Finally, proof there is no God.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But the bible isn't sold as a set of separate theories, it's sold as the indisputable word of god. So if one bit fails, you have to question it all.

Like a trial. If the prosecution can prove beyond doubt that part of the accused's story is a lie, and even better force them to admit they lied about certain aspects, then they are well on their way to getting a guilty verdict.

[ATG]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the bible isn't sold as a set of separate theories, it's sold as the indisputable word of god.

No it isn't. It just isn't. Have your every spent any time actually listening to what religious people believe, rather just making up this intellectually bankrupt crap?

[WinstonWolf]

ATG said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the bible isn't sold as a set of separate theories, it's sold as the indisputable word of god.

No it isn't. It just isn't. Have your every spent any time actually listening to what religious people believe, rather just making up this intellectually bankrupt crap?

Because religion isn't intellectually bankrupt crap?

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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 . . .

Fair enough. But 7 pair of each kind could mean just 14 birds in all, as a bird is a kind of animal. Not 7 pair of pigeons, 7 pair of starlings etc. Although the fact that several individual species of bird appear on the unclean list suggests maybe not.

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.

Isn't Genesis 6 the main source of "two of every kind", which is immediately contradicted by Genesis 7 where 7 or 7 pairs are generally are found? Some more modern versions of Gen7 remain with 2, which is probably just to iron out God's inconsistencies!

Noah would have needed more than two anyway as after the flood had ended he built an altar and sacrificed "some of every clean animal and bird" to the Lord....so it seems pretty pointless saving them in the first place!

And how would Moses know what was clean/unclean? I didn't think that clean/unclean animals were defined until Leviticus which came around 1,350 years later in biblical history terms no? If clean/unclean animals were known to Noah, why the need to tell Moses again?

[Burwood]

ATG said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the bible isn't sold as a set of separate theories, it's sold as the indisputable word of god.

No it isn't. It just isn't. Have your every spent any time actually listening to what religious people believe, rather just making up this intellectually bankrupt crap?

You mean a specific religious speakers opinion. The fact is the bible is considered the word of god. The bible literally says so.

Don't use the word intellect and bible in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive.

[///ajd]

ATG said:

turbobloke said:

"A new theory could answer the question of how life began â?“ 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.

^^^ this

You should ask as many questions as you like, and question as many things as you like.

This includes the question, "does there have to be a why?". No is one perfectly valid assumption, it is also erroneous to assume there has to be an answer to "why?"

[Troubleatmill]

Moonhawk said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How is atheism an easier or more comfortable option than religion?

You are quite literally made of stardust.
Stars had to die (One has died every second since the big bang ) in order for you to be here.
Your left hand will comprise of different stars from your right hand.
Forget Jesus dying for you. Billions of stars have died for you.
And when you die - your atoms go on and become other things.

That is far more wonderful a concept than the big CCTV in the sky watching your every more waiting to damn you into hell or purgatory.

[///ajd]

ATG said:

No it isn't. It just isn't. Have your every spent any time actually listening to what religious people believe, rather just making up this intellectually bankrupt crap?

Can you explain? In terms of the bible, what do religious people believe?

How much of the bible is to be believed?

Why is it OK to believe some of it, and not other parts?

What about parts of the bible that are homophobic? Are they to be followed?

[anonymous-user]

Moonhawk said:

How is atheism an easier or more comfortable option than religion?

All I'll say is it's much easier to believe in nothing so to have nothing to explain about yourself to others, nothing you feel you have to justify on a personal level.
On PH that is a very safe position.
Also I think some struggle to perceive possibilities that things in this universe may be very different to what we think they are, so much we can't see or don't know yet.

To those that think that Christianity is all about seeking the comfort of everlasting life, I'd say think again. It's more about making this life a better one, not the next.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 2nd March 19:54

[Troubleatmill]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I will write this again.....
You are quite literally made of stardust.
Stars had to die (One has died every second since the big bang ) in order for you to be here.
Your left hand will comprise of different stars from your right hand.
Forget Jesus dying for you. Billions of stars have died for you.
And when you die - your atoms go on and become other things.

That is far more wonderful a concept than the big CCTV in the sky watching your every more waiting to damn you into hell or purgatory.

[Derek Smith]

ATG said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the bible isn't sold as a set of separate theories, it's sold as the indisputable word of god.

No it isn't. It just isn't. Have your every spent any time actually listening to what religious people believe, rather just making up this intellectually bankrupt crap?

The question 'what do religious people believe' has no meaning as religious people believe different things. It is not sect specific either. Some western catholics, both male and female, believe that women are quite capable of performing the sacramental procedures, while others, including some women, believe that they are, by nature, flawed so cannot do so. Further, some anglicans, as we know, are so upset at women being allowed responsibility over and above arranging the alter flowers that they have joined the church's competitors. I wonder if they cross their fingers when rubbish biscuit is turned into flesh.

Many christian sects take the bible as, well, their bible, believing it to be the inspired word of their particular god.

So for some each word in precious. For others it is more a take it or leave it, the bit about stoning adulterers often falling into the latter category. Not so sure about throwing you daughters to the mob for a bit of peace and quiet. I mean, we've all been tempted to do that.

[Burwood]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

who has anything to explain to others? And insofar as knowledge, i will watch any Cox, Attenborough, Klaus, Hawking series. I'm learning all the time.

[Troubleatmill]

Derek Smith said:

The question 'what do religious people believe' has no meaning as religious people believe different things. It is not sect specific either. Some western catholics, both male and female, believe that women are quite capable of performing the sacramental procedures, while others, including some women, believe that they are, by nature, flawed so cannot do so. Further, some anglicans, as we know, are so upset at women being allowed responsibility over and above arranging the alter flowers that they have joined the church's competitors. I wonder if they cross their fingers when rubbish biscuit is turned into flesh.

Many christian sects take the bible as, well, their bible, believing it to be the inspired word of their particular god.

So for some each word in precious. For others it is more a take it or leave it, the bit about stoning adulterers often falling into the latter category. Not so sure about throwing you daughters to the mob for a bit of peace and quiet. I mean, we've all been tempted to do that.

It is a nice cafeteria. Isn't it.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't agree. If anything atheism deals with more uncertainty and requires more self belief than following some scriptures that you are indoctrinated in. I can remember thinking - I should believe this because others do. Belief is an easy way out. Don't question. just follow. Religion tells you want to do, what to think, how to be homophobic in some cases, what rules to live by. Indeed, the safe option is not to question or doubt and just follow, go with the flow.

Atheism on the other hand requires the rejection of religion and indoctrination, and thinking for yourself about what questions to ask, what evidence to seek, how to rationale available evidence and theories, how to deal yourself with the pointlessness of existence and what morals and principles of right and wrong to adopt.

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ah! The scientific perspective.

Religionists know. Atheists don't believe. Scientists know that everything else they think they know will be proved wrong in enough time. Whilst there is much argument as to the source, Haldane, a scientist and geneticist, said:

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286

He also said:

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

So, in summary, he reckoned that he was an atheist and that the universe is so wonderful and complex that he would never be able to understand it. So he didn't have your suggested struggle.

It's those who believe who are the ones with closed minds.

[s2art]

Derek Smith said:

Ah! The scientific perspective.

Religionists know. Atheists don't believe. Scientists know that everything else they think they know will be proved wrong in enough time. Whilst there is much argument as to the source, Haldane, a scientist and geneticist, said:

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286

He also said:

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

So, in summary, he reckoned that he was an atheist and that the universe is so wonderful and complex that he would never be able to understand it. So he didn't have your suggested struggle.

It's those who believe who are the ones with closed minds.

Stap me sideways! I agree with Derek. (wonders off to get a stiff drink)

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

Ah! The scientific perspective.

Religionists know. Atheists don't believe. Scientists know that everything else they think they know will be proved wrong in enough time. Whilst there is much argument as to the source, Haldane, a scientist and geneticist, said:

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286

He also said:

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

So, in summary, he reckoned that he was an atheist and that the universe is so wonderful and complex that he would never be able to understand it. So he didn't have your suggested struggle.

It's those who believe who are the ones with closed minds.

Religion does not require the closing off of avenues of possibility.
Agnosticism does not.
Only Atheism does.

[s2art]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

...how to deal yourself with the pointlessness of existence

Is that really the conclusion you've reached, after all that thinking? Being an atheist must be pretty depressing. An entire universe existing for no purpose sounds completely illogical to me.

Why? Maybe its mere inevitability, along the 'nature abhors a vacuum' principle. Or perhaps better, if 'nothing' can be assigned an energy level (zero, one assumes) then there will be an infinite number of levels below that which quantum mechanics principles state are allowed to be occupied. That is 'nothing' isnt stable.

[s2art]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which possibilities does atheism close off? I think you confuse 'a lack of belief' with 'a belief in the lack of'.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

...how to deal yourself with the pointlessness of existence

Is that really the conclusion you've reached, after all that thinking? Being an atheist must be pretty depressing. An entire universe existing for no purpose sounds completely illogical to me.

Quite the opposite. It is extremely liberating knowing that you can live your life to the full - there is no after life, no god to serve, no need to waste time plotting to kill infidels, or persecute homosexuals, or otherwise generally fritter your life away on complete nonsense dreamt up hundreds or thousands of years ago in the dark ages when people thought storms were God being angry. Live life for now, not for some 70-odd promised virgins.