[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ.

It's a good line - shame the New Testament and big J appears to disagree:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

-- Mathew 5:17-19 (KJV)

Or maybe said god is a fan of free will.

when i make something and it does not work can I blame it for this failings or is this something only an all powerful and all knowing deities can do??

God has to give us free will or god is the author of all sin - its a cop out for why evil happens - obvioulsy all pwerful god could if god chose , stop evil, but he does not. The reasons for this are unclear, even to those who believe, but you stil need to keep the faith even though you dont understand gods workings and you cannot explain it.
I think that cleared up that one

CharlieMungus - Member

If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.
Jesus was a Jew......in fact Jesus was THE Jew.

Actually I think he may have been a Christian too.

So where in the new testament does it say to disregard the old testament hmmmmmm? I mean if we're not in 2011 to take the old testament seriously because it is so obviously an objectionable collection of mumbo-jumbo, why didnt Jesus say so? I mean thats pretty fundamental to a new religion don't you think?

Or maybe Jesus didnt plan on setting up a new cult based on himself. Maybe the people who came after him thought his story was a good one as far as it went but with a bit of polish on the script it could have real legs. St Paul anyone?

obvioulsy all pwerful god could if god chose , stop evil, but he does not.

maybe he can't stop it.

"If god was all powerful he could create a rock even he could not move. If there was a rock god could not move he would not be all powerful."

so can he create the rock or not?

If they can't even agree on the basis of their beliefs in the same god, clearly he is not doing a very good job of guiding them.

Or maybe said god is a fan of free will.

Or, more likely, some people are not very good at being guided or sometimes interpret things incorrectly or don't get things right all of the time ... i.e the Roman Catholics worship/venerate Mary - nowhere in the Bible are believers told to revere anyone but God alone. Then there's purgatory - the existance of which is also non-Bibical.

How many more 'til 1000 is it anyway?

Or, more likely, some people are not very good at [b]being guided[/b]

or sometimes interpret things incorrectly

If a believer spends his/her whole life believing they have interpreted the bible correctly and are acting in accordance to god's wishes, yet when at the pearly gates it transpires their interpretations were wrong, do they get into heaven or not?

So where in the new testament does it say to disregard the old testament hmmmmmm?

If you are genuinely interested then I think a good starting point is the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount ]sermon on the mount[/url], the key idea being the reinterpretation of some of the 'rules' such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek.

are we at 900 yet?

And if you are interested in the bits of the New Testament where it appears to quite specifically say you shouldn't disregard the rules of the Old Testament then a good starting point is this:

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

😀

the sermon ion the mount does not reacnt the word of god

The LORD said to Moses - leviticus 20 :1
which then includes th ekill the gays bit

he did not recant the word of god - how could he?- though he may have changed the flavour of some aspects of "belief" and practice - or asserted some attributes - turn the other cheek - above vengenace " but the lord said to leave revenge for god anyway.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
romans 12:19

Jesus - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Oh dear

and the problem with all of this, such as GrahamS's links and mine, are that they are single passages often out of context. So, for example, one of the links on GrahamS's page was this

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

but the following verses say this "Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

and this happens all over the place. It's what makes the Bible so difficult to work with but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying

and this happens all over the place. It's what makes the Bible so difficult to work with but that mean that it isn't worth trying

deep down, don't you honestly think.......it's just a bunch of mythical stories from the Iron Age. I mean honestly.....?

Do you mean do I ever doubt? That is really the best question so far and I'll go for the honest answer - it is both yes and no. Yes in that sometimes stuff just doesn't make sense and you can't work it out. No in that in no way in my heart do I believe that God doesn't exist so I continue to work it out knowing that there are whole swathes of stuff that I still have to work through. At least another 100 posts worth at least 😉

i see nothin i n your fuller quote that changes this
He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”

I find it odd that you can worship when you admit you dont understand - how crap is god at explaining stuff then? Oh hold it is your fault innit not gods.:roll:

We could easy do 100 shall we jump about the books a bit

"through a glass darkly"

Be fair if i gave either side everyone would know the passage and yet no one knows this bit 8)

These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Clearly the Son of God never experienced a good dose of the squits then! 😆

The point of that reference is that JC quotes an Old Testament "law" which they no longer follow as evidence of their hypocrisy, but he doesn't say anything about it being repealed or it being okay not to follow it.

Surely it would only be hypocritical if he hadn't announced there was a new contract in place?

[i]"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

..

Ye hypocrites.. "[/i]
-- [url= http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%2015&version=KJV ]Mathew 15:3-4 (KJV)[/url]

Fair enough......I will leave you with my pitch

http://www.humanism.org.uk

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.

Today, people who share these beliefs and values are called humanists and this combination of attitudes is called Humanism. Many millions of people in Britain share this way of living and of looking at the world, but many of them have not heard the word 'humanist' and don't realise that it describes what they believe.

It is one of the main purposes of the British Humanist Association to increase public awareness of what Humanism is, and to let the many millions of non-religious people in this country know that, far from being somehow deficient in their values, they have an outlook on life which is coherent and widely-shared, which has inspired some of the world's greatest artists, writers, scientists, philosophers and social reformers, and which has a millenia-long tradition in both the western and eastern worlds.

We also hope to give greater confidence to people whose beliefs are humanist by offering resources here and elsewhere that can develop their knowledge of humanist approaches to some of the big ethical, philosophical and existential questions in life.

Defining 'Humanism'
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

•trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
•makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
•believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

I find it odd that you can worship when you admit you dont understand - how crap is god at explaining stuff then?

You wouldn't give your child everything they're going to need for their whole life whilst they are still a toddler - they couldn't cope or understand it all, and wouldn't know what to do with it.

As they grow and your relationship with them develops you teach them & guide them as needs arise, as things become necessary or appropriate etc.

In the same way, being a Christian is a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit ... it's a process that lasts a lifetime, nobody is perfect, understands everything, or has all the answers.

Was this thread resurrected or reincarnated today?

hehe, well done

The point of that reference is that JC quotes an Old Testament "law" which they no longer follow as evidence of their hypocrisy, but he doesn't say anything about it being repealed or it being okay not to follow it.

The "law" referenced was from the book of Leviticus which were laws for the priests. The point being made I believe was one that you would probably agree with, that the priests were making up laws as they went along to suit themselves and it didn't make any sense from a moral point of view. I think the two of you would get on well.

I'm pretty certain that he wasn't in a position to just rewrite the laws, he could only try and point to a different way of making sense of them. I'm absolutely certain that I couldn't win an argument with you over this though

oh, and if I may,

9 'undred

Nineun....

Oh ffs.... 😡

Don't want to play anyway bloody stupid game.

(Storms off in a huff)

So, while we pic nits all about which word means what. Why should I believe, say, Hinduism, than follow the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Bekoz Hinduism is a religion what is very ancient and involves all sorts of fascinating myths and stories and stuff, and incorporates elements of even more ancient religions/beliefs, whereas the latter is just attention seeking by some knobber trying to appear clever and funny but in fact probbly din't get enough hugs as a child or something...

So we're saying, the primary difference is that the former have been doing it for a lot longer?

Sounds like it. Which means that we should really all worship the sun/moon and stuff?

Myths and stories may make up a 'religion' but not the actual gods, unless you're into the Terry Pratchett stuff.

And there was me thinking that the flying spaghetti monster was an attempt to stymie the creationists from getting their beliefs being taught in American schools. Oh well since it's Elf he must be right.

I'm absolutely certain that I couldn't win an argument with you over this though

I'm more interested in "debate" than argument 🙂

I see your point about Him saying the priests were just making stuff up, but as I read it He is saying [i]"this is the law according to Dad, but you've made up some bogus tradition-based sub-clause to void it. Ye cannae do that!"[/i] - which is quite the opposite to what you are suggesting.

The ESV version is easier to read (my emphasis):

"He answered them, "And why do you break [u]the commandment of God[/u] for the sake of your tradition? For [u]God commanded[/u], 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' [u]But you say[/u], 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void [u]the word of God[/u]. You hypocrites! -- Mathew 15 (ESV)

And there was me thinking that the flying spaghetti monster was an attempt to stymie the creationists from getting their beliefs being taught in American schools.

Well, it's not a great deal more than 'oh look at me instead of them' type thing really, is it?

'I don't like your views so I'll attempt to stifle your voice'. How very open-minded...

I don't believe in Creationism, and most Christians I know don't subscribe to a lot of Creationist absolutism, but I don't feel so insecure I need to create a whole new 'religion' to get people to notice me.

They notice me anyway, without me even trying very hard. 😀

I find Kent Hovind a lot more interesting than the FSM bloke whatever his name is.

'I don't like your views so I'll attempt to stifle your voice'. How very open-minded...

Elf, this was an attempt to stop [b]science[/b] classes teaching creationism, not religious classes. No one has any problem with kids being taught religion in religious classes.

Kent Hovind: LOL. Good one. I'm having a larf at that one. Any more? That old chap, paid his taxes yet? 😀

Well, it's not a great deal more than 'oh look at me instead of them' type thing really, is it?

Have you actually read [url= http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ ]the original letter[/url] behind it Elf?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings ]The Kansas school board wanted to teach Creationism[/url] [u]in Science classes[/u] as an alternative to Evolution on the basis that evolution was wrong and Intelligent Design had been [i]scientifically[/i] proven!

So, if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism) being taught in schools, should I therefore start a 'religion' which does little else other than to mock those who choose to believe in something? That, and appeal to drunken students what think they know it all..

Is the FSM bloke poor?

Have you actually read the original letter behind it Elf?

Yes, it's just some guff writed by some arsey student bod. I woon't take it too seriously; it's just a form of attention seeking, little more.

I mean, some people believe that Tracy Emin creates Art. Proof, if indeed it were needed, that people need to believe in something, in order to 'belong'. Stuff like FSM is no different to any religion in this respect, as it serves as a 'club' where people can feel safe in numbers, part of something, not alone. Where it [i]does[/i] differ to religion, is in the fact it's just a load of student toss.

And if you can't work that out, yer not thinking hard enough with the brain God gave you... 😉

So, if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism) being taught in schools, should I therefore start a 'religion' which does little else other than to mock those who choose to believe in something?

(a) no, Big-bang-theory is not like creationism. There's evidence for that. If you want to argue against it, bring forward your evidence.
(b) you can create whatever religion you like and I'll back it being taught in religious classes. What's your symbol? A pint? Do you have a creed?

So if I had a problem with religious people of any type trying to teach my children that their version of reality is right, without evidence, you're all for it and no-one should say anything? How about it if they were (a) Christian? (b) Muslim? (c) Confucians? (d) Satanists? (e) Pagans?

Or should we, in science classes, teach the children that *every* single creation myth is the right one? Their single science lesson would take forever!

should I therefore start a 'religion' which does little else other than to mock those who choose to believe in something?

That really isn't the point of the exercise is it?

FSM make the quite valid point that if you are going to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory in Science classes then surely you need to teach other creation theories too, no matter how "unscientific".

(GrahamS, 36, not a drunk student)

Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

Replaces God with man. Surely?

Regarding free will and the comments on "fire and brimstone" - answer me this "what sort of God would make you spend eternity with Him, if you've chosen to freely reject him all of your life?"

Finally, the root of this for me is the concept of 'sin'. Some find the notion abhorrent and refute claims that it is real, whereas others recognise 'sin' within themselves and the world around them (with some recognising Jesus as the road to forgiveness, freedom and transformation). There is no compromise between these two positions and that is what it is.

Where it goes wrong for me is when the view is held that some 'sins' are worse than others and men make judgements about other men in this regard. It is not for us to judge - no-one is perfect and we don't have the whole picture. Jesus is quite clear about this. What is more important than the behaviour is the heart of the person. As I said about 1000 posts ago :wink:, being a Christian is about transformation and not transaction.

On the old testament - it's important to do our best to understand it, as it set's the context for the New Testament. The OT points to Jesus and provides evidence for who he says he was.

Finally, I'd like to say this about the 'do or die' view of God. If your world view of God is as an oppresive, dictatorial, fun extinguishing, fire and damnation entity then it makes perfect sense that you would rebel against Him. Human's have rebelled against oppression throughout history. However, my experience of God, my relationship with Jesus and reading his teaching and word in the bible suggests that He is the exact opposite and has in fact come to set the oppressed free, to provide light where there is darkness, to bring hope to the hopeless, to heal the broken and to demonstrate what it means to Love in all it's fulness.

it's a process that lasts a lifetime, nobody is perfect, understands everything, or has all the answers.

if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism)

I think you are being deliberately obtuse, Sir Elf of Poplar. The FSM thing was deliberately done to expose the silliness of fundamentalists in the US, and it worked a treat.

The difference between 'This IS the word of GOD, and you WILL teach it in schools and WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU, YOU HEATHEN ANTI-AMERICAN SWINE' and the humble but far more noble approach of our very own barnsleymitch; 'I am what I am, and I don't know all the answers, but I will believe what I choose to, thanks' speaks volumes about the way religion is used by individuals and groups of individuals with an agenda.

Big-bang-theory is not like creationism. There's evidence for that

Where?

Videos? Photos? Artefacts?

No, there's not, is there. It's [i]theory[/i], based on 'evidence' that some beings on one tiny planet in a Universe which is supposedly infinite, think [i]might[/i] suggest something like that mightuv happened.

Nothing more. 🙂

Well on the way to a Faasand posts now, I'm sure...

Can't be ars*d to read this whole thread but quickly scanning through it and in response to the original title, I think this thread also proves ............. everyone is angry!

Where?

Knock yourself out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

It is a valid scientific model of how the universe was created and existed in the first few moments.

It is a [u]working[/u] model. Scientific observations can be made that support it and maths can be done using it which can then be observed to be true.

That doesn't mean it is exactly what happened of course, but it does make it valid science of the sort that should be taught in science lessons.

How [i]dare[/i] you suggest that I'm angry???? 😡

See, the problem with the Big Bang THEORY, Graham, is that it supposes that the observations made by one species on one tiny planet in an allegedly infinite Universe, are in any way, universally accurate.

The arrogance of Humanity to believe that it is anywhere near understanding anything like a billiontrillionth of the reality of the Universe, is incredible.

We know flip all about flip all, in the general scheme of things.

Hence why I find religious theory and belief just as fascinating as Science.

But that's cos I've got an open mind and won't invent lots of compulcated scientific terms to pretend I understand owt. 😀

everyone is angry

Au contraire Msr. Moe. This thread has proven that folk can actually have a reasonable and sensible debate about stuff that we won't ever agree on.

I think this thread also proves ............. everyone is angry!

Well....there's 100 voices on this thread, 918 posts and so if everyone simply responds to the above with a yay or nay we should crack it :-)!

Answer Moe then - are you angry?......I'm a nay!

wow lets debate science with the arts student

There is plenty of objective verifiable evidence for a single point of origin for the universe [ BB]. If you can refute it with the same objective evidence I will shake your hand after the noble prize ceremony.

science has no certainties only faith based approaches have that
Yes it might be wrong now convince me ...something a creationist cannot say so we have a difference or them not being the same
ETC
not getting drawn in with you not sure you mean what you say

only angry at elf 😈

and 😉 just to be sure

noble prize ceremony.

NOBEL prize, bloody NOBEL prize, not noble...For Gods Sa...Oh..

There is plenty of objective verifiable evidence for a single point of origin for the universe

No there is not.

If the Universe, as is commonly believed by folk of all sorts or religions and persuasions, is truly infinite, then we could be observing just one teeny tiny infinitesimally minute and relatively insignificant fraction of it.

So how would that make our observations in any way [b]UNIVERSALLY[/b] accurate? Hmm? Go on, explain [i]THAYT[/i].

You can't can you? Therefore I win. Again.

See, the problem with the Big Bang THEORY,

Yep, like the THEORY of gravity which is apparently what holds us to the planet, the THEORY of thermodynamics, the THEORY of, well, just about anything which isn't maths. Just put the word 'THEORY' in capitals in front of it and hey-presto! you can bash it, make up something really soft, oh, say 'the THEORY of blancmange' and then pit them together:

Which is true: the THEORY of big bang or the THEORY of blancmange? It must be somewhere between the two! Therefore the universe was made out of an exploding blancmange!

Therefore I win. Again.

This is a thousand post thread, stop being foolish and either join in sensibly or go away.

[URL= http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2138 ]
[IMG] [/IMG][/URL]

Yep, like the THEORY of gravity which is apparently what holds us to the planet, the THEORY of thermodynamics

Stuff what we can measure on our planet. Which is supposedly just one of potentially trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions (skip a few trillion trillion trillion lines just like this one) and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions maybe even an infinite amount of other planets in the Universe.

So, I think you'd agree, on that basis, that there's one or two things, maybe a bit more, what we truly [i]don't[/i] understand. 😉

this is his joining in sensibly 😯

No there is not.

Before we get drawn into the "evidence based theory as opposed to conjectural hypothesis" discussion (though it appears that some here don't know the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis") , can I point out at this stage that this entire argument from every angle has been repeated many times.

Either the supporters of religion and belief fail to grasp what has been said, or they wilfully ignore it's obvious illumination.

As it seems to be the bible which is under discussion and being quoted by those seeking an authoritative source on both sides, can I just point out that this tract, written in the bronze age by a society of ignorant sheep-herders who had barely got beyond the invention of the wheel, reads exactly like a fiction. It is inconsistent within itself and contains many obvious impossibilities, many of which have been pointed out in previous discussions, but apparently forgotten by those who find it convenient to aid the repetitive nature of their argument.

I am always puzzled by the desire to accept "ancient wisdoms" and pre-enlightenment myth instead of thoroughly researched and evidence based, rational theory.

But hey, who am I to cast pearls before such. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Science works. Planes fly. Broomsticks and magic carpets don't.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Very, very true, Woppit.

As it seems to be the bible which is under discussion and being quoted by those seeking an authoritative source on both sides, can I just point out that this tract, written in the bronze age by a society of ignorant sheep-herders who had barely got beyond the invention of the wheel, reads exactly like a fiction.

And if you extend that, it could be argued that in relative terms, Humanity is not even up to 'ignorant goat-herder' standard, as you put it (love the way you assume yourself in the 21st century to in any way have a superior [i]imagination[/i] to people of bygone times), but in fact could be even less 'evolved' or 'advanced' in [i]universal[/i] terms than a single-celled amoeba. 😐

If you live in a valley, and never venture beyond the valley walls, then how can you know what lies beyond?

See, the problem with the Big Bang THEORY

Model is probably a better description.

it supposes that the observations made by one species on one tiny planet in an allegedly infinite Universe, are in any way, universally accurate.

Well except it's not based on the observations we make on Earth though is it? It's based on the observations we can make on every part of the universe that we can see or detect.

Granted it could well be that beyond the reaches of what we can observe, everything works completely differently and is made of cheese.

But the Big Bang [i]Model[/i] fits what we can observe and therefore is currently a workable scientific model of how our observable universe was created.

Likewise, we're not 100% sure how gravity exactly works, but we have a workable scientific model of it which we can use to mathematically predict its effect on objects.

Maybe gravity works differently in a part of the universe we can't see - but we have no evidence of that and science likes evidence.

Fred. I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to mean as it doesn't seem to make any sense.

One knows what is "beyond the valley" by leaving it (seems obvious).

Currently, I understand that we are able to observe something to the order of a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, be planning a trip to Mars and are also finding new cures and evolutionary information from investigating the Human Genome.

In my view, that's quite a distance over the valley walls from the goat pasture.

Although god hasn't turned up yet, of course. Perhaps it's hiding, the scamp...

No doubt you will differ.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

or "always beware of listening to the sound of one hand clapping"

This is why it's important to have debate such as this here.

Big Bang Bollocks. 🙂

It's based on the observations we can make on every part of the universe that we can [b]see or detect[/b].

Which, I'm sure you'll agree, if you follow the idea that the Universe is infinite (where did that idea come from originally, btw?), that what we can see could be an incredibly tiny fraction of it all.

And you're going to base a theory of the origins of the Universe, as a whole, on that alone?

Bit short-sighted, is not it? Maybe, even, (whispers) a bit un-scientific?

Hmm?

[i][b]If you live in a valley, and never venture beyond the valley walls, then how can you know what lies beyond?[/b][/i]

One knows what is "beyond the valley" by leaving it

We've not even ourselves visited our closest neighbouring [i]planet[/i], yet alone the nearest star. In a universe with potentially (I'm not doing all those trillions again I think you get the idea) lots of stars?

Sop how can we truly even [i]begin[/i] to pretend we understand owt?

Humanity is not even up to 'ignorant goat-herder' standard, as you put it (love the way you assume yourself in the 21st century to in any way have a superior imagination to people of bygone times), but in fact could be even less 'evolved' or 'advanced' in universal terms than a single-celled amoeba.

[i]what we truly don't understand.[/i]

I think, in your haste to boost your own ego, that you missed off the word ................YET.................

But thanks for your contribution anyway.

So where in the new testament does it say to disregard the old testament hmmmmmm?

[i]That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ.[/i]
It's a good line - shame the New Testament and big J appears to disagree:

The new Covenant is about god saying he's not going to be all bang crash kapow anymore, really honest. Instead of putting your effort into finding a bit which might be in conflict with this, which incidentally the bit about the law isn't. you could just google New covenant and New Testament or something, depending on whether you want to argue about stuff or find out about stuff. Even if finding out about stuff means you are better prepared for future arguments. It's quite good really. There's this website called Wikipedia or something wjich is quite good for stuff like that. I'm no sure what the address is, but you can probably google for it.

The new Covenant is about god saying he's not going to be all bang crash kapow anymore, really honest. Instead of putting your effort into finding a bit which might be in conflict with this, which incidentally the bit about the law isn't. you could just google New covenant and New Testament or something, depending on whether you want to argue about stuff or find out about stuff. Even if finding out about stuff means you are better prepared for future arguments. It's quite good really.

While I see your point I still say "The emperor has no clothes". Its all a load of made up stuff. I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of the pin because they haven't been shown to exist.

Fred. I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to mean as it doesn't seem to make any sense.

To [i]you[/i], it may not make any sense.

That is not to say that it makes no sense at all...

We understand what we have discovered. No doubt there is more to come. So far, the working model matches our discoveries.

No doubt, as Graham S said, we may discover that the rest of the universe is made of cheese, or is a colony for three-headed unicorns, or a god.

But one has to ask - so what?

Although god hasn't turned up yet, of course.....

I would suggest several million Christians world-wide and several million more over the past 2000 years would disagree, not just Elf!

I'm sure God has turned up in your life too Woppit....

Maybe, even, (whispers) a bit un-scientific?

While I see your point I still say "The emperor has no clothes". Its all a load of made up stuff. I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of the pin because they haven't been shown to exist.

Excellent! Concede a point and then go back to the very beginning again We'll surely hit 1000 if you keep it up!

where do we stop accounting for things we have no evidence of ?

just after string theory, or maybe electron orbits

Do you decide or is it the Pope?

Why are you picking on Catholics JY? Shame man...shaaaayyyyymmmmme.

I would suggest several million Christians world-wide and several million more over the past 2000 years would disagree, not just Elf!

How many people believe in something is not an indication of it existing. If there were more, say, Hindus than Christians would that mean that the Christians are wrong and the Hindus are right? If an alien race of trillions turned up believing something else would they then be right?

I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of the pin because they haven't been shown to exist.

Following the logic of this....how do we know things like Love exists? I assume you believe that Love does exist? If so, how do you know?

As it seems to be the bible which is under discussion and being quoted by those seeking an authoritative source on both sides, can I just point out that this tract, written in the bronze age by a society of ignorant sheep-herders who had barely got beyond the invention of the wheel, reads exactly like a fiction. It is inconsistent within itself and contains many obvious impossibilities, many of which have been pointed out in previous discussions, but apparently forgotten by those who find it convenient to aid the repetitive nature of their argument.

Which was also written (New Testament - the really important bit) at an age and society where some of the most celebrated scientists and philosophers lived; is written in a way that is completely and utterly different to fiction of the time in its detail and mention of seemingly benign facts (minor actions of people, singular mentions of names, colours of objects etc); has a large number of extremely accurate (to each other) manuscripts from close to the written period (oldest is only around 50-70 years after the death of Jesus); was transcribed into different manuscripts in a society where information was passed on verbatim and so a very high degree of accuracy was maintained (no "Chinese whispers"); and where the majority of the authors of the new testament were actually executed or exiled for their writings so certain of their truth were they.

Just to add to the mix.

I would suggest several million Christians world-wide and several million more over the past 2000 years would disagree, not just Elf!

How many people believe in something is not an indication of it existing

Totally agree - that wasn't my point. I was simply saying that Woppit suggests God hasn't shown up. Millions would argue otherwise.

Excellent! Concede a point and then go back to the very beginning again We'll surely hit 1000 if you keep it up!

I didn't concede, I tried to get back to the original point. We could nit-pick the words inside any holy book for ever disappearing up our own backsides based on translations from aramaic through greek from the original Welsh.

But yes, we *will* get to 1000, dagnabit!

O.K.

Humanity is not even up to 'ignorant goat-herder' standard,

In what way? None that I can think of. Even the goats are better cared for.

love the way you assume yourself in the 21st century to in any way have a superior imagination to people of bygone times

Love the way you argue by misquotation. I didn't say that.

but in fact could be even less 'evolved' or 'advanced' in universal terms than a single-celled amoeba

You'll have to explain what you mean by "universal terms" in this context. In what way am I less "evolved" than a single-celled amoeba, exactly?

Following the logic of this....how do we know things like Love exists? I assume you believe that Love does exist? If so, how do you know?

Because of chemical reactions inside my brain which include chemicals which can be measured. Next!

(I think Dawkins and others books discuss this. Haven't read them.)

close to the written period (oldest is only around 50-70 years after the death of Jesus)