Religious Pointlessness
Comments
-
Religious types are actually putting their faith in the men who wrote the Holy books, be it Bible, Koran or whatever. They take their scribblings as being... er... well...gospel.
If I wrote a book claiming to have seen a man walk on water and seing the dead rise, I would rightly be branded a fruitcake. Why are these stories deemed more plausible with the passage of time?
That is what I don't get about Scientology, people laugh at it (and rightly so!) but is it any more far fetched than any of the other religions?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Why is Dawkins so obsessed about God if he doesn't exist?0
-
Why is Dawkins so obsessed about God if he doesn't exist?
Keeps the money rolling in I guess.0 -
Is scientology the one written up by Arthur C Clarke as an intellectual experiment to see if he could invent a religion. One that you give your money to it and commit more to it in order to learn more about it. Basically you need to pay up increasing amount of money before you're allowed to go up the levels and gain more knowledge and power. That claims to be able to help the follower mentally and with their life for a one off fee for each reading then you need more of them to move on. Basically a kind of health con/ religious con from a science fiction writer!Religious types are actually putting their faith in the men who wrote the Holy books, be it Bible, Koran or whatever. They take their scribblings as being... er... well...gospel.
If I wrote a book claiming to have seen a man walk on water and seing the dead rise, I would rightly be branded a fruitcake. Why are these stories deemed more plausible with the passage of time?
That is what I don't get about Scientology, people laugh at it (and rightly so!) but is it any more far fetched than any of the other religions?0 -
Don't sully the name of Arthur C Clarke, it was Ron Hubbard.0
-
So, at the risk of being contentious, can I ask someone to prove that religions and faiths are all wrong and pointless please.
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?0 -
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
You can also have lots of fun with things like...
Leviticus 19:19 Which says that it is a sin to wear mixed fibres
and
Leviticus 11:9-12 Which says that it's a sin to eat shell fish.
If those are true, and I think that most god botherers would say they should be taken with a pinch of salt, what about the rest of the crap?
The bible also has views on homosexuality, and some might argue that the two above are trivial and the gay issue isn't. But if you're going to take 'the book' literally, surely you can't pick and choose?
Edit: there used to be a website/forum which was dedicated to the literal interpretations of the bible and the members made a spoof of living to them (at least, I hope it was a joke :shock: ). One of the discussions I recall was, "how to build a menstrual house in the back garden".
I've been trying to find the forum, but I don't know where to start looking with search terms.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Don't sully the name of Arthur C Clarke, it was Ron Hubbard.
The story that has gone around for years now did involve Arthur C Clarke though, in that he and Ron Hubbard were friends and during a conversation between them Arthur C Clarke said that one way to make a lot of money was invent a religion. A variation on that story was also that it was a bet between the two whether it was possible to start a new religion.0 -
So, at the risk of being contentious, can I ask someone to prove that religions and faiths are all wrong and pointless please.
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Is that the science that proposes the big bang because it can't find any better explanation? Not much between the click of god's finger and the big bang really is there. The universe is constantly expanding, yeah but into what? That is about as useful as believing the earth is flat but you never fall of the edge as it is constantly expanding. Manc will explain :?0 -
Don't sully the name of Arthur C Clarke, it was Ron Hubbard.
The story that has gone around for years now did involve Arthur C Clarke though, in that he and Ron Hubbard were friends and during a conversation between them Arthur C Clarke said that one way to make a lot of money was invent a religion. A variation on that story was also that it was a bet between the two whether it was possible to start a new religion.
Others cite Robert A. Heinlein. Whilst some say the Heinlein wouldn't do something like that and it's completely out of character, his widow said it was so her biography . You can't trust anything about the history of that religion though, they are very litigious and have it sown up tighter that a ducks bum.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Look folks, if people want to claim to have science on their side, then they need to be accurate, scientific and consistent.
Science has not "disproven" anything about the existence of God, there was a clear statement yesterday that it's not possible to prove a negative, therefore science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
With regard to how the earth came into being, science has offered one theory as an alternative to creation. That theory is no more or less proven than creation since neither can be reproduced in laboratory conditions and the monitoring of controlled experiments is the basis for science.0 -
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Look folks, if people want to claim to have science on their side, then they need to be accurate, scientific and consistent.
Science has not "disproven" anything about the existence of God, there was a clear statement yesterday that it's not possible to prove a negative, therefore science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
With regard to how the earth came into being, science has offered one theory as an alternative to creation. That theory is no more or less proven than creation since neither can be reproduced in laboratory conditions and the monitoring of controlled experiments is the basis for science.
So do you believe everything that cannot be "disproven"? Noah's Ark?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
You missed the bigger question.The universe is constantly expanding, yeah but into what? That is about as useful as believing the earth is flat but you never fall of the edge as it is constantly expanding. Manc will explain :?
What went bang?
And, where did it come from?
For the record, I am not looking for the answers. I think the subject is a brain fark.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You missed the bigger question.The universe is constantly expanding, yeah but into what? That is about as useful as believing the earth is flat but you never fall of the edge as it is constantly expanding. Manc will explain :?
What went bang?
And, where did it come from?
For the record, I am not looking for the answers. I think the subject is a brain fark.
Which comes down to the logical conclusion of Hawking's book, prove unity and it confirms the existence of God. A very neat solution. I missed it when I read it, it took a Professor in pure maths to point it out to me.0 -
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Look folks, if people want to claim to have science on their side, then they need to be accurate, scientific and consistent.
Science has not "disproven" anything about the existence of God, there was a clear statement yesterday that it's not possible to prove a negative, therefore science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
With regard to how the earth came into being, science has offered one theory as an alternative to creation. That theory is no more or less proven than creation since neither can be reproduced in laboratory conditions and the monitoring of controlled experiments is the basis for science.
I didn't say that science has disproved the existence of God, merely the opening part of the Bible.
By the way, your last sentence suggests that you refute much geology, evolutionary biology and astronomy.0 -
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Look folks, if people want to claim to have science on their side, then they need to be accurate, scientific and consistent.
Science has not "disproven" anything about the existence of God, there was a clear statement yesterday that it's not possible to prove a negative, therefore science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
With regard to how the earth came into being, science has offered one theory as an alternative to creation. That theory is no more or less proven than creation since neither can be reproduced in laboratory conditions and the monitoring of controlled experiments is the basis for science.
I didn't say that science has disproved the existence of God, merely the opening part of the Bible.
By the way, your last sentence suggests that you refute much geology, evolutionary biology and astronomy.
There is another way to read this, the Bible describes in simple terms a version of the Big Bang, taking into account it written only with the benefit of scientific understanding at the time, and unable to account for theories of evolution etc that were only formed some 1800 years later. The idea that the earth revolved the sun was what, 1700 years later, ie the bible and science held the same view for 1700 years.
I would say creating the earth at a click of God's finger as a layman's description or analogy of the Big Bang 1900 years ahead of the scientists was a pretty good prophecy.
Who says in that minute moment of the bang that the earth didn't come first? Miraculously everything was created at exactly the same time?
I think in a couple of hundred years scientists will look back on us and chuckle, having found another theory or different evidence pointing to something else, as history shows they have many times.0 -
There is another way to read this, the Bible describes in simple terms a version of the Big Bang, taking into account it written only with the benefit of scientific understanding at the time, and unable to account for theories of evolution etc that were only formed some 1800 years later. The idea that the earth revolved the sun was what, 1700 years later, ie the bible and science held the same view for 1700 years.
I would say creating the earth at a click of God's finger as a layman's description or analogy of the Big Bang 1900 years ahead of the scientists was a pretty good prophecy.
Who says in that minute moment of the bang that the earth didn't come first? Miraculously everything was created at exactly the same time?
I think in a couple of hundred years scientists will look back on us and chuckle, having found another theory or different evidence pointing to something else, as history shows they have many times.
Recommended reading for you:
0 -
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Look folks, if people want to claim to have science on their side, then they need to be accurate, scientific and consistent.
Science has not "disproven" anything about the existence of God, there was a clear statement yesterday that it's not possible to prove a negative, therefore science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
With regard to how the earth came into being, science has offered one theory as an alternative to creation. That theory is no more or less proven than creation since neither can be reproduced in laboratory conditions and the monitoring of controlled experiments is the basis for science.
You missed one really important difference. The difference between Science and religion is that science always questions itself, and is always looking for the truth regardless of whether that fits the theories or not. Science is continually advancing, religion is not.
Creationism isn't just the belief that the Earth was created by a god, it's the belief that all life was too. (I appreciate there are some who believe in a mix of creation then evolution). We have mountains and mountains of solid evidence of evolution and yet still people refuse to believe it. Absolutely no fossil finds anywhere in the world have ever contradicted what we know, and continue to learn, about the different periods of life on Earth.
Religion is the exact opposite, everything is based on faith with absolutely no evidence or proof needed, which is a good job because there isn't any. We're even told not to test god.
I used to think the notion of an all powerful god who created everything then has done absolutely nothing since was absurd, nowadays that word isn't nearly strong enough. Religious types argue that life can't just appear from nowhere, but expect us to believe it was done by an incredibly advanced being with the power to create worlds and create life - this being came from where exactly, who created it? Irony at its finest.
I can't help seeing religious types as lacking in logical thinking and intelligence, I know that's not always the case (although religion is much more popular in less educated parts of the world), but I just don't get how anyone with common sense and who is able to see what we are achieving through modern science (LHC at CERN, NASA etc) can believe in a fairy tale when what we do actually know to be true, and what we could achieve, are far more amazing.
I've purposely avoided opening this thread because I start to lose all hope for the human race when I see how many people still believe in god.
Ps: How come in all the pictures I've ever seen of Adam and Eve, they have belly buttons?
0 -
Did noah take two of "everything"?
What about the fish? Or were they just expected to fend for themselves?
And that ark must have been massive to get two of "everything" on board.
And what about indedgenous species? The lemurs of Madagaskar as one example? Did he sail his giagantic ark over there and pick a few up? I'd have thought they would have all drowned by the time he got there.
And how would he know where "there" is/was?
He took fourteen (seven pairs) of all the clean animals. Only two of the unclean ones.
See Genesis. It's all true.0 -
^not sure why he bothered with the unclean ones at all. Maybe thinking of David Cameron?0
-
Mark 8 or 9:23 “And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can! All things are possible for one who believes.’”Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0
-
With all the incest in the Bible, perhaps God was from Norfolk.
Perhaps he set Adam and his inbreds to work carving intricate shell patterns on rocks. The more gifted workers carved the intricate leaf patterns.
How God must be laughing at us now, falling for his jolly jape, thinking the world is older than 6000 years. He must have the patience of a saint :roll: waiting millenia, just for a wind up.0 -
With all the incest in the Bible, perhaps God was from Norfolk.
Perhaps he set Adam and his inbreds to work carving intricate shell patterns on rocks. The more gifted workers carved the intricate leaf patterns.
How God must be laughing at us now, falling for his jolly jape, thinking the world is older than 6000 years. He must have the patience of a saint :roll: waiting millenia, just for a wind up.
Actually, what we he doing in the 13 billion years or so that the universe has existed before we turned up? He must have been p1ss bored."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Into what?......It is not an uncommon question, but asking that question reveals a lack of understanding.So, at the risk of being contentious, can I ask someone to prove that religions and faiths are all wrong and pointless please.
The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Is that the science that proposes the big bang because it can't find any better explanation? Not much between the click of god's finger and the big bang really is there. The universe is constantly expanding, yeah but into what? That is about as useful as believing the earth is flat but you never fall of the edge as it is constantly expanding. Manc will explain :?
If you are interested I'd say it's time to get yourself a good book on the big bang. I would recommend: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Bang-Important-Scientific-Discovery/dp/0007152523You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Creation is mere hypothesis and should not be lumped in with scientific theory.The Bible starts by telling us that the Earth was created before the Sun, that fish and birds were created in a click of God's fingers and a load more stuff which has been completely disproven by science.
If it gets that bit so spectacularly wrong, why believe anything else it says?
Look folks, if people want to claim to have science on their side, then they need to be accurate, scientific and consistent.
Science has not "disproven" anything about the existence of God, there was a clear statement yesterday that it's not possible to prove a negative, therefore science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
With regard to how the earth came into being, science has offered one theory as an alternative to creation. That theory is no more or less proven than creation since neither can be reproduced in laboratory conditions and the monitoring of controlled experiments is the basis for science.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Big Bang, Evolution, Relativity, etc. are certainly theories. Creation is not.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Lets make sure that 'The Big bang theory' is just a theory and not fact.
Most scientific experiments/theories go on the supposition of 'if'. If you add 2 'if's', then the permutations are infinite. The Big bang theory relies on multiple suppositions and is therefore a very flawed theory.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Chewing the fat today with a client. And religion cropped up. Always very difficult I find to discuss. However his thoughts were quite interesting......'We live in the 21st century where human evolution has plateaued and technology and engineering is really the next step in human advancement. If the human race can ditch religion we could enter a golden age. If we don't throw religion out with the rubbish and let if affect our way of life even more, we could be dragged back to the dark ages'....... An interesting thought.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0
-
Lets make sure that 'The Big bang theory' is just a theory and not fact.
Most scientific experiments/theories go on the supposition of 'if'. If you add 2 'if's', then the permutations are infinite. The Big bang theory relies on multiple suppositions and is therefore a very flawed theory.
Why? What are you on about?
Definition of theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
A theory is a knat's knee cap away from fact. What part of the big bang theory do you not accept (as fact or theory)? Actually I'm not sure what the difference between theory and fact is.
I would hope we can all accept that the universe most probably started from a big bang (not proven but broadly accepted which is as good as fact to me). What is not known, is how the big bang came to be...how it started, what caused it.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
I agree with most of your post but the above is total tosh.A theory is a knat's knee cap away from fact.
See the conspiracy thread for proof.
They are all theories too.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Of the 15 observable light emitting from 15 galaxies, 9 are on the Red shift and 6 are in the Blue shift. The BBT's conclude that the universe is expanding because most of the Galaxies are in the red shift. What a load of carp.
Many stars and star clusters were aged and then when those ages didn't conform to the BBT, they changed the ages of what was held as fact!!
In the US, Universities who preach the BBT get more funding for the respective faculties who are exploring the BBT. Universities that don't, don't. That means that in certain circles, it is cosmological herecy to believe in anything but the BBT.
I will dig out some stuff on the subject and we can dissect the bollox that has been amalgamated to create the BBT.
On a philosophical level, it is near on impossible for the human being to think of anything in infinite terms. We begin, we live and then we die but we are organic. We feel compelled to create a theory that has a beginning, a middle and an end. We need to answer the question of how we got here as if it will make any sodding difference to the current trajectory of mankind. That is philosophically flawed. We think ourselves so clever, we can come to some grand theory that answers everything yet we still don't know what's at the bottom of the sea.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
