Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
WinstonWolf said:
So Thor created the universe in seven days?
What?In the Norse religion the world was made from the body of Ymir. His blood made the sea, his bones made the rock, etc.
The Seven Days creation was (probably) a relatively late addition to Genesis, the original story starting with Adam and Eve (the first people from a tribal point of view and therefore a good place to start the tribe's history).
cymtriks said:
From a Christian point of view I assume he would be divinely inspired to make the call. If he had also, as the Bible states, been involved in making a large boat (or fleet of smaller boats that were tied together to form a large raft) at the right time then that too could be view as a divine instruction.
As tribal leader - he seemed to forget to take the tribe onto the boat I concede it is a small detail.
It isn't structurally possible to build a wooden vessel of that size capable of floating and not breaking up.
(Unless gopher wood is actually steel )
cymtriks said:
WinstonWolf said:
So Thor created the universe in seven days?
What?In the Norse religion the world was made from the body of Ymir. His blood made the sea, his bones made the rock, etc.
The Seven Days creation was (probably) a relatively late addition to Genesis, the original story starting with Adam and Eve (the first people from a tribal point of view and therefore a good place to start the tribe's history).
WinstonWolf said:
cymtriks said:
WinstonWolf said:
So Thor created the universe in seven days?
What?In the Norse religion the world was made from the body of Ymir. His blood made the sea, his bones made the rock, etc.
The Seven Days creation was (probably) a relatively late addition to Genesis, the original story starting with Adam and Eve (the first people from a tribal point of view and therefore a good place to start the tribe's history).
History tells us that all scientific theories are wrong. That is what makes the scientific method so dependable.
The desert nomads came up with their theory of everything and put it down. It has become accepted and to challenge it renders you suspect of some phobia or other, or maybe even gay.
Newton came up with his theory of gravity - amongst others - and wrote Principia Mathmatica, a much, much more important book than any bible. For a while it was seen as wrong to challenge it but eventually errors were discovered and we had it rewritten. Newton, to call him one of the greatest minds in the history of science is to underrate him, was wrong, yet we flew to the Moon using his science whilst knowing full well that much of what he'd written had been replaced.
Darwin saw the evidence for evolution. It was overwhelming. Nothing can be argued against evolution any more than we can argue against gravity. All Darwin did was explain the mechanics of it. His theories have been modified, substantially so, most notably with the discovery of DNA. In essence, Darwin was wrong, albeit in the mechanical side.
Or, to put it simply, our knowledge progresses. Those who present current evolutionary theories stand on his shoulders. In fact, the theory of evolution evolves, as do all scientific theories.
Now let's take a religion, say based on a book written about 3000 years ago with additions and modifications about 1700 years ago.
The book contains, we are told, moral certainties. But morals have moved on and it is no longer seen as a good thing to slaughter all the canaanites, or to criminalise gays, or stone adulterers. We've moved on. The old beliefs should be dead. We can follow the broad scope, such as loving your neighbour, but throwing your daughter to the mob is frowned upon. There are better books to go by.
We don't need religion for guidance. We don't need to fear eternal damnation to keep our wanton desires in check, we don't need to keep women in the kitchen.
The bible predated earth, wind and fire, and I don't mean the band. We've moved on to better things, and I might include the band in this.
Much of what was preached in the bible would be criminal nowadays. If, as many seem to do, it is alright to pick and choose (as Constantine did), then that is not christianity. You are believing in your own little construct.
The suggestion most often repeated is that there are 10bn devotees of religion in the world and atheists, of which I do not class myself, are arroagant as they are suggesting they know better than all these people. But, it would seem, an awful lot of those have invented their own. So in fact, each religion has few adherents. The current pope has recently reinforced that you should not use condoms when indulging in sex. Those who do use contraceptives are saying they know better than the pope. Whilst I accept that many of us do know better than the pope when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa, for someone to call themselves a catholic and ignore the pope is a bit of a no-no.. They invented their own religion, especially if they don't stone adulterers. Or kill canaanites.
The desert nomads came up with their theory of everything and put it down. It has become accepted and to challenge it renders you suspect of some phobia or other, or maybe even gay.
Newton came up with his theory of gravity - amongst others - and wrote Principia Mathmatica, a much, much more important book than any bible. For a while it was seen as wrong to challenge it but eventually errors were discovered and we had it rewritten. Newton, to call him one of the greatest minds in the history of science is to underrate him, was wrong, yet we flew to the Moon using his science whilst knowing full well that much of what he'd written had been replaced.
Darwin saw the evidence for evolution. It was overwhelming. Nothing can be argued against evolution any more than we can argue against gravity. All Darwin did was explain the mechanics of it. His theories have been modified, substantially so, most notably with the discovery of DNA. In essence, Darwin was wrong, albeit in the mechanical side.
Or, to put it simply, our knowledge progresses. Those who present current evolutionary theories stand on his shoulders. In fact, the theory of evolution evolves, as do all scientific theories.
Now let's take a religion, say based on a book written about 3000 years ago with additions and modifications about 1700 years ago.
The book contains, we are told, moral certainties. But morals have moved on and it is no longer seen as a good thing to slaughter all the canaanites, or to criminalise gays, or stone adulterers. We've moved on. The old beliefs should be dead. We can follow the broad scope, such as loving your neighbour, but throwing your daughter to the mob is frowned upon. There are better books to go by.
We don't need religion for guidance. We don't need to fear eternal damnation to keep our wanton desires in check, we don't need to keep women in the kitchen.
The bible predated earth, wind and fire, and I don't mean the band. We've moved on to better things, and I might include the band in this.
Much of what was preached in the bible would be criminal nowadays. If, as many seem to do, it is alright to pick and choose (as Constantine did), then that is not christianity. You are believing in your own little construct.
The suggestion most often repeated is that there are 10bn devotees of religion in the world and atheists, of which I do not class myself, are arroagant as they are suggesting they know better than all these people. But, it would seem, an awful lot of those have invented their own. So in fact, each religion has few adherents. The current pope has recently reinforced that you should not use condoms when indulging in sex. Those who do use contraceptives are saying they know better than the pope. Whilst I accept that many of us do know better than the pope when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa, for someone to call themselves a catholic and ignore the pope is a bit of a no-no.. They invented their own religion, especially if they don't stone adulterers. Or kill canaanites.
Derek Smith said:
History tells us that all scientific theories are wrong. That is what makes the scientific method so dependable.
The desert nomads came up with their theory of everything and put it down. It has become accepted and to challenge it renders you suspect of some phobia or other, or maybe even gay.
Newton came up with his theory of gravity - amongst others - and wrote Principia Mathmatica, a much, much more important book than any bible. For a while it was seen as wrong to challenge it but eventually errors were discovered and we had it rewritten. Newton, to call him one of the greatest minds in the history of science is to underrate him, was wrong, yet we flew to the Moon using his science whilst knowing full well that much of what he'd written had been replaced.
Darwin saw the evidence for evolution. It was overwhelming. Nothing can be argued against evolution any more than we can argue against gravity. All Darwin did was explain the mechanics of it. His theories have been modified, substantially so, most notably with the discovery of DNA. In essence, Darwin was wrong, albeit in the mechanical side.
Or, to put it simply, our knowledge progresses. Those who present current evolutionary theories stand on his shoulders. In fact, the theory of evolution evolves, as do all scientific theories.
Now let's take a religion, say based on a book written about 3000 years ago with additions and modifications about 1700 years ago.
The book contains, we are told, moral certainties. But morals have moved on and it is no longer seen as a good thing to slaughter all the canaanites, or to criminalise gays, or stone adulterers. We've moved on. The old beliefs should be dead. We can follow the broad scope, such as loving your neighbour, but throwing your daughter to the mob is frowned upon. There are better books to go by.
We don't need religion for guidance. We don't need to fear eternal damnation to keep our wanton desires in check, we don't need to keep women in the kitchen.
The bible predated earth, wind and fire, and I don't mean the band. We've moved on to better things, and I might include the band in this.
Much of what was preached in the bible would be criminal nowadays. If, as many seem to do, it is alright to pick and choose (as Constantine did), then that is not christianity. You are believing in your own little construct.
The suggestion most often repeated is that there are 10bn devotees of religion in the world and atheists, of which I do not class myself, are arroagant as they are suggesting they know better than all these people. But, it would seem, an awful lot of those have invented their own. So in fact, each religion has few adherents. The current pope has recently reinforced that you should not use condoms when indulging in sex. Those who do use contraceptives are saying they know better than the pope. Whilst I accept that many of us do know better than the pope when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa, for someone to call themselves a catholic and ignore the pope is a bit of a no-no.. They invented their own religion, especially if they don't stone adulterers. Or kill canaanites.
I'm not sure what you are saying at the end Derek?The desert nomads came up with their theory of everything and put it down. It has become accepted and to challenge it renders you suspect of some phobia or other, or maybe even gay.
Newton came up with his theory of gravity - amongst others - and wrote Principia Mathmatica, a much, much more important book than any bible. For a while it was seen as wrong to challenge it but eventually errors were discovered and we had it rewritten. Newton, to call him one of the greatest minds in the history of science is to underrate him, was wrong, yet we flew to the Moon using his science whilst knowing full well that much of what he'd written had been replaced.
Darwin saw the evidence for evolution. It was overwhelming. Nothing can be argued against evolution any more than we can argue against gravity. All Darwin did was explain the mechanics of it. His theories have been modified, substantially so, most notably with the discovery of DNA. In essence, Darwin was wrong, albeit in the mechanical side.
Or, to put it simply, our knowledge progresses. Those who present current evolutionary theories stand on his shoulders. In fact, the theory of evolution evolves, as do all scientific theories.
Now let's take a religion, say based on a book written about 3000 years ago with additions and modifications about 1700 years ago.
The book contains, we are told, moral certainties. But morals have moved on and it is no longer seen as a good thing to slaughter all the canaanites, or to criminalise gays, or stone adulterers. We've moved on. The old beliefs should be dead. We can follow the broad scope, such as loving your neighbour, but throwing your daughter to the mob is frowned upon. There are better books to go by.
We don't need religion for guidance. We don't need to fear eternal damnation to keep our wanton desires in check, we don't need to keep women in the kitchen.
The bible predated earth, wind and fire, and I don't mean the band. We've moved on to better things, and I might include the band in this.
Much of what was preached in the bible would be criminal nowadays. If, as many seem to do, it is alright to pick and choose (as Constantine did), then that is not christianity. You are believing in your own little construct.
The suggestion most often repeated is that there are 10bn devotees of religion in the world and atheists, of which I do not class myself, are arroagant as they are suggesting they know better than all these people. But, it would seem, an awful lot of those have invented their own. So in fact, each religion has few adherents. The current pope has recently reinforced that you should not use condoms when indulging in sex. Those who do use contraceptives are saying they know better than the pope. Whilst I accept that many of us do know better than the pope when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa, for someone to call themselves a catholic and ignore the pope is a bit of a no-no.. They invented their own religion, especially if they don't stone adulterers. Or kill canaanites.
Are you saying it is wrong for an atheist to ever protest that they do infact 'know better' than the pope when it comes to e.g. aids and africa?
I would have thought that was one of the concrete examples where it is right to stand up and say 'believe what you want, but we can't stand by while your belief needlessly kills people."
In that respect something like the primacy of human rights should be at the fore, and religion at the back. We cannot surely just say "there are two positions, both might be right to some minds, so we carry on and don't try and change e.g. the policy on no african condoms as it might offend.".
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 7th March 11:08
Derek Smith said:
History tells us that all scientific theories are wrong.
In the sense that ideas are constantly open to independent verification or refutation and theories develop as a result - as well as being replaced if it's 'wrong' as you succinctly put it. This is how the frequent failure of consensus science is so evident.Derek Smith said:
That is what makes the scientific method so dependable.
With one exception (MMGW) where the relevant discipline has morphed into a politicised quasi-religion, so curiously apt for this thread. 
Calling Gaia, if you exist///ajd said:
I'm not sure what you are saying at the end Derek?
Are you saying it is wrong for an atheist to ever protest that they do infact 'know better' than the pope when it comes to e.g. aids and africa?
I would have thought that was one of the concrete examples where it is right to stand up and say 'believe what you want, but we can't stand by while your belief needlessly kills people."
In that respect something like the primacy of human rights should be at the fore, and religion at the back. We cannot surely just say "there are two positions, both might be right to some minds, so we carry on and don't try and change e.g. the policy on no african condoms as it might offend.".
Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was that the religionist criticism of atheism is one of being outnumbered and conceit for ignoring what intelligent people (in the various churches) say. All I meant was that is precisely what those who pick and choose do. Firstly, they ignore inconvenient dogma, and they are also out of step with the majority of reglionists anyway. Are you saying it is wrong for an atheist to ever protest that they do infact 'know better' than the pope when it comes to e.g. aids and africa?
I would have thought that was one of the concrete examples where it is right to stand up and say 'believe what you want, but we can't stand by while your belief needlessly kills people."
In that respect something like the primacy of human rights should be at the fore, and religion at the back. We cannot surely just say "there are two positions, both might be right to some minds, so we carry on and don't try and change e.g. the policy on no african condoms as it might offend.".
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 7th March 11:08
As for ignoring what geniuses like Newton, Darwin and Einstein say - well! The only way to contradict them is with evidence. That's what was done with Newton's theories, and that's what's been done with Darwin's theory. It is, difficult thought the concept is, what will happen to Einstein. Belief, believe me, is not the way.
As you say, they can believe what the hell they want to. No one should restrict thoughts or conclusions. However, there are rights that every human being should have and if a religion preaches that these should be removed, then it is time to take action.
If a bloke is gay or a woman is a woman, they should be allowed to do their own thing without restrictions specific to them. To suggest they are evil or that they should be subservient is against modern morals and just because it is against some religions' teachings is immaterial.
When I was in my teens and early 20s I knocked around with a group which included a gay bloke. We all knew he was gay but we never mentioned it, as if it was a boil on his nose. Knowing him, I'm sure he appreciated our reasons, but now I can't help thinking that I, we, could have done it a lot better. I regret our stance even though I know the reasons.
Nowadays he'd be completely integrated. My eldest brought a gay friend, a black gay friend, to our house a few times. We chatted about Brighton gay clubs. It was of no consequence. My daughter had a male gay friend who, when she went through a difficult time, was a true friend. Brilliant bloke. He was quite happy to talk about his break up with his partner. This fundamental change in attitudes came about despite the objections of many of the religions. Modern morals are sourced from the secular in the main.
Derek Smith said:
Modern morals are sourced from the secular in the main.
Absolutely. The religious bang on about the bible/torah/koran being the source of morality, yet in my everyday life, it seems the right thing to do is often the complete opposite of the morality those books propagate. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek Smith said:
Modern morals are sourced from the secular in the main.
Absolutely. The religious bang on about the bible/torah/koran being the source of morality, yet in my everyday life, it seems the right thing to do is often the complete opposite of the morality those books propagate. 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek Smith said:
Modern morals are sourced from the secular in the main.
Absolutely. The religious bang on about the bible/torah/koran being the source of morality, yet in my everyday life, it seems the right thing to do is often the complete opposite of the morality those books propagate. Anyone of faith wish to explain this?
///ajd said:
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
Are you hinting that .. there must have been an intelligent designer at work in the process?
I ask for some examples as evidence to support the entropy-based evolution theory, which seems reasonable, and you tar me with that brush?! Don't be so binary.ash73 said:
By the way, single-celled to 50 ton dinosaurs to birds? Are there some examples in the history of evolution which support the theory?
The way you phrases this suggested evolution could not explain it. If not evolution, what exactly did you have in mind? It seemed you were implying a non-scientific deity type answer, but happy for you to confirm you rule that out.Troubleatmill said:
As tribal leader - he seemed to forget to take the tribe onto the boat
I concede it is a small detail.
It isn't structurally possible to build a wooden vessel of that size capable of floating and not breaking up.
(Unless gopher wood is actually steel )
The story may only list the heads of each family in the tribe. If the Ark was the central boat in an evacuation fleet then other smaller boats would have carried the rest of the tribe.I concede it is a small detail.
It isn't structurally possible to build a wooden vessel of that size capable of floating and not breaking up.
(Unless gopher wood is actually steel )
It is perfectly possible to build large wooden boats, more so to tie together several to make a large raft. The "impossible" construction relates only to a boat big enough to fit every animal in the world on to the ark.
Triremes were nearly 40 meters long and carried over a hundred crew. Chinese junks were built up to 130 meters, not far short of the Biblical length of the Ark. Add a few smaller boats and make flotilla and you have a completely plausible account.
Keep up at the back.
ash73 said:
. . . single-celled to 50 ton dinosaurs to birds? Are there some examples in the history of evolution which support the theory?
Evolutionary biology is one of the most accessible of sciences. There is little need for analogies. Darwin started it all. His book Origin of Species, whilst it might seem a little wordy now after >100 years, it is written in delightfully non-technical language. The only time things start to get weird is when we get to DNA.You ask for examples. All I can suggest is that you wander down to your library and get one of the many, many books on the subject, all of which have enough examples to satisfy all but the blind to evidence.
The only argument the religious have is that evolution was invented by some being and so she deserves the praise.
cymtriks said:
Troubleatmill said:
As tribal leader - he seemed to forget to take the tribe onto the boat
I concede it is a small detail.
It isn't structurally possible to build a wooden vessel of that size capable of floating and not breaking up.
(Unless gopher wood is actually steel )
The story may only list the heads of each family in the tribe. If the Ark was the central boat in an evacuation fleet then other smaller boats would have carried the rest of the tribe.I concede it is a small detail.
It isn't structurally possible to build a wooden vessel of that size capable of floating and not breaking up.
(Unless gopher wood is actually steel )
It is perfectly possible to build large wooden boats, more so to tie together several to make a large raft. The "impossible" construction relates only to a boat big enough to fit every animal in the world on to the ark.
Triremes were nearly 40 meters long and carried over a hundred crew. Chinese junks were built up to 130 meters, not far short of the Biblical length of the Ark. Add a few smaller boats and make flotilla and you have a completely plausible account.
Keep up at the back.
ash73 said:
By the way, single-celled to 50 ton dinosaurs to birds? Are there some examples in the history of evolution which support the theory?
How about a 2oz acorn to a 500 ton oak tree. I just a few hundred years. Things can change remarkably given the right conditions and time. But if you're blind to the evidence, you'd never believe a fully grown oak tree could have started out as an acorn. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff