Religion....
Cleat Eastwood
Posts: 7,508
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
0
Comments
-
Very good, except atheism isn't a religion
0 -
Atheism is a religion 'cos it requires a God for you not to believe in
my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
team47b wrote:Atheism is a religion 'cos it requires a God for you not to believe in
Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a Deity. Whether that be Allah, God in the Judaeo-Christian sense, Thor, Wutan, or the flying spaghetti monster, it's all bollocks 0 -
baldwin471 wrote:team47b wrote:Atheism is a religion 'cos it requires a God for you not to believe in
Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a Deity. Whether that be Allah, God in the Judaeo-Christian sense, Thor, Wutan, or the flying spaghetti monster, it's all bollocks
You leave Thor out of this, he's the coolest of all the deities.0 -
Religion in its entirety is the Devil's work. :twisted:
That is all.Cervelo S5 Ultegra Di2.0 -
johnfinch wrote:baldwin471 wrote:team47b wrote:Atheism is a religion 'cos it requires a God for you not to believe in
Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a Deity. Whether that be Allah, God in the Judaeo-Christian sense, Thor, Wutan, or the flying spaghetti monster, it's all bollocks
You leave Thor out of this, he's the coolest of all the deities.
He's sooo yesterday! my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
upperoilcan wrote:Religion in its entirety is the Devil's work. :twisted:
That is all.
Not very good PR for him though, I'd sack the marketing men if I were him.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
see my sig.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Moonies- Look At My Sh*t.0
-
It was John Betjeman who had an argument with a devout Christian of some sect and used his chocolate teapot argument to great effect.
He said that God was a chocolate teapot circumnavigating the world. It was brown and small and therefore difficult to see against the black of space.
The religious man claimed that this statement was false. Betjeman asked the man if had actually seen god. The reply was no. 'Then how do you know he is actually there ?' He didn't, he just 'knew that he existed'. Betjeman then said to the religious man that as he could not prove that God was not a chocolate teapot, therefore he must exist by that same logic. You cannot prove that god is not a chocolate teapot and say that god exists when you haven't actually seen him.
Funny, 3 members of pussy riot got jailed for 2 years. 25 years ago in the old Soviet Union, people could not get into church.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
If you talk to god, your a vicar.
If god talks to you, you're insane.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
If one person has an imaginary friend, they're crazy, if many people have the same imaginary friend it's religion?
War over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.0 -
Religion is organized suppression and nothing more....but it does beg the question for modern times; 'How can I believe in a God/Buddha/Divine Power/YHVH whatever without resorting to Religion? I know many people who are trying to explore their 'spiritual' selves without wishing to refer to (or 'believe in') pre-determined belief-systems. It means God, as a 'power greater than ourselves' (for instance) doesn't have to be accessed by any formal structure - does it?Raymondo
"Let's just all be really careful out there folks!"0 -
@pinarello001: a nice argument well put.. It was Bertrand Russell though. And the teapot wasn't necessarily chocolate though who's to say it wasn't (isn't).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot0 -
I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.0
-
Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?0 -
Ah but the truth of those spiritual texts has been hidden and modified and packaged as a religious system - the system is wrong but the truth of the texts as detailed coded messages about mankinds development are deeply important. The problem is that even though we are born in a state of flux people still see science and religion as absolute truths rather than ever changing states of being and understanding - which is why all isms, doctrines, beliefs and philosophies should be allowed to run free
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:Ah but the truth of those spiritual texts has been hidden and modified and packaged as a religious system - the system is wrong but the truth of the texts as detailed coded messages about mankinds development are deeply important. The problem is that even though we are born in a state of flux people still see science and religion as absolute truths rather than ever changing states of being and understanding - which is why all isms, doctrines, beliefs and philosophies should be allowed to run free
People got along just fine for thousands of years without organised religion. I agree that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, but when they start infringing on other peoples human rights you have to draw the line. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. It frustrates me when people say that "Belief" in science is just as blind as faith in religion, it isn't. Science observes the world around us, and formulates theories as to how to explain those. Take the big bang, it's the most commonly accepted scientific argument as to how the universe began, we think this because all of the evidence we have found points to this conclusion. Now, if we find a piece of evidence that would make the theory not be possible, or even unlikely, then we work on another theory of how to explain it.
Religion, on the other hand, is believing in something because it's written down in an ancient scroll. Look at my other post about Mithras, the Roman god. It is EXACTLY the same story as the story told of Jesus in the Judaeo-Christian faith, yet if you ask a Christian if Mithras existed, they'll say no way, yet i bet if their parents worshipped Mithras, they would think that Jesus Christ is ridiculous and untrue. It's all about where you are born. The thing is, i've had people ask me what it's like to be an Atheist, and i always say the same thing - "You know exactly what it's like" 99.9% of religious people are atheists to an extent. Take Muslims, they are atheists to every other religion, past or present because they aren't Christians, Jews, Buddhas etc. I just go one God further, you believe in 1 God and think the other 4999 are fictional, i think all 5000 are fictional. Rant over. I love having this argument though, as science doesn't lose against mythology.
And yes, as opposed to a faith based world, Secularism sounds great.0 -
0 -
baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?
Glad to see you are demonstrating the know it all approach. From what you have written it appears you have concluded that I must be a Christian, perhaps I don't need to Google Mithras, perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet.
Don't people hold themselves out as witches even today? The true age of the planet was only calculated about 40 years ago, creatures believed extinct are discovered all of the time, and there are believed to be hundreds of species on this planet not yet discovered. We've only travelled as far as the moon. The point I'm making is that even in an age of electronic shifting we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Given the choice would you really want to live in a secular world?0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?
Glad to see you are demonstrating the know it all approach. From what you have written it appears you have concluded that I must be a Christian, perhaps I don't need to Google Mithras, perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet.
Don't people hold themselves out as witches even today? The true age of the planet was only calculated about 40 years ago, creatures believed extinct are discovered all of the time, and there are believed to be hundreds of species on this planet not yet discovered. We've only travelled as far as the moon. The point I'm making is that even in an age of electronic shifting we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Given the choice would you really want to live in a secular world?
People like you annoy me immensely. It's not "Faith" in science, like i said. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the DENIAL of observation so that belief can be preserved. "We've only reached the moon" is ridiculous, we've only been capable of powered flight for 108 years, and at the time of the moon landings, only 65 years. We are tiny, insignificant bits of carbon. That's it. We aren't smart, no, but we aren't going to get any smarter by sitting on our arses saying "Isn't life mysterious, let's just sit here and hope" Or call up the fucking pope.
There are believed to be MILLIONS of species and sub-species we haven't discovered, not hundreds. It isn't the know it all approach, it's called using the available facts and determining a reasonable scientific theorem from them. We won't get anywhere as a species if we keep holding ourselves back with religion.
I admit, i did assume you are a Christian, as you are clearly in a civilised country that has access to the internet, and 40% of religious people are Christian. Maybe that's wrong of me, so i apologise for assuming, but i bet you are. I find your quote astonishing "perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet". Actually think about that for a second. What you wrote is EXACTLY what religion is. Except a book in the place of the internet. Difference is, things on factual sites have WAY more credibility than an ancient book as people have studied Mithras, and then like i said, extrapolate a theory as to who he was and what he did from the text's available.
There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity.
And yes, as opposed to a faith based world, Secularism sounds great.0 -
baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?
Glad to see you are demonstrating the know it all approach. From what you have written it appears you have concluded that I must be a Christian, perhaps I don't need to Google Mithras, perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet.
Don't people hold themselves out as witches even today? The true age of the planet was only calculated about 40 years ago, creatures believed extinct are discovered all of the time, and there are believed to be hundreds of species on this planet not yet discovered. We've only travelled as far as the moon. The point I'm making is that even in an age of electronic shifting we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Given the choice would you really want to live in a secular world?
People like you annoy me immensely. It's not "Faith" in science, like i said. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the DENIAL of observation so that belief can be preserved. "We've only reached the moon" is ridiculous, we've only been capable of powered flight for 108 years, and at the time of the moon landings, only 65 years. We are tiny, insignificant bits of carbon. That's it. We aren't smart, no, but we aren't going to get any smarter by sitting on our arses saying "Isn't life mysterious, let's just sit here and hope" Or call up the ******* pope.
There are believed to be MILLIONS of species and sub-species we haven't discovered, not hundreds. It isn't the know it all approach, it's called using the available facts and determining a reasonable scientific theorem from them. We won't get anywhere as a species if we keep holding ourselves back with religion.
I admit, i did assume you are a Christian, as you are clearly in a civilised country that has access to the internet, and 40% of religious people are Christian. Maybe that's wrong of me, so i apologise for assuming, but i bet you are. I find your quote astonishing "perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet". Actually think about that for a second. What you wrote is EXACTLY what religion is. Except a book in the place of the internet. Difference is, things on factual sites have WAY more credibility than an ancient book as people have studied Mithras, and then like i said, extrapolate a theory as to who he was and what he did from the text's available.
There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity.
And yes, as opposed to a faith based world, Secularism sounds great.
Ouch! you really are a dancing crab and not afraid to use capital letters I see.
Some of your statements don't make sense. You say "There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity." I never said there wasn't, so what point are you making?
"Isn't life mysterious let's sit here and hope" what does that mean? hope for what?
What's ridiculous about "we've only reached the moon"? it's a statment of fact isn't it? or have Campagnolo already surpassed their 11 speed with something extra special?
You seem to confuse faith with religion,to believe in God you must believe in a book which is a bit like saying to take an interest in football you have to support a club. Do you have to believe in a book to believe in god?
You do also make assumptions which is bad science and we certainly won't get anywhere as a species if we do that will we? I've been married a long time but I never got married in a church and no I didn't have some hippy rising sun ceremony either. It was a registry office, now I bet you didn't assume that did you? Are you married yourself? Did you have a church ceremony? (no fibbing now the internet will know). You'd be surprised how many scientists have "faith". I met a guy who worked in the Physics department, specialising in particle physics, at Birmingham University who in conversation told me he was a man with faith. I suggested that there must be a conflict with his work but his answer was that I'd be surprised at how many of his scientific colleagues were people of faith
Don't get so annoyed,this is debate, unwind cousin.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?
Glad to see you are demonstrating the know it all approach. From what you have written it appears you have concluded that I must be a Christian, perhaps I don't need to Google Mithras, perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet.
Don't people hold themselves out as witches even today? The true age of the planet was only calculated about 40 years ago, creatures believed extinct are discovered all of the time, and there are believed to be hundreds of species on this planet not yet discovered. We've only travelled as far as the moon. The point I'm making is that even in an age of electronic shifting we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Given the choice would you really want to live in a secular world?
People like you annoy me immensely. It's not "Faith" in science, like i said. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the DENIAL of observation so that belief can be preserved. "We've only reached the moon" is ridiculous, we've only been capable of powered flight for 108 years, and at the time of the moon landings, only 65 years. We are tiny, insignificant bits of carbon. That's it. We aren't smart, no, but we aren't going to get any smarter by sitting on our arses saying "Isn't life mysterious, let's just sit here and hope" Or call up the ******* pope.
There are believed to be MILLIONS of species and sub-species we haven't discovered, not hundreds. It isn't the know it all approach, it's called using the available facts and determining a reasonable scientific theorem from them. We won't get anywhere as a species if we keep holding ourselves back with religion.
I admit, i did assume you are a Christian, as you are clearly in a civilised country that has access to the internet, and 40% of religious people are Christian. Maybe that's wrong of me, so i apologise for assuming, but i bet you are. I find your quote astonishing "perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet". Actually think about that for a second. What you wrote is EXACTLY what religion is. Except a book in the place of the internet. Difference is, things on factual sites have WAY more credibility than an ancient book as people have studied Mithras, and then like i said, extrapolate a theory as to who he was and what he did from the text's available.
There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity.
And yes, as opposed to a faith based world, Secularism sounds great.
Ouch! you really are a dancing crab and not afraid to use capital letters I see.
Some of your statements don't make sense. You say "There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity." I never said there wasn't, so what point are you making?
"Isn't life mysterious let's sit here and hope" what does that mean? hope for what?
What's ridiculous about "we've only reached the moon"? it's a statment of fact isn't it? or have Campagnolo already surpassed their 11 speed with something extra special?
You seem to confuse faith with religion,to believe in God you must believe in a book which is a bit like saying to take an interest in football you have to support a club. Do you have to believe in a book to believe in god?
You do also make assumptions which is bad science and we certainly won't get anywhere as a species if we do that will we? I've been married a long time but I never got married in a church and no I didn't have some hippy rising sun ceremony either. It was a registry office, now I bet you didn't assume that did you? Are you married yourself? Did you have a church ceremony? (no fibbing now the internet will know). You'd be surprised how many scientists have "faith". I met a guy who worked in the Physics department, specialising in particle physics, at Birmingham University who in conversation told me he was a man with faith. I suggested that there must be a conflict with his work but his answer was that I'd be surprised at how many of his scientific colleagues were people of faith
Don't get so annoyed,this is debate, unwind cousin.
Tell me your personal view then. For me, people who say they have faith but are not religious in an abrahamic sense (mainstream religion and the like) are just scared of death but don't want to put all their marbles in one corner. I don't doubt that some scientists are people of faith, I was myself until I was 12. With "we've only reached the moon" it sounded to me like you were saying that we've Only reached the moon, and that we aren't that smart. What I'm saying is we have only had civilised life and lived in a democratic country for the last 120 odd years. We are nothing, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and we've only been like we are now (technologically speaking) for a hundred years or so.
Isn't that astonishing? We are so insignificant. This is why I find the idea of a god so impossible. All this universe, possibly many many more universes also and it's all for us? Nah, I can't believe that. Some people, you may be one, believe that a deity started the universe off, but then left it as it is. That the deity doesn't intervene, or answer prayers, or cause earthquakes or whatever. That idea is still extremely unlikely for me, but it's a theory, so you can't entirely discount it. I don't want to get into a spat, but it does anger me I have to be honest, when people are so closed minded, and then have the audacity to say atheists are themselves close minded.
I'm not married, I don't see the point. My mrs will get whatever I have (I doubt she'll want the bikes!) when I pop my clogs anyway so I don't see the point forking out a load of money when neithe of us really want one anyway. But if I ever did, there is no way it'd happen in a church, or any place of worship, like you it'd be in the registry office.0 -
baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?
Glad to see you are demonstrating the know it all approach. From what you have written it appears you have concluded that I must be a Christian, perhaps I don't need to Google Mithras, perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet.
Don't people hold themselves out as witches even today? The true age of the planet was only calculated about 40 years ago, creatures believed extinct are discovered all of the time, and there are believed to be hundreds of species on this planet not yet discovered. We've only travelled as far as the moon. The point I'm making is that even in an age of electronic shifting we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Given the choice would you really want to live in a secular world?
People like you annoy me immensely. It's not "Faith" in science, like i said. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the DENIAL of observation so that belief can be preserved. "We've only reached the moon" is ridiculous, we've only been capable of powered flight for 108 years, and at the time of the moon landings, only 65 years. We are tiny, insignificant bits of carbon. That's it. We aren't smart, no, but we aren't going to get any smarter by sitting on our arses saying "Isn't life mysterious, let's just sit here and hope" Or call up the ******* pope.
There are believed to be MILLIONS of species and sub-species we haven't discovered, not hundreds. It isn't the know it all approach, it's called using the available facts and determining a reasonable scientific theorem from them. We won't get anywhere as a species if we keep holding ourselves back with religion.
I admit, i did assume you are a Christian, as you are clearly in a civilised country that has access to the internet, and 40% of religious people are Christian. Maybe that's wrong of me, so i apologise for assuming, but i bet you are. I find your quote astonishing "perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet". Actually think about that for a second. What you wrote is EXACTLY what religion is. Except a book in the place of the internet. Difference is, things on factual sites have WAY more credibility than an ancient book as people have studied Mithras, and then like i said, extrapolate a theory as to who he was and what he did from the text's available.
There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity.
And yes, as opposed to a faith based world, Secularism sounds great.
Ouch! you really are a dancing crab and not afraid to use capital letters I see.
Some of your statements don't make sense. You say "There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity." I never said there wasn't, so what point are you making?
"Isn't life mysterious let's sit here and hope" what does that mean? hope for what?
What's ridiculous about "we've only reached the moon"? it's a statment of fact isn't it? or have Campagnolo already surpassed their 11 speed with something extra special?
You seem to confuse faith with religion,to believe in God you must believe in a book which is a bit like saying to take an interest in football you have to support a club. Do you have to believe in a book to believe in god?
You do also make assumptions which is bad science and we certainly won't get anywhere as a species if we do that will we? I've been married a long time but I never got married in a church and no I didn't have some hippy rising sun ceremony either. It was a registry office, now I bet you didn't assume that did you? Are you married yourself? Did you have a church ceremony? (no fibbing now the internet will know). You'd be surprised how many scientists have "faith". I met a guy who worked in the Physics department, specialising in particle physics, at Birmingham University who in conversation told me he was a man with faith. I suggested that there must be a conflict with his work but his answer was that I'd be surprised at how many of his scientific colleagues were people of faith
Don't get so annoyed,this is debate, unwind cousin.
Tell me your personal view then. For me, people who say they have faith but are not religious in an abrahamic sense (mainstream religion and the like) are just scared of death but don't want to put all their marbles in one corner. I don't doubt that some scientists are people of faith, I was myself until I was 12. With "we've only reached the moon" it sounded to me like you were saying that we've Only reached the moon, and that we aren't that smart. What I'm saying is we have only had civilised life and lived in a democratic country for the last 120 odd years. We are nothing, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and we've only been like we are now (technologically speaking) for a hundred years or so.
Isn't that astonishing? We are so insignificant. This is why I find the idea of a god so impossible. All this universe, possibly many many more universes also and it's all for us? Nah, I can't believe that. Some people, you may be one, believe that a deity started the universe off, but then left it as it is. That the deity doesn't intervene, or answer prayers, or cause earthquakes or whatever. That idea is still extremely unlikely for me, but it's a theory, so you can't entirely discount it. I don't want to get into a spat, but it does anger me I have to be honest, when people are so closed minded, and then have the audacity to say atheists are themselves close minded.
I'm not married, I don't see the point. My mrs will get whatever I have (I doubt she'll want the bikes!) when I pop my clogs anyway so I don't see the point forking out a load of money when neithe of us really want one anyway. But if I ever did, there is no way it'd happen in a church, or any place of worship, like you it'd be in the registry office.
I think we are both singing from the same hymn sheet (what a pun!) but have differing conclusions. Every generation of mankind is a new age of enlightenment. We loo back patronisingly through history at those who believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth and pity their ignorance. As a result as more of the unexplained has become explained mankind has become more sceptical of the premise of a supreme being yet what exactly do we know? Not really that much.
Big bang theory isn't that old (in fact I believe the term was originally coined derogatorily) but it is only theory. Some theories become engrained in our psyche then lo and behold someone makes a discovery that turns evrything on its head.
I think the point i'm making is that science has become the comfort blanket that religion once was. Science is a religion based upon theories just like Christianity for example is/was upon the Gospels. Now the Gospels are supposed to be eye witness accounts if so why should they be anymore unbelievable than sound scientific theory? Why is it any less difficult to believe that a miracle was witnessed approximately 2000 years ago than say some theory about a singularity (is that the right term?) that brought about the beginning of the Universe?
You say yourself that there are coincidences in most religions Mithras/Jesus. Well I believe that old JC is the third most important prophet in Islam so even the Moslems accept that Jesus existed.
All of this aside I suppose I'd like there to be a supreme being, I'd like to think that life has some purpose but I'm not going to pull a duvet over my head if that isn't the case. I don't need faith as a crutch but in today's society faith is the underdog and I'll always support the underdog. To me jumping on the scientific bandwagon is a bit like riding a fixie in London, it's hip and cool and appears to make the most sense.
As for marriage, each to his own I guess. why do it? well it is an institution of society that binds a couple. I would hazard a guess and say that a significan proportion of long term co-habitees eventually tie the knot, I suppose it is just like saying that you don't want kids then 10 years down the line you end up with a couple (that's what happened to us)
Oh and it doesn't have to be expensive. We had been living togethere for a short time and decided to get hitched (I don't know why it just seemed right). We were skint so it was a pub lunch for 12 mates, posh frock for her and two plain wedding rings...£300 all in. The honeymoon was a long weekend on the Isle of Coll (vouchers off the cornflakes packet)
You could always surprise her and organise a honeymoon in France for the first two weeks in July 0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:baldwin471 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt. Mankind in general makes me laugh with its know it all approach to the Universe in general.
So you'd rather believe some bollocks written in a book which was written in an age where they also believed in witches. Google Mithras. He was a saviour, sent to earth to live as a mortal, died for our sins, born of a virgin in a manger on december 25th, had 12 deciples, was worshiped on a sunday. Sound familiar?
Glad to see you are demonstrating the know it all approach. From what you have written it appears you have concluded that I must be a Christian, perhaps I don't need to Google Mithras, perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet.
Don't people hold themselves out as witches even today? The true age of the planet was only calculated about 40 years ago, creatures believed extinct are discovered all of the time, and there are believed to be hundreds of species on this planet not yet discovered. We've only travelled as far as the moon. The point I'm making is that even in an age of electronic shifting we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Given the choice would you really want to live in a secular world?
People like you annoy me immensely. It's not "Faith" in science, like i said. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the DENIAL of observation so that belief can be preserved. "We've only reached the moon" is ridiculous, we've only been capable of powered flight for 108 years, and at the time of the moon landings, only 65 years. We are tiny, insignificant bits of carbon. That's it. We aren't smart, no, but we aren't going to get any smarter by sitting on our arses saying "Isn't life mysterious, let's just sit here and hope" Or call up the ******* pope.
There are believed to be MILLIONS of species and sub-species we haven't discovered, not hundreds. It isn't the know it all approach, it's called using the available facts and determining a reasonable scientific theorem from them. We won't get anywhere as a species if we keep holding ourselves back with religion.
I admit, i did assume you are a Christian, as you are clearly in a civilised country that has access to the internet, and 40% of religious people are Christian. Maybe that's wrong of me, so i apologise for assuming, but i bet you are. I find your quote astonishing "perhaps you should be careful about putting your own faith in what you read on the internet". Actually think about that for a second. What you wrote is EXACTLY what religion is. Except a book in the place of the internet. Difference is, things on factual sites have WAY more credibility than an ancient book as people have studied Mithras, and then like i said, extrapolate a theory as to who he was and what he did from the text's available.
There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity.
And yes, as opposed to a faith based world, Secularism sounds great.
Ouch! you really are a dancing crab and not afraid to use capital letters I see.
Some of your statements don't make sense. You say "There is AS much evidence for the existence of Mithras/Thor/Wotan/Vishnu/Jesus/Mohammed as any other deity." I never said there wasn't, so what point are you making?
"Isn't life mysterious let's sit here and hope" what does that mean? hope for what?
What's ridiculous about "we've only reached the moon"? it's a statment of fact isn't it? or have Campagnolo already surpassed their 11 speed with something extra special?
You seem to confuse faith with religion,to believe in God you must believe in a book which is a bit like saying to take an interest in football you have to support a club. Do you have to believe in a book to believe in god?
You do also make assumptions which is bad science and we certainly won't get anywhere as a species if we do that will we? I've been married a long time but I never got married in a church and no I didn't have some hippy rising sun ceremony either. It was a registry office, now I bet you didn't assume that did you? Are you married yourself? Did you have a church ceremony? (no fibbing now the internet will know). You'd be surprised how many scientists have "faith". I met a guy who worked in the Physics department, specialising in particle physics, at Birmingham University who in conversation told me he was a man with faith. I suggested that there must be a conflict with his work but his answer was that I'd be surprised at how many of his scientific colleagues were people of faith
Don't get so annoyed,this is debate, unwind cousin.
Tell me your personal view then. For me, people who say they have faith but are not religious in an abrahamic sense (mainstream religion and the like) are just scared of death but don't want to put all their marbles in one corner. I don't doubt that some scientists are people of faith, I was myself until I was 12. With "we've only reached the moon" it sounded to me like you were saying that we've Only reached the moon, and that we aren't that smart. What I'm saying is we have only had civilised life and lived in a democratic country for the last 120 odd years. We are nothing, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and we've only been like we are now (technologically speaking) for a hundred years or so.
Isn't that astonishing? We are so insignificant. This is why I find the idea of a god so impossible. All this universe, possibly many many more universes also and it's all for us? Nah, I can't believe that. Some people, you may be one, believe that a deity started the universe off, but then left it as it is. That the deity doesn't intervene, or answer prayers, or cause earthquakes or whatever. That idea is still extremely unlikely for me, but it's a theory, so you can't entirely discount it. I don't want to get into a spat, but it does anger me I have to be honest, when people are so closed minded, and then have the audacity to say atheists are themselves close minded.
I'm not married, I don't see the point. My mrs will get whatever I have (I doubt she'll want the bikes!) when I pop my clogs anyway so I don't see the point forking out a load of money when neithe of us really want one anyway. But if I ever did, there is no way it'd happen in a church, or any place of worship, like you it'd be in the registry office.
I think we are both singing from the same hymn sheet (what a pun!) but have differing conclusions. Every generation of mankind is a new age of enlightenment. We loo back patronisingly through history at those who believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth and pity their ignorance. As a result as more of the unexplained has become explained mankind has become more sceptical of the premise of a supreme being yet what exactly do we know? Not really that much.
Big bang theory isn't that old (in fact I believe the term was originally coined derogatorily) but it is only theory. Some theories become engrained in our psyche then lo and behold someone makes a discovery that turns evrything on its head.
I think the point i'm making is that science has become the comfort blanket that religion once was. Science is a religion based upon theories just like Christianity for example is/was upon the Gospels. Now the Gospels are supposed to be eye witness accounts if so why should they be anymore unbelievable than sound scientific theory? Why is it any less difficult to believe that a miracle was witnessed approximately 2000 years ago than say some theory about a singularity (is that the right term?) that brought about the beginning of the Universe?
You say yourself that there are coincidences in most religions Mithras/Jesus. Well I believe that old JC is the third most important prophet in Islam so even the Moslems accept that Jesus existed.
All of this aside I suppose I'd like there to be a supreme being, I'd like to think that life has some purpose but I'm not going to pull a duvet over my head if that isn't the case. I don't need faith as a crutch but in today's society faith is the underdog and I'll always support the underdog. To me jumping on the scientific bandwagon is a bit like riding a fixie in London, it's hip and cool and appears to make the most sense.
As for marriage, each to his own I guess. why do it? well it is an institution of society that binds a couple. I would hazard a guess and say that a significan proportion of long term co-habitees eventually tie the knot, I suppose it is just like saying that you don't want kids then 10 years down the line you end up with a couple (that's what happened to us)
Oh and it doesn't have to be expensive. We had been living togethere for a short time and decided to get hitched (I don't know why it just seemed right). We were skint so it was a pub lunch for 12 mates, posh frock for her and two plain wedding rings...£300 all in. The honeymoon was a long weekend on the Isle of Coll (vouchers off the cornflakes packet)
You could always surprise her and organise a honeymoon in France for the first two weeks in July
I agree on most of those points. But the science being a comfort blanket one seems a bit odd. It is in a way, as it's the only rational way of explaining the world around us, but it's always being changed according to the evidence available. You know what i mean? Religion is stale, based on the evidence the people who wrote it had at the time, but i bet if there was no religion at this point in our existence, then there wouldn't be one written up, or at least it wouldn't be believed like it is now.
I just can't be dealing with the whole marriage thing to be honest. I think we both know how we feel so there isn't much point really, i don't think it would change anything except my wallet would be lighter :P0 -
Science continues to bang nails into the coffin containing @religion', religion has had its day as a tool of social control in the developed world, its only a matter of time when the rest will follow0
-
There was a great letter in Viz magazine:
Dear Viz,
A mother who's daughter was injured in a US Tornado has been quoted as saying "God will make her better". Presumably that is a different God from the one that almost killed her with a Tornado.
0 -
mfin wrote:There was a great letter in Viz magazine:
Dear Viz,
A mother who's daughter was injured in a US Tornado has been quoted as saying "God will make her better". Presumably that is a different God from the one that almost killed her with a Tornado.
Similar to Patrice Muamba who was convinced that his god helped him to survive.
Not the same god that put him on the deck in the first place I guess.
Those of faith - selective!0
