[Closed] Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

[i]I think andyrm has just posted the most sensible thing I've read on here all day. [/i]

I wouldn't judge them either, if they weren't asking the state to pay for the next generation to become the same...

obadiah - Member

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. (C S Lewis)

That really is complete balls though- and tbf Lewis must have known such, since he'd encountered contradicting religions and knew they were still of importance.

A theory is a well-supported, but falsifiable, body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power.

For instance, gravity has observable "how" effects although there is great divergence in current, eminent, scholarly opinion when it comes to explaining gravity's "whys".

Evolution, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted

and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation).

Evolutionists fit all evidence into the framework of evolutionary naturalism (the belief that there are no supernatural causes).

As a corollary to this, evolution cannot be used to make predictions because all results are filtered through the prior belief in evolution.

Evolution is better referred to as a tenet of naturalistic philosophy or humanism (a belief system).

Chuckles - is this from a very intelligent version of watchtower?. Its not its a fact based explanation of what we observe with divergent evidence from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Its data based as shown by the reaction when Darwin said we were monkeys [ and not gods image]

Most evolutionists presuppose a worldview that demands the removal of any supernatural agents acting in a knowable way (e.g., miracles, special creation).

Every time we dont know the answer we would say miracle or supernatural - would these explanations then be predictive and testable - LOL I am not sue if you are being serious tbh. You seem knowledgable but its all smoke and mirrors

Calling it a theory and/or fact is a disingenuous attempt to hide the underlying beliefs and to discourage debate by ridiculing those who disagree.

QED "Creationist religious nutjob"

If the cap fits - its coarse language for sure but they certainly are at the fringes of reasonable explanation for how we got here.

not to mention billions of years out on the age 😉

Comparing evolution with creationism is like comparing modern chemistry with the 4 elements of earth, wind, water and fire. It was a guess made thousands of years ago that is clearly wrong.

Quick Q's:

Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?

Have any Christians become more or less convinced about the literal truth of the Bible?

Have any non Christians decided that state funded religious education is actually a jolly good thing?

It has been answered as definitively as any thread on 29 ers v 26 ers

[i]It has been answered as definitively as any thread on 29 ers v 26 ers [/i]

Thing is, I've got both of those and they're both good, but different...

I quite enjoy the debate and it's generally, stayed on topic and without too much mud slinging. I've quite enjoyed it 🙂

"the totality of things was always such as it is now, and always will be".

Do you really have no idea what science would have to do with working out whether creationism is true or has merit

Er, that's not what we're discussing, is it?

I have conducted experiments which provide very strong evidence for the presence of negatively charged sub atomic particles.

Me too, and I also understand the wavelength stuff. However I suspect Woppit hasn't. Re colour, light doesn't reflect off electrons like it does with most things that have colour etc etc but whatever, it was an illustrative point aimed at countering Woppit's and making him feel a bit silly for not thinking carefully enough about his argument. Which I think it did 😉

The thing is, you are satisfied that your experiments provided enough evidence for the existence of electrons. People who believe in God see evidence of God's love all around them, and they are satisfied that that evidence is of sufficient quality. Either that or they don't care and just like believing in God.

It can predict that genes transmit information to the offspring and predict what diseases you can inherit.

That's genetics, not evolution.

but it certainly looks and sounds (from what I've read and seen/heard) to be a great deal more solid than "god did it"

Hehehe... nice lol there 🙂

Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?

Creationism, religion - pure makebelieve!

Focus on proving/disproving stuff. Accept nothing until it is proven, but by all means theorise, because that is the first step in discovery.

Blind faith in concepts is ridiculous because you never even bother to search for answers: This is lazy, but also convenient if the imagined concept meets your end.

I've not heard anything from Phil Liggett recently.

Is he on the road to Damascus?

Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?

...or the HIFI haterz declaring that mains cables make a difference to the sound.

That's genetics, not evolution.

Its a good point tbh Molly you are right.

Yes.. genetics.. looking for all those diseases God put there to bring pain, suffering and despair to people and they can't do anything about it.

Quick Q's:
Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?
Have any Christians become more or less convinced about the literal truth of the Bible?
Have any non Christians decided that state funded religious education is actually a jolly good thing?

Not quite. I used to attend church fairly regularly, but just because my wife and kids did. I thought Anglican Christianity was fairly benign. Religion threads on here were part of what changed my mind on this and provided a good grounding in the arguments for and against religion.

Quick Q's:
Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?
Have any Christians become more or less convinced about the literal truth of the Bible?
Have any non Christians decided that state funded religious education is actually a jolly good thing?

No, but I've changed my mind about alloy frames, whisky, rucksacks on road rides, biblongs and smoking.

I tried old fashioned razors. And became a less shouty atheist as I realised how painful I must have sounded after reading STW's shoutiest atheists' posts on religion threads.

And became a less shouty atheist as I realised how painful I must have sounded when reading STW's shoutiest atheists' posts on religion threads.

Still working on that 😐
Trying though.

Only very recently stopped getting wound up by others on t'internet after an enlightening e-mail exchange. Which was nice.

Ten pages on religion that remained pretty civil. Well done, everyone.

wwaswas - Member
Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?

A good question but IMO the wrong question altogether since it mis-understands the basic raison-d'etre or rationale for faith. From a scientific and philosophical perspective, most of the traditional arguments for the existence of God have been proven (largely/totally) ineffective. But for "fideists" ie, those who elevate faith above reason, that is simply not an issue since they hold faith as an alternative path to the truth. As such, science, philosophy and religion cannot agree since they share no/little common ground in the first place. Furthermore, some religious people will make a virtue (the RC church in its catechisms for example - [u]Faith,[/u] Hope and Charity) of the very fact that religious belief cannot be adequately defended on rational grounds. For them, the act of will that is necessary on the part of the believer adds moral merit to the acquisition of faith that is central to their religion(s).

Of course, these strengths are the exact weaknesses that scientists and philosophers point to - hence the good question becomes the wrong one IMO. There is and never will be/can be common ground for each party to share. Once we get this, we can all live in harmony together!!

Aye nice summary Mike

see you early march for the next one 😉

Excellent summary THM

For me its the fact they still have an exalted place in society and education that makes me moan so much

They can have as much faith as they like as long as they leave me alone.

JY - which is essentially the argument put forward by the guy from The Independent on Question Time recently. Much of the aggro would dissapear with the dis-establishment of the church. However, I seriously doubt this will happen in the near or medium term.

pretty civil

Seemed a bit shouty at times but I think you all deserve a pat on the back.

@Rusty, Fred hasn't been emailing you has he?

Believe all the Bible or non of it, however, reading it and being shown how what was written related to the time when it was written and by whom - also the interpretation of the original Hebrew you sometimes get a much clearer message.

One thing's for sure - believe in God then believe in the Devil also (often very absent during Christian bashing debates - I wonder why?) 🙂

Focus on proving/disproving stuff. Accept nothing until it is proven, but by all means theorise, because that is the first step in discovery.

Blind faith in concepts is ridiculous because you never even bother to search for answers: This is lazy, but also convenient if the imagined concept meets your end.

What, like overpopulation?

[img] [/img]

If you worship the devil you are just as wrong but probably more in need of sectioning

HTH

@Rusty, Fred hasn't been emailing you has he?

No DD.

Always got on quite well with him tbh.
Get the odd mysterious picture of Ben Kenobi, but not heard from him in ages.

One thing's for sure - believe in God then believe in the Devil also (often very absent during Christian bashing debates - I wonder why?)

Go on, tell us why.

If you worship the devil you are just as wrong but probably more in need of sectioning

HTH

They're not devil worshipers....but I reckon Misotheists might need sectioning...imagine the kind of mind that really really believes in god but hates him.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Hmmn, that always sounds like a good line, but logically, it's nonsense.
Non believers are happy that he's equally as imaginary as god himself.

to believe in the devil you need to believe in god
Therefore it stands to reason he only tricked gods children, I find this odd as it is not like they are gullible 😉

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it - nothing...but what if that wasn't the case...?

tyger - Member

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it - nothing.

Well, only for the individual.
Everything else will cary on quite satisfactorily, I'm sure.

Liberating isn't it?

but what if that wasn't the case...?

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it - nothing...but what if that wasn't the case

and how foolish will you feel if it is true ?
Not sure as i have not been baptised perhaps you can tell me what the all loving benign god does to me?
Is it like the naughty step for a bit till I say sorry and realise how foolish i have been or is it something like eternal damnation in a firey pit....I mean what parent would not treat a child like this ?

bwaarp - Member

imagine the kind of mind that really really believes in god but hates him.

Honestly? Seems a perfectly sane response to the whole omnipotent god concept. If you can't disbelieve, then the next logical step is to be horrified, no?

in the whole of human existance there hasn't been one, single, solitary piece of evidence in an afterlife.

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it - nothing...but what if that wasn't the case...?

if he's an Abrahamic god then gods a dick and I'll take my punishment in hell with a "**** you" to both god and the devil.

Molgrips - I'm not sure if you are trolling or genuinely trying to suggest that the comparison for evidence between electrons and a God is a sensible comparison.

From what I've read before molgrips likes to play devil's* advocate on religious threads, not sure if he thinks the religious are outnumbered on STW and they need a bit if help or he just likes a good debate.

Fairly civil >10 page religion thread, is STW getting more civil in its old age? Was fun anyway.

*but no he doesn't exist either

Quick Q's:

Has anyone had an epihany and become either a Christian or not a Christian as a result of this thread?

Have any Christians become more or less convinced about the literal truth of the Bible?

Have any non Christians decided that state funded religious education is actually a jolly good thing?

If God created the universe out of nothing why did he need a rib to create Eve?
Also, the forbidden fruit was in the tree of knowledge, what is the message there?

I dont see the harm in most religions (bar those extremists off all denominations) and have a few close friends and relatives who live as close to the book as possible (HK has a huge number of practicing Christians), I just dont like how religion gets a to play a prominent part in politics and education.

Religion has no place in state education just as facts have no place in organized religion (quote courtesy of the Simpsons).

stewartc - Member

Also, the forbidden fruit was in the tree of knowledge, what is the message there?

Be excellent to each other

Interesting post by one Penn Jilette...

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/22/is-atheism-a-religion/atheism-should-end-religion-not-replace-it

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it - nothing...but what if that wasn't the case...?

What if you died and then met Zeus and Thor, with Pascal by their side?

Interesting post by one Penn Jilette...

I'm with Penn.

What if you died and then met Zeus and Thor, with Pascal by their side?

Lol. Would he be looking to collect on his wager?

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it - nothing...but what if that wasn't the case...?

The above is Pascal's Wager.

To quote A.J. Ayer on his near death experience: "It has slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be"

And to quote me, the only thing worse than the thought that this is it is the the thought that this isn't it.

From what I've read before molgrips likes to play devil's* advocate on religious threads...
*but no he doesn't exist either

Is this still going on?

Have you resolved the issue yet?

Anyway....I can vouch that Molly definitely exists. Not just here, but on Facebook too. Actually... I've met him in real life as well (inplausable I know, but true, nonetheless)

So... furnished as we now are with that knowledge, who fancies starting a religion in his name? I feel it would provide us all with a degree of certainty that's presently lacking

I'm up for that!

"GetaGripism"

?

who fancies starting a religion in his name?

Moletheism?

I'm atheist/agnostic and mrs peterfile is catholic. She's probably more tolerant of my (non) beliefs than I am of hers.

Her family are super religious (one of her brothers is a monk, her dad is a dentist who goes on missions to help the poor in south america, her parents are leaders of their religious community). Believe it or not, the most educational, sensible and civil discussions I've ever had about religion have been with her dad. he's so comfortable in his faith that he seems to enjoy the opportunity to present an alternative view to mine. they've never once been preachy and are remarkably subtle about their faith, despite it being an enormous part of their lives.

But, the one thing that ALWAYS gets me wound up, is the whole "you've got to believe in him" stuff. If God exists as they say, then I am one of his children, he ultimately created me. So if I live my life exactly how he would have wanted me to, but I don't believe in him, I'm still at the back of the queue for heaven. But if I'm a relentless sinner who worships the ground he floats on then i'm OK, he forgives me.

If that's true then it's got less to do with being a good christian/person and more about worshipping him. Why would such an benevolent god want his children to worship him? It's all a bit egotistic, he sounds like the kind of guy i wouldn't want to have a beer with to be honest.

How many times do you religion debatists need it explaining to you, what you all are, like it or not.
You are, like me and everyone else, an Agnostic, since neither Atheism or Religious faith can be proven so the default is obvious.

The world is Agnostic if only it would admit it and become a better place.

[/thread]

I believe I'm an agnostic.

How many times do you religion debatists need it explaining to you, what you all are, like it or not.
You are, like me and everyone else, an Agnostic, since neither Atheism or Religious faith can be proven so the default is obvious.

The world is Agnostic if only it would admit it and become a better place.

Not true. One stance is belief in something with out proof, the other is not. And believers are also atheists, apart from one god.

One stance is belief in something with out proof, the other is not.

If this is the case (and I'm not disagreeing) then following scientific procedure one should come to the conclusion that Atheism is probably correct given the current information. However, should further/any subsequent evidence arise then that would be subject to scientific due process and any previous theories/hypotheses rejected as required?

In a roundabout kind of way then people following a scientific model should really be agnostic (because future evidence can never be discounted). Shouldn't they?

I can't quote it accurately without doing a search for it, but a previous post asked something like: "What if you died and discovered that you were in the afTer-life".

Richard Dawkins was once asked "what if you died and met god"? He replied: "Well, I'm sure we could both sit down and have a nice discussion about how his existence fitted into our understanding of a quantum universe and, having settled the matter, I could move on to the next interesting thing".

The reply, I thought, illustrated a complete lack of being "humble", in the best sense.

In a roundabout kind of way then people following a scientific model should really be agnostic (because future evidence can never be discounted). Shouldn't they?

I'm agnostic about god(s) in the same way I'm agnostic about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If there is evidence for any of them, I will change my stance.

miketually - Member
How many times do you religion debatists need it explaining to you, what you all are, like it or not.
You are, like me and everyone else, an Agnostic, since neither Atheism or Religious faith can be proven so the default is obvious.
The world is Agnostic if only it would admit it and become a better place.

Not true. One stance is belief in something with out proof, the other is not. And believers are also atheists, apart from one god.

They could both not be true, both stances are the same, neither has proof which kind of makes my point, they do not know, absolutely, even if they 'believe' there is or isn't a deity. They are Agnostic they just don't believe it, is all.

*A self proclaimed Atheist is just as stupid as a Religious Nutjob, in fact they are both nut jobs.

*[i]First rule of Agnostic fundamentalism[/i] 😉

Anyway....I can vouch that Molly definitely exists.

I've met him in real life as well

So... furnished as we now are with that knowledge, who fancies starting a religion in his name?

Also, the forbidden fruit was in the tree of knowledge, what is the message there?

I think it was the knowledge of good and evil, so,eating it maeant that evil was no longer abstract and outside of humanity.

Subservience goooood... Knowledge baaaaaad....

They could both not be true, both stances are the same, neither has proof which kind of makes my point, they do not know, absolutely, even if they 'believe' there is or isn't a deity. They are Agnostic they just don't believe it, is all.

Dawkins (or possibly someone he quotes) talks about a 7 point sliding scale.

At 1, you have someone who has absolute belief in their god and never wavers in that belief. At 7, you have someone who states as an absolute fact that gods do not exist.

Most religious believers would place themselves somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 while most atheists would place themselves at around 6 to 6.5

Agnostics are fence-sitters. If you're an agnostic, you're probably slightly to one side or the other and so not really an agnostic.

That's Richard. He puts himself at 6.9 recurring...

Mr Woppit - Member
Subservience goooood... Knowledge baaaaaad....

POSTED 4 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

No, that's not the point at all. Read above. In fact it's not so much that they ate from that tree that they were banished, it was to stop them from eating from the tree of life,or summink

Nice discussion of "rude/aggressive/offensive" atheists:

No, that's not the point at all.

I rather thought it was.

No, that's not the point at all.
I rather thought it was.

I know, that's why i thought it best to stop you before you made a fool of yourself.

Did I ask you to?

No, but I dont imagine you would want me tombe subservient to you.

I'll alert the media.

Don't! Right now, only the folks on here know what a fool you are. It's our little STW secret

"If you think a post is a deliberate troll, abusive, offensive or otherwise a bit naughty then don’t hesitate to email us at moderator@singletrackworld.com and we’ll have a look. "

Did I ask you to?

It started right here.

you two we got 12 pages now behave please

They could both not be true, both stances are the same, neither has proof which kind of makes my point, they do not know, absolutely, even if they 'believe' there is or isn't a deity

Sorry to be a bore and all that, but

Woptit you practically call me a child abuser early in this thread.

But know you are getting all upset at being called .... wait for it .... a fool. 😆

I'll tell you what, I'll change the F in fool for a T.

And in your own words ....

"Comfortable with that?"

I honestly can't understand (and never have been able to) why any discussion about the validity of any particular religion gets any further than a sentence of two.

You can believe what you like, but to get other people to take you beliefs seriously, when there is not one iota of peer reviewed court admissible hard evidence to support your beliefs is nothing short of ridiculous.

I learnt the other day that I (confirmed atheist since early childhood when I could differentiate between fact and fiction) have way more in common with Muslims than I would have thought. I believe in no gods. I think that's about 7,000 gods last count. Muslim's don't believe in 6,999 gods. Who knew we had so much in common?

Ro5ey - Member

Sorry to be a bore and all that, but

Woptit you practically call me a child abuser early in this thread.

But know you are getting all upset at being called .... wait for it .... a fool.

I'll tell you what, I'll change the F in fool for a T.

And in your own words ....

"Comfortable with that?"

Yes, thank you.

Just to clarify - I was not accusing you of being a child abuser. I was introducing you to the concept of the indoctrination of young children into dogma, being [i]likened to[/i] child abuse (note usage of quotation marks) and asking you (perhaps in a badly-worded way) what you might think of it.

Without the use of any personal insults, of course. I don't do that.

Perhaps I should turn the other cheek...

You can believe what you like, but to get other people to take you beliefs seriously, when there is not one iota of peer reviewed court admissible hard evidence to support your beliefs is nothing short of ridiculous

Thing is, most of the believers, especially on here, aren't particualrly expecting others to take their beliefs seriously. In fact, most of their arguments are pointing out the flaws or inaccuracies in the arguments of the non-believers, who are generally the once trying to convince the others to join them.