Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
johnxjsc1985 said:
Derek Smith said:
I don't mean any criticism, but there are many more dangerous dangers with literal belief in any gospel or dogma. The farcical suggestion of a direct line from some vicar to the disciples is a basic tenet of catholicism which allows, in the minds of those for whom this is important, the misogyny.
Judaism declares followers to be the chosen ones.
Christians know that the only route to their god is via their belief. No one else is in with a shout.
Islam, now where do we start?
We can forget the ark. No one really believes it, even, perhaps especially, those who profess to do so.
One god-fearing chap is on YouTube saying he's knows everything because he's read his version of the bible. Yet he mentions animals going in two by two. The most cursory reading of the first book of Moses shows this to be wrong. They are playing mind games, and deliberately.
Mind you, penguins sitting of a raft of kangaroos jumping over Ayres Rock is a lovely image to have in your mind.
There are people still searching for the ARK.Judaism declares followers to be the chosen ones.
Christians know that the only route to their god is via their belief. No one else is in with a shout.
Islam, now where do we start?
We can forget the ark. No one really believes it, even, perhaps especially, those who profess to do so.
One god-fearing chap is on YouTube saying he's knows everything because he's read his version of the bible. Yet he mentions animals going in two by two. The most cursory reading of the first book of Moses shows this to be wrong. They are playing mind games, and deliberately.
Mind you, penguins sitting of a raft of kangaroos jumping over Ayres Rock is a lovely image to have in your mind.
To the people that wrote the bible their whole world was the area around them. We know archaeologically that there was a huge flood in the black sea/med area which fits in. As Derek says most Christians (and religious people of any faith) don't believe literally every word in their holy book, they know it to be nonsense on some level. The only people that think they do are dogmatic atheists in my experience.
As for saying 'we know know enough science to stop searching further', well a lot of science was started by religios people searching for God. To many God is the unknown, the unexplainable. Carry on searching always, its that curiosity that makes us human.
Unfortunately too many people get caught up in religion in the wrong way. The bible is attempt to explain the history of the world and the natural order. In some ways its not far different from modern thinking- see my first comment on this discussion. In reality its a massive oversimplification based on the best knowledge at the time. Unfortunately this is mixed with laws of morality and attempts to justify some one taking power. An all powerful God giving someone authority is a very useful way of bringing together a group for protection against other groups and defining 'law' before the modern concept of democracy was invented especially in a time when might was right. Having God on your side was massively useful and if you can convince people they'll burn for ever more if they don't do what you want....well. As for the morality, things change. No sex outside marriage? Cuts down STDs and unwanted children? Yes nowadays condoms do the same. The challenge being to find a way of allowing them...bible doesn't forbid it, therefore its ok?
As for now a days? Well Priests have (or should act) as counsellors and doctors to some level for centuries. Could I prove that religious people get less stressed etc? Nope afraid not but having an hour week of peaceful ritual to just actually chill out isn't a bad thing- and probably better for you than watching Jeremy Kyle. The reality is that it acts as a social club for many involved.
The shame of religion is that some people take it to seriously and try to live lives in an impossible way or get worked up over something which really shouldn't be worth the hassle to them. As said, strip away some of the crap in religions/ mostly the buts that people use to justify fighting and theres some fairly sound ideas. And some s
t ones.anonymous said:
[redacted]
No disrespect but why is it the obvious nonsense is watered down by believers. The Bible is the word of God. Who are you to say it happened but not as the Bible says. A great example of this is the 100% fact that Evolution is real and the driving force behind life. Having denied this for centuries, the church, faced with irrefutable evidence have now said, well yes we don't have a conflict with evolution. It is after all Gods mechanism for life. 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
To be fair to creationist loonies, the bible doesn't say anything about penguins. Given the bible was written by Middle Eastern men, they would have known nothing about penguins.The bible says Noah took 2 of each kind onto the ark. Not 2 of each species. So he took 2 birds. That's all. 2 big cats, 2 snakes, etc etc.
Creationists accept micro evolution, modification within a kind, but they don't accept macro evolution, a primate becoming a human or one kind becoming another kind.
Quite how 2 birds evolved into everything from robins to ostriches in just 4400 years they haven't yet explained. But there are no penguins in the bible.
SilverSixer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But there are no penguins in the bible.
Which is a great shame. They'd lend the whole book a jolly and upbeat vibe, give it a little lift, give us all something to smile at amidst the slaughtering and avoidance of pork products.And what about elephants, I take it the Indian ones didn't bother as the Africans were there for roll call?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
"Something like", no doubt. Some bloke built a raft and saved some of his livestock during a flood, sure, why not.But if that's the case, then the whole book has to be considered as "misinterpreted or embellished", which makes the whole thing rather pointless as supposedly divine guide.
mcdjl said:
As for saying 'we know know enough science to stop searching further', well a lot of science was started by religios people searching for God. To many God is the unknown, the unexplainable. Carry on searching always, its that curiosity that makes us human.
And yet the reaction of the Church is always to prevent such searching and curiosity. They've even got a ready-made parable in the tower of babel story to show why it's a bad idea. It's why the first commandments are always "do as I say, do not question, do not follow anyone else". WinstonWolf said:
SilverSixer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But there are no penguins in the bible.
Which is a great shame. They'd lend the whole book a jolly and upbeat vibe, give it a little lift, give us all something to smile at amidst the slaughtering and avoidance of pork products.And what about elephants, I take it the Indian ones didn't bother as the Africans were there for roll call?
SilverSixer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But there are no penguins in the bible.
Which is a great shame. They'd lend the whole book a jolly and upbeat vibe, give it a little lift, give us all something to smile at amidst the slaughtering and avoidance of pork products.Burwood said:
WinstonWolf said:
SilverSixer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But there are no penguins in the bible.
Which is a great shame. They'd lend the whole book a jolly and upbeat vibe, give it a little lift, give us all something to smile at amidst the slaughtering and avoidance of pork products.And what about elephants, I take it the Indian ones didn't bother as the Africans were there for roll call?
Unless that's not factually accurate as well...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The bible says Noah took 2 of each kind onto the ark. Not 2 of each species. So he took 2 birds. That's all. 2 big cats, 2 snakes, etc etc.
Not 100% correct I fear:From king Jim:
The Lord then said to Noah, ”. . . Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.”
So it was 14 of every kind of clean animal.
Every kind of bird as well.
For reference, these are 'unclean' animals.
Bat, Camel, Chameleon, Coney (hyrax), Cormorant, Cuckow, Eagle, Ferret, Frog, Gier eagle, Glede, Great owl, Hare, Hawk, Heron, Kite, Lapwing, Little owl, Lizard, Mole, Mouse, Night hawk, Osprey, Ossifrage, Owl, Pelican, Pig, Raven, Snail, Stork, Swine, Tortoise, Vulture and Weasel.
I doubt this is the definitive list, but enough to be going on with. So there were only four of each of the above on the ark, but 14 of 'every kind of clean animal'.
What is odd is that the religious seem to think that there were two of every kind. I mean, read the manual.
Just saying . . .
Derek Smith said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The bible says Noah took 2 of each kind onto the ark. Not 2 of each species. So he took 2 birds. That's all. 2 big cats, 2 snakes, etc etc.
Not 100% correct I fear:From king Jim:
The Lord then said to Noah, ”. . . Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.”
So it was 14 of every kind of clean animal.
Every kind of bird as well.
For reference, these are 'unclean' animals.
Bat, Camel, Chameleon, Coney (hyrax), Cormorant, Cuckow, Eagle, Ferret, Frog, Gier eagle, Glede, Great owl, Hare, Hawk, Heron, Kite, Lapwing, Little owl, Lizard, Mole, Mouse, Night hawk, Osprey, Ossifrage, Owl, Pelican, Pig, Raven, Snail, Stork, Swine, Tortoise, Vulture and Weasel.
I doubt this is the definitive list, but enough to be going on with. So there were only four of each of the above on the ark, but 14 of 'every kind of clean animal'.
What is odd is that the religious seem to think that there were two of every kind. I mean, read the manual.
Just saying . . .
It's all very confusing. But as it's all make believe anyway, does it really matter. Ultimately, as god was overseeing the whole shooting match, the ark may have had properties of a tardis, whereby inside it was the size of Africa whilst appearing to be just a boat from outside.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
SilverSixer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But there are no penguins in the bible.
Which is a great shame. They'd lend the whole book a jolly and upbeat vibe, give it a little lift, give us all something to smile at amidst the slaughtering and avoidance of pork products.CrutyRammers said:
"Something like", no doubt. Some bloke built a raft and saved some of his livestock during a flood, sure, why not.
But if that's the case, then the whole book has to be considered as "misinterpreted or embellished", which makes the whole thing rather pointless as supposedly divine guide.
No I don't agree. If Einstein is proven to be totally wrong about one of his theories would it be right to discount all of his theories and work because of that? But if that's the case, then the whole book has to be considered as "misinterpreted or embellished", which makes the whole thing rather pointless as supposedly divine guide.
I do wonder if many choose Atheism because they just cannot accept uncertainty about things, the easy and comfortable option.
CrutyRammers said:
And yet the reaction of the Church is always to prevent such searching and curiosity. They've even got a ready-made parable in the tower of babel story to show why it's a bad idea. It's why the first commandments are always "do as I say, do not question, do not follow anyone else".
The 10 commandments are a good idea and quite modern. They keep power within and unite the tribe and stop arguments within it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments . As for having your underlings actually finding God, well that wouldn't do now would it? You'd lose power and have to hand over the reins. Either that or when you've found the
turbobloke said:
"A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God."
Ye Gods
even late in on the thread, it has to be said (or repeated maybe): that's a shocker.
It's the God-Of-The-Gaps religious nonsense that belongs more in medieval times when science was equally under-developed compared to today. Can't explain something? Hey Presclot! It must be God.
As that first statement above from the article is nonsense, anything following from it is heading the same way.
It's possible that a new theory may explain more completely how life began, but that will have no impact whatsoever in terms of proving the existence or otherwise of a God. Science can address questions about the origin of the universe or of life which begin "how?" but is incapable of answering such questions beginning "why?".
To disallow people from asking both types of question is arbitrarily and artificially restrictive whether you're a believer or not. The so-called war between science and religion being peddled by the journo and others is a phoney war.
^^^ thisYe Gods
even late in on the thread, it has to be said (or repeated maybe): that's a shocker.It's the God-Of-The-Gaps religious nonsense that belongs more in medieval times when science was equally under-developed compared to today. Can't explain something? Hey Presclot! It must be God.
As that first statement above from the article is nonsense, anything following from it is heading the same way.
It's possible that a new theory may explain more completely how life began, but that will have no impact whatsoever in terms of proving the existence or otherwise of a God. Science can address questions about the origin of the universe or of life which begin "how?" but is incapable of answering such questions beginning "why?".
To disallow people from asking both types of question is arbitrarily and artificially restrictive whether you're a believer or not. The so-called war between science and religion being peddled by the journo and others is a phoney war.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff