We are still talking about Jesus 2000 years on, I can't imagine we will be talking about Gandalf in 2000 years time.

What a great argument. We are also still talking about Zeus thousands of years later, does that make him fact?

You do what you want sid, just don't blame the consequences on God, you are entirely responsible for your own destiny.

Again, if you can provide and evidence and facts that there will be consequences please share. Otherwise this your argument is pointless.

Hopefully the consequences will be enjoyable so there will be no-one to balme for anything.

Good for you. :)

Why not build a statues of The Archbishop of Canterbury and put it somewhere prominant in Sheffield city centre. Then people could either admire it or not as they felt fit.

We are all used to liars, why would sheffield people want to look at a professional liar:confused:

What a great argument. We are also still talking about Zeus thousands of years later, does that make him fact?

We know Zeus for what he is, we know Gandolf for what he is and one day you will know God for what he is.

We are all used to liars, why would sheffield people want to look at a professional liar:confused:

Who say's he is a liar? He tells the truth as he sees it. I dare say he honestly believs he speeks for God. Not sure God thinks so though.:D

Who say's he is a liar? He tells the truth as he sees it. I dare say he honestly believs he speeks for God. Not sure God thinks so though.:D

Thank you sid. :)

We know Zeus for what he is, we know Gandolf for what he is and one day you will know God for what he is.

How can you disprove that Zeus is not the true God?

Why not build a statues of The Archbishop of Canterbury and put it somewhere prominant in Sheffield city centre. Then people could either admire it or not as they felt fit.

Might as well put up a statue of Mystic Meg or the fella who does the star-signs of the zodiac from the Metro. All 3 have the same amount of evidence of knowing the reality of the universe.

Might as well put up a statue of Mystic Meg or the fella who does the star-signs of the zodiac from the Metro. All 3 have the same amount of evidence of knowing the reality of the universe.

Well he is a flatulant old Welsh Druid. Funny bloke really. That beard is not very attractive.

Who say's he is a liar? He tells the truth as he sees it. I dare say he honestly believs he speeks for God. Not sure God thinks so though.:D

Man created God/Allah, and made sophysm a way of life.

He knows he's telling lies, but there are wages and pensions to be found.

There is no business like show business.;)

Thank you sid. :)


'The Virgin Mary is no more a virgin than my mother.'

[Pope Bonifice the VIII] 1294-1305

'The Virgin Mary is no more a virgin than my mother.'

[Pope Bonifice the VIII] 1294-1305


I am a virgin. That is a fact.:(:( celibacy I hate it.

I am a virgin. That is a fact.:(:( celibacy I hate it.


O, Its not that bad, it encourages masterbation tenfold.j:P

It encourages Cliff Richard and that is bad enough.

It encourages Cliff Richard and that is bad enough.

I've never watched him masterbate, has he got class:confused:

What if the Archbishop of Canterbury went to Hell?

This is getting a bit serious.

What if the Archbishop of Canterbury went to Hell?

He may have already been to Barnsley:hihi:

This is getting a bit serious.

More like getting a bit silly.:D

He may have already been to Barnsley:hihi:

They are a bunch of Godless heathens there. Satanists the lot of 'em.

I am a virgin.

But no book is claiming that you (being male) fathered a child though:thumbsup:

What if the Archbishop of Canterbury went to Hell?

This is getting a bit serious.

He'd meet me, and I would ignore him, never trust men that dress in frocks:thumbsup:

But the pope did - he just keeps quiet about it.

Serious question - could the late Mary Whitehouse be described as a Christian Fundamentalist? Is that what people mean by the term?

He'd meet me, and I would ignore him, never trust men that dress in frocks:thumbsup:

He is probably a nice man. I don't know what his sex life is like or if he has one.

They are a bunch of Godless heathens there. Satanists the lot of 'em.

Why dosen't God join in? I know, just plain hard to get:)

He is probably a nice man. I don't know what his sex life is like or if he has one.

I reckon he's always fancied that God bloke, Its strange how religion has always been men and frocks:confused:

........................

This thread has really caused a stir in non believers.

I wonder if one has actually thought that they may be an inch of truth for just one moment that God could be/is real?

You know what, i think there is a lot of scared people outhere, wondering if for just one moment it could be real
For anyone that doesnt believe that is upto them, only time will tell.

I think Grahame is a very strong, confident guy for actually raising his beliefs, not a lot of people can do that.
I admire what he is doing in speaking for God.

This is my second post on here and i am going to leave it at that.
Thankyou.

Of course there is a possibility that there is a god, but it is the same possibility that a giant turtle farted the universe into existence.

This thread has really caused a stir in non believers.

I wonder if one has actually thought that they may be an inch of truth for just one moment that God could be/is real?

You know what, i think there is a lot of scared people outhere, wondering if for just one moment it could be real
For anyone that doesnt believe that is upto them, only time will tell.

I think Grahame is a very strong, confident guy for actually raising his beliefs, not a lot of people can do that.
I admire what he is doing in speaking for God.

This is my second post on here and i am going to leave it at that.
Thankyou.

I just wish he'd say something, anything, all his reps dress in frocks. The mind boggles.:help:

But the pope did - he just keeps quiet about it.

Serious question - could the late Mary Whitehouse be described as a Christian Fundamentalist? Is that what people mean by the term?

She was fine, but asexual, what you dont want, you dont miss.:|

Originally Posted by slimsid2000
What if the Archbishop of Canterbury went to Hell?

This is getting a bit serious


He'd meet me, and I would ignore him, never trust men that dress in frocks:thumbsup:

Make your mind up- thought you did not believe in all that heaven and hell....:o

Originally Posted by slimsid2000
What if the Archbishop of Canterbury went to Hell?

This is getting a bit serious




Make your mind up- thought you did not believe in all that heaven and hell....:o

Hell, meaning a pub with no beer.

Babylon is modern Iraq and is close to Jerusalem.



In my youth I walked from Edale across Kinder; across the hills round Ingleborough; along miles of riverbanks in the Cotswolds; around the Lake District, and Snowdon; this was carrying solo camping gear.
But my hat is off to you, Grahame.
Not even in those days of health and endurance would I have thought of walking from Babylon to its "close" neighbours of Jerusalem or Mecca/Medina. They're just not "close" enough.

In my youth I walked from Edale across Kinder; across the hills round Ingleborough; along miles of riverbanks in the Cotswolds; around the Lake District, and Snowdon; this was carrying solo camping gear.
But my hat is off to you, Grahame.
Not even in those days of health and endurance would I have thought of walking from Babylon to its "close" neighbours of Jerusalem or Mecca/Medina. They're just not "close" enough.

Desert nomads travelled the length and breadth, the apostle Paul travelled the world, when people wanted the get from place to place they got into a boat and sailed across the Mediterranean, the towns were built around the coast, and then there were the great trade routes with all the commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_route


.

Desert nomads travelled the length and breadth, the apostle Paul travelled the world, when people wanted the get from place to place they got into a boat and sailed across the Mediterranean, the towns were built around the coast, and then there were the great trade routes with all the commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_route


.

I just wish you'd stop advertising Jesus as a Christian, he was a Jew.

[Man created God/Allah, and made sophism a way of life]

This thread has really caused a stir in non believers.

I wonder if one has actually thought that they may be an inch of truth for just one moment that God could be/is real?

You know what, i think there is a lot of scared people outhere, wondering if for just one moment it could be real
For anyone that doesnt believe that is upto them, only time will tell.

I think Grahame is a very strong, confident guy for actually raising his beliefs, not a lot of people can do that.
I admire what he is doing in speaking for God.

This is my second post on here and i am going to leave it at that.
Thankyou.


Yep, he's confident in his beliefs, thats for sure.

Its a bit of a shame then, that there isn't really any truth in them.

But by all means, keep deluding yourself...if it works for you then thats wonderful:)

Desert nomads travelled the length and breadth, the apostle Paul travelled the world, when people wanted the get from place to place they got into a boat and sailed across the Mediterranean, the towns were built around the coast, and then there were the great trade routes with all the commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_route


.

Grahame, your an ok guy, but your living in the past. Its all gone mat.

Religions are big time business.


http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Of course there is a possibility that there is a god, but it is the same possibility that a giant turtle farted the universe into existence.

Does it matter if he does exist, 'it' seems a big lazy dosser to me.

Why dosen't it grunt or something.?:confused:


http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Desert nomads travelled the length and breadth, the apostle Paul travelled the world, when people wanted the get from place to place they got into a boat and sailed across the Mediterranean, the towns were built around the coast, and then there were the great trade routes with all the commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_route


.
Yes, folk travelled. But that still doesn't mean the Babylonians worshipped in the "birthplace of Islam".

To Fivetide:

"You keep trying to accuse those of faith that they deny the existence of science, and calling them stupid for doing so."

No I don't. I accused Grahame of unintelligence due to him saying that science has not progressed the human race. My examples were to show that even his beloved religion has, does and always will use science. So, "DUR" for not understanding, what I thought, was a rather simple explanation.

"Think of it like me saying you denied the existence of the Bible.

'I don't believe in the Bible' you say.
'AHA!' I answer 'But there are numerous references to it throughout the literature of history! There are copies in the library for pity's sake! You are an imbecile for denying its existence!'"

Nowhere have I ever said the Bible doesn't exist. Unless you were meaning the "royal" "you".

"The point is (I think) whether you take your morality, your beliefs in why the world exists as it does, and all the rest of it from one or the other (or any other religious book... I'll stick to the Bible for now...)."

And I'll stick with the Satanic Bible for now, along with a whole host of other influences, not just one outdated text.

"Originally Posted by leviathan13: Finally from me:"I stand by the assertion that there are a number of so-called atheists whose anger at the idea of God can only be explained by a belief in God"

No it can't. My anger is aimed at the idea of God and religion. I can disagree with the philosophy of God, it doesn't mean I have to believe in a Him/It/Her."

1. 'No it can't' ... No what can't? And what can't 'it' do?
2. You just admitted an anger at the idea of God. Why? What's wrong with it? "

You more or less stated that by us being angry at the idea of God, there must be a belief in God. I said no as the anger is at the idea. There isn't a country entirely populated by the BNP, but I hate the idea of it. I hate the idea of God because it's caused so much trouble throughout the years. Just ask Jesus.
The Bible doesn't preach tolerance, but people twist the texts to whatever they need to advance their personal arguments.

"3. Last line ... 'I can disagree with... it doesn't mean I have to believe...' What?! Where on Earth did anyone say that you have to believe in God to disagree with the philosophy of it? That's called a no-brainer. I will refrain from going 'DUR' at you."

Ahem... YOU DID - "I stand by the assertion that there are a number of so-called atheists whose anger at the idea of God can only be explained by a belief in God". You're saying that for them to hate God, they have to believe there is one.

If someone just uses religion to get them through, then that's fine. The fact remains, to me, that if there was a God, 1 God, everyone would believe in Him/Her/It and there wouldn't be so many different religions or non-believers.

They are a bunch of Godless heathens there. Satanists the lot of 'em.

And what have Satanists done to you? We modern day Satanists don't believe in divinity or deities or spirits etc. We are philosophical people.

Explain yourself!

We modern day Satanists don't believe in divinity or deities or spirits etc

Then you (as I have pointed out before) are not a true "satanist".

Then you (as I have pointed out before) are not a true "satanist".

Says who? Anton Lavey created modern day Satanism and he didn't believe in God, or any deity of any kind.

Explain to me what a "true" Satanist is.

Says who?

Me (and most theologians):D.

Anton Lavey created modern day Satanism and he didn't believe in God, or any deity of any kind.

Does that make him right? No. What he actually created was a new religion/cult.


Explain to me what a "true" Satanist is.

Go look it up for yourself (I've already posted the answer in the relevant thread), this thread, however, is about christian fundamentalists, not satanic fundamentalists, agnostic fundamentalists....).

Yes, folk travelled. But that still doesn't mean the Babylonians worshipped in the "birthplace of Islam".

Muhammad based his religion on the Semitic religion which was the religion of the Babylonians. Allah was the chief deity.

“The pre-Christian religions of Babylonia and Assyria are the earliest attestation of Ancient Semitic religion, in particular Mesopotamian mythology. As with other ancient cultures in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, the predominant religious model in the area was polytheism, a belief in many gods. Evolving out of earlier religions of the Ancient Near East, the religion of this area was centered on the cult of regional patron deities, such as Marduk at Babylon, Ishtar at Agade, or Sin at Ur and Harran.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyro-Babylonian_religion

.

Why can't Songs of Praise be more fun though?

Why can't Songs of Praise be more fun though?

How do you know it isn't? :)

Becuase it should be presented by Charlotte Church (she even has the name for it)

Becuase it should be presented by Charlotte Church (she even has the name for it)

You fancy her do you? :)

But my question was "How do you know Songs of Praise isn't enjoyable," you aren't going to tell me you watch it, I know.

I have seen it but am not a fan. It would be much better presented by Charlotte than by Aled Jones.

BTW - Graham, get an ark built quick there are floods predicted for a couple of days time.

You fancy her do you? :)

But my question was "How do you know Songs of Praise isn't enjoyable," you aren't going to tell me you watch it, I know...

The Virgin Mary was no more a virgin than my mother.

[Pope Boniface the VIII]

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

"Me (and most theologians)."

Well, not having spoken to "most theologians", as I also think you haven't spoken to or read things by "most theologians", I wouldn't know what they thought.

"Does that make him right? No. What he actually created was a new religion/cult..."

...called what exactly?

"Go look it up for yourself"

Sa·tan·ism [ sáyt'n ìzzəm ]


noun

Definition:

Satan worship: the worship of Satan, especially as a parody of Christian rites

So, as a parody of Christians, who believe a divine being of some kind, does that not mean that Satanists don't believe in a supreme being of any kind?

I have seen it but am not a fan. It would be much better presented by Charlotte than by Aled Jones.



Especially if it was done in a "Bullseye" kind of way with someone making comments about Charlotte's lovely pair...... of lungs and wondering how she lubricates the vocal chords! ;)

Definition:

Satan worship: the worship of Satan, especially as a parody of Christian rites

May I suggest you try that OED, which states:

Satan
n. the Devil; Lucifer.
– ORIGIN OE, via late L. and Gk from Heb. n, lit. ‘adversary’, from ‘plot against’.

Why do they never feature devel worship on Songs of Praise?

..

The Virgin Mary was no more a virgin than my mother.

[Pope Boniface the VIII]

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6


Was his mother called Virgin as well?

..

The Virgin Mary was no more a virgin than my mother.

[Pope Boniface the VIII]

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Would it be possible for you to add something to the debate, other than random (repeated) quotes. We read them the first time you posted, it's just that no-one saw any need to reply to it:rolleyes:

Was his mother called Virgin as well?

I dunno, ask him, you think you have connections with ancient people. Now prove it:huh:

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Why do they never feature devel worship on Songs of Praise?

They could start off with Akercocke's "Praise The Name Of Satan" and move swiftly in to Deicide's "Kill The Christian".

All round family entertainment.

Would it be possible for you to add something to the debate, other than random (repeated) quotes. We read them the first time you posted, it's just that no-one saw any need to reply to it:rolleyes:

Amazing, how many more times we gonna hear this.

'religion you either get it or you dont bla,bla,bla,:rolleyes:

They could start off with Akercocke's "Praise The Name Of Satan" and move swiftly in to Deicide's "Kill The Christian".

All round family entertainment.


Or even, 'the'res no business like show buziness'

Or even, 'the'res no business like show buziness'

...The Bright Side Of Life? That could go down well.

...The Bright Side Of Life? That could go down well.


The Jew nailed to a cross doesn't cheer many up, me thinks.

Altho' it might cheer the remnants of Nazi Germany up.

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

..

The Virgin Mary was no more a virgin than my mother.

[Pope Boniface the VIII]

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Virgins are childlike and immature, that's how Jobee knows.

[QUOTE=Grahame;3608824]Virgins are childlike and immature, that's how Jobee knows.[/QUOTE

Thank you for for telling me what you know for sure.

Have you always been a voyeur.:confused:

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

'religion you either get it or you dont bla,bla,bla,:rolleyes:

It's my signature (you know, My Control Panel and edit Signature?) it gets added to the bottom of every post I make):rolleyes:

Have a look, many others have one too.

If you don't understand the simple aspects of the forum, then I suggest you read the FAQ (which explains signatures).

Don't you get fed up with typing the url for the "coventry forum" into each post a little tiresome? Then try the signature facility of your control panel:)

[QUOTE=Grahame;3608824]Virgins are childlike and immature, that's how Jobee knows.[/QUOTE

Thank you for for telling me what you know for sure.

Have you always been a voyeur.:confused:

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Wash your mouth out Jobee please, there's a good boy.

John, just in case my post got lost among all the trolls I have posted it again here. Thanks.

Yes, folk travelled. But that still doesn't mean the Babylonians worshipped in the "birthplace of Islam".

Muhammad based his religion on the Semitic religion which was the religion of the Babylonians. Allah was the chief deity.

“The pre-Christian religions of Babylonia and Assyria are the earliest attestation of Ancient Semitic religion, in particular Mesopotamian mythology. As with other ancient cultures in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, the predominant religious model in the area was polytheism, a belief in many gods. Evolving out of earlier religions of the Ancient Near East, the religion of this area was centered on the cult of regional patron deities, such as Marduk at Babylon, Ishtar at Agade, or Sin at Ur and Harran.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyro-Babylonian_religion

.

Songs of Praise has always been a strange one. Lots of Christians singing out of tune rather than actually doing the work of their Messiah. Also, just to troll, I have a great picture of Thor with the slogan underneath saying "Your God was nailed to a cross, mine has a massive hammer. Any questions?"

Songs of Praise has always been a strange one. Lots of Christians singing out of tune rather than actually doing the work of their Messiah. Also, just to troll, I have a great picture of Thor with the slogan underneath saying "Your God was nailed to a cross, mine has a massive hammer. Any questions?"

You and the other trolls ought to think about how you appear to other people, because those troll posts are nothing but nonsense and they make you all look silly the same as your comment above. Thor was a figment of peoples imagination while Jesus was a real person and my question to you is, "What the heck are you blithering on about?"

You and the other trolls ought to think about how you appear to other people, because those troll posts are nothing but nonsense and they make you all look silly the same as your comment above. Thor was a figment of peoples imagination while Jesus was a real person and my question to you is, "What the heck are you blithering on about?"

How dare you claim that Thor is a figment of my imagination. He offers me protection. The evil of Christianization of drove the true knowledge of our great god underground. Thor governs the air with its thunder, lightning, wind, rain, and fair weather. Praise be to Thor.

If you have read carefully Grahame, used initiative and read between the lines you will find that nothing I have posted has been nonsense. Everything I have posted has made a point (which you have always failed to respond to effectively, if at all). I'll be kind and point this one out for you so that it doesn't pass you by like the rest. You believing in Jesus, God and the H.S. is exactly the same as Muslims believing in Allah, Buddhists believing in Buddha, Tom Cruise believing in Scientology, Norsemen from the 11th Century believing in Thor or mystics believing they can see the future in the stars. Books written by men isn't proof of the divine. It is books written by men, coupled with the dark ages of science and a group of people believing so zealously in something that they would kill thousands that creates the image of the divine.

How dare you claim that Thor is a figment of my imagination. He offers me protection. The evil of Christianization of drove the true knowledge of our great god underground. Thor governs the air with its thunder, lightning, wind, rain, and fair weather. Praise be to Thor.

If you have read carefully Grahame, used initiative and read between the lines you will find that nothing I have posted has been nonsense. Everything I have posted has made a point (which you have always failed to respond to effectively, if at all). I'll be kind and point this one out for you so that it doesn't pass you by like the rest. You believing in Jesus, God and the H.S. is exactly the same as Muslims believing in Allah, Buddhists believing in Buddha, Tom Cruise believing in Scientology, Norsemen from the 11th Century believing in Thor or mystics believing they can see the future in the stars. Books written by men isn't proof of the divine. It is books written by men, coupled with the dark ages of science and a group of people believing so zealously in something that they would kill thousands that creates the image of the divine.

This is how we know Christianity is the truth. Allah was a fictional pagan god like all the other gods. We are a tripartite being consisting of Body, Soul, and Spirit. Electricity has voltage and current and the product of the two is power. Likewise with God who is a tripartite being also. The definition of God is the all powerful Creator and creation proves the creators existence.

.

Allah was a fictional pagan god like all the other gods.

Where is the evidence that Allah is fictional and the Christian 'God' is real? If you had been born in Iran you would believe in Allah.

We are a tripartite being consisting of Body, Soul, and Spirit.

There is no proof that humans have a soul. We have consciousness- that and a 'soul' are entirely different.

Electricity has voltage and current and the product of the two is power. Likewise with God who is also tripartite being. My definition of God is an all powerful Creator and creation proves the creators existence.

The pointless electricity euphemism aside, creation does not prove a creator's existence as it only opens up infinite questions of who created the creator and the creator's creator's creator. etc. Just saying that "God has always been there" is intellectual bankruptcy. It’s a response from someone who does not have an answer. It’s a cowardly answer, a narrow minded answer from those who have blinders over their mind.

For Allah, do your own research, there is enough information on here already that has been posted and I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Scientists are quite happy to say the cosmos just "happened" so by their own admission things just "happen." The same with life, scientists say it just "happened." Now you can't go round saying that things "happen" and then demand an explanation for God creation, the two are contradictory and their arguments which are the same arguments you are using just show atheists for the fools they really are.

It's my signature (you know, My Control Panel and edit Signature?) it gets added to the bottom of every post I make):rolleyes:

Have a look, many others have one too.

If you don't understand the simple aspects of the forum, then I suggest you read the FAQ (which explains signatures).

Don't you get fed up with typing the url for the "coventry forum" into each post a little tiresome? Then try the signature facility of your control panel:)

OOO, I see, so its not repetative and boring when you do it that way.

I dont type the cov Url in, i'll give you a couple of months to think about that.

And its only today I've been doing it.:confused:

For Allah, do your own research, there is enough information on here already that has been posted and I'm not going to spoon feed you.

What you seem blissfully unaware of is that in other parts of the world deluded folks like yourself believe with the same zealously that their god is the true one and that yours is the fictional one. You have shown that you believe all of those other deluded religious to be incorrect and that your god is the true one. Does that not seem ironic? At the very least it should make you think. All that atheists are doing is taking a step back from the lot of you and seeing that not one of you has a scrap of evidence. You all look the same to us.

Scientists are quite happy to say the cosmos just "happened" so by their own admission thing just "happen." The same with life, scientists say it just "happened." Now you can't go round saying that things "happen" and then demand an explanation for God creation, the two are contradictory and their arguments which are the same arguments you are using just show atheists for the fools they really are.

"Just happened"?! Oh yes, scientists believe the universe "just happened". One day nothing and suddenly the universe was complete. Oh wait, hang on that's the Bible, my mistake. Scientists argue over how the universe and reality came to be. No one knows the answer, but they are prepared to investigate to help discover the truth rather than say, 'what the heck, lets just believe an invisble sky-god did it' and go home. The universe is insanely complex and complicated way beyond the understanding of our own minds and science. However, that does not mean that it was 'created'. I grant you, there is a possibilty that God created it but, as I said in a previous post, it is, and I can not emphasise this enought, exactly as likely that a giant turtle farted the universe into existence.

I've bolded the part that makes the least amount of sense to see if anyone else can untangle your mess of a sentence.

What you seem blissfully unaware of is that in other parts of the world deluded folks like yourself believe with the same zealously that their god is the true one and that yours is the fictional one. You have shown that you believe all of those other deluded religious to be incorrect and that your god is the true one. Does that not seem ironic? At the very least it should make you think. All that atheists are doing is taking a step back from the lot of you and seeing that not one of you has a scrap of evidence. You all look the same to us.



"Just happened"?! Oh yes, scientists believe the universe "just happened". One day nothing and suddenly the universe was complete. Oh wait, hang on that's the Bible, my mistake. Scientists argue over how the universe and reality came to be. No one knows the answer, but they are prepared to investigate to help discover the truth rather than say, 'what the heck, lets just believe an invisble sky-god did it' and go home. The universe is insanely complex and complicated way beyond the understanding of our own minds and science. However, that does not mean that it was 'created'. I grant you, there is a possibilty that God created it but, as I said in a previous post, it is, and I can not emphasise this enought, exactly as likely that a giant turtle farted the universe into existence.

I've bolded the part that makes the least amount of sense to see if anyone else can untangle your mess of a sentence.

The part I have underlined just shows the stupidity of what you are saying. There was no turtle.

[QUOTE=jobee;3608841]

Wash your mouth out Jobee please, there's a good boy.

Dont start what you cannot finish, and I know you cannot finish it.

And dont 'boy' me, I never needed 'help and churches' since I left school.

Grow up.

For Allah, do your own research, there is enough information on here already that has been posted and I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Scientists are quite happy to say the cosmos just "happened" so by their own admission things just "happen." The same with life, scientists say it just "happened." Now you can't go round saying that things "happen" and then demand an explanation for God creation, the two are contradictory and their arguments which are the same arguments you are using just show atheists for the fools they really are.

Yes but your saying you know better than professional scientists.
Who the heck do you think you are??:confused:

Yes but your saying you know better than professional scientists.
Who the heck do you think you are??:confused:

I'm a spirit filled Christian Jobee, and this is how I know God lives, he lives within my heart.

Body soul and spirit and His spirit is with us today.

You can't find Him if you deny His existence. Think about it.

First of all you have to believe.

I'm a spirit filled Christian Jobee, and this is how I know God lives, he lives within my heart.

Body soul and spirit and His spirit is with us today.

You can't find Him if you deny His existence. Think about it.

First of all you have to believe.

I cant think what I need him for, " your never lonely when your content":confused:

The part I have underlined just shows the stupidity of what you are saying. There was no turtle.

Prove that there wasn't a turtle. It's impossible. If I truly believed in the turtle then any sane person would ask me for evidence and that is all I want form those who claim 'to know' that God created the universe. Evidence.

I cant think what I need him for, " your never lonely when your content":confused:

That's good Jobee. :)

Can I just say that I don't come on in order to convert people, it is just that it goes through me when I read some of, what to my mind are the awful things people say.

I hope you understand.

That's good Jobee. :)

Can I just say that I don't come on in order to convert people, it is just that it goes through me when I read some of, what to my mind are the awful things people say.

I hope you understand.

But to the logical thinkers out there it is infuriating that our taxes are spent on things like faith schools and the House of Lords contains enough God squadders to start a crusade.

Prove that there wasn't a turtle. It's impossible. If I truly believed in the turtle then any sane person would ask me for evidence and that is all I want form those who claim 'to know' that God created the universe. Evidence.

Look around you for the evidence and if you say it just happened I shall scream.

OK, so we don't know the origin of the cosmos and we don't know the origin of life except people talk about the right environment, chance and lightening.

After that I am prepared to accept evolution.

For all our scientific knowledge as far as I am aware no one has created life itself despite all the controls we have in the laboratory. As far as I am aware all we can do is to take living cells and put them together. Put dead cells together and nothing happens. Now when you can create a LIVING cell when there was no life there before then I will be impressed.

But to the logical thinkers out there it is infuriating that our taxes are spent on things like faith schools and the House of Lords contains enough God squadders to start a crusade.

One or two things, firstly I think faith schools may be to the governments advantage? Remember the government HAS to provide schools, and then staff them and run them, now if someone is prepared to enter into an agreement with the government and contribute towards the funding then that removes your objection. I feel rightly or wrongly that it is like Sheffield Council putting the bins and other contracts out to tender and if they can do it at a saving to the rate payer then the council will be happy and it saves the ratepayer money.

Secondly, I hate to think how much is spent on the army, air-force, and navy and all the equipment, wages and weaponry.

Thirdly, I think if you investigate you will find the bishops in the House of Lords do an immensely good job of work and that without the good work they do we would be all the poorer. Just my opinion. :)

Look around you for the evidence and if you say it just happened I shall scream.

OK, so we don't know the origin of the cosmos and we don't know the origin of life except people talk about the right environment, chance and lightening.

After that I am prepared to accept evolution.

For all our scientific knowledge as far as I am aware no one has created life itself despite all the controls we have in the laboratory. As far as I am aware all we can do is to take living cells and put them together. Put dead cells together and nothing happens. Now when you can create a LIVING cell when there was no life there before then I will be impressed.

As I have said on a previous post (if you bothered to read it) no scientists believe that the universe 'just happened'. That is the Bible's version of events. God just happened-> God created Universe-> the end. Scientific ideas are always evolving (pun intended) and the idea of a Big Bang is slowly being phased out for other ideas. Nothing 'just happens' that's just stupid. Matter must come from matter. But by firstly believing in a god you jump to the conclusion that the universe was created. If you take away that weight from your mind then the possibilities are infinate and by looking at the evidence you can make logical presumptions. You use the word 'chance' for the origin of life but chance has nothing to do with it. It is evolution which is a completly different ball game. Of course no one has made life from dead cells because that is impossible. That is not how life came to be, the evidence points to us evolving over millions of years to the insanly complex organism that we are today.

One or two things, firstly I think faith schools may be to the governments advantage? Remember the government HAS to provide schools, and then staff them and run them, now if someone is prepared to enter into an agreement with the government and contribute towards the funding then that removes your objection. I feel rightly or wrongly that it is like Sheffield Council putting the bins and other contracts out to tender and if they can do it at a saving to the rate payer then the council will be happy and it saves the ratepayer money.

So, if they were to go into an agreement with a satanist cult to build a school to save money that would be okay? Church and state need to be seperate.

Secondly, I hate to think how much is spent on the army, air-force, and navy and all the equipment, wages and weaponry.

I agree.

Thirdly, I think if you investigate you will find the bishops in the House of Lords do an immensely good job of work and that without the good work they do we would be all the poorer. Just my opinion. :)

Yes but for all the good work they do, the majority of them will be opposed to keeping the abortion at the current limit and stopping bills for stem cell research, designer babies etc which could save the lives of many purely because of their religion.

As I have said on a previous post (if you bothered to read it) no scientists believe that the universe 'just happened'. That is the Bible's version of events. God just happened-> God created Universe-> the end. Scientific ideas are always evolving (pun intended) and the idea of a Big Bang is slowly being phased out for other ideas. Nothing 'just happens' that's just stupid. Matter must come from matter. But by firstly believing in a god you jump to the conclusion that the universe was created. If you take away that weight from your mind then the possibilities are infinate and by looking at the evidence you can make logical presumptions. You use the word 'chance' for the origin of life but chance has nothing to do with it. It is evolution which is a completly different ball game. Of course no one has made life from dead cells because that is impossible. That is not how life came to be, the evidence points to us evolving over millions of years to the insanly complex organism that we are today.

The part I have underlined, I agree with. Think about it.

Get some simple amino acids and create a living single cell please.

So, if they were to go into an agreement with a satanist cult to build a school to save money that would be okay? Church and state need to be seperate.

I agree.

Yes but for all the good work they do, the majority of them will be opposed to keeping the abortion at the current limit and stopping bills for stem cell research, designer babies etc which could save the lives of many purely because of their religion.

You would be surprised how level headed the majority of Christians are.

As far as cults are concerned I don't think the government would discriminate providing the funding was there?

Yes but for all the good work they do, the majority of them will be opposed to keeping the abortion at the current limit and stopping bills for stem cell research, designer babies etc which could save the lives of many purely because of their religion.

There are a lot of arguments for the abortion limit being lowered and against certain techniques used in stem cell research. When people disagree with you, you can't just point and shout 'religion!' at them as if that makes them wrong.

;)

I'm all for the leaders of the main faiths having their say in the Lords. I still think certain aspects of religion can be healthy. (I say that as an atheist.)

But to the logical thinkers out there it is infuriating that our taxes are spent on things like faith schools and the House of Lords contains enough God squadders to start a crusade.

I'm right with you mercenary. They built their careers by telling lies from the pulpit, and barfaced lies at that, they must know the're telling them.
Sophism is their wage earner. I think the house of Lords is due for a reshuffle.

Religion is vastly over -represented in the house, they take up a third of the
seats, whilst the country is overwhelmingly atheist:confused:


Man created God/Allah, and made sophism a way of life.:

For all our scientific knowledge as far as I am aware no one has created life itself despite all the controls we have in the laboratory. As far as I am aware all we can do is to take living cells and put them together. Put dead cells together and nothing happens. Now when you can create a LIVING cell when there was no life there before then I will be impressed.

Try reading some recent scientific literature - you may be "impressed"

However, no matter what science does next or proves about evolution or the origin of the universe, you will just wave your hand and say "so what".

Enough posting to fundies...bye

The part I have underlined, I agree with. Think about it.

Get some simple amino acids and create a living single cell please.

We can't because we don't have the scientific technology. One day we may but not yet.

We can't because we don't have the scientific technology. One day we may but not yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4104483.stm

Given current progress rates, in about 10-15 years I would guess

You and the other trolls ought to think about how you appear to other people, because those troll posts are nothing but nonsense and they make you all look silly the same as your comment above. Thor was a figment of peoples imagination while Jesus was a real person and my question to you is, "What the heck are you blithering on about?"

I thought the Thor bit was awesome!

I'd certainly have paid more attention to Thor than Jesus. The huge hammer is definitely more intimidating than a geezer in a tunic or whatever he wore.

Look around you for the evidence and if you say it just happened I shall scream.



It did just happen.

NOW SCREAM!!!!!!!!

You and the other trolls ought to think about how you appear to other people, because those troll posts are nothing but nonsense and they make you all look silly the same as your comment above. Thor was a figment of peoples imagination while Jesus was a real person and my question to you is, "What the heck are you blithering on about?"

The End of Biblical Studies, by Hector Avalos, hardback, 399 pages, ISBN 978-1-59102-536-8, Prometheus Books, 2007, £22.99.

Hector Avalos, associate professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, has written a critique of biblical studies from within. He argues that biblical studies should end, because it is just religious apologetics, not an academic discipline or a branch of scholarship.

Avalos shows how history and archaeology have disproved 'biblical history'. He notes that centuries of Jesus studies have not found a historical Jesus: he has no verifiable words or deeds, and there are no contemporary eye-witness accounts. Literary criticism has not shown that the bible is better literature than other ancient works, and the excessive attention paid to this one text has meant that thousands of ancient Mesopotamian texts have never been translated.

Theology has found no coherent message about God; instead it is inconsistent and arbitrary, trying to rescue the bible through citing bits of texts. Nice people find the nice bits, nasty people find the nasty bits; both say that theirs are the essential bits.

> does the last paragraph ring any bells?

You would be surprised how level headed the majority of Christians are.



Apart from the believing in the invisible man.

The End of Biblical Studies, by Hector Avalos, hardback, 399 pages, ISBN 978-1-59102-536-8, Prometheus Books, 2007, £22.99.

Hector Avalos, associate professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, has written a critique of biblical studies from within. He argues that biblical studies should end, because it is just religious apologetics, not an academic discipline or a branch of scholarship.

Avalos shows how history and archaeology have disproved 'biblical history'. He notes that centuries of Jesus studies have not found a historical Jesus: he has no verifiable words or deeds, and there are no contemporary eye-witness accounts. Literary criticism has not shown that the bible is better literature than other ancient works, and the excessive attention paid to this one text has meant that thousands of ancient Mesopotamian texts have never been translated.

Theology has found no coherent message about God; instead it is inconsistent and arbitrary, trying to rescue the bible through citing bits of texts. Nice people find the nice bits, nasty people find the nasty bits; both say that theirs are the essential bits.

> does the last paragraph ring any bells?

That's rubbish.

Besides which people seem to have a blind-spot when is comes to Christianity because Christians follow the teaching of Jesus who was a historical figure.

Look around you for the evidence and if you say it just happened I shall scream.

OK, so we don't know the origin of the cosmos and we don't know the origin of life except people talk about the right environment, chance and lightening.

After that I am prepared to accept evolution.

For all our scientific knowledge as far as I am aware no one has created life itself despite all the controls we have in the laboratory. As far as I am aware all we can do is to take living cells and put them together. Put dead cells together and nothing happens. Now when you can create a LIVING cell when there was no life there before then I will be impressed.

...Get some simple amino acids and create a living single cell please.


Considering just the evolution part of how we came to be here I’d be interested to know if you agree with the following explanation for life. Also at which stage god had to intervene?

1. Earth forms, cools, a wide range of simple organic compounds (including proteins) exist and continue to form – the Primordial soup.

2. Proteins join together forming simple strands. Certain protein strands catalyse formation of themselves (replication) and other molecular products - (Natural Selection starts here due to molecular competition for resources and replication errors.)

3. Dominant replicator molecule gets more complex as do its products.

4. Replicator products include molecules that form a bubble around the replicator – a simple form of cell wall.

5. This closed environment is successful and diversifies, specialised cells cooperate. Cells incorporate other cells. These cells cooperate and clump together forming Multicellular Life

6. Plants, Animals, Humans, Sheffield Forum...

Besides which people seem to have a blind-spot when is comes to Christianity because Christians follow the teaching of Jesus who was a historical figure.

Last paragraph again -

ignore the unhappy bits like belief in hell et al x10

Last paragraph again -

ignore the unhappy bits like belief in hell et al x10

Do you read my posts Mr Goose?

Bedside which the world would be a lot better and happier place if people adhered to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Considering just the evolution part of how we came to be here I’d be interested to know if you agree with the following explanation for life. Also at which stage god had to intervene?

1. Earth forms, cools, a wide range of simple organic compounds (including proteins) exist and continue to form – the Primordial soup.

2. Proteins join together forming simple strands. Certain protein strands catalyse formation of themselves (replication) and other molecular products - (Natural Selection starts here due to molecular competition for resources and replication errors.)

3. Dominant replicator molecule gets more complex as do its products.

4. Replicator products include molecules that form a bubble around the replicator – a simple form of cell wall.

5. This closed environment is successful and diversifies, specialised cells cooperate. Cells incorporate other cells. These cells cooperate and clump together forming Multicellular Life

6. Plants, Animals, Humans, Sheffield Forum...

In the beginning. Before number 1. Before the foundation of the earth. What you are talking about, for example the cooling of the earth, if indeed it was formed that way, are the natural processes you call evolution.

.

Before we play the 'nailing water to the wall' game of pre-time, can I ask Grahame if you believe evolution to be possible then?

There was a report I noticed today that to me shows unquestionable evidence of it taking place.

If you don't think this is evolution, do you think it is evidence of god's work.

Article about evolution of lizard (http://www.masslive.com/news/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-2/121230487689120.xml&coll=1)s

Considering just the evolution part of how we came to be here I’d be interested to know if you agree with the following explanation for life. Also at which stage god had to intervene?

1. Earth forms, cools, a wide range of simple organic compounds (including proteins) exist and continue to form – the Primordial soup.

2. Proteins join together forming simple strands. Certain protein strands catalyse formation of themselves (replication) and other molecular products - (Natural Selection starts here due to molecular competition for resources and replication errors.)

3. Dominant replicator molecule gets more complex as do its products.

4. Replicator products include molecules that form a bubble around the replicator – a simple form of cell wall.

5. This closed environment is successful and diversifies, specialised cells cooperate. Cells incorporate other cells. These cells cooperate and clump together forming Multicellular Life

6. Plants, Animals, Humans, Sheffield Forum...


Extra! extra! read all about it.

As all thinking people have figured out, the God of Christianity is a reflection of human mind at different points in evolution.
God is filled with wrath, revenge, vanity, hatred, jealousy... all human characteristics. He either instills desires of all sorts in us or, as if he were playing some sick game, allows a Satan to be created who instills in us these desires, then this God forbids us to satisfy them.
We are asked to believe this completely criminally insane fellow stands by while hell is being created; (If it was he who created it, he becomes even more of a sicko) as a place in which his anger and revenge can be satisfied.
To the above unpleasant human traits attributed to our man-made Caligula look-a-like has been added prayer. We can curry favor from this psychotic by prayer, a form of begging. God will let children be brutally tortured, raped and murdered unless he is sufficiently begged.
Is God perfect? God won't become perfect until the quality of mind creating God becomes perfected.

Before we play the 'nailing water to the wall' game of pre-time, can I ask Grahame if you believe evolution to be possible then?

There was a report I noticed today that to me shows unquestionable evidence of it taking place.

If you don't think this is evolution, do you think it is evidence of god's work.

Article about evolution of lizard (http://www.masslive.com/news/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-2/121230487689120.xml&coll=1)s

I wish people would read my posts for example #684.

I also wish 'know-it-all' atheists wouldn't confuse adaptation with evolution.

In the beginning. Before number 1. Before the foundation of the earth. What you are talking about, for example the cooling of the earth are the natural processes you call evolution.

No-one would call the cooling of the earth evolution. Evolution started with Step 2 - the natural selection of better and better replicator molecules.

So it seems you're now saying the evolution part, in its entirety, did not need any interference from god. Agreed :)

No-one would call the cooling of the earth evolution. Evolution started with Step 2 - the natural selection of better and better replicator molecules.

So it seems you're now saying the evolution part, in its entirety, did not need any interference from god. Agreed :)

Without the formation of the cosmos there would be nothing. The Genesis account outlines the formation of the earth as it unfolded and the Bible has it right. :)

Do you read my posts Mr Goose?

Bedside which the world would be a lot better and happier place if people adhered to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Or Buddah:

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353.

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18.


Or Confucius:

"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23


Or Ancient Egypt:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant ~2000BC


Or humanism:

"Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."

"Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings."

Etc...

Or Buddah:

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353.

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18.


Or Confucius:

"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23


Or Ancient Egypt:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant ~2000BC


Or humanism:

"Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."

"Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings."

Etc...

As I keep repeating and I am getting sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over again, the last example being with reference to Thor, these are either figments of the imagination or are down to human philosophy.

Without the formation of the cosmos there would be nothing. The Genesis account outlines the formation of the earth as it unfolded and the Bible has it right. :)

Does the bible not hold the sun was created after the earth? The first life forms were plants? Birds were created before land animals? Fruit trees came before fish? The initial diet of animals was plants? Humans were created from dirt?

All these are wrong!

Hasn't this stopped yet? :loopy: I'm off to unsubscribe as it's just boring now.

As I keep repeating and I am getting sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over again, the last example being with reference to Thor, these are either figments of the imagination or are down to human philosophy.

And as we are sick of repeating - Billions of people believe in their "figments" as sincerely and unshakably as you do in yours.

Maybe you should show more tolerance -
http://www.religioustolerance.org

The ancient religions of the middle east believed that man was created to serve the gods and their creation.

Then along came a new religion claiming creation was there to serve man, that he had dominion over everything and he was to subdue nature.

Now the great project is almost complete and we are on the verge of destroying everything. Thanks Abrahamic monotheism!

Does the bible not hold the sun was created after the earth? The first life forms were plants? Birds were created before land animals? Fruit trees came before fish? The initial diet of animals was plants? Humans were created from dirt?

All these are wrong!

I'm with Farmboy, this is getting silly but then what do you expect from atheists.

First came light from the sun as the galaxy was settling into orbit. Then came the land masses separating the earth from the sea, then plant life including self-fertilising fruit trees, then the insects that fed off the plants and fruit.

Then out of the waters came every moving creature that had life, and fowl that flew above the earth. These would feed off the insects that fed off the grasses and fruit trees, and then penultimately came the carnivorous animals and last but not least humankind. :)

And as we are sick of repeating - Billions of people believe in their "figments" as sincerely and unshakably as you do in yours.

Maybe you should show more tolerance -
http://www.religioustolerance.org

Unsurprisingly science is moving closer towards the the Biblical account and all it needs now is for unbelievers to become more open minded and more tolerant.

And all in six days and the god reflected on what a good job he had done. Making a person from dirt is a neat trick and as for the rib well ..... Hang on a minute, why did he need the raw materials? He is omnipotent isn't he?

And all in six days and the god reflected on what a good job he had done. Making a person from dirt is a neat trick and as for the rib well ..... Hang on a minute, why did he need the raw materials? He is omnipotent isn't he?

A day was an indefinite period as shown by the non-appearance of the sun until the forth day.

A day was an indefinite period as shown by the non-appearance of the sun until the forth day.

the firth of forth?

A day was an indefinite period as shown by the non-appearance of the sun until the forth day.

What did he make the Sun out of then?

the firth of forth?

This is what I have starting at Genesis chapter 1 verse 14:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

.

Grahame I think you are a troll.

A day was an indefinite period as shown by the non-appearance of the sun until the forth day.

but then how can you say this?

First came light from the sun as the galaxy was settling into orbit. Then came the land masses separating the earth from the sea, then plant life including self-fertilising fruit trees, then the insects that fed off the plants and fruit.


So the sun didnt make an appearance until day 4...but was, er, first?

Grahame your book is filled with errors. Rammed full of them. And while science remains a challengable, evolving discipline, the bible {babble?} and its adherents are stuck in a monumental time warp. Makes a nice little draught excluder, but precious little sense to a sane person.

The all loving omnipotent god the bible describes surely couldnt just sit by whilst all the suffering occurs in the world. If you were God and you knew there was going to be a earthquake or a tsunami surely you would stop it?

To put it closer to home my brother was born deaf and has had a pretty tough time of it - but recently he was diagnosed wth testicular cancer at 21. For me an all loving omnipotent god wouldnt put him though that. Thankfully because of Science my brother is being treated and i am hopeful that a CT scan and surgery deveoped by science (bravo the NHS's quick response by the way), will help to cure him.

So either God knows terrible things are going to happen and allows them or he doesnt know or he doesnt exist. You pick.:huh:

What did he make the Sun out of then?

I'm guessing but it all may have happened in the same instant? What I am saying is that what I personally call God, and I'm not speaking for others, is that the creative power or energy is what the ancient people called God and is all powerful, all embracing and eternal. :)

but then how can you say this?



So the sun didnt make an appearance until day 4...but was, er, first?

Grahame your book is filled with errors. Rammed full of them. And while science remains a challengable, evolving discipline, the bible {babble?} and its adherents are stuck in a monumental time warp. Makes a nice little draught excluder, but precious little sense to a sane person.

Reflective light the same as the moon, as the planets were formed and settled into their orbits.

The all loving omnipotent god the bible describes surely couldnt just sit by whilst all the suffering occurs in the world. If you were God and you knew there was going to be a earthquake or a tsunami surely you would stop it?

To put it closer to home my brother was born deaf and has had a pretty tough time of it - but recently he was diagnosed wth testicular cancer at 21. For me an all loving omnipotent god wouldnt put him though that. Thankfully because of Science my brother is being treated and i am hopeful that a CT scan and surgery deveoped by science (bravo the NHS's quick response by the way), will help to cure him.

So either God knows terrible things are going to happen and allows them or he doesnt know or he doesnt exist. You pick.:huh:

Love doesn't cure but love finds a way and I believe we are here to do God's work. :) Why not thank God for the NHS? I do.

Love doesn't cure but love finds a way and I believe we are here to do God's work. :) Why not thank God for the NHS? I do.

Do you also thank god for cancer too? You've not answered the question really have you - do you think that an all loving God would let these things happen?

Unsurprisingly science is moving closer towards the the Biblical account and all it needs now is for unbelievers to become more open minded and more tolerant.

This is the post of the year. Is it a joke?

Anyhow, for the interested, I think a better interpretation is as follows:

By the 1850's (ie prior to Darwin's wicked book) mainstream religious views were directly opposite to Graham's interpretation in the above qoute.

During the early 19th century “Natural theology” developed; the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement helped start the European passion for collecting fossils, biological specimens and geology. Charles Darwin was one of these avid collectors. Believers in theistic evolution also embrace this. They represent current non-fundamentalist religious viewpoints – they consider modern science, including the theory of evolution, the ancient, "natural" origin of the Earth and admitting that Noah’s ark (and most of the rest of the Bible) is symbolic rather than actual history, to be compatible with Christianity.

However we need to clear up what we mean in this context by “fundamentalism” – . In 1909 there was a series of booklets in the US “The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Faith”.

They demanded “That Christianity accepts the bible as revealed, inspired, infallible and inerrant.” If the discoveries of science contradict any aspect of the bible, fundamentalists judge that the bible was right and the claims of science wrong. They also selective qoute science as to make it appear compatible with the Bible

Really, one can argue that Graham's views are more a reaction against the liberal reading of scripture, not against science, but science has got caught up in the crossfire of the confusion.

Do you also thank god for cancer too? You've not answered the question really have you - do you think that an all loving God would let these things happen?

We cause a lot of our own problems. There are so many man-made carcinogens and I do not thank God for the fact people smoke or blow themselves up or mans inhumanity to man. Apportion blame where it lays.

This is the post of the year. Is it a joke?

Anyhow, for the interested, I think a better interpretation is as follows:

By the 1850's (ie prior to Darwin's wicked book) mainstream religious views were directly opposite to Graham's interpretation in the above qoute.

During the early 19th century “Natural theology” developed; the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement helped start the European passion for collecting fossils, biological specimens and geology. Charles Darwin was one of these avid collectors. Believers in theistic evolution also embrace this. They represent current non-fundamentalist religious viewpoints – they consider modern science, including the theory of evolution, the ancient, "natural" origin of the Earth and admitting that Noah’s ark (and most of the rest of the Bible) is symbolic rather than actual history, to be compatible with Christianity.

However we need to clear up what we mean in this context by “fundamentalism” – . In 1909 there was a series of booklets in the US “The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Faith”.

They demanded “That Christianity accepts the bible as revealed, inspired, infallible and inerrant.” If the discoveries of science contradict any aspect of the bible, fundamentalists judge that the bible was right and the claims of science wrong. They also selective qoute science as to make it appear compatible with the Bible

Really, one can argue that Graham's views are more a reaction against the liberal reading of scripture, not against science, but science has got caught up in the crossfire of the confusion.

What we need is the truth and we are moving towards it, the last thing we need is a catalogue of errors. Let's get rid of those and move forward, we don't live in the dark ages any more. And you are misquoting me, only tonight I have said I accept evolution. Will people please post correctly.

We cause a lot of our own problems. There are so many man-made carcinogens and I do not thank God for the fact people smoke or blow themselves up or mans inhumanity to man. Apportion blame where it lays.

Ok - cystic fibrosis, no lifestyle, environment or diet causes - it is to do with the in built faults in our DNA copying mechanism (to do with protiens actually), so what is the god-plan for this one?

cystic fibrosis is a stumper for your arguement. it is part of the evololution mechanism really (which allows gene shuffling). I cannot think of why any god would have inserted this facility in DNA, unless he was a sloppy git

What we need is the truth and we are moving towards it, the last thing we need is a catalogue of errors. Let's get rid of those and move forward, we don't live in the dark ages any more. And you are misquoting me, only tonight I have said I accept evolution. Will people please post correctly.

I qouted that you stated that "science is moving towards the bible" - or do you now retract that statement?

Ok - cystic fibrosis, no lifestyle, environment or diet causes - it is to do with the in built faults in our DNA copying mechanism (to do with protiens actually), so what is the god-plan for this one?

cystic fibrosis is a stumper for your arguement. it is part of the evololution mechanism really (which allows gene shuffling). I cannot think of why any god would have inserted this facility in DNA, unless he was a sloppy git

Faulty DNA is a reason for the none survival of the species, i.e. species die out as opposed to the creative act when there were far more species than we have today, and yet in other posts you call them mutations and say this is how life evolved. IMO you are as confused as the Dodo is extinct.

EDIT
It is very offensive that you speak of God like that especially as you lay the blame on the evolution mechanism. You make contradictory statements and are wasting my time.

I qouted that you stated that "science is moving towards the bible" - or do you now retract that statement?

Science will prove the Bible correct.

Science has already proven the bible to be incorrect on a great many matters - what make you think this will change.

Science has already proven the bible to be incorrect on a great many matters - what make you think this will change.

As soon as you get your facts straight. And I'm not going to enter into another argument, so I'm putting you on my ignore list.

I'm with Farmboy, this is getting silly but then what do you expect from atheists.

First came light from the sun as the galaxy was settling into orbit. Then came the land masses separating the earth from the sea, then plant life including self-fertilising fruit trees, then the insects that fed off the plants and fruit.

Then out of the waters came every moving creature that had life, and fowl that flew above the earth. These would feed off the insects that fed off the grasses and fruit trees, and then penultimately came the carnivorous animals and last but not least humankind. :)

So I'm silly as are atheists in general because I got the timeline of evolution right and you and the bible got it wrong :huh:

Here for your education is the actual timeline with the day of biblical creation in brackets after.

We've had:

4 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3 billion years of photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
550 million years of complex animals
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians, [Fifth day]
475 million years of land plants, [Third day]
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles, [Sixth Day]
200 million years of mammals, [Sixth Day]
150 million years of birds, [Fifth day] (Yet birds evolved from reptiles!)
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today.


Note also if the sun and moon were made on the Forth Day how did plants photosynthesize before that? And for that matter what did the earth revolve around?

Bye bye Norbert. Reflective light is the answer to one question, get things in the right order, and how do things grow in the dark which they do. I really cannot be bothered.

Faulty DNA is a reason for the none survival of the species, i.e. species die out as opposed to the creative act when there were far more species than we have today, and yet in other posts you call them mutations and say this is how life evolved. IMO you are as confused as the Dodo is extinct.


Wrong again!

For your continuing education a graph of species diversity over the last 500 million years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png

N.B. The present time is on the left of the graph.

Bye bye Norbert. Reflective light is the answer to one question, get things in the right order, and how do things grow in the dark which they do. I really cannot be bothered.

Goodnight Grahame, unless you mean I'm going on your ignore list :o

I stand by the assertion that there are a number of so-called atheists whose anger at the idea of God can only be explained by a belief in God, coupled with bitterness that they've not been handed earthly bliss on a plate. Something along the lines of a teenager hating their parents because they've not being given a new pair of trainers.
What complete rubbish, pretty much any level of anger at the 'idea of god' can be easily explained by the all to real malign effects the 'idea of god' has on peoples behaviour:

Thanks to the 'idea of god' attempts to fight AIDS in Africa a continually sabotaged by theists spreading anti-condom propaganda.

A friend of mines' husband is regularly mortared by theists motivated by the 'idea of god'.

Just a few years ago the 'idea of god' caused a small number of particularly dedicated theists to crash airliners into buildings killing thousands.

Thanks to the 'idea of god' a blind seven year old was beaten to death just the other day (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2058670/Blind-seven-year-old-beaten-to-death-for-failing-to-learn-the-Koran.html).

Thanks to the 'idea of god/s' religious minorities are subject to discrimination and violence every day in India.

Just last month theists in the UK mounted a massive effort to try and restrict women's right to control their own bodies and lesbians ability to receive fertility treatment all because of their 'idea of god'.

Because of that and so much more I am indeed angry at 'the idea of god/s' and I don't believe in any of them.

What complete rubbish, pretty much any level of anger at the 'idea of god' can be easily explained by the all to real malign effects the 'idea of god' has on peoples behaviour:

Thanks to the 'idea of god' attempts to fight AIDS in Africa a continually sabotaged by theists spreading anti-condom propaganda.

A friend of mines' husband is regularly mortared by theists motivated by the 'idea of god'.

Just a few years ago the 'idea of god' caused a small number of particularly dedicated theists to crash airliners into buildings killing thousands.

Thanks to the 'idea of god' a blind seven year old was beaten to death just the other day (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2058670/Blind-seven-year-old-beaten-to-death-for-failing-to-learn-the-Koran.html).

Thanks to the 'idea of god/s' religious minorities are subject to discrimination and violence every day in India.

Just last month theists in the UK mounted a massive effort to try and restrict women's right to control their own bodies and lesbians ability to receive fertility treatment all because of their 'idea of god'.

Because of that and so much more I am indeed angry at 'the idea of god/s' and I don't believe in any of them.

Well done, you've utterly misunderstood the point of my post. Theists are not ALL fundamentalists and your constant and deliberate fudging of that fact does you no credit.

Edit - I'm curious as to why you've chosen to leap on my post now, a full 13 pages later and prompted by a debate you weren't taking part in at the time of posting. I never said I thought YOU were a theist, merely that some of those whose more vitriolic reactions at the very mention of the word 'God' hinted at a closet belief. Hmmm? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3616177&postcount=303)

Been through that already in another thread (which you started- remember). But again, you cannot use this point to justify your claim that religion(s) caused wars; history shows us that it is normally greed and desire for power.I am not talking about justifable wars (the right to defend if attacked- the ONE reason I believe war is justified)

There has been plenty of bloodshed by athiest regimes-
Here's a list of those who believe in evolution:

1. Hitler
Liar, Hitler was a creationist and used his beliefs about the will of the creator to justify his anti-Semitism which is completely incompatible with the theory of evolution through natural selection.

2. Stalin
Liar, Stalin rejected the theory of evolution of natural selection as 'bourgeois' and suppressed it, executing many geneticists and sending others to the gulags.

This rejection of science handicapped soviet agriculture causing much suffering.

3. Lenin

4. Trotsky
Evidence that the above 2 believed in evolution through natural selection please.

5. Mao
Liar, just like Stalin Mao rejected evolution and caused great suffering by doing so, his imposition of Lysenko's anti-science instead of policies guided by science during the 'great leap forward' killed millions.

Anyway even if your argument wasn't based upon lies it would still be invalid, unlike religions the theory of evolution through natural selection makes no claims to being an ethical system it simply attempts to explain the diversity of life on earth and does so superbly.

As such the morality (or lack there of) of historic individuals who may or may not have believed in evolution through natural selection is of no relevance whatsoever to the theories validity. I dare say that the above 5 all believed that the earth orbited the sun are you going to tell us that this in some way magically disproves heliocentrism?

In contrast to science which is amoral ideologies such as Communism, Nazism, Islam and Secular Humanism do claim to be ethical systems and as such it is perfectly valid to judge their value (in part at least) by the behaviour of those who follow those ideologies. There are countless examples of Communism, Islam and Nazism motivating people to behave despicably and from this we can draw conclusions about those ideologies, secular humanism on the other hand...

Well done, you've utterly misunderstood the point of my post.
And what precisely was that point then?

Theists are not ALL fundamentalists and your constant and deliberate fudging of that fact does you no credit.
I never said they were and none of my arguments are based upon any such premise, why can't you respond to what people actually post?

Edit - I'm curious as to why you've chosen to leap on my post now, a full 13 pages later and prompted by a debate you weren't taking part in at the time of posting.
I didn't have time to post at the time so bookmarked it for later.

I never said I thought YOU were a theist, merely that some of those whose more vitriolic reactions at the very mention of the word 'God' hinted at a closet belief. Hmmm? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3616177&postcount=303)
I never said you were specifically were referring to me, however you clearly did argue that 'one or two' posters in the thread were 'angry at God' (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3596623&postcount=471) and I was simply rebutting that idiotic claim.

Bye bye Norbert. Reflective light is the answer to one question,
:huh: It is, in what way? What's the source of this 'reflective light'?

get things in the right order, and how do things grow in the dark which they do.
Plants don't they require light to live, light which according to your book had no source until the 4th day.

And what precisely was that point then?

What I stated. That some people, mostly the ones who have kneejerk tantrums at the very mention of the word 'God', are angry not at the idea of God but at God him/herself. This is the third time I've made this point and I don't understand why you've not managed to decipher it yet.

I never said they were and none of my arguments are based upon any such premise, why can't you respond to what people actually post?

Each and every example you used was of fundamentalist religion of one sort or another. Have you forgotten already or do you simply type out your diatribes without any awareness of what you are writing?

I didn't have time to post at the time so bookmarked it for later.

I have my doubts.

I never said you were specifically were referring to me, however you clearly did argue that 'one or two' posters in the thread were 'angry at God' (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3596623&postcount=471) and I was simply rebutting that idiotic claim.

There was a dialogue between those posters and myself. It might be an idea to let people speak for themselves, as they do a far better job of it than you.

The only idiocy to be found is in your posts. My point stands. I won't type it out a fourth time. You don't read your own posts, so I can hardly expect you to read mine, let alone take the time to think about them before attempting to respond. Perhaps you'd better do so before displaying your vulgar attitude in future.

What I stated. That some people, mostly the ones who have kneejerk tantrums at the very mention of the word 'God', are angry not at the idea of God but at God him/herself. This is the third time I've made this point and I don't understand why you've not managed to decipher it yet.
Actually that's a modification of your earlier (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3596623&postcount=471) arguments (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3597334&postcount=482) as there have been no "kneejerk tantrums at the very mention of the word 'God'" in this thread, but even so in what way was my post not a response to your argument? Which is nothing more than the old theist (and concern troll) standard that atheists don't simply lack belief but must be motivated by bitterness and anger against a god they now exists?

Each and every example you used was of fundamentalist religion of one sort or another. Have you forgotten already or do you simply type out your diatribes without any awareness of what you are writing?
Really so in your world every single Indian Hindu who discriminates against Indian Muslims & Christians is a fundamentalist? Every single British Christian who opposed the recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was a fundamentalist? Every single advocate of abstinence only sex education is a fundamentalist?

Fundamentalists obviously provide some of the most striking examples of harm caused by the 'idea' of god, but it's simply absurd to pretend (as you are trying to) that no harm is done by the larger number of less fanatical theists.

I have my doubts.
Well good for you doubt away for all I care.

There was a dialogue between those posters and myself. It might be an idea to let people speak for themselves, as they do a far better job of it than you.

The only idiocy to be found is in your posts. My point stands.
Your point doesn't 'stand' I comprehensively rebutted it you are simply tried to handwave that rebuttal away.

I won't type it out a fourth time. You don't read your own posts, so I can hardly expect you to read mine, let alone take the time to think about them before attempting to respond. Perhaps you'd better do so before displaying your vulgar attitude in future.
For obvious reasons I don't take advice from concern trolls.

Actually that's a modification of your earlier (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3596623&postcount=471) arguments (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3597334&postcount=482) as there have been no "kneejerk tantrums at the very mention of the word 'God'" in this thread,

I was trying to explain myself in a way you'd understand. The post you trawled up from the depths was not accusing anyone of tantrums. I wrote it again in those terms because you are having (yet more) difficulties with comprehension.

but even so in what way was my post not a response to your argument? Which is nothing more than the old theist (and concern troll) standard that atheists don't simply lack belief but must be motivated by bitterness and anger against a god they now exists?

Again, you are living in fantasy land. I certainly haven't accused all atheists of anger towards God. You are perfectly aware of this.

Really so in your world every single Indian Hindu who discriminates against Indian Muslims & Christians is a fundamentalist?

Those who simply discriminate may not be fundamentalists. But... you used another word in conjunction didn't you? Oh, how careless of you to miss it out! :hihi: And yes, those who use violence in the name of religion should be classed as fundamentalists.

But a slight aside .... In your world does every Indian Hindu discriminate against other religions? Does every person of faith discriminate? Is that why all faith is bad? And are you going to say that 'All men are bad' because some discriminate against women?

Every single British Christian who opposed the recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was a fundamentalist?

You state this as if the very questioning of the contents of the Bill were inherently wrong. Just because you may have supported the Bill doesn't make it inherently right (sorry to disappoint you there).

Every single advocate of abstinence only sex education is a fundamentalist? Yes.


Fundamentalists obviously provide some of the most striking examples of harm caused by the 'idea' of god, but it's simply absurd to pretend (as you are trying to) that no harm is done by the larger number of less fanatical theists. Again, you put words where there were none. You tell me that I am pretending no harm is done by less fanatical theists...

What's absurd is to accuse ALL theists, most of them ordinary individuals who carry their belief in God(s) with them in their day-to-day lives, of being responsible for so much harm. It's absurd and it's insulting (haha - you know that though, that's why you do it).

Your point doesn't 'stand' I comprehensively rebutted it you are simply tried to handwave that rebuttal away. Saying it doesn't make it true (again, sorry to disappoint you).

For obvious reasons I don't take advice from concern trolls. Ah, and here we get to the last refuge of those who can't do any better - name calling. Inaccurate, yet amusingly ironic name-calling at that. That's made my day that one has :P .

Can I just reiterate - my point was that there are some people whose anger at the idea of God is such that I feel they, probably subconsciously, believe in God and are bitter that (S)He has not given them the life they feel they deserve. I'm not saying ALL atheists are like this, I can't say that being one myself.

I'd also like to make clear (probably futilely, Plekkie doesn't care what I actually mean) that I think that generally religion and faith are a force for good. The vast majority of work done by people who believe in God is in genuinely helping others. Not ALL Plek.. hear me? NOT ALL... but the majority.

So, thems was my opinions. Much as it disgusts me to leave the floor to such a person as Plek, I'm going to.

I was trying to explain myself in a way you'd understand. The post you trawled up from the depths was not accusing anyone of tantrums. I wrote it again in those terms because you are having (yet more) difficulties with comprehension.



Again, you are living in fantasy land. I certainly haven't accused all atheists of anger towards God. You are perfectly aware of this.



Those who simply discriminate may not be fundamentalists. But... you used another word in conjunction didn't you? Oh, how careless of you to miss it out! :hihi: And yes, those who use violence in the name of religion should be classed as fundamentalists.

But a slight aside .... In your world does every Indian Hindu discriminate against other religions? Does every person of faith discriminate? Is that why all faith is bad? And are you going to say that 'All men are bad' because some discriminate against women?



You state this as if the very questioning of the contents of the Bill were inherently wrong. Just because you may have supported the Bill doesn't make it inherently right (sorry to disappoint you there).

Yes.


Again, you put words where there were none. You tell me that I am pretending no harm is done by less fanatical theists...

What's absurd is to accuse ALL theists, most of them ordinary individuals who carry their belief in God(s) with them in their day-to-day lives, of being responsible for so much harm. It's absurd and it's insulting (haha - you know that though, that's why you do it).

Saying it doesn't make it true (again, sorry to disappoint you).

For obvious reasons I don't take advice from concern trolls. Ah, and here we get to the last refuge of those who can't do any better - name calling. Inaccurate, yet amusingly ironic name-calling at that. That's made my day that one has :P .

Can I just reiterate - my point was that there are some people whose anger at the idea of God is such that I feel they, probably subconsciously, believe in God and are bitter that (S)He has not given them the life they feel they deserve. I'm not saying ALL atheists are like this, I can't say that being one myself.

I'd also like to make clear (probably futilely, Plekkie doesn't care what I actually mean) that I think that generally religion and faith are a force for good. The vast majority of work done by people who believe in God is in genuinely helping others. Not ALL Plek.. hear me? NOT ALL... but the majority.

So, thems was my opinions. Much as it disgusts me to leave the floor to such a person as Plek, I'm going to.[/QUOTE]

But the athiest majority in this country can prove its not a 'caring' God.
Whats all the praying for in churches?:confused: