You have to believe in a God/Supreme Being/FSM etc to be a Freemason.
Dem's da rules.
I would rather define tedious to the degree educated physicist asking me that question and YAWN
You're the one who's engaging in tedious arguing for no point. You seem to be suggesting that.. well.. what are you saying? All religious people are stupid? That's proven empirically not to be true, so what next?
I would rather define tedious to the degree educated physicist asking me that question and YAWN
Cat got your tongue?
molgrips - MemberYou're the one who's engaging in tedious arguing for no point.
And you're the one refusing to answer perfectly sensible questions.
I'm all for people believing what they want, for a little comfort.
It's the inevitable consequences of that belief that worry me.
I'm a freaking biologist mate, I spend my spare time reading the writings of enlightenment thinkers like John Locke for a bit of light entertainment, who the hell are you? I never said that one side was more superior than the other, I said you cannot claim superiority for your own beliefs in regards to matters that science cannot address.
Tell me you can see the irony in this?
Please?
And you're the one refusing to answer perfectly sensible questions.
Like what?
That was outrage at being told what is and isn't science, what is currently addressed by science and it's place in the world by a layman.
Thing is God is personnal so what works for me may well be and probably is completely different from someone else. It doesn't matter... God is also just a word... A rose by anyother would smell as sweat.
So God is just a word for what? A general universal holistic lovely warm fuzzy feeling?
Can you explain your view on creationism?
For me, there is a huge difference between faith and 'the church', whatever church that might be. I 'might' have a belief in something but that doesn't necessarily mean I use the bible as an instruction manual for life or that whatever some pensioner in a nice gown decides is the truth, is necessarily the truth for me.
I believe in democracy, I don't believe in the UK's version of democracy. The reasoning behind this is based on what I've read, watched, listened to and learnt. I might believe in faith, I don't believe in the christians version of faith for similar reasons.
Pulling someone apart because they don't share the same view seems a bit small minded to me. Addtionally, not everyone needs to have a rational explanation as to why they feel about something the way they do. A developed society should be tolerant of anyones views, with the caveat that those views shouldn't harm/upset anyone else.
At the end of the day, as long as folk treat each other decently then where is the problem. Whether you do that as a result of your following of the bible, following what some bloke in a posh gaff in Italy says or whether you just come to that conclusion on your own, it doesn't really matter.
Can you explain your view on creationism?
Me? I don't believe in literal creationism and I don't pretend to know for certain whether there is a god or not, like Hitchens I suspect that there is no god and/or god is not worth our time thinking about, I would most likely dislike him/her even if he did exist.
In short to get an idea of the direction I'm travelling in intellectually in regards to this matter, I like Hitchens because his nuanced ad hom of god amused me to no end, whilst Richard Dawkins despite being brilliant winds me up.
Question was aimed at Moly.
But all responses welcome.
🙂
You're the one who's engaging in tedious arguing for no point.
LOl says the person when asked a simple question asked for a definition of a word he understands perfectly well. So physicist atheist which do you consider real the universe or god?
You seem to be suggesting that.. well.. what are you saying? All religious people are stupid? That's proven empirically not to be true, so what next?
I suggest you read around page 4 or 5 when we all agreed that religion was no indication of intelligence. Pointless ad hom distraction as well
Molly why do you do this define "trick " - its pretty childish tbh
Like what?
and another - we all knwo your answer and this is just so Mollgrips
Cat got your tongue?
I guess i missed your explanation of what the Popes actual words meant then
oh the irony.
I guess i missed your explanation of what the Popes actual words meant then
I guess you failed school comprehension tests, I didn't as my verbal IQ is 135.
I guess you failed school comprehension tests, I didn't as my verbal IQ is 135
Seriously?
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.)
