Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
///ajd said:
Ah more insults.
I was taken into the shop when I was 6. I sang in the shop for a while in a nice red jumper. After a while I realised I was uncomfortable in the jumper. It didn't make sense to me so I took it off.
It is only more recently when I've noticed some people in the shop wearing purple jumpers, whipping out AK47s and shooting people in any other jumpers that are not purple. Infact anyone without without a jumper is liable to be shot too.
So, are you able to share your shop/jumper experience, or will you just call "non-jumpers", or "jumper-infidels" knob-jockeys?
Relax, you wooly pully infidel!I was taken into the shop when I was 6. I sang in the shop for a while in a nice red jumper. After a while I realised I was uncomfortable in the jumper. It didn't make sense to me so I took it off.
It is only more recently when I've noticed some people in the shop wearing purple jumpers, whipping out AK47s and shooting people in any other jumpers that are not purple. Infact anyone without without a jumper is liable to be shot too.
So, are you able to share your shop/jumper experience, or will you just call "non-jumpers", or "jumper-infidels" knob-jockeys?
Didn't wear jumpers as a child, would say as a teen I started to think more about things, as we all do, and my blue jumper fetish was born.
But blue jumpers are not all I have in my wardrobe, I also wear t-shirts and trousers, trousers and jumpers are not mutually exclusive.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you wore a blue jumper in your teens for the first time, with no indoctrination at a younger age at all? It does happen - but how did it come about? Influential peers or parents? Church attendance?Not sure I understand the t-shirt/trouser analogy - are you saying you dabbled in other gods/religions too?
4v6 said:
cymtriks said:
The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.
How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?
The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.
What a load of.....How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?
The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.
If god made the universe and everything in it, who made everything outside of it?
Who made god?
Its all in the mind dear boy an aberration, a crutch to deal with the fact that theres sweet fa left when you exhale your last breath and your eyes roll back in your head, its a bunch of who shot john, nonsense, cobblers and codswallop for simple minds to focus on, its all taken on faith, on someone elses word, proof dont live here.
Now, do you believe in pink fairies orbitting pluto?
I do.....
Comparing a perfectly reasonable observation to believing in pink fairies does not make you right, it is just a somewhat obvious straw man argument.
The theory is about life and how it started. not about how the universe started. If you had actually read the article on England's theory you would know that. The theory answers a different question to what is outside the universe or indeed what came before it.
Muddling up several different questions and then implying that your muddle makes you right, complete with the irony of a roll eyes smiley, does not make you right.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ah, a reasonable response to yet another straw man argument.Given the sheer number of floods over the centuries it would be extremely improbable for the Noah story to not be based on a real event.
The Woolley excavations at Ur revealed evidence of massive flooding at about the right date. The floods would have covered half of modern Iraq so anyone sitting on a boat in the middle would have written in their tribal history "The whole world was flooded". The animals going onto the ark in pairs is very simple, breeding pairs of animals were saved, the unclean animals were more prone to spread disease or pass it on to people so they were taken aboard in reduced numbers. The phrase "animals of every kind" needs to be taken in context. If you said to a bronze age farmer "get every kind of animal onto the boat" as the waters were rising what would the instruction mean to him? Fairly obviously it would mean his farm animals. The Bible emphasises how many pairs went on board because the poor guy was making a very important choice about his future. Get the choice wrong and the boat might capsize, the animals food might run out before the waters receded or the family would starve.
Most of the Bible is perfectly reasonable when read as a bronze age tribal history, written from the point of view of a bronze age tribal person. Nearly all of the problems occur when people don't realise this. That applies equally to the religious and the non-religious.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why did you choose blue, and why that particular pattern?The problem many of us have is that while you're in the shop with the other jumper believers we're looking in wondering where the jumpers are. And if anyone asks for evidence they're shown a next catalogue (hand drawn) or a sheep.
cymtriks said:
Most of the Bible is perfectly reasonable when read as a bronze age tribal history, written from the point of view of a bronze age tribal person. Nearly all of the problems occur when people don't realise this. That applies equally to the religious and the non-religious.
It is not the 'historical document' aspect that we are discussing though. On that subject there is a lot of recent evidence that much of what is written is fantasy, but then that goes for Robin Hood, William Wallace and King Arthur. Nice stories based on actual events in the same way Hollywood does it.Where many people experience problems is in the moral aspect. Much of what is taught in the OT as pretty cool is seen nowadays as reprehensible. No problem, one might think, autre temps, autre mores, but the main difficulty is those who suggest that such behaviour is acceptable nowadays.
The OT has different aspects including the history - which is flawed - and the laws - the Torah - which, with support for genocide, slavery, misogyny, homophobia and strict control of all aspects of life, has a certain attraction for certain types of people.
So when commenting on the OT one must really be particular as to which aspect one is discussing. Jesus dismissed the Torah more or less - he was a Jew trying to modify his religion in the same way Luther tried to modify the western RC church. The comparison is reasonable, Jesus did not claim to be the son of any god, this came after his death.
There are many arguments about why the Torah was included in the NT. This is generally considered to be a bad thing as it has caused many problems over the years. So much better to have followed Jesus and binned it, but then the purpose of the new religion, the current one created by Constantine, was to control and unify the empire.
Many christian sects ignore the Torah. Indeed, the western catholic church does to an extent, although sticks with certain aspects that the conservative sections (of an ultra conservative group of men totally disconnected with the world) want to keep for the very reason the Torah was included. We have what has been described as a progressive pope in charge at the moment but he supports criminalising gay relationships and banning condoms. Not quite Marxist yet.
So for the OT:
Historical document: yes, some facts in all probability but for the most part myth.
Explanation of how things came about: useful in the dark ages to settle enquiring minds but now something to patronise and have a bit of fun with.
Torah: laws that have no moral basis in the world today for the most part. In this aspect the OT is well OTT.
Covenant: nothing more than justification for oppressive behaviour.
I read a book a few years ago which included a section on the first council and so included the subject of the OT's inclusion. There was a quote from some high up anglican, not for the book but from some magazine he'd written for, that it should be read once and then ignored. The whole article was reproduced and it made a lot of sense. The chap seemed to be a nice bloke.
I'm not read anything since which would suggest it should be read more than once and a lot of support for not reading it at all.
It's just some book.
cymtriks said:
Most of the Bible is perfectly reasonable when read as a bronze age tribal history, written from the point of view of a bronze age tribal person. Nearly all of the problems occur when people don't realise this. That applies equally to the religious and the non-religious.
So the book is about bronze age people, not the words of god? Why choose this book to make choices on how to live life in the 21st century then?anonymous said:
[redacted]
I tend to find it is religious people in discussions like this who like to play word games by implying that atheism is a stronger position than it actually is. It's usually an attempt to try and make out that atheism a 'faith' position - in the same was that religious belief is.I am always up front about the definitions I subscribe to when discussing theism, atheism, agnosticism and antitheism.
- Theism - Belief in god or gods.
- Atheism - Without belief in god or gods (basically the same definition as theism but with the 'a' prefix)
- Agnosticism - The position the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.
- Antitheism - Opposition to the belief in god or gods.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff