Being A Christian

[insaintee]

It's normally religious people you need to explain that to. Every atheist I know accepts the fact that they may be wrong and there may be a God, but until there is evidence to disprove their non belief then they will go on not believing.

I normally phrase it as "Evolution doesn't discount an intelligent designer".

It does discount biblical stories of creation, though..

Not really. Take the statement that god took the dust of the earth and formed Adam, how is that different from the idea that we evolved out of mud

What it suggests is that a fundamentalist literal interpretation of the bible is discounted

[insaintee]

You are correct. Religion has absolutely no business comparing itself to science.

Religion belongs quite rightly in with all the other quackery like astrology, santa clause and the tooth fairy.

That's an assertion not an argument.

I've worked personally with a number of world famous evolutionary biologists (yes such things do exist). Some are not religious, some are to claim the vast majority of scientists are atheists is again an assertion with no evidence to back it up. There are some arseholes like Richard Dawkins who claim to speak for the whole scientific community but quite frankly they have no right to do so. Furthermore most that fall in to that category tend to be poor scientists that need the controversy to further their careers.

Statements like that might be ok for a wind up in a football forum. But it does not come from any scientific training, investigation or evidence.

The key quality of any scientist should always be an open mind.

[oaksoft]

That's an assertion not an argument.

I've worked personally with a number of world famous evolutionary biologists (yes such things do exist). Some are not religious, some are to claim the vast majority of scientists are atheists is again an assertion with no evidence to back it up. There are some arseholes like Richard Dawkins who claim to speak for the whole scientific community but quite frankly they have no right to do so. Furthermore most that fall in to that category tend to be poor scientists that need the controversy to further their careers.

Statements like that might be ok for a wind up in a football forum. But it does not come from any scientific training, investigation or evidence.

The key quality of any scientist should always be an open mind.

An open mind providing someone has the decency to provide some evidence.

[faraway saint]

Possibly the beat thread for absolute nonsense............................................

Started by a lunatic and followed by more.....................

Forums shite.

[insaintee]

Possibly the beat thread for absolute nonsense............................................

Started by a lunatic and followed by more.....................

Forums shite.

Welcome to the mad house

[insaintee]

An open mind providing someone has the decency to provide some evidence.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Let me give you an example from a completely different field. The Paranormal, plenty of people would say there is no such thing as a ghost. And yet some academics have managed to get fairly hefty research grants into the field. I think it's fair to suggest the published literature is questionable to say the least, what is published is in my opinion unconvincing.

The problem is how would you apply the scientific method to investigating the existence of ghosts. I'm pretty sure that it's not being apply appropriately, but I also don't know how I would apply it. This is not my area of expertise and I'm not interested enough to really investigate it.

So do ghosts exist. I'm open minded. It's really not important to me one way or another. I do get up set when I see "spiritualists" taking advantage of others, but I'm also aware that the victims are at to a degree culpable and possibly get something in out of the experience.

So do ghosts exist Idon't know and I'm not afraid to admit that

[RickMcD]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. There has been interesting debate and it's no surprise the old chestnut about science v religion appeared. A good thread partly spoiled by a couple of the usual suspects spouting off at one another. If we could cut that out we wouldn't be having a debate in another place about the future or otherwise of our great forum. A scientist I mentioned before somewhere always maintained that scientists in general always have a right guid conceit o' themselves. The bloke I refer to was a committed Christian who didn't see that as a paradox. What is paradoxical is that all religions see themselves as a power for good yet almost all religions, possibly every one, has caused massive human suffering at one time or another.

An interesting thread. Keep it up, as the actress used to say to a cleric. And maybe invective shouldn't be used, so get a f**king grip,guys!

[oaksoft]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Let me give you an example from a completely different field. The Paranormal, plenty of people would say there is no such thing as a ghost. And yet some academics have managed to get fairly hefty research grants into the field. I think it's fair to suggest the published literature is questionable to say the least, what is published is in my opinion unconvincing.

The problem is how would you apply the scientific method to investigating the existence of ghosts. I'm pretty sure that it's not being apply appropriately, but I also don't know how I would apply it. This is not my area of expertise and I'm not interested enough to really investigate it.

So do ghosts exist. I'm open minded. It's really not important to me one way or another. I do get up set when I see "spiritualists" taking advantage of others, but I'm also aware that the victims are at to a degree culpable and possibly get something in out of the experience.

So do ghosts exist Idon't know and I'm not afraid to admit that

Whilst your first sentence is correct the problem comes when you fail to provide evidence or actively fight those trying to disprove religion - lack of credibility. That is specifically true when advocates of unproven stuff like religion actively attack those who ask awkward questions. Religion is the very definition of a closed mind. You would need to look at how many people were killed for daring to question the Bible or the Quran etc.

Religious people are the very last people who should be criticising anyone about being closed minded.

In total contrast, to this day I am not aware of a scientist being killed for disputing accepted science. In fact quite the opposite. We made heroes out of people like Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger and Heisenberg who helped disprove parts of Newtons mechanics leading to a major reworking of the fundamentals of all science. And they have not finished yet either withe the Grand Unified Theory still incomplete.

No religion would ever tolerate that and this is the reason why religion should never be mentioned as equivalent to science.

Edited February 28, 2016 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Possibly the beat thread for absolute nonsense............................................

Started by a lunatic and followed by more.....................

Forums shite.

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. There has been interesting debate and it's no surprise the old chestnut about science v religion appeared. A good thread partly spoiled by a couple of the usual suspects spouting off at one another. If we could cut that out we wouldn't be having a debate in another place about the future or otherwise of our great forum. A scientist I mentioned before somewhere always maintained that scientists in general always have a right guid conceit o' themselves. The bloke I refer to was a committed Christian who didn't see that as a paradox. What is paradoxical is that all religions see themselves as a power for good yet almost all religions, possibly every one, has caused massive human suffering at one time or another.

An interesting thread. Keep it up, as the actress used to say to a cleric. And maybe invective shouldn't be used, so get a f**king grip,guys!

Has it ever occurred to either of you two numpties to ignore what you dont like and just get on with your points?

If I had a pound for every time you two posted something which was polluted by a whiny sentence in it about other posters I would be a rich dude.

[oaksoft]

If oaky gets stuck by lightning today, it will start to make some doubter's believe.

Please God make it happen.

I have spent a few days blasting religion for the pile of superstitious shite that it is.

On the "Lords day" too no less.

His revenge?

Beautiful clear blue skies and a breakthrough in my research after months of getting nowhere.

Lol.

[oaksoft]

The Sabbath Day is a Saturday not a Sunday.

Feeling bad about not knowing that would like feeling bad that I cant remember the street in Harry Potter where Sirius kept his house.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Let me give you an example from a completely different field. The Paranormal, plenty of people would say there is no such thing as a ghost. And yet some academics have managed to get fairly hefty research grants into the field. I think it's fair to suggest the published literature is questionable to say the least, what is published is in my opinion unconvincing.

The problem is how would you apply the scientific method to investigating the existence of ghosts. I'm pretty sure that it's not being apply appropriately, but I also don't know how I would apply it. This is not my area of expertise and I'm not interested enough to really investigate it.

So do ghosts exist. I'm open minded. It's really not important to me one way or another. I do get up set when I see "spiritualists" taking advantage of others, but I'm also aware that the victims are at to a degree culpable and possibly get something in out of the experience.

So do ghosts exist Idon't know and I'm not afraid to admit that

The Paranormal, Plenty people into that sort of thing I'm not one of them. However have seen a few ghosts in my time so how can I explain what they look like. Think of looking at your refection on a shop window that's exactly how they look. Now the point the finger and laugh mob will soon be in on the attack.

I'm more interested in space and what's out there. Some in the scientific world will tell you through physics that there has to be millions of intelligent life forms out there. How can there be trillions of planets out there yet we are the only planet to have the building blocks of life. After all everything out there came from the same big bang. Wonder if life was ever found what that would do to Christianity

[Stuart Dickson]

The Paranormal, Plenty people into that sort of thing I'm not one of them. However have seen a few ghosts in my time so how can I explain what they look like. Think of looking at your refection on a shop window that's exactly how they look. Now the point the finger and laugh mob will soon be in on the attack.

I'm more interested in space and what's out there. Some in the scientific world will tell you through physics that there has to be millions of intelligent life forms out there. How can there be trillions of planets out there yet we are the only planet to have the building blocks of life. After all everything out there came from the same big bang. Wonder if life was ever found what that would do to Christianity

I doubt any St Mirren fan would argue about the existence of ghosts. Many will have witnessed them at the club over the years...more often than not selected to play in midfield.

[insaintee]

Whilst your first sentence is correct the problem comes when you fail to provide evidence or actively fight those trying to disprove religion - lack of credibility. That is specifically true when advocates of unproven stuff like religion actively attack those who ask awkward questions. Religion is the very definition of a closed mind. You would need to look at how many people were killed for daring to question the Bible or the Quran etc.

Religious people are the very last people who should be criticising anyone about being closed minded.

In total contrast, to this day I am not aware of a scientist being killed for disputing accepted science. In fact quite the opposite. We made heroes out of people like Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger and Heisenberg who helped disprove parts of Newtons mechanics leading to a major reworking of the fundamentals of all science. And they have not finished yet either withe the Grand Unified Theory still incomplete.

No religion would ever tolerate that and this is the reason why religion should never be mentioned as equivalent to science.

You've changed the parameters of you're argument. You're now saying religion is wrong because people who are religious do bad things. It's a bit like saying politics is bad because politicians do bad things.

Far more people died because they questioned Mau's hand book or because they belonged to race that hitler's psudoscience deemed sub human (indeed not even just hitler social darwinism was used to justify a whole load of the worst of the colonial excesses). So I'm sorry look at some of the scientific "heros" Daulton, Wright etc and they quite unsavoury. Science does Some scientists do not have as clean hands as you might think.

You're also right in that scientific orthodoxy is ever changing and evolving, but certainly careers can go down the tube if stray from that orthodoxy. You can question these things but only within certain parameters. I'd certainly not even consider publishing if I found evidence that climatic change might be either of a lesser magnitude or of lesser impact than currently thought. There are similar unspoken restraints in some areas of the health/biological sector as well.

Religion has definitely reformed it's self many times and the ideas and concepts within it have changed to reflect changed human understanding.

[insaintee]

I think what oaky was trying to point out was that it is believers who are making claims about the existence of deities and so the burden of proof should fall upon them. To date, no peer reviewed scientific evidence has been provided to prove the existence of a deity.

You only need to look at the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The claims made there are no more ridiculous than those made in the Bible etc. It is obviously all made up, but still, no more ridiculous.

If I claimed that the end of the universe had an ice cream shop with a huge chocolate fountain and operated by a giant gnu, you would quite rightly scorn me and ask for proof. You wouldn't find my claim acceptable just because I said "You can't prove me wrong!". You would probably just let me go on believing it if I wanted, as long as it didn't harm others or have it used as an excuse for the deaths of millions of people.

ETA: That b'stard oaky got there before me.

I'd be cool with what ever you believed or disbelieved.

I just think other people should be cool with what I believe or disbelieve.

ETA On the question of evidence. I'd be interesting to know how you or Oakey suggest we apply scientific methodology to the existence of god.

Edited February 28, 2016 by insaintee

[faraway saint]

Good god. ????

[shull]

Good god. ????

Indeed Boss.

Whit a god awful thread.

Zzzzzzzzzz

[Stuart Dickson]

You've changed the parameters of you're argument. You're now saying religion is wrong because people who are religious do bad things. It's a bit like saying politics is bad because politicians do bad things.

Far more people died because they questioned Mau's hand book or because they belonged to race that hitler's psudoscience deemed sub human (indeed not even just hitler social darwinism was used to justify a whole load of the worst of the colonial excesses). So I'm sorry look at some of the scientific "heros" Daulton, Wright etc and they quite unsavoury. Science does Some scientists do not have as clean hands as you might think.

You're also right in that scientific orthodoxy is ever changing and evolving, but certainly careers can go down the tube if stray from that orthodoxy. You can question these things but only within certain parameters. I'd certainly not even consider publishing if I found evidence that climatic change might be either of a lesser magnitude or of lesser impact than currently thought. There are similar unspoken restraints in some areas of the health/biological sector as well.

Religion has definitely reformed it's self many times and the ideas and concepts within it have changed to reflect changed human understanding.

I think that's Oaksoft owned.

[Stuart Dickson]

Indeed Boss.

Whit a god awful thread.

Zzzzzzzzzz

I'd be cool with what ever you believed or disbelieved.

I just think other people should be cool with what I believe or disbelieve.

ETA On the question of evidence. I'd be interesting to know how you or Oakey suggest we apply scientific methodology to the existence of god.

I suspect you're wasting your time with these two narcissists. Tolerance isn't something they practice.

It won't help you but I agree with you entirely in this point. Why does there have to be proof when you have faith? If it gives comfort to an individual why take that away?

[murray street]

Hate to say this but I agree with the plumber.

If you said I know a Pakistani, Chinese, Communist, Homosexual, Irishman, Pole, Syrian etc. This thread would have been closed straight away and rightly so, What you have done intentionally or otherwise is attack the morals of an entire religion based on the conduct of one individual.

I'm not defending the conduct of the individual, but really the religious persuasions of the individual are not relevant.

Gaun the hamilton accies, they took a point off the fenìans on friday night and we ran the proddies close yesterday.

theres only one religion thats st mirren.

Edited February 28, 2016 by murray street

[insaintee]

Good god.

Bad god. Haven't you been listening to Oakey and Farty

[faraway saint]

Bad god. Haven't you been listening to Oakey and Farty

Bad Faraway.

[shull]

Bad Forum

[linwood buddie]

.

Edited February 28, 2016 by linwood buddie

[faraway saint]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances2/500x/4544740.jpg ​

Getting this when link is clicked......................

404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.