[Closed] Pentecost...........well i never.

Yes, we will gather at the river....

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

'Ere ton......
....................
...............
.......................

Sorry, forgot what I was going to write after doing all the full stops.

Any idea what I was going to say big fella?

and I guess you are at stage 6. How comforting for you 🙄

Edit - and where have I claimed to be really clever?

Stage 7 - Let's argue about it anyway.

Stage 8 - Masturbate.

Stage 6 - actually, when you think about it a bit, truth a very fluid concept and all points of view are equally valid logically speaking

Then Stage 7 - when you realise that relativism is a cop-out and you should probably grow some balls and have an opinion

I used my extreme intelligence to deduce a very condescending tone in your post 🙂

As for stage 6 - yeah it's pretty relaxed up here - you should try it 🙂

Then Stage 7 - when you realise that relativism is a cop-out and you should probably grow some balls and have an opinion

Good argument. I do have an opinion though, however I don't think it is more valid than anyone else's so I don't publicly deride them for it.. unless they start it 😉

or Stage 7 - when you realise that relativism is a cop-out and you should probably grow some balls and have an opinion

hopefully they will avail themselves of the scientific and philosophical advances made since the first century, outside the purview of their parents, and transcend religious bewilderment

The irony or hypocrisy here, deluded, is that you do not understand enough of the science to fully support the Big Bang or even evolution but are quite happy with the idea that other wiser scientists do. As such your own scientific view is in fact just a belief system as well.

Faith in 'blokes smarter than yourself' , but selective too, after all you chose not to believe the Jesuits, a bunch of fairly smart blokes, yet you know as little of their scientific work as you do of any other scientist. Your choice of who to believe is not evidence based either.

Pwned 🙂

I would argue they are not all equally logical viable. In fact there is no ontological reason for god and limited empirical* evidence to support it as a theory.
Either way we can agree either one is correct or the other [ god or no god] as they are mutually exclusive. De facto one is true and that view is a little more valid than the false one.
Apart from that great point.

* I am being charitable there is none.

In fact there is no ontological reason for god and limited empirical* evidence to support it as a theory

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though, of course.

Perfectly easy to imagine a god who allows no evidence of his existence to penetrate our universe through his own will. How then would we prove or disprove the theory?

I can imagine anything, even you making sense...it does not make it true sadly.
I think his son /prophets/creations etc suggest the deity has been dropping of hints in this realm - well that and we have the lords word via holy books-what do you think? I am fairly sure we can discount your thought experiment as not occurring for us.
I am not doing this debate as I am fairly confident you live life with CM type faith in what clever folk have shown by empirical study and give less weigh to the unevidenced but imaginable claims of those with faith.

Equally, there's no proof that a chocolate tea-pot [b][u]isn't[/u][/b] orbiting the sun. So that means there must be! - right?

In fact there is no ontological reason for god.

I can imagine anything, even you making sense...it does not make it true sadly.

I predict you will never be a cult leader.

I wondered how long it would be before the Big Bang got mentioned.
It's the nature of religion to ignore all the everyday science around us and focus on the few things that science hasn't fully explained yet as if that disproves science as a whole.

I am not doing this debate as I am fairly confident you live life with CM type faith in what clever folk have shown by empirical study and give less weigh to the unevidenced but imaginable claims of those with faith

But can you tell me how that empirical evidence supports your belief?

I wondered how long it would be before the Big Bang got mentioned.
It's the nature of religion to ignore all the everyday science around us and focus on the few things that science hasn't fully explained yet as if that disproves science as a whole

I haven't said that the inability to explain the origins of the universe is an argument against science. In fact I've not made any claims against science, only that many folks choose to believe in scientific ideas without actually understanding them. This makes it another belief system.

Does god sit up in heaven and think "Oh look, there's some unbelievers down there. I know, I'll get one of my followers to argue with them on an internet forum. That'll win them over." ?

Indoctrination into cults is not a laughing matter

+1

I think the bits about christianity where they tell you to be good to your fellow man are nice..

It's all the mumbo jumbo that goes along with it that really let's it down and makes it a bit creepy and medieval.. what christianity needs is to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century..

And the there's the "Pest-ecostals"...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html

what christianity needs is to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century..

Maybe stick some of the pentecosts on primetime TV [b]So you think you can dance[/b] and let the public decide

...ponce-test

I can imagine anything, even you making sense...it does not make it true sadly

Look. My point is that you cannot ever disprove the existence of God. So what's the point in a) trying or b) laughing at those who choose to believe in him?

Being so utterly cock-sure that he does not exist is just as silly as being utterly cock-sure that he does.

You are missing the point of religion anyway. Explaining the creation of the world was important a long long time ago but it's moved on since then. Religion in the modern Western world is mostly about love, happiness, comfort, security, that kind of thing. Cosmology doesn't feature very highly any more.

The Jesuits would disagree. and I don't expect you to read to find that evidence, but I would expect you to have done some to understand evolution or the Bign Bang, unless of course you are prepared to accept that they are just ideas which you believe in too

But can you tell me how that empirical evidence supports your belief?

Being so utterly cock-sure that he does not exist is just as silly as being utterly cock-sure that he does.

All the STW religion protagonists should enter an ultra-sportive and discuss it on the way 🙂

Out of interest JY in what science is your degree?

Religion in the modern Western world is mostly about love, happiness, comfort, security

...and imposition "spread the word!"

fred whitton should be a quiet ride 😀

deadlydarcy - Member
'Ere ton......
....................
...............
.......................

Sorry, forgot what I was going to write after doing all the full stops.

Any idea what I was going to say big fella?

Posted 42 minutes ago # Report-Post

something along the lines of ' why dont you threaten them with fist pie Ton, just like you always do'.

even thought in all my years on here i have never threatened anyone.
that is usually how it goes with you DD, no?

oh nice you will like this Psychology I am off out now 😳

and imposition "spread the word!"

I've had atheist views rammed down my throat* WAY WAY more than religious ones, seriously. They just can't shut up. It's as if they are insecure about something 🙂 Or maybe they miss the point...

* despite not being religious

Junkyard - do you think I'll take the mick for you studying Psychology?

CM,

You speak of the sciences? Explain where it is scientifically demonstrable to raise the dead or rapture a person into the sky or be born of a virgin? These are claims that I’m less inclined to believe over natural biology as to how are species evolved – which can be explained.

Within the bounds of my own intellect (granted this is small :D) I chose to follow a world view based upon what I find persuasive. The bottom line is I don’t know and you don’t know either, I accept that, but I feel the ground is firmer where I stand – and I’m not saddled by the unfounded constraints, dogmas and strange hang-ups that religions impose.

Peace.

no it is not one is a position built on faith and no evidence and is a weak interpretation of reality. To give each equal weight is stupid. ther are two options but the odds are not 50/50.

Isn't that assuming that you are taking extreme versions of both?

What belief

Your belief in how the world works

Nice general trolling I have studied theology, philosophy of science, have a science degree and both quantum physics and cosmology fascinate me.

Now Junkyard, I've told you in the past that i have respect for you so without wishing to offend, you would recognise that the possession of a science degree is a meagre qualification for understanding the world. The science degree is not a reflection of your ability to understand scientific concepts so much as it is to be able to reproduce them in the appropriate assessment contexts. But that is a secondary argument. If you have studied theology and the philosophy of science beyond an module on your degree course you are well aware of the contribution of the Jesuits to scientific knowledge.

Ask me something specific so you can continue to have no opinion whilst sniping rather than actually counter the logic of my post or any belief.

I'm not sure what you want here. Are you saying that if i ask you a specific question I can continue without an opinion?

If so let me try with why did the people who began down the evolutionary track of losing their eyebrows lose out in the race for dominance?

(Is that what you mean?)

I've had atheist views rammed down my throat* WAY WAY more than religious ones, seriously. They just can't shut up. It's as if they are insecure about something Or maybe they miss the point...

...perhaps some of the insecurities stem from the 1000's of years of religous wars and persecution of the innocent?

If so let me try with why did the people who began down the evolutionary track of losing their eyebrows lose out in the race for dominance?

There's not enough evidence to reach that occlusion is there? Or was that the point?

ton, we both know you like to do the "I'd like to see you..." dance often enough. Direct threats? No. Veiled ones? Plenty.

The arguments here are almost at cross purposes.

Molgrips is exploring the relative existence of 'a god' while everyone else is responding to the notion of 'religion' and by extension 'God' and the two are really very different.

I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God,for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
But,' says Man,The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
Oh dear,' says God,I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

You speak of the sciences? Explain where it is scientifically demonstrable to raise the dead or rapture a person into the sky or be born of a virgin? These are claims that I’m less inclined to believe over natural biology as to how are species evolved – which can be explained.

Obviously the born of a virgin bit is easy nowadays.

First you explain how these ideas in anyway relate to the existence or not of a God?

how are species evolved – which can be explained.

By you?

Within the bounds of my own intellect (granted this is small :D) I chose to follow a world view based upon what I find persuasive.
The bottom line is I don’t know and you don’t know either, I accept that, but I feel the ground is firmer where I stand –

That's fine, so yours too is a belief system, even your belief that the ground where you stand is firmer is part of that belief system.

and I’m not saddled by the unfounded constraints, dogmas and strange hang-ups that religions impose.

Instead you are compelled by a different set, some of which lead you to argue the toss about them on an internet forum. Yet, I don't ridicule you or try to undermine your beliefs.

Peace indeed.

I've had atheist views rammed down my throat* WAY WAY more than religious ones, seriously.

You went to a non-religious primary school then? Cos there's not many of them about IIRC.

geetee, you make a good point and i think you are right, but I also think it goes further than that. Those attempting the scientific approach use their own operationalisation of God to show that there is no evidence of him / her /whatever and to demonstrate that scientifically god cannot exist. So, we have arguments against the bible or religion or article of faith. Yet for most people who believe in a god, those aspect are far removed from their conceptualisation of what god is that if the attempts at the scientific approach are shown to be true, within the scientific paradigm, it would be of little consequence to those who believe. There is an argument that science is the basis for knowledge, yet we all believe that happiness exists, there is general consensus on what it is, which is far removed from measures of endorphins and such like. Yet it cannot be operationalised and proven. I'm not saying that the existence of happiness proves the existence of God. Only that not all things can be captured by the scientific method

There is no evidence for any god at all. Science has some evidence behind it. The existence or not of god is not a question where both sides are as likely.

a question or two for the religious.

1) Why is your god(s) the true god(s) and other gods are false gods
2) What evidence for your god(s) existence exists?

The outcome, as always, is tension, upset and prejudice - another religious triumph