1. Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

    The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

    The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

Are you religious?

Discussion in 'The Science Forum' started by edd1989, Feb 23, 2009.

?

What is your religion?

  1. Atheist

    12.8%
  2. Agnostic

    6.8%
  3. Religious (Any religion) with weak religous views and irregular/unlikely visits to place of worship

    6.9%
  4. Religious (Any religion) with strong religious views

    5.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dwarf
    Offline

    Dwarf Clanker

    Just to make sure, I was writing for BB not for you.
    However I would like to back this up, by saying that 'sixth-senses' like intuition are like any human talent, some are more apt to it than others though we all have the capability. But having acknowledged a talent one must then practice it, simply ignoring it and then having a quick 'listen' and finding nothing is only to be expected. How many of you could play a decent game of squash after a gap of twenty years? Messrs Rooney and Wilkinson can do things with a ball that I can't, but Rooney played in the street for years and Johnny's training habits are well known. You don't use you lose.

    Excog uses his and with practice it becomes a tool. He isn't alone, to quote Anthony Duncan in that book on Celtic Christianity:
    "Colmicille's gift of the 'sight', usually about small matters but sometimes about greater, has been the subject of rationalisation among scolars. But I have encountered it frequently - sometimes startingly -among such parisioners as I have cared for for thirty years........................A friend of mine latterly a priest was so accustomed to using his senses that he thought everybody did it - until he discovered differently."

    I grew up in a family of mainly celtic origin where a person being aware was not denied by most of us, although just not talked about, and cannot remember a time when it did not form part of my life. At school I quickly learned that some things were not to be mentioned, though it is surprising how many people have had some form of experience but don't speak up for a variety of reasons.
    But it needs to be worked on and used, once you have the habit it forms part of the human condition, just because some reject it doesn't mean it isn't real, at least for us.
    Intuition can lead you to a point where understanding begins, an inner knowledge if you prefer, not just a hunch. Probably not expressing myself well but I'm off for a pint now and in a hurry.
  2. Dwarf
    Offline

    Dwarf Clanker

    [quote="I already hear the cries of "that’s a very limited way of looking at things" but it is the only way. And of course that encompasses scientific development. I don't know the source of the quote but:
    .[/quote]

    Why is it the only way? For you or for everybody?
    Sounds just like those who claim their religion is the only way and it is self-evident.

    I am no expert on bible or Lot, and not trying to make excuses for him at all. but try thinking that in times not so long ago, and with our English ancestors then hospitality was the greatest thing a man could give. A person under his roof becomes his protected guest.
    At Maldon a couple of hostages who had nevertheless fought alongside Brithnoth chose to die fighting along with Brithnoth's personal Huscarls when their leader went down. The rules were far different in those days, so our modern perspective is flawed if we simply say he was a cnut. He may well have been but we have to take into account the POV of the time.

    Oh, bet you didn't expect this when you started the thread.
  3. edd1989
    Offline

    edd1989 Clanker

    Can you name another way?

    Even if something scientific is proven wrong, it is proven wrong by science itself. And certainly the heart is in the right place, to find the correct answer regardless of what's been said before.

    Surely then it could be argued that it is indeed outdated?

    Well I'm thrilled anyway. Originally I was more interested in the poll.

    With over half not claiming to have any religious views is certainly very interesting. And, from my perspective, quite comforting.

    Edd
  4. StickyEnd
    Offline

    StickyEnd Clanker

    It is the only reliable way to advance human knowledge. Accepting things on faith without evidence is a learning blocker.

    What none-believers find disgusting about the story of Lot is that he is held up as righteous because he was willing to sacrifice his daughters to protect a couple of strangers. Had he offered up himself I could see it but he didn't, it was his daughters that he offered.
  5. Dwarf
    Offline

    Dwarf Clanker

    Edd, Sticky,

    I posted that question simply because it was a bald statement, and bald statements have a tendency to be leapt on in this thread and asked for back-up or further explanation/clarification. Why should Edd get away with it just because he started the thread?
    As stated I am not anti-science, anti-closed mind I think we all are, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here.
    Science provides us with answers about the physical universe and, at least for me, enhances my spiritual view of it all.

    However I will qualify this by first supporting the view expressed by BB in that I personally think that it is unlikely as things stand that a Creator will be found by science. The physical mechanisms of the universe may well be explained though.
    Yet when you say that "it is the only way", I think that it depends on what you apply that to, and who you are.
    If you refer to the physical universe you may well be right. But, as I and others see it, The Divine is to be found on other levels, the inner journey. Remember this is not the God of a Bible or Koran, and while there are many who will go to church or Mosque for their required weekly or daily attendance paying lip service to the words spoken, they are content to believe on superficial terms. God exists because the Bible says so, without seeing the inherent paradox.

    Others like BSL and Excog find that the outer forms guide to a personal inner connection with something that is not to be found in mere words but in a very real experience. Pagans like me find the inner journey to be the only way to find the connection which then allows us to see the world as a unified whole. I understand the mechanisms of the rain coming from clouds which traverse the land and unload it onto the earth. That in itself is amazing, but the inner journey allows me to look at it in Chief Joseph's terms as well, which takes it into amazing-plus.
    What this is saying is that for YOU the only way to view it is rationally and scientifically, which is great for you. But for those of us whose experience of the human condition is different because we choose to look in ways you haven't then it isn't, it is a diverse and eclectic world.

    Just to back this up I would like to quote St Gregory Palamas a mystic of the Eastern Church. It concerns the vital distinction between the 'essence' of God and the 'energies' of God, these terms being employed like any other theological terms for want of better ones.
    Briefly: God is unimaginable, unknowable by mankind or any other created being in His Essence. Of that nothing can be said or known. but God is very much encountered and known in His Energies. Everything we experience in which God is 'known' (as opposed to 'known about') relates to his energies and not to the unknowable essence. Thus the whole of Creation derives from God's energies and in those terms is the transfigured image of its Creator.

    Whether he is right or wrong is not the point, and I imagine some of you will have a lot of problems about his wording and the concepts. Point is that for people like him, people like BSL, Excog and I who have looked further than the mere words then pure science doesn't provide all the answers. That is where I would disagree with your statement.

    When Sticky says
    "It is the only reliable way to advance human knowledge. Accepting things on faith without evidence is a learning blocker." I would agree completely, see my above about the Bible. But what we (at least me) go along with isn't taken on faith, it is taken by investigation. You may dispute the method or findings as is your right, but it isn't blind faith.


    As to Lot I also reckon he could have handled it differently, I simply wanted to point out that customs and habits and ways of thinking change through History. Yes you can successfully argue that perhaps it is outdated, I would go along with that.
    However we don't, as always, know the full story. Perhaps the two virgins were actually two fat munters who he had been unable to marry off and were giving him an ear-bashing about getting a man and getting laid. Then along comes this opportunity to give them a good seeing-to and he takes it. - Just occurred to me.
    We need to have been there.
  6. StickyEnd
    Offline

    StickyEnd Clanker

    Sorry Dwarf but I am going to have to butcher your post to address so many points.

    Had Lot offered up himself, his possessions, his money, I could consider him as moral. Offering his daughters is immoral, unless you consider his daughters=to a possession.
  7. Dwarf
    Offline

    Dwarf Clanker

  8. Excognito
    Online

    Excognito Clanker MiA (Donor)

    Once again, that is a point of view. The 'Big Bang ' theory was opposed by a number of people on philosophical grounds as it supported the idea of a Creator, especially as its main advocate was a Roman Catholic priest. Certainly a deist can readily point to the fact that the Universe seems to have come into existence a finite time ago as evidence for God (recognizing that it is also evidence for other theories)

    It depends upon how literally you want to take things. A Creator could have set up the structure of the Universe in such a way that it tends towards developing life (as we know it, Jim). If you want an analogy, the cellular automata provide it; I define the rules, set the initial pattern and set it on it's merry way. If I use Conway's 2-3 Life, then many random patterns (and quite a few more structured ones) will generate patterns called Gliders that move diagonally across the 'universe' . I can set patterns up to produce certain end states or even intrude upon the evolution of a Life universe by setting cells that will affect the way it changes. Similarly, God could have constructed our Universe to produce life without actually handling all the details Himself.

    I really should get an auto-repeating tape ... It is the only way that you and others of your mindset deem to be the One True Path. In every day life, most people, at some time or another, are faced with making decisions for which they have insufficient evidence upon which to base a fully reasoned decision.

    No it doesn't. The final phases of having a consistent narrative may involve that approach, but many scientists do not use such methods to get there in the first place. They consider such things as beauty and their feel for what seems right.

    Very Pretty. Very Reader's Digest. I suggest that whoever wrote it actually goes and studies the subjects. Philosophy is an integral part of many religions. Alchemy was the start of chemistry not medicine, and astronomy was an integral part of astrology - astrology is one of the underlying reasons people were interested in the stars and planets. I notice you didn't apply the same level of proof to this junk that you insist we theists apply to the existence of God :-\

    So you understand why I might wish to question statements that impugn my integrity?

    That's a deep philosophical question for which I have no answer. However, the facts that:

    - the existence or otherwise of God has been debated, without resolution, for millenia by some of the best minds we have had
    - most people should be able to google something quite specific over a mere 173 pages of text

    led me to believe that the tasks are of unequal complexity and difficulty.

    Sticky:"What none-believers find disgusting about the story of Lot is that he is held up as righteous because he was willing to sacrifice his daughters to protect a couple of strangers. Had he offered up himself I could see it but he didn't, it was his daughters that he offered. .

    Any situation should be judged on it own merits. We're talking about how an individual dealt with a specific situation at a given moment in time.

    I think the scenario is more down the route of damage limitation - the implication is that Lot pretty much regarded himself as being in a lose-LOSE situation. His goal, even at the expense of his own family, was to protect his guests.

    I wasn't there, I don't know how that particular mob would behave (Lot would probably be more than familiar with what went on - local knowledge) and I don't know how big the crowd was, although the text suggests it was pretty intimidating.

    This was a crowd intent upon satisfying its lust for a couple of juicy new men. Do you think they would have been satisfied with Lot? Do you think he knew that he might have to offer a considerably more attractive option to satisfy the mob? I can just imagine the mob's response if I'd thrown my dressing gown open, to reveal my over-weight, middle-aged body, and said "Take me boys, you don't want those couple of Johnny Depp look-alikes". It might have got a few laughs and made a few of them feel very sick all of a sudden, but ...

    I don't know much about mob psychology but it is possible that a mob that thinks it's got something would leave the girls severely mentally traumatized, but capable of physical recovery. A mob that's been enraged by defiance on the part of its victims may take a completely different view and be more likely to kill: that sends a pretty powerful message as well - submit or suffer even worse consequences. In fact, ...

    Lot had gone outside to confront the mob and locked the door behind him. When the mob refused his offer, and said they were going to treat him worse than his guests, he was still attempting to stand them off when said guests dragged him inside and subjected the crowd to some form of visual counter-measures. So far from being immoral, Lot may have doing his best in extremely nasty circumstances to maximize the protection he could afford to both his family and guests. And when the attempt failed, he still tried to protect them.

    BTW, did I miss your answer to "What would you have done?" in there somewhere?

    It's not a question of you being wrong and me being right; I don't know who is right. It's a question of what you believe to be a valid interpretation.

    When I first read it, I saw the statement as part of the whole paragraph that addresses Jesus' defence against being an agent of Beelzebub. Logically, I could drive an armoured brigade, let alone a horse and cart, through the whole defence. Given the nature of the individuals that the Bible states he was responding to, I don't imagine either He nor the "teachers of law" would regard it as being airtight either. I see the intent as being to present another way of viewing things.

    First there is the point about the 'house divided', strong man, etc, then there is the follow up, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, which I interpreted as that claiming to act for God when you're actually working for the Enemy is going to get you in a shed-load of trouble. The person Jesus is saying would be in it up to his neck is Himself. Saying blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will *never* be forgiven, as more an indication of the severity of the 'crime' rather than an absolute, was making a point that the lawyers could see quite clearly.

    However, that isn't the standard interpretation and there are other instances of this statement, eg Luke 12:10. The first thing to consider is when such forgiveness (or lack of it) will be exercised. I see this as referring to the 'day' of judgement rather than whilst an individual is alive. Second, Jesus is not saying He will do the 'killing' - I don't think 'killing' is an appropriate term at that stage of events (also note that if you interpret 'Son of Man' to be Jesus, then He says blaspheming against Him will be forgiven - perhaps akin to "insult me, but not the rank").

    An interesting point is that the statements are usually made in connection with the lawyers and Pharisees, some of whom He's got a bit of downer on, eg Matthew 23:23 (New International Version): "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

    Given that throughout the NT, Jesus offers forgiveness in his personal dealings with people, given the constant re-iteration of the messages of forgiveness, mercy and repentance, I see it as a pointed warning of the outcome of unrepentant blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Particularly as a part of Jesus' messages seems to be directed against being overly literal in intepreting the law as opposed to be acting in its spirit.

    Finally, assuming you are right, what exactly is your problem? If God exists and is what He says He is, then them's the rules and the fact you don't like them is neither here nor there - I'm sure there are elements of QRs people don't like either.

    I am duty bound to raise the usual caveat. This is just my amateur take on it. If you want a better interpretation go and speak to a professional.

    No, but it does affect it's meaning. That's why context is important. For example, the order "Don't take prisoners" is equally not subject to dispute in terms of textual content. What was meant is. If you're the prosecutor is means "Kill all (potential) prisoners", if you're the defence it means "Let the supporting units deal with prisoners and maintain the assault". The context and expectations of the speaker and listeners are essential to realize the true meaning.
  9. edd1989
    Offline

    edd1989 Clanker

    Was rather hoping to wait until my day off before I was going to reply. Unfortunately I've got so much the process now I have to reply.

    I agree with Sticky with his response however there was the odd point I felt was relevant and not brought up.

    This is more of a pet hate than anything else. No matter what, when asked

    "So there is no chance of there being a God?"

    I am automatically FORCED to say "Well, there is a chance/It is possible"
    Because to be rational and scientific you have to entertain ideas until they have been refuted. Unfortunately, the God Hypothesis, by it's very nature, can't be dismissed because we can't say with 100% certainty that we know what started it all.

    Even if there was only 0.01% (need not apply) unexplained there would still be enough room for the celestial space daddy.

    Well, nothing is automatically useless. To know something’s useless itself is not useless.

    Yes, but using the Big Bang theory isn't a great example. Mainly because the Big Crunch is also just as much as a hypothesis. Who to say that our Universe won't start to compress back to it's original form and then re-Big Bang again.

    Who's to say that there hasn't been trillions of universes that haven't been able to support life (Jim), or every one of them has.

    We could very easily be universe number 5.6485x10 to the 334557345245.
    Doesn't go any distance towards proving a creator, even if there is a focussed starting point.

    And did that action start? Who's to say it has just always happened and always will happen. Much like your, or anyone else’s God?

    That is a massive artistic license you've just printed there. Surely Ockham's razor would apply? It's much simpler for God not to exist at all?

    Do excuse me but I really do like quotations and feel another is appropriate,

    "The invisible and non-existent look very much alike."



    No but it's people of your opinion that make claims such as "science doesn't know everything".
    And of course you are quite correct, science doesn't know everything otherwise it would stop.

    But just because it doesn't know everything, doesn't mean it knows nothing.

    And certainly, just because you "feel" something is there doesn't make it so.
    And don't get me started on bollux such as homeopathy. Many people feel that works. I'm sorry, but it's water. Not some magical memory juice. You may as well be using onions to stop you from crying.


    I agree if we're talking about scientific experimentation. There could be methods involved but they could just as well be picking a number/colour because it's their favourite or has "always brought them luck".
    When it comes down to getting your theory/drug/machine etc universally accepted all of that is rejected. The cold hard facts are reviewed. I'll accept a few differing views if a vested interests was reviewing the paper but if it's reviewed hundreds of times by impartial parties...


    To be honest, I just thought it sounded pretty. More a metaphor suggesting how religion had it's uses in it's day but now times have moved on.
    It's all down to interpretation you see... :D

    Of course, but I'm sure you understand the point I was trying to make.

    Easiest way I can answer that question is by flipping it,

    "Why would it"

    Simply because there is nothing to find?

    How can you prove that something isn't there when it is suppose to look as if it's not there.

    Mere 173 pages? I hope you're not questioning my threads manhood!?

    And here we come to Lot and the finer points on morality.

    As sticky said, coming back to divine morality...

    By saying your above quote, I believe you are saying that morals are flexible, variable, and relative.

    Certainly what I believe but not what many religions offer.

    I'm going to be honest, I'm tired and am struggling with the rest of my post so the rest is going to be short.

    I apologise if you asked that earlier, I must have missed it.

    I wasn't there, and have never been in a situation like that. So I can only claim how I would like to have acted.

    I would have reasoned to the best of my ability since I know force will result in losing.
    If that fails, I would do my best and try and emulated Neo vs 500 agent Smiths.

    To willing let a loved one (or perhaps even anyone) get raped for my or anyone else’s safety is unacceptable in my eyes.

    Besides, it could just be a case of taking out the "ard" guys and the pack goes running. You haven't lost until you've lost.

    Would you willingly let your wife/daughter/mother get raped for your safety? A strangers? It's disgusting.

    So over to you, what would you have done based on the knowledge at hand?


    Again, tired.

    So you’rer saying it's the same as any other sin providing it's unrepented? Much like any other sin unrepented?

    Why the extra statement then?

    Signing off

    Edd
  10. StickyEnd
    Offline

    StickyEnd Clanker

    Bingo! Cultural morality does change, it is different in various places and times. I agree that using modern morals on historical figures is wrong. What we have here is the reverse and just as wrong, it is trying to impose bronze-age middle-east morality onto us and doing so by using an ultimate authority without evidence.
  11. Dwarf
    Offline

    Dwarf Clanker

    Ah, I see what you are driving at. I do think that trying to fit oudmoded rules onto different thinking people is unlikely to be effective.
    But are you accusing me, Excog etc. of doing so?
    If the structure of a religion tries to impose on everybody in the world then I would agree. All the Abrahamic religions had a start point historically, culturally and geographically and are products of their moment. One would expect them to evolve to fit times and changing circumstances. Fundamentalists try to freeze things,and I agree that won't work.

    Yet, (there is always one isn't there), perhaps if we look at the principle behind the action then just maybe there is value in it. Lot was trying to protect his guests, The PRINCIPLE has value here, what can be argued about is his solution to the problem.
    Like Jesus basically said that one should be nice to people, and I can't see anything wrong with that. How we, and the countless writers including the gospel authors, interpret it into actions into deeds is another thing. But the principle is sound.
    Mohammed actually set up rules that improved women's lot in those days. They have become fixed and lagged behind the times badly. The principle behind the action was sound, many of his followers have let him down in not allowing it to evolve and therefore becoming a negative.
  12. Dwarf
    Offline

    Dwarf Clanker

    [quote. Edd] Was rather hoping to wait until my day off before I was going to reply. Unfortunately I've got so much the process now I have to reply.

    I agree with Sticky with his response however there was the odd point I felt was relevant and not brought up.

    This is more of a pet hate than anything else. No matter what, when asked

    "So there is no chance of there being a God?"

    I am automatically FORCED to say "Well, there is a chance/It is possible"
    Because to be rational and scientific you have to entertain ideas until they have been refuted. Unfortunately, the God Hypothesis, by it's very nature, can't be dismissed because we can't say with 100% certainty that we know what started it all.

    Even if there was only 0.01% (need not apply) unexplained there would still be enough room for the celestial space daddy.

    Exactly how relevant? I have agreed that I believe the existance to be personally proved to my satisfaction, but for me not for you or other rationalists allowing me the possibility of being wrong.
    To you that is not a possibility but an almost certain probability.

    Yet the idea that a deity may exist seems to get right up your nose from your wording and the tone of your post. Why do you see this as a problem?
    Probably because you see outmodeds supersticious beliefs as holding back the world. In terms of mass religion I would probably agree in general terms, though something like Buddhism that encompasses science and works quite peacefully to promote treating people right should not be dismissed lightly.
    Believing in God may have given us religious wars and people like Bush.
    Godless gave us Stalin.

    Well, nothing is automatically useless. To know something’s useless itself is not useless.

    Thanks, so my beliefs are useless then? That's dismissive without really knowing what I believe. And unscientific too.
    They work for me and if they help me be nice to people they have intrinsic value. Science wouldn't fill the gap.

    Yes, but using the Big Bang theory isn't a great example. Mainly because the Big Crunch is also just as much as a hypothesis. Who to say that our Universe won't start to compress back to it's original form and then re-Big Bang again.

    That is an esoteric belief, one could compare it to the inbreath and outbreath of the Creator, to use a simile, while he ponders on what is happening.
    Who's to say that there hasn't been trillions of universes that haven't been able to support life (Jim), or every one of them has.

    We could very easily be universe number 5.6485x10 to the 334557345245.
    Doesn't go any distance towards proving a creator, even if there is a focussed starting point.

    No but why should life and a Creator's vision only be confined to this one planet?
    And did that action start? Who's to say it has just always happened and always will happen. Much like your, or anyone else’s God?

    Answers that we all strive towards

    And certainly, just because you "feel" something is there doesn't make it so.

    Agreed, obviously, never denied that. But you love your wife (I assume) and for you there is that reality.
    Similar thing, but it isn't just a 'feeling' see previous posts.But again I get the impression you are being dismissive because you have taken up a stance and what we believe doesn't conform to that.


    And don't get me started on bollux such as homeopathy. Many people feel that works. I'm sorry, but it's water. Not some magical memory juice. You may as well be using onions to stop you from crying.

    Aha! A very unflexible stance here. Even if it is just magic water and works on the placebo effect it can be positive for some people and therefore works.
    You can argue the limits of its effectiveness but it does have some.
    Mum worked with natural medicine, dad was a Doctor and even he came round to agreeing that it did have some use and allowed us to us it on him.
    Mind for his transplant he went into hospital, everything in its place and with its limits.

    I worry that you are showing an inflexible stance here, may I suggest slightly fundamentalist. You seem annoyed that people can believe certain things, like when you say testicles to homeopathy, and have you actually gone into it in depth? I am worried by a certain scientific rationalist view because I think that the finality of that is to have a rational humanity which has closed itself to elements of the human condition. Science can only offer answers to a point, and I disagree that we have to be patient and wait for all the barriers to fall. That doesn't help humanity now. Neither does stratified religion.
    I mentioned in a past post that as a historian science can only tell me what happened not why. It can give me clues and help me arrive at conclusions but it can't always solve the mystery.
    Why did Lionheart murder the prisoners in the Holy land when he knew the ransome was on the way? Conjecture, knowing his personality can take us some of the way, but then we have to surmise and try to empathise.
    Why did Monty feel the absolute need to try to write the history books instead of letting his generalship stand by itself? Here we need other disciplines other than pure science, and try to put ourselves in his shoes and study his character.
    Humanity doesn't consist of purely rationalists, the difference between us is that I think it would be a sad day when that happens, you don't.

    While I am on about it many posters on here in the atheist camp actually know extremely little about religion and religious thought, never mind spiritual or esoteric matters. Most have had a superficial encounter with christianity that did not motivate them, which I understand as it did not motivate me either. Then they leave the subject assuming that all religion is the same and that all concepts of God are the same and it is all a load of b0llocks. So they then are arguing from shaky ground and have only just scratched the surface of the subject. I have scratched a bit deeper but know my limitations.
    If I tried to argue science I would be rightly blown out of the sky because I haven't studied it at all since O level. So if I want to make comparisons I would first have to go and sit at Scouse's feet and let him teach me.

    So before a poster dismisses a religious/spiritual/esoteric concept then he should ask himself how much he actually knows about the subject.
    People talk about 'feelings' when we try to say that it isn't just that. So dear poster either question more or before you dismiss it out of hand come over here and sit under a tree with me and let me take you down a meditational path for a while and talk about things in depth. Then you can dismiss it if you wish once you understand it better.
    [Quote.Edd]
  13. StickyEnd
    Offline

    StickyEnd Clanker

    Agreed.

    I am not accusing you of doing that. It is just that I am trying to explain why, when some people claim the Bible as the ultimate authority on morality, I think they are dead wrong.

    While I agree that morality can be expected to change with growing knowledge, I don't agree that should be expected from a biblical religious POV. If God had made this universe and given us rules to live by, it seems odd that morality should change.

    Sorry, but no. This is supposed to be a story about a righteous man yet his actions where deplorable. Protecting guests/strangers should be a good thing, but not when you offer your daughters as a sacrifice.

    Are you sure? Jesus said some nasty stuff too according to the gospels.


    I doubt that many people actually follow the original Islamic religion. Something happened about 1,000 years ago that drastically altered the practice of Islam. Whatever it was, it stopped Islamic society from being far ahead of Christendom and set-back it's advances.
  14. Excognito
    Online

    Excognito Clanker MiA (Donor)

    All very good but irrelevant. You may note that I stated the Big Bang was evidence that supported other hypotheses other than that of a Creator. However, it is undeniably part of the evidence base that would support the existence of a Creator. The Big Bang theory goes someway towards validating the Creator hypothesis as it indicates a creation event - a steady state universe would not support such a hypothesis (or at least would require far greater accomodation).

    No. It's not. You will find the concept is not a recent one.

    Why?

    Ockham's razor is not a proof.

    And just as banal as your previous platitude. Gamma rays are invisible but I wouldn't care to stick my head in an intense beam of them. An object may be invisible but would have other signatures that would allow its detection.

    My argument is not aimed at what science does or does not know. It has to do with what you, or I, do or do not know.

    Quite right. But, equally, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

    Might I suggest that instead of going round the same buoy in the wrong part of the course, you re-read what Dwarf and I have been saying. I am NOT talking about things like picking a number on the basis of superstition. I am talking about using the intuition that many humans develop, the sense that of something that has not yet reached the point of articulation. It is process of getting to the point where the cold hard facts are used to support a hypothesis, the thing that makes an individual pursue a particular approach to develop the hypothessi in the first place or determine the method of obtaining or utilizing those facts. The scientific process you are talking about is equivalent of how to use a hammer and chisel to make a sculpture - that is the mechanism by which one converts the concept into a reality - but it is not the process by which the sculptor determines what's in the marble to be uncovered.


    Quite. And indicative of the errors in your thought processes as it is a very poor metaphor.

    Yes, it must be frustrating being an atheist.

    Christianity seems to offer it.

    And yet you feel sufficiently qualified to condemn Lot.

    Which from the sound of it, is what Lot tried to do. "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them."


    They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

    What if you thought it would improve your loved one's chances of survival? See my previous comment about possible mob behaviour.

    I agree. But that's why I would have been a poor infantry commander - I wouldn't have known when to surrender, as you obviously haven't lost until you're all hors de combat.

    Willingly? Is it more disgusting to get raped and killed or just raped? Oh, just a minor point, I contend Lot wasn't looking after his own safety, otherwise he'd have just shoved the girls out the door - he certainly wouldn't have gone out to face the crowd and locked the door behind him.

    Me? I'm a coward. It would have been a swift "Yeah, hang on, I'll get 'em for you ... Boys! There are some gentlemen out here who've come to see you. Have fun."

    No, I didn't say that. I can quite readily see that it might be regarded as a more severe offence that being late in returning a library book, well marginally so anyway. The extra statement, as I said, was, IMO, to emphasize the point to the lawyers.
  15. StickyEnd
    Offline

    StickyEnd Clanker

    Do you think that "Big Bang" theory supports Biblical creation ideas?
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Science Forum The religious are idiots... Aug 13, 2013
The Science Forum What happened to the: Are you religious thread? Jun 3, 2012

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page