Pass or fail??? Who were the real culprits?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779498.htm

and the next step should be ??

My suggestion, is anybody who owes money to China does not pay up until they join the rest of the world (except those lying, cheating Indians who colluded with them)

and here is how the Indians co-operated

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779003.htm

It is an absolute Farce...

Any movie you see where the world is at crisis, Independance Day, Day After Tomorrow...etc etc... The world leaders come together and instantly make a desicion for the betterment of mankind...

In reality what would happen if faced with an impending alien invasion, would be all the world leaders sitting arounf procrastinating about who's troops to send in first and who's gonna pay for it all.... gggrrrr

Pass or fail??? Who were the real culprits?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779498.htm

and the next step should be ??

My suggestion, is anybody who owes money to China does not pay up until they join the rest of the world (except those lying, cheating Indians who colluded with them)

and here is how the Indians co-operated

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779003.htm

A typical Australian response - blame some Asians.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

Why do you think China would object to Australia lowering its emission from being 4 times as high as China itself or twice that of the UK, and why would India do something similar?

Theres nothing to stop Australia cutting it emisions itself - rather than look elsewhere for excuses and blame.

Maybe your sanctions idea - would work - towards the real protectionist culprits?

I blame the tinpot little African countries, they bleat on about how the "west" should bail them out - I reckon they've had enough already, if they stopped moaning on and did something constructive then maybe they might get somewhere.

The other culprit is of course the USA where plenty of backhanders change hands between the business moguls and the senators to let them off spending millions on curbing emissions from their factories.

If the US senators don't play ball, then the election funding is cut for their party, that's why the USA is the 2nd worse polluter.

Col

I blame the tinpot little African countries, they bleat on about how the "west" should bail them out - I reckon they've had enough already, if they stopped moaning on and did something constructive then maybe they might get somewhere.

The other culprit is of course the USA where plenty of backhanders change hands between the business moguls and the senators to let them off spending millions on curbing emissions from their factories.

If the US senators don't play ball, then the election funding is cut for their party, that's why the USA is the 2nd worse polluter.

Col

There's more to it than that, but of course YOU are not really interested in truth.

A typical Australian response - blame some Asians.

I agree up to a certain point - I picked out China / India in this case as they appear to be the culprits in not having legally binding targets.

The average Australian has taken on board that we are per capita the worst in the world and we should do something now. Our current government is trying to do something about it, but is being blocked in the senate by a head in the sand opposition... aahh democracy, why would you use anyrhing else?

My big bugbear is the approach being used to 'reduce' emissions, ie put a tax on current power sources. Other than make it more expensive, how does this reduce anything??

I see very little information on who is spending what to make alternatives (solar / wind etc) cheaper than coal / oil - then there would be reductions

It is also up to individuals to do their part in reducing their impact on the planet and not just the politicians. As the demand for individuals providing their own solutions in their own communities rather then nation or continent wide grid structures then industry will change to meet the demand. This idea of taxing, increasing charges and giving credits to industry to justify the quantity of pollution they generate will do nothing to reduce the quantity. Basing targets 'per capita' is also not a solution to quantity as the population of the world is still increasing - more in some countries then others...

The problem with emissions is they are attributed to the contry of origin. Australia has a huge burden partly because we make a lot of steel and aluminium.

Those metals are exported to manufacturers and then sold to end users where the pollution should rightly be attributed.

Chinese emissions would be quite low in this system because they export most of what they manufacture. Vast tracts of rainforest are being destroyed in Brazil to grow cattle destined for the mouths of obese westerners. Yet the culpability for the emissions is retained by Brazil.

Under this system the US would be an even bigger pariah than they appear now. Rightly so.

There's more to it than that, but of course YOU are not really interested in truth.

The truth is Josephine, that I am not the slightest bit interested in climate change. I save bottles and cans and that's it.

All the problems will occur long after I am dead. (If they occur at all)

Who can honestly say, hand on heart they really really care about climate change. Not many I'll bet, yet no doubt I will get chastised by the hypocritical yanks for admitting I care nothing.

Personally I think it's all a load of hot air by scientists and freaks who know nothing, but like to scare people and make a name for themselves.

Col

The truth is Josephine, that I am not the slightest bit interested in climate change. I save bottles and cans and that's it.

All the problems will occur long after I am dead. (If they occur at all)

Who can honestly say, hand on heart they really really care about climate change. Not many I'll bet, yet no doubt I will get chastised by the hypocritical yanks for admitting I care nothing.

Personally I think it's all a load of hot air by scientists and freaks who know nothing, but like to scare people and make a name for themselves.

Col

I somewhat agree with Col's statement...

I think Global Warming will happen whatever we do to prevent pollution, as it has done so many times before in the Earth's long history, long before man even roamed the earth and started polluting...

What will happen is that the Glaciers will melt, forcing loads of fresh water into the oceans which in turn will switch off the conveyers that bring warm currents up from the southern hemisphere equator to the north hemisphere which will then turn global warming on its head and plunge the north hemisphere into an ice field, until there is enough warmth and salt water in the ocean to agin turn the conveyers back on, and so the cycle continues... again as it has done many times before in Earth's history..

The only difference now is that Man's pollution is excellerating this effect, but it will happen anyway..

It also give the politicians the opportunity to tax its populace under a new heading that of Green Tax...

The problem in the USA with global warming is that the anarchist (libertarians) and right wingers use it as diversionary topic to keep people from discussing real envirometal issues.I somewhat agree with Col's statement...

I think Global Warming will happen whatever we do to prevent pollution, as it has done so many times before in the Earth's long history, long before man even roamed the earth and started polluting...

What will happen is that the Glaciers will melt, forcing loads of fresh water into the oceans which in turn will switch off the conveyers that bring warm currents up from the southern hemisphere equator to the north hemisphere which will then turn global warming on its head and plunge the north hemisphere into an ice field, until there is enough warmth and salt water in the ocean to agin turn the conveyers back on, and so the cycle continues... again as it has done many times before in Earth's history..

The only difference now is that Man's pollution is excellerating this effect, but it will happen anyway..

It also give the politicians the opportunity to tax its populace under a new heading that of Green Tax...

The problem in the USA with global warming is that the anarchist (libertarians) and right wingers use it as diversionary topic to keep people from discussing real environmental issues.

The problem in the USA with global warming is that the anarchist (libertarians) and right wingers use it as diversionary topic to keep people from discussing real envirometal issues.

The problem in the USA with global warming is that the anarchist (libertarians) and right wingers use it as diversionary topic to keep people from discussing real environmental issues.

There's an echo in here.

Brian

There's an echo in here.

Brian

That's just the sound of my thoughts bouncing back and forth in the vacancy in my head

LOL, have a good holiday in Houston, it was hot and humid last time I was there.

er actually the only time. :D

Brian

LOL, have a good holiday in Houston, it was hot and humid last time I was there.

er actually the only time. :D

Brian

Was that when Houston had a problem?

Col

long before man even roamed the earth and started polluting...

what about when man was created? before he was made, there was nothing! aren't you a person of faith?

what about when man was created? before he was made, there was nothing!
Yes there was, maybe you should have been taught the real version of World history and not the American taught fairy tale

Yes there was, maybe you should have been taught the real version of World history and not the American taught fairy tale

i've never heard anyone call the Bible a fairy tale. Not even an English Moron.

i've never heard anyone call the Bible a fairy tale. Not even an English Moron.
I'm not a Mormon that's an American follower of the book of fairy tales:rolleyes:

i've never heard anyone call the Bible a fairy tale.

It's one of the greatest cons of all time. Look how many millions it has conned over the years.

Col

It's one of the greatest cons of all time. Look how many millions it has conned over the years.

Col
Yes and just look how easily Americans were conned by Bush:rolleyes:

It's one of the greatest cons of all time. Look how many millions it has conned over the years.

ColWho the h*ll are you anyway? And where did you come from? Take your hostility elsewhere.

And where did you come from?
Duh:rolleyes: his mother and father, who came from their mother and father resp. and so on and so on, gosh there's no mention of some god and a book of fairy tales in there, see how easy it is to figure it out for yourself
The biblical version of course would just say his father didn't beget his mother but she had a baby anyway:rolleyes:

what about when man was created? before he was made, there was nothing! aren't you a person of faith?The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against man being created. The biological evidence at the molecular level points very strongly that man evolved from other species. There is no evidence for the existance of a creator so we ave to take our sare of the respnsibility for looking after our plaet and not expect external intervention

Who the h*ll are you anyway? And where did you come from? Take your hostility elsewhere.

Perhaps you could point out my "hostility" please?

I will ignore the hostility in your comment.

Listen sonny, I was here many years before you turned up chucking your weight about. :rolleyes:

Col

Yes and just look how easily Americans were conned by Bush:rolleyes:

I know Americans think their fairy-tale God is American - but are you saying Bush thinks he is a God?

Col

I know Americans think their fairy-tale God is American - but are you saying Bush thinks he is a God?

Col
He thought he was as did his American supporters

Not even an English Moron.

Your comments seem rather hostile these days.

Maybe things will be better after the xmas holidays, it can be a stressful time for those of a lesser constitution. Like that Aussie bird Wik something, she seems stressed at the moment for some odd reason. Maybe it's the heat over there.

Col

i've never heard anyone call the Bible a fairy tale. Not even an English Moron.

there's no spelling mistake in the sentence young punk. I believe i said MORON, with one M.

there's no spelling mistake in the sentence young punk. I believe i said MORON, with one M.
Please learn to post in correct English on this forum as per your own rules, a sentence should begin with a CAPITAL letter:rolleyes:

Please learn to post in correct English on this forum as per your own rules, a sentence should begin with a CAPITAL letter:rolleyes:

I've had enough fun for now. thanks for the chat again Rich. ;)

I've had enough fun for now. thanks for the chat again Rich. ;)
You're welcome, anytime you want some real facts you just have to ask:cool:

You're welcome, anytime you want some real facts you just have to ask:cool:

Such a shame that Ajetrumpet has adopted the usual American style of ignoring a direct question. Maybe he's taking lessons from Bobby.

Col

what about when man was created? before he was made, there was nothing! aren't you a person of faith?

Er... No :rolleyes:

The thought of the Human Race being spurned from Adam & Eve is quite offensive, in essence you are calling everybody Bastards as we would have been inbred..

The bible is simply a bunch of Chinese Whispers altered over the years to depict what the Church wants to ensure that they still get their lucrative Christian contracts..

Religion is the scurge of our planet, almost every war you can think off has a basis of Religion somewhere at it's heart..

If people want to believe in this, then good luck to them, I know in some cases it brings people great hope and joy, and that is fine..

But I saw a programme on the TV over Christmas questioning where God was when the Tsunami struck in the Indian Ocean, and some idiot clerics were preaching that children who were killed were being punished by God for sins committed in their previous lives... What a F*cking load of Bollocks..
These people are fucking mental if they think that they can justify the death of an innocent down to divine retribution... They should be f*cking shot..

And people question why Religion F*cks up this planet...

Seems like there is only one person here getting hostile over religion, and you missed a * in the second "fucking".

Er... No :rolleyes:

The thought of the Human Race being spurned from Adam & Eve is quite offensive, in essence you are calling everybody Bastards as we would have been inbred..

The bible is simply a bunch of Chinese Whispers altered over the years to depict what the Church wants to ensure that they still get their lucrative Christian contracts..

Religion is the scurge of our planet, almost every war you can think off has a basis of Religion somewhere at it's heart..

If people want to believe in this, then good luck to them, I know in some cases it brings people great hope and joy, and that is fine..

But I saw a programme on the TV over Christmas questioning where God was when the Tsunami struck in the Indian Ocean, and some idiot clerics were preaching that children who were killed were being punished by God for sins committed in their previous lives... What a F*cking load of Bollocks..
These people are fucking mental if they think that they can justify the death of an innocent down to divine retribution... They should be f*cking shot..

And people question why Religion F*cks up this planet...

Seems like there is only one person here getting hostile over religion, and you missed a * in the second "fucking".

I am not hostile over religion in the slightest, if people want to believe than so be it is their choice, as I said in my post, the belief to some people brings hope and joy.

I myself send my children to a Chruch of England school, where they are taught about God and Jesus Christ, I sent them to this school because not only was the school one of the best in the area where I live the school is very srtict and the children well behaved, all values that I believe that children should have, if after they have left that school they seek religion then so be it, I will not have any problem with that..

My problem with religion is when people use it as an excuse, such as Jihad / Crusade / Liberation ... etc
And especially when they they use it as an excuse to say why a child should die..

Seems like there is only one person here getting hostile over religion, and you missed a * in the second "fucking".

I didn't realise you were counting...

here...

Count these..


************************************************** ************************************************* :D:p

I do not think it is a problem of religion as much as it is a problem of human greed which has some people bend beliefs to fit their own means. They seem to skip the parts of humility and jump to the bits about enforcement, comflict and obliteration of other followings.

Hard not to count when my narrator proudly says "fucking" rather than "expletive deleted" as it is trained to recognise within text.

I am not hostile over religion in the slightest, if people want to believe than so be it is their choice, as I said in my post, the belief to some people brings hope and joy.
I myself send my children to a Chruch of England school, where they are taught about God and Jesus Christ, I sent them to this school because not only was the school one of the best in the area where I live the school is very srtict and the children well behaved, all values that I believe that children should have, if after they have left that school they seek religion then so be it, I will not have any problem with that..
My problem with religion is when people use it as an excuse, such as Jihad / Crusade / Liberation ... etc
And especially when they they use it as an excuse to say why a child should die..



I didn't realise you were counting...
here...
Count these..
************************************************** ************************************************* :D:p

I do not think it is a problem of religion as much as it is a problem of human greed which has some people bend beliefs to fit their own means. They seem to skip the parts of humility and jump to the bits about enforcement, comflict and obliteration of other followings.

Hard not to count when my narrator proudly says "fucking" rather than "expletive deleted" as it is trained to recognise within text.

Chill Out.. :D

Chill Out.. :D
I'm afraid that Americans don't have that facility;)

I'm afraid that Americans don't have that facility;)

Isn't 50-2-1 Canadian?

Brian

Isn't 50-2-1 Canadian?

Brian


I will refrain from the easy obvious put down...because I am bigger than that ;)

Yes there was, maybe you should have been taught the real version of World history and not the American taught fairy tale

Hey, how did religion get attributed to us Americans? From what I remember reading, Americans tried to flee from religion when they came over to the New World, but it snuck on one of the boats in the back somewhere.

I will refrain from the easy obvious put down...because I am bigger than that ;)

:confused:

You are going to put me down for stating the truth?

Brian

Hey, how did religion get attributed to us Americans? From what I remember reading, Americans tried to flee from religion when they came over to the New World, but it snuck on one of the boats in the back somewhere.

I thought that they were fleeing religious persecution , not religion.

Brian

Hey, how did religion get attributed to us Americans? From what I remember reading, Americans tried to flee from religion when they came over to the New World, but it snuck on one of the boats in the back somewhere.

Religion is not exclusively your issue.. suppose I will get lamented now for referring to it as an Issue.. :rolleyes:.

Religion brings hope and joy to lots of people throughout the world, just don't use it as an excuse to divide people, and justify unnecassary deaths...

This thread started with no religious content or intent so how the hell did it end up this way, see that is the power of Religion if it is misused ..

Hey, how did religion get attributed to us Americans? From what I remember reading, Americans tried to flee from religion when they came over to the New World, but it snuck on one of the boats in the back somewhere.
It is a proven fact that a much higher percentage of Americans believe in the literal truth of the bible even where it contracts itself or gives an erroneous value for pi. The pilgrim fathers who came across in the Maflower were very religious people.

:confused:

You are going to put me down for stating the truth?

Brian

No, in fact I was going to compare a Canadian to a certain person to the south, as they explicitly do not like to be compared, there now I've said it... guess I'm not as big as I thought I was.. :rolleyes:

This thread started with no religious content or intent so how the hell did it end up this way, see that is the power of Religion if it is misused ..

It is a well known, scientific fact that any thread started here will always gravitate down to either politics, religion or America bashing

Hey, how did religion get attributed to us Americans? From what I remember reading, Americans tried to flee from religion when they came over to the New World, but it snuck on one of the boats in the back somewhere.
Who was it that stated "The US is the most god fearing nation on Earth with the least amount of soul"?:confused:

It is a well known, scientific fact that any thread started here will always gravitate down to either politics, religion or America bashing
That's because life revolves around both for some:eek:

That's because life revolves around both for some:eek:

BOTH ?? :eek:
Did they not teach counting at your school?

Brian
:)

It is a well known, scientific fact that any thread started here will always gravitate down to either politics, religion or America bashing

It was a natural for this thread since climate change seems to be a religion for the left wing white collars:)

The pilgrims may have come across that way, but the forefathers of our nation certainly did not. There's too much evidence that suggests the first Presidents of the US did not believe in religion in a literal sense, but more as a guide to how to live your life. Somehow, most Americans have screwed it up along the way. Rather than using it as a moral guide, but not literally believing in god and heaven and hell, they've switched it around to where they insist they believe in god, but completely piss on the morals and rules they should follow according to the bible. There are no true Christians left in this world, just a bunch of judgemental (which of course the bible says not to do) morons who if they truly believed, would never do half of the things they do.

But I agree with Scott, most major wars have been religiously driven. Religion causes so much hatred between everyone. Just think, if it wasn't for religion, we would never have had the religious fanatic Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, causing this huge "war" on terror, making the rest of the world hate us. We would never have had the religious fanatic Christians who abuse children in Texas and live more like a Cult than a church with 13 year olds getting knocked up. We would all get along, even Col would like America... :D

BOTH ?? :eek:
Did they not teach counting at your school?

Brian
:)
Yes, religion and American bashing counts as one:p

But I agree with Scott, most major wars have been religiously driven. Religion causes so much hatred between everyone. Just think, if it wasn't for religion, we would never have had the religious fanatic Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, causing this huge "war" on terror, making the rest of the world hate us. We would never have had the religious fanatic Christians who abuse children in Texas and live more like a Cult than a church with 13 year olds getting knocked up. We would all get along, even Col would like America... :D

I don't think religion causes wars. Religion is only a by product of the culture that exists in a country or section of a country.

In the last 6 months I have spent a lot of time working with people in there mid 20s from Nepal, Bangladesh and Lebanon.

The Nepalese are Hindu and the Bangladeshis are all Muslim and they are exactly the same in attitude. Hardly suprising as they are from the same parts of the world. However, the Arab Lebanese are very different and in fact are much the same as the Christian Lebanese.

I don't think religion causes wars. Religion is only a by product of the culture that exists in a country or section of a country.

In the last 6 months I have spent a lot of time working with people in there mid 20s from Nepal, Bangladesh and Lebanon.

The Nepalese are Hindu and the Bangladeshis are all Muslim and they are exactly the same in attitude. Hardly suprising as they are from the same parts of the world. However, the Arab Lebanese are very different and in fact are much the same as the Christian Lebanese.

There's no doubt that people of mixed religion can survive and even thrive together on each other's ideas and beliefs. It's the religious fanatics that claim to do what they do in the name of their beliefs that cause death and war to spread. The entire Muslim terrorist camp are religious fanatics that claim to do what they do in the name of their religion. The man who walked into a church to shoot the abortionist did so in the name of his Christian religion. Religion causes people to do extreme things, which can and does cause war.

It is a proven fact that a much higher percentage of Americans believe in the literal truth of the bible even where it contracts itself or gives an erroneous value for pi. The pilgrim fathers who came across in the Maflower were very religious people.

Well, in the bible belt (south-east portion of USA), or very rural areas, I can see that. In the North, and most larger cities, I'd like to think we're smarter than that. Of all the religious people I know, only 1 of them believes in the literal truth of the bible. And she is a Bible study teacher so it kind of makes sense.

Personally, I think religion should be something that stays at home.

There's no doubt that people of mixed religion can survive and even thrive together on each other's ideas and beliefs. It's the religious fanatics that claim to do what they do in the name of their beliefs that cause death and war to spread. The entire Muslim terrorist camp are religious fanatics that claim to do what they do in the name of their religion. The man who walked into a church to shoot the abortionist did so in the name of his Christian religion. Religion causes people to do extreme things, which can and does cause war.

But is it really the religion. I think it is more the type of person who becomes the extreme religious and if it was not religion it would be some other cause.

Well, in the bible belt (south-east portion of USA), or very rural areas, I can see that. In the North, and most larger cities, I'd like to think we're smarter than that. Of all the religious people I know, only 1 of them believes in the literal truth of the bible. And she is a Bible study teacher so it kind of makes sense.

Personally, I think religion should be something that stays at home.

Rural Australia also has a much higher percentage of Bible believers.

But don't kid yourself that literal belief in the Bible is restricted to the poorly educated.

I have to agree, seeing as North America did not start when Europeans invaded the land and brought along their beliefs as well as their diseases. Prior to that time there were battles for survival as necessary which was not often.

The pilgrims may have come across that way, but the forefathers of our nation certainly did not. There's too much evidence that suggests the first Presidents of the US did not believe in religion in a literal sense, but more as a guide to how to live your life. Somehow, most Americans have screwed it up along the way. Rather than using it as a moral guide, but not literally believing in god and heaven and hell, they've switched it around to where they insist they believe in god, but completely piss on the morals and rules they should follow according to the bible. There are no true Christians left in this world, just a bunch of judgemental (which of course the bible says not to do) morons who if they truly believed, would never do half of the things they do.

But I agree with Scott, most major wars have been religiously driven. Religion causes so much hatred between everyone. Just think, if it wasn't for religion, we would never have had the religious fanatic Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, causing this huge "war" on terror, making the rest of the world hate us. We would never have had the religious fanatic Christians who abuse children in Texas and live more like a Cult than a church with 13 year olds getting knocked up. We would all get along, even Col would like America... :D

most Americans have screwed it up along the way. Rather than using it as a moral guide, but not literally believing in god and heaven and hell, they've switched it around to where they insist they believe in god, but completely piss on the morals and rules they should follow according to the bible.

The problem is not that the Bible has been abandoned as a moral guide but that it IS being followed. Those who believe the Bible provides a good guide to behaviour have either never read it or are completely hypnotised.

The morality promoted by the Bible and its like are central to the problems facing humanity. They all teach bloody-minded, fascist attitudes including genocide and ethnic cleansing. The attitues to women and children are apallingly primitive.

I strongly encourage you to read the Old Testament book of Joshua. There you will see described exactly the kind of behaviour that is the foundation of the problems facing humanity.

Joshua is historical. Did you want the author of Joshua to candy coat it?

Joshua is historical. Did you want the author of Joshua to candy coat it?

It is more than historical. It clearly describes the success of the Hebrew genocides committed against more than 32 tribes already living in "The Promised Land" as a direct manifestation of the glory of the Hebrew god and the proof of their status as "The Chosen Race". This philosophy is still taught to children today.

To this day, Zionist preachers continue to claim the occupied territories in Palestine as having been given to the Jews by God. At no point in the Bible is the glory of the massacres decried as the crime against humanity that they clearly are by any rational standard of morality.

ALL those who worship this god are party to the glorification of genocide.

If the Bible was to be published today it would be banned.

Uh, the Bible is published today. It's one of the best selling books in the world (if not the best selling). I hadn't heard anything about it being banned.

And I'm not sure how writing about events that happened is a bannable offense. I know they used to ban books in the US, Germany, and the UK...does that still happen?

Uh, the Bible is published today. It's one of the best selling books in the world (if not the best selling). I hadn't heard anything about it being banned.

And I'm not sure how writing about events that happened is a bannable offense. I know they used to ban books in the US, Germany, and the UK...does that still happen?

I meant if it was published for the first time today.

How do you think I would fare today if I was to write a book about the historically verifiable facts of the Holocaust and littered it with statements about the deaths of millions being evidence for the glory of the Third Reich and uphold Adolph Hitler as a prophet? Yet the stories are almost the same.

I notice you seized upon the easy part of my post but I would love to see your thoughts on how you deal with the fact that the Bible unambiguously glorifies genocide in the name of your deity.

. . . . .I would love to see your thoughts on how you deal with the fact that the Bible unambiguously glorifies genocide in the name of your deity.

No point in asking a direct question to a Yank here, they avoid it at all costs.

I'm still waiting for questions to be answered from many months back, yet in Oregon they just can't quite manage it.

Col

I have not read the Bible end to end, so cannot comment on individual portions of it, but as far as I can ascertain, in the right hands the Bible can bring Peace, Joy, and Hope to millions, and in the wrong hands it is a Weapon of Mass Destruction..in all its derivatives, be it the New/Old testament to the Koran..

As Vassago has said it is all about the individual and how they deem to interpet the writings or the influences on them.

I acnnot think of another book that has this level of Power over people, a Book that depicts a story, that cannot be verified as being Fact, that is the danger of Religion..

No point in asking a direct question to a Yank here, they avoid it at all costs.


We're afraid you're going to trick us with your superior British wit.


I think the most obvious problem with the bible is that is was originally written in Latin at a time when the common person did not speak Latin (or at least, not well enough where the bible was universally understood). Then it was translated half a dozen times. Down the line a king got involved and had his own version published.

Even to this day, 10 people can read the bible and give you 10 different interpretations of what it means. I would think if there were a truly all-powerful being that wanted us to live a certain way he would have been a bit more clear.

At its most fundamental level, religion is control. There will always be people that want to control others, and religion is one of the most popular tools to do so.

We're afraid you're going to trick us with your superior British wit.


Be afraid, very afraid...................................

We're afraid you're going to trick us with your superior British wit.




It's not that difficult to do.

Col

Usually people are fed the King James Version of the bible - the British Royalty view of the religious tombe and their slant on how things should be, basically it is the 1600's version of wiki. There is a lot of revision in translations.

As far as the wit is concerned, the majority of it here is not very intellegent and very repetative whiny spins on their anti-Americanisms. Pathetically funny at times but mostly boring.

We're afraid you're going to trick us with your superior British wit.


I think the most obvious problem with the bible is that is was originally written in Latin at a time when the common person did not speak Latin (or at least, not well enough where the bible was universally understood). Then it was translated half a dozen times. Down the line a king got involved and had his own version published.

Even to this day, 10 people can read the bible and give you 10 different interpretations of what it means. I would think if there were a truly all-powerful being that wanted us to live a certain way he would have been a bit more clear.

At its most fundamental level, religion is control. There will always be people that want to control others, and religion is one of the most popular tools to do so.

I think the most obvious problem with the bible is that is was originally written in Latin at a time when the common person did not speak Latin (or at least, not well enough where the bible was universally understood). Then it was translated half a dozen times. Down the line a king got involved and had his own version published.


Not actually strictly correct. The New Testament was originally written in Greek before being translated at a later stage to Latin and other languages.

I believe the the Old testament was originally written in Aramaic

Not actually strictly correct. The New Testament was originally written in Greek before being translated at a later stage to Latin and other languages.

I believe the the Old testament was originally written in Aramaic

Point conceded. I still say a major problem is that the early written versions were not widely understood by the common person.

Nor is the current one, apparently...

Point conceded. I still say a major problem is that the early written versions were not widely understood by the common person.

Are there any written accounts, not 100 years later as in the testaments, that Jesus existed and performed the miracles described in the scriptures?

For example, and I know that this is probably not a comparable, but we know that King Arthur as the accounts in books was a mythological character only and not factual, although their are acoounts of a person that would probably fit the description but was in no shape way or form a fitting character that fits the book description of King Arthur and his deeds..

So are their written accounts of the time that place a person who could fit Jesus's description but who could not fit the biblical description as a Miracle man..

I notice you seized upon the easy part of my post but I would love to see your thoughts on how you deal with the fact that the Bible unambiguously glorifies genocide in the name of your deity.

Yes, I did that on purpose. It has been over 30 years since I read Joshua through and I would prefer to read it so I know what I'm talking about before I answer your question. I don't necessarily agree with your underlying assertions.


Even to this day, 10 people can read the bible and give you 10 different interpretations of what it means.

In theory, 10 people can read a book on Access and give you 11 different interpretations of what it means. Or a book on making cheese cake. Or just about anything.

Anyway, this was exactly my first thought at the part of your other question. Thus, I need to re-read before I give my equally lame opinion.

Are books evil or the people who read/write them?

Are books evil or the people who read/write them?

The so called experts who interpret them for their own agenda, tho' I have also stated as Adam did earlier that surely an intelligent super being ie God would by now have communicated better.

Brian

Is anyone listening? How many people have gone out and actually tried to read the passage in question (the book of Joshua in the OT)? We just take other people's word? Why not read it yourself and see if God communicates with you? Communications requires 2 participants.

The so called experts who interpret them for their own agenda, tho' I have also stated as Adam did earlier that surely an intelligent super being ie God would by now have communicated better.

Brian

On the other hand the Bible might be only part truth and in particular the relationship between God and man is the false bit.

In my opinion if you start with a position of zero bias then given the information available plus general observation the most likely answer is a superior being. Maybe it is not supernatural but it can play with the laws of nature to the extent that relative to us it is supernatural.

However, all available evidence would suggest there is no relationship between this superior being (or beings) and man. Thus the Bible might be basically true in the sense it portrays a superior being but the rest of it is wishful thinking.

Is anyone listening? How many people have gone out and actually tried to read the passage in question (the book of Joshua in the OT)? We just take other people's word? Why not read it yourself and see if God communicates with you? Communications requires 2 participants.

But George the argument can be like this:

For a sale to occur there needs to be good communication between the prosptect and salesman. Some salesmen communicate better than others and thus have a better sales ratio but never 100%

However, if God is all knowing and powerful then there should not be a problem.

Perhaps God is making it hard to test us.....but why test us when He knows the answer.

At the risk of repeating myself(an old man's privilege) there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods. It's just a human desire to have something to blame when things go wrong or to have a security blanket in a confusing universe. Just because we don't understand everything does not mean we need to invent a superior being without any evidence to support this

Exactly. Which is why faith is an important part of (at least the Christian) religion.

At the risk of repeating myself(an old man's privilege) there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods. It's just a human desire to have something to blame when things go wrong or to have a security blanket in a confusing universe. Just because we don't understand everything does not mean we need to invent a superior being without any evidence to support this

That's about as far from faith as I can imagine. There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVIDENCE of this Rabbie. For the ones that do have faith, the belief that God showed himself in the form of Jesus is all the proof they need. And for those who believe that a human being is simply THE church (as Jesus said to his disciples) instead of a church being a church, they need not ANY proof. Their passion for love just leads them to believe anyway.

In terms of the Christian religion, I try to stay firm to the story that God showed himself to his creation because he wanted to. He is not obligated to do anything (as the great flood shows, for Christians)

That's about as far from faith as I can imagine. There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVIDENCE of this Rabbie. For the ones that do have faith, the belief that God showed himself in the form of Jesus is all the proof they need. And for those who believe that a human being is simply THE church (as Jesus said to his disciples) instead of a church being a church, they need not ANY proof. Their passion for love just leads them to believe anyway.

In terms of the Christian religion, I try to stay firm to the story that God showed himself to his creation because he wanted to. He is not obligated to do anything (as the great flood shows, for Christians)
Thanks for confirming my understanding that there is is not a shred of rational evidence to support religion.

Thanks for confirming my understanding that there is is not a shred of rational evidence to support religion.

You missed the point old man. :) Faith is the evidence. If you don't have it, then you have to stay in your own boat.

There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVIDENCE of this Rabbie. For the ones that do have faith, the belief that God showed himself in the form of Jesus is all the proof they need.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in the ridiculous stories in the holy books. However they should not expect to dictate their values to wider society on the basis of that faith as they have done for many centuries, frequently using violent means to enforce their will.

You missed the point old man. :) Faith is the evidence. If you don't have it, then you have to stay in your own boat.

It is the faithful who should stay in their own boat instead of demanding their misguided values be a prominent part of broader culture.

frequently using violent means to enforce their will.Galax,

I have a lot of faith, but I am also someone that believes that religion is wayyyyy to controversial. It's too bad that religion could be a source of so much violence in the world. That's really not what ANY religion preaches, nor have any prophets ever preached to use violence as a means to a spectacular end. Don't you agree?

You missed the point old man. :) Faith is the evidence. If you don't have it, then you have to stay in your own boat.

To quote your good self " There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVIDENCE ". Do try to remember what you said and don't contradict yourself.

And do stop being ageist. It's only a short step from racism

To quote your good self " There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVIDENCE ". Do try to remember what you said and don't contradict yourself.

And do stop being ageist. It's only a short step from racism

try to remember that I am full of sarcasm. Being ageist is not even an issue here. It didn't even exist when I wrote that JOKE!

try to remember that I am full of sarcasm. Being ageist is not even an issue here. It didn't even exist when I wrote that JOKE!
Again we seem to have a definition problem. On this side of the atlantic jokes are supposed to be funny.

You may be full of sarcasm but you manage to give the impression you are anally retentive

I have a lot of faith, but I am also someone that believes that religion is wayyyyy to controversial.

This controversy is the reason religion has been afforded so much tolerance. Political correctness teaches that we should respect all religion and that one does not engage in a religous debate in polite conversation.

Religions have always presumed to be above reproach and by and large society has afforded them this privilige while allowing the faithful to openly criticise the values of secular society. That time is over. Religion cannot be above public debate.


It's too bad that religion could be a source of so much violence in the world. That's really not what ANY religion preaches, nor have any prophets ever preached to use violence as a means to a spectacular end. Don't you agree?

Then you have not studied these books. They openly preach violence as a means to enforce faith.

The Abrahamic faiths all eagerly await the coming of a violent Armageddon where their brand will dominate the planet and everyone else will die. All those who worship the abominable Hewbrew monster are providing their energy to this goal. Osama bin Laden and George W Bush have made spectacular contributions to achieving their cherished Armageddon.

Galaxiom, Well said. It is amazing how a fairy tale will motivate decent people to do terrible things

The Abrahamic faiths all eagerly await the coming of a violent Armageddon where their brand will dominate the planet and everyone else will die. All those who worship the abominable Hewbrew monster are providing their energy to this goal. Osama bin Laden and George W Bush have made spectacular contributions to achieving their cherished Armageddon.No offense bro, but what the hell is that?

I am skeptical of anyone who talks like this. Yeah, the books have many stories, some good some bad. But what is most important I think, is the common sense that you can find in them, rather than the belief in extreme violence as a means to ANYTHING.

At any rate, didn't have much fun with this conversation, but we sure exchanged some interesting ideas!

No offense bro, but what the hell is that?

I am skeptical of anyone who talks like this. Yeah, the books have many stories, some good some bad. But what is most important I think, is the common sense that you can find in them, rather than the belief in extreme violence as a means to ANYTHING.

Armageddon is a key prophecy. The "truth" of the Bible is demonstrated in the fulfilment of prophesies such as the remarkable match between the story of Jesus in the NT and the predictions made in the OT. Those who worship stand in support of Armageddon regardless of whether they actively work toward it. It is there in the book and it is part of their faith.

Of course people simply choose which part of "God's Word" they want to believe. The Bible is so full of incongruencies that passages to support virtually anything can be found. For example, Leviticus is used to justify the denigration of homosexuals yet only a couple of passages away he tells that those with poor eyesight shall not enter the House of the Lord. Yet we don't see people with glasses refused entry to the church.

At any rate, didn't have much fun with this conversation, but we sure exchanged some interesting ideas!

As usual the faithful run for their lives when confronted with the reality of their beliefs. I am sure you are sceptical. That is one of the foundations taught in the faith. Anyone who is critical of the Bible, particularly those who actually sound like they could be making sense must surely be under the influnce of Satan himself. This logic has frequently been used as justification for murder.

Galaxiom, Well said. It is amazing how a fairy tale will motivate decent people to do terrible things

Unfortunately I forget the name of the author but I love the statement.

Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but to make good people do bad things requires religion.

I have to disagree. If someone uses religion as a means to control their own actions and do terrible things, they are not good nor decent.

At the risk of repeating myself(an old man's privilege) there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods. It's just a human desire to have something to blame when things go wrong or to have a security blanket in a confusing universe. Just because we don't understand everything does not mean we need to invent a superior being without any evidence to support this

But as I have said before if you accept there is life elsewhere then the odds must be high that some of that life is very advanced compared to us.

Given the size of the universe and "the fact??" that natural laws exist throughout the universe then if evolution is correct the presence of superior beings would to my mind be a logical conclusion as opposed to an invention.

But as I have said before if you accept there is life elsewhere then the odds must be high that some of that life is very advanced compared to us.

Given the size of the universe and "the fact??" that natural laws exist throughout the universe then if evolution is correct the presence of superior beings would to my mind be a logical conclusion as opposed to an invention.

According to the Bible, in the begining there was nothing but God and the Void. God created everything. Defining God in terms of beings from another planet is not consistent with the description of God provided in the Bible.

Alien life, yes. Gods, no.

According to the Bible, in the begining there was nothing but God and the Void. God created everything. Defining God in terms of beings from another planet is not consistent with the description of God provided in the Bible.

Alien life, yes. Gods, no.

Of course, the bible was written by man. The book of genesis was written by Moses through, what I will refer to as his interpretation of God's words. Most of the bible is exactly that, interpretation of what the human who wrote it was thinking at the time. It doesn't mean what that person wrote is actually what "god" told him to write. If you accept that the bible says humans are not perfect, then you must accept that neither were the ones who wrote the bible and may have misinterpreted what they were supposed to write. It's only logical.

Of course, if I were to run to Times Square and say that god spoke to me and told me things about the future and/or past and to spread the word on the rebirth of Jesus and the antichrist, people would write me off as a lunatic. Society only accepts this sort of behavior from primitive cultures. It's another example of religious hypocricy.

According to the Bible, in the begining there was nothing but God and the Void. God created everything. Defining God in terms of beings from another planet is not consistent with the description of God provided in the Bible.

Alien life, yes. Gods, no.

But I am not about the Bible.

What I am saying is events, call them what you will, are not all chance but the result of superior beings playing about.

If it is a very hot day the insects and small lizards in the garden have a million years of instinct behind them and that instinct tells then what to do for the day. Then all of a sudden I decide to hose the garden. No, I am not supernatural but I am a being that can change their day.

But I am not about the Bible.

What I am saying is events, call them what you will, are not all chance but the result of superior beings playing about.

If it is a very hot day the insects and small lizards in the garden have a million years of instinct behind them and that instinct tells then what to do for the day. Then all of a sudden I decide to hose the garden. No, I am not supernatural but I am a being that can change their day.

Does that mean you are more intelligent? A mosquito swarm can change your day as well, especially if one infects you with an even "lesser" species, like a West Nile virus.

No, I am not supernatural but I am a being that can change their day.

You and the lizard are both decended from a comparatively recent common ancestor that emerged on this planet. Everything that happens between you is consistent with established physical theory.

That is a far cry from an organism that has independently arisen on an incredibly distant planet being able or even wanting to have an effect on your day through some completely unknown mechanism.

Does that mean you are more intelligent? A mosquito swarm can change your day as well, especially if one infects you with an even "lesser" species, like a West Nile virus.

The point I was making is my changing the ant's day or the dog's day is beyond them.

The West Nile virus can be explained by us.

Actually I am trying to make two points. The first is if the superior beings do something one of the problems we would have with an explanation is science would not look in that area.

The second point is if such beings exist they don't have a relationship with us. In other words praying to them won't help:)

You and the lizard are both decended from a comparatively recent common ancestor that emerged on this planet. Everything that happens between you is consistent with established physical theory.

That is a far cry from an organism that has independently arisen on an incredibly distant planet being able or even wanting to have an effect on your day through some completely unknown mechanism.

You are missing the point. As far as the lizard's life is concerned there is something that can interfere with nature.

Are you saying because it would be some completely unknown mechanism it can't happen. Consider the huge leap between us and the chimp. What would a being be like that is a few notches above us.

Or are you saying that human is at about the end of the road with technology?

The point I was making is my changing the ant's day or the dog's day is beyond them.

The West Nile virus can be explained by us.

Actually I am trying to make two points. The first is if the superior beings do something one of the problems we would have with an explanation is science would not look in that area.

The second point is if such beings exist they don't have a relationship with us. In other words praying to them won't help:)

Ahhh, but it would be science that explained why you were sick. Science and technology is what has caused you and the rest of us to evolve and know what a virus is. In the past, people described most major illnesses as religious fodder, such as curses or possessions. We know better today, not because of religion, but because of science.

The second point, you never know. They may consider themselves gods who demand our worship. They may even be beings who places us here, thus actually having a relationship with us. There are too many unexplained things in the universe.

There are too many unexplained things in the universe.

Agree.

All I am saying is the presence of superior beings must be a strong possibility.

All I am saying is the presence of superior beings must be a strong possibility.

The probability of there not being other life in this universe is vanishingly low. More likely than not there are some more intelligent than us. (If not then they probably destroyed themselves as we seem to be trying to do.)

However the distances are incomprehensibly vast and all indications from Relativity are than any attempt to traverse these distances would unavoidably take a very long time.

Ah but you say time slows down for the high speed traveller. yes that is true. However it does not for the "stationary" destination. So despite being able to travel many lightyears through space in an apparently short time for the traveller, the remote lifeform would have had to have left home before the earth was even formed.

At the same time, it's very possible there are more advanced life forms out there that not only exist, but know we do. Any intelligent race is likely to understand that making themselves known to us would be disasterous for them and for us. We would want nothing more than to do experiments on them and then fight each other over who gets to try and steal their technology. Then there are some among us who would completely freak out over the concept and not be able to psychologically handle it. Yes, it's best they watch from a distance and not let themselves be known until we are close to their level of intelligence or are at least capable of banding together as one race instead of bickering over political and religious differences as our race does now.

Agree.

All I am saying is the presence of superior beings must be a strong possibility.

I we are so superior, how come it's us that is stuffing up the environment (the point of the thread, by the way)

We would be very naive to think that we are alone in this Universe, even our Galaxy, our Earth has been around for Billions of years, Man has been evolved only a very small fraction of that time, just imagine how advanced we would be if we had been around just one fraction higher of that time..

Ah but you say time slows down for the high speed traveller. yes that is true. However it does not for the "stationary" destination. So despite being able to travel many lightyears through space in an apparently short time for the traveller, the remote lifeform would have had to have left home before the earth was even formed.

So you assume the speed of light is a definite limit....no technology beyond the speed of light.

At the same time, it's very possible there are more advanced life forms out there that not only exist, but know we do. Any intelligent race is likely to understand that making themselves known to us would be disasterous for them and for us. We would want nothing more than to do experiments on them and then fight each other over who gets to try and steal their technology. Then there are some among us who would completely freak out over the concept and not be able to psychologically handle it. Yes, it's best they watch from a distance and not let themselves be known until we are close to their level of intelligence or are at least capable of banding together as one race instead of bickering over political and religious differences as our race does now.

Would it be fair to say that what you posted would only apply if another intellgent race was in the same general ball park as us.

So you assume the speed of light is a definite limit....no technology beyond the speed of light.
A reasonable assumption given our knowlege of the laws of physics

I we are so superior, how come it's us that is stuffing up the environment (the point of the thread, by the way)
The headmaster's having his say, but when he no longer wants to it'll just be locked:rolleyes:

I have to disagree. If someone uses religion as a means to control their own actions and do terrible things, they are not good nor decent.I was actually thinking of the ordinary decent people who can be manipulated by their religious leaders to do terrible things. Not really their fault because they have been conditioned to believe what their leaders tell them

Originally Posted by Mike375 http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=919291#post919291)
So you assume the speed of light is a definite limit....no technology beyond the speed of light.

A reasonable assumption given our knowlege of the laws of physics

And an equally reasonable assumption in 1800 was the weight of explosive required etc.

If there is something that relates to the speed of light the way nuclear relates to black powder then the beings that have that technology could probably sneeze and change the oribit of Jupiter:) as well as doing it from 5 billion light years away.

Perhaps, if it is so, they are not really bothering with us or our place until they have some need for it or us. Sort of the same way humankind ignores the needs of others and focusses on the wants of theirselves.
Case in point would be how the Canadian Government completely ignored Kyoto so they could allow the production of oil from the tar sands for benefit of the United States appetite. Now it has shifted a bit as the Canadian Government is ignoring Copenhagen in order to continue the same dirty production to benefit the fuel hunger of China.

At the same time, it's very possible there are more advanced life forms out there that not only exist, but know we do. Any intelligent race is likely to understand that making themselves known to us would be disasterous for them and for us. We would want nothing more than to do experiments on them and then fight each other over who gets to try and steal their technology. Then there are some among us who would completely freak out over the concept and not be able to psychologically handle it. Yes, it's best they watch from a distance and not let themselves be known until we are close to their level of intelligence or are at least capable of banding together as one race instead of bickering over political and religious differences as our race does now.

So you assume the speed of light is a definite limit....no technology beyond the speed of light.

The speed of light is not some kind of technological limitation but a fundamental part of the structure of spacetime itself.

Indeed the speed of light is the only speed in the universe. Everything travels at that speed. "Stationary" objects are moving at the speed of light in the direction of time. Any speed through space is at the expense of speed through time which is why time slows down when we travel at high speed through space.

To accelerate an object, an increasing amount of energy must be added for each increment in speed. This is why the nanogram of protons circling at close to the speed of light in the Large Hadron Collider has the same kinetic energy as a TGV train travelling at over 200 km/hr.

The physical nature and sheer enormity of space make meeting aliens a very unlikely possibility.

The speed of light is not some kind of technological limitation but a fundamental part of the structure of spacetime itself.

Indeed the speed of light is the only speed in the universe. Everything travels at that speed. "Stationary" objects are moving at the speed of light in the direction of time. Any speed through space is at the expense of speed through time which is why time slows down when we travel at high speed through space.

To accelerate an object, an increasing amount of energy must be added for each increment in speed. This is why the nanogram of protons circling at close to the speed of light in the Large Hadron Collider has the same kinetic energy as a TGV train travelling at over 200 km/hr.

The physical nature and sheer enormity of space make meeting aliens a very unlikely possibility.

I am aware of all that. However, before nuclear energy was understood the amount of energy available from a mass was limited to chemical energy. I am not referring to nuclear technology but the understanding of it, which came well before "the bomb". In other words what what was taught in the science class of the old university was incorrect.

One thing that has always struck me about the speed of light is how incredibly slow it is relative to the size of the universe.

As a side note are you prepared to state that time it takes to communicate between two objects that are 5 light years apart will never be less than 5 years.

We're afraid you're going to trick us with your superior British wit.


I think the most obvious problem with the bible is that is was originally written in Latin

.

Actually the Old Testiment was writen in Hebrew, and the New Testiment was writen in Greek.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in the ridiculous stories in the holy books. However they should not expect to dictate their values to wider society on the basis of that faith as they have done for many centuries, frequently using violent means to enforce their will.

I find it much more prevalent that people of no faith are more intent on spreading their word.

The faithful are of course, morons.

According to the Bible, in the begining there was nothing but God and the Void. God created everything. Defining God in terms of beings from another planet is not consistent with the description of God provided in the Bible.

Alien life, yes. Gods, no.

Ah indeed, the big bang; everything from nothing. Yup that explains it.

I find it much more prevalent that people of no faith are more intent on spreading their word.

The rise of atheistic people confronting the doctrine of the church is a recent phenomonon. For centuries people speaking against the church were considered heretics and frequently punished by torture and death. Church attendence has been compulsory with enormous fines for failing to attend.

Discrimination in law against those who do not conform to the ways of the church is only beginning to be overturned. The status of women has long been based on Biblical teaching and only recently have women been given the same rights as men in many Western countries. Blatant descrimination based on the rule of the church continues in many places.

Religious values are embedded in our societies. Religious leaders demand to be included in the setting of public policy. Religion has a special status in law and is exempt from taxation. Church buildings are highly visible extravagent symbols of power and influence.

Religion need not spread the word for it is already thoroughly dispursed. Atheists are simply exercising the long overdue right of reply, something that the church has always supressed.

Ah indeed, the big bang; everything from nothing. Yup that explanes it.

Cosmology does not claim that the Big Bang is a case of everything from nothing. There are several attempts to construct a theory of the origin of the universe from larger multidimensional structures through the Big Bang.

Understandably, since these purported origins lay beyond the limits of observation it is very difficult to analyse and test the theories. However work continues in this rapidly expanding field and I have little doubt that we will see development in the near future.

The hypothesis that our universe was created by a simple series of commands by an almighty God that always existed has exactly zero evidence and is entirely untestable. It contributes nothing to understanding mechanisms involved.

God and everything He created simply came from nothing. Yup, that explains it.

God is not supposed to be an entity people. He is supposed to be LOVE. And through love, you can create his presence within yourself. And he decided to turn that love that he is into a human being. Hence, the comming of Jesus.

As a side note are you prepared to state that time it takes to communicate between two objects that are 5 light years apart will never be less than 5 years.

No I wouldn't since what would appear to be communication faster than the speed of light through Quantum Entanglement has already been demonstrated.

However this technology requires the entangled particles to have been in the same place at some previous time so does not get around the problem of long distance travel at high speed.

None the less, instantaneous communication may ultimately be possible through other dimensions. We just don't know enough about the fundamental structure of spacetime and mass. However I would not expect any potential to pass matter into other dimensions and come out again in a remote location in a recognisable form.

I would be confident in saying that a distant alien would not be able to directly exert influence of matter on earth much less manifest the energy to part a sea at the behest of a man trying to escape his enemies.

God is not supposed to be an entity people. He is supposed to be LOVE. And through love, you can create his presence within yourself. And he decided to turn that love that he is into a human being. Hence, the comming of Jesus.

So Joshua was aided in the Hebrew Promised Land massaces through God's love? The Crusaders fought for Juruslem on the power of love? Christians burned "witches" because of love? The Coalition of the Willing wrought havoc upon Iraq through love? Priests molested children motivated by love? Hmmmm?

I do accept that a greater consciousness may be created through mass hypnosis. However that need not be a universal love and casual observation suggests that it is more often built on greed and hatred. This is why religion is so dangerous.

So Joshua was aided in the Hebrew Promised Land massaces through God's love? The Crusaders fought for Juruslem on the power of love? Christians burned "witches" because of love? The Coalition of the Willing wrought havoc upon Iraq through love? Priests molested children motivated by love? Hmmmm?

I do accept that a greater consciousness may be created through mass hypnosis. However that need not be a universal love and casual observation suggests that it is more often built on greed and hatred. This is why religion is so dangerous.
No question that you are right about the danger there bud. But just because of what you're stating, doesn't mean ANYTHING. God represents love, but he doesn't mess with free will. Christians (so to speak) can do whatever the hell they want. God does not tell your heart to do A B or C. He tells you to find your own way. In short, YOU ARE THE CHURCH. That is what Jesus also tried to preach.

God does not tell your heart to do A B or C. He tells you to find your own way. In short, YOU ARE THE CHURCH. That is what Jesus also tried to preach.

Now we are getting somewhere. Personal morality is what it is about.
I have no argument with spirituality. The church is the problem. They presume to instruct the believers in morality and those who choose a different way are alienated.

Jesus had a very low opinion of the church and referred to those who engaged in conspicuous public worship as hypocrites. Indeed He instructed the faithful to worship in complete privacy.

Yet we see a highly conspicuous heirarchial structure dominating and defining the broader sense of spirituality right across the population of two billion so called Christians on the planet. Meanwhile those who question this departure from God's Word are labelled heretics.

I would be confident in saying that a distant alien would not be able to directly exert influence of matter on earth much less manifest the energy to part a sea at the behest of a man trying to escape his enemies.

Even if it/he/she/they could do it I don't think that would have happened.

I see the Bible somewhat like a newspaper story or something from history. Usually the basis or core is true but the details could be from rough to very rough. I have had a keen interest in dinosaurs since I was a kid and that is a very fluid situation:D However, what has remained the same is there were a lot of very large animals walking about the place and with a basic reptilian appearance.

I find it extremely difficult to believe the Bible is the product of an invention by man. I think a long time ago some pretty interesting stuff was happening. Whether caused by a god, gods, God or aliens, who knows.

Yet we see a highly conspicuous heirarchial structure dominating and defining the broader sense of spirituality right across the population of two billion so called Christians on the planet. Meanwhile those who question this departure from God's Word are labelled heretics.Galax,

that's just the way human beings act. And Jesus knew it too. Jesus was the most faithful human that ever walked the earth, and he did not lead one damn thing. You would never see him sit on a thrown like you see the pope doing. That's what I find sad. Stuff like that. If you want to dive into faith and get close to God in your heart, don't brag about it. As soon as you do, you grow farther away. If only power seekers knew that truth, huh? :rolleyes:

Galax,

that's just the way human beings act. And Jesus knew it too. Jesus was the most faithful human that ever walked the earth, and he did not lead one damn thing. You would never see him sit on a thrown like you see the pope doing. That's what I find sad. Stuff like that. If you want to dive into faith and get close to God in your heart, don't brag about it. As soon as you do, you grow farther away. If only power seekers knew that truth, huh? :rolleyes:

Then you would be spiritual rather than religious?

I have no doubt that Jesus would be apalled at the things done in His name and the domination of humanity by the church. A true believer would surely work to undermine the power of the church.

My favourite quote is one that unfortunately I read from a source that did not attribute its author.

"Religion is man's way of protecting himself from spiritual experience."

I find it extremely difficult to believe the Bible is the product of an invention by man. I think a long time ago some pretty interesting stuff was happening. Whether caused by a god, gods, God or aliens, who knows.

What precisely leads you to this conclusion? Why could not it be simply a deluded imagination. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith seemed to have no trouble inventing ridiculously fanciful notions of as the basis of their own religions.

What bewilders me is the number of people who followed them.

What precisely leads you to this conclusion? Why could not it be simply a deluded imagination. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith seemed to have no trouble inventing ridiculously fanciful notions of as the basis of their own religions.

What bewilders me is the number of people who followed them.

I think there are some significant differences between those blokes and the Bible. Firstly, they did not really start from scratch. The Bible has set the scene for different religions, spititual experiences etc. and etc. Secondly is the short term and limited number of followers.

What precisely leads you to this conclusion?

A couple of very basic things. The first one being as I said earlier is it just seems to me that such an enduring story (or news report if you like) of events that are quite fanastic has to have some basis of truth. The second reason is quite simply my own experiences and observations. No matter which way I examine things I keep coming up with the most likely option being a life force and also possibly some form of telepathy between humans.

I think there are some significant differences between those blokes and the Bible. Firstly, they did not really start from scratch.

While Smith's main changes simply moved the Promised Land and the Israelites to Utah, Hubbard started from scratch. Brand new deity and humans as a type of damaged god originating from another planet. Though he did copy the idea of salvation through restoration by faith.

The Bible has set the scene for different religions, spititual experiences etc. and etc. Secondly is the short term and limited number of followers.

The derivatives of Judeaism took a long time to arise. There are already factions in both Scientology and the LDS. Both continue to increase their following. Religion is politics and politicians are often involved in power struggles that lead to splits. Mohammed created Islam after being rejected as a prophet by the Jewish oligarchy.

All the Abrahamic faiths were conceived in an environment without a sophisticated science where humans still needed some explanation for the inexplicable. Everyone had some kind of god which they hoped to influence through worship. Moreover all violently supressed opposition at various times and made life outside the church untenable. A truly devine philosophy surely should not have required this kind of enforcement.

it just seems to me that such an enduring story (or news report if you like) of events that are quite fanastic has to have some basis of truth.

The Old Testament was written at a time when writing itself was rare. Those stories would have been from an oral history passed down through many generations in a context where supernatural occurrences could not have been discounted as contrary to sensibilities. No doubt they were greatly exaggerated in this process. Many believers would have been in awe of the whole concept of a book and hence afforded it undue reverence.

The Bible includes several contradictory claims from different authors and clearly the creation story departs wildly from the geological and biological evidence. I see no plausible basis in truth for Genesis.

The second reason is quite simply my own experiences and observations. No matter which way I examine things I keep coming up with the most likely option being a life force and also possibly some form of telepathy between humans.

Perhaps there are aspects to our existence that lie beyond our current understanding. I too have had experiences that suggest some of those possiblites. However nothing I have experienced suggests anything out of the ordinary about the Bible.

It may be that these curious phenomona prompted the early muddled attempts to make sense of it. These stories became the Bible and then were picked up by fascist elements to promote their own ends.

It is amazing what a story can become over time. Parting seas or bringing back the dead? I don't thinks so. Feeding a multitude on some rock hard stale bread and two rotten fish perhaps. I can just imagine, "Thanks but I will be OK, pass it on".:D

While Smith's main changes simply moved the Promised Land and the Israelites to Utah, Hubbard started from scratch. Brand new deity and humans as a type of damaged god originating from another planet. Though he did copy the idea of salvation through restoration by faith.

If you and I set sail today to start a religion then we have behind us the fact that a huge percentage of the population is already part of a religion. In other words we are offering another version of what is accepted, the latest model:)

The Bible includes several contradictory claims from different authors and clearly the creation story departs wildly from the geological and biological evidence. I see no plausible basis in truth for Genesis.

I have seen both the list of contradictions and the equally big list of answers from the Bible side.

As to Genesis God could have made the sun as a a star already 5 billion years old and ditto for earth. Adam and Eve were portrayed appearing as adults.

Consider this.....in 1800 an alien detonates a nuclear bomb. To the scientists of the day what happened is impossible. Their calculations show that it would have taken a 1000 men with wagons 10 years to assemble the explosive. To the non scientists it was also impossible, perhaps a miracle.

As would be expected the event would be written about and by both men of science and journalists. However, in both cases their writings would be way off the mark.

Perhaps there are aspects to our existence that lie beyond our current understanding. I too have had experiences that suggest some of those possiblites. However nothing I have experienced suggests anything out of the ordinary about the Bible.

Like you I can't relate my experiences and observations to the Bible except they share in common with the Bible things that just don't add up, something else at work.

It is amazing what a story can become over time. Parting seas or bringing back the dead? I don't thinks so. Feeding a multitude on some rock hard stale bread and two rotten fish perhaps. I can just imagine, "Thanks but I will be OK, pass it on".:D

While it is true that a story can become a lot over time the story usually has a starting point or a factual basis.

Actually, if I stand on the side that supports the Bible as basically accurate then to my way of thinking it portrays a god of great but limited power. I think it is quite possible that the universe came about without a supernatural being but gods or superior beings are within the universe.

If I go back to the alien who detonated the thermo nuclear in 1800.....no matter the effort put in to find an answer the science of the day could not come within a million miles of the explanation. Every theory or explanation would be full of holes and counter theories. Then one day in the future the answer would become obvious. At the moment I see Hawking, Davies and Co as being the counterpart of those scientists in 1800.

[quote=GalaxiomAtHome;919459]Cosmology does not claim that the Big Bang is a case of everything from nothing. There are several attempts to construct a theory of the origin of the universe from larger multidimensional structures through the Big Bang.

quote]

I think we all have the same access to Discovery and Google, so we mostly get the whole big bang theory (which I ascribe to, by the way). My point was that science uses new words to hide that fact that they have no better explanations, than were available to the sheep herders of yesteryear.

God is not supposed to be an entity people. He is supposed to be LOVE. And through love, you can create his presence within yourself. And he decided to turn that love that he is into a human being. Hence, the comming of Jesus.

Yes, you have touched upon my own view of the power of God.

So Joshua was aided in the Hebrew Promised Land massaces through God's love? The Crusaders fought for Juruslem on the power of love? Christians burned "witches" because of love? The Coalition of the Willing wrought havoc upon Iraq through love? Priests molested children motivated by love? Hmmmm?

I do accept that a greater consciousness may be created through mass hypnosis. However that need not be a universal love and casual observation suggests that it is more often built on greed and hatred. This is why religion is so dangerous.


Interestingly though, you blame religion for the atrocities of man, yet denying God means religion is a construct of man.
According to you, man needs to create mechanism to support death and destruction.
What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

I mean of course; in order to fullfill our need to destoy.

I think there are some significant differences between those blokes and the Bible. Firstly, they did not really start from scratch. The Bible has set the scene for different religions, spititual experiences etc. and etc. Secondly is the short term and limited number of followers.



A couple of very basic things. The first one being as I said earlier is it just seems to me that such an enduring story (or news report if you like) of events that are quite fanastic has to have some basis of truth. The second reason is quite simply my own experiences and observations. No matter which way I examine things I keep coming up with the most likely option being a life force and also possibly some form of telepathy between humans.

Some people can with one breath accept quantum entanglement, and in another deny the possibility of an all encompassing force binding the universe.

The closer we get to understanding the nature of things the more evidence there is for an underlining power.

Funny though, it seams that mostly high IQ people see that.

Interestingly though, you blame religion for the atrocities of man, yet denying God means religion is a construct of man.
According to you, man needs to create mechanism to support death and destruction.
What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

I mean of course; in order to fullfill our need to destoy.
"Our" of course being plural for America:rolleyes:

Some people can with one breath accept quantum entanglement, and in another deny the possibility of an all encompassing force binding the universe.


Quantum entanglement has evidence but there is no evidence to support your zombie messiah.

Interestingly though, you blame religion for the atrocities of man, yet denying God means religion is a construct of man.
According to you, man needs to create mechanism to support death and destruction.
What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

I mean of course; in order to fullfill our need to destoy.
Not sure what you mean by "our need to destroy". I personally think that religion can be replaced by people having a mutual respect for each other and "doing as you would be done by". As far as I understand it this would not mean a fundamental change for most people except they would have to take responsibility for their own actions and not hide behind an imaginary friend

Quantum entanglement has evidence but there is no evidence to support your zombie messiah.

I think there is plenty of evidence.

Firstly, if we assume there is a superantural being or beings then obviously he/she/it/they could create the whole show or perhaps lay down the basics to kick start things. I don't think anyone doubts that. So the issue here is if the supernatural exists or existed and that is the only issue.

Bear with me:D

If I go to Google and Big Bang the basic results are support of the Big Bang plus those who don't agree. So we have two opposing views and in both cases there are lots of "ifs" etc. at best each is a rough shot at things. But the third view is support for the supernatural. If there is or was the supernatural (s) then no "ifs or buts".

Note: I am just using Big Bang as an example.

So can support of a supernatural be based on logic and not wishful thinking, I think so.

Hawking has said that pre Big Bang there is no physics, time etc. I think he also said that is the reason they can't go to pre Big Bang. So pre Big Bang is either no form of natural laws or a completely different set of natural laws.

Pre Big Bang must be either "something" or "nothing". If there was "something" then that operated under a different set of natural laws. On the other hand if it all came from "nothing" then that surely must be a set of different laws.

Either way you are left with a supernatural, that is, a supernatural when related to our natural laws.

You have to completely remove from the equation a connection between a supernatural and any religious connections.

A supernatural is the only explanation that is 100%. Every other explanation blows around in the breeze. If Hawking is correct then there must of been a supernatural pre Big Bang.

If Hawking is correct then there must of been a supernatural pre Big Bang.
I don't think Hawkings actually says that. Evidence Please. Hawkings actually says there is "no before the bigbang" as that is when time was created.

And if you are correct where id your "superatural" come from?

Quantum entanglement has evidence but there is no evidence to support your zombie messiah.

There you go once again, atheist incivility.

How can you prove a point with words like that?
Unless your objective is to prove your lack of abilities.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
I forgive you, your trespasses.

Not sure what you mean by "our need to destroy". I personally think that religion can be replaced by people having a mutual respect for each other and "doing as you would be done by". As far as I understand it this would not mean a fundamental change for most people except they would have to take responsibility for their own actions and not hide behind an imaginary friend

The point is that if you do not believe in God, then blaming religion is mute. It is a devise of man.
Mankind has always made excuses to attempt to destroy each other.
You a bright person Rabbie, you know exactly what I am saying.
The more accurate analogy is to blame organization modeled after the KKK, where wealthy, evil, fanatics, brain wash the poor and susceptible.
Most truly religious people that I know, would not waste their time trying to convert you, they would instead rely on their actions.

"Our" of course being plural for America:rolleyes:

How long is the journey to enlightenment Rich, and how short is life?

A supernatural is the only explanation that is 100%.

Putting things down to the "supernatural" does not explain anything. Once upon a time the sun was considered supernatural and that would have been equally the only explanation that is 100% with your argument.

There you go once again, atheist incivility.

How can you prove a point with words like that?
Unless your objective is to prove your lack of abilities.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
I forgive you, your trespasses.


lol.......

There you go once again, atheist incivility.

How can you prove a point with words like that?
Unless your objective is to prove your lack of abilities.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
I forgive you, your trespasses.

And one day we may forgive you your imaginary friends

There you go once again, atheist incivility.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
(WTF has happend to the open square bracket? If you enter one yourself becuase of the over zealous highlighting it doesn't work as a quote.)


Atheists are not fanatics. Theists are just very uncomfortable when asked to justify their influence on the values and policies of wider society.

"Because God said in the Bible" just doesn't cut it, particularly when the "wisdom" is provided in parables that are open to wide interpretations and often contradictory.

For example. Genetic engineering is opposed by many believers on the grounds that "we should not play God". Nowhere does it actually define maniulation of lifeforms is "playing God".

Indeed it clearly says in the Bible that we were made "in His image". Therefore since He is able to create life we are similarly empowered. Moreover we were "given dominion" over the plants and animals of the Earth. Sounds to me like we are duty bound to engage in genetic engineering.

Besides the life that God created is so full of design flaws and operational bugs that I have no doubt we will make a better job of it than His cobbled together constructions.

I don't think Hawkings actually says that. Evidence Please. Hawkings actually says there is "no before the bigbang" as that is when time was created.

And if you are correct where id your "superatural" come from?

Because whatever was before Big Bang must be above our natural laws and that makes it supernatural.

Putting things down to the "supernatural" does not explain anything. Once upon a time the sun was considered supernatural and that would have been equally the only explanation that is 100% with your argument.

The sun is not the same as pre Big Bang.

The sun is not the same as pre Big Bang.
Proove it

There you go once again, atheist incivility.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
(WTF has happend to the open square bracket? If you enter one yourself becuase of the over zealous highlighting it doesn't work as a quote.)


Atheists are not fanatics. Theists are just very uncomfortable when asked to justify their influence on the values and policies of wider society.

"Because God said in the Bible" just doesn't cut it, particularly when the "wisdom" is provided in parables that are open to wide interpretations and often contradictory.

For example. Genetic engineering is opposed by many believers on the grounds that "we should not play God". Nowhere does it actually define maniulation of lifeforms is "playing God".

Indeed it clearly says in the Bible that we were made "in His image". Therefore since He is able to create life we are similarly empowered. Moreover we were "given dominion" over the plants and animals of the Earth. Sounds to me like we are duty bound to engage in genetic engineering.

Besides the life that God created is so full of design flaws and operational bugs that I have no doubt we will make a better job of it than His cobbled together constructions.

Then why is it that many of the post on this sight, from atheist are so blatantly condescending and filled with derogatory language.

You really must take a look at the facts.

Socially unacceptable atheist by far outnumber theist on this site. Furthermore atheist are much more fundamentalist than theist, in that they are on a crusade to prove they are right.
Sounds like the basis for a war.

And one day we may forgive you your imaginary friends

You have become old, my friend. Your words sound like echos from a much stronger past.

[quote=GalaxiomAtHome;919643]

Socially unacceptable atheist

Unacceptable to who?:rolleyes:

You have become old, my friend.
It's a fact of life, we all are

Atheists are not fanatics.

Go to the Atheist Foundation of Australia forum:D

Anyone who wants his young kid to sit outside on his own if there is a scripture class is a fanatic for wanting to stuff up his kid.

Originally Posted by GalaxiomAtHome http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=919643#post919643)


Socially unacceptable atheist



The quoting has gone haywire. Not said by me.
Site has done something weird with the square brackets.

they are on a crusade to prove they are right. [/SIZE][/FONT]


So very wrong, still even if we were we wouldn't go around killing people as christians liked to do on their last crusade.

The atheist hypothesis is that "god does not exist". This hypothesis can be proved wrong by god showing up and proving us all wrong.

The theist hypothesis is that "god does exist". This hypothesis cannot be proved wrong as even if god never shows up that is not proof he does not exist.

So as theists have a non-falsifiable hypothesis its not worthy of study. As soon as you can disprove the atheist hypothesis please let us know.

The point is that if you do not believe in God, then blaming religion is mute. It is a devise of man.I am glad that we can at least agree that religion is man-made. Bigoted religious fanatics have caused a very high perentage of the misery in this world. None of the atheists that I know wish to persecute people who believe in a god. Nearly all the religious persecution I have seen or read about has been orchestrated by other religious groups.

[quote=GalaxiomAtHome;919643]

Then why is it that many of the post on this sight, from atheist are so blatantly condescending and filled with derogatory language.

You really must take a look at the facts.

Socially unacceptable atheist by far outnumber theist on this site. Furthermore atheist are much more fundamentalist than theist, in that they are on a crusade to prove they are right.
Sounds like the basis for a war.

We have long been taught that it is socially unacceptable to criticise religion because religion has been defining this as part of their morality which they inflict upon secular society. It worked for a few generations.

However events of the past decade have raised the profile of theistic belief and exposed the rotten core of their "morality". Western Christian leaders "prayed to God for guidance" on the invasion of Iraq. Clearly Iraq's WMDs were a trumped up excuse to invade in the hope of exerting influence over the middle east. The invasion destroyed a country and left them with no future otherr than extreme violence.

The insidious Islamic tradition has also attracted a lot of attention thorough acts of extreme violence. To complete the Abrahamic Trinity the Jews have showed the violence inherent in their philosophy.

All this has led to many atheists taking an interest in theology where previously we ignored it as a harmless delusion. Like many I was horrified by what I read in the Bible and concluded that in particular the Abrahamic traditions of agressive dominance, bigoted arrogance and perverted sexuality lie at the foundations of the problems in the world.

We have had enough of the theist menatality that has dominated so much of the planet for so long, promoting endless violence, destruction and mental illness. Criticism of your faith may well be unacceptable to you but you had better get used to it. The genie has escaped the bottle and atheists are systematically dismantling the facade that is religion. It will take several generations to expunge this cancer but do not doubt the process has begun.

The holy books are the Achilles heel. Indeed I recommend Bible studies for all. Not the sanitised doctrine fed by the clergy but the actual written passages and the values they embody.

Go to the Atheist Foundation of Australia forum:D

Anyone who wants his young kid to sit outside on his own if there is a scripture class is a fanatic for wanting to stuff up his kid.

My wife still vividly recalls the trauma (aged five) of seeing a life sized statue of Christ nailed to the crucifix, complete with blood while attending a ceremony in a Catholic church.

A close friend was the first of several parents to remove their young child from scripture classes after he became withdrawn and disturbed, refusing to attend school on a particular day. Fortunately her son was able to share enough the extremely distressing expereince he had endured of being taught Biblical stories, in particular the crucifixion.

The Bible is littered with horror that would rightly be R-rated but is allowed to be inflicted upon young people because it is a tradition. It teaches that children are chattles of their father while girls become chattles of their husbands after marriage. It is SICK. The Koran offers much the same misguided brutal philosophy.

The faithful show complete insensitivity to this kind of child abuse which is obvious to any rational person not under the spell of these hideous books. Those who remove their kids from scripture are showing a genuine sense of morality.

Then why is it that many of the post on this sight, from atheist are so blatantly condescending and filled with derogatory language.


I think for some atheists it is simple frustration. If you put yourself in the shoes of an atheist for a moment, think of all the impacts religion has on life.


People have gone to war over it.
People have been killed in general over it.
It affects politics and laws created.
It affects civil rights.

Then remember that as an atheist you think all of these people believe in something that doesn't exist. You're quite sure of that fact and there is no evidence to the contrary.

If you're a Christian living in a Christian-based society, you take a lot of things for granted. If you're an atheist living in a Christian-based society, you can feel like its Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and you never know who is real or who's a pod person.


Anyone who wants his young kid to sit outside on his own if there is a scripture class is a fanatic for wanting to stuff up his kid.


Why?

Religious parents often want their children to grow up with the same religion as them. Why can't atheists parents want the same? Why can't atheist parents limit their child's exposure to what they consider dangerous ideas?

My wife still vividly recalls the trauma (aged five) of seeing a life sized statue of Christ nailed to the crucifix, complete with blood while attending a ceremony in a Catholic church.

A close friend was the first of several parents to remove their young child from scripture classes after he became withdrawn and disturbed, refusing to attend school on a particular day. Fortunately her son was able to share enough the extremely distressing expereince he had endured of being taught Biblical stories, in particular the crucifixion.

The Bible is littered with horror that would rightly be R-rated but is allowed to be inflicted upon young people because it is a tradition. It teaches that children are chattles of their father while girls become chattles of their husbands after marriage. It is SICK. The Koran offers much the same misguided brutal philosophy.

The faithful show complete insensitivity to this kind of child abuse which is obvious to any rational person not under the spell of these hideous books. Those who remove their kids from scripture are showing a genuine sense of morality.

I went to a catholic school and all the kids thought it was boring.

There is a thread Rich started, School Days or a similar title and it covers all that bullshit you just posted:D

A kid forced to sit on his own outside the class room for once a week scripture becomes an outcast and all over something that is just boring to most kids.

Why?

Religious parents often want their children to grow up with the same religion as them. Why can't atheists parents want the same? Why can't atheist parents limit their child's exposure to what they consider dangerous ideas?

Apart from making the kid an outcast the facts are the society we live in has a basis in Christianity that extends way beyond religion.

Proove it

Ask Hawking.

There is a thread Rich started, School Days or a similar title and it covers all that bullshit you just posted:D

A kid forced to sit on his own outside the class room for once a week scripture becomes an outcast and all over something that is just boring to most kids.

You my friend are full if it.:D

In the case of my friend's son and those who followed, the school was forced to provide alternative engagement. Many other children then opted out of the scripture class because yes it is boring, pointless and amoral.

What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

Common sense

Ask Hawking.
You made the claim here not Hawkins

Ask Hawking.

That is a typical responsefrom a religious person.
Presume without evidence and then insist it is the duty of the critic to demonstrate the claim is false.

This is followed by denial of the veracity of such evidence when provided.

It goes against every principle of honorable debate.

the facts are the society we live in has a basis in Christianity that extends way beyond religion.

Rubbish. There are societies which developed sophisticated morality with ever having heard of Jesus Christ.

There have always been those more willing to help out others.

You need to be reminded we live in a secular society and have broken down many the oppressive values enforced by religion.

You made the claim here not Hawkins

No Hawkings did and lot more than that.

That is a typical responsefrom a religious person.
Presume without evidence and then insist it is the duty of the critic to demonstrate the claim is false.

This is followed by denial of the veracity of such evidence when provided.

It goes against every principle of honorable debate.


Hawkins claims on pre Big Bang go well beyond there being no sun.

Rubbish. There are societies which developed sophisticated morality with ever having heard of Jesus Christ.

There have always been those more willing to help out others.

You need to be reminded we live in a secular society and have broken down many the oppressive values enforced by religion.

I am talking about morality.

So a kid starts work in March and his boss says.....are you going away on Easter......and the kid says....what is Easter...

The kid starts work and the place of business is across the road from the local church....the kid asks his fellow workers...what is that building across the road that has a cross on the top.

I'm glad to see you boys are getting this all worked out.

Wasn't this a thread about global warming?

[quote=Thales750;919647]

We have long been taught that it is socially unacceptable to criticise religion because religion has been defining this as part of their morality which they inflict upon secular society. It worked for a few generations.

However events of the past decade have raised the profile of theistic belief and exposed the rotten core of their "morality". Western Christian leaders "prayed to God for guidance" on the invasion of Iraq. Clearly Iraq's WMDs were a trumped up excuse to invade in the hope of exerting influence over the middle east. The invasion destroyed a country and left them with no future otherr than extreme violence.

The insidious Islamic tradition has also attracted a lot of attention thorough acts of extreme violence. To complete the Abrahamic Trinity the Jews have showed the violence inherent in their philosophy.

All this has led to many atheists taking an interest in theology where previously we ignored it as a harmless delusion. Like many I was horrified by what I read in the Bible and concluded that in particular the Abrahamic traditions of agressive dominance, bigoted arrogance and perverted sexuality lie at the foundations of the problems in the world.

We have had enough of the theist menatality that has dominated so much of the planet for so long, promoting endless violence, destruction and mental illness. Criticism of your faith may well be unacceptable to you but you had better get used to it. The genie has escaped the bottle and atheists are systematically dismantling the facade that is religion. It will take several generations to expunge this cancer but do not doubt the process has begun.

The holy books are the Achilles heel. Indeed I recommend Bible studies for all. Not the sanitised doctrine fed by the clergy but the actual written passages and the values they embody.
Thank god you don't live in Ireland, it won't be long before they bring back hanging for blasphemy:rolleyes:

I'm glad to see you boys are getting this all worked out.

Somebody has to

Some people can not stay on topic.
Back at post 120 I did mention how the Canadian Government completely ignored Kyoto so they could allow the production of oil from the tar sands for benefit of the United States appetite. Now it has shifted a bit as the Canadian Government is ignoring Copenhagen in order to continue the same dirty production to benefit the fuel hunger of China.

I'm glad to see you boys are getting this all worked out.
Wasn't this a thread about global warming?

Some people can not stay on topic.
Back at post 120 I did mention how the Canadian Government completely ignored Kyoto so they could allow the production of oil from the tar sands for benefit of the United States appetite. Now it has shifted a bit as the Canadian Government is ignoring Copenhagen in order to continue the same dirty production to benefit the fuel hunger of China.
To keep repeating yourself is a sign of dementure

All this has led to many atheists taking an interest in theology where previously we ignored it as a harmless delusion. Like many I was horrified by what I read in the Bible and concluded that in particular the Abrahamic traditions of agressive dominance, bigoted arrogance and perverted sexuality lie at the foundations of the problems in the world.



You sound like my grandmother. When I was about 15 I used my pocket money to buy Darwin's book. My grandmother said she did not believe that stuff. I asker her had she read the book and her answer was....of course not.

You sound like my grandmother. When I was about 15 I used my pocket money to buy Darwin's book. My grandmother said she did not believe that stuff. I asker her had she read the book and her answer was....of course not.
That's because in the 21st. century we're far more enlightened despite the attempts of Christian based governments to control it

So you keep telling me.
To keep repeating yourself is a sign of dementure

Thank god you don't live in Ireland, it won't be long before they bring back hanging for blasphemy:rolleyes:
this is messed up, I didn't write that

this is messed up, I didn't write that
Where does it say you did?

You sound like my grandmother. When I was about 15 I used my pocket money to buy Darwin's book. My grandmother said she did not believe that stuff. I asker her had she read the book and her answer was....of course not.

So your point would be that if you've never read the bible you cannot criticize it? I've read part of the bible, starting from the beginning. It was very boring, difficult to follow, but still interesting from the point of view that millions of people around the world base their life on this book.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people go to bible study in order for some other guy to translate what the bible says since no one really knows (and the fact that it keeps changing as church convenience requires)? No 2 sects can agree on the same interpretation.

Does that mean I am some how more enlightened to disagree with the bible now? Do I need to read every single religious tome out there before I am allowed to contribute on the concept of religion?

:DTo keep repeating yourself is a sign of dementure
Dementia surely. Just remember to keep taking the tablets

So your point would be that if you've never read the bible you cannot criticize it? I've read part of the bible, starting from the beginning. It was very boring, difficult to follow, but still interesting from the point of view that millions of people around the world base their life on this book.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people go to bible study in order for some other guy to translate what the bible says since no one really knows (and the fact that it keeps changing as church convenience requires)? No 2 sects can agree on the same interpretation.

Does that mean I am some how more enlightened to disagree with the bible now? Do I need to read every single religious tome out there before I am allowed to contribute on the concept of religion?

According to GalaxiomAtHome it is like an R rated movie and kids need counselling after exposure. I think he said the book would be banned if first releaded today.:D

The Bible is not just any book when it comes to religion. Surely if you were to take the decision to become an atheist in a Christian based society then you would read the book that Christianity is based on.

About 15 years ago I went to a "born again" indoctrination classes to see what I was missing:) What caused me to do that was I encountered several medical specialists that were "born agains" and I had basically written "born agains" off as people who would struggle getting a 7 from 5 +2.

Surely if you were to take the decision to become an atheist in a Christian based society then you would read the book that Christianity is based on.


How do you come to this conclusion? You seem to be coming from the standpoint that everyone is born a Christian and then must make the choice to 'drop' it.

No one is born with a religion, it is a construct of man. You must be taught/brainwashed what have you, depending on your point of view.

Surely if you were to take the decision to become an atheist in a Christian based society then you would read the book that Christianity is based on.


I get the impression you think that atheism is something you opt into. Perhaps it is for some people but for others it is the realisation that there are no supernatural beings, no after life - just the fact the evidence does not support the idea of God/gods. Not perhaps the most cheerful realisation but who says everything has to be cheerful.

So try to remember that atheism is the absence of belief not an alternative belief system.

I am talking about morality.

So a kid starts work in March and his boss says.....are you going away on Easter......and the kid says....what is Easter...

The kid starts work and the place of business is across the road from the local church....the kid asks his fellow workers...what is that building across the road that has a cross on the top.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Besides Easter is nothing to do with Christianity although they do try to claim this ancient festival as their own. "Easter" is from the same roots as "estrus" (and spelling variants) and is a fertility festival held on the first moonlit weekend following the nothern hemisphere Spring Equinox.

Reading a newspaper would be more than enough to inform anyone of the goings on in a church.

I've read part of the bible, starting from the beginning. It was very boring, difficult to follow...

This is quite intentional. The pages of repetition of A begat B begat C etc in Genesis is designed to be hypnotic.

This hypnotic technique is overtly used in the rocking while reading that is part of the study of the Koran by Muslims and is also practised by the Jews at the Wailing Wall.

Many readers give up before getting through Genesis. I recommend skipping this waffle and getting straight into Joshua to see where this prhilosophy is really grounded.

I get the impression you think that atheism is something you opt into.
No Mick thinks atheism is a religion when of course it's a logical conclusion after examination of the facts

About 15 years ago I went to a "born again" indoctrination classes to see what I was missing:) What caused me to do that was I encountered several medical specialists that were "born agains" and I had basically written "born agains" off as people who would struggle getting a 7 from 5 +2.

This attitude demonstrates another flawed philosophy promoted by religion. The Bible endlessly attributes the importance of "wise men" as though the validity of a belief is connected to the person who makes it.

The clerical heirarchy relies on this premise.

Mike uses the same concept when faux-quoting Hawking. Other believers often quote Dawkins or Darwin as though atheists treat these people as their prophets.

Science doesn't work like that. The person means nothing. The hypothesis must stand on its merits. Despite Einstein's revolutionary insights he only gets credit for them and is afforded no extra credibility for his identity. He went to his grave without accepting Quantum Theory but the science prevailed.

Consequently the argument about what was said by Hawking is quite irrelevant.

Despite Einstein's revolutionary insights he only gets credit for them and is afforded no extra credibility for his identity. He went to his grave without accepting Quantum Theory but the science prevailed.

Consequently the argument about what was said by Hawking is quite irrelevant.

But I have only mentioned Hawking in connection with his work.

I get the impression you think that atheism is something you opt into. Perhaps it is for some people but for others it is the realisation that there are no supernatural beings, no after life - just the fact the evidence does not support the idea of God/gods. Not perhaps the most cheerful realisation but who says everything has to be cheerful.

So try to remember that atheism is the absence of belief not an alternative belief system.

Atheism is a belief system.

The issue....how did it all come about?

1) A supernatural or supernaturals or

2) Without the aid of any life force.....a product of natural laws

There is no proof for either 1 or 2. Therefore the choice of 1 or 2 is a belief based on what the person feels is some evidence.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Besides Easter is nothing to do with Christianity although they do try to claim this ancient festival as their own. "Easter" is from the same roots as "estrus" (and spelling variants) and is a fertility festival held on the first moonlit weekend following the nothern hemisphere Spring Equinox.

Reading a newspaper would be more than enough to inform anyone of the goings on in a church.

It is in the general language. The boss says.....for Christ's sake use the other computer....

You comments about the origins of Easter show you don't understand the issue.

What would be a viable option is if Chistianity/Bible was taught as an historical subject or similar but not as a fact.

But I have only mentioned Hawking in connection with his work.

You insinuated that because (you claim) Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang that atheists must believe the same. I was explaining that the status of the scientist has no bearing on the their claims. I presented Einstein as the classic case of a scientist who had made a huge contribution yet was not afforded any extra credibility for a hypothesis that he could not support with observations.

All hypotheses that do not contradict current observations are afforded some degree of credibility. Beyond this, those which require the least special physical circumstances are considered the leading candidates in the quest for an acceptable theory. However no hypothesesis is fully accepted as a theory until it is able to predict a previously unobserved phenomonon.

Meanwhile religion claims credibility on the basis of "Jesus said" or "Mohammed said". That is the point I was trying to make.

Atheism is a belief system.

The issue....how did it all come about?

1) A supernatural or supernaturals or

2) Without the aid of any life force.....a product of natural laws

There is no proof for either 1 or 2. Therefore the choice of 1 or 2 is a belief based on what the person feels is some evidence.

If Athism is a belief system its foundation belief is that coherent evidence is required to support any theory.

There is neither evidence nor a need for the fundamental premise of the first hypothesis to explain the origin of life.

The second is supported by a large body of observations and coherent scientific theory.

In fact the origin of life now has a leading hypothesis that the transition from mineral structures to living structures happened in deposits issuing from alkaline hydrothermal vents in olivine substrates on the bottom of the ocean. This is supported by coherent observations from geoscience and molecular biology. As yet no observation has contradicted the hypothesis.

"Life force" is not required to initiate life.

However there is nothing to disprove a possiblity of some kind of life force beyond the organism as a result of its existence. There has simply been no repeatable evidence to support this hypothesis.

As an open minded scientist I am not prepared to wholly dismiss any hypothesis that has not been proven to be wrong. However I will certainly not accept one for which there is no evidence. Claims of miraculous events that defy the accepted Laws of Nature supported by nothing more than having been written in an old book do not meet my criteria for evidence.

You insinuated that because (you claim) Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang that atheists must believe the same

Can you show me any scientist who has said our natural laws existed pre Big Bang.

What do you believe was the situation pre Big Bang and what do you base that belief on.

The second is supported by a large body of observations and coherent scientific theory.

In fact the origin of life now has a leading hypothesis that the transition from mineral structures to living structures happened in deposits issuing from alkaline hydrothermal vents in olivine substrates on the bottom of the ocean. This is supported by coherent observations from geoscience and molecular biology. As yet no observation has contradicted the hypothesis.

"Life force" is not required to initiate life.



I am not talking about the origin of life. That is way down the track.

Personally I don't believe life needs a life force to start it. But a life force might have kicked of the natural laws and then let nature takes it course. In fact if there was life force that was all powerful then that is the only logical conclusion because life is a long way from perfect. On the other hand if a god, gods or God started and controlled life and its eveloution then such a god has limited horsepower.

But in the context of this discussion the origin of life (and evolution) are like discussing the last 10 yards in the Olympic games sprint. This discussion is how the stadium and track came about so the sprinter could make his run.

Actually I am not sure if you are a true atheist. I say that because you continually refer to religion and life. Maybe you are areligious, aBible or similar.

Can you show me any scientist who has said our natural laws existed pre Big Bang.

What do you believe was the situation pre Big Bang and what do you base that belief on.

The cutting edge of cosmology is firmly focused on the grand structure that underlies the generation of the BigBang. There are several credible hypotheses but none as yet has been able to predict an as yet unexpected but observable property of the universe.

Several suggest our universe is one of a multitude which have quite different natural laws. This makes it quite difficult to test any hypothesis since the natural laws may be the result of random precursor conditions in what I like to term the Omniverse.

I think you put too much emphasis of the word "natural" and arbitrarily limit its scope to mean the physical laws of our universe. The environment and conditions that led to the Big Bang can rightly be termed natural even though they are currently unfamiliar to us. Many things now considered natural were once part of the supernatural to the limited understanding of our ancestors.

The ultimate goal of physics is Grand Unification of all forms of energy and the particles manifested by their fields. While the present goal is to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity within our universe, the moment this is grasped the focus will move further outwards aiming to unify the forces pervading the Omniverse. Indeed a successful Grand Unification Theory is like to elucidate the lases governing the Omniverse.

As it happens I one of my most passionate hobbies is Cosmology and I do have a novel theory as to the conditions that generated our universe. However although it make a prediction, it requires the entire Universe to be observed. Unfortunately much of the Universe has already receded over the horizon beyond our view.

However as my hypothesis is not yet complete enough to publish I am not going to discuss the details. You can probably guess that no gods or "supernatural" forces are involved.

The cutting edge of cosmology is firmly focused on the grand structure that underlies the generation of the BigBang. There are several credible hypotheses but none as yet has been able to predict an as yet unexpected but observable property of the universe.

Several suggest our universe is one of a multitude which have quite different natural laws. This makes it quite difficult to test any hypothesis since the natural laws may be the result of random precursor conditions in what I like to term the Omniverse.

I think you put too much emphasis of the word "natural" and arbitrarily limit its scope to mean the physical laws of our universe. The environment and conditions that led to the Big Bang can rightly be termed natural even though they are currently unfamiliar to us. Many things now considered natural were once part of the supernatural to the limited understanding of our ancestors.

The ultimate goal of physics is Grand Unification of all forms of energy and the particles manifested by their fields. While the present goal is to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity within our universe, the moment this is grasped the focus will move further outwards aiming to unify the forces pervading the Omniverse. Indeed a successful Grand Unification Theory is like to elucidate the lases governing the Omniverse.

As it happens I one of my most passionate hobbies is Cosmology and I do have a novel theory as to the conditions that generated our universe. However although it make a prediction, it requires the entire Universe to be observed. Unfortunately much of the Universe has already receded over the horizon beyond our view.

However as my hypothesis is not yet complete enough to publish I am not going to discuss the details. You can probably guess that no gods or "supernatural" forces are involved.

And that should be the case.

I think you put too much emphasis of the word "natural" and arbitrarily limit its scope to mean the physical laws of our universe. The environment and conditions that led to the Big Bang can rightly be termed natural even though they are currently unfamiliar to us.

I do because 99.999999999999999999999999% of atheists think the answer will come from the natual laws within our universe.

Personally I see the issue of atheist Vs supernatural like making a business decision. You make it today, it might be wrong but you pick the most likely. At the moment I don't think the natural laws we have will ever provide the answer. In other words I would liken our natural laws to chemical energy. It simply won't provide the solution as to how an alien's physically small bomb leveled a city.

Personally I see the issue of atheist Vs supernatural like making a business decision. You make it today, it might be wrong but you pick the most likely.

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/occamsrazorbu0.jpg

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/occamsrazorbu0.jpg

Athiesm has just as many "man made" branches.

One has a supernatural as the kick starter and the other has natural laws as the kick starter.

Occams' Razor would suggest supernatural as that is a definite and simple answer and not a bunch of dead ends. Athiesm requires all sorts of study that up to the current time have only explored dead ends.

Athiesm has just as many "man made" branches.

One has a supernatural as the kick starter and the other has natural laws as the kick starter.

Occams' Razor would suggest supernatural as that is a definite and simple answer and not a bunch of dead ends. Athiesm requires all sorts of study that up to the current time have only explored dead ends.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the different branches of not having theism. I guess there is Not-Judaism; Not-Christianity; Not-Moslem. But then all atheists must be members of each of these to qualify so perhaps not.

The exploration of dead ends is abandonned when evidence disproves the hypothesis. For example: Four Elements; phlostogen theory of combustion; the static universe.

Newton's gravitation was not exact but a great start that was refined by Relativity. Definitely not a dead end.

One could hardly call Electromagnetism, Relativity or Quantum Theory dead ends. Obviously all electrical devices rely on Electromagnetism. Part of virtually every modern electronic device relies on Quantum Theory. Your satellite navigation system relies on both Quantum and Relativity.

Work continues to unify them all. The largest most complicated machine in the world has been built to continue the investigation. Don't expect CERN thinks they are working on a dead end.

The discovery of expanding universe is has been driving exciting developments in cosmology for decades.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the different branches of not having theism. I guess there is Not-Judaism; Not-Christianity; Not-Moslem. But then all atheists must be members of each of these to qualify so perhaps not.

Atheists leaders like religious leaders have their different "religions" to gather different flocks for a different approach to what they see as the problem. For example, many atheists see religious school funding and tax exempt status etc as the big issue to be removed. But they don't all agree on how it should be done so different groups etc. Just like the religious crowd.

The exploration of dead ends is abandonned when evidence disproves the hypothesis. For example: Four Elements; phlostogen theory of combustion; the static universe.

Newton's gravitation was not exact but a great start that was refined by Relativity. Definitely not a dead end.

One could hardly call Electromagnetism, Relativity or Quantum Theory dead ends. Obviously all electrical devices rely on Electromagnetism. Part of virtually every modern electronic device relies on Quantum Theory. Your satellite navigation system relies on both Quantum and Relativity.

Work continues to unify them all. The largest most complicated machine in the world has been built to continue the investigation. Don't expect CERN thinks they are working on a dead end.

The discovery of expanding universe is has been driving exciting developments in cosmology for decades.

Athiesm is about the belief that natural laws provide the answer to how it all started. At the moment the answers are all dead ends and have been dead ends. Individual things like Electromagnetism are not a dead end but the answers to how it all started are dead ends.

If I remember correctly you posted recently that you have a theory of how it all started. How that can be if the others are a "go". Of course you are developing your theory because the others are a "no go":D

Supernatural = Occam's Razor

The alternative = well, which theory are we talking about and from which time. Will your theory be the answer or just another fictional work that is rejected. The alternative to supernatural is like Days of our Lives:D

I don't get this continued "debate".

I don't get this continued "debate".

Nor me, but then I don't see why we should worry as to how it started, nor do I see why disbelif in religion has to equate to non belief in a god or supernatural existence.

I don't accept religions for reasons which these deep thinkers will think of as superficial, but as to whether a supernatural being or god exists no one knows one way or the other.

Brian

nor do I see why disbelif in religion has to equate to non belief in a god or supernatural existence.

Only for atheists and because your sentence below forces them to a belief at the basic level

but as to whether a supernatural being or god exists no one knows one way or the other.

Brian

And therefore either position is based on a belief.

You obviously believe that the obverse of every statement is true.

Religious people must believe in a God, does not mean that if one accepts that a god might exist one must accept religion.

Also you seem to believe that a non belief is a belief. :confused:

Brian

You obviously believe that the obverse of every statement is true.

Religious people must believe in a God, does not mean that if one accepts that a god might exist one must accept religion.

Not at all. I don't even see religion as part of this debate. Someone could be a deist.

Also you seem to believe that a non belief is a belief. :confused:

Brian

In this case there is the issue of how it call came about. There are two possibles, supernatural or natural laws. And as you said no one knows for sure therefore someone who takes either position does it on the basis of a belief.

Of course there is the third position, that of the agnostic. In that case they don't see enough evidence on either side to allow them to believe.

Atheism is a belief system.

Yawn. You keep saying this and refuse to listen to any argument against it. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief. Can't you get your head round that.

Supernatural = Occam's Razor

The alternative = well, which theory are we talking about and from which time. Will your theory be the answer or just another fictional work that is rejected. The alternative to supernatural is like Days of our Lives:D
Wrong again:eek:

There are less assumptions in assuming the laws of nature than in assuming Supernatural beings created the universe.

Where do the supernatual beings come from, who created them. Sooner or later down this chain you cometo a point when a universe/crator just appears.

I (and Occams razor) prefer the simplest explanation that the universe arose as a consequence of the laws of nature

Yawn. You keep saying this and refuse to listen to any argument against it. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief. Can't you get your head round that.

Do you have an opinion as to how it all started?

If so is your opinion based on proof?

Wrong again:eek:

There are less assumptions in assuming the laws of nature than in assuming Supernatural beings created the universe.

Where do the supernatual beings come from, who created them. Sooner or later down this chain you cometo a point when a universe/crator just appears.

I (and Occams razor) prefer the simplest explanation that the universe arose as a consequence of the laws of nature

But which laws of nature, which universe....see GalaxiomAtHome..will you be supporting his new theory yet to be released.....or do prefer one of the other theories.....Days of Our Lives.

The supernatural hypothesis is the dead end. First and formost because it can never explain the origin of the creative "life force". Starting with a powerful, intelligent and highly organised structure with the preeminent knowledge of all potential makes no sense.

Time and time again phenomena have been attributed to the supernatural only to be demonstrated by science to be entirely natural.

Some believers simply refuse to acknowledge their hypothesis has been blown out of the water while others like Mike retreat to a bunker beyond current scientific understanding. However scientific progress is not a dead end and will continue to overrun bunker after bunker until eventually there will be nowhere for God to hide.

Ultimately the origin of everything will come down to the evolution of complexity from some very basic principle. That is the concept alluded to by Occams razor, not a simplistic notion about a highly complex origin.

The supernatural hypothesis is the dead end. First and formost because it can never explain the origin of the creative "life force". Starting with a powerful, intelligent and highly organised structure with the preeminent knowledge of all potential makes no sense.

Not right. It is supernatural, above the laws of nature. it set the laws of nature.

To use my chemical/nuclear analogy. Hawking and yourself are like chemical energy and restricted to electrons. You know a 1 ton bomb can shift a mountain but no matter how much effort and time you put in you cant find how that 1 ton bombs works because you are restricted to electrons.

The believers in a supernatural would be like someone saying to you.....there is something beyond what you are doing with these electrons, you are not even coming close.

Some believers simply refuse to acknowledge their hypothesis has been blown out of the water while others like Mike retreat to a bunker beyond current scientific understanding. However scientific progress is not a dead end and will continue to overrun bunker after bunker until eventually there will be nowhere for God to hide.

"God" is about religion. Man made out of probably some basic desire.

their hypothesis has been blown out of the water

Just the opposite. For example, you will be the next person with a theory on how it all started and then your theory will be assigned to the collection of fairy tales that preceded yours:) Another one in a very long list blown out of the water.

I think you and others are unable to consider a supernatural as the possible answer because you keep referencing religion and the Bible etc.

I think I understand what you are saying Mike. You have accepted the conjecture made by some scientists that reality is not only stranger than we think, but stranger than we can think.

I guess it is plausible that the whole universe is some trivial consequece of an incomprehensible entity. Perhaps the whole universe could be nothing more substantial than a grain of sawdust in the construction of a house.

All the same I want to know all I can about that grain of sawdust and I don't believe we are there yet. I am optimistic that we will reach a satisfactory understanding because observations so far have all showed that the complexity we see is constructed of ever simpler structures and laws. I would be happy with that as a dead end.

The correct theory will based on a single force in a simple and intuitive energy field. Einstein once said that the solution to reality will be so simple that it could be explained to a young child and that makes sense to me. The possibility of complexity in the scale of magnitude beyond might get interesting after we reach the limit of the simplicity.

The solution must surely involve explaining the genesis of the Big Bang. As for the source of the original energy I would happily concede that it might as well be considered supernatural but I would not entirely discount that we might even manage to explain that as a conseqence of the hypernature of reality.

I am reminded of a story I enjoyed in my youth. In Kurt Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan", life on Earth was brought by passing aliens whose space ship required repairs. It was too far to return home for parts and impossible to carry enough spares for the immense journey undertaken.

Instead their tool kit was the seeds of life which they cast on a suitable planet and waited for the evolution of a technological lifeform that was capable of making the required components.:D

This kind of possibility aught rightly be contemplated in a fully rounded contemplation of one's place in the greater scheme of things. It is healthy to be humbled by such thoughts. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

All the same I want to know all I can about that grain of sawdust and I don't believe we are there yet.

I also want to know.

Obviously I don't have the type of knowledge you have so as to formulate a theory on how it all came about. I am limited to being a spectator and day dreaming. But as I posted earlier I see it all as being like making a business decision today based on the evidence today. My position is not one based on a philosophical view where I have a desired outcome.

At different times I think we are missing a sense and if we had that sense the answer would be obvious. Imagine if you will that all life on earth has ended and a bunch of super intelligent aliens arrive. These aliens do not have and have never had the sense of sight. They would be extremely confused by all the objects such as cars and buildings that have weak structures inserted throughout. Computer monitors and TV sets would cause some really strange theories to be formed. But of course if they gained the sense of sight then all the puzzles would be instantly solved.

I guess it is plausible that the whole universe is some trivial consequece of an incomprehensible entity. Perhaps the whole universe could be nothing more substantial than a grain of sawdust in the construction of a house.

That idea has been there since at least when I was a kid. My guess is the idea came about because of the drawings of the atom and the similarity to the solar system.




.

Atheists leaders like religious leaders have their different "religions" to gather different flocks for a different approach to what they see as the problem.

Lower case i's are vowels and have dots, just as lower case j's have dots, therefore both are vowels. That statement makes about as much sense as your statement that atheism is a religion. When you start from a faulty premise, all of your evidence is going to be faulty.

Out of curiosity of how other people's minds work, under your incredibly odd viewpoint, are agnostics also religious as they believe that they don't care enough to figure out what they believe?

Lower case i's are vowels and have dots, just as lower case j's have dots, therefore both are vowels. That statement makes about as much sense as your statement that atheism is a religion. When you start from a faulty premise, all of your evidence is going to be faulty.

Out of curiosity of how other people's minds work, under your incredibly odd viewpoint, are agnostics also religious as they believe that they don't care enough to figure out what they believe?
I'd give up now, Adam.

From the number of posts you've made, I'd guess (perhaps incorrectly) that you weren't around for the lengthy atheism vs religion threads that took place last year, on this forum. In a last ditch attempt by certain pro-religion posters, it was switched to a semantic debate about whether or not atheism was just a type of religion, thereby ensuring that the whole conversation ceased to make any progress.

Chalk it up to the same sort of 'reasoning' that says the evidence of evolution, etc. exists because some god or other created it to look like evidence wihout actually being such, and move on. If not, you'll drive yourself mad trying to get out of the circular argument certain posters will do their best to drag you into.

But which laws of nature, which universe....see GalaxiomAtHome..will you be supporting his new theory yet to be released.....or do prefer one of the other theories.....Days of Our Lives.
I thought it was obvious I was referring to the universe we are in and the the natural laws that apply in it. This is because I have zero knowledge of any other universe.

I would not support any theory yet to be announced until I had seen what that theory was. Then I would make a judgement.

Lower case i's are vowels and have dots, just as lower case j's have dots, therefore both are vowels. That statement makes about as much sense as your statement that atheism is a religion. When you start from a faulty premise, all of your evidence is going to be faulty.

Out of curiosity of how other people's minds work, under your incredibly odd viewpoint, are agnostics also religious as they believe that they don't care enough to figure out what they believe?

Have you not heard somone say about someone's hobby......it is like a religion for him etc.

This topic runs for most postings than any other on this forum.

Fundamentalist Atheism run amuck.

I have yet to witness religion more extreme than the atheist.

Ya’ll are funny.

I’m right; no I’m right. Blah, blah.

Ya’ll are wasting time because you cannot solve the hard problems.
Christians, Muslims, let it go. They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.

They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The irony of this statement makes me laugh and cry all at the same time. :rolleyes:

The irony of this statement makes me laugh and cry all at the same time. :rolleyes:

I'm just doing a little egging Vas.

I'm just doing a little egging Vas.

and its all over your face.

Brian

Christians, Muslims, let it go. They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.

Its been shown to be true here over and over again. They are also the most evangelical.

Its been shown to be true here over and over again. They are also the most evangelical.
What a load of garbage! I have never had atheists knocking on my door as the Jehovahs Witnesses do. And how open are the minds of many religous people? Closed minds can be found in all religious sects.

Fundamentalist Atheism run amuck.


I think the main difference between a fundamentalist atheist, if I can borrow the term, and a fundamentalist religious person is that a fundamentalist atheist wants religion out of government where as a fundamentalist religious person wants their brand of religion, and only their brand, in government.


I have yet to witness religion more extreme than the atheist.


You must not get out much. When was the last time you seen an atheist kill someone over their beliefs? I would say murder is more extreme than loud/aggressive debating on an online message board.


I’m right; no I’m right. Blah, blah.


That's what I have always found very interesting and endearing about atheists. An atheist doesn't claim to have all of the answers, and is always seeking more.


They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.

On the subject of religion, I would totally agree with you. I don't consider that a bad thing though. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, I also don't believe in a deity. If you wanted to joke around or play "what if" as to either's existence I may indulge you. But if you're being serious I would be quick to point out all the lack of evidence and logical problems as to your belief.

Where has my post concerning Catholicism gone and why?:mad:

I would be quick to point out all the lack of evidence and logical problems as to your belief.

I don't think you have a clue as what I believe.

and its all over your face.

Brian

hehehe. That's funny Brian.
It's not on my face; I haven't wasted a single byte on trying to get anyone to see my point of view.

I confine my persuasions to economic conversations, of which I am indeed the best predictor I know.

I do find however that, like the study of God (or lack of it), most people’s comprehension is predictably muted.

I don't think you have a clue as what I believe.

Nor do I care. My statement was based on the hypothetical situtation I was describing, not trying to prove to you that you are wrong.

Nor do I care. My statement was based on the hypothetical situtation I was describing, not trying to prove to you that you are wrong.

Maybe, but your language sounds harsh, for someone seeking a conversation.

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.



SYDNEY – A conservation group's boat had its bow sheared off and was taking on water Wednesday after it was struck by a Japanese whaling ship in the frigid waters of Antarctica, the group said.
The boat's six crew members were safely transferred to another of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's vessels, the newly commissioned Bob Barker. The boat is named for the American game show host who donated $5 million to buy it.
The clash was the most serious in the past several years, during which the Sea Shepherd has sent vessels into far-southern waters to try to harass the Japanese fleet into ceasing its annual whale hunt.

The BEST part of that story is that they were there trying to harass and clash with the Japanese fleet and when they end up cuttin so close to a larger vessel they sustained damage they claim it was an unprovoked attack.
I think that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society really neads to look at strategies which do not make them look like idiots bent on self sacrafice and start looking for ways to actually stop the whaling if that is their intent.

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.

SYDNEY – A conservation group's boat had its bow sheared off and was taking on water Wednesday after it was struck by a Japanese whaling ship in the frigid waters of Antarctica, the group said.
The boat's six crew members were safely transferred to another of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's vessels, the newly commissioned Bob Barker. The boat is named for the American game show host who donated $5 million to buy it.
The clash was the most serious in the past several years, during which the Sea Shepherd has sent vessels into far-southern waters to try to harass the Japanese fleet into ceasing its annual whale hunt.

Maybe, but your language sounds harsh, for someone seeking a conversation.

How about: "I think you misunderstand me Mr. Thales750. I didn't mean to imply that I know what you believe in. The paragraph that you are referencing was a hypothetical situation, not a situation directed specifically at you."

That better?

If we're going to conform to some sort of civilized debate, then perhaps you should abstain from the use of straw man arguments.

How about: "I think you misunderstand me Mr. Thales750. I didn't mean to imply that I know what you believe in. The paragraph that you are referencing was a hypothetical situation, not a situation directed specifically at you."

That better?

If we're going to conform to some sort of civilized debate, then perhaps you should abstain from the use of straw man arguments.

Would you be so kind as to point to some of my straw man arguments, please?

Would you be so kind as to point to some of my straw man arguments, please?

Certaintly.


Only Religious fanatics start trouble.

Certaintly.

Oh I see, so no sarcasm allowed. Still, I don't think you are clearly defining "straw man"

Oh I see, so no sarcasm allowed. Still, I don't think you are clearly defining "straw man"

Sarcasm is 'allowed' as long as its easily understood. When the flow of a conversation goes something like this:



I have yet to witness religion more extreme than the atheist.
...

You must not get out much. When was the last time you seen an atheist kill someone over their beliefs? I would say murder is more extreme than loud/aggressive debating on an online message board.
...

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.


The use of sarcasm here is confusing. Instead of trying to prove that atheists are just as violent as religious fantatics, or that religion doesn't have a sordid relationship with violence (which would disprove my earlier statement), you attempt to change my argument so that I am stating atheists never start trouble (i.e., creating a stawman). Then you use one particular example to disprove your strawman.


Did I define strawman clear enough for you?

Sarcasm is 'allowed' as long as its easily understood. When the flow of a conversation goes something like this:


...
...


The use of sarcasm here is confusing. Instead of trying to prove that atheists are just as violent as religious fantatics, or that religion doesn't have a sordid relationship with violence (which would disprove my earlier statement), you attempt to change my argument so that I am stating atheists never start trouble (i.e., creating a stawman). Then you use one particular example to disprove your strawman.


Did I define strawman clear enough for you?

What you missed, was that, I do believe that atheism is a religion; filled with the most extreem folowers.

What you missed, was that, I do believe that atheism is a religion; filled with the most extreem folowers.

Right, which is why the sarcasm is confusing. Why be sarcastic when what you said is what you actually believe?

So either you were sarcastic because you don't actually believe that atheists are violent (or as violent as your statement implies), or you were expressing what you truly believe at which point:


Oh I see, so no sarcasm allowed.


Becomes irrational.

Either way, I think you've dug yourself into a hole.