science vs religion
Comments
-
You can't be, bceause I am.JamesB5446 wrote:Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.
I'm so good, I'm not allowed to compete with the professionals, because they'd be made to look like a bunch of rank amateurs.
I get paid by their sponsors to not turn up.0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:
You can't be, bceause I am.JamesB5446 wrote:Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.
I'm so good, I'm not allowed to compete with the professionals, because they'd be made to look like a bunch of rank amateurs.
I get paid by their sponsors to not turn up.
But weren't you stripped of that title because of all those drugs you used in the 90s? Not sure how they would have enhanced your performance mind.0 -
James.
Sorry beginning to lose the thread on this one, I actually agree with many of the things you have said, what I find difficult is the manner in which you say and apply them.
If you want to challenge the church or any other religious institution (or anyone claiming to represent them), then fine that organisation should stand up and defend any claims that it wants to make. You can demand proof for claims and evaluate them in whatever manner you wish to further your own views.
What I find a bit distasteful is the way you apply the same challenges and views you have of these institutions to individuals who have not impinged on your life in any way. This makes you belittle another persons views, beliefs, without good reason, only because they are different.0 -
They enhanced the performance of my mind in various ways, but they decided that since I took so much, it was a wonder I actually survived, so it shouldn;t affect my position as the greatest cyclist EVAAAR!Gazlar wrote:YeehaaMcgee wrote:
You can't be, bceause I am.JamesB5446 wrote:Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.
I'm so good, I'm not allowed to compete with the professionals, because they'd be made to look like a bunch of rank amateurs.
I get paid by their sponsors to not turn up.
But weren't you stripped of that title because of all those drugs you used in the 90s? Not sure how they would have enhanced your performance mind.
Obviously.0 -
Right, that's it.
DRUUUUUG-OOOOOFFFFFF
outside, now.
I think they have caused the same amount of wars. ie none.Gazlar wrote:JamesB5446 wrote:
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.Gazlar wrote:What you can't do is dictate to someone that their belief is in your opinion wrong, what you can do however is keep finding things out respectfully, keep presenting them and change people's minds that way or accept that they still aren't satisfied.
No but that kind of oppressive practice causes more war than church Of England pensioners who want a cup of tea, some company and talk about how good Cliff Richard looks.
I've not belittled anything, just asked questions.St Mark wrote:This makes you belittle another persons views, beliefs, without good reason, only because they are different.0 -
But you constantly belittle the way other people choose to interpret their world.JamesB5446 wrote:I've not belittled anything, just asked questions.
for example...
I still maintain you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "Faith".JamesB5446 wrote:Faith is stupid. It goes against reason. I'm asking why the people who are clever/educated enough not to believe all the silly stories still believe in the underlying concept?
Just because you demand proof, and approach it with a scientific vigour, doesn;t mean others have to.
In fact, more than just missing the point of why and how others believe, you seem to be missing the fact that something in the human condition urges us to seek out "THE truth", and some people latch on to religion because of it.0 -
Seeking the truth and finding religion are not the same thing though. They're total opposites.0
-
What was there before the Big Bang?0
-
To you it is. But people who believe in religion, they, well, believe it.JamesB5446 wrote:Seeking the truth and finding religion are not the same thing though. They're total opposites.0 -
JamesB5446 wrote:I've not belittled anything, just asked questions. You also wrote
I'm saying that believing in something without proof is stupid.
Some stupid people believe things that are true, some clever people believe things that are stupid.
Faith is stupid. It goes against reason. I'm asking why the people who are clever/educated enough not to believe all the silly stories still believe in the underlying concept?
I was saying that religion is daft and people said that it helps people. If there is no evidence either way, it's still daft.0 -
Yup. If I said only stupid people are religious that would be belittling.0
-
Walking?Chunkers1980 wrote:What was there before the Big Bang?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:
To you it is. But people who believe in religion, they, well, believe it.JamesB5446 wrote:Seeking the truth and finding religion are not the same thing though. They're total opposites.
Quick open question.... if somehow they proved that what we understand as why, was as a result of god would you believe it. No arguing that it can't be done etc etc it's not a catch anyone out question to go ha, just an interesting thought. If you are of scientific leaning would it help to understand the unsolved questions? Would you let's say believe rather than worship. If you are religious but it was proven that the why was the why of another faith would you adopt it.?0 -
Belittling people's beliefes and viewpoints unnnecesarilly is belittling them, also.JamesB5446 wrote:Yup. If I said only stupid people are religious that would be belittling.
You know, way back in the way-before when I said that I couldn't abide the modern atheist thing of attacking other people's beliefs?
Well, you're a great example of what I was talking about.0 -
Gaz, if there was testable proof of 'god' that stacked up, then yes, I would believe it. Would I arse worship him though, from what I've read he's a right cunt.
Yeehaa, disagree. If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them, they think I'm gonna go to hell anyways.0 -
St Mark wrote:JamesB5446 wrote:
Faith is stupid. It goes against reason. I'm asking why the people who are clever/educated enough not to believe all the silly stories still believe in the underlying concept?
.
Because firstly the underlying concept has brought us this far and provided us with the general moral compass we have today. Also because as į said, because we have no understanding of human consciousness in a scientific point of view then you have to have faith as the underlying factor as someone invented the concept of science, what if what we know is a convenient at of consequences that happen to add up but are wrong? What you can't mix up is the idea of religious belief and faith because faith is at the root of everything you believe or disbelieve0 -
If you were to tell them that you thought their beliefs were stupid, I'm pretty sure you'd get some choice reactions.JamesB5446 wrote:Gaz, if there was testable proof of 'god' that stacked up, then yes, I would believe it. Would I ars* worship him though, from what I've read he's a right ****.
Yeehaa, disagree. If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them, they think I'm gonna go to hell anyways.
Do you, like, not have any human contact, at all?0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:
If you were to tell them that you thought their beliefs were stupid, I'm pretty sure you'd get some choice reactions.JamesB5446 wrote:Gaz, if there was testable proof of 'god' that stacked up, then yes, I would believe it. Would I ars* worship him though, from what I've read he's a right ****.
Yeehaa, disagree. If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them, they think I'm gonna go to hell anyways.
Do you, like, not have any human contact, at all?
i think that should be your homework james, go to a church (or a mosque or synygogue) and tell them their beliefs are stupid and report back with your findings
0 -
JamesB5446 wrote:Gaz, if there was testable proof of 'god' that stacked up, then yes, I would believe it. Would I ars* worship him though, from what I've read he's a right ****.
.
Oh yeah if he exists or she they hate me. But I'm glad you said that because as probably the staunchest of critics of religion here you said that if it stacked up you would believe. That's all science has to do, keep doing what it's doing and people will change their views. That's why over the last 30 years there has been a decline in the influence of religion. What science doesn't need to do is sling mud at religion, so what if someone doesn't believe, they will either change their mind or die at some point but if they feel with their instinct that religious belief helps them and it doesn't hinder other people's progression well then it's right for them.0 -
welshkev wrote:YeehaaMcgee wrote:
If you were to tell them that you thought their beliefs were stupid, I'm pretty sure you'd get some choice reactions.JamesB5446 wrote:Gaz, if there was testable proof of 'god' that stacked up, then yes, I would believe it. Would I ars* worship him though, from what I've read he's a right ****.
Yeehaa, disagree. If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them, they think I'm gonna go to hell anyways.
Do you, like, not have any human contact, at all?
i think that should be your homework james, go to a church (or a mosque or synygogue) and tell them their beliefs are stupid and report back with your findings
Or all of your head. Same goes for any gathering of like minded individuals religious or not.
Like I've said oppressive and intolerance to views are far the bigger incitement to violence,0 -
Has it?Gazlar wrote:Because firstly the underlying concept has brought us this far and provided us with the general moral compass we have today.
I'm usually a bit more polite in real life. This is just the internet after all.YeehaaMcgee wrote:If you were to tell them that you thought their beliefs were stupid, I'm pretty sure you'd get some choice reactions.
Do you, like, not have any human contact, at all?
I do have human contact. Just not as much these last few weeks.
What do you think that would prove?welshkev wrote:i think that should be your homework james, go to a church (or a mosque or synygogue) and tell them their beliefs are stupid and report back with your findings0 -
[quote="JamesB5446
What do you think that would prove?[/quote]
you said "If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them"
i want to see if you go and tell them whether it'd upset them or not - but obviously i was joking, or do you take everything lterally?0 -
No, not everything.
Within strolling distance of where I live there aren't any mosques anyways, too middle clarse. And CofE types aren't really religious are they, it's more of a get together coffee morning club these days.0 -
Which is a good thing, it helps communities thrive.0
-
JamesB5446 wrote:If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them, they think I'm gonna go to hell anyways.
Personally, I would just think you're a bellend.0 -
Get a GoPro, and drive to the nearest Mosque. Then burst in and tell them their beliefs are all stupid.JamesB5446 wrote:No, not everything.
Within strolling distance of where I live there aren't any mosques anyways, too middle clarse. And CofE types aren't really religious are they, it's more of a get together coffee morning club these days.
I'd love to see the video of what happens. (although chances are they'd be far more polite to you than you are to them).
My great grandmother told me many years ago, of how the local chapel or church used to be a social meeting point until about the time of "the war". I'm not sure which war she meant, but I'm pretty sure she must have meant at least one of th eworld wars.Chunkers1980 wrote:Which is a good thing, it helps communities thrive.0 -
Until they stopped the OAP's smoking at bingo anyway.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
It does and it doesn't.Chunkers1980 wrote:Which is a good thing, it helps communities thrive.
I think the social aspect is good. I think the fact that the social aspect is for people of a certain church is bad.
It's a shame there aren't more non-faith based ways of the community to get together, it's something I envy the religious types at times. That and gospel music.
Well I think you're just a big meaney, so ner.EH_Rob wrote:JamesB5446 wrote:If someone believes in something that strongly, me thinking it's daft isn't gonna upset them, they think I'm gonna go to hell anyways.
Personally, I would just think you're a bellend.
I've got a big jew nose, they'd think I was Mosad and string me up.YeehaaMcgee wrote:Get a GoPro, and drive to the nearest Mosque. Then burst in and tell them their beliefs are all stupid.
I'd love to see the video of what happens. (although chances are they'd be far more polite to you than you are to them).0 -
All social groups tend towards only welcoming people who are similar anyway.
Take pubs as an example. There are pubs where the folk who like a natter and a quiet pint go, then there's the pubs where binge drinking crazies hang out, then there's your typical "old man's" pub. They sort of, click with a certain clientele over time, and the others tend to go elsewhere.
how about a darts club, or MTB club, or a footy team? All the people there share a common interest, but you wouldn't find many old grannies (for example) at a 5a side club.
Many things cause these slight seperations in society, and as long as they're not detrimental to other groups, it can be of benefit.
People can let their hair down and relax in the company of their like minded peers, without worrying about stepping on anyone else's toes, or being forced to include disparate parties.0 -
JamesB5446 wrote:
Has it?Gazlar wrote:Because firstly the underlying concept has brought us this far and provided us with the general moral compass we have today.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: The 'Bible' par se kinda validated in words the general views that were being bandied about at the time of writing/interperation, as opposed to being the actual progenitor of those moral values. Certainly, aspects of 'christian morality' that we hold dear were evidenced before christianity, in any of it's forms, hit these shores. A lot of our morality (and law) is based on Saxon and Roman philosophy (before the Romans all decided to follow the White god, anyhoo).
However, the it has been the go-to 'Compass' for morality in the UK over the last millenia as it's the only morality-tale that people had access to, or had even heard of, even if a fair chunk of the morality it contains could be construed as contridictory, or misconstrued to try and shame me from shoving my dick where I want.
Now whether you like it being this 'compass' or even if it should remain the 'compass' it once undeniabley was are different questions - ones I'll let you argue out.
Just try not to be a jerkwand about it.How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.0
