![]() |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 7304920)
I agree with all that you say.
I, too, turned my back on it as I saw it as being way too hypocritical. I also believe that those that have any form of faith, should be secure enough to be able to not take offence when non-believers question their beliefs. All religion is hypocritical! Bar non!! The sooner its all removed from modern day life the safer the world will be and the less problems!! Im Baptised by my parents choice but apathetic by my own! If god exists then he can show himself to me! I find it highly unlikely he does but there maybe a superior race out there from another planet that to stone throwing humans appeared god like! Religion was used to control the masses at a time they could not handle their own mortality and there was no sir robert peel inventing the police force. Each to their own believers and non alike - nothing should be forced on others and everyone should be free to voice their opinion without it being an issue if u want to beleive in a hypocritical religion thats your choice! |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306426)
Pure sophistry. You might as well argue for the existence of a divine soul in ameoba, since we certainly couldn't have bypassed that stage in our evolution into sentient entities.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7306543)
Just done 'God Delusion' by Dawkin's and 'God is not Great' by Hitchens recently
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Mikey B
(Post 7306560)
my god (pardon the pun) you actually said something intelligent sensible and I agree with it!! wow!
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306564)
I recant.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7306363)
Yes. Like it or not Atheist's have to accept that Western Society is founded on Christian principles and the law has developed on those principles of right and wrong over time. In the court of law people are made to swear on the bible when they testify etc.....
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 7306413)
No, Rae, that assumption is not necessary. There is no causal link between the intellectual rigour of an argument and the truth of an unrelated belief that the proponent happens to hold.
|
Re: Religion
Question:
Has science ever made mistakes? Have scientists ever been screwed up as human beings? Have bad things been done in the name of science? Have scientists ever done stupid things? Newton believed in alchemy for instance. How could the guy who invented physics believe in alchemy? That's almost like believing there's no god, but there is a master race of aliens:rofl: Why do we attribute to science and/or religion many things which are in fact human traits? Arrogance, narrow-mindedness, stupidity, ignorance as well as endeavour, the search for meaning, goodness etc. Feel free to question and search for meaning from what ever sources you wish. I would ask that you don't put down other's beliefs though, or attribute labels to a group. Not all scientists are necessarilly introverted, socially inept misfits. Not all science and technology has created global warming, the extinction of species and the destruction of the environment. Also, all points of view are VIEWS FROM A POINT, and so are intrinsically narrow. I am proud of my religion when it fights poverty and dictatorship, when it fights for the rights of the person, and when it is counter-cultural: the culture of consumerism, the culture of technology that alienates that which is human, the culture of narcisissm, the culture of greed. What anyone else thinks about my religion I don't really give a toss. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306507)
Sorry, but we already do know that.
I am afraid any evidence produced to say there isn't a God has thus far been severley lacking and that is being kind. Others might say the evidence is totally non existant. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...on-advertising Here is a bus campaign by Atheist's. So disturbed by God that they felt obliged to waste money on a campain. Noticed that they used the word "probably" because they aren't sure or conclusive. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Settlers_Unlimited
(Post 7306547)
I'm curious, what are those Christian principles that were laid into foundation of Western society?
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7306517)
No I don't think you quite understand the non-believer
we're not asking you to prove anything, we may however point out that your proof may not be what you think it is I would add that some scientists would go further to suggest that the available evidence would suggest that their is scant reason for the existence of a creator and certainly enough is known about the fundamentals of the universe to suggest that its statistically more probable that there isn't a creator |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307295)
All scientists do is carry out experiments in controlled environments based on a number of assumptions and variables. I wouldn't put to much faith in them- their view point changes every 10 years or so and this is usually driven by where their sponsorship money is coming from. I couldn't think of a more corrupt and hypocritical subject than science that has been used to influence humanity in the last hundred years, far more dangerous than any religion.
Science isn't about faith its about achieving the best possible understanding based on the available evidence, sometimes you learn things that mean you have to re-arrange your view point and change some of your earlier assumptions Relativity being one case in point |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7306827)
Question:
Has science ever made mistakes? Have scientists ever been screwed up as human beings? Have bad things been done in the name of science? Have scientists ever done stupid things? its in the subtle difference of the message Science : We think we're right based on our current evidence Religion: We know we're right you just have to have faith in us |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7307559)
You used the term faith.........:(
Science isn't about faith its about achieving the best possible understanding based on the available evidence, sometimes you learn things that mean you have to re-arrange your view point and change some of your earlier assumptions Relativity being one case in point Look at all the scientists in Britain who proved that Global Warming was natural and carbon dioxide from human beings were minimal. Not only are they attacked constantly by Environmentalists but because their theory is not inline with current Government mandate their funding has dried up and been withdrawn. Simirlarly in the 1930's German scientists "proved" that superior athletes had fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes until an athlete called Jesse Owens turned up and completely blew their German athlete's away. I read on Monday that Scientists had proven Coffee was bad for me and gave me throat cancer, then on Tuesday I read that Scientists had proven coffee was good for me and would help prevent dementia. On Wednesday I decided it was just best to enjoy my coffee and forget about the scientists!!! |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307608)
The reality of modern science is that you have to achieve the result that satisfies the person funding the experimentation or you have the funding withdrawn.
Look at all the scientists in Britain who proved that Global Warming was natural and carbon dioxide from human beings were minimal. Not only are they attacked constantly by Environmentalists but because their theory is not inline with current Government mandate their funding has dried up and been withdrawn. Simirlarly in the 1930's German scientists "proved" that superior athletes had fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes until an athlete called Jesse Owens turned up and completely blew their German athlete's away. I read on Monday that Scientists had proven Coffee was bad for me and gave me throat cancer, then on Tuesday I read that Scientists had proven coffee was good for me and would help prevent dementia. On Wednesday I decided it was just best to enjoy my coffee and forget about the scientists!!! peer review kicks in, the hypothesis is tested by the group If wrong another article will be published often by many others countering the argument and in a respectable scientific journal The environmental argument was an unwise choice, massive peer review quashed that not funding |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:55 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.