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.
so like i said you dont understand so god is not very good at explaining it.
if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism)
I dont think you can call ceationism a theory [ certainly not in the scientific sense nor do i think you can call them equal given where the evidence points/supports. One comes from observation one comes from supposition that then ignores the conflicting evidence as they have a book,faith etc.
There is as much evidence for FSM as god and all the same arguments "work"
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.
I suggest you read around the subject and test the observations yourself then and present your evidence ..denial without evidence is well stupid dude innit.
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 am pretty sure we have at least discovered some universal laws and know just a tad more than someone form 3000 years ago as a quick glance around you should easily convince you of this fact.
Whoppit said we have more knowledge not imagination
Amoeba are unicellular and therefore a poor choice for evolved or advanced argument in relation to complex multi celled mammals [ with mammals evolving last obviously].
[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...