[Closed] christian baiting

superb.

does anyone know who DailyMash is?

Bit like Charlie Brooker was TVdinner or whatever before he sold out to G2...

The professor stressed that stem cells will also have a wide range of clinical uses with the exception of bringing someone back to life after they have been nailed to a cross, 'because that's just a dangerously insane fairy story'.

Lol.

The fact people really believe in all that fairy tale cr@p (you know, the whole resurrection, son of God, walking on water and curing lepers stuff) makes it even funnier.

'because that's just a dangerously insane fairy story'.

lol, thats a great quote!

THIS is what makes Britain great.

Won't be allowed to happen for too long though.
God Botherers of all persuasions, along with their vindictive, all powerful invisible friend have decided that we don't have the right to laugh at their fairy stories. It offends them.

does anyone know who DailyMash is?

It's BigDummy off here isn't it? 😉

I'm going to have to start reading the Daily Mash-UP regularly:

GORDON Brown will today ask Barak Obama to make that horrid Fred Goodwin give his pension back.

'OBSCENE' GRAVITY MUST BE REPEALED, SAYS HARMAN
THE government is to repeal the law of gravity because quite a lot of people don't like it anymore.

UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE CONTESTANT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WORTHLESS LAYABOUT
THE BBC has launched an inquiry after claims a member of the winning team on University Challenge may not have been a lazy, self-indulgent ponce.

I saw one of these the other day

[img] [/img]

Genius!

That is genius. I've gotta have one. 8)

http://www.darwinfish.co.uk/

I'm enormously flattered by the suggestion Mike, but it's Neil Rafferty and Paul Stokes.

Ordered and paid for 😀

Got to get one of those!

Wasn't on the back of my Megane was it Piedi?! (A **** with a 'real' one passed me on dual carriageway a few weeks ago, cut back in to the inside lane, and brake checked me. No safety cameras, rozzers, or any other vehicles on a long straight stretch. I can think of only one reason it happened.)

Can't remember the car, too busy admiring the cleverness of the 'fish'.

It was in central Essex

Wasn't me then. I've only ever seen two others.

[img] [/img]

He touched me with his noodly appendage.

Ace that badge may have to get a window sticker.

Daily Mash is the greatest newspaper ever. 🙂

Surprised you've not seen the Darwin Fish, there's loads of Darwin stuff on that site, T-shirts and the like, it's great.

EDIT: the T-shirts etc are on http://evolvefish.com

I got into this business to take science and rub it in their stupid, medieval, voodoo faces and I'm not about to give that up now.

I laughed out loud at this!

Excellent!

Just ordered!

Now, if I could only get a Darwin badge for my bike... 😀

yes, very funny :o)

He added: "If only I could find some way of manipulating the embryo to make it gay."

Almost choked!

i like the re-enacting biblical scenes bit too - very good

I wouldnt have one of those Darwin badges on just incase one, just one person no matter how ignorant thought it was a god-loving symbol.

[img] [/img]

This is my favourite.

Just for the record I thought I'd mention that David Attenborough discussed evolution and religion on Jonathan Ross the other night saying that he's agnostic and thinks that there's nothing about religion that isn't compatable with evolution. But you lot carry on telling each other how clever you are - 'tis fine by me...!

Mudshark,

He wimped out.

He hates the creationists, really.

HATES THEM!!

So, who's going to start the Muslim Baiting thread then?

No volunteers?

he was probably just being nice.

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Attenborough went further in his opposition to creationism, saying it was "terrible" when it was taught alongside evolution as an alternative perspective. "It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five ... Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066."

well according to [url= http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm ]this quite detailed comparison of the Qu'ran and evolution[/url] the Islamic vs Evolutionary game is a score draw

Allah alone is Master of Existence. He alone causes all that is to be and not to be. Causes are without effect in themselves, but rather both cause and effect are created by Him. The causes and the effects of all processes, including those through which plant and animal species are individuated, are His work alone. To ascribe efficacy to anything but His action, whether believing that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them, is to ascribe associates to Allah (shirk). Such beliefs seem to be entailed in the literal understanding of "natural selection" and "random mutation," and other evolutionary concepts, unless we understand these processes as figurative causes, while realizing that Allah alone is the agent. This is apart from the consideration of whether they are true or not.

As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.

Mudshark - not what he's said in the past, check out recent interviews in the Guardian and Indy. Perhaps he's scared - can't blame him.

If you believe in evolution, you do so after analysing the facts available. Evolution is such a counter intuitive idea that only by using rationality and reason has the vast, vast majority of the scientific world come to the conclusion that Darwin was right.

Belief in a God is in complete opposition to rationality and reason, as it relies on unprovable assertions made by strangers, the vast majority of which then go on to ask you for money.
Of course, anyone is free to believe whatever nonsense they wish, but I have never heard a convincing argument that religion and science are in any way compatible.

If anyone has one, would love to hear it.

Well, one could go with the idea that some american christian guy discussed with me - that the devil had placed all evidence of evolution as a temptation to disbelieve God. When it comes down to it there are scientific leaps of faith "accepted" fairly regularly, though they are based on more solid evidence and reasoning, but I cant see how the two can be compatible.

Don't forget folks, there's Christians, and then there's bible-thumping anti-gay anti-science creationist Christians.

The reasonable sensible ones just don't make much of a fuss. Something to do with their religion I think.

Captain,
Good point, but the original post was about baiting Christians.
The thread would now happily appear to have embraced discussing fundamentalist idiots of all faiths.

Molgrips,
Alternatively, they realise, however subconsciously, that their supernatural beliefs have no basis in reality and cannot stand any kind of rational analysis, so do not wish to be humiliated?
I understand that it is difficult for people to admit that their most deeply held beliefs are nonsense, especially if those around them (family/friends) are equally deluded.

It's getting all ecumenical on here.

Just for the record I thought I'd mention that David Attenborough discussed evolution and religion on Jonathan Ross the other night saying that he's agnostic and thinks that there's nothing about religion that isn't compatable with evolution. But you lot carry on telling each other how clever you are - 'tis fine by me...!

On this rationale Richard Dawkins is also an Agnostic as well as every other person that doesnt believe in a god.
The second part of the quote is correct. Religion uses circular logic to prove itself to the satisfaction of believers such as the fact that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that light from distant stars was created on route to the earth! There is no scientific evidence in god.

We could circumvent the whole process and simply say Darwin and science were creations of God etc etc as reasoning like this is basis enough for those who choose to believe in god.

Bulls##t baffles brains

We could circumvent the whole process and simply say Darwin and science were creations of God etc etc as reasoning like this is basis enough for those who choose to believe in god.

which is pretty much where Islam goes too.

I saw one of these the other day

Genius!

a god botherer parked next to me a few days ago in a service station car park. they had a fish window sticker.

their car was also very dirty.

i drew some feet on it when they went to get some food.

am i a bad person?

As Evolution is only a theory and carbon dating isn't as acurate as most people believe then, of course, it could be totally wrong (or am I the only one to shout out that the King's got no clothes on) LOL!

Now you may have just come up with something there Mr Halen.

How about stick on feet? Transform a Christian fish into a Darwin fish in seconds!
Carry some around with you everywhere you go.
Love it, it's like missionary work in reverse.

As Evolution is only a theory and carbon dating isn't as acurate as most people believe then, of course, it could be totally wrong (or am I the only one to shout out that the King's got no clothes on) LOL!

Who's saying it isn't a theory? Can you enlighten us further?

As Evolution is only a theory

Bit like gravity etc?

You need to understand how theories derive their meaning in relation to other theories. Its really a very poor argument and you are not the first person to say it.

Tyger,

If it turns out that evolution is wrong (unlikely, but it stands) scientists will change their views to fit the new experimental data that has come to light....not just stone people who disagree! Thats the difference.

SSP

As Evolution is only a theory

*weeps quietly*

You can already get stick on feet Rusty. [url= http://www.evolvefish.com ]Evolve Fish[/url]

Anyone for a story?

[img] [/img]

Alternatively, they realise, however subconsciously, that their supernatural beliefs have no basis in reality and cannot stand any kind of rational analysis, so do not wish to be humiliated?

You are so missing the point. Some people don't consider religion as a series of answers to scientific questions. It's about a belief in something beyond the everyday. This is important to many people, and a lot of Christians are scientists and even believe in evolution too. Faith in God is one thing, faith in the factual veracity of the bible is another thing, really.

Remember all the hoo-hah about that bishop supposedly 'not believing in God' that was in the tabloids? He'd clearly done a lot more intelligent thinking on the subject than the people that pointed and laughed at him. Just goes to show that the subject is a lot more complicated than a lot of people realise - maybe even some folk on this thread 🙂

PS I am not religious.

Militant_biker, you've just ruined the ending!
Hate it when people do that, can you not put "Spoiler Alert"?

god dam you MB!

God*

the subject is a lot more complicated than a lot of people realise

Really, its not. People may hijack respected institutions of learning to read theology and some even receive their PHD's! which is an intellectual disgrace!

I consider this the academic equivalent of studying fairyism and to infer some deeper meaning from religion is wrong.

It is either true or it isnt, it cant be true for one and not another that is delusional and if it helps people through their day then thats fine but that doesnt imply truth either.

'You can already get stick on feet Rusty.'

stick on feet is is even more devilishly genius than a evolved fish.

i could have done with those. i might have to get me a few made up for emergencies.

i did feel like i was gonna burn in hell for the whole journey home though so maybe theere is something in this god thing.

He hates the creationists, really.

I'm sure he does - well thinks that they're wrong - but he's saying that a belief in God isn't necessarily incompatable with evolution. He stated that he's agnostic so has he said he's atheist elsewhere?

[i]As Evolution is only a theory[/i]

This is one of the favourite arguments of creationists but they're missing the point of the word THEORY which has several different possibilities depending on context.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ]Wikipedia (as always) provides a good enough laymans description[/url]

In fact the excellent Darwin exhibition at the Natural History Museum had a video of various scientists describing the meaning of the word theory when applied to evolution.

molgrips.

Thank you for your considered reply:
You said

You are so missing the point. Some people don't consider religion as a series of answers to scientific questions. It's about a belief in something beyond the everyday.

Accepting that there is no afterlife is very, very difficult. It's cold hard world out there for the non believer, but [b]only[/b] if that non believer has no imagination whatsoever:
Belief in the principles of science and rationality do not exclude one from wishing to experience "something beyond the everyday".
The beauty of the Universe and the contemplation and wonder that it generates are available to our everyone, regardless of faith. This to me is true mysticism. As, funnily enough is riding my bike, going for a walk etc.
All of them induce a sense of wonder and fulfilment in me that the daily grind cannot. I feel no need to link this with any kind of supernatural belief.

People like to congregate with like minds. Social groups provide comfort for the sick, a feeling of belonging and community. Non of this is dependant on nonsensical belief in a higher being.

All the social and emotional benefits of religion are available to non believer. There is nothing to be scared of in non belief.

and carbon dating isn't as acurate as most people believe

particularly for fossils which are made of silicates...

It is either true or it isnt

surely objective reality is moot? There is no way to determine if our senses are reporting actual sensations or just delusion. The best we can do is look for consistency and pattern and attempt to construct meaningful explanations. You might say that the universe, whatever it may be, serves as a framework for existence. We might actually be in The Matrix. Whatever is 'really' out there, what seems to matter is interaction and sensation, [b]what[/b] we do rather than why...

loved this bit by Sir Richard . . . .

[i]"It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five ..." [/i]

It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five

If the original 2s were actually a number between 2.25 and 2.4999999…, they do actually add up to five 😉

It's like saying that two and two equals four

yeah, but 2 [b]what[/b] ?

What about other complementary scientific theories of evolution that are not Darwynian theories. Such as the theory that one type of evolution in addition to Darwynian evolution is the ability of species to adapt the environment to themselves? Or is that not allowed? Or of non-reductionist systems theories of evolution utilising complexity theory? Are we allowed to discuss them? 😀

This book covers the topics quite well I feel

[img] [/img]

Darwinian Evolution can certainly explain some forms of evolution but not all. There are other scientific theories to explain the evolution that Darwin's theories struggled with no?

the ability of species to adapt the environment to themselves

Is that what we do? Well, a bit of adapting here, a bit of fekking up there....

What about other complementary scientific theories of evolution that are not Darwynian theories.

Sure, go ahead. As long as there is evidence to back up the theories then that can only be for the best. If there aren't, however, be prepared to be ridiculed!

Although the tag-line: "A new synthesis of Mind and Matter" rings alarm bells....

surely objective reality is moot? There is no way to determine if our senses are reporting actual sensations or just delusion. The best we can do is look for consistency and pattern and attempt to construct meaningful explanations

You may be right and Sam Harris also describes the unlikely scenario of the world as we see it being a simulation on a computer. However this doesn't help us develop a framework for physical and personal interaction.
Science allows us to act and react on what we perceive now as tangible and real. Science will change its view if and when we realise we are pawns in a giants computer game. It at least allows us the tools to respond to new information.

Mr Ralli,

Feel free to expand.
I am really enjoying this you know.
I think it's important to make the most of our freedom to disagree with each other, in public, whilst we still have the chance.

Not getting into the pro anti Christianity thing but find a bunch of people who on the whole base their bike purchases on advertising claiming that this bike bit is however many percentage lighter/stiffer/faster than last years bit trashing another belief system mildly amusing.
If all the claims were true I would now have a bike that floated on air, was stiff enough to support a skyscraper, and could comfortably approach light speeds without breaking sweat (This vast increase in speed could be the sole reason for my corresponding increase in mass over the same period).

Err - I am not going to rely on memory to expand, but the book's an interesting read. It examines consciousness and the definition of "life". Maybe the word "consciousness" sets off fewer alarm bells?

If all the claims were true I would now have a bike that floated on air, was stiff enough to support a skyscraper, and could comfortably approach light speeds without breaking sweat (This vast increase in speed could be the sole reason for my corresponding increase in mass over the same period).

You've got a Rock Lobster 853 too?

You've got a Rock Lobster 853 too?

S'all true, ahem, apart from the stiffness bit.
I'm on my second. Fist got nicked, spent a couple of months looking for a replacement and then ordered another.

The Duster with the Alfine kit from Evans looks nice though.........

However this doesn't help us develop a framework for physical and personal interaction.

I demur. I think our framework should be independent of the nature of reality. Belief in science is only slightly more justifiable than religion, it's all conjecture.

Simonfbarnes

Belief in science is only slightly more justifiable than religion, it's all conjecture.

Explain that one and stay fashionable.

Accepted current science is based on testable hypotheses not conjecture. To call it conjecture is to say it cant be proved.
Modern science concerns itself with what can and cant be proved. Religion is conjecture, science is not.

Rusty Spanner = Vim Fuego!

SfB -> What has 'belief' got to do with science?

Belief in science is only slightly more justifiable than religion, it's all conjecture.

Science is built on axioms and from these axioms we build our system. If these axioms are incorrect (scientific methodolgy etc) then the conclusions will be false.
We use significance at a probability of 1 in 20 but a lot of time theory drives research ... not the other way round eg The attempt to find a mechanism for evoloution lead to DNA after a long time looking.Some of Einstein theories have no evidence yet (probably do now not read aroind this for a decade or more)and also the Higgs - Boson particle etc.
We may just be very good at designing experiments that prove what we want/expect to find rather than rejecting null hypothesis etc.
Rarely do scientist take the years of failed research/lack of evidence as an indication that they are wrong. they keep going till they have the evidence. This is the general nature of science methodology clearly evolution etc etc has massess of evidence to support it and nothing really to counter it.
[b]Science is not absoloute but is by far and away the best mechanism we have for discovering things and reporting them accurately.[/b]

We use significance at a probability of 1 in 20

Dawkins in his well known book makes the point regarding Atheism and probability. Proving god doesnt exist is currently not possible however that doesnt mean their is a 50:50 chance that he does exist. It means we are all agnostics to a certain extent as we are agnostic about fairies.

Mostly we just accept was scientists tell us rather than investigate things ourselves. Apparently the moon isn't made of cheese but I think the milk marketing board is behind a cover up.

It means we are all agnostics to a certain extent as we are agnostic about fairies

Are you saying that atheists are agnostic in a sense?

If you experienced watching faries dancing in your garden on a number of occasions, would you think you were going mad or would you be happy to think that you believe in fairies?

I'm not convinced that Domestos kills 99% of all Germans stone dead.

That Schweinsteiger's a big lad. He could probably gargle a pint before breakfast.

Are you saying that atheists are agnostic in a sense?

Of course, there is no other explanation. Only the most dogmatic person can say with complete certainty that god does not exist.

If you experienced watching faries dancing in your garden on a number of occasions, would you think you were going mad or would you be happy to think that you believe in fairies?

I would think I was going mad. Unless I was able to prove to others what I had seen.