christians in my view - Christ was 'King of the Jews' and Judaism according to him was the one true faith - so Christians in being just that are already following a bastardised segment of Catholicism which itself is a bastardised version of Judaism.


It doesn't occur to you that their faith actually helped them in their science? Because that is what they have said, Pasteur, Newton etc. they didn't have any problem with combining the two. I don't either.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Tell that to Einstein, Newton and Pasteur to name a few.


I will just raise them from the grave using religious power and explain to them that Science since their time has moved on rather a lot.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

MattGriff said:


> I wouldn't really. It always interests me that in the face of overwhelming evidence even some intelligent people still try to find another way in which 'It has only happened because of God'.
> 
> One of the most interesting things about religion is the Christians in my view - Christ was 'King of the Jews' and Judaism according to him was the one true faith - so Christians in being just that are already following a bastardised segment of Catholicism which itself is a bastardised version of Judaism.


lol, yeah, its all very confusing aint it!

but i think science and religion dont have to be seperate. people either believe or they dont.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> It doesn't occur to you that their faith actually helped them in their science? Because that is what they have said, Pasteur, Newton etc. they didn't have any problem with combining the two. I don't either.


It may have done. The basis of any religion in terms of being good, honest and so on are very honourable. Many manage that without religion. Indeed the word faith itself can be defined as "A belief in a code of ethics".

Fact however is not a popularity contest, it is not a stage show appealing to the lowest common denominator and it is not a democracy.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

a.notherguy said:


> lol, yeah, its all very confusing aint it!
> 
> but i think science and religion dont have to be seperate. people either believe or they dont.


The difference is if you don't believe in science it is still there, still evidential, still operational, still making pretty much everything we use to live our lives today. If you don't believe in religion you just have less cause to start a war.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

MattGriff said:


> The difference is if you don't believe in science it is still there, still evidential, still operational, still making pretty much everything we use to live our lives today. If you don't believe in religion you just have less cause to start a war.


lol

i dont believe in religion but theres a church down my road which proves it exists :lol:


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> "Sorry*;* just seen your avvy*.*"
> 
> If you find it this hard to get a bite here you should stick to fishing.


God your boring


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> The difference is if you don't believe in science it is still there, still evidential, still operational, still making pretty much everything we use to live our lives today. If you don't believe in religion you just have less cause to start a war.


scientists would still have made the bomb,and used it regardless of faith.

Was Hitler a religious man,i not sure he was.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

lukeee said:


> God your boring


So now you insult Jehovah?


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> So now you insult Jehovah?


AAAAHHHHAAAAHHHHHAAAAA Stop it your killing me AAAAAHHHHAAAAHHHHHAAAA :thumb:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mal said:



> scientists would still have made the bomb,and used it regardless of faith.
> 
> Was Hitler a religious man,i not sure he was.


No he wasn't, he believed in evolution, but to a fanatical degree, based on Nietzsche's teachings among other influences. He took that to such an extreme that in his ideology, the survival of the fittest became destruction of the weakest.


----------



## Akira (Nov 1, 2011)

Hate all religion, sets humankind back from what we can actually achieve.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

mal said:


> scientists would still have made the bomb,and used it regardless of faith.
> 
> Was Hitler a religious man,i not sure he was.


Anecdotal statement really. They may well have done, but would there have been an excuse to drop it?

Hitler used what he termed as "Positive Christianity" to purge Christians of the Jews. In Mein Kampf and his speeches he also spoke of being a devout Christian.

Sadly one mans interpretation is not always another's - one of the many causes of war and one of the ways in which religion can creep about changing stories and re writing itself to try to fit in with newer discoveries that make it out to be basically another Harry Potter novel.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Akira said:


> Hate all religion, sets humankind back from what we can actually achieve.


You're just going with the majority now aren't you?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

MattGriff said:


> Anecdotal statement really. They may well have done, but would there have been an excuse to drop it?
> 
> Hitler used what he termed as "Positive Christianity" to purge Christians of the Jews. In Mein Kampf and his speeches he also spoke of being a devout Christian.
> 
> Sadly one mans interpretation is not always another's - one of the many causes of war and one of the ways in which religion can creep about changing stories and re writing itself to try to fit in with newer discoveries that make it out to be basically another Harry Potter novel.


But with more rape, murder, violence and incest.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> But with more rape, murder, violence and incest.


Ha ha this is very true!


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> You're just going with the majority now aren't you?


Actually - that would be u!!!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Actually - that would be u!!!


I would hardly call being surrounded by a bunch of atheists wielding dinosaur bones clubbing me over the head with their witty arguments being in the majority


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> Anecdotal statement really. They may well have done, but would there have been an excuse to drop it?
> 
> Hitler used what he termed as "Positive Christianity" to purge Christians of the Jews. In Mein Kampf and his speeches he also spoke of being a devout Christian.
> 
> Sadly one mans interpretation is not always another's - one of the many causes of war and one of the ways in which religion can creep about changing stories and re writing itself to try to fit in with newer discoveries that make it out to be basically another Harry Potter novel.


If Israel attacks Iran,would you say thats over Religion,,or Gaza,or would you say there fighting over land and

power in the region.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> I would hardly call being surrounded by a bunch of atheists wielding dinosaur bones clubbing me over the head with their witty arguments being in the majority


There's life outside of this thread apparently


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206008/Probe-launched-Polish-priest-gets-young-children-lick-whipped-cream-knee-creepy-school-initiation.html

Seem's legit


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> Tell that to *Einstein*, Newton and Pasteur to name a few.


Stop lying

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

Einstein was a pantheist if anything...



Porkchop said:


> No he wasn't, he believed in evolution, but to a fanatical degree, based on Nietzsche's teachings among other influences. He took that to such an extreme that in his ideology, the survival of the fittest became destruction of the weakest.


The irrational hate of the jews points more to catholic/christian background rather than an atheistic one. Below is a quote from cnut himself :-

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

Also the nazi belt buckles said 'Gott Mit Uns' which translates to 'God With Us'.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

mal said:


> If Israel attacks Iran,would you say thats over Religion,,or Gaza,or would you say there fighting over land and
> 
> power in the region.


Given the main conflict between the countries us down to the Islamic revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini and caused Iran to sever ties both diplomatic and commercial with Israel refusing to recognise it as a country (largely due to our involvement after the fall of the Otterman Empire) due to the inhabitants being of a false religion occupying their holy land I would have to suggest it would be religiously based.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

mug2k said:


> Stop lying
> 
> "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)
> 
> ...


Well done buddy I was about to jump on this bullsh1t too but you've done it for me and rather well too! It does annoy me when people claim Hitler killed 14,000,000 in the name of "ATHEISM" he was theist and very religious as well... The Vatican provided assistance to a lot of war criminals escaping Germany after the war too. I agree with the Einstein summary I've never thought he was anything other than pantheist to be honest.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mug2k said:


> Stop lying
> 
> "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)
> 
> ...


Agreed, he was more of a pantheist.

But you missed my point, and called me a liar in the process. I said that these scientists used their faith to help their science. This is a quote from the man himself:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

That was my point.


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Well done buddy I was about to jump on this bullsh1t too but you've done it for me and rather well too! It does annoy me when people claim Hitler killed 14,000,000 in the name of "ATHEISM" he was theist and very religious as well... The Vatican provided assistance to a lot of war criminals escaping Germany after the war too. I agree with the Einstein summary I've never thought he was anything other than pantheist to be honest.


Yeah, gets on my tits. Its outright lying and I see alot of theists say similar so I always try and put a bit truth out there. As for newton, brilliant scientist and a Christian but also slightly nuts as he had a very strong interest in alchemy and the occult.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

lukeee said:


> I quite like the idea of a big pink elephant!! Leave the elephants alone you!
> 
> I cant prove it mate, and i know my feeling could be wrong but its a feeling i cant help, ive never worried about it or got confused about it and im quite at ease with it all so to me its all good.
> 
> Quite like the pink elephant idea though!


The elephant is a nice thought 

I don't judge anyway. Despite not rationally believing in a God I have at very desperate times found myself praying to a higher being. I think it's a cultural thing for me.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mug2k said:


> Yeah, gets on my tits. Its outright lying and I see alot of theists say similar so I always try and put a bit truth out there. As for newton, brilliant scientist and a Christian but also slightly nuts as he had a very strong interest in alchemy and the occult.


Call me a liar all you want. I know whereof I speak.

Here is what Albert Einstein said about Hitler and the church. Hitler hated the church. He was influenced by the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and his ideas about the Ubermenschh (spelling lol) or superman that gets rid of any notion of God.

Albert Einstein, the great physicist, cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche -Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p.526.

Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now admire...


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> Agreed, he was more of a pantheist.
> 
> But you missed my point, and called me a liar in the process. I said that these scientists used their faith to help their science. This is a quote from the man himself:
> 
> ...


Well you lumped him in with the other two and they were clearly devout Christians and Einstein was so obviously not. Einstein seems to use religion in a philosophical context to describe spirituality instead of its literal meaning.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mug2k said:


> Well you lumped him in with the other two and they were clearly devout Christians and Einstein was so obviously not. Einstein seems to use religion in a philosophical context to describe spirituality instead of its literal meaning.


Lol. okay okay, I'll take him out and swap him for copernicus, or blaise pascal


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> Call me a liar all you want. I know whereof I speak.
> 
> Here is what Albert Einstein said about Hitler and the church. Hitler hated the church. He was influenced by the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and his ideas about the Ubermenschh (spelling lol) or superman that gets rid of any notion of God.
> 
> ...


1. Doesn't mean Hitler wasn't religious.

2. Doesn't mean Einstein was religious.

I'm sorry about calling you a liar but to be fair I was only going off what you posted earlier.



Porkchop said:


> Lol. okay okay, I'll take him out and swap him for copernicus, or blaise pascal


Don't get me started on pascal's wager (aka bet)


----------



## miguelmolez (Apr 12, 2010)

I believe that when i die the magic unicorn will dish out chewits at the gates of Heaven.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

No worries dude :thumbup:

And I agree, anyone can be religious about anything, someone can religiously be into the occult etc.

Although Hitler wasn't a Christian, he was definitely religious about something!

I think faith in God is different to religion anyway. Religion can be dangerous, it can also be a good thing. when it gets locked into dogmatic traditions that have no relevance to the core of its faith, then watch out.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Keep this going, im at work and busy but want to play when I get chance


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

I wanna play too! :angry: washing dishes, applying for jobs, writing letters. Damn being unemployed is hard work :yawn: will be back to dazzle you all at 2ish probably when the graveyard shift come online


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> No worries dude :thumbup:
> 
> And I agree, anyone can be religious about anything, someone can religiously be into the occult etc.
> 
> ...


You'll get no arguments from me, belief in a god is perfectly fine it's as you say the dogmatic traditions that can be worrying. Some people think Jesus will be coming back in there lifetime, if one of those believers gets into a position of power and think they are guided by god an apocalyptic self fulfilling prophecy could be enacted (or jihad aka holy war). Obviously improbable but not impossible.

Iran's Ahmedinajad springs to mind.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I wanna play too! :angry: washing dishes, applying for jobs, writing letters. Damn being unemployed is hard work :yawn: will be back to dazzle you all at 2ish probably when the graveyard shift come online


Don't think there's much chance I'll be dazzling anyone lol but I'll be here, opinionated as usual and less busy @ 2


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Fatstuff said:


> Don't think there's much chance I'll be dazzling anyone lol but I'll be here, opinionated as usual and less busy @ 2


See you then fatty! We'll take the p1ss out theists whilst they're asleep and unable to defend themselves :rockon:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> See you then fatty! We'll take the p1ss out theists whilst they're asleep and unable to defend themselves :rockon:


It's the only way you'll win


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> It's the only way you'll win


Lol


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> It's the only way you'll win


In your dreams Faithbag!

Just kiddin' :whistling:


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Mighty.Panda said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206008/Probe-launched-Polish-priest-gets-young-children-lick-whipped-cream-knee-creepy-school-initiation.html
> 
> Seem's legit


Alot of the time catholic preists are involved in sex cases, makes me puke!


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

latblaster said:


> Alot of the time catholic preists are involved in sex cases, makes me puke!


At least 3 cases of Catholic priests ****ing young children crosses my facebook feed daily it's endemic to be honest especially in the US and Africa

https://www.facebook.com/EvidenceofHarmbyReligion

Brilliant page usually very good. Mainly Christianity and Islam... But every time a baby dies from infection after having the end of his penis cut off totally unanaesthetised with a rusty, bacteria ridden ceremonial knife, then the Jews get a look in too


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

You have no human rights when you're too young to talk so it's okay for grown ups to hack you up


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> View attachment 95165
> 
> 
> You have no human rights when you're too young to talk so it's okay for grown ups to hack you up


The same can be said of abortion.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

What I don't get is that the evidence for evolution has been challenged a lot in this thread with certain members trying to pick holes in the evidence but I'd be interested to know what valid and reliable evidence there is for God and the stories in the Bible. I would genuinely be interested. And there is the issue of different religions in existence...can they all be correct?


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> The same can be said of abortion.


An arguement is that abortion can only be carried out during the first 24 weeks when the fetus isn't fully developed. Babies however are fully developed beings.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Katy said:


> What I don't get is that the evidence for evolution has been challenged a lot in this thread with certain members trying to pick holes in the evidence but I'd be interested to know what valid and reliable evidence there is for God and the stories in the Bible. I would genuinely be interested. And there is the issue of different religions in existence...can they all be correct?


Hi Katy, great post. I'd love to respond now but I've got to go to work. Will try when I get back.

And I do have great respect for the evolutionist evidence, I just love a good debate!


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Katy said:


> An arguement is that abortion can only be carried out during the first 24 weeks when the fetus isn't fully developed. Babies however are fully developed beings.


Gahhh can't stay for long. I agree aborting babies is murder. Aborting 40 cells that are clumped together isn't. At a few days old IT doesn't have a sex, it doesn't have brain, neurones, any organs, any form of central nervous system. At this point fetal matter is little more than a parasite... Sounds harsh to say but it's true, there isn't a person there.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Katy said:


> What I don't get is that the evidence for evolution has been challenged a lot in this thread with certain members trying to pick holes in the evidence but I'd be interested to know what valid and reliable evidence there is for God and the stories in the Bible. I would genuinely be interested. And there is the issue of different religions in existence...can they all be correct?




Also sorry to flood the thread with memes... It's more the quote that is important, I knew I had this saved so was quicker than looking for his quote online. It sums up the point rather well to be honest. It's more likely that they are all wrong than one is right and the thousands of others are wrong.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Katy said:


> An arguement is that abortion can only be carried out during the first 24 weeks when the fetus isn't fully developed. Babies however are fully developed beings.


Yes, but one scenario results in death for that which had no rights, the other results in an odd shaped penis for the rest of their life! Which is more harmful?

Btw I think the concept of circumcision is crazy in this day and age. Even the New Testament says that. it says it doesn't mean anything, so stop doing it!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Arghh, got drawn in again!

Must..... get....to work....


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Gahhh can't stay for long. I agree aborting babies is murder. Aborting 40 cells that are clumped together isn't. At a few days old IT doesn't have a sex, it doesn't have brain, neurones, any organs, any form of central nervous system. At this point fetal matter is little more than a parasite... Sounds harsh to say but it's true, there isn't a person there.


Agree whole heartedly. But brain activity occurs after 8 - 12 weeks, WAY before the 24 week limit.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> Yes, but one scenario results in death for that which had no rights, the other results in an odd shaped penis for the rest of their life! Which is more harmful?
> 
> Btw I think the concept of circumcision is crazy in this day and age. Even the New Testament says that. it says it doesn't mean anything, so stop doing it!


Actual health issues fair enough. Just because its written in some book - **** off. People often complain its more hygienic but we live in the 21st century where washing is a socially expected, civilized practice. Washing our own testicles is rather easy in this day and age.

Need to go... Try not to miss me too much guys I know it'll be hard, if things get tough look at some Panda pictures x


----------



## FLEX-ERAZ (Jan 14, 2011)

The same story,with characters given different names and stories re written and re worded...that's all it is,all the books say the same thing with the same msg.The people who believe in a god are all really worshiping or believing the same thing,it just depends whereabouts in the world you happen to born usually decides what "brand" of religion you choose to buy into.Its been used as a tool to divide and cause wars for thousands of years and the funny thing is that they both more or less believe in the same thing,but people are too stupid to realize it...but the people who ultimately decide which countries will have a "religious" war are in a win win situation..they usually end up with control of oil resources in that country,because if you look there is usually a higher motive for the getting the two countries to fight,then the British and Americans go in and sort it out,after making money on arms deals,papers get sold covering the stories of the war,population reduction and oil...jobs a good un.....people die and the rich get richer!!


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Mighty.Panda said:


> View attachment 95167
> 
> 
> Also sorry to flood the thread with memes... It's more the quote that is important, I knew I had this saved so was quicker than looking for his quote online. It sums up the point rather well to be honest. It's more likely that they are all wrong than one is right and the thousands of others are wrong.


Brilliant post 



Porkchop said:


> but one scenario results in death for that which had no rights





Porkchop said:


> Agree whole heartedly. But brain activity occurs after 8 - 12 weeks, WAY before the 24 week limit.


This might upset a lot of people but you could say the same with squishing a bug; it has some form of neural activity and had no rights when a person chose to squish it - it isn't on a par with killing or harming a fully formed baby.

(I'm feel like burying my head in a pillow now for fear of the backlash for such a comparison :sad


----------



## chickenlegs (Nov 2, 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/not-in-my-name-islam-pakistan-and-blasphemy-laws_b_1815522.html?ncid=bannadukhpmg00000040


----------



## FLEX-ERAZ (Jan 14, 2011)

HAWKUS said:


> jesus was a peado :whistling:


Are you now a church goer hawk? :tongue:


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Katy said:


> Brilliant post
> 
> This might upset a lot of people but you could say the same with squishing a bug; it has some form of neural activity and had no rights when a person chose to squish it - it isn't on a par with killing or harming a fully formed baby.
> 
> (I'm feel like burying my head in a pillow now for fear of the backlash for such a comparison :sad


People often forget we kill life every time we wash ourselves, wash our clothes, our dishes, every time we throw away food. We also kill hundreds of cells every time we scratch our own heads. I would actually argue it's physically impossible to exist without killing other things, life comes in all shapes and sizes and much of it is too small to notice. I think a lot of bugs and creepy crawlies don't feel pain. With regards to flies and spiders, I open windows, I try to usher them out peacefully, but I do splat them after a while if they don't get the hint. It's fair enough... If I walked up to momma bear and her cubs she would snarl at me, that's my hint to **** off, if I don't take her hint and still choose to hang around, it's my fault if I get eaten really..


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Katy said:


> What I don't get is that the evidence for evolution has been challenged a lot in this thread with certain members trying to pick holes in the evidence but I'd be interested to know what valid and reliable evidence there is for God and the stories in the Bible. I would genuinely be interested. And there is the issue of different religions in existence...can they all be correct?


on a quantum level, until you can prove either way or that something exists or it doesnt, then it both exists and doesnt exist at the same time.

therefore we have to accept that god does and doesnt exist.

science says so.

:lol:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Katy said:


> Brilliant post
> 
> This might upset a lot of people but you could say the same with squishing a bug; it has some form of neural activity and had no rights when a person chose to squish it - it isn't on a par with killing or harming a fully formed baby.
> 
> (I'm feel like burying my head in a pillow now for fear of the backlash for such a comparison :sad


This is one of the reasons why I don't think I could ever believe in evolution whole heartedly.

some evolutionists I know draw this kind of comparison to say that human life is on the same sort of level as bugs and stuff at the developmental stage (I'm not assuming you believe in evolution, you may or may not but the argument you stated is symptomatic of some evolutionary thought).

This next bit is not very nice. Apologies.

But I've seen vids of babies being aborted in the womb, and when the doctor uses the cannula and forceps to dismember it, the baby is actually recoiling away from it. Brain may not be fully developed, but neither is a babies when it leaves the womb. On the same level as a bug? You may think so, I don't. I guess (and I admit this is a personal opinion here, not based on hard irrefutable evidence), I choose to believe in the sanctity of human life, even at that stage.

the thing is, if it is unclear just at what point a feotus becomes a person, isn't it better to err on the side of caution, for the sake of the baby? Imo 24 weeks is not erring on the side of caution.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> This is one of the reasons why I don't think I could ever believe in evolution whole heartedly.
> 
> some evolutionists I know draw this kind of comparison to say that human life is on the same sort of level as bugs and stuff at the developmental stage (I'm not assuming you believe in evolution, you may or may not but the argument you stated is symptomatic of some evolutionary thought).
> 
> ...


I disagree essentially :whistling: but I do agree on the point 24 weeks is leaving things far, far too late. Abortions need to be done very quickly, waiting months is ethically pretty risky they have heads and ligaments by this point and are far from being clumps of insentient cells.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> This is one of the reasons why I don't think I could ever believe in evolution whole heartedly.
> 
> some evolutionists I know draw this kind of comparison to say that human life is on the same sort of level as bugs and stuff at the developmental stage (I'm not assuming you believe in evolution, you may or may not but the argument you stated is symptomatic of some evolutionary thought).
> 
> ...


Abortion really is a whole other debate.

I don't say that i 'believe' in evolution, I see it as fact and therefore doesn't require my faith.

Anyway, moving on from that (I'm tried of all the previous posts now)..if you pull the leg off a spider it would recoil, if you cut the tail off a mouse, it will scream and run...does that mean that they have the same level of awareness as a developed human being? Recoiling is an innate response and not an indiciation of conscious awareness.

I don't consider human life as sacred as you said but I do value life. However, I also see death as part of life and I believe that there are varying levels of consciousness and awareness between animals and within their levels of development (all to do with evolution I might add). I don't believe in needless pain being inflicted on any being, great or small. However, abortions are rarely needless.


----------



## 2H3ENCH4U (May 23, 2012)

If evolution is real why haven't chickens evolved to be less delicious ????

Jus sayin ....


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

One of the methods of evaluating evolutionary processes is to look at the spread of different alleles over populations throughout time and how they slowly but subtly alter the genetic make up of the organism studied. The most obvious examples of this are in bacteria and viral populations where they replicate so damn fast that it's like the evolution of a more complex life form in fast forward... the development of new flu strains such as the new mutation of avian flu and swine flu are good examples, as is the emergence of the MRSA bug as an evolutionary response to the introduction of antibiotics in their environment... evolutionary processes with higher lifeforms are of course much harder to see because the breeding cycles are so much longer, so some retro-anaylsis is the only way to really see it.

A couple of good recent articles though below detailing some evidence which supports the concept of gradual evolutionary processes:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/natural-selection-uncovering-mechanisms-of-evolutionary-adaptation-34539

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120919190100.htm


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> View attachment 95167
> 
> 
> Also sorry to flood the thread with memes... It's more the quote that is important, I knew I had this saved so was quicker than looking for his quote online. It sums up the point rather well to be honest. It's more likely that they are all wrong than one is right and the thousands of others are wrong.


Excellent post!


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Lorian said:


> Nature is littered with examples which disprove 'Intelligent Design'. They show mistakes which simply wouldn't be there if there was an intelligent designer but they have occurred as a result of evolution For example (one of MANY), the tube that carries semen from the testes to the penis is not direct. It take a ridiculous detour around the ureter first. This is a result of evolution, when the testes descended into the scrotum this tube got hooked the wrong way around the ureter and we've been stuck with this 'design' ever since.


 @Porkchop, I have been waiting to hear how you'd counter argue Lorians point above...?


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> One of the methods of evaluating evolutionary processes is to look at the spread of different alleles over populations throughout time and how they slowly but subtly alter the genetic make up of the organism studied. The most obvious examples of this are in bacteria and viral populations where they replicate so damn fast that it's like the evolution of a more complex life form in fast forward... the development of new flu strains such as the new mutation of avian flu and swine flu are good examples, as is the emergence of the MRSA bug as an evolutionary response to the introduction of antibiotics in their environment... evolutionary processes with higher lifeforms are of course much harder to see because the breeding cycles are so much longer, so some retro-anaylsis is the only way to really see it.
> 
> A couple of good recent articles though below detailing some evidence which supports the concept of gradual evolutionary processes:
> 
> ...


Damn we have some awesome... Awesome... Mods we really do :thumb:


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

> @http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/member.php?u=70336" target="_blank">Porkchop</a>, I have been waiting to hear how you'd counter argue Lorians point above...?


God created the big bang. Evolution and nature took its place from there.

There, now everyone is a winner


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

MattGriff said:


> Excellent post!


Likewise bud, a few pages back now but you've fought the corner yourself pretty competently!


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Shady45 said:


> God created the big bang. Evolution and nature took its place from there.
> 
> There, now everyone is a winner


I hate it when Christians actually say this. Originally the earth was a few thousand years old this was "FACT" from God. All of a sudden God changes his mind and the whole universe was created by him through the big bang and the earth is in fact a lot older too. They can't just alter apparently eternal, divine explanations and still demand credibility -_-


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

The intelligent design argument is bizarre... the assumption is that the intricacy of things can only have occurred due to a conscious design, but the whole concept of 'intricacy' is subjective... things appear intricate because to our minds they seem complex, but that more reflects a limitation in our minds than an objective reality that things actually are complex - the concepts of intelligence or intricacy are all relative, so therefore don't prove anything (in example to conceptualize the idea of a billion stars all at once is impossible to the mind, but the ability to conceptualize four stars at once is simple... both quantities though are just numbers with no difference to the complexity of the reality).


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

> I hate it when Christians actually say this. Originally the earth was a few thousand years old this was "FACT" from God. All of a sudden God changes his mind and the whole universe was created by him through the big bang and the earth is in fact a lot older too. They can't just alter apparently eternal, divine explanations and still demand credibility -_-


Some people lie about having Audi's, some God's lie about when they created the world lol


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Anyone seen Prometheus yet? I bet that's real true, like & stuff. Ting.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Katy said:


> @Porkchop, I have been waiting to hear how you'd counter argue Lorians point above...?


Some of my points got missed earlier tOP, the rate this thread is moving it's completely understandable!

Anyway, to the point at hand.

firstly, I'm quoting from a well used website because their argument says it a lot better than I could, and I don't have time to write it all out myself! These issues can be very lengthy and complex lol

So, from the CMI website (creation ministries international):

http://creation.mobi/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed

Some critics of creation/intelligent design complain that it is badly designed because the urethra (the tube through which urine flows out) passes through it, so if the prostate enlarges, it restricts urine flow.

However, the positioning makes a great deal of sense. Rather than the urethra going through the prostate, it is more accurate to consider the prostate as a thickening of the urethral wall. It produces a major component of semen (other than the sperm, which come from the testicles; the testicles have to be outside the body for cooling purposes; much of the liquid is produced by the seminal vesicles). The prostate's secretions have to be injected into the urethra at the right time to join up with the spermatozoa from the testicles. The prostate arrangement means that its 30-50 glands secrete into 16-32 ducts that open independently into the urethra. The whole prostate contracts during ejaculation, and its smooth muscle quickly empties its contents and forces the semen along. The prostate also contains nerve plexuses, and is responsible for much of the pleasure of male sexual activity.

So why did the designer not simply place the prostate alongside the urethra? Presumably because it would require a new duct system, and extra systems to propel its secretions and propel the semen along.

The prostate also acts as a spacer between the bladder and the urogenital diaphragm. This provides a support for the bladder, and prevents the urethra kinking when the bladder is full. Otherwise extra ligaments and attachment structures would be required. This positioning could also be necessary to shut off urine flow during ejaculation. Indeed, one potential problem with prostate removal is incontinence.

As for the problems with enlargement, they are not normal features but pathological ones, so in a biblical framework they would be regarded as post-Fall. In any case, even by age 80, only about half of men actually have significant enlargement of the gland, and only a quarter have any urinary symptoms. In many men, the prostate actually shrinks as they get older. 2 If this was a design problem, all men would suffer from it. Factors involved in prostate problems include hormone imbalance, obesity, infections, medicinal side effects, and mutations.

Japanese men living in Japan have much less problem, whereas Japanese men living in America develop the same level of problems as Americans from other ethnic backgrounds. The reason for this is thought to be differences in diet. The Japanese diet comprises a lot of fish, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which are anti-inflammatory, and zinc, which inhibits an enzyme involved in conversion of testosterone (male hormone) to dihydrotestosterone, which stimulates hypertrophy (enlargement) of the gland. The traditional Japanese diet also includes regular portions of tofu, which has mild oestrogenic effects that counter the deleterious effects of sometimes excessive dihydrotestosterone on prostate hypertrophy. Inadequate vegetable consumption quadrupled the risk of prostate problems in one study. Clearly, a defective diet could be a large factor in the men who suffer from prostate enlargement. 3

Overall then, the prostate normally functions extremely well throughout a man's life. Other mammals have a similar design. In any case, if it were as bad as evolutionary critics say, then surely natural selection would have eliminated this design.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Lorian, I've just reread your quote and I might have misunderstood you. Are you talking about the epididymis?


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> The intelligent design argument is bizarre... the assumption is that the intricacy of things can only have occurred due to a conscious design, but the whole concept of 'intricacy' is subjective... things appear intricate because to our minds they seem complex, but that more reflects a limitation in our minds than an objective reality that things actually are complex - the concepts of intelligence or intricacy are all relative, so therefore don't prove anything (in example to conceptualize the idea of a billion stars all at once is impossible to the mind, but the ability to conceptualize four stars at once is simple... both quantities though are just numbers with no difference to the complexity of the reality).


Nature is also littered with examples that debunk intelligent design. Some species of wales have feet bones... But wales don't have feet! Why would God put them there if they served no purpose? Because they evolved from other things.... Oh sh1t! Evolution: 1 Creationism: 0.

Also the human appendix, doesn't really have much of a purpose but every now and again it can spontaneously kill you. We also have thousands of dead neural pathways that aren't used for anything, essentially taking up unneeded space regardless of how small. Tail bones... But we don't have tails?! Damn evolution again...

I personally hate the fact intelligent design is still put forward as legitimate evidence of a creator because it's been debunked for so, so long!! You have to admire the beautiful sunrises we get here in the UK, you also have to admire the beauty and intricacy of the ability of some cancers to ravage and kill human infants before their 1st birthday as well  still God means well doesn't he...


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Katy said:


> @Porkchop, I have been waiting to hear how you'd counter argue Lorians point above...?


maybe god is an imperfect being and having created man in his own image examples of this imperfection as lorian has highlighted are a result of this


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Why did god create idiots? What use are they??


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Ironclad said:


> Why did god create idiots? What use are they??


Entertainment? Oh and cannon fodder! :laugh:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Ironclad said:


> Why did god create idiots? What use are they??


God didn't create idiots. Satan did


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> God didn't create idiots. Satan did


Ironically Lucifer was actually the good guy that got exiled and locked away for trying to stand up to the genocidal maniac that calls himself God :whistling:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Ironically Lucifer was actually the good guy that got exiled and locked away for trying to stand up to the genocidal maniac that calls himself God :whistling:


Lol


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Ironically Lucifer was actually the good guy that got exiled and locked away for trying to stand up to the genocidal maniac that calls himself God :whistling:


Panda your the most passionate religion hater I've ever witnessed, you seem to know your stuff lol

Closet Christian


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Nature is also littered with examples that debunk intelligent design. Some species of wales have feet bones... But wales don't have feet! Why would God put them there if they served no purpose? Because they evolved from other things.... Oh sh1t! Evolution: 1 Creationism: 0.
> 
> Also the human appendix, doesn't really have much of a purpose but every now and again it can spontaneously kill you. We also have thousands of dead neural pathways that aren't used for anything, essentially taking up unneeded space regardless of how small. Tail bones... But we don't have tails?! Damn evolution again...
> 
> I personally hate the fact intelligent design is still put forward as legitimate evidence of a creator because it's been debunked for so, so long!! You have to admire the beautiful sunrises we get here in the UK, you also have to admire the beauty and intricacy of the ability of some cancers to ravage and kill human infants before their 1st birthday as well  still God means well doesn't he...


I think it goes back to the logic that a child has as it learns to interact with its environment - "if i cry then those around me respond - my environment changes in accordance with an expression of my will, therefore all changes and phenomenon in my environment that are not the result of my will must also be the result of will, just the will of another"... and if that will is not obvious it must therefore be a supernatural will.

Looking at it that way it explains why people are so attached to the concept of a higher intelligence, because it relates to one of the most basic and first imprinted conceptual understandings of the world, one of the concepts that shapes our cognitive development.

Of course it could still be argued that a god built us that way...


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

got to give reps to porkchop, argueing his corner for 10 pages against about 10 people all continually making the same point over and over in what for him an an unwunnable debate

i think everyone can get a bit to carried away with the extremity of the evolution vs creationism debate

It's not just one or the other, i'm sure a lot of religious people don't actually believe that noah built as ark, moses talked to god and adam and eve sexed it up in the garden of eden in the first ever porno created, they just see it as something to believe in, a set of fundemental principals and moral guidlines not meant to be taken literally but something to follow and live their lives by, and maybe give hope that in all the descrepencies and proof against the idea of god that their just might be something waiting when we die, and i don't think you can be too down on people for that


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> I think it goes back to the logic that a child has as it learns to interact with its environment - "if i cry then those around me respond - my environment changes in accordance with an expression of my will, therefore all changes and phenomenon in my environment that are not the result of my will must also be the result of will, just the will of another"... and if that will is not obvious it must therefore be a supernatural will.
> 
> Looking at it that way it explains why people are so attached to the concept of a higher intelligence, because it relates to one of the most basic and first imprinted conceptual understandings of the world, one of the concepts that shapes our cognitive development.
> 
> Of course it could still be argued that a god built us that way...


I like this a lot. You've written/verbalized something I've thought for quite a long time. It's creepy when you have something brilliant that needs to come out but you don't know how to convey it then someone does it for you better than you ever could. Because really at the end of the day it doesn't matter who comes out with the best explanations and best critiques, all that matters is they are now out there in the public sphere for other minds to play with, contribute to and further refine


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Shady45 said:


> Panda your the most passionate religion hater I've ever witnessed, you seem to know your stuff lol
> 
> Closet Christian


I truly do lust for the eventual death of religion. I honestly don't care how many friends I lose, how many enemies I make, how many jobs I'm fired from. We're vastly out numbered and the majority of people that can make a difference bow their heads in fear. In essence someone needs to oppose this ethically heinous sh1t, I'm one of those people and I don't have many stood beside me.


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> God didn't create idiots. Satan did


you still here? 3 days later lol


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I truly do lust for the eventual death of religion. I honestly don't care how many friends I lose, how many enemies I make, how many jobs I'm fired from. We're vastly out numbered and the majority of people that can make a difference bow their heads in fear. In essence someone needs to oppose this ethically heinous sh1t, I'm one of those people and I don't have many stood beside me.


you care about it that much :confused1:

i don't think i've ever given that much of a sh1t about anything, i remember when mugabe was killing all the white farmers and i thought that really sucked, got very angry for a while but then i had bills to pay, work to do etc and you just get on with life, i can't remember ever being so passionate about something that i was willing to lose friends over it, make significant enemies over it and lose my job, not just a broad general concept in life anyway, i mean i mostly agree with your ideas but ultimatly who gives a fcuk


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> you care about it that much :confused1:
> 
> i don't think i've ever given that much of a sh1t about anything, i remember when mugabe was killing all the white farmers and i thought that really sucked, got very angry for a while but then i had bills to pay, work to do etc and you just get on with life, i can't remember ever being so passionate about something that i was willing to lose friends over it, make significant enemies over it and lose my job, not just a broad general concept in life anyway, i mean i mostly agree with your ideas but ultimatly who gives a fcuk


If you lived in a theocratic society in which your family and friends were routinely oppressed, tortured and executed in the name of some blood-thirsty tyrannical religion you would wish someone with the power to help gave that ****. I give a **** for these kinds of people but I have very, very little power by myself unfortunately.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

ianjay said:


> you still here? 3 days later lol


Aha, wondered where you'd got to

Yeah! It's been an awesome debate. Some really good thoughts/opinions etc


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> God didn't create idiots. Satan did


In the translations of the oldest texts found regarding Satan he was actually an Angel sent to Earth, not exiled to give God a more intimate view of his creation, to feel thier emotions and suffer/celebrate as they did.


----------



## ianjay (Jul 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Aha, wondered where you'd got to
> 
> Yeah! It's been an awesome debate. Some really good thoughts/opinions etc


its got a bit too deep for me,i will leave all the science n stuff to you


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

ianjay said:


> its got a bit too deep for me,i will leave all the science n stuff to you


http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ brush up :whistling:


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> If you lived in a theocratic society in which your family and friends were routinely oppressed, tortured and executed in the name of some blood-thirsty tyrannical religion you would wish someone with the power to help gave that ****. I give a **** for these kinds of people but I have very, very little power by myself unfortunately.


the same could be said about loads of injustices in the world though, not just opressed people under theocratic rule, 10k babies died in africa this morning, it's terrible but i doubt i'll lose friends over it, people being killed north korea by their own government still, it sucks, communism mostly does, has killed tens of millions in the past century but i probably wont make enemies campaigning for the end of communism, people being killed in the middle east by theocratic lunatic governments, yeah it's sh1t but i wont be losing my job over it, lol your post was scary dude :laugh:


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Here's a reason why some people dislike religion, specifically the devout fundamentalist approach.



> A mother and father who let their 16-year-old son die in agony, choosing to "pray away" his burst appendix at home and not take him to hospital, have been spared jail.
> 
> American "faith-healers" Russel and Brandi Bellew of Creswell, Oregon, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide on Tuesday and were sentenced to five years probation after reaching a plea deal with prosecutors.
> 
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/19/faith-healers-brandi-bellew-austin-die-appendicitis_n_1898400.html


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

mug2k said:


> Here's a reason why some people dislike religion, specifically the devout fundamentalist approach.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/19/faith-healers-brandi-bellew-austin-die-appendicitis_n_1898400.html


Pretty sure we read the same things dude. These kinds of parents disgust me they just allow their children to die in agony and people respect their beliefs. It's not the beliefs that should be being respected it's the innocent, dieing child that should be respected.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> the same could be said about loads of injustices in the world though, not just opressed people under theocratic rule, 10k babies died in africa this morning, it's terrible but i doubt i'll lose friends over it, people being killed north korea by their own government still, it sucks, communism mostly does, has killed tens of millions in the past century but i probably wont make enemies campaigning for the end of communism, people being killed in the middle east by theocratic lunatic governments, yeah it's sh1t but i wont be losing my job over it, lol your post was scary dude :laugh:


North Korea is religion it's a necrocracy and is extremely ****ed up. Children dieing in Africa is largely down to religion. Millions die from aids and disease because the pope won't let them use condoms. Warlords engage in ethnic/religious cleansing very often on religious grounds. A lot of these people kill themselves by relying on faith alone too. Babies need doctors, if they physically can get to one they NEED to, praying won't do sh1t.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Ironclad said:


> Why did god create idiots? What use are they??


God created idiots as practice for making politicians. 

Adapted from a mark Twain quote


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> North Korea is religion it's a necrocracy and is extremely ****ed up. Children dieing in Africa is largely down to religion. Millions die from aids and disease because the pope won't let them use condoms. Warlords engage in ethnic/religious cleansing very often on religious grounds. A lot of these people kill themselves by relying on faith alone too. Babies need doctors, if they physically can get to one they NEED to, praying won't do sh1t.


north korea is still a communist state, plenty of communist states keep it in the family but the social and economic policies they continue to apply are ones of communism.

not that it really matters that doesn't really have anything to do with the point i was making, i just don't agree with you that religion seems to be the cause of all the worlds problems, i think i said it before in the thread, why did the first caveman ever pick up a stick against another caveman, it was before they could talk so i doubt it had a religious element attached to it, it's just in our nature, to fight, to kill, to opress and to be pretty fckued up, get rid of all religion and the world will be as fcked up as ever imo, it's human nature


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Why did god make Jews if the Christians are right?

If gays are evil why did god shove a prostate up straight men's asses?

If god exists, why Swindon?


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> north korea is still a communist state, plenty of communist states keep it in the family but the social and economic policies they continue to apply are ones of communism.
> 
> not that it really matters that doesn't really have anything to do with the point i was making, i just don't agree with you that religion seems to be the cause of all the worlds problems, i think i said it before in the thread, why did the first caveman ever pick up a stick against another caveman, it was before they could talk so i doubt it had a religious element attached to it, it's just in our nature, to fight, to kill, to opress and to be pretty fckued up, get rid of all religion and the world will be as fcked up as ever imo, it's human nature


We have evolved out of many of our primitive, primal tendencies, people are become more peaceful. Religion is just another obstacle in the way because like it or not it has influenced the deaths of billions. Kim jung Il regarded himself as a living God and so did his people, his son Kim jung Un is regarded as the reincarnation of him. It really is a ****ed up state of affairs over there. Communist states are dictatorships and the man in charge often either identifies as a God or regards himself as the living representative of one. We need religion gone it's set us back by so many thousands of years, we can be peaceful but religion isn't compatible with this.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Ironclad said:


> Why did god make Jews if the Christians are right?
> 
> If gays are evil why did god shove a prostate up straight men's asses?
> 
> If god exists, why Swindon?


Deffo agree with the last one lol. It's something that's unfathomable!

I've asked the big man to explain it and all I get is laughter....


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Ironclad said:


> Why did god make Jews if the Christians are right?
> 
> If gays are evil why did god shove a prostate up straight men's asses?
> 
> If god exists, why Swindon?


Gays are going to be very important in the future. Many religions command gays to be killed. Islam commands all non-believers should be killed. Many gays are also atheists. When the two get their act together there will be a lot of very p1ssed off people not wanting to die.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Ironclad said:


> If gays are evil why did god shove a prostate up straight men's asses?


So you would enjoy having a sh! t


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Gays also fit evolution quite well to be honest :whistling:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Gays also fit evolution quite well to be honest :whistling:


Gays are people too you know!


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Communist states are dictatorships and the man in charge often either identifies as a God or regards himself as the living representative of one


what :confused1:

communist states mostly hate religion not encorporate it

religion goes against the communist pricipal of everyone working for the state etc, chairman mao who has killed the most people in history, 50 million of his own people under the banner of commusism was an ardent athiest and stalin who has killed the second most people in history, again his own poeople, spent most of his time killing priests and burning down chuches, and those are the 2 biggest examples of states having killed people in history, both of which despised religion, let alone regarded themselfs as gods of any kind


----------



## VeNuM (Aug 14, 2011)




----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> what :confused1:
> 
> communism mostly hates religion not encorporates it
> 
> religion goes against the communist pricipal of everyone working for the state etc, chairman mao who has killed the most people in history, 50 million of his own people under the banner of commusism was an ardent athiest and stalin who has killed the second most people in history, again his own poeople, spent most of his time killing priests and burning down chuches, and those are the 2 biggest examples of states having killed people in history, both of which despised religion, let alone regarded themselfs as gods of any kind


The fact they claimed to be atheists and in fact arguably were is irrelevant though lots of religions are atheistic. I need to go for a while but I will be back to this don't worry :whistling: need to cook, zee mother has broken her leg silly cow! Please no prayers for her... Spend the time on something more useful and constructive :001_tt2:


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Panda as you obviously do feel so strongly about this can i ask have you ever attempted to do anything about it? (this is not a dig)


----------



## Taffy70 (May 1, 2012)

Even though i have never seen GOD i still speak with him twice a day


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Nature is also littered with examples that debunk intelligent design. Some species of wales have feet bones... But wales don't have feet! Why would God put them there if they served no purpose? Because they evolved from other things.... Oh sh1t! Evolution: 1 Creationism: 0.
> 
> Also the human appendix, doesn't really have much of a purpose but every now and again it can spontaneously kill you. We also have thousands of dead neural pathways that aren't used for anything, essentially taking up unneeded space regardless of how small. Tail bones... But we don't have tails?! Damn evolution again...
> 
> I personally hate the fact intelligent design is still put forward as legitimate evidence of a creator because it's been debunked for so, so long!! You have to admire the beautiful sunrises we get here in the UK, you also have to admire the beauty and intricacy of the ability of some cancers to ravage and kill human infants before their 1st birthday as well  still God means well doesn't he...


I remember hearing about the whale feet just a week ago.

@Porkchop, you've given another person's theory to aruge why they think that the male piping is intelligently designed (not convinced btw), how would you explain the whale feet? Or anyone else? (can't expect porkchop to be take this big task on all alone)


----------



## Lorian (Apr 9, 2003)

Porkchop said:


> firstly, I'm quoting from a well used website


Well used does not = credible.

I could run a massively popular website proclaiming that the sun is made of lemon mousse but it'd still be nonsense.



Porkchop said:


> Some critics of creation/intelligent design complain that it is badly designed because the urethra (the tube through which urine flows out) passes through it, so if the prostate enlarges, it restricts urine flow...


For a start, they are picking apart just 1 of thousands of examples across the entire animal kingdom. Even if the response had any merit (which it doesn't) it's still the case that these mistakes exist in abundance. The human spine is another example off the top of my head. Modern day back pain is ultimately down to the fact that we aren't 'designed' to be bipedal.

Secondly, their argument presupposes that this 'design' is intentional as the testes need to be outside the body. But this hasn't always been true - evolution has shown that it wasn't the case prior to their descent. If they were designed 'intelligently' from the start, why move them in the first place.

Thirdly, the entire passage sadly reads like so many on the web (particularly on conspiracy websites) in that they give lots of information to make it look like they have a complete rebuttal of a point. If you strip it apart very little of what they say is even relevant to the discussion. More words does not equal a cohesive argument.



Porkchop said:


> In any case, if it were as bad as evolutionary critics say, then surely natural selection would have eliminated this design.


Written by someone with no understanding of evolution.

Life is a random occurrence against obscene odds that we could barely begin to comprehend.

It genuinely saddens me when willful ignorance prevents people learning about the process that has lead to such awe and beauty.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Lorian said:


> Well used does not = credible.
> 
> I could run a massively popular website proclaiming that the sun is made of lemon mousse but it'd still be nonsense.
> 
> ...


In the same way, it saddens me when so many people with hardly any understanding of religion or faith (not saying you, just in general) think they can just write it all off with a very very limited understanding of it. Just saying comments like religion never did any good etc.

I'm on your ground Lorian, in terms of discussing evolution rather than religion. But I'm trying to give what I know is a limited viewpoint, whilst respecting the conversation as a whole.

Thanks for the reply


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Lorian said:


> Well used does not = credible.
> 
> I could run a massively popular website proclaiming that the sun is made of lemon mousse but it'd still be nonsense.
> 
> ...


I'll tell you what I find even worse Lorian...when people achieve something wonderful or really remarkable and proceed to thank god profusely for helping them achieve whatever it was. Like, you didnt have a part in the whole process yerself? Drug addicts or alcoholics who find god and he helps them quit, or for someone who has been very sick is cured and god is thanked...never mind the surgeon or doctor at all. Really boils my blood that stupidity.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> I'll tell you what I find even worse Lorian...when people achieve something wonderful or really remarkable and proceed to thank god profusely for helping them achieve whatever it was. Like, you didnt have a part in the whole process yerself? Drug addicts or alcoholics who find god and he helps them quit, or for someone who has been very sick is cured and god is thanked...never mind the surgeon or doctor at all. Really boils my blood that stupidity.


They're not being forced to say those things. If they want to attribute it to that, it's their prerogative. They must honestly believe it's true.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

mixerD1 said:


> I'll tell you what I find even worse Lorian...when people achieve something wonderful or really remarkable and proceed to thank god profusely for helping them achieve whatever it was. Like, you didnt have a part in the whole process yerself? Drug addicts or alcoholics who find god and he helps them quit, or for someone who has been very sick is cured and god is thanked...never mind the surgeon or doctor at all. Really boils my blood that stupidity.


That's why I steered clear of AA...I'm not going to be encouraged to place my faith in something other than myself.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Reality check.

I'm watching the news about these violence outbreaks about the prophet Mohammed, and thinking - religion is stupid lol.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> In the same way, it saddens me when so many people with hardly any understanding of religion or faith (not saying you, just in general) think they can just write it all off with a very very limited understanding of it. Just saying comments like religion never did any good etc.
> 
> *I'm on your ground Lorian, in terms of discussing evolution rather than religion*. But I'm trying to give what I know is a limited viewpoint, whilst respecting the conversation as a whole.
> 
> Thanks for the reply


I have asked earlier on in the thread to hear the evidence for religion...we'd then be on equal ground. If you're going to poke holes in the unbelievalbe amount of evidence for evolution then you need to balance it out with equal amounts of evidence for the religion you believe to be true.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> I'll tell you what I find even worse Lorian...when people achieve something wonderful or really remarkable and proceed to thank god profusely for helping them achieve whatever it was. Like, you didnt have a part in the whole process yerself? Drug addicts or alcoholics who find god and he helps them quit, or for someone who has been very sick is cured and god is thanked...never mind the surgeon or doctor at all. Really boils my blood that stupidity.


i'm the opposite, if something truely remarkable happends and you're religious i think thanking god would be the normal thing to do

what i find stupid is when sports stars or pop stars thank god after they've won an award or a match, couldn't he have saved a few million starving africans while he was down here helping you win a grammy?


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

Here we go, to end the thread...

Fact: God is all forgiving.

Therefore we can conclude, if you dont believe in him, doesnt matter, you'll be forgiven.

and if you do believe in him, well done.

kbye


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Don't bite the hand that fed you imo lol. Our society is pretty much based on the ten commandments. The reason most people think stealing is wrong, and murder etc, is down to this teaching being a foundation years ago in our society. We also wouldn't have hospitals without christianity, they pioneered it. same goes with slavery. We take a lot for granted that these 'mythical' religions have done for us.


This was from earlier in the thread Katy, I have been putting forward why I think religion has value in this debate. It's just the conversation steered more towards evolution as the majority of people debating hold that to be true.

I'm not as concerned with where we came from, as I am with where we're going tbh. If evolution IS true that's great, but what does that mean for our future? Where are we going? Will we evolve even further from what we are now?

If religions hold true, what does that mean for the future? After death?

Those are the things that I would love to know.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Katy said:


> I have asked earlier on in the thread to hear the evidence for religion...we'd then be on equal ground. If you're going to poke holes in the unbelievalbe amount of evidence for evolution then you need to balance it out with equal amounts of evidence for the religion you believe to be true.


but that's unfair though because unless you're incredibly stupid, which from what i've read of your stuff you're not, you know that porkchop or anyone else can't prove the existence of god, not anywhere near the extent you can evolution, so therefore his points arn't valid?

the basis of his argument, or any proponent of religion is that it's a FAITH based movement, not a FACT based one, and a certain amount of belief was involved, if god proved himself to the world would the amount of people living their life according to the bible suddendly shoot up? no, because the people that are into are into it whether there's proof or not and the people that arn't probably wouldnt give a sh1t if god did show up anyway.

i made the point ealier, religion isn't about stupid bible stories and god making the world in 7 days, it's about a set of beliefs people take comfort in following

I'm sure some of porkchops comments on this thread have been more of a philosophical nature, made to produce debate and argument, not meant to be taken literally

as for the whale feet thing and the spine thing lorian mentioned to me it's pointless, there's no way to prove god, there's literallly hundreds of thousands of ways to prove evolution, it's like shooting fish in a barrell, you could come out with these examples until your fingers bled from typing, and then it's not even a debate it's a point scoring exersize.

if god created all things, molecules, atoms and scientific life as we know it and given that religion is a faith based industry is it not concievable god, being in charge of all atoms in the universe he created, changed the atomic structure of the dinosaur fossils to show that they were millions of years old, thus further testing the faith of his followers, if god exists is that not a concievable way of testing his followers in accordence with the evolution of science?

when i die if i'm up in heaven i'll ask god: "wtf am i doing here, how can you exist, what about all the proof of evolution, the dinosaus, carbon dating, science, etc" he would probably say: "listen you pleb i invented the universe and everything in it, i can make stuff look however i want it to", how could i argue with that? tbh i wouldnt need to ask himthat if i was in heaven would probably be proof enough and i doubt god would have time for me, he probably hangs around with hendrix and dean martin up there.

take ant and dec for example, you don't have to have faith to love ant and dec just tune in to whatever saturday night sh1t they're on and they're you go, 2 geordie lovable rogues, the point of religion is to love god like you love ant and dec but without the whole seeing him on t.v, being able to prove he exists part.

just because someone discounts the idea of evolution because they believe in god doesn't mean they have to prove his existence


----------



## FLEX-ERAZ (Jan 14, 2011)

The truth is,all we can do is speculate...often what has been proven to be fact through science later turns out not to be fact....people want something to believe in thats cool...i choose believe in myself,my family and hawkus :thumb:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

TG123 said:


> but that's unfair though because unless you're incredibly stupid, which from what i've read of your stuff you're not, you know that porkchop or anyone else can't prove the existence of god, not anywhere near the extent you can evolution, so therefore his points arn't valid?
> 
> the basis of his argument, or any proponent of religion is that it's a FAITH based movement, not a FACT based, and a certain amount of belief was involved, if god proved himself to the world would the amount of people living their life according to the bible suddendly shoot up? no, because the people that are into are into it whether there's proof or not and the people that arn't probably wouldnt give a sh1t if god did show up anyway.
> 
> ...


Lol that was an awesome rant

And true to where I'm coming from, I would agree as faith in essence is believing in things you can't directly prove or see. And I am more philosophical, I love to debate these kind of things and have great respect for anyone who has thought about this stuff, whatever beliefs they hold.

And it's been a great debate. From religion to evolution to abortion to pot smoking Jesus (what was that about lol) without any flaming or abuse. That's pretty amazing IMO. Just shows there's some good minds on this forum.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

i believe the bible cover to cover, Jesus came into my life when i was 7 years old and is with me every day, i cannot imagine how awful life would be without his presence and love, you can mock me as much as you like and it will be meaningless to me because i know my personal truth...this physical life is nothing, the eternal life after this one is all that matters.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

justin case said:


> this physical life is nothing, the eternal life after this one is all that matters.


I don't mean to be picky here (it's not the first time I've been told that anyway lol), especially as I realize what you're saying isn't a theological statement but a devotional one, but in christianity, the physical life does matter, as it will be part of the eternal life.

That's why the resurrection is so crucial in Christian thought, and makes it so unique. Most other religions have some belief in life after death, but it is the raising of the physical body from death, and the hope that one day we will be raised physically too, that sets christianity apart.

The idea that the physical world is of no consequence and that the spiritual is all that matters is actually a Greek philosophy.

I did like your testimony though


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> I don't mean to be picky here (it's not the first time I've been told that anyway lol), especially as I realize what you're saying isn't a theological statement but a devotional one, but in christianity, the physical life does matter, as it will be part of the eternal life.
> 
> That's why the resurrection is so crucial in Christian thought, and makes it so unique. Most other religions have some belief in life after death, but it is the raising of the physical body from death, and the hoe that one day we will be raised physically too, that sets christianity apart.
> 
> ...


i have been with many old people when they have passed over and you can feel the spirit leave their physical bodies, sometimes you can see it....stare at yourself in a mirror and look beyond your eyes...you are in there looking out, your consciousness is you a spirit, and you will find yourself outside your body upon physical death.

of this i am absolutely certain..god breathed life into us at birth and if we know him will accept us unto him when our bodies die.

this is what i know and feel.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> If religions hold true, what does that mean for the future? After death?
> 
> Those are the things that I would love to know.


This is one debate that is interesting - of course it was something that Shakespear touched upon in Hamlet in the "To be or not to be" speech.

"....for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled of this mortal coil..."

Now as you may or may not be aware concious thought and emotions are controlled by chemical stimulus in the brain - levels of which are controlled by electro-stimulus in the brain and so on. This is a form of energy which we either receive as chemical energy from a mother while in the womb or by the intake of kcals.

Now the laws of physics are clear that you cannot destroy or create matter or energy it can only be transferred. It is also true that all the electrical energy of a human body is dispersed after death (no more chemical intake and a gradual release of the energy within through heat, smell, involuntary contraction, rigormortis etc.).

The production levels in the organ that regulates the chemicals that make you- you cease to work, the body is either decomposed into energy or burnt into heat and light energy and thus the body and chemicals that form you as a person are returned to the universe and indeed eventually to another star which is where the raw material came from in the first place (or a large chunk of it).

So, the energy is measurable - and you cease to be you. Where in all of this measurable transfer of energy does ones 'Soul' transfer to somewhere else as it can only be by something other than energy?


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

justin case said:


> i have been with many old people when they have passed over and you can feel the spirit leave their physical bodies, sometimes you can see it....stare at yourself in a mirror and look beyond your eyes...you are in there looking out, your consciousness is you a spirit, and you will find yourself outside your body upon physical death.
> 
> of this i am absolutely certain..god breathed life into us at birth and if we know him will accept us unto him when our bodies die.
> 
> this is what i know and feel.


While very romantic can you back this up with something that is not anecdotal? Like fact perhaps?

You see vision is electro-stimulus to the brain and somehow much like people who see ghosts I find it more believable that the electric signal has misfired than what you say actually being true - and do you know why? because it is the most logical and simple answer is why which is more often than not the correct one.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> While very romantic can you back this up with something that is not anecdotal? Like fact perhaps?
> 
> You see vision is electro-stimulus to the brain and somehow much like people who see ghosts I find it more believable that the electric signal has misfired than what you say actually being true - and do you know why? because it is the most logical and simple answer is why which is more often than not the correct one.


look i have laid my cards on the table about where i stand . god has given us free will because he loves us so much..if god revealed himself then we would live in fear and there would no longer be free will...you are using free will to reject god in my opinion, i hope you recieve a sign and you change your mind, but i will never be able to prove anything to you.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> So, the energy is measurable - and you cease to be you. Where in all of this measurable transfer of energy does ones 'Soul' transfer to somewhere else as it can only be by something other than energy?


This is where metaphysics begins. It depends on whether you make a distinction between soul, the energy you speak of, and spirit, which isn't measurable in the same way as energy. This is because spirit in metaphysical thought is not limited by the laws of nature because it exists outside of it, or you could say it exists on more dimensions than space time.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

justin case said:


> look i have laid my cards on the table about where i stand . god has given us free will because he loves us so much..if god revealed himself then we would live in fear and there would no longer be free will...you are using free will to reject god in my opinion, i hope you recieve a sign and you change your mind, but i will never be able to prove anything to you.


In the original scripts God did reveal himself many times to man so your argument is rather flawed.

I will never believe in a Deity any more than I will the Easter Bunny, the Boogyman or Father Christmas - Christianity and Catholicism has brought more pain, death and war upon the world than any other religions as far as I am aware - this is evidence in itself that there is no God, especially one that 'loves us so much'.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

I log in to 15 likes?! My people really? :laugh:

In all seriousness I think this has probably been the best religion thread on here to be honest it has drawn out some of the boards most intelligent people that otherwise don't usually post. DTLV and Katy post conservatively at best and Lorian I don't think I've ever seen post! I'm glad even the quieter people have the conviction to step out and defend science and reason when it is under threat from such an abundant volume of illogical bullsh1t. Reps for you all and a few regular members too MattGriff especially.

Anyway who saw the recent civil war in Pakistan on the BBC news earlier? I hear it is over.... A ****ING VIDEO....


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

MattGriff said:


> In the original scripts God did reveal himself many times to man so your argument is rather flawed.
> 
> I will never believe in a Deity any more than I will the Easter Bunny, the Boogyman or Father Christmas - Christianity and Catholicism has brought more pain, death and war upon the world than any other religions as far as I am aware - this is evidence in itself that there is no God, especially one that 'loves us so much'.


It's always rather amusing when heretic non-believers like ourselves know more about a faithers religion than they do. I've always found it incredibly unfair that as atheists we are expected to be fluent experts in every single world religion whereas our opponents only have to be experts in their own. We must read thousands of books in our life times to oppose these people and they are only expected to read a single book whilst somehow maintaining some self-perceived credibility over the rest of us.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> This is where metaphysics begins. It depends on whether you make a distinction between soul, the energy you speak of, and spirit, which isn't measurable in the same way as energy. This is because spirit in metaphysical thought is not limited by the laws of nature because it exists outside of it, or you could say it exists on more dimensions than space time.


You may find the line between spiritual and the physical world is being erased by science, repeatedly. An yet people still come up with this nonsense. The spirit is and will eventually be proven to be an illusion and yet somehow I think that religious folk will still protest that which is lain before them.

The fact of the matter is the 'spiritual world' has not one shred of substantial evidence to support it and religion has not one shred of evidence to support it (in fact it contradicts itself repeatedly, changes and tries to fit in with new discoveries meaning its roots were incorrect in the first place).

The basis of an answer being "You just can't see it, it exists outside of the laws of science" and so on is simply hiding from the truth - it is a total cop out not an answer.

If as you said originally you use science and religion you will understand the theory of a hypothesis ans an experiment.

You take a theory and then attempt to disprove it, take religion for example. Over and over science answers the questions and disproves many parts of the scripts and so on and yet there is still nothing at all supporting the hypothesis. Essentially the doors are closing ever faster and the scriptures are being proven erogenous over and over again - how many times do we have to say put your hand in the fire and it will get burnt before the religious folk stop doing it claiming they have faith, and then when they are burned saying it is what someone that 'loves them' wanted?


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I log in to 15 likes?! My people really? :laugh:
> 
> In all seriousness I think this has probably been the best religion thread on here to be honest it has drawn out some of the boards most intelligent people that otherwise don't usually post. DTLV and Katy post conservatively at best and Lorian I don't think I've ever seen post! I'm glad even the quieter people have the conviction to step out and defend science and reason when it is under threat from such an abundant volume of illogical bullsh1t. Reps for you all and a few regular members too MattGriff especially.
> 
> Anyway who saw the recent civil war in Pakistan on the BBC news earlier? I hear it is over.... A ****ING VIDEO....


the only one who deservs reps in this thread is porkchop imo, doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, religious or not he put more into this thread than all of us put together, a combination of his own thoughts and ideas amalgamated with quoted ideas sourced from the net which he diligently defended day after day post after post, looking at the thread objectivley, as a debate and not a conclusion porkchop contributed more than all of us put together and made the thread what it was, which was a good read and entertaining to be a part of, stuck to his guns and answered every question thrown at him as best he could, top bloke


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> The spirit is and will eventually be proven to be an illusion


so it hasn't been proven to be an illusion yet then?

how do you know it will be proven in the future and by who?

you can't come out with "this, that and the other will happen in the future" then go on to make a point based on that "fact" without being able to substantiate it


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Mighty.Panda said:


> I log in to 15 likes?! My people really? :laugh:
> 
> In all seriousness I think this has probably been the best religion thread on here to be honest it has drawn out some of the boards most intelligent people that otherwise don't usually post. DTLV and Katy post conservatively at best and Lorian I don't think I've ever seen post! I'm glad even the quieter people have the conviction to step out and defend science and reason when it is under threat from such an abundant volume of illogical bullsh1t. Reps for you all and a few regular members too MattGriff especially.
> 
> Anyway who saw the recent civil war in Pakistan on the BBC news earlier? I hear it is over.... A ****ING VIDEO....


But i hope you have respect for those that have faith panda, whether they believe that God made the world or not or else you will just sound like a clever (and i do think your clever) pillock.. Most of the posts have been from people that perhaps are non believers so where this attack from such an abundant volume of illogical bull**** has come from....the lord only knows!


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

lukeee said:


> But i hope you have respect for those that have faith panda, whether they believe that God made the world or not or else you will just sound like a clever (and i do think your clever) pillock.. Most of the posts have been from people that perhaps are non believers so where this attack from such an abundant volume of illogical bull**** has come from....the lord only knows!


great post

i like panda too, knows his stuff and when you see that he's posted something you know it's probably gonna be a good read

has come across a bit too anti religion though and some of his more angry posts have clouded and detracted from the decent posts he's made


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

TG123 said:


> the only one who deservs reps in this thread is porkchop imo, doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, religious or not he put more into this thread than all of us put together, a combination of his own thoughts and ideas amalgamated with quoted ideas sourced from the net which he diligently defended day after day post after post, looking at the thread objectivley, as a debate and not a conclusion porkchop contributed more than all of us put together and made the thread what it was, which was a good read and entertaining to be a part of, stuck to his guns and answered every question thrown at him as best he could, top bloke


Paraphrasing what Lorian eloquently put just a page or so ago, I could argue that the sun is made of lemon mousse, I could provide hundreds of essays, websites and journals dedicated to the subject I could provide statistics of how many people consider the assertion to be undeniable fact. What is fact is that the truth doesn't care how few or how many people recognise it. The fact someone can fight a long argument for so long, with such illogical crap is not a merit in its favour. I could argue the moon is made from cheese my entire life and despite my life long efforts it would be completely and utterly meaningless without objective, tangible evidence. I can salute his patience but nothing more than that.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

TG123 said:


> so it hasn't been proven to be an illusion yet then?
> 
> how do you know it will be proven in the future and by who?
> 
> you can't come out with "this, that and the other will happen in the future" then go on to make a point based on that "fact" without being able to substantiate it


Oh please, not a very good argument when there is nothing to prove it exists at all.

Any human can claim something 'outisde of science' and blindly follow it and it will always be difficult to disprove. This does not lend strength to its existence.

This is paramount to supporting the "A wizard did it" argument.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

TG123 said:


> the only one who deservs reps in this thread is porkchop imo, doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, religious or not he put more into this thread than all of us put together, a combination of his own thoughts and ideas amalgamated with quoted ideas sourced from the net which he diligently defended day after day post after post, looking at the thread objectivley, as a debate and not a conclusion porkchop contributed more than all of us put together and made the thread what it was, which was a good read and entertaining to be a part of, stuck to his guns and answered every question thrown at him as best he could, top bloke


!

Ah but he wont get credit, its all bull**** you see!

Im actually with you, when you said earlier who gives a fcuk! i have faith, i do believe in evolution and i dont really give a fcuk who else does/doesnt!

One thing though, how many non believers have been christened and have renounced their blessing since?


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

lukeee said:


> But i hope you have respect for those that have faith panda, whether they believe that God made the world or not or else you will just sound like a clever (and i do think your clever) pillock.. Most of the posts have been from people that perhaps are non believers so where this attack from such an abundant volume of illogical bull**** has come from....the lord only knows!


The fact is that no opinion or belief deserves respect and all opinions and beliefs are wholly irrelevant and cannot be considered a legitimate source of knowledge. Knowledge and truth can only be drawn through empirical evidence and logic. Any and all beliefs must be questioned to the point of exhaustion in order for them to hold up. I can't respect faith I can merely tolerate its existence. I do like Porkchop in my subjective opinion he's a good bloke.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> Oh please, not a very good argument when there is nothing to prove it exists at all.
> 
> Any human can claim something 'outisde of science' and blindly follow it and it will always be difficult to disprove. This does not lend strength to its existence.
> 
> This is paramount to supporting the "A wizard did it" argument.


lol none of that means that you can then just suppose that one day the soul will be proved as an illusion and base a whole argument on it

just because there's nothing to prove it exists doesn't mean that for certain in the future it will be disproved as such

i'm genuinly interested to know why you think in the future the soul will be proven as being an illusion and why it hasn't already? what are you anticipating changing in the future that will allow us to prove this?


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> You may find the line between spiritual and the physical world is being erased by science, repeatedly. An yet people still come up with this nonsense. The spirit is and will eventually be proven to be an illusion and yet somehow I think that religious folk will still protest that which is lain before them.
> 
> The fact of the matter is the 'spiritual world' has not one shred of substantial evidence to support it and religion has not one shred of evidence to support it (in fact it contradicts itself repeatedly, changes and tries to fit in with new discoveries meaning its roots were incorrect in the first place).
> 
> ...


Actually that's not what I'm saying at all.

Metaphysics is primarily grounded in philosophical thought, not religion.

I'm saying that certain things exist on higher dimensions than space time. This is something that is taken on board by most physicists, like Lisa Randall:

"People have often made the mistake of believing only in what they could see. Extra dimensions might turn out to be one among many aspects of the cosmos about which we were initially mistaken.

String theory is another reason to believe extra dimensions might exist. It consistently incorporates our theories of the very small and the very big in the universe - quantum mechanics and general relativity".

Scientific thought actually has to contradict itself as well, in order to progress:

"Scientific progress always entails an almost contradictory set of beliefs. You need to make assumptions to build a mathematical picture of reality. But while you want to be sufficiently excited about your assumptions to think they merit investigation, you need to remain sceptical enough to subject the consequences of those premises to rigorous analysis."

quoted from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3341260/Why-I-believe-in-higher-dimensions.html

My point is that if scientists are saying that there is a MASSIVE amount that we can't comprehend, isn't it a bit arrogant to say that people who believe in the spiritual just believe in illusions?

I don't think science will ever eradicate the need for faith, because the created order of things is so complex we can't hope to fully understand what truly happens to things like energy and consciousness etc. we would need to be aware of so many levels or dimensions of being at once. In my view, only God can do that.

Your last comment doesn't even warrant a reply.


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

MattGriff said:


> Oh please, not a very good argument when there is nothing to prove it exists at all.
> 
> Any human can claim something 'outisde of science' and blindly follow it and it will always be difficult to disprove. This does not lend strength to its existence.
> 
> This is paramount to supporting the "A wizard did it" argument.


"I'm not religious at all it's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me, oh but I am quite spiritual" and similar phrases are things I all too often find myself cringing painfully from...

- - - Updated - - -

Need to disappear for a bit. Not running away you all know I'll be back :001_tt2:


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> Paraphrasing what Lorian eloquently put just a page or so ago, I could argue that the sun is made of lemon mousse, I could provide hundreds of essays, websites and journals dedicated to the subject I could provide statistics of how many people consider the assertion to be undeniable fact. What is fact is that the truth doesn't care how few or how many people recognise it. The fact someone can fight a long argument for so long, with such illogical crap is not a merit in its favour. I could argue the moon is made from cheese my entire life and despite my life long efforts it would be completely and utterly meaningless without objective, tangible evidence. I can salute his patience but nothing more than that.


but my friend this is where you may be missing a trick in the point of debate, if you were to argue that the sun was made of lemon mousse i could prove to you that it wasn't, if you were to argue that the moon was made of cheese i could prove that it wasn't, if you were to argue that god existed, i couldn't prove that he doesn't 

everyone on here has beat porkchop to death looking for absoloute difinitive proof that god exists, give him absoloute difinitive proof that he doesn't


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> It's always rather amusing when heretic non-believers like ourselves know more about a faithers religion than they do. I've always found it incredibly unfair that as atheists we are expected to be fluent experts in every single world religion whereas our opponents only have to be experts in their own. We must read thousands of books in our life times to oppose these people and they are only expected to read a single book whilst somehow maintaining some self-perceived credibility over the rest of us.


Bo!!ocks.

"faithers" also have to be able to know evolutionary thought, all world religions, ethics, politics, metaphysics, quantum theory, intelligent design, creationism, philosophy, nihilism, just to make a point about their own belief!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

TG123 said:


> the only one who deservs reps in this thread is porkchop imo, doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, religious or not he put more into this thread than all of us put together, a combination of his own thoughts and ideas amalgamated with quoted ideas sourced from the net which he diligently defended day after day post after post, looking at the thread objectivley, as a debate and not a conclusion porkchop contributed more than all of us put together and made the thread what it was, which was a good read and entertaining to be a part of, stuck to his guns and answered every question thrown at him as best he could, top bloke


Thank you lol


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

MattGriff said:


> You may find the line between spiritual and the physical world is being erased by science, repeatedly. An yet people still come up with this nonsense. The spirit is and will eventually be proven to be an illusion and yet somehow I think that religious folk will still protest that which is lain before them.
> 
> The fact of the matter is the 'spiritual world' has not one shred of substantial evidence to support it and religion has not one shred of evidence to support it (in fact it contradicts itself repeatedly, changes and tries to fit in with new discoveries meaning its roots were incorrect in the first place).
> 
> ...


I love this post, particularly where the scriptures are proven 'erogenous' over and over. Sorry mate lol made me chuckle.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

TG123 said:


> lol none of that means that you can then just suppose that one day the soul will be proved as an illusion and base a whole argument on it
> 
> just because there's nothing to prove it exists doesn't mean that for certain in the future it will be disproved as such
> 
> i'm genuinly interested to know why you think in the future the soul will be proven as being an illusion and why it hasn't already? what are you anticipating changing in the future that will allow us to prove this?


If you think I have 'based a whole argument on it' I suggest you read a little more carefully, indeed the post you quoted goes further than that.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> I love this post, particularly where the scriptures are proven 'erogenous' over and over. Sorry mate lol made me chuckle.


have you ever actually seen some of those biblical pictures?

some of those girls are sexy


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> If you think I have 'based a whole argument on it' I suggest you read a little more carefully, indeed the post you quoted goes further than that.


well it at least demonstrates that you're coming out with a few unprovable suppositions, a little bit like people that believe in god do


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Mighty.Panda said:


> The fact is that no opinion or belief deserves respect and all opinions and beliefs are wholly irrelevant and cannot be considered a legitimate source of knowledge. Knowledge and truth can only be drawn through empirical evidence and logic. Any and all beliefs must be questioned to the point of exhaustion in order for them to hold up. I can't respect faith I can merely tolerate its existence. I do like Porkchop in my subjective opinion he's a good bloke.


makes me want to go hug a panda now 

Is your mum alright after breaking her leg? (I respected your wishes and didn't pray for her lol).


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> makes me want to go hug a panda now
> 
> Is your mum alright after breaking her leg? (I respected your wishes and didn't pray for her lol).


i prayed for her just to p1ss him off 

it's win win really, if there's no god then nothing happends and panda gets the hump, if there is his mums leg gets better and she can kick him up the @rse :laugh:


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

Can't belive this is still going, I always liked the roundabouts as a kid but this is so silly.

No matter how elegant or clever the answers are it wont ever change either sides argument, I think best we can hope for is science will eventually dump that much evidence against it right on the church's doorstep some belivers must realise its fallacy.

But no doubt there will be a reason why the facts are wrong, They will have no idea why or how but it's gods will.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Pain2Gain said:


> Can't belive this is still going, I always liked the roundabouts as a kid but this is so silly.


nah we're just argueing about metaphysics, lemon mousse and ant and dec now


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Actually that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> Metaphysics is primarily grounded in philosophical thought, not religion.
> 
> ...


You have used quotes about things that are scientific, based in quantum theory and relativity as it states. Lisa Randall is not stating things exist higher than space time, the very concept of string theory is that it combines and binds in a fashion such things.

The second quote also states "..you need to remain sceptical enough to subject the consequences of those premises to rigorous analysis." now take this and apply it to religion. Under rigorous analysis so far how much has been disproved and how much has been proven?

You state my last comment doesn't warrant a reply - however that paragraph is saying what you quoted in a different fashion. Science gives a theory and if disproved under investigation goes back to the drawing board to check the evidence and facts. Can you honestly say you are doing the same?

Perhaps you can tell me that while you believe only God can do that, what makes this deity more correct than Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ra etc?


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

Ant & Dec **** that's all you had to say brother, I'll keep quite I know my place.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

TG123 said:


> well it at least demonstrates that you're coming out with a few unprovable suppositions, a little bit like people that believe in god do


Sadly not, it only demonstrates a rather simplistic way of looking at things without examining the evidence first.

As science has disproved many things about religion already I am basing a statement in a continuing trend of evidence. This is not like those who believe on God who base things on contradicting evidence (that which science has already demonstrated) or any trend of actual proof.

Unlike religion if it transpired that I was incorrect be it in wording or in failed experiments etc. a scientist would review the evidence again, eliminating that hypothesis.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> You have used quotes about things that are scientific, based in quantum theory and relativity as it states. Lisa Randall is not stating things exist higher than space time, the very concept of string theory is that it combines and binds in a fashion such things.
> 
> The second quote also states "..you need to remain sceptical enough to subject the consequences of those premises to rigorous analysis." now take this and apply it to religion. Under rigorous analysis so far how much has been disproved and how much has been proven?
> 
> ...


Matt, I would love to believe that all scientists are pure and if their theories are disproven or evidence comes up to refute it, they go back to the drawing board. But unfortunately a lot of scientists aren't just motivated by a thirst for truth. There are grants to justify, promotions to get, personal reputations to uphold and personal vendettas to pursue. The same things come up in religion too and give it a bad name.

And your last comment here imo does warrant a reply, but my wife has given me the death stare so it'll have to wait until tomorrow


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> Sadly not, it only demonstrates a rather simplistic way of looking at things without examining the evidence first.
> 
> As science has disproved many things about religion already I am basing a statement in a continuing trend of evidence. This is not like those who believe on God who base things on contradicting evidence (that which science has already demonstrated) or any trend of actual proof.
> 
> Unlike religion if it transpired that I was incorrect be it in wording or in failed experiments etc. a scientist would review the evidence again, eliminating that hypothesis.


so we know that science has disproved various aspects of religious beliefs

we believe this trend will continue

the natural conclusion of this trend is the absoloute proof that god doesn't exist

It's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist therefore we can conclude the trend will not reach it's ultimate conclusion

having deduced the trend will fall short of completion we must speculate as to how far the trend will continue

we do that by looking at the sequence of the trend up to this point

a series of abitrary discoveries, hypothesies and theories which have all subsequntly been proved and served their purpose to discredit the ideas of religion but have not followed any particular pattern or formula

therfore determining if the evolution of science will ever disprove the idea of a spirit or a soul is completely impossible as oppsed to inevitable as you've suggested


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

But what about when people have these "out of body experiences"

My dad rolled his van side ways down a hill when he nearly died and got taken to hospital in Grimsby which he had never seen as it had been redecorated.

He was recorded as dead for 2 minutes and when he woke up he could describe the room he "died" in despite never being conscious in that room.

Also about the people saying how stuff doesn't make sense according to "god wouldnt of designed it that way as it makes no sense".

Maybe these things make sense but we aren't intelligent enough to understand.

Like the sperm system, if we had a perfect delivery system we would of bred so fast that we would be out of natural resources. Think about it if we had a "perfect" sperm system we would of bled the planet dry before condoms.

I also genuinely believe gays could be fully logical with evolution. There is no reason for us to have a prostate up our bum there is also no reason for the prostate to make us have stronger orgasms. However if males partner up it slows down the "breeding rate" of humans if all the gays where straight we would have a very real problem with population.

1 on 5 people I believe are gay or lesbian ?.

I'm not religious at all but I'm also not a athiest


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

MattGriff said:


> Perhaps you can tell me that while you believe only God can do that, what makes this deity more correct than Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ra etc?


Okay.

Firstly, I'm not going to fob you off with any [email protected] like "all religions worship the same God in a different way so it all means the same thing whether you worship this or that". Not true. in Islam, you will never hear a Muslim say "Allah is love" because they don't believe that. because he exists alone, before the world existed there was noone else to share himself with, and the nature of love is community based, to share. That's why they say "Allah the merciful".

Christianity on the other hand, has the concept of the trinity. 3 persons in one. The only analogy I can think of is of water. It exists in three states - as ice, as water, and as vapour. But it remains the same chemically as h20. Three different expressions of the same thing. That's how Christians can worship the trinity and still be worshipping the one God.

So for Christians, God is love, because he is community in his essence before anything else existed.

That's one (long winded) example of why it's [email protected] to say all religions essentially worship the same God. I won't bore you talking about Hinduism and Buddhism lol.

Now I take it from your question you are asking why I think the God I worship is more correct than other gods?

Well the God I worship is the Christian God, so I will answer about that, if I understood your question right.

To me, the first thing that needs to be addressed is what we mean by the term 'knowledge'. Because what you are in fact saying is how can I KNOW my God is the real God (sorry for the capitals, I can't put it into italics on my phone).

But there are different types of knowledge. for arguments sake, let's focus on these three:

1. Mathematical knowledge

1+1=2

2. Scientific knowledge

Hypothesis and experiment leading to a conclusion

3. Experiential knowledge

'he's not like that, I KNOW him'

Now, let's take something simple like a kiss (nohomo). Can you explain a kiss mathematically? No. Can you explain a kiss scientifically? Just about! It would be something like this:

The approach of two pairs of lips, with the corresponding exchange of saliva and carbon dioxide!

But it doesn't do justice to what a kiss ACTUALLY is, does it? You can only really explain a kiss experientially.

And that's the only way you can really KNOW God. He isn't interested in being known mathematically or scientifically. You don't prove God. You experience him.

I only came to believe in God when I was 21, didn't have any time for it before then. Like I'm sure you've heard from other jesusfreaks, it was when I was at my worst point and knew I couldn't get out of a pretty self destructive lifestyle that I encountered God. And it was that experience that gave me some idea of what he was like.

So you wanted to know why I think the Christian God is the true God? I know you won't like it but it's only through subjective experience that you can be sure. I'd love to present you with a scientific basis but I can't, because we are talking about different kinds of knowledge.

Now what follows is my personal opinion, I'm not speaking for christianity as a whole. I want to give you a completely honest answer to your question, and it's not meant to be offensive.

Having looked in depth at the world religions and pagan superstitions, I came to see an interesting thread in them. all of them pointed in some form or another to the creator or divine being, at some point in time, coming into the world and battling the enemies of mankind, i.e sin, death, evil etc. Some religions only had hints of it, others had more texts about it. But it was there nonetheless. When I came to Christianity, it seemed to me to be a fulfillment of previous shadows and fables contained in them about God coming into the world, and fighting death and disease and sin etc.

So the ancient myths of Odin and Ra etc imo are shadows of the truth that was to come, which is where Jesus Christ comes in to fulfill all that. That's one of the reasons I stuck with christianity. Why sit in the shadows when it's been pointing you to the sunlight?

And the only evidence I can give you is that, when I was at my worst and lowest, I asked Jesus Christ to save me and things changed for the better after that, where for months it had only been going one way, down. So I had a hypothesis, I undertook an experiment by asking Jesus for help, and the result was conclusive for me. Further experiments have yielded similar results lol.

<exhale>

Goodnight!


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

Porkchop said:


> Bo!!ocks.
> 
> "faithers" also have to be able to know evolutionary thought, all world religions, ethics, politics, metaphysics, quantum theory, intelligent design, creationism, philosophy, nihilism, just to make a point about their own belief!


But a lot don't know anything about these things at all and still reject them in the face of irrefutable evidence. It's like TG bought up 3 posts above, we can empirically prove the sun and moon aren't made from lemon mousse or cheese but many religious people will STILL deny it. Hardliners like this will never bother to learn anything outside their scriptures.

**** there's been so many lengthy replies and I've not slept yet :yawn:


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

I wanna do porkchops latest reply but it's soooo long spag damn it :wacko: I shall surface in 8 hours lets try and keep it under 40 pages of quality stuff


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> They're not being forced to say those things. If they want to attribute it to that, it's their prerogative. They must honestly *believe* it's true.


I was addressing Lorian there with a pet grievance, not you. I don't want a justification for why people do these things, I understand the why's myself. That's all faith is....believing in something. Whether what they believe in exists or not is completely irrelevant. I can believe in Santy all I want but until I see him coming down the chimney I wont be telling anyone about it.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Katy said:


> That's why I steered clear of AA...I'm not going to be encouraged to place my faith in something other than myself.


Excellent, and rightly so. Your achievement and you've earned your rewards.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

justin case said:


> i have been with many old people when they have passed over and you can feel the spirit leave their physical bodies, sometimes you can see it....stare at yourself in a mirror and look beyond your eyes...you are in there looking out, your consciousness is you a spirit, and you will find yourself outside your body upon physical death.
> 
> of this i am absolutely certain..god breathed life into us at birth and if we know him will accept us unto him when our bodies die.
> 
> this is what i know and feel.


Absolute rubbish. Make believe. I once felt like you've described there...and I was out of my mind on acid at the time.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> I had a hypothesis, I undertook an experiment by asking Jesus for help, and the result was conclusive for me. Further experiments have yielded similar results lol.
> 
> <exhale>
> 
> Goodnight!


Wow, I have never been so impressed and saddened in one breath. You are clearly intelligent, eloquent, well read, focused, inciteful and yet pitifully impressionable. You are a hypnotists dream catch. Derren Brown would have you speaking in tongues and you would believe he is god.

You were going through a difficult patch, asked god for help, pulled yourself out of it and it was gods doing? Dude....take a bow and thank yourself. If you took yourself out of a sh*tstorm you are a mighty man. Loads of people do this every day of the week and get on with life. They don't thank god....they don't even thank themselves.In fact some of them don't even know what a god is.

You were at a low patch at 21? Oh my....how did you ever get by?? You poor thing....shur every 2nd or 3rd 21 yr old on the planet has been through some sort of misery in their lives and just get on with it. At 21, boo hoo. FFS there are people who have gone through absolute misery by the time they're half that age and get on with things. They're not bowing and scraping to god and thanking him! Be a man...you've stood on your own 2 feet and got through sh*t...don't be thanking an imaginary being for something you've clearly done yourself. And to top it off, you're so eloquently and grandly espousing the validity of your beliefs with talk of metaphysics and science and maths..you remind me of the emperor and his new suit. He might've been the king but he was still going round under the impression he had a lovely suit on when he was in fact bollock naked. Dude...if you want to say you believe, do so. But don't try to dress it up in such a way that makes you sound grand and all knowing and credible...you can put pink paint and a bow on a dog sh*t....it might look nice but it's still dog sh*t.

I'm not sure if impressionable is the right word here..easily led maybe? For what it's worth this is a trait that can be eliminated...and don't bother praying for it either, it's quicker to just repeat several times a day to yourself.. ''I am easily led but I refuse to be anymore'', until it's second nature to you.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> Wow, I have never been so impressed and saddened in one breath. You are clearly intelligent, eloquent, well read, focused, inciteful and yet pitifully impressionable. You are a hypnotists dream catch. Derren Brown would have you speaking in tongues and you would believe he is god.
> 
> You were going through a difficult patch, asked god for help, pulled yourself out of it and it was gods doing? Dude....take a bow and thank yourself. If you took yourself out of a sh*tstorm you are a mighty man. Loads of people do this every day of the week and get on with life. They don't thank god....they don't even thank themselves.In fact some of them don't even know what a god is.
> 
> ...


Great post. :thumbup:

It's okay, I'm 35 so I've had plenty of time to reflect on those past experiences, to look at them critically and question. And I came to the same conclusion. If it's not the conclusion you would make, ce la vie.

I'm not trying to sound grand in my words like you say. I was asked to explain why I believe something. I tried to explain it as best I could in the simplest way possible. All the talk previously about evolution and theory and metaphysics came as the result of the flow of the conversation, not just by myself. Surely you're not going to criticize me for joining in talking about those things just because I say I have faith? If I had just said 'i believe in this and that's final', you'd have shot me down and rightly so. So don't criticize me for trying to explain that belief using the same topics other people were talking about.

And impressionable? Easily led? I think I'd have caved in long ago in this thread if that were so! There are so many intelligent insightful people that have contributed to this thread that are evolutionists, or atheists, or anything-other-than-religious-ists , that I've pretty much been a lone voice at most points. So there's no need to patronize me and call me impressionable.

(I could go on about the myth you mentioned, the emperors new clothes, but I don't want to sound grandiose!)

But I liked your post, thoughtful and honest.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Of course you're easily led...you're the worst type of easily led....you've managed to convince yourself god exists based on a tough patch you went through years ago. I got the impression you were still in your 20's...the fact you're 35, it makes more sense now. You convinced yourself of something when you were young and have had 14 years to reinforce it in yourself. And yes you are trying to sound grand and all knowing, don't try and say you were going by what's been posted before..other people were using maths and metaphysics...so what? You carried it on. It's the 'Tale' of the emperors new clothes, not a myth. It's just a story or satire, not purported to be real. I used it as a metaphor to represent you.

If you'd said I believe and left it at that I wouldnt shoot you down, Id respect your choice but leave it at that (you've made a choice to believe in BS based on something that happened you years ago and you haven't gotten over it like everyone else does). The reason Im now shooting you down is because you're trying to defend your beliefs repeatedly by throwing out different types of dogma and giving it more largely as you go on. So you're setting yourself up for this...you didn't just put out your point and leave it at that...I'm not trying to patronize by saying you're impressionable....I'm pointing out what's patently obvious and most people would agree with.

It is you in fact who is patronizing me with 'But I liked your post, thoughtful and honest.' You remind me of a Jehovah's Witness...as the way you are bahaving through this thread...gentle disagreement while making your own points in different and alternating but persistent fashion..I've heard all this waffle before on the doorstep.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

TG123 said:


> but that's unfair though because unless you're incredibly stupid, which from what i've read of your stuff you're not, you know that porkchop or anyone else can't prove the existence of god, not anywhere near the extent you can evolution, so therefore his points arn't valid?


Earlier in the thread I said that I would be genuinely interested to hear what eveidence there is to support creationism and porkchop took me up on that offer saying that he'd get back to it. But he hasn't. I was simply responding to that. However, if someone is trying dispute a theory (or fact IMO) on the grounds of poking holes in evidence then they are setting the stage for a basis on which beliefs and theories are to be challanged. If this is a case of creationism v. evolution then I am entitled to pick holes in religion on the same grounds that holes are trying to be poked in evolution...that's the stage that's been set.

I don't think you've really shown your actual opinion on this matter i.e. what you believe. I wonder if you're just debating for the sake of debating?

Anyway, you do highlight the biggest issue within the debate of creationism v. evolution; a fabricated story can be modified and played around with to answer any challenge - beliefs are malliable...that's the joy of them; you can mould and add to them to support a belief or theory. Evolution or science on the other hand is simple facts and evidence. You can't twist and turn evidence to fit a theory or belief; it is what it is. So in essence faith in creationism and acknowledgement of evidence of evolution are just two compeltely different things and therefore aren't really comparable.

All I know is that I prefer to look at the facts as opposed to inferring and creating stories to help me feel that I undersand the world. I don't understand why the awesome beauty of how this world and universe works and has developed isn't sufficient and therefore why some people feel the need to create a God as being the creator. I find the story of how this universe came to be far more inspiring and moving than creationism.

I accept that faith has proven to be a positive thing for many and I wouldn't want to take that away from people who need and benefit from it. However, I personally don't need it; I have faith in myself and admire with awe the evidence we've found for how the universe has come to be what it is.

No more debate from me...though I shall continue to read with interest!


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

So, some believe some don't, some believe in evolution and some don't and some even believe in evolution and have faith and some have faith in themselves and some have faith in themselves and in their faith..

It's a win win situation really, we are all happy!!

I'm off wakeboarding and I pray I will nail a backroll!!


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

After that post Katy, you should be involved as it's as well written, relevant and thought provoking as anyone else's on the thread. If you're bowing out because you're account manager, fair enough I appreciate that. Excellent contribution.


----------



## vetran (Oct 17, 2009)

an hour and half to read all this so i will add something

going to leave it till i die and then see what happens but will start going church when ime 60 just in case


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

I'm not religious per se but have had a little read/study of a number of belief systems all imo have some truths in them and can provide valuable lessons in morality (again in some instances). These were early works by people to understand the meaning of life and to be able to contextualise their/our existence something that science is unable to answer.

Many of your greatest scientists through history have either held religious beliefs or have either had their own faith or at the very least been very open minded, these include Newton, Galilei, Bacon (who could be called the father of "modern science), Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Faraday, Babbage, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck (father of quantum physics), Fleming etc... even Einstein had an open mind and Tesla too (who although didn't in the end follow a religious dogma had strong beliefs).

There are many more to this day all extremely eminent including one of the 20th centuries greatest physicists Charles Townes and Francis Collins one of the worlds leading experts in Human Genome/Genetics.

Some of the above have provided very interesting dialog on the subject well worth a read.

Science knows very little tbh maybe our current level of thinking just doesn't give us the ability to ever understand the universe just as a dog could never understand quantum physics.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> Of course you're easily led...you're the worst type of easily led....you've managed to convince yourself god exists based on a tough patch you went through years ago. I got the impression you were still in your 20's...the fact you're 35, it makes more sense now. You convinced yourself of something when you were young and have had 14 years to reinforce it in yourself. And yes you are trying to sound grand and all knowing, don't try and say you were going by what's been posted before..other people were using maths and metaphysics...so what? You carried it on. It's the 'Tale' of the emperors new clothes, not a myth. It's just a story or satire, not purported to be real. I used it as a metaphor to represent you.
> 
> If you'd said I believe and left it at that I wouldnt shoot you down, Id respect your choice but leave it at that (you've made a choice to believe in BS based on something that happened you years ago and you haven't gotten over it like everyone else does). The reason Im now shooting you down is because you're trying to defend your beliefs repeatedly by throwing out different types of dogma and giving it more largely as you go on. So you're setting yourself up for this...you didn't just put out your point and leave it at that...I'm not trying to patronize by saying you're impressionable....I'm pointing out what's patently obvious and most people would agree with.
> 
> It is you in fact who is patronizing me with 'But I liked your post, thoughtful and honest.' You remind me of a Jehovah's Witness...as the way you are bahaving through this thread...gentle disagreement while making your own points in different and alternating but persistent fashion..I've heard all this waffle before on the doorstep.


Lol oh so now I'm the bad guy for appreciating what you had to say? Get real.

And the tough patch I went through years ago was what prompted me to START looking into these things, it didn't give me an automatic belief in something that I could never question.

If you actually read what I'm saying I came to believe God exists through years of study on the matter, prompted by personal experience.

But you seem very anti anything faith wise, to the point of being as blind as you're accusing me of being, so there's not much pint saying much more about it 

And Katy, you'll notice that things in the thread moved quickly into another area that's got involved in, so just haven't had time! I'm trying lol


----------



## Ackee&amp;Saltfish (Mar 18, 2011)

Cows are nearly home...


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

A few nice quotes from Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God".

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things".

Incidentally Baruch Spinoza's work is also very interesting and in places thought provoking.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Katy said:


> I don't think you've really shown your actual opinion on this matter i.e. what you believe





TG123 said:


> let me explain where i come from, i believe in science but i don't discount entierly the idea that god exists, or a higher power, something that created the univers billions of years ago etc, but i don't know, based on what i know probably not but if i ever get up to the pearly gates and st peter is standing there and doesn't want to let me in he's not going to get me on times when i completely and definitivly denounced the idea of god because i don't think i have, i just never gave a sh1t, i'm what you'd class as "irreligious".





Katy said:


> I wonder if you're just debating for the sake of debating?


you say that like it's a bad thing :confused1:

not all debates/arguments have a conclusion, sometimes it's just some sh1t we talk about to learn stuff

the thread seemed like it needed balacing out though, porkchop was getting battered fom all angles and the dabate was interesting so i even though i know what i believe doesn't stop me from stepping back and looking at other angles of a belief

it seems like if anything to be fair to porkchop he's been answering all the questions and the guys argueing in the name of science against him with all the answers to back you up have been swerving them, or ignoring plausible answers

for instance you asked:



Katy said:


> @Porkchop, I have been waiting to hear how you'd counter argue Lorians point above...?


to which i replied



TG123 said:


> maybe god is an imperfect being and having created man in his own image examples of this imperfection as lorian has highlighted are a result of this


i know it wasn't aimed at me but was that not a reasonable answer?

in the middle of a discussion with panda he puts forward the idea religion is behind all of the worlds wrong doing, i assert that the 2 single biggest killers of men in history were both anti religion and actually fought against it with this post....



TG123 said:


> what :confused1:
> 
> communist states mostly hate religion not encorporate it
> 
> religion goes against the communist pricipal of everyone working for the state etc, chairman mao who has killed the most people in history, 50 million of his own people under the banner of commusism was an ardent athiest and stalin who has killed the second most people in history, again his own poeople, spent most of his time killing priests and burning down chuches, and those are the 2 biggest examples of states having killed people in history, both of which despised religion, let alone regarded themselfs as gods of any kind


but panda has such an ardent hate for religion and those facts undermine to an extent the idea of religion being the cause of the worlds problems that he didn't respond to it, it doesn't fit in with his opinion so he ignores it, ironically the way religious people chose to ignore facts that don't fit in with their religious beliefs

also i made this point



TG123 said:


> but my friend this is where you may be missing a trick in the point of debate, if you were to argue that the sun was made of lemon mousse i could prove to you that it wasn't, if you were to argue that the moon was made of cheese i could prove that it wasn't, if you were to argue that god existed, i couldn't prove that he doesn't
> 
> everyone on here has beat porkchop to death looking for absoloute difinitive proof that god exists, give him absoloute difinitive proof that he doesn't


the last bit of that wasn't aimed directly at panda but open to all the guys argueing on the side of science,can you prove that god doesn't exist? and i'll leave that question open but with evolution being a fact based concept and it being almost impossible to disprove there's a god i doubt anyone will attempt it because it's convienient to ignore and easier to go beat up on porkchop a bit more

porkchop argued one side, everyone else argued the other side, @lukeee and @latblaster were in the middle trying to bring balance and perspective to the thread but were over looked by the people with extreme veiws on the matter, that goes for you too porkchop, which is a shame because their imput if you read their posts were the most enlightening and pleasent to read imo

here's where i'm at

I don't believe in god, i believe in science, but as a believer in science i can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore it seems logical to me not to discount the possibility that he does


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

i can understand why most atheists feel the way they do....they have had years or religion stuffed down their throats and they now reject religion with a vengeance.

what i will never understand is why an open minded adult would choose to enthusiastically follow a path that leads to nothing but despair and hopelessness, darkness and ultimately spiritual suicide,

when they can walk a path that leads to light, salvation, and eternal life with a loving god.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

justin case said:


> i can understand why most atheists feel the way they do....they have had years or religion stuffed down their throats and they now reject religion with a vengeance.
> 
> what i will never understand is why an open minded adult would choose to enthusiastically follow a path that leads to nothing but despair and hopelessness, darkness and ultimately spiritual suicide,
> 
> when they can walk a path that leads to light, salvation, and eternal life with a loving god.


see it's sh1t like this that makes me wanna argue the other side :lol:


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

I spent some time with a real Islamic cleric and have met other lets just say interesting people who are extremely well red in a number of religions what did I learn each of "their" teachings were only based on truth, love and compassion. Most of what you see and think of religion has been twisted to suit the goals of man throughout time and have been totally misrepresented even by the authorities who promote it as "their own".

None on here are true scholars or understand the native tongues that these works were written in so cannot begin to understand the essence of their teachings and benefits to man - again I'm not a follower but appreciate what I was taught by some learned people and through some extensive self research.

Einstein again puts it very succinctly.

"Our time is distinguishedby wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.

What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living".


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Me, I've loved this thread. And the thing I take from it is that I've gotten to know a few more people well, and that you can have a good debate without it being a slanging match.

So thanks tg123, Lorian, Katy, mixer, Dave 0511, fatstuff, ianjay and yes even you panda, among others 

But as fatstuff said there is life outside this thread and I need to start researching prohormones again lol. So I'm out for the time being but will pop back later if it's still going


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

justin case said:


> i can understand why most atheists feel the way they do....they have had years or religion stuffed down their throats and they now reject religion with a vengeance.
> 
> what i will never understand is why an open minded adult would choose to enthusiastically follow a path that leads to nothing but despair and hopelessness, darkness and ultimately spiritual suicide,
> 
> when they can walk a path that leads to light, salvation, and eternal life with a loving god.


I think to be fair that's not necessarily how an atheist feels... I'm an athiest and think life is beautiful; I find the patterns in science wondrous and endlessly fascinating, and I still feel the bliss of a sunset, a misty morning, or the scent of the woods on a crisp autumn morning just like a theist does... these things are beautiful because they are beautiful.

I also believe in treating people with love, kindness, compassion and respect, seeing not just humanity but this whole planet and universe as a beautifully intricate web of connected phenomena, and in respecting others or myself I am respecting everything else... and I do not need a scripture or religious teaching to tell me these things, it comes from me.

In many ways I feel also that this beauty exists precisely because life is a temporary one off experience; it is short and that makes it precious... if everyone respected that they would respect themselves and others a lot better and take the value of living life more seriously. Fear of death simply comes from attachment to ego and living in fear of losing self in the future - let that go, and simply appreciate the present moment... release the ego and just simply 'be', and there is no need to seek for happiness through a god concept because happiness is there already.

Life is beautiful because it belongs to us, and because it is temporary and fragile... it doesn't need a belief system dependent upon worship or obedience to a dogma to make it beautiful, nor do we need to live in fear of eternal transgression for failing our god... we simply have to love and respect ourselves and each other, and be joyous simply for being.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> I think to be fair that's not necessarily how an atheist feels... I'm an athiest and think life is beautiful; I find the patterns in science wondrous and endlessly fascinating, and I still feel the bliss of a sunset, a misty morning, or the scent of the woods on a crisp autumn morning just like a theist does... these things are beautiful because they are beautiful.
> 
> I also believe in treating people with love, kindness, compassion and respect, seeing not just humanity but this whole planet and universe as a beautifully intricate web of connected phenomena, and in respecting others or myself I am respecting everything else... and I do not need a scripture or religious teaching to tell me these things, it comes from me.
> 
> ...


I'm sure these are lyrics from a mariah carey song :whistling:

good post though :thumbup1:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

TG123 said:


> I'm sure these are lyrics from a mariah carey song :whistling:


LMAO :lol:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

justin case said:


> i can understand why most atheists feel the way they do....they have had years or religion stuffed down their throats and they now reject religion with a vengeance.
> 
> what i will never understand is why an open minded adult would choose to enthusiastically follow a path that leads to nothing but despair and hopelessness, darkness and ultimately spiritual suicide,
> 
> when they can walk a path that leads to light, salvation, and eternal life with a loving god.


Eternal life, Loving God,salvation? Giggling doesnt translate to the written word unfortunately.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Very sad the level of argument used by some on here imo now I'm playing devils advocate as I have other "views" on the subject but as I've posted and obviously none have bothered to read the links or do a little reading around some of the worlds greatest minds on the subject, did you know that a large number of intellectuals from the 2 worlds greatest educational institutes are religious - Oxford and Cambridge

A fun rebuttal (summarised) by an emminent scientist from the Faraday institute around Dawkins grounds for his atheist claims:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%209%20McGrath_EN.pdf


----------



## Slight of hand (Sep 30, 2008)

justin case said:


> i can understand why most atheists feel the way they do....they have had years or religion stuffed down their throats and they now reject religion with a vengeance.
> 
> what i will never understand is why an open minded adult would choose to enthusiastically follow a path that leads to nothing but despair and hopelessness, darkness and ultimately spiritual suicide,
> 
> when they can walk a path that leads to light, salvation, and eternal life with a loving god.


Your deluded.

Atheists enjoy the now - without worry, i can absorb the beauty of the world, be touched by art, moved by music, stare in wonder at my children and be amazed by the universe. The only empty people i come across are religious people who follow supernatural belief. I have free thought, religious people do not.

All children are born atheist - FACT. It's the parents that fuk with your head.

Fuk religion, ban it. Make it illegal. It repulses me as much as saddens me.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

And also for those of you who state that religion is bad and causes man to do bad things, how did you come by that judgement, surely their is no good or bad in science or right or wrong are these moral judgments you are using or are they based in "science"?


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Another thing that makes me laugh really it does is the hypocritical nature of most on here who are "against" religion the hatred many are showing towards something that they profess does this to others lol kettle black.


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

I don't know which is worse, Religious nuts who shove it down your throat, or atheists who constantly try and debate with them and tell them how wrong they are.

Just get on with your own life and forget about it, fwiw I'm an atheist who couldn't care less what other people follow and don't judge them either way. I didn't read the thread either as I'm sure its the same as every other religious thread that's been done over and over and over again


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Perfectly put Det  We think alike! The awe of our universe is enough for me


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

mixerD1 said:


> After that post Katy, you should be involved as it's as well written, relevant and thought provoking as anyone else's on the thread. If you're bowing out because you're account manager, fair enough I appreciate that. Excellent contribution.


Bowing out isn't to do with my role within UK-M. I just find the debate endless, and to be honest, frustrating, because on one side you have hard evidence and on the other you have numerous stories that can create what ever answer it wants because it's just a story. I could just make up any old sh!t and if no one could disprove it then it can't be denined.

I've gone over the debate many times before and had a friend who took the bible literally and simply chose to ignore evidence and hold onto faith instead; this to me is willfull ignorance. But then most people only listen to what supports their beliefs, and dismiss the rest.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Katy read some of the thoughts of some of the people I have mentioned all great people who have changed the world we and you live in, much of our way of thinking around science is based around a particular viewpoint and perception it is just one way of looking at it. How ever hard you think this is to think about think that most have been conditioned to think in this way. Some that haven't and are open go on to become great people. Possibly the greatest mind of the 20th century Tesla was considered by many to be mad but he just perceived things differently to many of his contemporaries.

What if all that you see and understand is just an illusion anyway? Some great minds even question reality - time is certainly not linear imo.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Dav1 said:


> And also for those of you who state that religion is bad and causes man to do bad things, how did you come by that judgement, surely their is no good or bad in science or right or wrong are these moral judgments you are using or are they based in "science"?





Dav1 said:


> Another thing that makes me laugh really it does is the hypocritical nature of most on here who are "against" religion the hatred many are showing towards something that they profess does this to others lol kettle black.


I don't think personally that there should be any room for hate either of religion by atheists or by religious people for atheists or those of other faiths... I agree that hate directed in either direction is equally bad.

I also do not think that religion as a concept is ultimately responsible for the atrocities committed in its name - I believe in individual responsibility. I do think though that the idea of surrendering ones judgement and decision making to another person, be it a religious leader, a politician or anyone is dangerous, and I think this is where many religions have an inherent danger within them... not all religious leaders can be honestly said to represent the core values of their own religions of love, compassion, peace, forgiveness etc... many religious leaders use the vagueness of the religious texts of their faith to justify and demand a way of behaving that reflects the leaders personal ego driven and political views of how the world should be... a good religious leader does no such thing, he simply inspires people to go inward and seek love and kindness within.

As I see it the problem is with where dogma leads to a closed mind to the obvious, it restricts the very ability of it's followers to think openly and causes them to surrender faith to a prescribed set of ideas... when you have faith in one description of reality it means that logical empirical evidence supporting other views is nor objectively looked upon... and if the prescribed set of ideals is based on something false, because faith is demanded in them, there is no questioning allowed (blasphemy) to correct the false premise of belief.

Where people make a choice to surrender individual responsibility to faith I find that dangerous.

Back to your point though, I totally agree there should be no place for hate in this debate, and even in passionate disagreement respect must be given to each other and recognition that all people, theists and atheists are capable of flawed reasoning and are biased in their interpretations even when trying to be objective.

I think often people spend too much time debating these things anyway, however fascinating, and not enough time simply living and being... sometimes it's possible to over think to no benefit, all analysis achieves sometimes is to rob the moment of it's simple beauty.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Dav1 said:


> Katy read some of the thoughts of some of the people I have mentioned all great people who have changed the world we and you live in, much of our way of thinking around science is based around a particular viewpoint and perception it is just one way of looking at it. How ever hard you think this is to think about think that most have been conditioned to think in this way. Some that haven't and are open go on to become great people. Possibly the greatest mind of the 20th century Tesla was considered by many to be mad but he just perceived things differently to many of his contemporaries.
> 
> What if all that you see and understand is just an illusion anyway? Some great minds even question reality - time is certainly not linear imo.


I'm well aware that the study of science is influenced by culture (as is perception in general) and the tools available to us and I'm sure that you've linked to some very interesting articles but, and whilst this might sound lazy, I did enough study in philosophy and psychology at uni, when I had the time and motivation, to not want to spend even more time reading within those fields now. It's all very interesting but also time consuming and this is my weekend. I enjoy the odd thread and hearing people's views but if I'm going to spend time really thinking hard about something it'll be to benefit my business and web work.


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Dav1 said:


> Katy read some of the thoughts of some of the people I have mentioned all great people who have changed the world we and you live in, much of our way of thinking around science is based around a particular viewpoint and perception it is just one way of looking at it. How ever hard you think this is to think about think that most have been conditioned to think in this way. Some that haven't and are open go on to become great people. Possibly the greatest mind of the 20th century Tesla was considered by many to be mad but he just perceived things differently to many of his contemporaries.
> 
> What if all that you see and understand is just an illusion anyway? Some great minds even question reality - *time is certainly not linear imo*.


Can you expand on this? What do you mean by that?


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

TG123 said:


> so we know that science has disproved various aspects of religious beliefs
> 
> we believe this trend will continue
> 
> ...


Your argument falls apart and is irrelevant after the highlighted section, ironically as you are doing exactly what you are trying to criticise.

I also find it interesting that much like many people who try to oppose this sort of viewpoint you focus on one semantic statement in an effort to disprove part of what was said - but as they all do you have not turned your efforts to even looking at the religious argument and the number of flaws involved in that.

You gave a kudos to a poster who was quoting various things but failed to see that they are largely irrelevant and do not support a religious argument at all - there have been many points raised to the basis of where religion is massively flawed and nothing to the contrary.

This sort of approach is akin to complaining about the fire crews uniforms as they attempt to put out the conflagration consuming a house.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> I think often people spend too much time debating these things anyway, however fascinating, and not enough time simply living and being... sometimes it's possible to over think to no benefit, all analysis achieves sometimes is to rob the moment of it's simple beauty.


amen to that!


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Agree with with pretty much all of that Dtlv, I'm just sitting here with a newly fractured foot and shattered big toe waiting to see if I need an op so need to pass the time lol. Here I've been living a pretty debauched life maybe its "gods" way of making me think:mellow: lol.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

36-26 others can explain much better than I re; the linearity of time even Einstein touched upon it, some interesting stuff around time horizon and personal perception, also interestingly Christianity was responsible for much of our current way of thinking around time.

Look at how Einstein, Feynman viewed things - Steven Hawkins is a proponent of some of Feynman's views on the subject which is very interesting. As I've said I don't fully understand it although find it very interesting (reading up on it at the moment) so wouldn't like to misquote or spoil anything with my primitive interpretations.

Katy not trying to tell you what to do indeed time is best spent on things that are of benefit to you, just I've a lot of time to kill at present as can be seen from my fairly prolific postings on here (where I don't normally post much) due to having to sit around lol.


----------



## murphy2010 (Dec 17, 2010)

This thread is getting serious :thumb:


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Dav1 said:


> 36-26 others can explain much better than I re; the linearity of time even Einstein touched upon it, some interesting stuff around time horizon and personal perception, also interestingly Christianity was responsible for much of our current way of thinking around time.
> 
> Katy not trying to tell you what to do indeed time is best spent on things that are of benefit to you, just I've a lot of time to kill at present as can be seen from my fairly prolific postings on here (where I don't normally post much) due to having to sit around lol.


Oh I didn't take it that way...if I was stuck at home with an injury I would most likely spend my time researching and learning new things. It's just that I can very easily get drawn into topics that interest me and philosophy, psychology and science in general does interest me, hence getting sucked into this thread. But it's gotten to a point where I'm now thinking that I'm content with my own view, I'm happy with my learnings over the years and for now I just want to either enjoy my free time or invest it into something with a greater reward


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Never mind all that, god didnt help me in my quest for the elusive backroll down the lake! :thumbdown:

Now im off to look at a young mare we may buy to event, god willing she will be a beauty and no doubt i shall fall in love immediatley and make a silly spur of the moment decision!


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Katy said:


> Oh I didn't take it that way...if I was stuck at home with an injury I would most likely spend my time researching and learning new things. It's just that I can very easily get drawn into topics that interest me and philosophy, psychology and science in general does interest me, hence getting sucked into this thread. But it's gotten to a point where I'm now thinking that I'm content with my own view, I'm happy with my learnings over the years and for now I just want to either enjoy my free time or invest it into something with a greater reward


Indeed forums/internet can be a real time waster of which I'm grateful for at the moment. But imo life is a journey to be experienced and enjoyed and its nice you are in a good place right now


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

,



Porkchop said:


> Lol oh so now I'm the bad guy for appreciating what you had to say? Get real.
> 
> And the tough patch I went through years ago was what prompted me to START looking into these things, it didn't give me an automatic belief in something that I could never question.
> 
> ...


Dude, you are so condescending it's not even funny.

''Lol oh so now I'm the bad guy for appreciating what you had to say? Get real.'' That's not appreciation, that's the patroninsing sort of attitude shown by smug know-it-alls who look down their nose at people not as well educated or in the picture as themselves. ''Get real'' Seriously?! You're the one defending fairytales.

''And the tough patch I went through years ago was what prompted me to START looking into these things, it didn't give me an automatic belief in something that I could never question.'' That's not exactly how you stated things in your earlier posts.

''But you seem very anti anything faith wise to the point of being as blind as you're accusing me of being, so there's not much pint saying much more about it.''

Well that's terrible observant of you isn't it, didn't I make it clear enough what I thought of faith? I pretty much threw my cards on the table early on calling faith BS.

You're right tho....I am blinded to the possibilities of god, faith and all the rest of that mumbo jumbo. As for people who have very strong faith, those who 'feel a presence', believe in human spirits, yourself and the whole spectrum of bullsh*t that comes with having blind faith...I have absolutely no doubt that under detailed M.R.I. brain scans you would all show similar aberrations that have been proven to exist in people suffering from synesthesia.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

justin case said:


> i can understand why most atheists feel the way they do....they have had years or religion stuffed down their throats and they now reject religion with a vengeance.
> 
> what i will never understand is why an open minded adult would choose to enthusiastically follow a path that leads to nothing but despair and hopelessness, darkness and ultimately spiritual suicide,
> 
> when they can walk a path that leads to light, salvation, and eternal life with a loving god.


I'd love to start on your rantings and ravings but I'd only be giving you credibility


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

What l dont get is how pasionatly the "believers " try to convince the " non believers " that they are right.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Slight of hand said:


> Your deluded.
> 
> Atheists enjoy the now - without worry, i can absorb the beauty of the world, be touched by art, moved by music, stare in wonder at my children and be amazed by the universe. The only empty people i come across are religious people who follow supernatural belief. I have free thought, religious people do not.
> 
> ...


Poetry. I understand your repulsion.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Dav1 said:


> 36-26 others can explain much better than I re; the linearity of time even Einstein touched upon it, some interesting stuff around time horizon and personal perception, also interestingly *Christianity was responsible for much of our current way of thinking around time*.
> 
> Look at how Einstein, Feynman viewed things - Steven Hawkins is a proponent of some of Feynman's views on the subject which is very interesting. As I've said I don't fully understand it although find it very interesting (reading up on it at the moment) so wouldn't like to misquote or spoil anything with my primitive interpretations.
> 
> Katy not trying to tell you what to do indeed time is best spent on things that are of benefit to you, just I've a lot of time to kill at present as can be seen from my fairly prolific postings on here (where I don't normally post much) due to having to sit around lol.


Oh was it now? Where did you pluck this nugget from?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

36-26 said:


> I don't know which is worse, Religious nuts who shove it down your throat, or atheists who constantly try and debate with them and tell them how wrong they are.
> 
> Just get on with your own life and forget about it, fwiw I'm an atheist who couldn't care less what other people follow and don't judge them either way. I didn't read the thread either as I'm sure its the same as every other religious thread that's been done over and over and over again


Well FWIF Im an atheist too and considering you don't care for this or that or want anything shoved down your throat, why are you posting so? Didn't read the thread, but you did go to the end of it to say get on with your life and forget it? WTF??


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Katy said:


> Oh I didn't take it that way...if I was stuck at home with an injury I would most likely spend my time researching and learning new things. It's just that I can very easily get drawn into topics that interest me and philosophy, psychology and science in general does interest me, hence getting sucked into this thread. But it's gotten to a point where I'm now thinking that I'm content with my own view, I'm happy with my learnings over the years and for now *I just want to either enjoy my free time or invest it into something with a greater reward*


What greater reward is there than the afterlife :lol:


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Milky said:


> What l dont get is how pasionatly the "believers " try to convince the " non believers " that they are right.


if you find something really special, isnt it natural to want to share it with other people?


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Originally Posted by Slight of hand

Your deluded.

you got that right mate, i used to think i was a bodybuilder when all along i was just a scummy old weight trainer.


----------



## Bert Stare (Aug 5, 2011)

Milky said:


> What l dont get is how pasionatly the "believers " try to convince the " non believers " that they are right.


a lot of them are probably deep down are unsure if they're right tbh, it's a way of validating it to themselves


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Milky said:


> What l dont get is how pasionatly the "believers " try to convince the " non believers " that they are right.


I don't know your personal feelings on the whole subject Milky but in my experience it's not about sharing the love and faith....it's about having more followers and therefore more money. Or in the individual cases like on the thread here...it's about not being wrong, or at the very least, trying to prove you're NOT a misguided idiot. If you've ever seen evangelists in america and the way they run their religions it's absolutely offensive how money oriented their 'religions' are.


----------



## spike (Jul 27, 2009)

was jesus the undead zombie guy who came back from beyond the grave?

and, if so, did he crave human brains for food like other regular zombies?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

spike said:


> was jesus the undead zombie guy who came back from beyond the grave?
> 
> and, if so, did he crave human brains for food like other regular zombies?


Nah, he's a myth. Somebody will come along and whinge..'But he did actually exist!' but he didn't, it's just religious propaganda..sorry, dogma.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Dav1 said:


> 36-26 others can explain much better than I re; the linearity of time even Einstein touched upon it, some interesting stuff around time horizon and personal perception, also interestingly Christianity was responsible for much of our current way of thinking around time.
> 
> Look at how Einstein, Feynman viewed things - Steven Hawkins is a proponent of some of Feynman's views on the subject which is very interesting. As I've said I don't fully understand it although find it very interesting (reading up on it at the moment) so wouldn't like to misquote or spoil anything with my primitive interpretations.
> 
> Katy not trying to tell you what to do indeed time is best spent on things that are of benefit to you, just I've a lot of time to kill at present as can be seen from my fairly prolific postings on here (where I don't normally post much) due to having to sit around lol.


Great to see a reference to Richard Feynman on UKM, a personal hero of mine... is worth looking for his lectures on Youtube if interested in that kind of thing. I think the term nonlinear is slightly confusing because it suggests that time is not a continuum - it is considered a continuum, is just that frames of reference within it are relative, and objects travelling at very quick (close to speed of light) and different speeds relative to one another experience distant phenomena occurring at a third position at a slightly different time relative to one another. Gravity also acts to curve space time to create a non-simultaneous perception of an event relative to two separate view points... but if viewed from a position external to space time all things would still appear smooth and linear. That's my understanding anyway!


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

justin case said:


> if you find something really special, isnt it natural to want to share it with other people?


Fair point.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

mixerD1 said:


> I don't know your personal feelings on the whole subject Milky but in my experience it's not about sharing the love and faith....it's about having more followers and therefore more money. Or in the individual cases like on the thread here...it's about not being wrong, or at the very least, trying to prove you're NOT a misguided idiot. If you've ever seen evangelists in america and the way they run their religions it's absolutely offensive how money oriented their 'religions' are.


I live and let live mate, if people want to believe then who am l to pour scorn on it.

I personally dont and l refuse to get into it with people. If you beleive then fine but dont or one seond think you can convert me.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Milky said:


> I live and let live mate,*if people want to believe then who am l to pour scorn on it.*
> 
> *
> *
> ...


I know well I shouln't either but I can't help myself. :whistling:


----------



## DutchTony (Sep 25, 2011)

HAWKUS said:


> jesus was a peado :whistling:


So was Muhammad...


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

what is surprising about this thread to me is the overwhelming amount of non believers....is this specific to the world of weights or is this a reflection of the views of the general population of GB...UK-M has over 60,000 members i wonder what percentage of those have faith or not?


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

mixerD1 said:


> Well FWIF Im an atheist too and considering you don't care for this or that or want anything shoved down your throat, why are you posting so? Didn't read the thread, but you did go to the end of it to say get on with your life and forget it? WTF??


Because I knew by the thread title and the amount of pages that it was another of the same type threads that I have read in the past and I was encouraging people to stop debating religion and get on with their lives. What is the problem with that UKM $hit stirrer??


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Slight of hand said:


> Your deluded.
> 
> Atheists enjoy the now - without worry, i can absorb the beauty of the world, be touched by art, moved by music, stare in wonder at my children and be amazed by the universe. The only empty people i come across are religious people who follow supernatural belief. I have free thought, religious people do not.
> 
> ...


Post of the year.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

36-26 said:


> Because I knew by the thread title and the amount of pages that it was another of the same type threads that I have read in the past and I was encouraging people to stop debating religion and get on with their lives. What is the problem with that UKM $hit stirrer??


Get on with yer own life so and dont be worrying about the thread. There will be no-one stuffing anything down your throat if you don't look at the thread in the first place.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

mixerD1 said:


> Oh was it now? Where did you pluck this nugget from?


Time was perceived to be linear in some way well before the Egyptians, but much reference was made to linearity in the bible, we have the Gregorian calendar and lets not forget pretty much all of the great scientists of the past were pretty hardcore Christian's I know I know they had nothing else and science was in its formative years although we still see reality through Newton's concept of linear time. Christians saw then that science could live side by side with religion as many esteemed scientists do today. I'm not saying I agree with them although they possess much greater mental powers etc.. than myself or anyone on this forum although I enjoy to explore both sides of an argument which science has no answers for.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

DTlv yes I've watched a number of his lectures and enjoy his presentation style, not really too knowledgeable on the subject as I said but am enjoying learning more about it. I don't think modern science has even scratched the surface (as people such as Feynman and Einstein believe/ed). Anyway I digress from the original topic.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

my best mate dont believe, i do...we have known each other for over 35 years and have NEVER had a heated row about it...it's only internet forums that arouses the passion in people about this subject, and in spite of all the back and forth arguments, i have never seen anybody change their views on an internet forum...it's just so pointless..lol


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

justin case said:


> my best mate dont believe, i do...we have known each other for over 35 years and have NEVER had a heated row about it...it's only internet forums that arouses the passion in people about this subject, and in spite of all the back and forth arguments, i have never seen anybody change their views on an internet forum...it's just so pointless..lol


Ime life and its experiences are what cause people to change in most cases either one way or the other. A close relative has had one of the worse few years any human being could have had (truly dreadful) he found no answers and would have most likely either topped himself or ended up in a hospital, Buddhism gave him the answers he required and has both helped him through and given him strength to carry on who am I to criticise as science certainly wouldn't have "saved him".


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

mixerD1 said:


> Get on with yer own life so and dont be worrying about the thread. There will be no-one stuffing anything down your throat if you don't look at the thread in the first place.


I do get on with my own life and I was encouraging others to do the same and not debate in these type of threads. Also I already stated I didn't read this thread so I'm not worried about anyone shoving religion down my throat in here, so again I ask you the resident $hit stirrer what is your problem with that.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

36-26 said:


> I do get on with my own life and I was encouraging others to do the same and not debate in these type of threads. Also I already stated I didn't read this thread so I'm not worried about anyone shoving religion down my throat in here, so again I ask you the resident $hit stirrer what is your problem with that.


O.k. correct me where I'm wrong..you're not interested in this thread, where peoples opinions are stuffed down other peoples throats, but you came on to tell people to not involve themselves in it. Were you being ironic intentionally?


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

mixerD1 said:


> O.k. correct me where I'm wrong..you're not interested in this thread, where peoples opinions are stuffed down other peoples throats, but you came on to tell people to not involve themselves in it. Were you being ironic intentionally?


No I wasn't being ironic, and yes that's what I was doing. Is that ok with you Mum?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

36-26 said:


> No I wasn't being ironic, and yes that's what I was doing. Is that ok with you Mum?


This is flying over your head isn't it...?


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

mixerD1 said:


> This is flying over your head isn't it...?


Obviously not when I twice referred to you as the resident sh*t stirrer


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

36-26 said:


> Obviously not when I twice referred to you as the resident sh*t stirrer


I wrote that into my profile myself, did you really think you'd get a rise out of me over someting as obvious as that? Seriously...you tell people to not get involved in this thread cause its stuffing others opinions down peoples throats and you don't see the irony in it? A bit hypocritical maybe?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Dav1 said:


> Ime life and its experiences are what cause people to change in most cases either one way or the other. A close relative has had one of the worse few years any human being could have had (truly dreadful) he found no answers and would have most likely either topped himself or ended up in a hospital, Buddhism gave him the answers he required and has both helped him through and given him strength to carry on who am I to criticise as science certainly wouldn't have "saved him".


I have a lot of fondness for Buddhist teachings, also similar eastern philosophies like Taoism (which isn't a religion but often gets erroneously labelled as one).

Science, in respect of cognitive therapies, is catching up with many aspects of these traditions though, especially in regards to the very real mental and physical benefits of meditation, positive visualization and clearing the mind and staying in the present moment to cultivate spontaneous feelings of self assuredness, self forgiveness and love... there's a guy called Jon Kabbat Zin who has introduced a lot of these eastern ideas into mainstream psychotherapy and there's a big campaign to get him the nobel prize for his work on this.

Is interesting though where even science is coming around to seeing that not all answers (to the question of how to be happy) involve thinking and logic, but often rather involve letting go of thought and learning to quietly appreciate simplicity of the moment, and to 'feel it' rather than to think about it and analyze it... eastern spiritual traditions have been teaching this for thousands of years.

Many experiments now on meditation show improvement or even reversal of some aspects of cellular/genetic aging (telmoere shortening), and reduction of blood pressure, stress hormones and various other negative things through a direct effect upon neurotransmitters and hormone signalling in the brain.... ancient wisdom may not have known exactly 'why', but it knew 'how', and often how is more important than why when it comes to psychological matters I think.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Another great post mate and I fully agree some of the Eastern philosophies and teachings can be very beneficial and indeed there is a great deal of research to support meditation.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

the thread has continued a trend that's for sure, propontnts of science ignoring conveniently posts that don't fit their scientific belief

i've asked it probably 3 times now if any of you science bods with all your proof of evolution can prove that god doesn't exist? no? a question you keep wanting to duck

just like the people you critisize in religion for not being bendable to another idea you won't address a point not consistant with that of your scientific beliefs

a ridiculous contradiction


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

TG123 said:


> the thread has continued a trend that's for sure, propontnts of science ignoring conveniently posts that don't fit their scientific belief
> 
> i've asked it probably 3 times now if any of you science bods with all your proof of evolution can prove that god doesn't exist? no? a question you keep wanting to duck? yeah thought so
> 
> ...


What are the requirements to prove the non-existent ?, how do we test something when even ardent followers only claim to have faith of it's existence ?.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

mug2k said:


> What are the requirements to prove the non-existent ?, how do we test something when even ardent followers only claim to have faith of it's existence ?.


good point bruv

fundemental flaw in my questioning maybe

i think the supposition is that the people i'm aiming it at don't have fervent religious beliefs therefore would have to respond with a fact based scientific rebuttal if you see what i'm saying, and probably can't


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

Get what your saying there but at same time can you prove that he dose?


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Pain2Gain said:


> Get what your saying there but at same time can you prove that he dose?


i don't need to mate, i don't have any facts on my side, just "faith"

on the other hand the proponents of science and evolution have a ton of evidence, just curious with all that evidence and fact can they prove that god doesn't exist?


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Isn't a bit pointless though to ask of people to disprove something that the proponents of it claim exists outside the realm of time and space?

Science is the study of the natural world, and every religion makes the claim that their respective deity is supernatural and not subject to the rules of any scientific principle, so what is there to study in order to prove or disprove?

The Russell's teapot / the invisible pink unicorn comes to mind here.

When you make a claim that something exist you are ultimately the one who is required to prove it, and if you claim that it cannot be proven by any scientific means by which we prove everything else then that's kind of cheating isn't it?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

TG123 said:


> the thread has continued a trend that's for sure, propontnts of science ignoring conveniently posts that don't fit their scientific belief
> 
> i've asked it probably 3 times now if any of you science bods with all your proof of evolution can prove that god doesn't exist? no? a question you keep wanting to duck
> 
> ...


And you can't figure out why?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

TG123 said:


> the thread has continued a trend that's for sure, propontnts of science ignoring conveniently posts that don't fit their scientific belief
> 
> i've asked it probably 3 times now if any of you science bods with all your proof of evolution can prove that god doesn't exist? no? a question you keep wanting to duck
> 
> ...


Well here's a swerve ball answer for you, just for discussion - I think this thread, religion and faith is proof that god DOES exist, but not as what many think... god exists as an idea, and the proof is in the fact that god is discussed as one.

Since therefore gods existence has been proven and defined, and we know what he is, we also now know what he isn't - anything other than an idea.

Others may now suggest he is something more than an idea, an idea based on something real, but the onus is now on them to prove it, and not on atheists to defend their position that god is nothing more than an idea because so far that is the only way god has been proven to exist.


----------



## Sub-Zero (May 2, 2011)

Milky said:


> What l dont get is how pasionatly the "believers " try to convince the " non believers " that they are right.


I works both ways, always will.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> Well here's a swerve ball answer for you, just for discussion - I think this thread, religion and faith is proof that god DOES exist, but not as what many think... god exists as an idea, and the proof is in the fact that god is discussed as one.
> 
> Since therefore gods existence has been proven and defined, and we know what he is, we also now know what he isn't - anything other than an idea.
> 
> Others may now suggest he is something more than an idea, an idea based on something real, but the onus is now on them to prove it, and not on atheists to defend their position that god is nothing more than an idea because so far that is the only way god has been proven to exist.


i think i could probably be accused of being one of the main knockers (maybe aside from porkchop) of proponents of science on this thread but this is a cracker of a post and works on so many levels :thumbup1:


----------



## Gorgeous_George (Apr 22, 2012)

how is this on page 37 and not locked? disapointed in you lot


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

Gorgeous_George said:


> how is this on page 37 and not locked? disapointed in you lot


yeah like 8 people have been banned in 20 pages of the "things you wont buy out of principal" thread but nearly 40 pages of a religious debate thread and not a hint of drama, divine intervention if you ask me :whistling:


----------



## Gorgeous_George (Apr 22, 2012)

good post Dtlv74 thats what i always say, well i think i got what ya meant, i dont think anyone is dumb enough to beilve any god physically exists in body but its about the idea ect.

which makes religion even dumber lol


----------



## Gorgeous_George (Apr 22, 2012)

TG123 said:


> yeah like 8 people have been banned in 20 pages of the "things you wont buy out of principal" thread but nearly 40 pages of a religious debate thread and not a hint of drama, divine intervention if you ask me :whistling:


haha that made me laff XD

need to set a spark in this b!tch loool


----------



## Mighty.Panda (Oct 5, 2011)

You guys kept it under 40 like I asked :laugh: 6 pages of catching up to do now...


----------



## Slight of hand (Sep 30, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> I have a lot of fondness for Buddhist teachings, also similar eastern philosophies like Taoism (which isn't a religion but often gets erroneously labelled as one).
> 
> Science, in respect of cognitive therapies, is catching up with many aspects of these traditions though, especially in regards to the very real mental and physical benefits of meditation, positive visualization and clearing the mind and staying in the present moment to cultivate spontaneous feelings of self assuredness, self forgiveness and love... there's a guy called Jon Kabbat Zin who has introduced a lot of these eastern ideas into mainstream psychotherapy and there's a big campaign to get him the nobel prize for his work on this.
> 
> ...


.....and homeopathy works. My ****.

Science isn't catching up, they are aware of placebo. Out of interest can you tell me where to find the appropriate papers? References to the claims your implying?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> Well here's a swerve ball answer for you, just for discussion - I think this thread, religion and faith is proof that god DOES exist, but not as what many think... god exists as an idea, and the proof is in the fact that god is discussed as one.
> 
> Since therefore gods existence has been proven and defined, and we know what he is, we also now know what he isn't - anything other than an idea.
> 
> Others may now suggest he is something more than an idea, an idea based on something real, but the onus is now on them to prove it, and not on atheists to defend their position that god is nothing more than an idea because so far that is the only way god has been proven to exist.


Have you ever read Terry Pratchett?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Slight of hand said:


> .....and homeopathy works. My ****.
> 
> Science isn't catching up, they are aware of placebo. Out of interest can you tell me where to find the appropriate papers? References to the claims your implying?


http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/65/4/564.short

http://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/webfm-uploads/documents/outreach/mindfulness/res-mindfulness-anxiety.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w812027301216527/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1361002/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016383439390020O

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725018/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645301000243X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938400003863

etc

It's well established that meditation causes changes to brain activity in regions responsible for catecholamines, and that stress hormones such as these are over expressed in conditions of high blood pressure, reduced immune function and mood disorders... meditation appears to redress the balance, and even counter some of the physical effects of stressors bought on by living in a hyper-stimulated state as typical of modern living.

Is not the case though that meditation does anything mystical or magical here - more likely the case that humans evolved performing activities that could be considered meditative naturally (spending hours in a restful but alter state of stillness and silence waiting to catch prey for example), but that the modern lifestyle does not allow for these practices and places individuals in a hyper-stimulating environment and so removes a natural health inducing habit from human activity patterns... the introduction of regular meditation simply redresses the balance by mimicking the missing beneficial behaviors.


----------



## paulshane (May 31, 2012)

I guess if someone wants to believe in the magic fairy man in the sky, who chooses not to excercise his powers because he loves us so much, then thats up to them. AS LONG AS IT DOESNT AFFECT ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!! Personally i think richard dawkins should be the boss of the world. All religion is sh1te.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

paulshane said:


> I Personally i think richard dawkins should be the boss of the world. All religion is sh1te.


All Richard Dawkins has done is create his own religion/cult of militant atheism and religious intolerance. Just as dangerous as the other cults imo


----------



## paulshane (May 31, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> All Richard Dawkins has done is create his own religion/cult of militant atheism and religious intolerance. Just as dangerous as the other cults imo


Well, obviously you are entitled to your opinions, my opinion is that he deals in facts and not fiction. Surely that is a good base for the human race to build upon.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

paulshane said:


> Well, obviously you are entitled to your opinions, my opinion is that he deals in facts and not fiction. Surely that is a good base for the human race to build upon.


It is a good base you're right.

But you're wrong that there is no factual basis in any religion whatsoever. As I said in a previous post, it depends on what kind of knowledge or facts you are looking for.

Anyway, society under Dawkins would no doubt be devoid of any art, culture or creative expression because they would be termed worthless. I would love to see an evolutionist passionate about culture and the arts, using his passion for science as a creative expression in these areas. That would be awesome, because it might help people like me see just how much it affects people to trust in evolution as their worldview in a positive way. I would love to see that.

But intolerance of religion, just calling it sh1te, would eventually lead to restricting any creative expression as "not true".


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> All Richard Dawkins has done is create his own religion/cult of militant atheism and religious intolerance. Just as dangerous as the other cults imo


That's just plain wrong mate, sorry.

Show me how many atheists or atheist organisations around the world have flown planes into buildings, bombed abortion clinics, commited genocide, starp explosives to their chests and gone onto crowded buses, mandated 'atheistic prayers' in public schools, forced non-scientific creation stories to be taught as fact, tried to pass legislation prohibiting women from controling their reproductive rights etc.

The only time one can even link atheism to any sort of attrocities like the ones commited by religious fanatics are communist dictatorships and even in those cases the attrocities where not in any way motivated by a desire to impose atheism itself but only to prevent political dissent and to try to withdraw power from the churches or other popular religions of the land.

The truth of the matter is that most atheists, like myself, only ever get heated or angered and speak out when other people's beliefs actively effect me negatively and the offenders proclaim a divine right to enforce their specific views on me, completely disregarding my own human and political rights in the process.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> It is a good base you're right.
> 
> But you're wrong that there is no factual basis in any religion whatsoever. As I said in a previous post, it depends on what kind of knowledge or facts you are looking for.
> 
> ...


I don't want rude mate but come one, that's just plain rubbish. There are MANY atheist or non-religious artists in the world that draw inspiration from other sources.

You can't tell me that people like Geroge Carlin, Woody Allen, Billy Joel, Isac Asimov, Mark Twain and MANY others aren't creative and don't inspire others just because they aren't believers.

Please, you sound far more intelligent than that argument would lead someone to believe if they just stumbled on this thread today and haven't read anything else you 've written in defense of your beliefs.


----------



## paulshane (May 31, 2012)

How long until this thread is deleted? :laugh:


----------



## paulshane (May 31, 2012)

Not allowed to question anyones religious beliefs, thats offensive. Yeah right.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

paulshane said:


> How long until this thread is deleted? :laugh:


Its got this far so unless some bell ends turn up ( and if they do l will delete there posts ) then its all good.


----------



## paulshane (May 31, 2012)

ok milky, you sound like a logical sort of man.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry about the sh1te bit, should have been more tactful


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

paulshane said:


> ok milky, you sound like a logical sort of man.


we monitor these kind fo threads very carefullly as they always lead to chaos.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Athenian said:


> That's just plain wrong mate, sorry.
> 
> Show me how many atheists or atheist organisations around the world have flown planes into buildings, bombed abortion clinics, commited genocide, starp explosives to their chests and gone onto crowded buses, mandated 'atheistic prayers' in public schools, forced non-scientific creation stories to be taught as fact, tried to pass legislation prohibiting women from controling their reproductive rights etc.
> 
> ...


Christians in China mainly belong to an underground church which has no power whatsoever, yet they get burned out of villages and locked up for "crimes against the state", when they've done nothing to provoke them. You can't just turn a blind eye to these atrocities (and those in North Korea) by saying 'oh it's okay, they were just trying to withdraw power from the churches.' That's the same excuse the Nazi government made about the Jews.

on a personal note, I just got a pb on my deadlift! lol


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> All Richard Dawkins has done is create his own religion/cult of militant atheism and religious intolerance. Just as dangerous as the other cults imo


How, what acts of militance have this cult carried out, what is the danger from them to be precise? Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man, would be considered an out and out pacifist and is an internationally renowned professor. To describe him as the creator of a cult of militant atheism and religious intolerance is the diametric opposite of what the man is all about. I could develop a belief in god sooner than I could believe what you have just said about him. Now you're really plucking at straws.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Christians in China mainly belong to an underground church which has no power whatsoever, yet they get burned out of villages and locked up for "crimes against the state", when they've done nothing to provoke them. You can't just turn a blind eye to these atrocities (and those in North Korea) by saying 'oh it's okay, they were just trying to withdraw power from the churches.' That's the same excuse the Nazi government made about the Jews.


But that's done for political reasons, which means the problem isn't that the politicians are atheists, but that they don't believe in the fundamental principles of democracy. Not too long ago when royal bloodlines ruled Britain, France, Spain etc, those despots ruled with an iron fist and killed anyone who dared speak out against them, and despite how they always proclaimed to be ordained by God, no serious person todays ever chalks them up to religious tyrrants, but plain old tyrrants.

You 're desperately trying to take an action by an atheist and turn into motivation. Legally, morally and philosphically that doesn't constitute a valid argument against atheism as a point of view on the veracity of a theistic position and what has been done by and in the name of religion.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> It is a good base you're right.
> 
> *But you're wrong that there is no factual basis in any religion whatsoever*. As I said in a previous post, it depends on what kind of knowledge or facts you are looking for.
> 
> ...


But there is NO factual basis for any religion...only ancient speculations. If I am wrong...reference them.

Seeing as Dawkins is a professor and has spent most of his life in or around university I think it's fair to say you are at best speculating saying those things about him.

You are taking liberty using religion and creative expression in the same sentence. They are hardly the same thing.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Athenian said:


> I don't want rude mate but come one, that's just plain rubbish. There are MANY atheist or non-religious artists in the world that draw inspiration from other sources.
> 
> You can't tell me that people like Geroge Carlin, Woody Allen, Billy Joel, Isac Asimov, Mark Twain and MANY others aren't creative and don't inspire others just because they aren't believers.
> 
> Please, you sound far more intelligent than that argument would lead someone to believe if they just stumbled on this thread today and haven't read anything else you 've written in defense of your beliefs.


Yeah I can see how it might have come across differently than intended. Apologies.

I wasn't saying that people who don't believe in evolution can't be creative. Plenty of people to disprove that as you say

what I meant to say was I would like to see people who argue the case of evolution draw from their experience of evolution and convey how it makes them passionate about life, and share that with people in general. Asimov yes, I can see some great insights as to why he personally draws strength from his worldview. But I can't say I've read something from many atheists that helps me to understand why it moves them so much, if you know what I mean. I see a lot of passion AGAINST things from the average atheist, but not a lot of poisson of what they stand FOR. there was a post a while back where someone was saying how evolutionary belief opened their eyes to the beauty of the world around them. I'd be genuinely interested to hear more about stuff like that.

I need to read more Mark Twain.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Athenian said:


> I don't want rude mate but come one, that's just plain rubbish. There are MANY atheist or non-religious artists in the world that draw inspiration from other sources.
> 
> You can't tell me that people like Geroge Carlin, Woody Allen, Billy Joel, Isac Asimov, Mark Twain and MANY others aren't creative and don't inspire others just because they aren't believers.
> 
> Please, *you sound far more intelligent than that argument would lead someone to believe* if they just stumbled on this thread today and haven't read anything else you 've written in defense of your beliefs.


You don't know the half of it....I can't understand it myself....I'm convinced he's either practising debating skills for college or is a jehovahs witness.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Yeah I can see how it might have come across differently than intended. Apologies.
> 
> I wasn't saying that people who don't believe in evolution can't be creative. Plenty of people to disprove that as you say
> 
> ...


I think you 're placing an arroneous expectation on evolution. At the end of the day it's a natural process, like digesting or walking. Some people might be inspired by it to do things, like selectively breeding dogs or cats to create an attractive breed, but most won't think twice.

I think the major fault in your logic lies with the fact that it seems, unless I'm mistaken, that you regard evolution to be a matter of faith rather than simple observable fact. Evolution is merely change over time, both within a species and from species to species. The Theory of Evolution is the mechanism which describes how the process takes place on a genetic level (I'm not a biologist so I'll refrain from going into detail and probably getting a ton of things wrong along the way).

I don't blame people who aren't aware of the difference between the ordinary use of the term 'theory' and it's scientific counterpart, that's a failure of the educational system to properly instruct people on the proper usage of terms and their applicability.

Anyway, I'm digressing. Gradual change over time can be the inspiration for many themes in the arts. You could use evolution as parable for a child maturing into an adult, how his views change, how he sees his life and how he re-evaluates his past. At the end of the day, unless the person specifically attributes an inspiration to something specific, I will either not care or simply interpret it in my own way.

Look at how music lyrics can mean greatly different things to different people. A personal example would be Linkin' Park. Their lead singer, Chester Benington has gone on record proclaiming a belief in God and that he prays daily. Now, this doesn't mean that ALL his lyrics have a religious theme to them, and even if they do, they don't stop me from enjoying them or even re-interpreting them to a more personal experience.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> Christians in China mainly belong to an underground church which has no power whatsoever, yet they get burned out of villages and locked up for "crimes against the state", when they've done nothing to provoke them. You can't just turn a blind eye to these atrocities (and those in North Korea) by saying 'oh it's okay, they were just trying to withdraw power from the churches.' That's the same excuse the Nazi government made about the Jews.
> 
> on a personal note, I just got a pb on my deadlift! lol


Comparing atheism to naziism now, is it? Now you really are stretching your own credibility. At what point did you go from believing in god and espousing your faith to preaching about the atrocities of the nazis and the political and humanitarian wrongs of North Korea...you're starting to come across a bit differently now.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> You don't know the half of it....I can't understand it myself....I'm convinced he's either practising debating skills for college or is a jehovahs witness.


Dude, I'd love to go back to college but I'm in my thirties and in the air force, which also precludes me from being a JW, if you know their beliefs about the military lol. But I do like to debate and sometimes I get better thoughts than others, and maybe it wasn't the best line to go down but my excuse was I was on jack3d at the time lol.

I still think that political or not, atrocities committed by those eastern governments have an anti religious agenda. It may be that it is because they aren't democratic though, as you say.

I still feel for the pain those believers are going through there. Bad times.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

mixerD1 said:


> Have you ever read Terry Pratchett?


No, not his fiction really - only one book of his 'Mort'. have read some interviews with him on astronomy and the philosophy of science as he has a keen interest there... seems like a decent guy.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> I still think that political or not, atrocities committed by those eastern governments have an anti religious agenda. It may be that it is because they aren't democratic though, as you say.
> 
> I still feel for the pain those believers are going through there. Bad times.


I understand your position. Everyone hates to see 'their own' being opressed, but for the sake of everyone involved, it is imperative that we place the blame squarely where it belongs and not on something or someone irrelevant, otherwise the wrong people get prosecuted and you end up essentially doing what was done to you in revenge.

Democracy isn't about religion or atheism, or belief or disbelief. It's about setting up certain freedoms regardless of politics, religion, sexual orientation, age, race, etc. If the head of a government, ANY government, doesn't uphold these, it makes 0 difference to me what his personal beliefs are UNLESS he is doing it to impose his particular view on an issue, be it political or religious.

In the case of China, the objective is not to get rid of religion due to atheism, but due to it's rivalry in the power structure, and to rid the land of opposers to the political regime, and persecuting them based on their religion is an excuse to do so. If the church sided with the political regime they would promote it, as done in other countries.

In the same way that I wouldn't claim Blair or Cameron were driven by their Christian views to minimise their opposition in parliament, I don't assign fault to atheism as a concept to what is clearly a case of politcal tyrrany in China.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

well done on the PB, god gave it u for backing his corner


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> Comparing atheism to naziism now, is it? Now you really are stretching your own credibility. At what point did you go from believing in god and espousing your faith to preaching about the atrocities of the nazis and the political and humanitarian wrongs of North Korea...you're starting to come across a bit differently now.


I wasn't comparing atheism to nazism. You need to follow what was being said. I was comparing the attitude of 'oh it's okay these aren't atrocities because they were trying to draw power away from the churches.'

But you do seem fairly desperate to latch on to any perceived weakness or flaw in my logic, for a while now. You haven't really expressed your own opinions apart from just trying to pick apart myself or others.

You may not have had many debates, but there will always be things that come up that aren't fully thought out etc. it doesn't make the person wrong in everything they say.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> I was comparing the attitude of 'oh it's okay these aren't atrocities because they were trying to draw power away from the churches.'


Carefull now mate, that's entirely misquoting and taking me out of context there. I never said or meant to suggest that what's going on China against believers is fine and dandy because religion is seen as an opposition to the political regime's power choke-hold, but that the motivation behind it isn't the one you were assinging to it.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Athenian said:


> Carefull now mate, that's entirely misquoting and taking me out of context there. I never said or meant to suggest that what's going on China against believers is fine and dandy because religion is seen as an opposition to the political regime's power choke-hold, but that the motivation behind it isn't the one you were assinging to it.


True. But it doesn't add up that the Chinese government would be motivated by a need to control power, because the believers there are very few and don't have any power to influence.

However, I AM guessing at their motive, and just because they say they are atheistic and anti religion, doesn't mean that's the reason they are doing it, you're right.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> True. But it doesn't add up that the Chinese government would be motivated by a need to control power, because the believers there are very few and don't have any power to influence.


True, but history has shown time and time again, religion can grow from a handfull of believers to thousands in no time what so ever, and a ruthless regime would always be vigilant against any possible challenge to their power and continually issue preemptive strikes.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

The Chinese "government" is officially Atheist, still lots of internal concentration camps in the country where "political dissidents" are "re-homed" and estimates range anywhere up to 70-80 millions deaths caused in the last century due to direct action from those that have run the country some even beleive this umber to have reached 100 million in the last 100 years add that to the many millions killed and left to die by the Russian government again Marxist/leninist based who made atheism the official Russian belief system. So not including the Nazi atrocities (which pale in comparison) we have a conservative estimate of well over 100 million deaths caused by 2 nations who's official stance was atheist at the time.


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

gycraig said:


> But what about when people have these "out of body experiences"
> 
> My dad rolled his van side ways down a hill when he nearly died and got taken to hospital in Grimsby which he had never seen as it had been redecorated.
> 
> ...


Dude it's ok to be gay you know


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Dav1 said:


> So not including the Nazi atrocities (which pale in comparison) we have a conservative estimate of well over 100 million deaths caused by 2 nations who's official stance was atheist at the time.


I think you mean who's official stance was militaristic dictatorship. Being atheist is neither here nor there, in the same way that the British Empire was officialy Christian and committed attrocities all around the world but no one calls it a Christian regime.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

@Athenian I do think you've explained things really well. It's helped me to question certain things a bit more. :thumbup:


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

That's nice to hear  Thanks for the exchange


----------



## chinup (Apr 5, 2012)

Religion :lol:


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> Dude, I'd love to go back to college but I'm in my thirties and in the air force, which also precludes me from being a JW, if you know their beliefs about the military lol. But I do like to debate and sometimes I get better thoughts than others, and maybe it wasn't the best line to go down but my excuse was I was on jack3d at the time lol.
> 
> I still think that political or not, atrocities committed by those eastern governments have an anti religious agenda. It may be that it is because they aren't democratic though, as you say.
> 
> I still feel for the pain those believers are going through there. Bad times.


It's not as simple as that...the people of china have always fought amongst themselves in murderous factions, even when democracy was at its peak over there, only for communism it wouldnt be possible to keep the population (1.3 billion people) law abiding. Theyd overrun the g'ment in a few days. Thats why theyre so harsh on what they see as subversive movements. The evolution of their culture is completely different to western sensibilities and what we see as barbaric, to them can seem normal and vice versa.


----------



## vetran (Oct 17, 2009)

we are all in search of the holy grail.the ultimate truth,the meaning of life,if god came down to earth and we all sat at his feet and asked "lord,tell us the answer," he would say " p*ss of,i'm trying to find out where i came from" lol


----------



## User Name (Aug 19, 2012)

Only 40 pages? Got to go some to catch up with all those BS religious books such as the Bible.

Keep trucking pilgrims.................


----------



## keano (Feb 9, 2006)

AceOfSpadez said:


> And if its true? why is the bible constantly being re-edited? if it was the book of god? why does the faults in the bible have to be re-edited? every now and again you hear about "THE NEW TESTAMENT" well what about the ORIGIONAL? why they changing it so often? it seems difficult to have a faith when theres so much obviousness going around, its like moving a pawn and cheating at chess whilst the other opponent is looking? this **** gets done right infront of these religious people, yet they just nod their heads and continue having faith? does it make life easier having it?


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> The Bible is actually more accurate than Homers Odyssey. The way scholars measure the accuracy of ancient texts is to count the number of copies of the original, and the date between original and copies. Homers Odyssey and the Iliad (both seen as reliable texts) have hundreds of copies, the earliest of which date 2-3 hundred years after the original.
> 
> The Bible in comparison has ten thousand manuscripts! And the earliest copies date from 30 years after the originals. No scholar in their right mind would doubt that we have the original words.
> 
> ...


It's a shame that during your diploma studies they didn't find time to mention that The Odyssey and The Iliad are works of fiction.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

keano said:


> WTF ? Are you serious ?
> 
> I havent read any of this thread mate, just this paragraph. Are you takeing the pi$$ ? lol
> 
> ...


To be fair to the guy, he's probably referring to the fact that different groups still have different opinions on what is and what is not canonical. Which isn't a question that deserves outright mockery.


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

For those who don't know - in the *bible *The Old Testament (OT) is effectively the Jewish Torah, but with a few more 'bits' thrown in.

In the Hebrew bible (Jewish texts) & the OT is a passage Jeremiah 31:31, according to Jeremiah this is Yahweh (god) saying he is going to write a new book. This book, the Xtians tell us, is theirs - The Bible's New Testement.

The Hebrew bible also prophesies of the Messiah, the Jewish King. This is the person central to Xtian belief, it is also the guy the Jews had killed by proxy (apparently they didn't see him as their Messiah at all, or didn't want to).

So, the Xtians (& the bible)are meant to be the 'next generation' of Jews, by the Jews own scripture; the Jewish Messiah is over 2000 years late or they really did kill him.

Kinda no wonder all these faith systems hate each other. The Jews get very angry when people say they murdered the Messiah (their own Messiah too), but like I said - according to their very own beloved words, he is either very late to the party.. or very dead. :lol:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Wavelength said:


> It's a shame that during your diploma studies they didn't find time to mention that The Odyssey and The Iliad are works of fiction.


You've completely missed the point of that comment.

Fiction or not (correct term is myth, which doesn't mean false like everyone thinks, it means stories that convey powerful truths about the human experience), the point is that no scholar in his right mind would doubt that Homers works that you read today are what was written originally, even though only copies remain.

The Bible has more evidence to say it is true to the original writings than Homers works. That's why I find it funny when people say the Bible is inaccurate because they changed what it says from the original etc.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

On a completely different train of thought (don't ask me how I got there), has anyone come across the Pythagoras tree? It's a fractal that uses squares, but each triple of squares creates a right angle. It ends up being shaped like a tree. Some mathematicians are using that model to try and explain the way organisms and cells multiply and grow. Amazing.


----------



## Slight of hand (Sep 30, 2008)

Porkchop said:


> It is a good base you're right.
> 
> But you're wrong that there is no factual basis in any religion whatsoever. As I said in a previous post, it depends on what kind of knowledge or facts you are looking for.
> 
> ...


what utter bollox

You clearly have not read his work


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Ironclad said:


> For those who don't know - in the *bible *The Old Testament (OT) is effectively the Jewish Torah, but with a few more 'bits' thrown in.
> 
> In the Hebrew bible (Jewish texts) & the OT is a passage Jeremiah 31:31, according to Jeremiah this is Yahweh (god) saying he is going to write a new book. This book, the Xtians tell us, is theirs - The Bible's New Testement.
> 
> ...


In the old testament god was number one G, no one could fcuk with him lol. If he was still like that we would never get away with blaspheming like we have been 

Good job he's more chilled out in his old age, I hear he's quite forgiving.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Dawkins is a very intelligent man, yes. he is also very prejudiced.

I asserted the possibility of what life under Dawkins MIGHT turn out to be, given some of the attitudes against religion he has shown. it may not turn out that way ( I do think that britain will end up with a majority atheist btw). But the way in which Dawkins makes his case is more concerning to me than the actual case he is making. If evolution turns out to be true, at the end of my life I won't be gnashing my teeth lamenting the fact i believed in a lie for so long - I'll be dead and decomposing and unaware of anything. So the message about evolution he talks about isn't threatening to me. I think there is some merit in some of the evidence. Its the way he goes about making his points. He has stated very clearly his position - 'Mock and hate religious people as much as you can because if nothing else, we at least are able to do it far far better than they'. That kind of attitude would be poison in a majority society, as we have seen from religion. At least learn from the mistakes of religion Richard!

If that prejudice gets taken to extremes (which it would in a society ruled by Dawkinism - it's a word lol), it could lead to the rejection of everything that is not firmly grounded in evolution. thats my worry.

Now that isn't something Dawkins does or believes himself (he is probably a very cultured man), but what i am saying is that people invariably take things to extremes that the founders of that society would never had wanted. There is a lot of potential for hatred and oppression in the way that modern atheists go about their beliefs. It could be argued that this pales in comparison to the religious hatred and extremism that has been shown countless times. But as i said, learn from the mistakes of religion, don't repeat them.

I could do with reading some of his latest stuff. The blind watchmaker was probably one of his best written books. The selfish gene was interesting.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> I wasn't comparing atheism to nazism. You need to follow what was being said. I was comparing the attitude of 'oh it's okay these aren't atrocities because they were trying to draw power away from the churches.'
> 
> But you do seem fairly desperate to latch on to any perceived weakness or flaw in my logic, for a while now. You haven't really expressed your own opinions apart from just trying to pick apart myself or others.
> 
> You may not have had many debates, but there will always be things that come up that aren't fully thought out etc. it doesn't make the person wrong in everything they say.


You are trying to establish a relationship between atheism and naziism. If you mention the two of them which are unrelated within the same setence it means you are trying to establish a common ground between them. You tried the same thing with communist china and how it treats underground christian groups. Everything you have said here is easy to pick apart Porkchop. In fairness you've made some pretty outlandish claims, I've asked you to include references once or twice and you haven't so I assume you're just making things up as you go along.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> Dawkins is a very intelligent man, yes. he is also very prejudiced.
> 
> I asserted the possibility of what life under Dawkins MIGHT turn out to be, given some of the attitudes against religion he has shown. it may not turn out that way ( I do think that britain will end up with a majority atheist btw). But the way in which Dawkins makes his case is more concerning to me than the actual case he is making. If evolution turns out to be true, at the end of my life I won't be gnashing my teeth lamenting the fact i believed in a lie for so long - I'll be dead and decomposing and unaware of anything. So the message about evolution he talks about isn't threatening to me. I think there is some merit in some of the evidence. Its the way he goes about making his points. He has stated very clearly his position - 'Mock and hate religious people as much as you can because if nothing else, we at least are able to do it far far better than they'. That kind of attitude would be poison in a majority society, as we have seen from religion. At least learn from the mistakes of religion Richard!
> 
> ...


I can't read any more of this out of you. I actually know a person who had to go through de-programming having been brainwashed by a 'religion' and I'm stunned how much you remind of one of their members....spouting on the spot facts and theories that are nothing more than ancient hearsay and stories...but when you're asked for a reference to prove your point you disagree with something else, throw out some casual platitude (e.g. ''on another note I got a new PB deadlift, I liked your last post it made me think'' ) and come out with a new on the spot fact or religious grievance which you try to attribute to atheism in your next post.

Your routine is more obvious than you think...I'm not convinced you've been honest about who you are or what you do, you come across as a person who has to do this continuously, but WTF, like yourself, I'm only speculating.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Imo there is a link between atheism and nazism, but i was talking about attitudes to atrocities (which has nothing to do with atheism). and i was talking about china. if you need reminding, this is what i said:

"Christians in China mainly belong to an underground church which has no power whatsoever, yet they get burned out of villages and locked up for "crimes against the state", when they've done nothing to provoke them. You can't just turn a blind eye to these atrocities (and those in North Korea) by saying 'oh it's okay, they were just trying to withdraw power from the churches.' That's the same excuse the Nazi government made about the Jews."

there is no reference to atheism there. I am addressing an attitude, a rationilisation. Now, athenian and I debated further and it became clear this wasn't what he was trying to say. He then made a pretty convincing argument about the underlying motives of regimes that on the face of it had anti-religious agendas.

But as you seem to want to raise the point about Nazism and atheism (or lack of connection):

Quoted from http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm. You could say the source is a biased point of view, but that would be the case if someone quoted from Dawkins lol. In any case the points raised are facts and the logic is reasonable:

" it was said that Hitler was raised Catholic. What does it prove to say that Hitler was raised Catholic? Stalin was raised in the Orthodox Church. Mao was raised as a Buddhist. Lots of people repudiate their religious upbringing. Hitler vehemently rejected the traditional Christianity in which he was raised. During the period of his ascent to power, he needed the support of the German people - mostly Christian, mostly Lutheran - and he occasionally used boilerplate rhetoric such as "I am doing the Lord's work" to try and secure this. This rhetoric, it should be noted, is a commonplace rhetorical device among atheist writers. Nietzsche, for instance, regularly compared himself to Jesus, even titling one of his books Ecce **** ("behold the man," a biblical reference to Christ). But no intelligent reader of Nietzsche can doubt that he was a rabid atheist, as was Hitler. One should not confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Not surprisingly, Hitler invoked Christ's death at the hands of the Jews in order to solicit Christian support for his (secular and racial, not religious) anti-Semitic agenda.

Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, however, they denounced Christianity and launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken traditional Christianity. Since 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became openly and increasingly anti-religious. In particular, they repudiated what they perceived as the Christian values of equality, compassion and weakness and extolled the atheist notions of the Nietzschean superman and a new society based on the "will to power." Hitler's leading advisers, such as Goebbels, Heydrich and Bormann, were atheists who were savagely hostile to religion. Several of his associates reported that the Fuhrer's personal views were deeply anti-Christian. Again, Hitler's hostility to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, were not incidental to the violence that characterized his regime. They were part of the Nazi ideology - a secular ideology that deified race over creed."


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

@mixerD1 Its funny because i have to question your motives on your constant accusations.

I seek to retain my sense of humour in these debates, it stops things becoming too personal, something that you seem hell bent on pursuing. If i want to say i got a PB on something and laugh, and if i want to thank someone for what theyve said, what's it to you? Doesn't bother me if you want to colour my motives fella.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

The things is they're not facts they're hearsay, and by your own admission from a biased source. I don't believe for one second that the strength of atheism in the nazis was the cause of their atrocities, it was their 'will to power' combined with their bitterness at the success of the Jewish people that was the underlying reason for what they did. It was because the Jewish people are so successful as a race (because of their culture and despite the odds they've overcome) that Hitler and even moreso the other nazis like Goebbels wanted to wipe them out. The fact that atheism is a part of it is not the reason the holocaust happened. I think it would be reasonable logic to say the nazis were sociopathic extremists more than they were atheists. Nietzsche compared himself to Jesus? He did no such thing. That's definitely taking his writings out of context and proof that your 'source' is (IMO heavily) biased.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> @mixerD1 Its funny because i have to question your motives on your constant accusations.
> 
> I seek to retain my sense of humour in these debates, it stops things becoming too personal, something that you seem hell bent on pursuing. If i want to say i got a PB on something and laugh, and if i want to thank someone for what theyve said, what's it to you? Doesn't bother me if you want to colour my motives fella.


I appreciate that, I like the fact you're keeping it noticably lighthearted and impersonal. I'm not getting personal either although I do accept I come across rather abrasive..the resason I pointed it out is because it's become repetetive...as if it's a routine of yours. I really don't mind your beliefs at all either but you have to base them entirely in fact and proof if you want to be perceived as credible while debating on a public forum.


----------



## vtec_yo (Nov 30, 2011)




----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

I've gotten by just fine without him...


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

mixerD1 said:


> The things is they're not facts they're hearsay, and by your own admission from a biased source. I don't believe for one second that the strength of atheism in the nazis was the cause of their atrocities, it was their 'will to power' combined with their bitterness at the success of the Jewish people that was the underlying reason for what they did. It was because the Jewish people are so successful as a race (because of their culture and despite the odds they've overcome) that Hitler and even moreso the other nazis like Goebbels wanted to wipe them out. The fact that atheism is a part of it is not the reason the holocaust happened. I think it would be reasonable logic to say the nazis were sociopathic extremists more than they were atheists. Nietzsche compared himself to Jesus? He did no such thing. That's definitely taking his writings out of context and proof that your 'source' is (IMO heavily) biased.


good to know what you think (not a routine, my honest opinion!).Something that amazed me about Nietzche when I read his stuff, especially Ecce ****, was that he seemed to accurately predict what would happen to his reputation. he wrote, 'I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous - a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far.' i found that intriguing. And then he followed that by saying 'I am no man, I am dynamite!' LMAO.As to your points, yeah i think there were so many different motivating factors involved in the german atrocities that you can't really pin it down on one thing. However much I believe there was SOME causal connection to atheism and their ideology, I don't think its as strong a factor to say thats why they did the stuff they did, just my personal oipinion. The will to Power seems to be their biggest motivation. Suffering in a country that had been not only humiliated after the first world war, but had any sense of pride crushed in the crippling sanctions the nations imposed on it - this created a breeding ground for resentment and a willingness to embrace anything that might give the german people some dignity back again.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> You've completely missed the point of that comment.
> 
> Fiction or not (correct term is myth, which doesn't mean false like everyone thinks, it means stories that convey powerful truths about the human experience), the point is that no scholar in his right mind would doubt that Homers works that you read today are what was written originally, even though only copies remain.
> 
> The Bible has more evidence to say it is true to the original writings than Homers works. That's why I find it funny when people say the Bible is inaccurate because they changed what it says from the original etc.


No, I did not miss the point at all. However I must still apologise because I wrote that comment while unable to sleep and I was a lot more brief and snippy than I should have been. I didn't mean it to be so condescending as it sounded when I read it back to myself this morning and I hope you weren't put out by it.

The point which I should have made was that you are making a comparison between works in two different categories, as the popular aphorism goes comparing "apples and oranges". In virtually all academic disciplines this is a big no-no. Even if we consider the Bible to also be a work of allegory and myth, one still has to take into account the intended purpose of the material, because this directly affects the quality of work that will go into translation, as well as any narrative influences/devices that the translator may for whatever reason see fit to add or subtract.

Consider the differences in motive and dedication between the sorts of people who would have been translating the Bible, a sacred text carrying what the scholars would consider the word of God, and the Odyssesy, a poem which culturally speaking was used to educate and entertain. I would suggest that in the event of a problem arising with direct translation, the former group would be far less tolerant than the latter of the idea of using quick fixes such as analogy, allusion, or simply translating the source language into the destination language using the best fit known to them regardless of any change in meaning. Bear in mind that throughout the centuries some of the people translating the Bible have worked in environments where errors, even only perceived errors, could easily be held up as blasphemy and attract severe penalties.

The point I'm trying to make is that the comparison serves no purpose. It's like saying that the new album from No Doubt must be good because it's better than the new album from One Direction. The two problems here are that (a) that's what we'd expect in any case, and ( B) it's not quantitative and doesn't tell us how good No Doubt's album is. In exactly the same way, there's no objective frame of reference for the Bible Accuracy vs Odyssey Accuracy comparison. You can only appraise them relative to each other and there's no meaningful wider context that can be justifiably inferred. In short, pointing out that the Bible is truer to its original form than the Odyssey is as useful as telling us that it is less true to its original form than the second edition of The Shining. That is to say, not very useful at all.

I realise you were only trying to address the often-raised accusation that the Bible is full of translation accuracies. But it doesn't really make any difference other than to create the appearance that you're conflating the accuracy of the Bible with respect to its original source materials, with the accuracy of the Bible with respect to the events it describes. I'm sure that's not what you were trying to do, but in my experience the people raising the accuracy objection actually very rarely make any case as to why it should matter anyway, so you end up exposing yourself to accusations that you are making that conflation. And for no real benefit. If I were taking the role of Biblical advocate (which I'm certainly not going to, but I can still consider a hypothetical strategy for it) I would respond to that accusation by asking for an explanation of why it actually mattered. I would expect that in most cases this would result in me having to do very little in the way of refutation.

What's interesting about Homer's work is that any Greek worth their salt was expected to be able to recite the epics word for word, in the oral tradition. As a civilisation I think there's a tendency for us to assume that written works are inerrant and unchanging, and that they should therefore be more accurate than orally distributed works. It might be this prejudice that leads people to assume such high requirements from the accuracy of Biblical translations.


----------



## barrettmma1436114759 (Feb 28, 2011)

Sc4mp0 said:


>


thats the shinyest can i've ever seen!! :w00t:


----------



## barrettmma1436114759 (Feb 28, 2011)

vetran said:


> an hour and half to read all this so i will add something
> 
> going to leave it till i die and then see what happens but will start going church when ime 60 just in case


:confused1:your younger than 60????

:whistling:


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

With the Holocaust, it comes down to this....whatever can go wrong will go wrong. If at one time you said....''It could be possible that a madman will come to power and surrounded by madmen wipe out the population of several countries for no good reason and the rest of the world will let it happen''..you would be laughed out the door, and yet it hapened....a bunch of powerhungry sociopaths, whether from chance or whatever, managed to find each other and cause a world war.

Further back...if you said to someone, '''An imaginary being will have more influence on the human race for the next 2 thousand odd years than anything else in histoy'' you would also be laughed out the door. Yet it's happening.

Faith and everything that comes with it i.e. religion, exists because of the human capacity for hope. The stronger the sense of hope in the individual, the stronger their faith.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

@Wavelength's last post (sorry, my work computer is messing up when i try and use the quote tool),

yeah, liked the explanation of that, but to mention One Direction in a religious thread - Blasphemy!

apples and oranges. Yes it could be said they are completely different genres, and therefore have a different approach to its translation and preservation.

But doesn't that make the biblical texts more accurate if they are being so meticulous? (and everything i've read confirms what you've said - they took copying the sacred texts VERY carefully, throwing whole parchments away for just one error).

I think (its been a long thread) i brought up that point because of the attitude a lot of people have (not necessarily on UK-M, i don't know, but just general populaiton who don't really know too much about the bible) is that they tend to believe the bible we have today is completely different to the one they had thousands of years ago, which isn't true. there might be a few translational imperfections, but more than 90% of it is original to what people would have held in their hands and read back then.

yeah the oral tradition seems to be regarded as unreliable too, as you say. but that kind of memorization can be as accurate as the written word - a point you make very well.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

@Porckchop

What does nazism possibly have in common with atheism?

Hitler was a Christian who believed he was carrying out the will of God, praised the Catholic Church for their hierarchical structure and influence on society and had his troops wear a belt buckle that wrote "Gott Mit Uns - God With Us". (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/1069962/)

Again it seems that you are equating the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution with Atheism, which is wrong. The Catholic Church has officialy accepted evolution as fact and instructs followers to ascribe to what is known as 'theistic evolution' ie God set up the rules and mechanisms behind evolution and guided it to give rise to man.

But this wasn't the case with Hitler, his knowledge/acceptance of evolution was unsound and a perversion of the Theory as he tried to apply it to social strucutres (what some people call 'social darwinism') which was just an excuse to legitimise his racist views.

Honestly mate, you really ought to research these things before making such claims. It sounds to me like you 've been reading a lot of Creationist webpages and getting all your arguments from them.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> good to know what you think (not a routine, my honest opinion!).Something that amazed me about Nietzche when I read his stuff, especially Ecce ****, was that he seemed to accurately predict what would happen to his reputation. he wrote, 'I know my fate. *One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendou* - a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far.' i found that intriguing. And then he followed that by saying 'I am no man, I am dynamite!' LMAO.As to your points, yeah i think there were so many different motivating factors involved in the german atrocities that you can't really pin it down on one thing. However much I believe there was SOME causal connection to atheism and their ideology, I don't think its as strong a factor to say thats why they did the stuff they did, just my personal oipinion. The will to Power seems to be their biggest motivation. Suffering in a country that had been not only humiliated after the first world war, but had any sense of pride crushed in the crippling sanctions the nations imposed on it - this created a breeding ground for resentment and a willingness to embrace anything that might give the german people some dignity back again.


Nietzsche was probably the most famous, successful and most respected writer/professor/philosopher of his time. Because he was so successful and spoiled from an early age it would not be unreasonable to say he was egotistic and cocksure of himself. I am not at all surprised he would assume something like that, but by the same token, Einstein could have come out with the same...I think he did but I can't remember it well enough to reference it.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Athenian said:


> @Porckchop
> 
> What does nazism possibly have in common with atheism?
> 
> ...


I know what you're saying, but I'm not equating evolution with nazism. I'm saying that in my opinion there was some atheist beliefs in the nsdap that they twisted and abused.

The fact they used religious connotations to secure and maintain power just proves they were clever in the way they went about it. Once firmly in power they abandoned any established religious pretense, and (here's where you'll see I'm not attributing atheism as a cause), they made their own religion based on a fanatical ideology.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> I know what you're saying, but I'm not equating evolution with nazism. I'm saying that in my opinion there was some atheist beliefs in the nsdap that they twisted and abused.
> 
> The fact they used religious connotations to secure and maintain power just proves they were clever in the way they went about it. Once firmly in power they abandoned any established religious pretense, and (here's where you'll see I'm not attributing atheism as a cause), they made their own religion based on a fanatical ideology.


Yes but again, this has nothing to do with the concept of atheism.

Atheism is NOT an ideology of ANY kind. It is merely a rejection of a belief in a deity, nothing more. Would you call the rejection in the belief of the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch ness monster an ideology? Of course not, so why on earth do you insist on doing this with atheism?

You make it sound as if being an atheist also means you have a specific political, social, racial and economic agenda. I have met MANY atheists, easily over 100 and I can tell you there's plenty with who I disagree with on MORE issues than we agree on.

Ex. the late Chris Hitchens. The man was a pilar of the atheist community but I'll be damned if I side with his views on the Iraq war.

Likewise, Sam Harris is a staunch atheist, who's also Jewish and supports Israel on praactically every single one of their policies. I on the other do not. I personally find fault with a number of the things they do and how they do them.

Penn Jillette from Penn & Teller is a hugely outspoken atheist, yet I find his politics to be an absolute buffoonery, so much so I'm amazed this man and I agree on as many things as we do!

I can go all day long with examples mate.

I can't stress it enough, atheism is nothing more than than saying "I don't believe a god or gods exist". Absolutely NOTHING more.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Athenian said:


> I think you mean who's official stance was militaristic dictatorship. Being atheist is neither here nor there, in the same way that the British Empire was officialy Christian and committed attrocities all around the world but no one calls it a Christian regime.


Of course it is and is central to most peoples argument around the atrocities committed by Religion, these 2 countries under as you say a dictatorship neither of which followed a religious doctrine have alone been responsible for more deaths (probably many times over) than those committed under the name of "religion". I also put religion in inverted commas as in many cases it is simply used as an excuse to carry out actions against a people or another state by the leaders of that country to whip up a fervent response from the following masses.

If anyone believes that by getting rid of religion you'll stop many atrocities being committed you are greatly disillusioned another excuse will be found, for example millions are being killed directly and indirectly by US policy which is totally down to economics/resources nothing else. The countries who are being "raped" often using religion as an excuse, if it didn't exist do you still not think you'd have these acts of terrorism? Occupation and the atrocities which are going on and have been for many years under imperialism/empire building will invariably always illicit a violent backlash from the oppressed.

In fact you could argue that without a strong belief system killing becomes much easier, it is just a part of nature after all, and if you don't believe in an after life or karma or cause and effect (or what ever you wish to call it) then killing a person holds very little horror especially if state sponsored because so long as you are on the winning/dominant side there is no come back other than if you decide to judge yourself.

Many atrocities are committed will continue to be and have been in history and have any of these people been held on trial as war criminals?? Any US presidents or leading politicians, and British primeministers or politicians its either brushed under the carpet or seen as a necessary evil int he fight against the "bad guys". I also wonder how much religion is to blame much I'd guess is built up by the powers that be to create this big bad enemy.

How do you build your judgement - are you involved directly or do you base it on what you read and see via the media. Fcuk it Aljeezera is a CIA sponsored resource lol.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

if it wasnt for god we wouldnt have xmas or easter.

even tho im a non believer, i thank you lord for sending down your son father xmas and your pet rabbit to ensure that i get gifts and chocolate every year.

hallelujah!


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Athenian said:


> Yes but again, this has nothing to do with the concept of atheism.
> 
> Atheism is NOT an ideology of ANY kind. It is merely a rejection of a belief in a deity, nothing more. Would you call the rejection in the belief of the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch ness monster an ideology? Of course not, so why on earth do you insist on doing this with atheism?
> 
> ...


Hence my views earlier on about Richard Dawkins. He does have agendas, and they're becoming more ideological.

I totally agree with you about atheism and what it is. And in that respect, the nazis were not atheists, I will grant you. But they were anti religious. They turned on the church after it had helped them get to power. one could say they were anti anything that didn't put them at the Centre.

I've heard a lot of people say they are atheists but embarrassed at Dawkins. Why? Because he's not just an atheist, he has combined that with being very anti religious. And he influences a lot of people. IMO that is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

There is so much wrong with that post I'm getting a headache just trying to process all the faults in logic...



Dav1 said:


> Of course it is and is central to most peoples argument around the atrocities committed by Religion, these 2 countries under as you say a dictatorship neither of which followed a religious doctrine have alone been responsible for more deaths (probably many times over) than those committed under the name of "religion".


Again with this bizare notion that a lack of belief in a god equals an indeology that ascribes to specific behaviour and ideologies... I'm not going to address the obvious for the 5-6th time in this topic, please read my previous post to Porkchop, this is getting tiresome.

Furthermore, you entire argument seems to be a case of numbers, like one murderer chasting another one because he killed fewer people. At the end of the day, religion still commanded the massacre of millions over the past 20 centuries, so just because something or someone else comes along and does it better doesn't mean you are off the hook for your crimes. That's such an infantile argument, like a child getting caught for stealing a pound and crying "but he stole 2 pounds and got away with it!".



Dav1 said:


> I also put religion in inverted commas as in many cases it is simply used as an excuse to carry out actions against a people or another state by the leaders of that country to whip up a fervent response from the following masses.


Oh I see, so when a dictator kills people to remain in power he's obviously doing it because he doesn't believe in an invisble man in the sky, but when a guy kills another man because a book commands him to the religion is being perverted... What a self-serving way to look at things... Biased much?



Dav1 said:


> If anyone believes that by getting rid of religion you'll stop many atrocities being committed you are greatly disillusioned another excuse will be found, for example millions are being killed directly and indirectly by US policy which is totally down to economics/resources nothing else. The countries who are being "raped" often using religion as an excuse, if it didn't exist do you still not think you'd have these acts of terrorism? Occupation and the atrocities which are going on and have been for many years under imperialism/empire building will invariably always illicit a violent backlash from the oppressed.


Yet another juvenille argument. So basically we 're back to the "why are you after me, I only murdered 20 people, that guy murdered 30!"...

Any rational human being tries to see the CAUSE of evil and root it out. Not believing in magic and talking snakes doesn't lead you to kill someone, any more than believing in magic and talking snakes does. BUT, when the latter has an entire social and political structure built to PROMOTE and ENFORCE it's views and teachings upon a populace then trying to argue that the religion isn't the problem, just the people who lead it, that's like saying 'it's not my fault for training a dog to attack and kill, he's doing it all on his own"...

Religious texts are filled with messages of hate, destruction, eternal suffering and damnation and all sorts of other pleasantries, commanded by what is proclaimed to be the ultimate power and force int eh universe who's will is unquestioned and never wrong... Defending that is not a just cause.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Exactly ^^^^

And to those of you thinking Hitler was a Christian lol, he was (although evil) one of the greatest orators and leaders in history he used what he needed to fit his purpose. I'm sure he prayed daily and attended church and shed tears when hearing about all of the atrocities committed in his name.


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> Hence my views earlier on about Richard Dawkins. He does have agendas, and they're becoming more ideological.
> 
> I totally agree with you about atheism and what it is. And in that respect, the nazis were not atheists, I will grant you. But they were anti religious. They turned on the church after it had helped them get to power. one could say they were anti anything that didn't put them at the Centre.
> 
> I've heard a lot of people say they are atheists but embarrassed at Dawkins. Why? Because he's not just an atheist, he has combined that with being very anti religious. And he influences a lot of people. IMO that is a recipe for disaster.


Dawkins' views and ideologies are his own, not a collective view of everyone who agrees with him on 1 particular issue. If some people take issue with anything other than his position on the separation fo chuch and state then they are free to disagree with him, but in a civilised manner. I don't recall any atheists threatening to behead someone who called Dawkin's a liar or ****er.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

a.notherguy said:


> if it wasnt for god we wouldnt have xmas or easter.
> 
> even tho im a non believer, i thank you lord for sending down your son father xmas and your pet rabbit to ensure that i get gifts and chocolate every year.
> 
> hallelujah!


So what do atheists do about xmas/easter/christenings/weddings etc etc?


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Xmas and easter are holidays the Christians appropriated from other pagan religions. The Churches at the time (Rome and Byzantine) knew that the transition from paganism to Christianity would be far easier if people could celebrate and worship pretty much the same way and times as before.

Personally I don't celebrate either. It's literally just another day in the year for me, and quite frankly I get annoyed that normal services are reduced for sometimes up to 72 hours because of them.


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Athenian you are not getting my central argument man is responsible for all the atrocities nothing else its like saying that a gun kills people its the person who does this. Religion or no religion nothing would change with regards to what nations do in the name of whatever cause or belief, those wanting to do so would just find some other cause. I've seen much hatred in my time and none of it was religious based man it seems is quite capable of this.

And yes I am using numbers as a way of conveying a basic point, indeed Religion has been used as an excuse to commit terrible crimes but man is also quite capable of doing so without. Are you a muslim cleric etc... as there are many misinterpretations and meanings in the bible and Quran - I had the pleasure (and it was) of spending some time with a muslim cleric and it opened my eyes. As someone else has said the bible has numerous inaccuracies some state with changes and mistranslations around 80%.

I'm not defending these religions particularly and as I've said the only hate and real negativity I've seen on this thread has come from those speaking out against it, no religion in the world no change as far as I can see, possibly things would become even worse as many people don't subscribe to high moral ideals without something being forced on them.

I don't intrinsically see man/woman as good but as someone who will without boundaries do what ever they can get away with to various degrees, in a thousand years time if there is no religion and we haven't annihilated ourselves or used up all the natural resources you'll still see wars and huge number so deaths that is the way I see us as a race/species and arguing that Religion is at the heart of all evil is for me a moot point.

For you obviously not as maybe you have more faith in humankind - I don't.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Athenian said:


> Xmas and easter are holidays the Christians appropriated from other pagan religions. The Churches at the time (Rome and Byzantine) knew that the transition from paganism to Christianity would be far easier if people could celebrate and worship pretty much the same way and times as before.
> 
> Personally I don't celebrate either. It's literally just another day in the year for me, and quite frankly I get annoyed that normal services are reduced for sometimes up to 72 hours because of them.


Fair do's mate! So what about athiests that feel very strongly about it? do they for instance renounce their blessing if they were christened as a child? do they still wed in a church?

Some very strong views on this forum from some which im personally cool with and respect but i wonder do they actually walk the walk rather than just talk the talk?


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

I don't think Dawkins is a liar Athenian, he seems very sincere.

Been reading on his website actually, he is a self confessed controversial character! fair play.

He is sincere, but his passion and singular focus on religion is a bit disturbing. I'm sure he gets a lot of press with it, but it has potential to be as harmful as a religious fanatic. No, there hasn't been the kind of things done that religious people have done yet, but as i have said, i wish he would learn from religion in this area, because if he doesn't he may well end up repeating it.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

does anyone realise that we could submit this thread to the International Public Debate Association and leave them all in awe!

'Bodybuilders? talking about religion? socio-political motivations? WTF?'

LMAO


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

Dav1 said:


> Athenian you are not getting my central argument man is responsible for all the atrocities nothing else its like saying that a gun kills people its the person who does this.


That's not a valid comparison. A gun doesn't come with instruction or an indoctrination to segregate others, it doesn't have a power of influence like religion does. No matter who you spin it, religion has texts in it COMMANDING it's followers to kill and enslave others. Just because most people today have the good sense to disregard it doesn't mean it isn't still wirtten and that other take it literally.



Dav1 said:


> Religion or no religion nothing would change with regards to what nations do in the name of whatever cause or belief, those wanting to do so would just find some other cause.


Sorry, bu that's flat out wrong. Check for crime statistics in the EU and the US and you 'll see that secular, primarily non-religious countries like Sweden, France, germany, Holland, Norway, Denmark etc have far fewer violent crimes per person. Obviously I'm not suggesting that religion is the ONLY contributing factor, but it is a major influence when it tells people that this life is not important, anything you do can be forgiven if you repent and eternal bliss and happiness awaits you in heaven... This never allows people to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, as their faith has told them that all can be forgiven and everything will be allright...



Dav1 said:


> I've seen much hatred in my time and none of it was religious based man it seems is quite capable of this.


Again, that isnt an excuse, any more than a wife-beater telling a court of Law "sure I beat her, but I didn't kill her, so let's it slide huh?". If something causes problems, you either rectify it or abandon it, you don't let it be because there are other problems with other issues as well. That's like someone saying "well, I've got a gunshot wound, but hey, it's not as bad as my cancer, so I won't bother treating it, I'm gonna die anyway, so what's the difference right?".



Dav1 said:


> And yes I am using numbers as a way of conveying a basic point, indeed Religion has been used as an excuse to commit terrible crimes but man is also quite capable of doing so without.


It's a flawed point. Imagine of the legal system worked that way. One criminal could claim that since the guy after him has killed more people, they shouldn't bother punishing him and it isn't a deterent anyway, people will still kill other people even if you throw them both in jail.



Dav1 said:


> Are you a muslim cleric etc... as there are many misinterpretations and meanings in the bible and Quran - I had the pleasure (and it was) of spending some time with a muslim cleric and it opened my eyes. As someone else has said the bible has numerous inaccuracies some state with changes and mistranslations around 80%.


There's no misinterpretating these:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

And there's tons more, there isn't enough space on this site to post them all.



Dav1 said:


> possibly things would become even worse as many people don't subscribe to high moral ideals without something being forced on them.


Simply not true my friend. As I suggested to you earlier in this post, check to see the crime statistics in predominently atheist/non-religious countries in the EU. I think you 'll find they are the safest countries in the world (along with the best health care, education, and other social services).


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

^ The subject is usually irrelevant, it's just an excuse to dismiss others well thought-out opinions and vent some steam!


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

lukeee said:


> Fair do's mate! So what about athiests that feel very strongly about it? do they for instance renounce their blessing if they were christened as a child? do they still wed in a church?


Well, I can't really un-baptise myself can I? I'll just not do the same to my kids if I ever have any.

As for marrying in a church, absolutely no way. That would be like a black man subscribing to the BNP weekly magazine. It's utterly insane :-D



lukeee said:


> Some very strong views on this forum from some which im personally cool with and respect but i wonder do they actually walk the walk rather than just talk the talk?


What do you mean? How is an atheist expected to 'walk the walk'? All an atheist claims (as an atheist) is that he doesn't believe a deity exists. If in a time of trouble he starts praying and begging he would be a hypocrite, but I've been through some tought times myself and I haven't resorted to appealing to higher powers just yet ;-)


----------



## Monkey skeleton (Jul 8, 2012)

Life's great as long as you don't take it too seriously and try to do good. I kinda feel religion's the same.

I'm agnostic, though I celebrate various different religious holidays, as I like celebrating, and eating!


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Athenian said:


> Well, I can't really un-baptise myself can I? I'll just not do the same to my kids if I ever have any.
> 
> As for marrying in a church, absolutely no way. That would be like a black man subscribing to the BNP weekly magazine. It's utterly insane :-D
> 
> What do you mean? How is an atheist expected to 'walk the walk'? All an atheist claims (as an atheist) is that he doesn't believe a deity exists. If in a time of trouble he starts praying and begging he would be a hypocrite, but I've been through some tought times myself and I haven't resorted to appealing to higher powers just yet ;-)


I believe you can renounce a blessing and you know what i mean when i say walk the walk as you answered it, never asking for help from a deity, not getting involved in xmas celebrations etc etc and fair play to you if you dont but i bet most on here that have argued against there being a deity do and you yourself have just called it hypocrisy.

I think most of us can be a little athiest or a little christian when it suits us but very very few hold completley true to it.

People eh


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

I don't immediately see how someone being part of a celebration that has religious themes/tones whilst being an atheist is a hypocrite. I have two sisters, both of which are not atheist, does that mean that if they chose to have a religious ceremony and I attend and feel happy for them I am being hypocritical?

You don't have to be a kill-joy just because you don't believe in the reason people are celebrating. If that were the case, I wouldn't go to any wedding that I personally didn't know the bride and groom as their happiness is of no consequence to me, practically or emotionally. Same thing for birthday parties of friend's of a friend, and so on.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

lukeee said:


> Fair do's mate! So what about athiests that feel very strongly about it? do they for instance renounce their blessing if they were christened as a child? do they still wed in a church?
> 
> Some very strong views on this forum from some which im personally cool with and respect but i wonder do they actually walk the walk rather than just talk the talk?


We won't be getting married in a church and I see Christmas as just a time to enjoy good food and company at a time when nights are long and it's cold outside. And when I have children it will be a fun thing to do to watch the joy in their faces. I loved beleiving in Santa and the tooth fairy and would like my chidlren to enjoy it too.


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

I havent read thread but their is nothing to debate now just read/watch dawkins and hitchens  you could waste a few days just watching them demolish people in debates on youtub*wanders off to youtube* :rolleye:


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

Katy said:


> We won't be getting married in a church and I see Christmas as just a time to enjoy good food and company at a time when nights are long and it's cold outside. And when I have children it will be a fun thing to do to watch the joy in their faces. I loved beleiving in Santa and the tooth fairy and would like my chidlren to enjoy it too.


For me when i get married it will be by a registrar or what ever they are called and will be under the tree in our field lol  It is hypocritical of people to get married in church, christian their children etc. (my missus mate christened her children just to get presents...).

Christmas is just this. Spend time with family, chill, reflect on the year gone and be merry  (or if your me, mom n sisters all have a big ruckus and spend xmas day sulking in their rooms, while me n the father sit their in silence eatin our lunch haha)


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

lukeee said:


> I believe you can renounce a blessing and you know what i mean when i say walk the walk as you answered it, never asking for help from a deity, not getting involved in xmas celebrations etc etc and fair play to you if you dont but i bet most on here that have argued against there being a deity do and you yourself have just called it hypocrisy.
> 
> I think most of us can be a little athiest or a little christian when it suits us but very very few hold completley true to it.
> 
> People eh


I think a lot of people celebrate Christmas with little or not thought of Jesus; many aren't celebrating the birth of Jesus - it's just a fun excuse to have a festive holiday. When/if I do think about the origins of Christmas though I think of pagenism, not christianity.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Sambuca said:


> For me when i get married it will be by a registrar or what ever they are called and will be under the tree in our field lol  It is hypocritical of people to get married in church, christian their children etc. (my missus mate christened her children just to get presents...).
> 
> Christmas is just this. Spend time with family, chill, reflect on the year gone and be merry  (or if your me, mom n sisters all have a big ruckus and spend xmas day sulking in their rooms, while me n the father sit their in silence eatin our lunch haha)


Sounds like my Christmas'! Except it's me usually crying! This time though I'm not seeing my family so should be awesome! :laugh:


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

I only quoted you in saying hypocrisy mate and no I'd think you rather sad if you didn't attend weddings and celebrations etc but some on here have called religion bu!!$hit and people with faith deluded and so yeah I would think them hypocrites if they were to attend an event with religious tones/meanings in a place of worship..


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

haha. I will make the effort to see everyone but my sisters n mother are a bl00dy nightmare. They go out and get drunk and end up in fight mode. This happens everytime they are together. so silly  most of mine will be spent with the GF and next christmas visiting the cousins in australia wooooooooo cannot wait


----------



## paulshane (May 31, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> I havent read thread but their is nothing to debate now just read/watch dawkins and hitchens  you could waste a few days just watching them demolish people in debates on youtub*wanders off to youtube* :rolleye:


And the reason they are so good at it? Because religion is fairy tale fiction.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Christmas was a pagan festival adopted by the church to increase popularity and gain power lol. All of the symbols of Xmas are of pagan origin, Holly, the tree, Yule log etc.

Does that make u a pagan?

I celebrate Xmas as a time to spend with friends and family, as a tradition rather than a religious celebration.


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> haha. I will make the effort to see everyone but my sisters n mother are a bl00dy nightmare. They go out and get drunk and end up in fight mode. This happens everytime they are together. so silly  most of mine will be spent with the GF and next christmas visiting the cousins in australia wooooooooo cannot wait


Would love to spend christmas on a beach having a bbq/picnic or something. Aussies have it pretty good! although they do have the one of the world's biggest concentration of poisonous creatures so i guess it balances out :-D


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

religious books were written by man. nuff said


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Don't they have a god and a goddess in paganism? I admit I'm not that clued up on it lol


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Athenian said:


> Xmas and easter are holidays the Christians appropriated from other pagan religions. The Churches at the time (Rome and Byzantine) knew that the transition from paganism to Christianity would be far easier if people could celebrate and worship pretty much the same way and times as before.
> 
> Personally I don't celebrate either. It's literally just another day in the year for me, and quite frankly I get annoyed that normal services are reduced for sometimes up to 72 hours because of them.


so oyur saying the festivals already existed in pagan times?

is that why god timed it so jesus was born on xmas day? (good work fella! that must of taken loads of planning - good job he wasnt premature or he may of been born on the salstice and no-one would want xmas to be the shortest day of the year!)


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

a.notherguy said:


> so oyur saying the festivals already existed in pagan times?is that why god timed it so jesus was born on xmas day? (good work fella! that must of taken loads of planning - good job he wasnt premature or he may of been born on the salstice and no-one would want xmas to be the shortest day of the year!)


no, he's right dude- Jesus was historically born sometime in September, but the Emperor Constantine wanted the celebration brought in line with the pagan festival in order to more easily convert them.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

a.notherguy said:


> so oyur saying the festivals already existed in pagan times?
> 
> is that why god timed it so jesus was born on xmas day? (good work fella! that must of taken loads of planning - good job he wasnt premature or he may of been born on the salstice and no-one would want xmas to be the shortest day of the year!)


Lol u silly Billy read porkchops post


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

a.notherguy said:


> so oyur saying the festivals already existed in pagan times?
> 
> is that why god timed it so jesus was born on xmas day? (good work fella! that must of taken loads of planning - good job he wasnt premature or he may of been born on the salstice and no-one would want xmas to be the shortest day of the year!)


I thought everyone knew it was originally pagan.

(on a seperate note, I PM'd you about your account and email address. Can you reply soon please?)


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

a.notherguy said:


> so oyur saying the festivals already existed in pagan times?
> 
> is that why god timed it so jesus was born on xmas day? (good work fella! that must of taken loads of planning - good job he wasnt premature or he may of been born on the salstice and no-one would want xmas to be the shortest day of the year!)


Check out these links which discuss possible inaccuracies of december 25th as the claimed date for christs birth-

*warning, the anaylsis in these sites question the legitimacy of a lot of christian tradition.

http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_christbirthdate.htm

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1b.htm

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> Check out these links which discuss possible inaccuracies of december 25th as the claimed date for christs birth-
> 
> *warning, the anaylsis in these sites question the legitimacy of a lot of christian tradition.
> 
> ...


Fcuk me det u got more links than mr T's jewellery box


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> Fcuk me det u got more links than mr T's jewellery box


lol, been reading up in the last few days... I also don't like to just say something without providing a link/source for the idea if it's not my own.

Don't know much about christianity, but do know a little about paganism, and there's a lot of evidence suggesting christianity adopted a lot of older pagan traditions and symbols - dates, practices, symbols like the cross (christ was impaled on a spike not hung a cross which they just didn't do in that place, day and age)... also older virgin birth stories common to egyptian paganism... apparently though the early christians didn't believe in christ as the result of a virgin birth though, that came a few hundred years later.

Many biblical tales, both old and new testament, parallel older egyptian and mesopotamian mythologies... there's a lot of interesting stuff out there written and recorded on the subject worth looking up.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> lol, been reading up in the last few days... I also don't like to just say something without providing a link/source for the idea if it's not my own.
> 
> Don't know much about christianity, but do know a little about paganism, and there's a lot of evidence suggesting christianity adopted a lot of older pagan traditions and symbols - dates, practices, symbols like the cross (christ was impaled on a spike not hung a cross which they just didn't do in that place, day and age)... also older virgin birth stories common to egyptian paganism... apparently though the early christians didn't believe in christ as the result of a virgin birth though, that came a few hundred years later.
> 
> Many biblical tales, both old and new testament, parallel older egyptian and mesopotamian mythologies... there's a lot of interesting stuff out there written and recorded on the subject worth looking up.


Chinese whispers lol


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Athenian said:


> Xmas and easter are holidays the Christians appropriated from other pagan religions. The Churches at the time (Rome and Byzantine) knew that the transition from paganism to Christianity would be far easier if people could celebrate and worship pretty much the same way and times as before.
> 
> Personally I don't celebrate either. It's literally just another day in the year for me, and quite frankly I get annoyed that normal services are reduced for sometimes up to 72 hours because of them.


Same as that buddy, the few days off are nice up to a point but its a load of commercial ballax otherwise. Love the gym on xmas day.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Katy said:


> *I thought everyone knew it was originally pagan*.
> 
> (on a seperate note, I PM'd you about your account and email address. Can you reply soon B]please?)


Same as, I assumed it was common knowledge...this all became popular the time the DaVinci Code came out. Maybe they didn't/don't want to know.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Katy said:


> I* thought everyone knew it was originally pagan.*
> 
> (on a seperate note, I PM'd you about your account and email address. Can you reply soon please?)


tbh, i was just being daft on my previous post.

checked my inbox, no pm katy. ive sent you a pm


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

mixerD1 said:


> Same as that buddy, the few days off are nice up to a point but its a load of commercial ballax otherwise. Love the gym on xmas day.


only quoting this cos its post 666............


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

a.notherguy said:


> only quoting this cos its post 666............


funny how the great and powerful one never gets a mention in these threads.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

mal said:


> funny how the great and powerful one never gets a mention in these threads.


thats cos the greatest trick he ever played was convincing the world he didnt exist...

or was that kaiser soze? :lol:


----------



## spike (Jul 27, 2009)

mal said:


> funny how the great and powerful one never gets a mention in these threads.


I know ... Satan is the man!

It's like asking people whether they'd rather hang with the princes Wills or Harry - just about everyone wants to hang with Harry.

Lucifer is exactly the same for me in terms of who to get close to.

I just can't get my head around the reason for all the the bad press.


----------



## Slight of hand (Sep 30, 2008)

Right, i can't be ****d to even remotely entertain or respond to some of the comments about Atheism, religious people have no argument against evolution, the facts are staggering and the methods speak for themselves.....a quote from this thread* "if evolution turns out to be true"*....i mean WTF!?

Please i beg, i implore everyone in this thread to watch this video if you have not already done so....it's absolutely supebn and so well put together - imo it should be part of the national curriculum to balance the outrageous influence religion has on education.

Please just watch it..






some please embed this for me.....ta


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

spike said:


> I know ... *Satan is the man*!
> 
> It's like asking people whether they'd rather hang with the princes Wills or Harry - just about everyone wants to hang with Harry.
> 
> ...


Yes,at least you get to see his work daily on the tv....


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

spike said:


> I know ... Satan is the man!
> 
> It's like asking people whether they'd rather hang with the princes Wills or Harry - just about everyone wants to hang with Harry.
> 
> ...


it's interesting that no-one who has been expressing strong atheist beliefs has even questioned this post. Imagine if he had said 'god' instead of satan. It would have been jumped on.

Surely it's just as stupid and ridiculous to believe in satan as it is to believe in God, from an atheist point of view?


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> it's interesting that no-one who has been expressing strong atheist beliefs has even questioned this post. Imagine if he had said 'god' instead of satan. It would have been jumped on.
> 
> *Surely it's just as stupid and ridiculous to believe in satan as it is to believe in God, from an atheist point of view?*


Correct, but Satan has kiiled less than yahweh so I don't see the big deal about him being so bad. Also he isn't the ruler of hell but more like the head of admin :laugh:










source:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Porkchop said:


> it's interesting that no-one who has been expressing strong atheist beliefs has even questioned this post. Imagine if he had said 'god' instead of satan. It would have been jumped on.
> 
> Surely it's just as stupid and ridiculous to believe in satan as it is to believe in God, from an atheist point of view?


That's because it's that silly that everyone knows he's joking, same with god I suppose lol


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> That's because it's that silly that everyone knows he's joking, same with god I suppose lol


Lol. Too smart for your own good you


----------



## spike (Jul 27, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> it's interesting that no-one who has been expressing strong atheist beliefs has even questioned this post. Imagine if he had said 'god' instead of satan. It would have been jumped on.
> 
> *
> Surely it's just as stupid and ridiculous to believe in satan as it is to believe in God*, from an atheist point of view?


indeed it is.

however, i think you may find that there really isn't any such thing as "atheist belief" in terms of the context you appear to be using it.

there's rather a big difference between the ignorance of unfounded belief and empiricism.

i've taken a look at this thread now and again over the past few days and haven't bothered to comment because i realised there was no point in attempting to express logical viewpoints in the face of the unthinking, unreasoning contempt prior to investigation, repeatedly displayed by the god squad and holy rollers.

they'll still continue to believe their fantastical fanatical superstions in spite of any and all evidence contrary to their beliefs in the supernatural - it is axiomatic

their only fallacious "argument" for their nonsensical beliefs forms the basis of all thought for the illogical mind in such matters - their demand that nonbelievers disprove a negative.

i must hold with the video above ...

science saved my soul ... from religion.

i sincerely hope this ignorance is never allowed to eclipse the tenets of all modern thought simply because these lunatics bray so loudly

otherwise

Welcome To The New Dark Ages.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

dawkins quote..

"Why you can't see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing?"

and a good reply

For a purported scientist - a person who is supposed to deal exclusively with quantifiable, hard facts - to ask that other people believe that which violates everything science observes and stands for is blatantly dishonest. There is nothing scientific about Richard Dawkins' urging you and I to believe that something - much less something so complex as organic life - could have arisen out of nothing. There is no scientific grounds or evidence of any kind to even entertain such a far-fetched notion.

i shamelessly copied and pasted this.


----------



## mug2k (Jun 29, 2009)

justin case said:


> dawkins quote..
> 
> "Why you can't see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing?"
> 
> ...


I think he meant 'nothing' in the metaphorical sense but somebody went all literal on his ass. Nothing is just a concept anyway and doesn't really exist in reality.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

mug2k said:


> I think he meant 'nothing' in the metaphorical sense but somebody went all literal on his ass. Nothing is just a concept anyway and doesn't really exist in reality.


Also, the reply doesn't even attempt to provide any argument, it merely asserts that Dawkins is unscientific and then asserts a lack of evidence for something he clearly didn't mean in a literal sense (he may not be a physicist, but he's certainly not ignorant of biochemistry).

So it's not "a good reply" at all. It's one which is probably quite satisfying to those who wish to hear it said. There's a world of difference.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

Porkchop said:


> @Wavelength's last post (sorry, my work computer is messing up when i try and use the quote tool),
> 
> yeah, liked the explanation of that, but to mention One Direction in a religious thread - Blasphemy!


You should try writing a long post on an iPad! Damn youuuuuuu autocorrect!

At least we can agree that if there is a hell, one day the damned will be shuffling and moaning to the greatest hits of One Direction.


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

Porkchop said:


> it's interesting that no-one who has been expressing strong atheist beliefs has even questioned this post. Imagine if he had said 'god' instead of satan. It would have been jumped on.
> 
> Surely it's just as stupid and ridiculous to believe in* satan as it is to believe in God,* from an atheist point of view?


science has got nothing to do with good or Evil, remember that. And were ulike any other animal on earth.


----------



## DeadpoolX (Aug 28, 2012)

I have become a Christian fairly recently and was Baptised yesterday . I find comfort in it and feel happy when I'm at church or around people who have similar belief .

Each to their own and good luck to anybody who believes strongly in something and wants to pursue it, but

I certainly don't like the idea that we are all just bags of fertilizer walking around waiting to die , and that's the end of it .

It gives me hope and comfort that there is something more beyond this life .


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

DeadpoolX said:


> I have become a Christian fairly recently and was Baptised yesterday . I find comfort in it and feel happy when I'm at church or around people who have similar belief .
> 
> Each to their own and good luck to anybody who believes strongly in something and wants to pursue it, but
> 
> ...


As you say, each to their own and you're entitled to believe whatever you like.

However I have to wonder why you think that we're all just bags of fertiliser walking around waiting to die, and also why you're waiting to be beyond this life before you give yourself permission to be happy. In fact, those two propositions are juxtaposed. If you're just a bag of fertiliser waiting to die, and you expect more from the next life, why not just get it over with? (I'm not saying you should, just posing the question!)

Bags of fertiliser don't compose symphonies or paint masterpieces. It wasn't a bag of fertiliser that wrote Ulysses, or derived the equations for relativity, or built the engines that took us to the moon. Fertiliser doesn't demonstrate emergent properties like abstract thought, empathy, or love. I hate to quote such a mediocre script, but what we do in life echoes in eternity.

Life is pretty much what you make it. Although there are obviously career areas where a person won't succeed without a very early start, which is largely luck of the draw as it can depend heavily on country of birth and parental contribution, you can pretty much achieve anything you set your mind to.

If you see yourself as a bag of fertiliser waiting to die, I guess that isn't the case for you at this time. But as alluring as it is, I suspect that the comfort of an ideology that tells you "never mind, it'll all be all right in the next life" is not in any way shape or form what you actually need right now.


----------



## DeadpoolX (Aug 28, 2012)

Wavelength said:


> As you say, each to their own and you're entitled to believe whatever you like.
> 
> However I have to wonder why you think that we're all just bags of fertiliser walking around waiting to die, and also why you're waiting to be beyond this life before you give yourself permission to be happy. In fact, those two propositions are juxtaposed. If you're just a bag of fertiliser waiting to die, and you expect more from the next life, why not just get it over with? (I'm not saying you should, just posing the question!)
> 
> ...


I didn't say I wasn't happy . I'm at my most happy now I that I believe . I don't believe we are bags of fertiliser but that's what we effectively are after death if you don't believe in God or Heaven etc.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

DeadpoolX said:


> I didn't say I wasn't happy . I'm at my most happy now I that I believe . I don't believe we are bags of fertiliser but that's what we effectively are after death if you don't believe in God or Heaven etc.


Yes, we are basically fertiliser after we die. But your post makes it sound like you think that's all we are, and that you find this condition hopeless compared to what life might await you after death (which is a contradiction in terms, but that's a whole other thread), and I'm just wondering why you choose to describe humanity in such nihilistic terms when life can be so very joyful, fulfilling, and worthwhile.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Just making an observation here - this thread has undoubtedly been the best, most sensibly and respectfully argued thread we've had on religion here on this forum, and huge kudos and respect to everyone who has contributed on all sides of the debate... keep it going, am really enjoying modding this thread, and I never thought I'd say that of a religion thread!!!

It would be really nice to hear from some followers of non christian religions though... those other faiths and beliefs are one thing I think this thread is missing.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Wavelength said:


> You should try writing a long post on an iPad! Damn youuuuuuu autocorrect!
> 
> At least we can agree that if there is a hell, one day the damned will be shuffling and moaning to the greatest hits of One Direction.


mentioning one direction in the same sentence as The Damned is blasphemy :lol:


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

DeadpoolX said:


> I didn't say I wasn't happy . I'm at my most happy now I that I believe . I don't believe we are bags of fertiliser but that's what we effectively are after death if you don't believe in God or Heaven etc.


Also you're incorrect here on a factual level. Your belief in God makes no difference. It's whether or not it exists, and is as you expect it to be, which will determine if you're just fertiliser or not. Although I'd imagine it'd be fertiliser either way, since as I understand it in Christian lore the soul travels to heaven, not the body.


----------



## spike (Jul 27, 2009)

justin case said:


> dawkins quote..
> 
> "Why you can't see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing?"
> 
> ...


that's not a good reply at all - it's pathetic and defies the entire basis of logical thought and reasoning.

i stated that the only "argument" these types ever fall back on requires a logical mind disprove a negative and in no time at all, there it is

what a surprise

it is no "argument" at all, merely a vapid statement of an insecure inadequacey.


----------



## DeadpoolX (Aug 28, 2012)

Very true . So my apologies as the body will be fertiliser regardless . I didn't make my point very well sorry .

I feel that life is absolutely amazing and I've enjoyed it so far as a non believer in God and now as a believer also . I just think there is more beyond death and there must have been a creator of all this wonder that we live in .

I'm not a Jehovah Witness who believes this world is awful and run by Satan and that only if I preach to everyone will end up in the "new world " .

My belief is a simple one . God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one . A triune God.

Jesus is the saviour of my sins but I will still be a bit of a ******* even now I'm a Christian. I might never understand God and science may never explain the world , but I love him and I think he loves me .


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

spike said:


> that's not a good reply at all - it's pathetic and defies the entire basis of logical thought and reasoning.
> 
> i stated that the only "argument" these types ever fall back on requires a logical mind disprove a negative and in no time at all, there it is
> 
> ...


evidence of absence :lol:


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

spike said:


> that's not a good reply at all - it's pathetic and defies the entire basis of logical thought and reasoning.
> 
> i stated that the only "argument" these types ever fall back on requires a logical mind disprove a negative and in no time at all, there it is
> 
> ...


it stirred the old pot up about dawkins...lol


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> Just making an observation here - this thread has undoubtedly been the best, most sensibly and respectfully argued thread we've had on religion here on this forum, and huge kudos and respect to everyone who has contributed on all sides of the debate... keep it going, am really enjoying modding this thread, and I never thought I'd say that of a religion thread!!!
> 
> It would be really nice to hear from some followers of non christian religions though... those other faiths and beliefs are one thing I think this thread is missing.


I am A Satanist any use?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

a.notherguy said:


> evidence of absence :lol:


Or avidness of presence


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

DeadpoolX said:


> Very true . So my apologies as the body will be fertiliser regardless . I didn't make my point very well sorry .
> 
> I feel that life is absolutely amazing and I've enjoyed it so far as a non believer in God and now as a believer also . I just think there is more beyond death and there must have been a creator of all this wonder that we live in .
> 
> ...


I suppose as a believer it's easy to look at secular or atheistic views and come away with the impression that they don't have room for placing any intrinsic value on life. It's not true, but I can see how it would appear that way.


----------



## DeadpoolX (Aug 28, 2012)

Thanyou for the message of Congratulations I just received but it disappeared as I clicked it in notifications .


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

this made me laugh and sums up my beliefs:


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

i love in these debates when you get the sciency types telling everyone "religion is all fairy tales blah blah blah". Science doesn't have half the answers to what goes on in our own solar system, let alone galaxy and universe.

So why people try to use science to rubbish religion i have no idea.

even if every known religion has got it wrong, it doesn't rule out the possibility of there being some kind of higher force.

its a feeling you either have or you don't , no one no matter how much of a believer or non believer knows for sure.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

goonerton said:


> i love in these debates when you get the sciency types telling everyone "religion is all fairy tales blah blah blah". Science doesn't have half the answers to what goes on in our own solar system, let alone galaxy and universe.
> 
> So why people try to use science to rubbish religion i have no idea.
> 
> ...


as a scientist i completely agree and have already stated in an early post that according to science, god both exists and doesnt exist which makes it very difficult to take any side :lol:

ps. i love this thread!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

biglbs said:


> I am A Satanist any use?
> View attachment 95502


Am never sure if you are being serious lbs... satanist or did you mean satirist? :lol: Either way, always happy to hear what you've got to say. I do actually know a couple of lavayean satanists, interesting people.

You've lost a lot of weight mate looking at your pic btw...


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

goonerton said:


> i love in these debates when you get the sciency types telling everyone "religion is all fairy tales blah blah blah". Science doesn't have half the answers to what goes on in our own solar system, let alone galaxy and universe.
> 
> So why people try to use science to rubbish religion i have no idea.
> 
> ...


Not really sure why you think that calling a fairy tale a fairy tale is "using science"....?

Strictly speaking, science is agnostic on the question of god's existence, just as it's agnostic on every other question it's used to address. Because it's a methodology and has no opinion of its own, and because it is based on the principle of hypothesis falsifiability.

When people say "it's a fairy tale" they're generally talking about the specific claims being made in the narrative framework of a particular religious allegory. Which has nothing at all to do with whether or not God objectively exists! It's less to do with that, more to do with questioning why anyone should take one ludicrously specific mythology over another.

In short i think you're ascribing motives that simply don't exist in most cases (although I'm sure there are people who are both 'science types' and provocateurs). Did that make sense?

[edit] I should probably add... If someone tells you science proves god does not exist, then IMHO they're doing it wrong. Just so you don't misinterpret my position!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Wavelength said:


> Not really sure why you think that calling a fairy tale a fairy tale is "using science"....?
> 
> Strictly speaking, science is agnostic on the question of god's existence, just as it's agnostic on every other question it's used to address. Because it's a methodology and has no opinion of its own, and because it is based on the principle of hypothesis falsifiability.
> 
> ...


i wasn't saying that calling religion fairy tales is "using science", i was saying i have quite frequently heard sciency types claim that religion is fairy tales balh blah blah...as there is no evidence of its existence.

maybe some do see religions as "ludicrously specific" but who knows, maybe they might not be correct on every aspect of what their religion says....but if in fact a higher force does exist , they have still got it more right than those that ridicule anyone who believes in religion...

if that makes sense?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> Am never sure if you are being serious lbs... satanist or did you mean satirist? :lol: Either way, always happy to hear what you've got to say. I do actually know a couple of lavayean satanists, interesting people.
> 
> You've lost a lot of weight mate looking at your pic btw...


That is the mystery of Large lobes my friend,but no i love the spirit who guards me and the life i live with my family,thanks for reps in advance these t3/t4/clen/coke/wizz/caffien tabs are awsome......


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

goonerton said:


> i wasn't saying that calling religion fairy tales is "using science", i was saying i have quite frequently heard sciency types claim that religion is fairy tales balh blah blah...as there is no evidence of its existence.


Ah right, I just assumed there was a causal connection between the first two paragraphs because it's not just sciencey types who can level such accusations.



> maybe some do see religions as "ludicrously specific" but who knows, maybe they might not be correct on every aspect of what their religion says....but if in fact a higher force does exist , they have still got it more right than those that ridicule anyone who believes in religion...
> 
> if that makes sense?


Yeah it makes sense, but realistically if a being we'd consider divine does exist I doubt anyone on the planet has the faintest idea what it wants, intends, or is capable of. I also suspect that if we do ever encounter such a creature, it will be an unpleasant day.

Anyway, back to the point... Take me for example: I'm a sciencey type. I am not religious and frankly consider most of religion to be worthy of ridicule. But when I say something critical about religion that you find disrespectful, I'm talking about the concepts and the content, not your decision to believe in it. I can well understand why you'd go to the defence of your preferred religion, but the desire to do so doesn't legitimise you inventing motives for my criticism. Just like I wouldn't be justified in trying to apply my viewpoint to your decision to hold faith in X, Y or Z.

Having said that, there are plenty of trolls on the web and some of them are very subtle in their ways. So it wouldn't surprise me if there were people ridiculing religion for nothing more than teh lulz.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Wavelength said:


> Ah right, I just assumed there was a causal connection between the first two paragraphs because it's not just sciencey types who can level such accusations.
> 
> Yeah it makes sense, but realistically if a being we'd consider divine does exist I doubt anyone on the planet has the faintest idea what it wants, intends, or is capable of. I also suspect that if we do ever encounter such a creature, it will be an unpleasant day.
> 
> ...


Yes there was a casual connection, i have encountered on a few occasions 'sciency types' claiming that religion is nothing more than fairy tales. True though i have also heard a lot of non sciency types say the same...lol

Explain your logic for assuming it would be an unpleasant rather than pleasant day if we were ever to meet the higher force(if exists)lol

I am not in the slightest defensive about criticism to mine or any religion, i am a christian of sorts, but i don't know whether i believe every word in the bible and i find it hard to believe that my religion is any more accurate than any other religion...so probably not a very good christian tbh...but i just have a feeling that there is a god...

and can you highlight where you think i have "invented motives" for your criticism? as i wasn't really aware you were criticising me :lol:


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

goonerton said:


> i wasn't saying that calling religion fairy tales is "using science", i was saying i have quite frequently heard sciency types claim that religion is fairy tales balh blah blah...as there is no evidence of its existence.
> 
> maybe some do see religions as "ludicrously specific" but who knows, maybe they might not be correct on every aspect of what their religion says....but if in fact a higher force does exist , they have still got it more right than those that ridicule anyone who believes in religion...
> 
> if that makes sense?


No.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

goonerton said:



> i love in these debates when you get the sciency types telling everyone "religion is all fairy tales blah blah blah". *Science doesn't have half the answers to what goes on in our own solar system, let alone galaxy and universe.*
> 
> So why people try to use science to rubbish religion i have no idea.
> 
> ...


and religion doesnt have any factual answers whatsoever


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Top marks in an exam to become a teacher of Ri one year went to a fella for this

Question,,,,,,,,,"Why God?"

After sitting and not writing for two hours the fella wrote,,,,,,,,,"Because Man",,,,,100% grade given


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> and religion doesnt have any factual answers whatsoever


Yeh but what does that have to with anything?

Because i know more than you about football...does that mean my opinion on building houses is more valid than yours?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> and religion doesnt have any factual answers whatsoever


It does,well some,http://bestuff.com/stuff/ezekiel-2517-the-path-of-the-righteous-man-is-beset-on-all-sides-by-theinequities-of-the-selfish-and-the-tyranny-of-evil-men


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Yes there was a casual connection, i have encountered on a few occasions 'sciency types' claiming that religion is nothing more than fairy tales. True though i have also heard a lot of non sciency types say the same...lol
> 
> Explain your logic for assuming it would be an unpleasant rather than pleasant day if we were ever to meet the higher force(if exists)lol
> 
> I am not in the slightest defensive about criticism to mine or any religion, i am a christian of sorts, but i don't know whether i believe every word in the bible and i find it hard to believe that my religion is any more accurate than any other religion...so probably not a very good christian tbh...but i just have a feeling that there is a god...


It's more suspicion than logic. It does seem reasonable that if a being were as advanced as we tend to say God is, that is all-powerful, ever-present and basically omni-everything, then it's not going to give one solitary fig about us or anything we do. We'll probably be lower to it than bacteria are to us. So on the day I mentioned, when we encounter it, chances are that the encounter is going to occur simply because our corner of reality somehow gets in its way.

The idea of a God that is not just omniscient and omnipresent but also all-loving and all-concerned with the affairs of man is dreadfully conceited and blatantly anthropomorphic. In my opinion.



> and can you highlight where you think i have "invented motives" for your criticism? as i wasn't really aware you were criticising me :lol:


I wasn't accusing you of actually doing that, I meant in the more general sense of your original post that I responded to, where it seemed like you were counter-attacking against a science offensive. Sorry I should have been more clear!


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Yeh but what does that have to with anything?
> 
> Because i know more than you about football...does that mean my opinion on building houses is more valid than yours?


Fatty cannot build sh1t!,,,,well a spliff perhaps,good apparently:thumb:


----------



## spike (Jul 27, 2009)

doesn't everyone already know that disagreeing with G'ton's absence of basic logic and an understanding of simple causality principles is a personal attack on him?

christ on a crutch, it's so monotonous it's almost painful

so glad i'm not him or living in his head

then again, ignorance is bliss


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

spike said:


> doesn't everyone already know that disagreeing with G'ton's absence basic logic and of cause and effect reasoning is a personal attack on him?
> 
> christ on a crutch, it's so monotonous it's almost painful
> 
> ...


Anyone for popcorn....


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

goonerton said:


> Yeh but what does that have to with anything?
> 
> Because i know more than you about football...does that mean my opinion on building houses is more valid than yours?


Stupidest quote ever I can't even be bothered to think up a smart or witty retort. I'm off to watch a movie with my beautiful bitch. Night all and .... God bless !


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

biglbs said:


> Anyone for popcorn....


I wish I could stay lol


----------



## spike (Jul 27, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> I wish I could stay lol


so do i

he'll probably be checking the thread and contributing more nonsense for the next week regardless

hanging on to the same unarguable illogical concepts regardless of evidence

although nobody except him will notice or care


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Stupidest quote ever I can't even be bothered to think up a smart or witty retort. I'm off to watch a movie with my beautiful bitch. Night all and .... God bless !


Practice bricks ya cvnt:thumbup1:


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

spike said:


> so do i
> 
> he'll probably be checking the thread and contributing more nonsense for the next week regardless
> 
> ...


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Yeh but what does that have to with anything?
> 
> Because i know more than you about football...does that mean my opinion on building houses is more valid than yours?


It's not really to do with opinion. Science has historically stolen ground from religion in the sense that questions we had about how the world works, which were traditionally answered with religiously-inspired but otherwise unfounded explanations, have through the fullness of time and dedicated enquiry been adequately and confidently explained via naturalistic mechanisms. It's easy to frame this as some sort of battle for territory, when really it's simply a case of us learning how to understand and applying that lesson on a massive scale. Under such conditions, allegory and fantasy will struggle to hold on to subscribers. And I don't mean that in a patronising way, it's just that much of the bulk of religion - all religion - is self evidently invented ritualistic mythos, regardless of whether or not there is a god.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> Stupidest quote ever I can't even be bothered to think up a smart or witty retort. I'm off to watch a movie with my beautiful bitch. Night all and .... God bless !


Good argument "brains".

Why do you need a smart or witty retort? why not just explain why my quote was so stupid? should be easy enough as so stupid...


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Wavelength said:


> Ah right, I just assumed there was a causal connection between the first two paragraphs because it's not just sciencey types who can level such accusations.
> 
> Yeah it makes sense, but realistically if a being we'd consider divine does exist I doubt anyone on the planet has the faintest idea what it wants, intends, or is capable of. I also suspect that if we do ever encounter such a creature, it will be an unpleasant day.
> 
> ...


Well i must admit i tend to believe the opposite of you and that if a higher force does exists i believe its likely a good force...but as i said no ones been dead so who really knows if there is another side? i wouldn't like to bet my life on my belief. would anyone who doesn't believe really want to bet their life or a loved ones on them being right?

tbh i haven't read much of the thread ,my original comments were based on a couple of quotes i saw of prominent scientists that tend to rubbish religion and a couple comments about fairy tales etc....


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

spike said:


> doesn't everyone already know that disagreeing with G'ton's absence of basic logic and an understanding of simple causality principles is a personal attack on him?
> 
> christ on a crutch, it's so monotonous it's almost painful
> 
> ...


mate what is your problem, why do you you continually pop up with your pathetic little personal jibes.

If you command such great logic...Do you mind explaining the logic that leads you to claim i am taking anything as personal attack here?

highlight any part of any of my posts on this thread where it remotely looks like i am taking anything as a personal attack?

you are obviously very butt hurt about something, but i have no idea what!?

you even negged for my posts here FFS! :lol:

if you want to disagree with anything i post, then feel free to do so, if not stop stalking me around the forum acting like some sort of jilted gaylord.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Play nice please guys - thread has mostly been impersonal discussion so far, lets try and keep it that way.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Well i must admit i tend to believe the opposite of you and that if a higher force does exists i believe its likely a good force...but as i said no ones been dead so who really knows if there is another side? i wouldn't like to bet my life on my belief. would anyone who doesn't believe really want to bet their life or a loved ones on them being right?


A question that occurred to me after I wrote that reply to you was "why would God love?"

If there's a god and it's anything like we describe it, there's no biological imperative and a philosophical imperative would be superfluous.

It's true nobody's been dead, in fact I'm reading Rousseau right now on Kindle, and it's one of the things he brings up (so much free philosophy on the Kindle store it's not even funny). But the fact that you identify this barrier between life and whatever might come afterwards surely should indicate that you aren't betting your life at all? You get to have your life prior to death and the afterlife, if you subscribe to the conventional belief. Or did you mean you wouldn't bet your afterlife/soul?

But I'm going off on a tangent. Betting and risk are not persuasive at all to me, since whenever they appear one always ends up dealing with Pascal's Wager. Which isn't terribly compelling. Also when placing a bet it helps to have some idea of the odds, and in this case they would be unknowable.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Wavelength said:


> It's not really to do with opinion. Science has historically stolen ground from religion in the sense that questions we had about how the world works, which were traditionally answered with religiously-inspired but otherwise unfounded explanations, have through the fullness of time and dedicated enquiry been adequately and confidently explained via naturalistic mechanisms. It's easy to frame this as some sort of battle for territory, when really it's simply a case of us learning how to understand and applying that lesson on a massive scale. Under such conditions, allegory and fantasy will struggle to hold on to subscribers. And I don't mean that in a patronising way, it's just that much of the bulk of religion - all religion - is self evidently invented ritualistic mythos, regardless of whether or not there is a god.


Well as i said i don't claim to believe every word that is written in the bible or any other religious book. but even if religion is mostly invented myth as you say...the fact that they believe in a higher force, if one does exist, IMO that would make their beliefs less fantasy than somebody that believes in no god...

tbh i am as equally freaked out by religious fanatics that are so certain that their beliefs are correct, as i am by those that are so certain that a god couldn't exist...

I haven't died yet so i don't believe i definitely have the answers, i just have a feeling. If others have greater certainty than me, fair play to them.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Corinthians 2:1

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to

him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

justin case said:


> Corinthians 2:1
> 
> The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
> 
> him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Spoken like a true believer.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Well i think i may nip off now Dtlv......sorry mate


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Wavelength said:


> A question that occurred to me after I wrote that reply to you was "why would God love?"
> 
> If there's a god and it's anything like we describe it, there's no biological imperative and a philosophical imperative would be superfluous.
> 
> ...


i was talking about life now tbh. i meant if anyone is so certain that a god/afterlife does not exist would they be prepared to stake their life against say £100,000 that they are right. i.e if you're right you get 100k if your wrong you die now.

obviously slightly hypothetical(lol) but how many of the people that ridicule those that believe in god, if it came to the crunch(if that was possible) would actually stake their life now on their belief that there is no god or after life...


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> i was talking about life now tbh. i meant if anyone is so certain that a god/afterlife does not exist would they be prepared to stake their life against say £100,000 that they are right. i.e if you're right you get 100k if your wrong you die now.
> 
> obviously slightly hypothetical(lol) but how many of the people that ridicule those that believe in god, if it came to the crunch(if that was possible) would actually stake their life now on their belief that there is no god or after life...


Before i depart,i would wager there is more,but my own beliefs are way out there,only by personal experiances that i could never discuss here,

i would look insane,

but what happened in my life did,no debate to it....


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> Before i depart,i would wager there is more,but my own beliefs are way out there,only by personal experiances that i could never discuss here,
> 
> i would look insane,
> 
> but what happened in my life did,no debate to it....


you can't leave us hanging like that! i'm sure no one will think you're insane:innocent:


----------



## Porkchop (May 24, 2012)

Wavelength said:


> A question that occurred to me after I wrote that reply to you was "why would God love?"
> 
> If there's a god and it's anything like we describe it, there's no biological imperative and a philosophical imperative would be superfluous.
> 
> ...


Great post.

Rousseau impressed me with his ideas on democracy, in fact I think he's one of the founding figures of it isn't he? His idea about the common will in society was thought provoking.

As to why would God love, you would have to narrow down which God you mean, which religion would be answering the question imo. But to keep things vague, if one did assume that a God existed and made mankind, then we could tentatively assert a few things:

The complexity of mankind, in their makeup, must mean that this God deliberately and thoughtfully gave us a unique capacity to engage with and live in the world. No other creature can engage with the world the way man can, or is capable of producing such complex things that man can.

we would also have to say that this God appears to have made us to have the capacity to accept or reject, to make choices, in other words to have free will. we certainly aren't robots, programmed to believe one thing. This thread shows that lol. This communicates to me that, if a God does exist, there is at least a certain amount of respect on the part of the creator for what he has created.

That's assuming a God exists, in order to try and answer your question 'why would God be loving'. a stronger argument could probably be made on the subject but basically the only imperative we have in the vaguest sense (if we discount sacred texts etc) is ourselves, how we are made and what that might say about our maker, if you get what I mean. A bit anthropomorphic? Perhaps. But then we are supposed to be made in his image lol.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

Interesting considerations. This question must have come up before somewhere in philosophy or theology. I'm going to see if I can find anything on it.



goonerton said:


> you can't leave us hanging like that! i'm sure no one will think you're insane:innocent:


Oh come on he's not going to be that gullible. We'll totally think he's insane!

I can live with insane @biglbs, tell us your whacko thoughts


----------



## vetran (Oct 17, 2009)

> ]:confused1:your younger than 60????
> 
> :whistling:


yep bro 51 and in that time ive done some bad sh*t, heaven wont have me and hells afraid i'le take over lol


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

vetran said:


> yep bro 51 and in that time ive done some bad sh*t, heaven wont have me and hells afraid i'le take over lol


I know someone who's going to limmmmmmbo!


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

DeadpoolX said:


> I didn't say I wasn't happy . I'm at my most happy now I that I believe . I don't believe we are bags of fertiliser but that's what we effectively are after death if you don't believe in God or Heaven etc.


It does seem that some people place faith in something that offers a life after death as a means to feel comforted. A lot of people really struggle with the thought of death and struggle to accept it. I just ask, 'why isn't this one life enough'? Our existence and experience of life is amazing. When you think about how we are composed and all the little biochemical mechanisims that result in our experience of consciousness is awesome in my opnion. To expect/want something after feels a little greedy to me.

As painful as death is, it's part of life. And remaining aware of the fragility of our one life acts as a motivation for me to enjoy this life.



Dtlv74 said:


> Just making an observation here - this thread has undoubtedly been the best, most sensibly and respectfully argued thread we've had on religion here on this forum, and huge kudos and respect to everyone who has contributed on all sides of the debate... keep it going, am really enjoying modding this thread, and I never thought I'd say that of a religion thread!!!
> 
> It would be really nice to hear from some followers of non christian religions though... those other faiths and beliefs are one thing I think this thread is missing.


Totally agree Det. I've really enjoyed the intelligent debates going on in here and the respect (on the whole) people have maintained for other's views. I don't think I've ever stayed commited to any other thread this long (excluding my boring journal).

I hope this continues


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

St. Teresa of Avila.

Would it not be gross ignorance, my daughters, if, when a man was questioned about his name, or country, or parents, he could not answer? Stupid as this would be, it is unspeakably more foolish to care to learn nothing of our nature except that we possess bodies, and only to realize vaguely that we have souls, because people say so and it is a doctrine of faith.


----------



## VeNuM (Aug 14, 2011)

wow, this really turned into a mass debate!

See what I did there? you may thank my for my input later, its all cool. :thumbup1:


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

justin case said:


> St. Teresa of Avila.
> 
> Would it not be gross ignorance, my daughters, if, when a man was questioned about his name, or country, or parents, he could not answer? Stupid as this would be, it is unspeakably more foolish to care to learn nothing of our nature except that we possess bodies, and only to realize vaguely that we have souls, because people say so and it is a doctrine of faith.


But is this justification to make up unfounded stories with little to no regard for reality and the laws of nature?

I can fully udnerstand people's need and desire for answers, after all that's what drives scientific progress and discovery, but it has to be grounded in reality and evidence. making stuff up as you go along because you can't find an answer or don't like the one you did isn't noble, it's desperation, and desperation can lead to some real ugliness.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

how is it wrong to quote wisdom?


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

justin case said:


> St. Teresa of Avila.
> 
> Would it not be gross ignorance, my daughters, if, when a man was questioned about his name, or country, or parents, he could not answer? Stupid as this would be, it is unspeakably more foolish to care to learn nothing of our nature except that we possess bodies, and only to realize vaguely that we have souls, because people say so and it is a doctrine of faith.


Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, science doesn't only realise vaguely that we have 'souls' (whatever that is)...there is tonnes of neurobiological research exploring the phenomena of thought and counscious experience.


----------



## DeadpoolX (Aug 28, 2012)

Katy said:


> It does seem that some people place faith in something that offers a life after death as means to feel comfort. A lot of people really struggle with the thought of death and struggle to accept it. I just ask, 'why isn't this one life enough'? Our existence and experience of life is amazing. When you think about how we are composed and all the little boichemical mechanisims that result in our experience of consciousness is awesome in my opnion. To expect/want something after feels a little greedy to me.
> 
> As painful as death is, it's part of life. And remaining aware of the fragility of our one life acts as a motivation for me to enjoy this life.
> 
> ...


Your right Katy , it is greedy to think there is more than this life we live . I'm not saying we DESERVE to have anything more and that's the basis of being a Christian and being forgiven of your sins when you repent . You don't deserve it , but that's what keeps you humble and grateful for such a world, life and God.

With the exception of a few comments this thread has been a really enjoyable read .

And some people think bodybuilders are all mindless meatheads with no time for debate and discussion !


----------



## Athenian (Sep 19, 2012)

justin case said:


> how is it wrong to quote wisdom?


It is if the wisdom is based more on personal desire rather than convetional science. People can be incredibly wise in moral and philosophical issues but not so in matters of science and the natural world.

There is no scientific reason to believe that they are is an after-life, or a soul that is immaterial and not bound by the laws of nature. Romantically you can explore this notion for religious purposes but at the end of the day, all you are effectively doing is entertaining wishfull thinking.

For me wisdom has to be routed in logic and evidence.

It's wise to not light a match near a gas-pump because we know the effects of fire coming into contact with gasoline.

It's wise to not swim in shark-infested waters with a bleeding wound because we know it ingites a shark's prediatory instinct to attack and bite.

It is not wise however to take a desire for immortality, most likely rooted in the fear of our knowledge that we will inevitably one day die, and create an entire belief system and power structre around it.

Religion has always been about offering an end result and trying to fit discovery and evidence around it, This is a flawed and often dangerous practise.

True sciene has no agenda. If something can be proven it is held as true, regardless if it offends or hurts. Pesticides are a work of science and even though they benefit us, they destroy entire populations and species of other creatures. The knowledge of HOW to do something is int itself amoral, it's the intent of the individual which is up to interpretation by one's own moral compass and standards.

Religion would do much better in thsi world if it stuck to interpreting scientific discoveries in philosophical and moral terms rather than trying to create it's own ultimate authority behind it.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

justin case said:


> how is it wrong to quote wisdom?


Nobody said it was wrong (at least not that I've seen), it's just not terribly compelling or useful in the middle of a debate.

Corinthians 2:1 is a blatant example of a defence mechanism that relies on ego and in-group thinking. You don't need to be a professor of human psychology to understand why it's there. Quoting it at people who disagree with things you have faith in is understandable, but also (and I'm sorry to have to say this, really) quite sad.

Saint Teresa is 500 years behind the times so it's fairly pointless to quote her admonishments at people when in the past couple of centuries we've far exceeded anything she could have dreamed of. Although the general principle in the quote, "if you don't care to learn about things that are more complex than you understand, you're a nitwit", is something I can totally get on board with, I don't really see how it's relevant at all to post that in this thread at this time.

To me it just seems like you are posting platitudes for yourself rather than trying to engage in the debate.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

look this thread has been in my guesstimate 90% anti...8% neutral, and about 2% pro......my little contributions to this thread are what i find relevant to my position.

please feel free to ignore me.


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 12, 2012)

Fair enough! :rockon:


----------



## ShibbyFly (Jan 19, 2011)

I believe in science, not religion. I guess the main reason people believe in religion to help them deal with the inevitable prospect of death. I know people who have turned to religion after a near death experience. It's never happened to me but if it did i couldn't say for sure that i wouldn't do the same, but ultimately, I don't know how a near death experience could change my views on something that's clearly total b0llocks. You only live once so live it the best possible way you know how!


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Best discussed topic ever in my opinion and hardly any sad comments either, the odd person obviously getting frustrated and calling those with 'faith' deluded, easily led, and it being total bollox ofcourse but we were always gunna get those. Some of the posts from the likes of Dv,Katy to name but two have made me look at things from a new angle and although i do still have faith it has clarified in my mind that i do believe in evolution and not the big fella making us all in seven days!

And thank our lucky stars we are all different!


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

lukeee said:


> Best discussed topic ever in my opinion and hardly any sad comments either, the odd person obviously getting frustrated and calling those with 'faith' deluded, easily led, and it being total bollox ofcourse but we were always gunna get those. Some of the posts from the likes of Dv,Katy to name but two have made me look at things from a new angle and although i do still have faith it has clarified in my mind that i do believe in evolution and not the big fella making us all in seven days!
> 
> And thank our lucky stars we are all different!


Awesome. I'm glad that it's given you food for thought :thumb: And thanks for the mention


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

If my nan believing my granddad is waiting for her thus keeping her happy and is involved in socialising every week is deluded, then im not going to be the one to convince her otherwise. If she is right, we wont know, wont effect my life or her happiness right now...if she is wrong, we wont know, wont effect my life or her happiness right now


----------

