Yet more religious nuttery

Talk about anything you want in here.

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by Quakerz » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:50 am

sacko_uk wrote:I see what you are saying Q and maybe it's the phrasing that is wrong in what I am attempting to say. The big bang, the theory of evolution etc still have many question marks.
They don't have any question marks - other than questions asked by idiots. They are accepted, proven explanations (facts)

The only question marks about the big bang are about what caused it. No one knows, and no one can know because it's impossible to go back to before the big bang. Easy to say "god did it" I suppose. But as no one can know, "god did it" is no more valid an explanation than pre-big bang blancmange exploded for no reason...but that's just silly right?

But the big bang happened, it's fact, it's unquestionable

Same with evolution. There are no question marks about the process and results.
Yeah...I don't disagree they have evidence but they are not universally accepted as complete, undeniable truths.
Unfortunately, not being accepted by people that don't know what they are talking about does not wash with me.
In fact, not all scientists say that both are truths, so they do have evidence, but they also require faith in the fact that what has been found is totally acceptable...which it isn't.
If a rocket scientist says to an evolutionary biologist "hey, I don't quite believe your explanation about evolution", it means nothing. You are clutching on to pretty meaningless straws, to justify your belief system.

Even if what you are saying about "scientists disagreeing meant something (which it doesn't because disagreeing scientists might be experts in completely different fields), it doesn't make your religious belief truer unfortunately.
I'm not putting science down or saying it doesnt work in facts, because it does, but its theories are not all accepted, even in the world of science. Therefore, it does require some faith because a theory does not mean fact
No. Once again, an accepted theory does not need any faith, for it is THE explanation. A hypothesis needs some faith in it, until the facts are put in place to back that hypothesis up and make it theory.
Religion does have facts, historical documents and so on.
Most historical documents are dubious. Even if it was a proven fact that jesus existed, it doesn't prove he had any of the special powers attributed to him, or that he was the son of god. Let's face it, at that time most things were a mystery to people and there wasn't much science to factually explain things, so what did people have to do? They had to make up stuff - ah well, thunder must be caused by thor, that'll do, explained.
Science too has facts but not all theories are accepted by all people.
It is not science's fault that not all people accept scientific theories. Neither does that make any weakness appear in the theories.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

sacko_uk
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:23 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by sacko_uk » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:58 am

Sorry, but they are not both proven theories beyond any doubt and its not science's fault that they are not accepted by others...there are plenty of question marks as with all theories. It's not clutching at straws its simply a reality.

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:40 pm

sacko_uk wrote:Not gullible, faith is still something that is used in so many areas of life and not just religion. You put faith in people, technology etc...it's not just something that is gullible and for religion.

The evidence is there for me and yes it requires faith, as does science etc...as they still work in theories with facts...as does religion. Science has not proved God for you but science also does not disprove God either, some scientists are Christians, others are not.
The burden of proof is on you, unfortunately. You're the one claiming a God exists so you're the one who has to provide the evidence to support your claim, otherwise I'm going to reject your claim. That is the nature of a rational mind, and if I accepted your claim without evidence then that would make me gullible. Hence, faith = gullibility, and religion is not grounded in evidence. Please stop comparing science and religion because they are nothing like each other.

Unfortunately as well, there is no evidence that God exists, which is why faith is required. Faith is not required when you have evidence, hence science needs no faith whatsoever. And science has not disproved a God exists? So what? You've got things the wrong way round: it's not "believe until disproven", it's "reject until proven", and that's the way it should always be.

"God of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance", that's all you're doing here, and they're both stupid: your ignorance is not proof of God.
sacko_uk wrote:I realise the Old Testament poses some real tough question marks for you and for alot of believers but if you look into the covenants with God in the OT and the fulfillment of a new covenant through Jesus, it will answer SOME of your questions. There is no cherry picking and if all of those things were to happen, Jesus and millions of Christians today would be doing them...but He didn't and we don't. Sadly, extremists do, which gives all religions a bad name.
It answers NONE of my questions. Jesus was God, God says he's unchanging and unceasing, and so why would he COMMAND his followers to do all that horrific stuff in the OT? Just for a laugh? Jesus even says that he hasn't come to change the laws, but to uphold them, plus there is horrific stuff in the NT too such as the promulgation of slavery and the oppression of women.

Your Bible is what gives Christians a bad name so don't just try and fob it off onto extremists: at least they're honest about what the Bible is commanding them to do.

You're cherry picking, and that invalidates the whole thing.

Tell me: why did God command that his followers stone gay people? Why did he command his followers to attack a village, take the young virgin girls as prizes, slaughter everyone else, and give God his share of young virgin girls? Why did he command you to stone non-believers, to kill witches, to oppress women, to stone blasphemers.

Notice how you're not denying that this stuff is in your Bible, you're merely defending it. So you're sacrificing your humanity for the sake of your religion. That really saddens me.

You're more moral than your God, and so am I, and you don't need the Bible for anything.
sacko_uk wrote:As for which being the correct religion, Christianity is, simply based on the fact that Jesus said He is the only way to God in a nutshell. I realise this will not satisfy you and cause further insults and problems, but that is how I approach it from my point of view. I have much respect for other religions but Christianity is the right one.
That's it? Because Jesus said so? That's your reason for distinguishing between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., because Jesus said so? This is where faith falls down: Mohammad said the same thing in the Qu'ran, and the Jews have their own faith based belief with regards to the afterlife.

You're correct though, the Bible states that Jesus said that. My question to you is: why should I trust what the Bible says? Harry Potter also says that Hogwarts exists and that wizards are real and Voldemort wants to kill everybody. Does that mean that's real too, because Harry Potter said so? No, of course not. Mohammad said the same thing as Jesus, does that mean the Qu'ran and Islam are correct and should be followed above all the other religions, because it said so? No, of course not.

There is no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed, the Bible is based upon hearsay, Jesus didn't fulfill ANY requirements for the Jewish Messiah which is why every Jew rejects him to this day, the Bible was written in stages over hundreds of years, we don't know who the authors were, we have no original copies (just copies of copies of copies), it was re-written, edited, and wasn't even begun until about 100 years after Jesus had apparently died, the council of Nicaea in 325 decided on the question of Jesus (the trinity), plus they decided which books to keep and which to chuck out, and Christianity was only made the official religion of Rome by Constantine because he stupidly believed that the Christian God had helped him conquer the other competing Roman Emperors on the battlefield to claim the title for himself. So not only is there no evidence that any god exists but the history of your religion shows it up for being a complete and utter fabrication from start to finish!

Tell me again why I should trust what the Bible says?
sacko_uk wrote:Sorry, but they are not both proven theories beyond any doubt and its not science's fault that they are not accepted by others...there are plenty of question marks as with all theories. It's not clutching at straws its simply a reality.
No, you're wrong.

Evolution is a FACT.

The Big Bang is a FACT.

Even if they weren't, it's irrelevant to the existence of a god or the truth of your religion, so I fail to see the relevance. And please don't mention faith again: you don't need faith when you have testable evidence, and lots of it.

These two theories are so complete and backed up by so much evidence that they are almost beyond reproach. The entire scientific community is agreed on this; the ENTIRE scientific community. I'll happily share the evidence with you if you want, or you could read a non-biased book.

However, if we disprove either of them, then we need theories to replace both of them.

And anyone who replaced the Theory of Evolution AND the Big Bang Theory with theories which contained enough evidence to topple both of them simultaneously, and a theory to prove the existence of God, would receive a Nobel Prize.

So where's your Nobel Prize?

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by Quakerz » Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:30 pm

sacko_uk wrote:Sorry, but they are not both proven theories beyond any doubt
No.

To be called theory it HAS to be proven beyond doubt.

It is not the theories fault if someone can't accept it. Nor does it make the theory suddenly become less truthful.

Your problem here is that your starting premise is "not proven beyond doubt" - yes they are proven beyond doubt. So if you build an argument on that incorrect premise, then nothing you extrapolate from it can be accurate or anywhere near.

Keep your beliefs if you want sacko, but go back to the drawing board on this one because you're presenting a baseless argument.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:54 pm

Quakerz wrote:
sacko_uk wrote:Sorry, but they are not both proven theories beyond any doubt
No.

To be called theory it HAS to be proven beyond doubt.

It is not the theories fault if someone can't accept it. Nor does it make the theory suddenly become less truthful.

Your problem here is that your starting premise is "not proven beyond doubt" - yes they are proven beyond doubt. So if you build an argument on that incorrect premise, then nothing you extrapolate from it can be accurate or anywhere near.

Keep your beliefs if you want sacko, but go back to the drawing board on this one because you're presenting a baseless argument.
Exactly. It's like saying the Theory of Gravity is not proven beyond doubt, or "it's only a theory", or whatever.

The Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory, are in as much doubt as the Theory of Gravity (it's actually called the Theory of General Relativity, but it's essentially a theory explaining gravity).

User avatar
ArmchairDiehard
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:27 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by ArmchairDiehard » Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:15 pm

Quakerz wrote:
stayhigh13 wrote:I would hazard a guess as someone with a long throw who is also tall.
What about Steve Backley?

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:25 pm


User avatar
grytters
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Sheffield

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by grytters » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:37 am

So. 148 Kenyan students shot dead by "Islamic Extremists" and the World hardly bats an eyelid.

Serves them right for not drawing pisse-pauvre satirical cartoons & being white, I suppose…
Bring Back the Quarters

Henley
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Yet more religious nuttery

Post by Henley » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:23 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Spyman wrote:I didn't miss your point - I was playing devils advocate. If you could prevent all future death, suffering, injustice caused by religion, for every future generation by wiping one generation off the face of the earth, wouldn't that be the best course of action?
No, and I'm not sure why you'd ever seriously think my answer to that question would ever be anything other than no.
Fuck that, my answer would be an unequivocal 'YES'.

Post Reply