Forum menu
Where does the pope in that statement, say that god created humans that evolved?
Junkyard, you completely fail to get the point of my questions. You consider them stupid, but they are actually quite difficult questions that lead on to how I personally see this particular issue. You just rubbish them however which is why this debate is particularly difficult with you.
Just what is your point, exactly?
Rusty - I don't believe in creationism. Or God, for that matter.
Come on Tom_W1987....I want to know why your IQ of 135 means anything?
I'm just finding myself increasingly pissed off with arrogant idiots who shit on and deride other peoples points of view especially those without valid points or reason, so when I find them, I like to go for the jugular.
Sodding had enough of them all.
Rusty - I don't believe in creationism. Or God, for that matter.
JESUS CHRIST, AN ANSWER!
The partial answer to a question I didn't ask, but it's a start. 🙂
Deleted for my own sanity.
'm just finding myself increasingly pissed off with arrogant idiots who shit on and deride other peoples points of view especially those without valid points or reason, so when I find them, I like to go for the jugular.Sodding had enough of them all.
Tom, you're young and angry,this phase will pass. Remember, you're getting angry at an internerd forum. Put the Xbox on and play a bit of COD for a bit, get it out your system x
It's the sheer stupidity of it all, most of the time I can blow the steam off with humor but then things like people misinterpreting the English language as a basis to rather viciously attack other peoples points of view causes me to have a sense of humor breakdown.
Let's look up the Oxford dictionary definition of being.
"A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one"
An example sentence
"While this may be a step in the right direction for intelligent artificial beings, it is a very small one."
The pope did not use "rational being" or "intelligent being", so in all likelihood he meant beings as in any living life form.
It's the sheer stupidity of it all,
You're not deriding someone's point of view there are you?
Some people deserve it. Fire with fire etc.
JESUS CHRIST, AN ANSWER!
Rusty, I may have missed your other questions in skim reading a few pages of catch-up, so please post them again and I will answer. I've no wish to be evasive.
Religion sparks conflict shocker.
I'm just finding myself increasingly pissed off with arrogant idiots who shit on and deride other peoples points of view, so when I find them, I like to go for the jugular.
Or you could of course answer the question rather than getting both ranty and try to make us swoon with your awesome verbal IQ score. Assuming you think we are in awe of a sub Mensa score. Its 2 S.D above the norm though so well done for being in the top 16%
Really tom what was the point of that? Anyway the pope words were clear and your interpretation was incorrect.
you completely fail to get the point of my questions.
I fail to get that there is a point never mind the point.
You consider them stupid, but they are actually quite difficult questions that lead on to how I personally see this particular issue.
Then answer the question. No offence but I do not believe that an atheist physics graduate is struggling to answer which one of god and the universe they consider to be real. Its was a pointless "clarification"
You just rubbish them however which is why this debate is particularly difficult with you
its not a debate its the molly show where you side step an easy question and then do this to death and blame me for it.
TBH the question was rhetorical as we can all answer it for you...even Tom with his verbal score 😉
Some people deserve it. Fire with fire etc.
Shouldn't you turn the other cheek and forgive them?
Really tom what was the point of that? Anyway the pope words were clear and your interpretation was incorrect.
Really? Explain away.
2 S.D
Holy crap, it understands statistics.
No offence but I do not believe that an atheist physics graduate is struggling to answer which one of god and the universe they consider to be real.
Well you are also asking daft questions, but since you insist I do consider the universe to be real. I believe that God is not real in the traditional Christian sense but I can easily see how a) He could be real and b) an alternative definition of the concept of a god could also be real.
But point b starts to get complex and interesting. For me this is the real meat in the sandwich.
Thing about faith is that only people with it can know what it is to have it. I know what it is but not what it is to have it.
And the problems start because to people who don't have it the concept of the reality of god seems completely ridicules.
And if someone could prove god, I doubt it will be today on STW.
Right, this is all getting a bit too Internet Warrior for my liking, so here's what's going to happen.
I'm going to close this thread, then go and get my lunch. That should give you all time to calm down, have a think, drink coffee, smoke a fag, kick a kitten or whatever you need to do for your stress management.
I'll reopen it after I've eaten, and we'll try again to have a civil discussion. Good? Good.
...and we're back in the room.
Play nicely.
god so loved the world, he gave it little fluffy kittens...
[img] 
[/img]
Have you said grace after meals ?
[img] 
[/img]
I've just had pasta, so a quick work to the FSM might be appropriate.
chrismac - Member
The biggest surprise to me about religion is how it has conned so many people out of so much money over the centuries with various stories
Well, imo that's because it became polictical rather than philosophical a couple of millenia ago.
Personally, I think essentially the church need to move on to scientific philosophy as it's basis. And re-write the bible entirely for the modern age, based entirely on science fact and theory and beyond to scientific philosophy. That'd allow them all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas of God(as lets face it, the weirder the story of real creation gets, it still leaves the door wide open for a god of sorts), but they can chop and change at will as science catches and proves or disproves their theories.
To be honest i'm fully of the opinion that that's what religion was orginally intended to be before it became political.
It was there to attempt to explain the unknown. It should go back to that.
Yer man franky won't take the church there, but he definitely comes across as a progressive pope if you ask me, so he should be encouraged to go as far as he can.
It was there to attempt to explain the unknown.
Superficially, yes.
But then some unknowns became knowns, which causes a dilemma for religion when their claimed source of authority is god. Either they admit that their divine guidance was wrong, which undermines their authority, or they shout louder about how right they are. Neither is particularly ideal.
It's difficult to be agile and move with the times when your starting point is absolute by design.
Yay, decent debate.
god so loved the world, he gave it little fluffy kittens...
and then...
[img] 
[/img]
Cougar - Moderator
It was there to attempt to explain the unknown.
Superficially, yes.But then some unknowns became knowns, which causes a dilemma for religion when their claimed source of authority is god. Either they admit that their divine guidance was wrong, which undermines their authority, or they shout louder about how right they are. Neither is particularly ideal.
It's difficult to be agile and move with the times when your starting point is absolute by design.
Well I suppose that's down to the definition of what a God is. Is it an absolute, or is God just the pursuit of knowledge.
The definition of God as an authority, came from the politicisation of God. A means to control people.
Guess that's why I shy away from religions to be honest(I completely rejected catholicism when i was 12! 😆 ), as although they aren't particularly involved in political circles as they once were, they haven't shaken that tag and the need for authority.
That comes from 2 things, within and outwith. within they cry heresy, outwith, they cry hypocrisy.
The church should ignore both those voices for a while and reform entirely. (which is unlikley to happen, but it's what should.)
I guess that church need to accept that it's political influence is no more, and that that political history distorted things along the way.
Ahh a battle of wills between the followers of 2 faiths; the Church of Jehovah, with their well know priests, and the church of Science, whose priests are the Psychologists and Doctors.
Essentialy Religion (if we separate it from Spirituality) is about Social cohesion/control. Without it we'd not have the culture and civilization we do, Religion was also the basis of Natural Philosophy from which all of Modern Science springs.
Currently science is suggesting that under extreme duress those with faith have a higher chance of survival than those without.... So from a Darwinian perspective religion, according to science, might be a smart move
Ahh a battle of wills between the followers of 2 faiths; the Church of Jehovah, with their well know priests, and the church of Science, whose priests are the Psychologists and Doctors.
On a point of order, science is not a church and does not require faith. Science works on evidence and will go on working just fine whether you believe it or not.
(In fact, people are [i]encouraged [/i]not to believe it, and go and check for themselves; that's how it advances.)
Without [religion] we'd not have the culture and civilization we do,
Pure speculation, that's like saying "without Edison, we'd all be sitting in the dark." Who knows what culture and civilisation we might have had?
Currently science is suggesting that under extreme duress those with faith have a higher chance of survival than those without
Is it? Can I have a link to that fact please?
I heard that Russell Brand (as well as being the saviour of global politics) can levitate kittens, since he discovered buddhism, using only the power of his mind.
Does anybody else's faith enable them to perform really cool party tricks?
I thought it was Ray Mears that was touting that particularly theory, I don't think he ment religiously mind. Though he might have been, he is after all a god of sorts! 😆Cougar - Moderator
Currently science is suggesting that under extreme duress those with faith have a higher chance of survival than those without
Is it? Can I have a link to that fact please?
Does anybody else's faith enable them to perform really cool party tricks?
I can change wine into pee.
Only at "specialist" parties, mind.
It's difficult to be agile and move with the times when your starting point is absolute by design.
Not if you follow the guidance of Augustine as he said in that quote I used before
In such cases, [b]we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that[/b], if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture
He advocated the antithesis of an absolutist approach.
b) an alternative definition of the concept of a god could also be real
For the record, I wrote an absolutely brilliant response to this, but Cougar closed the thread before I hit post.
But, and we return to this he believed god created the world and none of the discovered facts, at that time, countered his beliefs. What we are living with now is what the church has to do when its accounts no longer correspond with our understanding/ reality.
we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture
I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.
Its still more Sacred scripture than known fact.He [god] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment,”
tbh, it's impossible to state that for certain.Junkyard - lazarus
I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.
Its still more Sacred scripture than known fact.
If you replace internal laws, with physics, probably makes more sense!
I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.
It is very simple really, there is always an unknown at the beginning of the process that science has not explained, Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.
mefty - Member
I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.
It is very simple really, there is always an unknown at the beginning of the process that science has not explained, Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.
Explanations are ten a penny, facts are a bit thin on the ground.
Personally I believe the multiverse theory, and not the quantum version, the physical version.
Makes sense of the nothing before or after theory imo, because, there is nothing before or after our universe, our universe if finite, not infinite.
It is very simple really, there is always an unknown at the beginning of the process that science has not explained, Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.
Assuming there has to be a cause or a beginning. (The Big Bang isn't currently considered to be the beginning of the universe.)
The Christian response simply leads to the follow up question: who created God?
What is more likely to lead to an answer: science or theology?
Science...oh ye of little faith 😉
Having just googled the full quote you have ommitted the start
[b]In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision,In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.[/b] In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture
I am still not sure what he would do when his evidence counters the Sacred scripture
it's impossible to state that for certain.
I was speaking ontologically 😉
OK they could have but they dont require it and they are not postulated. Anything is theoretically possible
Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.
In your case it is what made god.that never moves. Nay suggestions?
That is why I am not comfortable as religion just answer everything with god but it actually answers nothing as we have the same question what made god.
what made god
Well, when Mummy God and Daddy God love each other very much, they cuddle in a special way...
what made god
We did.
Which is not to say that junkyard and I are a mummy god and daddy god...
[img] 
[/img]
Can I report that post and borrow your bleach please
That [i]would[/i] be an abomination.
Nine pages in 24 hours, you have to admire religion it gets more clicks than immigration.
I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!
I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!
Difficult in what way?
Its not but it is a cause without a effect /something from nothing just like the big bang.
I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!
I don't see why the concept of the universe always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of God always having existed.
This is the problem; "god" is a simple answer to a complex question, but it fails as it doesn't actually answer anything, it just shifts the burden from the natural to the supernatural.
The argument goes thus:
C: Where did the universe come from?
A: It didn't, it's always been there.
C: That makes no sense, it must have come from somewhere. I know, God created it!
A: Where did god come from?
C: Oh, he's always been there.
I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!
Thinking about this, maybe I've missed your point.
Are you asking why the concept of god is more or less likely or credible than the multiverse theory? Because that's an [i]incredibly[/i] interesting question probably worthy of its own thread.
Sort of on topic:
[url= https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4748/ten-cosmic-myths ]In the beginning was the vacuum[/url], goes the modern story. It was a “quantum” thing, which means it was not empty but seething with energy. In addition, it was not the vacuum we have today. It was a higher energy form with some amazing properties. For instance, it had repulsive gravity. This caused the vacuum to expand. And the more of it there was, the more was its repulsive gravity and the faster it expanded. Not only that but the more of it there was, the more energy it contained. Imagine having a stack of banknotes between your hands, pulling your hands apart, and finding ever more bank notes. That’s the way this “inflationary” vacuum was. Not surprisingly, cosmologists refer to it as the “ultimate free lunch”.Like all things quantum, the inflationary vacuum was unpredictable. Here and there, and totally at random, it disintegrated, or “decayed”, into normal, everyday vacuum. All across the ever-expanding sea of vacuum there formed bubbles. But the tremendous energy of the inflationary vacuum had to go somewhere when it decayed. And it did. It went into creating matter in each bubble and heating it to a ferocious temperature. It went into making big bangs. The universe we live in is inside one such big-bang bubble.
In the modern picture, therefore, the Big Bang is not a one-off. It is merely one among countless others, going of like firecrackers across the length and breadth of the inflationary vacuum.
Miketually - I mean that I find it very difficult to really comprehend infinity, it's hard to get my head round it. I can't get my head around God because he is unknowable. However, I can accept that God and infinity are both unknowable to me.
Are you asking why the concept of god is more or less likely or credible than the multiverse theory? Because that's an incredibly interesting question probably worthy of its own thread.
The concept of God was used to fill in the gaps in our knowledge thousands of years ago.
The multiverse theory fills in some gaps in our knowledge now. It will, eventually, be tested against experiment which will either support or disprove it.
Miketually - I mean that I find it very difficult to really comprehend infinity, it's hard to get my head round it. I can't get my head around God because he is unknowable. However, I can accept that God and infinity are both unknowable to me.
Pretty much everyone struggles to understand the higher end stuff in physics; I'm pretty sure that Peter Higgs needs a glass of wine or two in him before he's sure about 'his' boson. But it is understandable to some, and it is knowable.
God has only been increasingly cast as unknowable, as we know more about the natural world. Previously, he was knowable enough that people would kill their own child if told to by god.
I mean that I find it very difficult to really comprehend infinity
You and the rest of the human race, which is absolutely the problem.
My priest is very interested in physics and has done some lectures on the relationship between physics and religion. I liked the point he made that it's unhelpful and incorrect to ascribe God to the bits of science that we don't understand, because over the years, we have been filling in a lot of the holes in our understanding that had previously been attributed to God. As he put it, " God would thus eventually disappear up his own backside"!
He believes that God is all-pervasive and is inherent in the laws of the universe.
Miketually- I disagree that God has only recently been described as unknowable. As far as I understand he has been always described in that way by Orthodoxy.
Vickypea > That's ostensibly what my polymath mate said, yes.
I find it very interesting how we see ourselves as disconnected from the universe instead as a fundamentally part of it (a single being). Think that has something to do with western society being dominated by Abrahamic religions.
I can't get my head around God because he is unknowable. However, I can accept that God and infinity are both unknowable to me.
This is the problem - how can you worship a deity and why would it convey its message so that a true believer [ not a dig at you it is a sincere belief] cannot know what they worship, pray to and get help from
It makes no sense and this is why folk are a bit rude.
I agree god has always been unknowable - god works in mysterious ways for example
I disagree that God has only recently been described as unknowable. As far as I understand he has been always described in that way by Orthodoxy.
People certainly seem to think that his will is knowable?
My priest is very interested in physics and has done some lectures on the relationship between physics and religion. I liked the point he made that it's unhelpful and incorrect to ascribe God to the bits of science that we don't understand, because over the years, we have been filling in a lot of the holes in our understanding that had previously been attributed to God. As he put it, " God would thus eventually disappear up his own backside"!
He believes that God is all-pervasive and is inherent in the laws of the universe.
Which in pantheism, rather than Christianity?
All praise the cooking pots.
Perhaps pantheism could be a container for pastafarianism?
The study of the history of the Bible is rather interesting. From the original scholarly texts about God and lots of other things to the current Bible.
I've got a great popular history one by.. Karen Armstrong I think.
Junkyard- that is another good question, but I'm sorry, I don't have a satisfactory answer!
For me, my faith is brought to life by the lives of some of the saints. I feel a particular interest in St Cuthbert
and the other saints of Lindisfarne, as I felt a strong sense of the "living God" when I visited Lindisfarne. I'm also interested in St Anthony the Great and St John Chrysostom. I can't quite describe it as inspiration, as I'm not remotely saintly! 😉
Just back from the hospital.
Mother in Law has just lost her battle against cancer.
We've all been sat with her for a week, taking it in shifts.
She hung on long enough to know our wedding on Saturday went well, even though she couldn't be there.
Father in Law died of the same ****ing, ****ing, bastard disease a couple of months ago.
Right now, I'd love to believe in a God.
Rusty, I'm sorry to hear that 🙁
Thanks Mol.
Sorry for being an arse earlier.
Rusty, not really sure what I, or anyone, can say. My thoughts are with you, family and friends.
Also, you got married? Woooo! Congratulations! Let's focus on the good stuff, as I hope she would have done!
Thanks folks.
Didn't mean to offload on here.
Yes Flashy, got married on Saturday - and even with everything that's happened this year, it was the most wonderful day of my life.
😀
My wife is amazing, as those of you who know her will confirm.
Don't think Blackburn Hospital gets that many brides popping in to see their mum between the ceremony and the reception.
🙂
Don't think Blackburn Hospital gets that many brides popping in to see their mum between the ceremony and the reception.
Am not sure if tears or laughter would be appropriate, but I've got some of both! 🙂
Here's hoping your life together as a family can be as marvellous as she would have wanted it to be!
Thank you.
Sorry to hear your sad news Rusty
Please accept my condolences, and then my congratulations.
Focusing on your final comment, if I may, about wanting to believe in a god because of the death - I have lost many close relatives and friends over the years, starting with my Mother when I was just four years old, so I am no stranger to the experience.
For what it's worth, as an atheist since I was very young, I have contemplated death a lot, including my inevitable own.
This has led me to simply accept as a fact that we are born, we live and then we die. That is to say - cease to exist.
I am almost completely comfortable with this scenario. The bit where I'm NOT comfortable is the bit where I'm a bit pissed off about it - however as there's nowt (a Northern term with which I'm sure you're familiar 😉 ) I can do about it, that's just my own angst talking.
Chris Hitchens put it like this:
"We are ejected from the uterus as if from the mouth of a canon that is pointing at a barn door covered in hooks and rusty nails. The important thing however, is what we do whilst on that trajectory".
Or if you prefer, Mark Twain: "I was dead for billions of years before I was born and it bothered me not one bit".
So it goes....