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

Seeings as it's you Jobs... All I was saying in the last bit was that the majority of people who GO to church to pray are pretty decent folk. I'm not trying to argue that God is caring, or even that God exists (I don't believe in God).

I've just come across a fair few 'angry' atheists (you know - the ones who take it personally) whom I've thought were closet believers. Otherwise why take it so personally?

Seeings as it's you Jobs... All I was saying in the last bit was that the majority of people who GO to church to pray are pretty decent folk. I'm not trying to argue that God is caring, or even that God exists (I don't believe in God).

I've just come across a fair few 'angry' atheists (you know - the ones who take it personally) whom I've thought were closet believers. Otherwise why take it so personally?

When I look at the whole 'organised' religion thing over the Ages. I cannot see what purpose it served. 'Most' people 'most' of the time were behaving themselves, indeed, ages ago they were virtual slaves, and had no choice.
Religion was forced on them [power for the sake of it]And even today most people are behaving themselves, most of the time. just me.:confused:

It kept people happy to be slaves, safe in the knowledge that heaven awaited them if only they did as they were told. Nowadays there's more choice in the matter for most people.

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.
You make contradictory statements and are wasting my time.

Sorry Grahame, you are wrong on every point you post on this thread. I have no urge to start the evolution debate from pre-O level level again. Try reading a text book rather than religious propoganda.

You say "science will prove the bible right" and do not believe in the evidence of evolution. This makes you a fundamentalist by most workable definitions

You are part of the reason why more people have rejected a belief in the supernatural.

I've just come across a fair few 'angry' atheists (you know - the ones who take it personally) whom I've thought were closet believers. Otherwise why take it so personally?

I'm angry about the things done in the name of god, as I am angry about things done in the name of racial superiority - but it does not mean I believe in either base concept.

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 feel sorry for "God" actually. All those whimpering, selfish life forms constantly asking for help and to sort their lives out for them, begging to keep their family safe etc.

If I was God, I wouldn't bother showing my face either, one because the needy would become more so, and also because I'd be so embarrassed that I'd created such a whining bunch of molecules!

Again, I'm not angry at "God", because Him/Her/It doesn't exist.

I'm angry at the way people use Him/Her/It as a scapegoat for their own misgivings. We call this RELIGION!

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.

Ha ha, thank you- I have hundreds of pictures like that. My other fave is a picture of Promethus having his liver eaten by an eagle and underneath it says:

"... and on Mount Caucasus he lay chained, with an eagle sent daily to consume his immortal liver, which was restored each succeeding night..."

PROMETHEUS- HE SUFFERED ZEUS' ETERNAL WRATH TO BRING YOU FIRE. WHAT DID JESUS DO AGAIN?

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.

You've still not answered the question - it may be true that a percentage of cancers are caused by man-made carcinogens however are you saying that for the ones man-made god doesn't care but for the random events causing cancer he does care but chooses to do nothing (also earthquakes and tsunami's)?

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)

Fundamentalists work within the framework of an established religion. Without the religious framework people wouldn't take it so seriously to the nth level of terrorism.

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.

I'd thank the Labour Government of 1945.

Science will prove the Bible correct.

What about volcanoes? The Bible specifically says that these are caused by God touching the earth. Science has proved this incorrect so is science now going to discover that it actually God touching the earth?:huh:

Jeremiah 51:25
"Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain."

Psalms 144:5
"Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke."

Psalms 104:32
"He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke."

There you have it- 3 indisputable claims by the Bible that volcanoes are caused by God reaching out and touching the earth. Care the refute it? If not why? And if not why shouldn't we take the Genesis story the same way? I.e. a load of old rubbish.

You've still not answered the question - it may be true that a percentage of cancers are caused by man-made carcinogens however are you saying that for the ones man-made god doesn't care but for the random events causing cancer he does care but chooses to do nothing (also earthquakes and tsunami's)?

I'm saying that you are trying to blame God for everything which for someone who doesn't believe in God is very strange indeed. :)

Christians know that bad things happen and ask God for help in overcoming them though our own efforts and the help and skill of others and if all fails then help in coming to terms with the situation.

.

What about volcanoes? The Bible specifically says that these are caused by God touching the earth. Science has proved this incorrect so is science now going to discover that it actually God touching the earth?:huh:
.

Hello Mercenary..

(Imagine a small green figure speaking)

"New to the ways of debating religion on SF are you. Evidence and rational argument are put to the godley ones, selectively ignore they do. Switch and change their arguements they do, qoute mine they do and cut and paste from US Creationists sources they think out in text they argue by"

Seriously...I think we should have some new rules as we are going round in circles- if you post an arguement about evolution, geology or indeed any science in relation to the bible, back it up with reference to species, academic article and date of research. I am really keen on moving away from the fact that Grahame et al seem to ignore both their own posts and arguements they have lost before, numerous times, when posting.

I will comply with this rule...hapily

HONK!

I'm saying that you are trying to blame God for everything which for someone who doesn't believe in God is very strange indeed. :)
.

Nope - you always argue that the fictional god/jesus is good for the world, but when pressed are not willing to discuss evidence.

What about volcanoes? The Bible specifically says that these are caused by God touching the earth. Science has proved this incorrect so is science now going to discover that it actually God touching the earth?:huh:

Psalms 104:32
"He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke."


The power of God is like the power of the volcano.

Here is what the Psalmist says in its context. He must have been on Sheffield Forum because he echoes my feelings as well.

Psa 104:31

“The glory of the LORD shall endure forever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.

Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.”


The Psalmist praises God who like any master craftsman looks on his work with pleasure and satisfaction. He likens the power of God to the power of volcanic eruption that can cause terrible destruction which we know is true.

As I have always said and as you will be able to testify, I have always attributed creation in all its beauty, power and majesty to the Almighty Creator and the Psalmist does the same, but unlike me the Psalmist goes on to say “Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more.” So please do not tell me you have not been warned. Meanwhile the Psalmist goes on rejoicing in the power and majesty of the Lord.

Nope - you always argue that the fictional god/jesus is good for the world, but when pressed are not willing to discuss evidence.

Jesus said to love our neighbour, by which he means the the wider world.

Please discuss. (without talking about science or evolution.)

The power of God is like the power of the volcano.

The power of the volcano is an observable fact, and subject to the laws of physics. It's cause can be speculated upon, and those theories tested against observable evidence.

The power of god exists only in the mind of the believer.

In what sense are they alike?

Hello Mercenary..

(Imagine a small green figure speaking)

"New to the ways of debating religion on SF are you. Evidence and rational argument are put to the godley ones, selectively ignore they do. Switch and change their arguements they do, qoute mine they do and cut and paste from US Creationists sources they think out in text they argue by"

Seriously...I think we should have some new rules as we are going round in circles- if you post an arguement about evolution, geology or indeed any science in relation to the bible, back it up with reference to species, academic article and date of research. I am really keen on moving away from the fact that Grahame et al seem to ignore both their own posts and arguements they have lost before, numerous times, when posting.

I will comply with this rule...hapily

HONK!

You think Christianity is about science, geology, and evolution. I cannot believe anyone could ever think that. What other weird ideas have you got?

Jesus said to love our neighbour, by which he means the the wider world.

Please discuss. (without talking about science or evolution.)

Sounds fine to me, but it's one verse out of the bible. A lot of the others are vile. Why do you hold this one to be worthy of singling out? And would you care to speculate why it is that many people calling themselves Christian ignore this bit of advice, or interpret 'neighbour' to mean 'other Christian fundamentalists'

The power of the volcano is an observable fact, and subject to the laws of physics. It's cause can be speculated upon, and those theories tested against observable evidence.

The power of god exists only in the mind of the believer.

In what sense are they alike?

The psalmist was likening the power of God to the power of the volcano.

As I have always said and as you will be able to testify, I have always attributed creation in all its beauty, power and majesty to the Almighty Creator and the Psalmist does the same, but unlike me the Psalmist goes on to say “Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more.” So please do not tell me you have not been warned. Meanwhile the Psalmist goes on rejoicing in the power and majesty of the Lord.

The bit you always evade is this -

The world is filled with beauty and majesty indeed - but it is equally filled with horror and woe: tidal waves that kill 10,000s, cancer and all the other random elements which affect the wicked and the good in even measures.

Take a step back - and try and answer the old (ancient Greek) question:

"If god is good and all powerful why does he not stop the vile things?
Either he cannot. therefore he is not all powerful, or he choses not to, which makes him wicked"

I have never heard a moraly or philosphically satisfying answer to this. And this is why I am not prepared to take myths at face value.

You think Christianity is about science, geology, and evolution. I cannot believe anyone could ever think that. What other weird ideas have you got?


Morality, human respect and philosphy - you cannot make decent arguements on these either. Sorry.

Jesus said to love our neighbour, by which he means the the wider world.

Please discuss. (without talking about science or evolution.)

This was lifted from other sources in the ancient world. Souces which included a better and more rounded moral position.

Jesus in the bible speaks of original sin and hell. Therefore he is not "Top of the Pops" in terms of ancient world thinkers...

The psalmist was likening the power of God to the power of the volcano.

I got that bit, I'm just not sure in what sense they can be compared; one is a physical phenomenon and the other isn't.

The bit you always evade is this -

The world is filled with beauty and majesty indeed - but it is equally filled with horror and woe: tidal waves that kill 10,000s, cancer and all the other random elements which affect the wicked and the good in even measures.

Take a step back - and try and answer the old (ancient Greek) question:

"If god is good and all powerful why does he not stop the vile things?
Either he cannot. therefore he is not all powerful, or he choses not to, which makes him wicked"

I have never heard a morall or philosphically satisfying answer to this. And this is why I am not prepared to take myths at face value.

The earth (cosmos) is not a benign place and we all know it, either that or we live in cloud cuckoo land. Then intelligent people say "It will never happen to me", so they build towns at the foot of volcanoes and they build large cities on volcanic fault lines and now apparently in England we are going to build large housing estates down south on known flood plains.

Then people who do not believe in God, blame God for allowing these things to happen. :loopy:

I just cannot get over the stupidity of people who call themselves scientists and make out they know better than everyone else. These people are a total and utter disgrace. And you have the gall to talk about Christians, who if they genuinely follow the teaching of Jesus only want a peaceful and harmonious life and I just cannot believe the tripe that non-Christians come out with.

It is not down to God, it is down to man's stupidity.

for someone who doesn't believe in God is very strange indeed. :)

Then replace "god" with mythical being:thumbsup:.

Also, just 'cause somebody uses the word "god", it doesn't necessarily follow that the believe in it.

You think Christianity is about science, geology, and evolution.

No.

It is yourself who continually tries to make a link between religion & scisnce, where clearly there isn't one:rolleyes:

The psalmist was likening the power of God to the power of the volcano.

Wrong again.

They mean exactly what they say (that volcanic eruptions are caused by "god" touching the earth - which is a falsehood - isn't one of the 10 "commandments" "thou shall not bear false witness.. Which is what you're doing).

Then people who do not believe in God, blame God for allowing these things to happen.

You're either ignorant, or foolish!

T intelligent people say "It will never happen to me", so they build towns at the foot of volcanoes and they build large cities on volcanic fault lines and now apparently in England we are going to build large housing estates down south on known flood plains.

Then people who do not believe in God, blame God for allowing these things to happen.

So the dodgy builder who put the earth together left faults behind (even though he said it was perfect) and it's man's fault if pressure on space means those areas get built on. Shame god couldn't reach out and touch the fault lines and fix them, but it's no doubt a huge consolations to the thousands who have died in the recent earthquake that he evidently couldn't be bothered.

What about the flood in Genesis - the bible is quite clear god caused that deliberately out of a petty grievance with his own creation. Or was that not his fault either?

The earth (cosmos) is not a benign place and we all know it, either that or we live in cloud cuckoo land. Then intelligent people say "It will never happen to me", so they build towns at the foot of volcanoes and they build large cities on volcanic fault lines and now apparently in England we are going to build large housing estates down south on known flood plains.

I just cannot get over the stupidity of people who call themselves scientists and make out they know better than everyone else. These people are a total and utter disgrace. And you have the gall to talk about Christians, who if they genuinely follow the teaching of Jesus only want a peaceful and harmonious life and I just cannot believe the tripe that non-Christians come out with.

It is not down to God, it is down to man's stupidity.

You cannot answer a question straight becuase your underpinning philosphy is not coherrent. That is why you call others stupid and use this icon far too often: :loopy:

For example:

You say that god should be praised for the beauty of creation in one post, then state in another: "The earth (cosmos) is not a benign place"

You accept that this is the case, then state that it is mankinds on fault for living near flood plains... so what about the rest of the faultless deaths? You never answer the question - because you cannot.

Cant you just see that the cosmos is not god created?

If you want to talk about morality or ethics I will do that as well - just so you cant keep insulting me (in your terms) by using the phrase "scientist"

Cheers!

The earth (cosmos) is not a benign place and we all know it, either that or we live in cloud cuckoo land. Then intelligent people say "It will never happen to me", so they build towns at the foot of volcanoes and they build large cities on volcanic fault lines and now apparently in England we are going to build large housing estates down south on known flood plains.

Then people who do not believe in God, blame God for allowing these things to happen. :loopy:

I just cannot get over the stupidity of people who call themselves scientists and make out they know better than everyone else. These people are a total and utter disgrace. And you have the gall to talk about Christians, who if they genuinely follow the teaching of Jesus only want a peaceful and harmonious life and I just cannot believe the tripe that non-Christians come out with.

It is not down to God, it is down to man's stupidity.

Please try to get your head around this, Grahame - atheists don't blame god for anything, because they don't believe in him. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to proclaim 100% that he doesn't exist, because it can't be proved, which is why I am prepared to engage in debate around his existence or otherwise, yet you speak of your faith as hard fact. The clue is in the word Grahame - faith.

One of the (many) reasons I don't believe, is that if he is this all round good egg you seem to think he is, he has a funny way of showing it. Yes, man is stupid, wicked, and all the things you proclaim them to be, but they are so regardless of their faith (or lack thereof) and it goes without saying the world would be a better place if we were all nicer to each other. But I also think it would be a nicer place if people didn't feel the need to turn to the supernatural as their impetus for doing so.

The bit you always evade is this -

The world is filled with beauty and majesty indeed - but it is equally filled with horror and woe: tidal waves that kill 10,000s, cancer and all the other random elements which affect the wicked and the good in even measures.

Take a step back - and try and answer the old (ancient Greek) question:

"If god is good and all powerful why does he not stop the vile things?
Either he cannot. therefore he is not all powerful, or he choses not to, which makes him wicked"

I have never heard a moraly or philosphically satisfying answer to this. And this is why I am not prepared to take myths at face value.

But we also know that this is not the whole story. Besides all these negative things, we also see beauty, health, prosperity, life, birth, wisdom, intelligence, growth and progress. We also see goodness among people, faith, sincerity, charity, love and the spirit of sacrifice. We also see a lot of virtue and piety. It is wrong to see one side of the coin and not to see the other side. Any philosophy that concentrates on one aspect of the creation and denies or ignores the other side is partially true and partial truths are no truth at all.

It is also the fact that the element of good is more in the creation than the element of evil. We all see that there are more people who are healthy than those who are sick. There are more that eat well than those who starve.

There are more that lead decent life than those who commit crimes. Goodness is the rule and evil is the exception. Virtue is the norm and sin is the aberration. Generally trees bear fruits, the flowers bloom, the winds move smoothly.

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.

Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin. Adolf Hitler endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.

Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918–20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided were enemies of the Soviet State. He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno. He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.

Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: [QUOTE]“Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.



Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. The theological seminary expelled Stalin at the age of 19 because of his revolutionary connections.

Stalin is regarded as the worst mass-murderer the world has ever seen. With God out of his way after embracing Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Stalin had no restrictions of conscience or morals. He set up a terrorist police State, persecuted and murdered innocent communists, and instituted trials in which most surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and were executed. He encouraged “Stalinist adoration,” which included naming cities after him (such as Stalingrad, Staliniri, and Stalinogorsk), and advocated homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print. He murdered Leon Trotsky.

Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many innocent victims flowed from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after reading and believing Darwin's evolutionary theories.

You can read some further info from this link: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/21soc02.htm

It is also the fact that the element of good is more in the creation than the element of evil. We all see that there are more people who are healthy than those who are sick. There are more that eat well than those who starve.

.


This is not actually true - at many times in human history and in many places today, far more children are born than reach pubity. Indeed evolution (sorry to bring it up) is driven by

Minute variations in species
+
Far,far more young being born than grow to reach an age where they can reproduce
=
natural selection

And, with respect due, your arguement supports a natural universe, more than a defence of a belief in a creator. Bad things happen to the good and pious, good luck befalls the wicked and the wroger doer - in pretty much equal measures.

If there were some giant super god out there - I believe the universe would different... .

But we also know that this is not the whole story. Besides all these negative things, we also see beauty, health, prosperity, life, birth, wisdom, intelligence, growth and progress. We also see goodness among people, faith, sincerity, charity, love and the spirit of sacrifice. We also see a lot of virtue and piety. It is wrong to see one side of the coin and not to see the other side. Any philosophy that concentrates on one aspect of the creation and denies or ignores the other side is partially true and partial truths are no truth at all.

It is also the fact that the element of good is more in the creation than the element of evil. We all see that there are more people who are healthy than those who are sick. There are more that eat well than those who starve.

There are more that lead decent life than those who commit crimes. Goodness is the rule and evil is the exception. Virtue is the norm and sin is the aberration. Generally trees bear fruits, the flowers bloom, the winds move smoothly.

None of which require a "god":thumbsup:

[...]
You can read some further info from this link: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/21soc02.htm

You can do, if you're prepared to wade through pages of fundamentalist nonsense from some shady organisation based in Tennessee who don't provide any information or contact details (beyond a comments form) on their home page.

Mmmm, nice.

You can read some further info from this link: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/21soc02.htm


Bazooka - at it again!

If we are debating religion, it is better to qoute from other sources than creationist propoganda websites!

This website is full of rubbish, including pages of stuff on how Harry Potter books brainwash kids with the power of Satan - and even a page suggesting that kids in church abuse cases "are making it up"

You think Christianity is about science, geology, and evolution. I cannot believe anyone could ever think that. What other weird ideas have you got?

But you say that science will prove the Bible. As such, science would then have to become part of Christianity.

As I have stated before, science is already mentioned in the Bible. Noah had to use it to build his ark. Or was that God again?

a page suggesting that kids in church abuse cases "are making it up"

Now that, just proves how sick some religionists are:|

Now that, just proves how sick some religionists are:|

I just spent a happy five minutes on the abortion pages.

What a horrible, horrible website.

I just spent a happy five minutes on the abortion pages.
What a horrible, horrible website.

Yes, it is a vile christian site.

However - the geology, biology and science stuff is funny in a compelling way:

"The sedimentary strata (also called fossil-bearing strata or "the geologic column") were laid down at the time of the Flood. There are no fossils in the granite, for that rock was formed prior to the Flood."

Bazooka - are you following these posts?

Sorry - last qoute from Bazooka's link

"FOSSIL PLACEMENT—The slowest-moving creatures were buried first; after that, the faster-moving ones. As the waters of the worldwide deluge rose higher and still higher, they first covered the slowest-moving water creatures and buried them under sediment.

Then the slower-moving land creatures were covered and buried under sediment. Then the more agile creatures (both water and land) were covered. In the fossil-bearing sedimentary strata we frequently find this arrangement, with the smaller creatures in the lower strata and the larger ones higher up."

:o

Have you seen the Mormon cartoon on YouTube?

It's quite horrendous. The Mormon leaders tried to get it banned from public viewing, but it's horrific what it preaches.

Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin. <snip>

You and the psychopaths mentioned above all fail to understand that the theory of evolution contains NO/NIL/ZERO guidelines on morality, ethics or politics. Unsophisticated ignorance and expediency led them to be morally influenced by a theory that makes no moral claims.

Conversely the morality and ethics of believers in a particular theory has no bearing on the truth of that theory.

For example if some future psychopath wants to create a race of identical clones because Quantum Theory says energy moves around in fixed size packets then we shall likewise say they are fools.

You can do, if you're prepared to wade through pages of fundamentalist nonsense from some shady organisation based in Tennessee who don't provide any information or contact details (beyond a comments form) on their home page.

Mmmm, nice.

Someone sent me it- but it doesn't change the way these people were and what they held as a system- much of it influenced by Darwinism as per my post . There are evil people in both religious and non religious sectors- that I agree on!

Someone sent me it- but it doesn't change the way these people were and what they held as a system- much of it influenced by Darwinism as per my post . There are evil people in both religious and non religious sectors- that I agree on!

My bold - it does, though, Bazooka.

I don't know enough about either Trotsky or Hitler to argue the point, but if you can't trust a source then the information is as good as useless.

That website is beyond biased - it is frothing at the mouth.

Someone sent me it- but it doesn't change the way these people were and what they held as a system- much of it influenced by Darwinism as per my post . There are evil people in both religious and non religious sectors- that I agree on!

I am afraid you are wrong on a couple of grounds

I could go in to the huge debate about Hitlers links with the churches etc, but the bottom line is that evolution, despite how much it upsets the applecart of religion is science, not morality.

Evil people also believe in Boyles Law, and may respect the science behind it, and even use his science to make weapons...

Also - I would be careful, and it makes me alarmed that your freinds send you links to such hate filled sites as the one you linked to.., what else are they sending immpresionable minds???

As I keep saying - on any issue: science, history, politics, art - look for as impartial views as possible - not ones from religious nutters!

The power of God is like the power of the volcano.

Here is what the Psalmist says in its context. He must have been on Sheffield Forum because he echoes my feelings as well.

Psa 104:31

“The glory of the LORD shall endure forever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.

Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.”


The Psalmist praises God who like any master craftsman looks on his work with pleasure and satisfaction. He likens the power of God to the power of volcanic eruption that can cause terrible destruction which we know is true.

As I have always said and as you will be able to testify, I have always attributed creation in all its beauty, power and majesty to the Almighty Creator and the Psalmist does the same, but unlike me the Psalmist goes on to say “Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more.” So please do not tell me you have not been warned. Meanwhile the Psalmist goes on rejoicing in the power and majesty of the Lord.

Yes but that is your interpretation- other Christian's will see it a different way. This is the problem, if you take the bible literally then your crazy. If its all stories then you're not a Christian. If you pick and choose then inevitably others will disagree with you in which case the whole thing is pointless.

The earth (cosmos) is not a benign place and we all know it, either that or we live in cloud cuckoo land. Then intelligent people say "It will never happen to me", so they build towns at the foot of volcanoes and they build large cities on volcanic fault lines and now apparently in England we are going to build large housing estates down south on known flood plains.

Then people who do not believe in God, blame God for allowing these things to happen. :loopy:

I just cannot get over the stupidity of people who call themselves scientists and make out they know better than everyone else. These people are a total and utter disgrace. And you have the gall to talk about Christians, who if they genuinely follow the teaching of Jesus only want a peaceful and harmonious life and I just cannot believe the tripe that non-Christians come out with.

It is not down to God, it is down to man's stupidity.

:confused:People who don't believe in God don't blame things on God otherwise it would be a contracdiction and contradictions can not exist in reality. Once again, if you have any evidence of this please share it with the group but I seriously doubt you'll find an atheist saying that they blame God for something because that would make them a theist by definition.

But we also know that this is not the whole story. Besides all these negative things, we also see beauty, health, prosperity, life, birth, wisdom, intelligence, growth and progress. We also see goodness among people, faith, sincerity, charity, love and the spirit of sacrifice. We also see a lot of virtue and piety. It is wrong to see one side of the coin and not to see the other side. Any philosophy that concentrates on one aspect of the creation and denies or ignores the other side is partially true and partial truths are no truth at all.

It is also the fact that the element of good is more in the creation than the element of evil. We all see that there are more people who are healthy than those who are sick. There are more that eat well than those who starve.

There are more that lead decent life than those who commit crimes. Goodness is the rule and evil is the exception. Virtue is the norm and sin is the aberration. Generally trees bear fruits, the flowers bloom, the winds move smoothly.


Every single point you have made can be explained logically without the aid of a sky-god/fairy/Allah/Thor etc.

I am afraid you are wrong on a couple of grounds

I could go in to the huge debate about Hitlers links with the churches etc, but the bottom line is that evolution, despite how much it upsets the applecart of religion is science, not morality.



Ok as I said earlier- evil exists in the world from both sectors; but we can't blame God can we? I mean, there is good and evil - and humans have free will to do as they please- we are not 'programmed' to do only one. There are two sides of the coin. Good in this world cannot exist without bad, as they are two sides of the same coin, and both are relative concepts. For instance, to give money to a beggar is good work; but this is possible only when someone is begging, which is a negative thing. That is to say, you have a chance to do good work only when there is a need, which in itself is “evil”, or at any rate not “good”. You replace that evil or the absence of good with good. The imperfections and shortcomings of this world provide ample opportunities for you to make efforts for improvement; and this makes our lives and work meaningful.

I have alot of respect for you Mr Goose (as I have stated before) as you put matters across very politely. I also support science a great deal and balance the two (where science agrees with my beliefs)- I do want to ask one Q. and that is: science tells us that life cannot originate from inanimate matter (non living organism), looking at this, it evolutionism would go against the Law of Thermodynamics would it not? That life only comes from life. I would like any feedback on this. Thanks

I also support science a great deal and balance the two (where science agrees with my beliefs)- I do want to ask one Q. and that is: science tells us that life cannot originate from inanimate matter (non living organism), looking at this, it evolutionism would go against the Law of Thermodynamics would it not? That life only comes from life. I would like any feedback on this. Thanks

If you only support science when it agrees with your beliefs then it doesn't sound like you are using a very scientific approach. How do you cope when science and your beliefs disagree but there is more evidence for the scientific view?

The Second Law of thermodynamics applies only in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, is is powered by the sun.

Why wont you answer this Grahame???

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. :cool:

Ok as I said earlier- evil exists in the world from both sectors; but we can't blame God can we? I mean, there is good and evil - and humans have free will to do as they please- we are not 'programmed' to do only one. There are two sides of the coin. Good in this world cannot exist without bad, as they are two sides of the same coin, and both are relative concepts. For instance, to give money to a beggar is good work; but this is possible only when someone is begging, which is a negative thing. That is to say, you have a chance to do good work only when there is a need, which in itself is “evil”, or at any rate not “good”. You replace that evil or the absence of good with good. The imperfections and shortcomings of this world provide ample opportunities for you to make efforts for improvement; and this makes our lives and work meaningful.

It's not about looking at it in terms of good and evil- it is just actions. Morailty and virtues such as being nice to others and not murdering, stealing etc have come about because communities who had these traits survived. It is the best way to farm and trade. If everyone went around killing each other for food and supplies humans couldn't survive. In terms of Christianity, its not like JC turned up and revolutionised everything. That had always been the best way to live but in the ancient days communites, states, empires etc had to implement the laws against murder etc and had harsh punishments to deter it.

science tells us that life cannot originate from inanimate matter (non living organism), looking at this, it evolutionism would go against the Law of Thermodynamics would it not? That life only comes from life. I would like any feedback on this. Thanks

1. This is actually a good question and it is true that the start of life from "inanimate matter" is a hot research topic. While there is a lot about "abiogenesis" (to give it a proper title) that is currently unknown, but investigating the unknown is what makes science interesting. I'm not so read up on this one (as it has nothing to do with evolution really)

Anyhow - a lot of scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, follwoing a quick surf, I would suggest you try looking up the following:

Formation of long proteins from inorganics (Rode 1999);
Synthesis of complex molecules (Kuzicheva 1999);
Synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody 2002)

There are loads of refs on ammonia compounds in space etc (around some Jovian moons IIRC)

There is a chapter on abiogenesis in Dawkins latest pop book (which is based in clays and replicators)

2. The first question in your post is actually another creationist myth - qouting the Law of Thermodynamics is poor logic - as this law applies to closed systems (which do exhibit increasing entropy) but the earth's ecosystem is not closed.

If you only support science when it agrees with your beliefs then it doesn't sound like you are using a very scientific approach. How do you cope when science and your beliefs disagree but there is more evidence for the scientific view?The Second Law of thermodynamics applies only in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, is is powered by the sun.


I have not seen anything that contradicts my belief and that from a scientific view- i don't believe the fact we evolved from nothing (or are ancestor of homo erectus or whatever) but accept evolution happens (as stated in earlier posts). I am not christian by the way.

I have not seen anything that contradicts my belief and that from a scientific view- i don't believe the fact we evolved from nothing (or are ancestor of homo erectus or whatever) but accept evolution happens (as stated in earlier posts). I am not christian by the way.

This is what I was getting at - it seems you can't deny evolution happens here and now as there is irrefutable evidence that it does.

The evidence for evolution millions of years ago is - naturally - less than perfect, but nonetheless pretty good. It seems that in this case you side with your beliefs.

It is interesting that you accept evolution happens, but not that mankind has evolved - I posted a link yesterday showing that the physiology of lizards has been shown to evolve hugely in only 34 years - to the extent that their head shape and digestive tract has completely changed. What evidence do you have to support your belief that mankind hasn't evolved from other hominids in the relatively massive time scale available?

I know you're not a Christian, btw, and I never suggested you are - but as you are lumping all atheists in together I'm lumping all theists in together - I'm not really interested in making distinctions between one imaginary being and another! :hihi:

I have not seen anything that contradicts my belief and that from a scientific view- i don't believe the fact we evolved from nothing (or are ancestor of homo erectus or whatever) but accept evolution happens (as stated in earlier posts). .

Just to push this one - DNA evidence says we evolved from fish and before that microbes -

How does this fit with the Adam and Eve story (which I know is in both Christian and Islamic creation stories) ?

MG

If you only support science when it agrees with your beliefs then it doesn't sound like you are using a very scientific approach. How do you cope when science and your beliefs disagree but there is more evidence for the scientific view?

The Second Law of thermodynamics applies only in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, is is powered by the sun.
I was refering to the fact that systems become more disordered over time yet evolutionists state that opposite effect has taken place over time without energy directed?

However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
Also the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

:confused:People who don't believe in God don't blame things on God otherwise it would be a contracdiction and contradictions can not exist in reality. Once again, if you have any evidence of this please share it with the group but I seriously doubt you'll find an atheist saying that they blame God for something because that would make them a theist by definition.

I'm afraid atheists blame God for just about everything, I have been hearing it all my life, "Why does God allow this, why does God allow such and such" Here is one from this thread

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3614903&postcount=724

.

Just to push this one - DNA evidence says we evolved from fish and before that microbes -

How does this fit with the Adam and Eve story (which I know is in both Christian and Islamic creation stories) ?

MG

The Adam and Eve (from a muslim prespective) is something which tells us that we did not evolve- that God created Adam and his progeny from fluid (sperm) but Adam was created from dust, (or clay to be precise)and water (like a mixture).

All the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam agree on one basic fact: Both men and women are created by God. But the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that Satan appeared in the form of a serpent before Eve and tempted her to eat from the forbidden tree and that it was Eve who seduced Adam to eat with her. According to the Genesis story, God rebuked Adam for what he did, but the latter put all the blame on Eve: “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it” (Genesis 3:12).

Why wont you answer this Grahame???

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. :cool:

We were not created automations, we have minds of our own and our own failings are down to us, not God, you see you are blaming God again and yet you don't believe in Him. How strange. Just remember that leaving God out of things for a moment, there are natural laws and there are consequences that naturally follow as sure as night follows day.

All the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam agree on one basic fact: Both men and women are created by God.

There is another thing that the three religions you mentioned share in common, and that is that they are all wrong:|

There is another thing that the three religions you mentioned share in common, and that is that they are all wrong:|

And these followers will think the same about what athiests believe- to a certain degree of course. Sccsux its like one big circle- one says prove this and the other says prove that and it goes round and round-

And these followers will think the same about what athiests believe- to a certain degree of course. Sccsux its like one big circle- one says prove this and the other says prove that and it goes round and round-

Exactly, which is why I don't really care what people believe. I only get "bothered" when people tell me I'm wrong because I don't share those beliefs:thumbsup:.

Exactly, which is why I don't really care what people believe. I only get "bothered" when people tell me I'm wrong because I don't share those beliefs:thumbsup:.

I agree. I think there is debating and then there is arrogance and single mindedness. I prefer the first. Some are convinced of what they hold to be the absolute truth based on what I call blind worship- they see only ONE thing. Whilst others (i include myself in here) are prepared to look at the bigger picture and then deduce what makes sense and agrees with what they held initially- if it did not, I would be the first to keep searching..

Personally, I just want people to be nice (we are all human and bleed the same colour).

Personally, I just want people to be nice

Which is the way it should be. I just wish more people had the same outlook.


we are all human and bleed the same colour

Except royalty, oh, and politicians:hihi:.

I'm afraid atheists blame God for just about everything, I have been hearing it all my life, "Why does God allow this, why does God allow such and such" Here is one from this thread

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3614903&postcount=724

.

Grahame, are you actually serious? Atheists ask those question to theists as examples to show that God can not exist.

And these followers will think the same about what athiests believe- to a certain degree of course. Sccsux its like one big circle- one says prove this and the other says prove that and it goes round and round-

The purden of proof rests on those who claim them, not those who deny it is nonsense.

Grahame, are you actually serious? Atheists ask those question to theists as examples to show that God can not exist.

It is hard to find examples at the drop of a hat and to be honest I couldn't be bothered. :)

It is hard to find examples at the drop of a hat and to be honest I couldn't be bothered. :)

Its not a case of finding them- they don't exist. If someone blames God for something then they believe in God and therefore aren't atheists- it is a contradiction.

Its not a case of finding them- they don't exist. If someone blames God for something then they believe in God and therefore aren't atheists- it is a contradiction.

Suit yourself. Contradiction is what I was saying.

.

Suit yourself. Contradiction is what I was saying.

.

Now I think you are actually trolling. If not let me explain again.

a·the·ist: noun. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Explain how someone who does not believe in a supreme being can blame one for anything. It would be like you blaming Santa Claus for the earthquake in China.

I'm saying that you are trying to blame God for everything which for someone who doesn't believe in God is very strange indeed. :)

Christians know that bad things happen and ask God for help in overcoming them though our own efforts and the help and skill of others and if all fails then help in coming to terms with the situation.

.

Ok Grahame this is the last time im gona ask cause i cant be bothered with your avoidance of the question so -

it may be true that a percentage of the worlds suffering is caused by man-made actions however are you saying that for the ones man-made god doesn't care but for the random events causing suffering (that he knows are going to happen) he does care but chooses to do nothing e.g. earthquakes and tsunami's?

Please answer the questions directly. :)

Ok Grahame this is the last time im gona ask cause i cant be bothered with your avoidance of the question so -

it may be true that a percentage of the worlds suffering is caused by man-made actions however are you saying that for the ones man-made god doesn't care but for the random events causing suffering (that he knows are going to happen) he does care but chooses to do nothing e.g. earthquakes and tsunami's?

Please answer the questions directly. :)

Everything has a cause and God cares, He cares for each and everyone of us. Your problem is that you are making your own rules.

There are two causes of tragedy one is man made, road accidents, war, and drugs, to give only three examples. The second cause is natural, two of which would be volcanic eruption and earthquakes that divide the land from the sea and form new land mass. Without these things happening we wouldn't have the world we have today. Death, decay, and regrowth is what Mr. Goose calls evolution, I call it creation but there we are.

Either way that is the way the world is made and to try to say the natural world should be different is not a possibility. Rain falls and causes land-slides and flooding, snow falls and there are avalanches. To say God should change the natural order of things especially coming from someone who does not believe in God is silly talk imo.

I was refering to the fact that systems become more disordered over time yet evolutionists state that opposite effect has taken place over time without energy directed?

However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
Also the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.


My friend - this is another cut and paste... and it again reads like creationism. It mixes up several logical constructs, uses a strawman argument and, is, well, just plain wrong.

Lets pull it appart...

1. "Systems become more disordered over time yet evolutionists state that opposite effect has taken place over time without energy directed"

Closed systems can become more disordered - but life in detail, and the earth's "system" is not closed. If systems become more disordered over time we would not have snowflakes.... they are complexity from simplicity.

2. "However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system."

Well, here is a surprise - old creatures die - and new ones are born. The closed system=entropy argument is false if taken to ad absurdium. The universe is one big system - and we expect, and see fluctations of lesser and more order.

3. "Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan."

Ah, an old creationist fib. The bottom line is that complexity (or simplicity) can, and does arise (snowflakes, ripples on sand dunes) and yet is in a flux. Is there a careful hand designing each snowflake? Nope. Chemistry

I forgot

4. "Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law."

This line mixes so many lines of debate that I don't think you need it answering. Unless of course you want to talk also about chaos, string theory and dark matter as well. Also I could say "to say the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into brain tumours with 5 trillion cells is a clear violation of the Second Law"


:)
Bazooka - maybe we could do a charity event - you find a 100 creationist claims about science, and for each one I pull down (plek may help) you give 10p to charity, and for all those I cant pull down I donate £100 to charity.

Or perhaps I should say £1,000 per creationist claim that stands up :)

There are two causes of tragedy one is man made, road accidents, war, and drugs, to give only three examples. The second cause is natural, two of which would be volcanic eruption and earthquakes that divide the land from the sea and form new land mass. Without these things happening we wouldn't have the world we have today. Death, decay, and regrowth is what Mr. Goose calls evolution, I call it creation but there we are.




Hmmm this logically means that you accept that cancer and other genetic disorders is a natural part of the way evolution works.

This also means - to use your "part of creation" arguement, is that god designed our DNA this way.

This means he is a spiteful f****r, because we could have been designed with stable DNA copying mechanisms.

The normal defence to this line is that "Satan caused this because of the fall", but I assume that even you are too embarresed about this part of the christian belief.

PS
Not bothering to respnd to my earlier posts? Thought not.

Hmmm this logically means that you accept that cancer and other genetic disorders is a natural part of the way evolution works.

This also means - to use your "part of creation" arguement, is that god designed our DNA this way.

This means he is a spiteful f****r, because we could have been designed with stable DNA copying mechanisms.

The normal defence to this line is that "Satan caused this because of the fall", but I assume that even you are too embarresed about this part of the christian belief.

PS
Not bothering to respnd to my earlier posts? Thought not.

It means we die which you say is the natural order of evolution. There is nothing spiteful about it, you and all the other atheists make things up to suit yourselfs which is why it is such a crackpot feeble excuse to try to explain away the Almighty.

And that is why I have you on my ignore list.

EDIT.
If DNA fails and you say it does, this would explain the longevity of early man who would not have had the defects and also the failure of the species to survive in which case life on the planet must have been by the creative act rather than through a failed system of DNA replication which you admit to.

Please try to get your head around this, Grahame - atheists don't blame god for anything, because they don't believe in him. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to proclaim 100% that he doesn't exist, because it can't be proved, which is why I am prepared to engage in debate around his existence or otherwise, yet you speak of your faith as hard fact. The clue is in the word Grahame - faith.

One of the (many) reasons I don't believe, is that if he is this all round good egg you seem to think he is, he has a funny way of showing it. Yes, man is stupid, wicked, and all the things you proclaim them to be, but they are so regardless of their faith (or lack thereof) and it goes without saying the world would be a better place if we were all nicer to each other. But I also think it would be a nicer place if people didn't feel the need to turn to the supernatural as their impetus for doing so.

Now here's a post I can definitely agree with. At last.

Now here's a post I can definitely agree with. At last.

You wouldn't believe the number of atheists who have said to me "Why has God allowed this, why did he let that happen?" Two examples off the top of my head only because I had connections with both places was the Aberfan disaster, and when a neighbour was was changing the wheel on their car and they let the jack down not knowing their baby had crawled underneath, and you can guess the consequences and there wasn't a mark on the baby.

Believe you me people accuse God of everything. I used to get people saying it all the time when something terrible happened, I would be in their house doing my job and talking about the weather as you do, or anything that crops up, never ever talking about religion, I was at work, and whenever something terrible happened people would say, "Why does God allow these things to happen. It is just something that people say like "My God" firstly He isn't their God and secondly they do not believe in Him. People say the silliest things, you don't have to believe me but I can assure you I am not lying to you.

So, the next time something terrible happens, none of you are going to blame God are you. Because I will hold you to that.

So there you are ps201acm. You have had two very full and direct answers. God does not cause disasters. Got it? And because of the trouble you have put me to I am putting you on my ignore list so do not expect anything further from me.

It means we die which you say is the natural order of evolution. There is nothing spiteful about it, you and all the other atheists make things up to suit yourselfs which is why it is such a crackpot feeble excuse to try to explain away the Almighty.

If DNA fails and you say it does, this would explain the longevity of early man who would not have had the defects and also the failure of the species to survive in which case life on the planet must have been by the creative act rather than through a failed system of DNA replication which you admit to.

I think Grahame has now finally conceded he cannot maintain an argument of any substance. However, as a parting shots;

1. Grahame seems unable to understand the points many people are making - ie that we don't get angry at his imagininary god for designing in things like bowel cancer and cystic fibrosis, we are challenging him to explain why a deity would logically do this if they were "good"


2. Neutral readers may be interested that when Grahame speaks of "the longevity of early man" he refers to the creationist/fundamentalist belief that some old testament characters lived to 600 or so.

While we can all laugh, I am not going to bother debating this point - as what will happen is that Grahame will call me "silly" or "crackpot" and ignore any points that the more enlightened posters make.

If DNA fails and you say it does, this would explain the longevity of early man who would not have had the defects and also the failure of the species to survive in which case life on the planet must have been by the creative act rather than through a failed system of DNA replication which you admit to.

Obviously this is nonsense - nobody lived for 900 years, even if the bible says they did.

However, just to refute your argument from a more logical standpoint (for completeness) if DNA were deteriorating as you seem to be suggesting it would indicate that your god was a bit lax when he created DNA.

One would also expect the deterioration to continue, which even over the 6000 year timespan for life on earth that creationists allow would mean our DNA would be fairly knackered by now, given than over the course of the bible people go from living 900 years to about 60. By now we'd be living about 5 minutes.

Or would you claim that god has stepped in and sort of fixed our DNA so we don't all die as soon as we are born, but was too busy causing natural disasters to fix it so we don't suffer from genetic disease at all?

Just to clarify, as you seem to (wilfully?) confuse questions about your beliefs with the beliefs of people asking questions - I don't believe any of this, but your statement implies that you might believe some or all of it to be true, hence my questions to you.

Obviously this is nonsense - nobody lived for 900 years, even if the bible says they did.



Hasn't that got something to do with calculating how long the years actually were i.e. they didn't have as many months, the records weren't as accurate etc.

I'm not sure - maybe. I've always understood it to mean 'year' in the generally understood sense, and it doesn't stand out as the most ridiculous thing in the bible!

Do some people claim that 'year' doesn't mean 'year' in this context?

I'm not sure - maybe. I've always understood it to mean 'year' in the generally understood sense, and it doesn't stand out as the most ridiculous thing in the bible!

Do some people claim that 'year' doesn't mean 'year' in this context?

I know that some months were added over time:

September was the 7th month
October was the 8th month
December was the 10th month

etc.

I know that some months were added over time:

September was the 7th month
October was the 8th month
December was the 10th month

etc.

But surely they measured years by seasons and then named blocks of time within that (and not originally using Latin/Greek names)?

I can see there may have been fewer months in a year, but surely a year (the time between one harvest and the next, or one rainy season and the next, or whatever) would be the same?

You wouldn't believe the number of atheists who have said to me "Why has God allowed this, why did he let that happen?" Two examples off the top of my head only because I had connections with both places was the Aberfan disaster, and when a neighbour was was changing the wheel on their car and they let the jack down not knowing their baby had crawled underneath, and you can guess the consequences and there wasn't a mark on the baby.

Believe you me people accuse God of everything. I used to get people saying it all the time when something terrible happened, I would be in their house doing my job and talking about the weather as you do, or anything that crops up, never ever talking about religion, I was at work, and whenever something terrible happened people would say, "Why does God allow these things to happen. It is just something that people say like "My God" firstly He isn't their God and secondly they do not believe in Him. People say the silliest things, you don't have to believe me but I can assure you I am not lying to you.

So, the next time something terrible happens, none of you are going to blame God are you. Because I will hold you to that.

So there you are ps201acm. You have had two very full and direct answers. God does not cause disasters. Got it? And because of the trouble you have put me to I am putting you on my ignore list so do not expect anything further from me.

See post #822. It is impossible to blame God if you don't believe in him. When atheists say 'why would God let this happen' they are pointing out how daft the idea of God is.

See post #822. It is impossible to blame God if you don't believe in him. When atheists say 'why would God let this happen' they are pointing out how daft the idea of God is.

I second this statement!

So there you are ps201acm. You have had two very full and direct answers. God does not cause disasters. Got it? And because of the trouble you have put me to I am putting you on my ignore list so do not expect anything further from me.

Being on your ignore list is a badge of honour for logical thinkers. It means that reasoning has affected you so much that you don't actually have an answer for us! Logic United 1-0 Invisible, Evidence-less sky God FC.

But surely they measured years by seasons and then named blocks of time within that (and not originally using Latin/Greek names)?

I can see there may have been fewer months in a year, but surely a year (the time between one harvest and the next, or one rainy season and the next, or whatever) would be the same?

I reckon that'd depend on the location though.

Lots of countries don't have seasons like we do. Without more study in to geology and meteorology (summat like that anyway) and how they've both altered over time, and in different areas of the world, a year may have been different lengths in different countries.

Just my theory.

As this thread has shown, a key trait of Fundamentalists (and psychopathic dictators) is:

The End justifies the Means.

The fundamentalist’s “End” is everyone believing the same as them.

Their “Means” can often be, lying, bearing false witness, purposefully misunderstanding, ignoring difficult questions, excommunication (putting people on ignore), threats of eternal damnation etc.

I’d say non-fundamentalists, and especially the atheists on here, try their hardest to use impartial sources, to get to the truth of the matter, to be open about why they believe what they do. For instance I can’t imagine seeing the phrase “I don’t have to justify my atheism to you” on this thread :)

So there you are ps201acm. You have had two very full and direct answers. God does not cause disasters. Got it? And because of the trouble you have put me to I am putting you on my ignore list so do not expect anything further from me.

There won't be anyone who isn't on your ignore list, soon, Grahame.

(ps, my dad is an atheist, and a vehement atheist at that. When my mother died, after 2 1/2 years in a coma after the brain haemmorage, my dad's response was "How can you say there's a God of love? I can't believe there can be a God of love, if He can allow your mother to suffer like she did...")

people would say, "Why does God allow these things to happen. It is just something that people say like "My God" firstly He isn't their God and secondly they do not believe in Him.

Are you not one of the Christians that believes god is god of all, whether we chose to believe in him or not?

So, the next time something terrible happens, none of you are going to blame God are you. Because I will hold you to that.

DISCLAIMER - I do not believe in god.

If you don't think god causes disasters, who or what does, and why do you, as someone who believes in god, believe that he allows them to happen, given that they end the lives of innocents, believers and sinners arbitrarily and that you believe it to be in his power to stop them?

Are you not one of the Christians that believes god is god of all, whether we chose to believe in him or not?

DISCLAIMER - I do not believe in god.

If you don't think god causes disasters, who or what does, and why do you, as someone who believes in god, believe that he allows them to happen, given that they end the lives of innocents, believers and sinners arbitrarily and that you believe it to be in his power to stop them?

(My bold) Me either.

Disasters may cause the deaths of sinners and the saved seemingly arbitrarily, but who are we as humans to question the will and comprehension of God? That last point is slightly off topic but pertinent to any questioning of God's action/inaction.

The true reasons that God 'allows' this is (as I see it) that whilst a life on Earth can be filled with 'unfair' suffering or unpunished sinning, the reality is that 60 years of life is as a picosecond, less even - it is so short a time as to be no time at all - compared to the eternal suffering of damnation or eternal bliss of salvation that await each one of us after our deaths.

Suffering of others is impossible to quantify (sometimes I wonder whether a God could be programming us to see suffering in others as very real, but not allowing the reality of the suffering to actually occur... if ya get what I mean) we can only experience our own suffering. It is up to the individual to decide whether that suffering is a test of their faith or a punishment for their sins.

As I said - I'm atheist... I just like looking at the other point of view. :P

As I said - I'm atheist... I just like looking at the other point of view. :P

Doesn't that make you agnostic, as it seems, from you're posts, that you're unsure as to whether there is a God or not. You just don't say it in so many words.

Disasters may cause the deaths of sinners and the saved seemingly arbitrarily, but who are we as humans to question the will and comprehension of God?

I can't question the motivation of something I believe not to exist. I would counter that as creators of god, believers ought to be asking themselves why the god of their creation allows/commands such things, but as they don't seem to ask themselves, I ask them instead.


The true reasons that God 'allows' this is (as I see it) that whilst a life on Earth can be filled with 'unfair' suffering or unpunished sinning, the reality is that 60 years of life is as a picosecond, less even - it is so short a time as to be no time at all - compared to the eternal suffering of damnation or eternal bliss of salvation that await each one of us after our deaths.

The reality is that 60 years of life (I'm hoping for more, to be honest...) is all I am going to get.

(sometimes I wonder whether a God could be programming us to see suffering in others as very real, but not allowing the reality of the suffering to actually occur... if ya get what I mean) we can only experience our own suffering

When I cracked my head on a lintel, my suffering was very apparent both to be me and those who saw it, so the evidence is against this theory (having allowed the possibility of god - obviously I don't think it is true because I don't believe in god - it's tedious having to keep saying that, but necessary it seems!)

I think this argument would be an objectionable way to absent yourself from any moral responsibility (perhaps the Nazis believed the Jews not be suffering?) even if it had any shred of credibility.

Doesn't that make you agnostic, as it seems, from you're posts, that you're unsure as to whether there is a God or not. You just don't say it in so many words.

Haha - I'm secure enough in my atheism that I don't need to worry about proving it. Unlike some. ;)

I can't question the motivation of something I believe not to exist. I would counter that as creators of god, believers ought to be asking themselves why the god of their creation allows/commands such things, but as they don't seem to ask themselves, I ask them instead.

I wasn't asking you to question the motivation. But you can't ask a believer who thinks that questioning God is tantamount to heresy.. to question God. Y'see? They'll just answer 'We can't question God - he is omniscient and we can know nothing compared to him'. Think of it like a small child asking an alien 'What are the mechanics of that warp drive?'... only times a million in terms of ability to grasp the concepts.. (Bad analogy, a decent alien would be able to use images and analogies to get the basics across... but do you see what I'm trying to say?)



The reality is that 60 years of life (I'm hoping for more, to be honest...) is all I am going to get.

I wish I could say different... but I can't.



When I cracked my head on a lintel, my suffering was very apparent both to be me and those who saw it, so the evidence is against this theory (having allowed the possibility of god - obviously I don't think it is true because I don't believe in god - it's tedious having to keep saying that, but necessary it seems!)

There's no evidence... it's the old theory that maybe we're just a simulation in a huge program and the only sensory inputs we get have been artificially created. If it's true it makes no difference really - we MUST live our lives as if they are real (one of the reasons I hate the argument - what real difference would it make if it WAS true? It changes nothing in our 'reality' so why bother with wondering about it.. but it's an interesting way for suffering to exist in our perceptions and not exist for those we 'see' suffering... which might be one way for to avoid an 'uncaring God' idea.)

I think this argument would be an objectionable way to absent yourself from any moral responsibility (perhaps the Nazis believed the Jews not be suffering?) even if it had any shred of credibility.

Oh absolutely. It's a bit of a cop out in moral terms but then if it's your excuse for treating people badly you gotta remember that to be consistent you'd have to truly believe that God would also know what decisions you'd made and punish you accordingly.

Doesn't that make you agnostic, as it seems, from you're posts, that you're unsure as to whether there is a God or not. You just don't say it in so many words.

I'm not sure what that makes someone, leviathan.

I believe in one God.

That's my belief, but I cannot demand that anyone else believes in a god, that god in particular, or many gods.

A person's beliefs are unique to them, and that's ok by me.

so am I a pluralist? Or am I a monotheist? I believe in one God, but I also believe that there are people who believe there is NO god, and people who believe there are many gods.

I wasn't asking you to question the motivation. But you can't ask a believer who thinks that questioning God is tantamount to heresy.. to question God. Y'see? They'll just answer 'We can't question God - he is omniscient and we can know nothing compared to him'. Think of it like a small child asking an alien 'What are the mechanics of that warp drive?'... only times a million in terms of ability to grasp the concepts.. (Bad analogy, a decent alien would be able to use images and analogies to get the basics across... but do you see what I'm trying to say?)

The alien would have the huge advantage over god of his material existence, which would make the Martian PowerPoint a bit more credible I suppose!

I would counter that if I believed god created me I would also have to believe that he created humans with the sort of inquisitive brains that try to make sense of the world around them, and to question. Our sense of justice means that when a 'bad thing' happens we wonder why, and if god did the 'bad thing' I think it is natural to speculate as to why, even if one believes one will never truly know.

It would be interesting to see a map of where people have in the last 1,000 years or so tended to believe in a benign, loving god, and ones where they have believe in a belligerent god or gods, overplayed with a map of areas subject to natural disasters. T

I'm
so am I a pluralist? Or am I a monotheist? I believe in one God, but I also believe that there are people who believe there is NO god, and people who believe there are many gods.

I think it makes you a monotheist - your theism is a function of what you believe of god, not what you believe others beleive.

But surely they measured years by seasons and then named blocks of time within that (and not originally using Latin/Greek names)?

I can see there may have been fewer months in a year, but surely a year (the time between one harvest and the next, or one rainy season and the next, or whatever) would be the same?

The month is the time from new moon to new moon; The the year is from one season till it comes round again.
There's not much evidence that these times have substantially changed during humanity's time on earth, if you accept "scientific views"; if you believe in the Trickster God (Loki to the Norsemen, Coyote to some native Americans) then you can't say anything, since TG can and will do anything, and He doesn't have to give reasons, be consistent, or anything.

Trickster God can and will do anything, and He doesn't have to give reasons, be consistent, or anything.

Was this job advertised? I want it!

I
That's my belief, but I cannot demand that anyone else believes in a god, that god in particular, or many gods.
.

All I would say to this (which is sort of a deism stance) is this - what e-x-a-c-t-l-y is it about the universe, life and geese that suggests to you that there is "something else"?

The belief that there is a God that created the universe but does nothing else could be read as -

1) Sort of a 75% version of atheism
ie this was the stance of the post renaisance thinkers who knew the bible was tosh, but didnt have access to modern science

or

2) A sort of "There must be something more" aproach

Crikey!

A polite debate about religion....

Haha - I'm secure enough in my atheism that I don't need to worry about proving it. Unlike some. ;)

Yet you're the Devil's advocate in arguing on the side of religion.

Isn't that a tad ironic?

I'm not sure what that makes someone, leviathan.

I believe in one God.

That's my belief, but I cannot demand that anyone else believes in a god, that god in particular, or many gods.

A person's beliefs are unique to them, and that's ok by me.

so am I a pluralist? Or am I a monotheist? I believe in one God, but I also believe that there are people who believe there is NO god, and people who believe there are many gods.

Hi PT

My point was, if Fivetide is an atheist, yet argues on the side of religion, then to me that seems they are unsure, no matter how much they protest that they are secure in their beliefs as an atheist.

It's like being a Blade and showing sympathy to the Owls. Where do their priorities lie?

Yet you're the Devil's advocate in arguing on the side of religion.

That's not how I read it.

I read it as Fivetide telling how a religionist would answer view the question, rather than stating his personal view (though I may be wrong):thumbsup:

That's not how I read it.

I read it as Fivetide telling how a religionist would answer view the question, rather than stating his personal view (though I may be wrong):thumbsup:

Hey, we agree on something!!!!!!

Does this mean the end of the space/time continuum and the implosion of the universe?

Hey, we agree on something!!!!!!

You may find that I agree with you on more than this single topic.

In fact, there's only one thing that I can say I really disagree with you on;).

I've no idea why I put "answer view" in my previous postthough:hihi:

Does this mean the end of the space/time continuum and the implosion of the universe?

Maybe.


Maybe not.


Only Smarties have the answer (I was going to put "god" instead of Smarties, but that would only encourage a certain poster to ask more inane questions of athiests):D

See how much more polite and mature the debate is without a certain someone.

Here's something that I'd like everyone's opinion on:

I was pulled up on my reasons for arguing with Grahame and was, more or less, accused of having an unhealthy obsession with said Christian.

One of my reasons for doing it is that I've got nothing much better to do on my dinner break.

But then I was asked why does it matter to me what Grahame thinks as it's got nowt to do with me really and doesn't affect my life in any way.

We came to the theory that what happens if Grahame isn't all there and, if he isn't, why keep on at him? For example, would I have a go at someone who was in a mental home?

Why do we feel the need to argue about religion is what I'm getting at I suppose.

Haha - I'm secure enough in my atheism that I don't need to worry about proving it. Unlike some. ;)

This stems from the idea that if someone is 100% atheist then they are as bad as fundamental theists. You can not disprove God just like you can not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Technically I am an agnostic but only the same way that I am an agnostic towards Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny etc. To all extent and purpose I am an atheist.

I believe the Pope exists but I don't like him.

We came to the theory that what happens if Grahame isn't all there and, if he isn't, why keep on at him? For example, would I have a go at someone who was in a mental home?

Why do we feel the need to argue about religion is what I'm getting at I suppose.

I feel the need to debate because it does affect my life if great swathes of people are influenced in their actions - even to the point of murder - by their belief in what I believe to be fairy stories.

I feel the need to debate because it does affect my life if great swathes of people are influenced in their actions - even to the point of murder - by their belief in what I believe to be fairy stories.

Don't forget Song's of Praise, the BBC could have shown re-runs of Neighbours instead.:thumbsup:

You wouldn't believe the number of atheists who have said to me "Why has God allowed this, why did he let that happen?" Two examples off the top of my head only because I had connections with both places was the Aberfan disaster, and when a neighbour was was changing the wheel on their car and they let the jack down not knowing their baby had crawled underneath, and you can guess the consequences and there wasn't a mark on the baby.

Believe you me people accuse God of everything. I used to get people saying it all the time when something terrible happened, I would be in their house doing my job and talking about the weather as you do, or anything that crops up, never ever talking about religion, I was at work, and whenever something terrible happened people would say, "Why does God allow these things to happen. It is just something that people say like "My God" firstly He isn't their God and secondly they do not believe in Him. People say the silliest things, you don't have to believe me but I can assure you I am not lying to you.

So, the next time something terrible happens, none of you are going to blame God are you. Because I will hold you to that.

So there you are ps201acm. You have had two very full and direct answers. God does not cause disasters. Got it? And because of the trouble you have put me to I am putting you on my ignore list so do not expect anything further from me.

Oh dear i'm so sorry for putting you through so much trouble - and now your putting me on your ignore list - i think i'm gona cry my self to sleep tonight.:cry:

Anyway you've still not answered the question. The point is as an atheist i dont blame God as i dont believe in a god - but you do - so how can God explain all the suffering in the world? - the answer, for me, is the existence of god can't - unless he's evil.

Yet you're the Devil's advocate in arguing on the side of religion.

Isn't that a tad ironic?

My bold - that's a beautiful pun!

Perhaps it is ironic, but it helps me to understand the nature of belief is and how people can believe.

It's when people say 'religion is bad' or 'believing in God is wrong' that I get really annoyed. As Chopsie said - it's beyond proof! No matter how much a militant atheist tries, they cannot disprove the existence of a 'divine' creator. That's the nature of it. Oh sure they can point out the inconsistencies with every major religion and all the different sects and wings within them claiming to be the true path.. or highlight the fossil chain, and the beautiful elegance of the theory of evolution compared to the awkward mish-mash that is used to explain the book of Genesis... but we can PROVE nothing when it comes to the concept of God. There will always be a get out clause.

I have a number of Christian friends whose faith has been an inspiration to them, and helped them through the very worst of times. Having seen that, how can I then agree with the idea that Christianity is the destructive and evil influence that so many posters here seem to want to make out? So there have been times when religion was used as the excuse for atrocities. The same can be said of democracy. Is democracy evil because it has become the banner under which the USA fights in foreign countries? No.

Ok, I can't go with the idea that the world was created in seven days, or that natural disasters are divine punishment as some right-wing church leaders have said. I can't understand how any decent religion can take some sort of 'Better than you' approach to any other. But that's their prerogative. It may seem nuts to us but that's people for you. I still believe fervently that England are the best football team in the world and hell, no amount of logic or reason will shift me from that viewpoint. I KNOW I'm right.

IF I believed in God I'd go with that movement.. is it the Jainists? ... who say that every religion is based on a different manifestation of the same God.

Er.... I've gone on too long... but hell, there ya go.

Don't forget Song's of Praise, the BBC could have shown re-runs of Neighbours instead.:thumbsup:

I dream of the day when I can watch Neighbours 24/7. Best show on TV. Seriously, at its best it is a long series of morality tales, told without the complications inherent in trying to give a facade of realism and with slow but thoroughly consistent character development that concentrates on the motivations and psychological truth of how dilemmas are dealt with as they are. I really COULD go on here...

For me it's a far better moral guide to modern life than the Bible.

Edit

This stems from the idea that if someone is 100% atheist then they are as bad as fundamental theists. You can not disprove God just like you can not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Technically I am an agnostic but only the same way that I am an agnostic towards Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny etc. To all extent and purpose I am an atheist.

Nope, that idea's way flawed. 100% atheist merely means you're absolute in your belief that God doesn't exist. 100% believer means you're absolute God DOES exist. 100% either way isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's how you act on those or how far you take it in relation to other people.

Fundamental theists, in the context you use there ('bad') are those who do not allow validity to any other viewpoint. So a fundamental atheist would be the same... there are a few fundamentalists on both sides of the fence in here. I would hope not to be one myself.

I dream of the day when I can watch Neighbours 24/7. Best show on TV. Seriously, at its best it is a long series of morality tales, told without the complications inherent in trying to give a facade of realism and with slow but thoroughly consistent character development that concentrates on the motivations and psychological truth of how dilemmas are dealt with as they are. I really COULD go on here...

For me it's a far better moral guide to modern life than the Bible.

Let's start worshipping Harold Bishop!

Nope, that idea's way flawed. 100% atheist merely means you're absolute in your belief that God doesn't exist. 100% believer means you're absolute God DOES exist. 100% either way isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's how you act on those or how far you take it in relation to other people.

Fundamental theists, in the context you use there ('bad') are those who do not allow validity to any other viewpoint. So a fundamental atheist would be the same... there are a few fundamentalists on both sides of the fence in here. I would hope not to be one myself.

What I mean is for those that are 100% on either side of the fence can not be argued with, regardless of evidence. If you are 100% either way then you wouldn't be in touch with reality because you are discounting all evidence.

Let's start worshipping Harold Bishop!

Madge Bishop! She died for our sins.

Why do we feel the need to argue about religion is what I'm getting at I suppose.

Because the followers of organised religions keep trying to influence us, and would like to compel us to follow their beliefs.
Because these followers are heretics from my religion which states that there's a lot we don't know, and that observation and experiment, interpreted by logic, are our best guide to the truth.
That's my religious argument, and I'm sticking to it!

BTW, we argue about whether there is a God. But how many have defined the God they discuss?
I believe:
1/.There is no old man in the sky with a fistful of thunderbolts.
2/, There is no cosmic trickster, whose idea of amusement is to create humans and then watch them fail to keep impossible laws, and then laugh as they burn in Hell for eternity. (OK, He could exist, but if so, I renounce all allegiance to Him)
3/.There's no "after-life"; when I die, this 70+ year old personality will vanish.
4/. Any "salvation" I hope for comes of my and all people's learning to "live right". It will work right here and now. Jesus told us how; his Mom's hymen is irrelevant; what happened to his earthly body is irrelevant; he (and others) told us how we should behave.

It's when people say 'religion is bad' or 'believing in God is wrong' that I get really annoyed. As Chopsie said - it's beyond proof! No matter how much a militant atheist tries, they cannot disprove the existence of a 'divine' creator. That's the nature of it..

Good post Fivetide, but I disagree with you on an number of points. I am what you seem to define as a "militant athiest", so here goes.

I have never subscribed to the "you cannot disprove the supernatural" argument. OK, it is superficailly based in logic - indeed, I cannot give you physical evidence as to the non existance of god.

However, the logic falls apart when you consider that we could all make up a list of 101 supernatural or unprovable things every day: such as -

>there are three giant invisible space penguins living on a star 1 billion light years away, and they are all called Mr Portcheese.

> when Alexander the Great led his first battle he was secretly thinking of becoming a ice sculpter.

Here is the crux -while we cannot prove the non existance of god, all the evidence revealed so far by science, morality and philiosphy does not suport the suggestion. Indeed - as each bit of new science is developed what does it do? - it pulls us away from the idea of an inteligent entity like the god of the Bible.

All this suggests that we just put the idea of god is the same box as the 1,000,000s of "made up things" that people have come up with since the year dot.

HOWEVER - the idea of god, and particulalry the concept of the main bible/quaran god is different from these other silly ideas - in that it has caused huge amounts of human sufferering - so it is not just some harmless whimsy to gve solace to the weak minded or to provide a context for "songs on sunday".

Honk!

PS The debates are better since you-know-who started ignoring us

My bold - that's a beautiful pun!

Perhaps it is ironic, but it helps me to understand the nature of belief is and how people can believe.

It's when people say 'religion is bad' or 'believing in God is wrong' that I get really annoyed. As Chopsie said - it's beyond proof! No matter how much a militant atheist tries, they cannot disprove the existence of a 'divine' creator. That's the nature of it. Oh sure they can point out the inconsistencies with every major religion and all the different sects and wings within them claiming to be the true path.. or highlight the fossil chain, and the beautiful elegance of the theory of evolution compared to the awkward mish-mash that is used to explain the book of Genesis... but we can PROVE nothing when it comes to the concept of God. There will always be a get out clause.

I have a number of Christian friends whose faith has been an inspiration to them, and helped them through the very worst of times. Having seen that, how can I then agree with the idea that Christianity is the destructive and evil influence that so many posters here seem to want to make out? So there have been times when religion was used as the excuse for atrocities. The same can be said of democracy. Is democracy evil because it has become the banner under which the USA fights in foreign countries? No.

Ok, I can't go with the idea that the world was created in seven days, or that natural disasters are divine punishment as some right-wing church leaders have said. I can't understand how any decent religion can take some sort of 'Better than you' approach to any other. But that's their prerogative. It may seem nuts to us but that's people for you. I still believe fervently that England are the best football team in the world and hell, no amount of logic or reason will shift me from that viewpoint. I KNOW I'm right.

IF I believed in God I'd go with that movement.. is it the Jainists? ... who say that every religion is based on a different manifestation of the same God.

Er.... I've gone on too long... but hell, there ya go.

We can prove its not a 'caring' God/Allah.

My bold - that's a beautiful pun!



It wasn't a pun.

Someone who argues against someone, just for the sake of offering an alternative opinion no matter if they agree with it or not, is classed as the Devil's Advocate.

Because the followers of organised religions keep trying to influence us, and would like to compel us to follow their beliefs.
Because these followers are heretics from my religion which states that there's a lot we don't know, and that observation and experiment, interpreted by logic, are our best guide to the truth.
That's my religious argument, and I'm sticking to it!

BTW, we argue about whether there is a God. But how many have defined the God they discuss?
I believe:
1/.There is no old man in the sky with a fistful of thunderbolts.
2/, There is no cosmic trickster, whose idea of amusement is to create humans and then watch them fail to keep impossible laws, and then laugh as they burn in Hell for eternity. (OK, He could exist, but if so, I renounce all allegiance to Him)
3/.There's no "after-life"; when I die, this 70+ year old personality will vanish.
4/. Any "salvation" I hope for comes of my and all people's learning to "live right". It will work right here and now. Jesus told us how; his Mom's hymen is irrelevant; what happened to his earthly body is irrelevant; he (and others) told us how we should behave.

Hello jfish, we can prove its not a 'caring' God/Allah. What is the point of praying to anything that does not care.:confused:

Hello jfish, we can prove its not a 'caring' God/Allah. What is the point of praying to anything that does not care.:confused:

errr that is the point

errr that is the point


Thank you kindly Mr Goose.Amen

It wasn't a pun.

Someone who argues against someone, just for the sake of offering an alternative opinion no matter if they agree with it or not, is classed as the Devil's Advocate.

Haha - If you'd read past the first line of my post you'd have understood that I wasn't doing it just for the sake of it.

But yes - I could still be classed as playing Devil's Advocate, coz your definition's (just slightly) inaccurate. But if you're gonna do patronising even 'just slightly' doesn't really work.

;)

Good post Fivetide, but I disagree with you on an number of points. I am what you seem to define as a "militant athiest", so here goes.

I have never subscribed to the "you cannot disprove the supernatural" argument. OK, it is superficailly based in logic - indeed, I cannot give you physical evidence as to the non existance of god.

Ta for the thumbs up, and (haha - here we go) I class myself as a fundamental atheist, although militancy is going a bit far. I've given it some thought and I would be prepared to die for my (lack of) beliefs so I don't know if that counts as militant. But I'm also happy for others to believe what they want, within the bounds of decency of course, and I'm prepared to defend their right to belief which is why I get het up sometimes when the beliefs of others are attacked.

'I may not agree with a word you just said, but I'm prepared to defend with my life your right to say it'... sorta thing.

However, the logic falls apart when you consider that we could all make up a list of 101 supernatural or unprovable things every day: such as -

>there are three giant invisible space penguins living on a star 1 billion light years away, and they are all called Mr Portcheese.

> when Alexander the Great led his first battle he was secretly thinking of becoming a ice sculpter.
[...moved for clarity in the reply...]
All this suggests that we just put the idea of god is the same box as the 1,000,000s of "made up things" that people have come up with since the year dot.

Nice. But these are arbitrary examples you made up off the top of your head. God has, and has always had throughout history, billions of witnesses capable of testifying that He has manifested himself in one way or another to them. We allow the testimony of witnesses to stand in a court of law... so...

Here is the crux -while we cannot prove the non existance of god, all the evidence revealed so far by science, morality and philiosphy does not suport the suggestion. Indeed - as each bit of new science is developed what does it do? - it pulls us away from the idea of an inteligent entity like the god of the Bible.

I'd question this. Science may lead us away from Creationist theories (although there are an infinite number of get out clauses... God manipulating any data collection being a bit of an obvious one... I don't go down the Creationist route though). However even the Catholic Church is moving (slowly and unwillingly) to a position that Genesis is not a description in human terms - so a 'day' of God could be symbolising ten billion man-years. As you said - the disproving through physical data is impossible. Science merely explains the world as it is, and as yet still imperfectly. The concept of God is beyond that sort of stuff.

Man, there's a whole world of new ideas we could get into about the fragility of life, the (perhaps, depending on how you look at it) TINY probability that we've hit on in the laws of physics that allow life as we know it to exist. We exist on the slenderest sliver of chance when it comes to the forces and energies that enable gravity and carbon bonds (to name just two) to work as they do.

HOWEVER - the idea of god, and particulalry the concept of the main bible/quaran god is different from these other silly ideas - in that it has caused huge amounts of human sufferering - so it is not just some harmless whimsy to gve solace to the weak minded or to provide a context for "songs on sunday".

Yet political 'progress' has also caused/been the excuse for massive conflict and suffering. This isn't a counter-argument but a side thingy...
And in any case, it was never the religions that caused the suffering you talk of - it was the people. Allowing for free will, if God has given people a set of rules to live by (peace, love, flower power, etc) and they choose not to do so, it is not God who deserves the blame, it is the people who have corrupted his teachings to their own ends... and I always think that wars are economic at their heart, any other reason given is generally an excuse.

I'm wandering about a bit, but take the concept of money (leads on from war/economics). It is an essential part of our society and we couldn't live without it except at the most basic of levels. Money, or the love of it, has been said to be the root of all evil and blimey there's a very strong case in favour of that.

It isn't money that is evil, it is the way people react to it and relate to it. Isn't religion in the same? Religion itself is a force for the good, but it is the corruption of it by imperfect humans that causes the suffering. We recognise this, are compelled to by necessity, and we don't argue against the concept of money - we argue against its abuse and the abuse done in its name.

In fact (only just thought about this) look at the amount of suffering in the world today. How much of it has been caused by man's monetary greed and how much by religion? I'd suggest the effects of the former far outweigh those of the latter... yet here we are debating about religion...

(What on Earth a true Christian would think of me defending their religion by comparing it to Mammon is another matter!)

Honk!

PS The debates are better since you-know-who started ignoring us

I like you-know-who to be fair... I've been told that some posts in other threads have been offensive but I haven't seen any myself.. and no - I can't agree with his beliefs, but they don't threaten me in any way. From what I've seen (which is, I grant, a small amount) he gets baited a lot and usually with reasoning that's as annoyingly flawed as his own...Not trying to flame or troll, I'm not saying that ALL the arguments he's been faced with have been that way... but quite a lot of them... sorry again, but that's what I've thought...

PS - Seeing as I am arguing from a position that's not my own, and I don't like posting lengthy replies... I'll try and call it a day there... leave space for anyone who does have faith to defend it if they want to (there aren't many who can be bothered though... it does make one wonder if it's less important for most believers to prove their faith than it is for non-believers to disprove it).

Haha - If you'd read past the first line of my post you'd have understood that I wasn't doing it just for the sake of it.

But yes - I could still be classed as playing Devil's Advocate, coz your definition's (just slightly) inaccurate. But if you're gonna do patronising even 'just slightly' doesn't really work.

;)

The definition of "The Devil's Advocate" has changed slightly over time, so my use of it was pretty accurate from what I understand.

I am well aware of the origins of the term itself.

And I wasn't being patronising to anyone. It appears that it's you who has misunderstood.

The definition of "The Devil's Advocate" has changed slightly over time, so my use of it was pretty accurate from what I understand.

I am well aware of the origins of the term itself.

And I wasn't being patronising to anyone. It appears that it's you who has misunderstood.

patronizing
pa·tron·iz·ing [ páytrə nzing, páttrə nzing ]
adjective
Definition:
condescending: treating somebody as if he or she is less intelligent or knowledgeable than yourself


Someone who argues against someone, just for the sake of offering an alternative opinion no matter if they agree with it or not, is classed as the Devil's Advocate.

ok.. then you were just stating the obvious.

patronizing
pa·tron·iz·ing [ páytrə nzing, páttrə nzing ]
adjective
Definition:
condescending: treating somebody as if he or she is less intelligent or knowledgeable than yourself



ok.. then you were just stating the obvious.

Maybe you should take your own advice and stop patronising people.

Maybe you should take your own advice and stop patronising people.

Me?! Patronising??? But HOW? :hihi:

Ta for the thumbs up, and (haha - here we go) I class myself as a fundamental atheist, although militancy is going a bit far. I've given it some thought and I would be prepared to die for my (lack of) beliefs so I don't know if that counts as militant. But I'm also happy for others to believe what they want, within the bounds of decency of course, and I'm prepared to defend their right to belief which is why I get het up sometimes when the beliefs of others are attacked.
).


Well, I’ll just come back on a couple of points, finally…


-----
“…But these are arbitrary examples you made up off the top of your head. God has, and has always had throughout history, billions of witnesses capable of testifying that He has manifested himself in one way or another to them. We allow the testimony of witnesses to stand in a court of law... so...”

Yes, but there are also consistent “beliefs”, held by millions which are just plain wrong. For example - that certain natural issues - for example certain types of mental illness, or a “deliberate cause” behind bad luck – (volcanoes spring to mind) are the result of demons/gods wrath etc.

Truth is not in any way a democracy – in they year 500AD I’m sure that 75% + of the earth’s population would say that the world was flat. Didn’t mean the view was any more relevant than if was held by 2 nutters running a web site today.

-----

“(Science increasingly does not support the bible/divine stuff) I'd question this….….there's a whole world of new ideas we could get into about the fragility of life, the (perhaps, depending on how you look at it) TINY probability that we've hit on in the laws of physics that allow life as we know it to exist.”

A couple of points – this “slim chance of life” is an interesting debate point. However, I think you can answer this in a couple of ways.

(a) The universe is not “designed” around the “need” to provide a stable setting for stars and chemical reactions in the way we see them. This is slipping in the anthropomorphic, i.e. we are as we are because the universe the way it is, not the other way round. To paraphrase the oft cited quote from D. Adams

A puddle of water looks at where it is and says “look, wow, this hole is EXACTLY the right shape to hold me – there must be a hole designing god!”

(b) calls to retro fitting probability arguments: e.g. there is 1 in a zillion chance that protein molecules happened by chance or there is 1 in a zillion chance that all the variables about stars, gravity, density etc etc happened in combination to support life on this planet.

This is really flawed logic – and a regular style of creationist arguments. You cannot meaningfully look at existing situations then retro fit a probability to them – for example, here is a test. It is a 1 in 365 chance that your birthday is on a certain day, say the same as my own.

However, everybody on the forum DOES have a birthday, but if you said “what its possibility that all the SF members would have the actual birthday they have by chance? It is 365 raised to the power of the total number of members – a number probably as high as the number of atoms in the universe!

More later...

Me?! Patronising??? But HOW? :hihi:

That's sarcasm.

More to Fivetide...

"(Religion is a “bad thing”) Yet political 'progress' has also caused/been the excuse for massive conflict and suffering. This isn't a counter-argument but a side thingy...And in any case, it was never the religions that caused the suffering you talk of - it was the people. Allowing for free will, if God has given people a set of rules to live by (peace, love, flower power, etc) and they choose not to do so…It isn't money that is evil, it is the way people react to it and relate to it. Isn't religion in the same? "

-----

I would disagree – bad things happen as a UNPLANNED side effect of money, the freedom of information, democracy, cars, pork pies or what ever..
But – looking at the philosophical underpinnings of the main religions, there is a direct, unarguable causal link to a bad results – a few examples:

A strong belief that the afterlife is more important that this life, when combined with the belief in the existence of hell, is logically bound to result in terror and misery, cruelty and a justifiable violation of natural human sympathy - yet this doctrine was unambiguously taught by Jesus.

The majority of “Gods preaching” is not about peace and love – it is about maintaining the importance of the church and its agenda. All the good bits about love are just lifted from other, earlier philosophies, or are completely self-evident (e.g. “do not murder”)..

Belief in god always goes hand in hand with a philioshy based upon “us and them” – the chosen and the other people. Christianity in particular supports, not illogically, that any degree of cruelty towards sinners and heretics was justified, if there was a chance that it could save them, or others, from the eternal torments of hell. Thus, in the name of the religion of love, hundreds of thousands of people were not merely killed but atrociously tortured in ways we cannot even think about.

Reliogion is, at its heart, anti-intellectualist. Eg Jesus exhorted followers to "become as little children", and the Church throughout history has extolled credulity, and feared and distrusted free thought. One of the most persistent fallacies about “religion” is that it kept learning alive during the Dark and Middle Ages. What the Church did was to keep learning alive in the monasteries, while preventing the spread of knowledge outside them.


Asceticism : Jesus was a celibate, who appeared to regard sexual love as displeasing to God. "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Luke, Ch. 26). "There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matt.,
Ch. 19). This tendency was even stronger in Paul. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman . . . But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (I Cor., Ch. 7). This attitude
accounts in part for the strong neurotic and masochistic strain in Christianity.

Bascally as Voltaire remarked, “men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities”
– either against other humans, morality, freethinking or understanding.

ok.. quickly - First point. The witnesses I spoke about actually claim to have had tangible contact with God through revelation (God spoke to them) or miracle (They saw God manifesting him/herself). They weren't expressing an opinion about something we can later go measure and they weren't taking a 'best guess'. It's not a question of what they say they believe, it's a question of what they say they have directly experienced.

Second point - lol yeah, I personally go with myself. I'm sure there are lines that might undermine it but I don't know what they are. (Edit - I might go do some research, could be interesting.)

Edit - we posted at the same time... I don't have time to read the second post now but I'll do so tonight and try my best. Looks like a lot to go through. ;)

That's sarcasm. Quick off the ball today aren't ya? (That was some more).

ok.. quickly - First point. The witnesses I spoke about actually claim to have had tangible contact with God through revelation (God spoke to them) or miracle (They saw God manifesting him/herself). They weren't expressing an opinion about something we can later go measure and they weren't taking a 'best guess'. It's not a question of what they say they believe, it's a question of what they say they have directly experienced.
.

But equally there are lots of people who claim to have been abducted by space aliens.

Also - there is the case of "mistaken identity" - visions while half asleep, or (especially) the feeling of group joy - which we all get at things like a fanatstic metal concert for instance...

ok.. quickly - First point. The witnesses I spoke about actually claim to have had tangible contact with God through revelation (God spoke to them) or miracle (They saw God manifesting him/herself). They weren't expressing an opinion about something we can later go measure and they weren't taking a 'best guess'. It's not a question of what they say they believe, it's a question of what they say they have directly experienced.




To sort of second what Goose said, people who claim they've seen aliens are thought of as nutjobs. Yet, people who claim to have witnessed a divine miracle or spoken to the man Himself are seen as devout believers who have been blessed.

They keep saying that Jesus will return. My thought is, what if he already has but has been locked up for being a loon?

UFO's exist, there is no question of that, so the chance of someone being abducted is slightly better than the chance of someone having contact with God.

But equally there are lots of people who claim to have been abducted by space aliens.

Also - there is the case of "mistaken identity" - visions while half asleep, or (especially) the feeling of group joy - which we all get at things like a fanatstic metal concert for instance...

HAHA - I only caught the 'metal' reference at the second reading! I was gonna say that concert goers may experience a group joy, they don't all claim to have met Beethoven... I can't think of a suitable equivalent...

Aliens stuff. Two things then - Tiny proportion claim to have met aliens, usually with a history of psychological problems (the people, not the aliens). Direct experience of God has been claimed by millions. Rational, successful and otherwise completely 'normal' people have done so.

Aliens stuff 2 - Someone says they've had direct experience of aliens.. prove them wrong (ok ok I know that's stretching credibility a bit! But still...).

Edit - To sort of second what Goose said, people who claim they've seen aliens are thought of as nutjobs. Yet, people who claim to have witnessed a divine miracle or spoken to the man Himself are seen as devout believers who have been blessed.
People who talk about aliens usually ARE nutjobs, people who talk about God are mostly pretty down-to-Earth people (I'm not talking about those who claim to be prophets and such like, I'm talking about ordinary people... I have friends who have perfectly good mental health and who 'know' that God has spoken to them at times in their lives.. and helped them by doing so..)

They keep saying that Jesus will return. My thought is, what if he already has but has been locked up for being a loon? Haha - probably.

UFO's exist, there is no question of that, so the chance of someone being abducted is slightly better than the chance of someone having contact with God. UFOs - Unidentified Flying Objects certainly exist. Anything we see in the sky and can't identify is a UFO. If you're gonna tell me that alien spacecraft exist... well... let's not go there.

Second Edit - I been sucked in again... now I really gotta go... lolz @ Lev and Goose.

[QUOTE=Fivetide;3626804]
Aliens stuff. Two things then - Tiny proportion claim to have met aliens, usually with a history of psychological problems (the people, not the aliens). Direct experience of God has been claimed by millions. Rational, successful and otherwise completely 'normal' people have done so.

[QUOTE]

You've basically just backed up my thought.

Why are people who hear God "Rational, successful and otherwise completely 'normal' people"?

It does seem rational to hear voices.

UFOs - Unidentified Flying Objects certainly exist. Anything we see in the sky and can't identify is a UFO. If you're gonna tell me that alien spacecraft exist... well... let's not go there.

So, let me get this straight:

You're saying that, as an Atheist, in your mind, there is more likely to be an all powerful supreme being?

Yet, the theory that there might be other life in the universe, no matter that there is near certaintly that there will be other planets capable of supporting life, and that maybe more advanced than us, is not possible in your mind?

Aliens stuff. Two things then - Tiny proportion claim to have met aliens, usually with a history of psychological problems (the people, not the aliens). Direct experience of God has been claimed by millions. Rational, successful and otherwise completely 'normal' people have done so.

Aliens stuff 2 - Someone says they've had direct experience of aliens.. prove them wrong (ok ok I know that's stretching credibility a bit! But still...).

Re: first thing about Aliens - I'd be interested to know what you are basing the assertion that people who have met aliens have a history of psychological problems.

For me it doesn't matter about proof - there are very few things I can prove, if any.

What I can do is take a view on the probability of various views, and base my opinions on those.

So, I can't prove there is no god, I can't prove there are no aliens.

However, I am pretty certain god doesn't exist. Many of the reasons god in highly unlikely have been discussed here and elsewhere. I can't prove it, so technically I am agnostic, but based on what I know at this moment, I am effectively atheist.

As for aliens, I think it pretty unlikely that we are the only planet in the universe with life on it - although I'm not convinced by tales of flying saucers.

So, let me get this straight:

You're saying that, as an Atheist, in your mind, there is more likely to be an all powerful supreme being?

Yet, the theory that there might be other life in the universe, no matter that there is near certaintly that there will be other planets capable of supporting life, and that maybe more advanced than us, is not possible in your mind?

Nope, I honestly think that intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the universe... I'm pretty sure it's inevitable given the right conditions and enough time. I don't believe that they've visited the Earth in any way that we could have any possible knowledge about at all.. not even a sniff..

Nope, I honestly think that intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the universe... I'm pretty sure it's inevitable given the right conditions and enough time. I don't believe that they've visited the Earth in any way that we could have any possible knowledge about at all.. not even a sniff..

Why not? Not even if they have technology more advanced and have been able to detect us?

Why not? Not even if they have technology more advanced and have been able to detect us?

I didn't say they wouldn't have been able to detect US. It's our detection of them I very much doubt.

PORTCHEESE
Dows Wood Aged Ruby Port 75clMcKenzies Scottish Savoury Biscuits with Sesame Seed 150gCrandale Wensleydale with Cranberries 150gAbbeydale Double Gloucester with Onion amp Chives 150gWhite Stilton with Apricots 150gPOSTAL CARTONSEAGRASS BASKET
Price: £35.73 from Clearwater Hampers


http://shopping.webpricecheck.co.uk/product/PORTCHEESE.html



However, the logic falls apart when you consider that we could all make up a list of 101 supernatural or unprovable things every day: such as -

>there are three giant invisible space penguins living on a star 1 billion light years away, and they are all called Mr Portcheese.


Portcheese exists but if we believe it came from a star 1 billion light years away then we are mistaken. The earth exists, but if we believe it came from a star 1 billion light years away are we mistaken? This is one for the scientists. It is possible, a remote possibility I grant you but none the less a possibility.

The truth is the origin of Portcheese is much nearer home and if God is omnipresent like the air we breathe, then he may be nearer than we think and it may be our imagination that is at fault. Likewise with our understanding regarding the nature of God.

Portcheese has an origin and I am suggesting the earth has an origin. The ancient people called it God who is 'All Mighty' and 'All powerful'. You disprove it if you can.

As for God having a personality, maybe not, the person of God can be seen in Jesus Christ and what we attribute to God is actually the personality of Old Testament people.

As for the three giant space penguins that are invisible to us, there are galaxies out there that are invisible and unknown to us and to say they do not exist is in my view a very silly thing to say.



.

Portcheese has an origin and I am suggesting the earth has an origin. The ancient people called it God who is 'All Mighty' and 'All powerful'. You disprove it if you can.

The burden of the proof is with the theists. You can not prove that something doesn't exist.

PORTCHEESE
Dows Wood Aged Ruby Port 75clMcKenzies Scottish Savoury Biscuits with Sesame Seed 150gCrandale Wensleydale with Cranberries 150gAbbeydale Double Gloucester with Onion amp Chives 150gWhite Stilton with Apricots 150gPOSTAL CARTONSEAGRASS BASKET
Price: £35.73 from Clearwater Hampers


http://shopping.webpricecheck.co.uk/product/PORTCHEESE.html






Portcheese exists but if we believe it came from a star 1 billion light years away then we are mistaken. The earth exists, but if we believe it came from a star 1 billion light years away are we mistaken? This is one for the scientists. It is possible, a remote possibility I grant you but none the less a possibility.

The truth is the origin of Portcheese is much nearer home and if God is omnipresent like the air we breathe, then he may be nearer than we think and it may be our imagination that is at fault. Likewise with our understanding regarding the nature of God.

Portcheese has an origin and I am suggesting the earth has an origin. The ancient people called it God who is 'All Mighty' and 'All powerful'. You disprove it if you can.

As for God having a personality, maybe not, the person of God can be seen in Jesus Christ and what we attribute to God is actually the personality of Old Testament people.



.

Did he say blessed are the cheesemakers?

The burden of the proof is with the theists. You can not prove that something doesn't exist.

I thought it was the atheists who were trying to prove God doesn't exist. :)