NJS 3974 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Its common amongst atheists to believe religion and science are at odds, nothing could be further from the truth. They're as diametrically opposed as any two things can be - no amount of apologist twisting can change that. Wrong. The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult. One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat. So if nothing happens without a cause, what caused the beginning of the universe? Surely as it defies the laws of physics, it is by definition something devine, wouldnt you say? Goal post moving shite as usual. The vast majority of Theists don't know, understand or believe in a 14bn year old universe. Everything they do actually believe in has been proven to be wrong beyond ny kind of doubt. It's only since the big bang has been theorised that philosophical bullshit like that has been invented. I actually admire the honesty of Creationists more than the twisting insanity of people like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDannyB 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I also find it amusing when people try and pass off others words as their own to appear intelligent. I didnt. He just encapsulated nincely my "straw man argument" Ricky Gervais is attacking religion....oh it must be cool and intelligent, lets do the same shall we....ooh Oh look its Charlie Brooker, hes great in the guardian ha ha hes so funny. People try to look like free thinkers and end up looking like sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Its common amongst atheists to believe religion and science are at odds, nothing could be further from the truth. They're as diametrically opposed as any two things can be - no amount of apologist twisting can change that. Wrong. The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult. One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat. So if nothing happens without a cause, what caused the beginning of the universe? Surely as it defies the laws of physics, it is by definition something devine, wouldnt you say? Unfortunately its an impossible question to answer... especially as no-one even understands the universe as it is now (electric universe being the new idea), let alone how it began, what came before it (if anything) etc etc Yes people can theorise that it has always been there, or that it was created by a devine being... or that it doesnt even exist (holographic universe theory), and that we dont exist... to suggest it as "devine" is just a thoery, and as valid as any other, but ultimately is also impossible to prove or even really comprehend as being any more correct than any other theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I find it amusing when people backtrack after they've been rumbled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8980 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Gotta make sure there is a clear distinction made between religion and faith. It's amusing that scientists and those who trust the scientific method are accused of being arrogant; even though the most common answer from one is "I don't know". The staggering arrogance of someone saying that they know how the world was created or how life began, even if that answer is a simplified fairy tale, is something that forever tickles me. Aliens are likely to exist, but as has been discussed elsewhere, the chances of them conforming to the same form as we do are minute. The likelihood that such creatures have visited the planet even smaller. But even that is infinitely more likely than an omnipotent force, who early on was a vindictive jealous wrathful God and later became a mysterious shadowy figure wanting nothing to do with it's creations. The whole religion thing is based on the lottery of geography anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDannyB 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Its common amongst atheists to believe religion and science are at odds, nothing could be further from the truth. They're as diametrically opposed as any two things can be - no amount of apologist twisting can change that. Wrong. The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult. One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat. So if nothing happens without a cause, what caused the beginning of the universe? Surely as it defies the laws of physics, it is by definition something devine, wouldnt you say? Goal post moving shite as usual. The vast majority of Theists don't know, understand or believe in a 14bn year old universe. Everything they do actually believe in has been proven to be wrong beyond ny kind of doubt. It's only since the big bang has been theorised that philosophical bullshit like that has been invented. I actually admire the honesty of Creationists more than the twisting insanity of people like you. As I said in my first post, it depends how you define g-d. I think the problem is that mans stupidity over the years has made the whole idea seem ridiculous...of course it is the same popular culture that built religion to be a grey haired man in the sky, that is now seeking to break it down. I find it similar to the "ROONEY IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD / ROONEY IS CRAP" rubbish you read in the tabloids whenever he is going through whatever run of form he is in at the time. Popular consciousness. Sheep thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I also find it amusing when people try and pass off others words as their own to appear intelligent. I didnt. He just encapsulated nincely my "straw man argument" Ricky Gervais is attacking religion....oh it must be cool and intelligent, lets do the same shall we....ooh Oh look its Charlie Brooker, hes great in the guardian ha ha hes so funny. People try to look like free thinkers and end up looking like sheep. The problem is that you are stating or rather implying that all people who dont believe in religion are influenced by the likes of Ricky Gervais and Charlie Brooker. I myself dont believe in religion, but its got nothing to do with popular culture, its to do with my unease that the so called "men of god" abuse children, and that religion causes wars... how is that a "godly" way of life? In fact a lot of athiests probably lead a much more "devine" lifestyle than those who are religious. Religion also flies in the face of facts... "you must believe" they say... why must I believe? Especially when all the evidence points to that belief being completely wrong? Dont get me wrong I actually believe in forces at work that we can't explain... I dont believe them to be "devine" as such, but I do believe in spirituality and some sort of eternal plain which we ascend to. However religion is massively outdated and doesnt reflect society as it is now... it contradicts that which is known to be correct and implies that it's right regardless... and that isnt really a solid foundation for me to live my life by. Science also has its own problems, but again thats a completely different argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3974 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 As I said in my first post, it depends how you define g-d. I think the problem is that mans stupidity over the years has made the whole idea seem ridiculous...of course it is the same popular culture that built religion to be a grey haired man in the sky, that is now seeking to break it down. Intellectual masturbation aside, as I said for the vast majority their God is very defineable - and demonstrably ridiculous. I don't see how rationality can be dismissed as trendy or populist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDannyB 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I also find it amusing when people try and pass off others words as their own to appear intelligent. I didnt. He just encapsulated nincely my "straw man argument" Ricky Gervais is attacking religion....oh it must be cool and intelligent, lets do the same shall we....ooh Oh look its Charlie Brooker, hes great in the guardian ha ha hes so funny. People try to look like free thinkers and end up looking like sheep. The problem is that you are stating or rather implying that all people who dont believe in religion are influenced by the likes of Ricky Gervais and Charlie Brooker. I myself dont believe in religion, but its got nothing to do with popular culture, its to do with my unease that the so called "men of god" abuse children, and that religion causes wars... how is that a "godly" way of life? In fact a lot of athiests probably lead a much more "devine" lifestyle than those who are religious. Religion also flies in the face of facts... "you must believe" they say... why must I believe? Especially when all the evidence points to that belief being completely wrong? Dont get me wrong I actually believe in forces at work that we can't explain... I dont believe them to be "devine" as such, but I do believe in spirituality and some sort of eternal plain which we ascend to. However religion is massively outdated and doesnt reflect society as it is now... it contradicts that which is known to be correct and implies that it's right regardless... and that isnt really a solid foundation for me to live my life by. Science also has its own problems, but again thats a completely different argument I am talking about those who actively attack my faith, not those who choose to believe something different. Edited February 3, 2011 by DesperateDannyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 d-nny is s--thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDannyB 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 As I said in my first post, it depends how you define g-d. I think the problem is that mans stupidity over the years has made the whole idea seem ridiculous...of course it is the same popular culture that built religion to be a grey haired man in the sky, that is now seeking to break it down. Intellectual masturbation aside, as I said for the vast majority their God is very defineable - and demonstrably ridiculous. I don't see how rationality can be dismissed as trendy or populist. Then it is the instituation you need to mock, not the idea of god or peoples beliefs....because for all we KNOW it could be a big man with a grey beard somewhere.....doin' a smitin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Its common amongst atheists to believe religion and science are at odds, nothing could be further from the truth. They're as diametrically opposed as any two things can be - no amount of apologist twisting can change that. Wrong. The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult. One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat. So if nothing happens without a cause, what caused the beginning of the universe? Surely as it defies the laws of physics, it is by definition something devine, wouldnt you say? Goal post moving shite as usual. The vast majority of Theists don't know, understand or believe in a 14bn year old universe. Everything they do actually believe in has been proven to be wrong beyond ny kind of doubt. It's only since the big bang has been theorised that philosophical bullshit like that has been invented. I actually admire the honesty of Creationists more than the twisting insanity of people like you. As I said in my first post, it depends how you define g-d. I think the problem is that mans stupidity over the years has made the whole idea seem ridiculous...of course it is the same popular culture that built religion to be a grey haired man in the sky, that is now seeking to break it down. I find it similar to the "ROONEY IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD / ROONEY IS CRAP" rubbish you read in the tabloids whenever he is going through whatever run of form he is in at the time. Popular consciousness. Sheep thinking. I'm sorry but the only thing you've posted so far that has really any validity is the thing you cut and pasted Mans stupidity has lead him to attempt to discover what creates life, sustains it, and ultimately destroys it, its also lead him to try and crack the codes of space travel and the universe itself...is that really stupidity? No its not... its about trying to understand the basicc questions of why and how are we here. In the process we've discovered that most of what is written in religion is bollocks or is really stretching the truth... its nothing to do with popular culture or being stupid... its about a thirst for discovery and understanding... two traits that laugh in the face of stupidity. Comparing Rooney to god is nonsensical btw and really pointless. Edited February 3, 2011 by ajax_andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14030 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm pissed off like. For years people have been equating gay men with paedophiles and suddenly the standard definition is "Catholic priest". Where's our airtime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Parky, what's your take on this? Can't confirm it of course, but it looks good. An absolute massive amount of data has been hitting the Parky radar for a number of weeks...Mankind is moving to the edge of a big moments. * Reg the Annunaki it has been mistranslated and passed down incorrectly and we are aware it is misinformation: The Annunaki thing is completely made up. Anu (even going back to Sumer, Baylonian texts and later Egyptian) means spirit or a spirit guide, not a literal being at all. It is the moment when the 'earth meets the sky.' The 'Anu' guide you through the 'Book of the dead' and so on... Don't trust anybody who bangs on about the Annunaki as 7ft beings who has us as slaves and so on...Misinformation. The elite are losing control of the planet as we speak. Insider testiomony recently revealed that some key members have split from the ruling group and their is a power play going on right now. The insider predicted the first result of this would be seen in the Middles east and then China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm pissed off like. For years people have been equating gay men with paedophiles and suddenly the standard definition is "Catholic priest". Where's our airtime? I dont think anyone (certainly not me) is equating paedophiles with catholic priests as a whole... it is however an example of those supposedly closest to god commiting haneous crimes against another human being. If there had been lots of priests murdering prostitues i'd have used that as part of may argument... its not a dig at Catholic Priests, its just a nod towards something that doesnt add up in the grand scheme of religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Parky, what's your take on this? Can't confirm it of course, but it looks good. An absolute massive amount of data has been hitting the Parky radar for a number of weeks...Mankind is moving to the edge of a big moments. * Reg the Annunaki it has been mistranslated and passed down incorrectly and we are aware it is misinformation: The Annunaki thing is completely made up. Anu (even going back to Sumer, Baylonian texts and later Egyptian) means spirit or a spirit guide, not a literal being at all. It is the moment when the 'earth meets the sky.' The 'Anu' guide you through the 'Book of the dead' and so on... Don't trust anybody who bangs on about the Annunaki as 7ft beings who has us as slaves and so on...Misinformation. The elite are losing control of the planet as we speak. Insider testiomony recently revealed that some key members have split from the ruling group and their is a power play going on right now. The insider predicted the first result of this would be seen in the Middles east and then China. yeah like I said about the Annunaki it depends on who you believe... Sitchin for me is full of bollocks but he does have his supporters out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I also find it amusing when people try and pass off others words as their own to appear intelligent. I didnt. He just encapsulated nincely my "straw man argument" Ricky Gervais is attacking religion....oh it must be cool and intelligent, lets do the same shall we....ooh Oh look its Charlie Brooker, hes great in the guardian ha ha hes so funny. People try to look like free thinkers and end up looking like sheep. The problem is that you are stating or rather implying that all people who dont believe in religion are influenced by the likes of Ricky Gervais and Charlie Brooker. I myself dont believe in religion, but its got nothing to do with popular culture, its to do with my unease that the so called "men of god" abuse children, and that religion causes wars... how is that a "godly" way of life? In fact a lot of athiests probably lead a much more "devine" lifestyle than those who are religious. Religion also flies in the face of facts... "you must believe" they say... why must I believe? Especially when all the evidence points to that belief being completely wrong? Dont get me wrong I actually believe in forces at work that we can't explain... I dont believe them to be "devine" as such, but I do believe in spirituality and some sort of eternal plain which we ascend to. However religion is massively outdated and doesnt reflect society as it is now... it contradicts that which is known to be correct and implies that it's right regardless... and that isnt really a solid foundation for me to live my life by. Science also has its own problems, but again thats a completely different argument I am talking about those who actively attack my faith, not those who choose to believe something different. Fair enough, but you are debating on a thread to do with UFO's/Aliens which by religious definitions should surely make the extistance of such impossible or highly unlikely? Are they god's children too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3974 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Then it is the instituation you need to mock, not the idea of god or peoples beliefs....because for all we KNOW it could be a big man with a grey beard somewhere.....doin' a smitin' Zeus or Thor? Moving the posts to some kind of wider Deistic universal creator is one thing but equating that with tribal Gods from a small part of the world is for me where it all falls down. Religions are very much about a personal relationship with a defined entity (as well as power and money but that's a sideline) - imagining that relationship in the context of the universe as we know it now is where it goes a bit mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Parky, what's your take on this? Can't confirm it of course, but it looks good. An absolute massive amount of data has been hitting the Parky radar for a number of weeks...Mankind is moving to the edge of a big moments. * Reg the Annunaki it has been mistranslated and passed down incorrectly and we are aware it is misinformation: The Annunaki thing is completely made up. Anu (even going back to Sumer, Baylonian texts and later Egyptian) means spirit or a spirit guide, not a literal being at all. It is the moment when the 'earth meets the sky.' The 'Anu' guide you through the 'Book of the dead' and so on... Don't trust anybody who bangs on about the Annunaki as 7ft beings who has us as slaves and so on...Misinformation. The elite are losing control of the planet as we speak. Insider testiomony recently revealed that some key members have split from the ruling group and their is a power play going on right now. The insider predicted the first result of this would be seen in the Middles east and then China. yeah like I said about the Annunaki it depends on who you believe... Sitchin for me is full of bollocks but he does have his supporters out there. Sitchin is a stooge for the ruling elite. It's psyops in the sense that we are not in control of our past and were slaves and so on...Rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14030 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm getting the word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajax_andy 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Parky, what's your take on this? Can't confirm it of course, but it looks good. An absolute massive amount of data has been hitting the Parky radar for a number of weeks...Mankind is moving to the edge of a big moments. * Reg the Annunaki it has been mistranslated and passed down incorrectly and we are aware it is misinformation: The Annunaki thing is completely made up. Anu (even going back to Sumer, Baylonian texts and later Egyptian) means spirit or a spirit guide, not a literal being at all. It is the moment when the 'earth meets the sky.' The 'Anu' guide you through the 'Book of the dead' and so on... Don't trust anybody who bangs on about the Annunaki as 7ft beings who has us as slaves and so on...Misinformation. The elite are losing control of the planet as we speak. Insider testiomony recently revealed that some key members have split from the ruling group and their is a power play going on right now. The insider predicted the first result of this would be seen in the Middles east and then China. yeah like I said about the Annunaki it depends on who you believe... Sitchin for me is full of bollocks but he does have his supporters out there. Sitchin is a stooge for the ruling elite. It's psyops in the sense that we are not in control of our past and were slaves and so on...Rubbish. Stooge or no stooge he has no background in ancient Sumerian, whilst anyone who does states that he's wrong... still has his believers though and made a fair old mint before he died i'm sure. Tbh I dont believe in his translations at all... but I do quite like the concept Edited February 3, 2011 by ajax_andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34348 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Anyone know the url for Talk of the Tyne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lahey 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Parky, what's your take on this? Can't confirm it of course, but it looks good. An absolute massive amount of data has been hitting the Parky radar for a number of weeks...Mankind is moving to the edge of a big moments. * Reg the Annunaki it has been mistranslated and passed down incorrectly and we are aware it is misinformation: The Annunaki thing is completely made up. Anu (even going back to Sumer, Baylonian texts and later Egyptian) means spirit or a spirit guide, not a literal being at all. It is the moment when the 'earth meets the sky.' The 'Anu' guide you through the 'Book of the dead' and so on... Don't trust anybody who bangs on about the Annunaki as 7ft beings who has us as slaves and so on...Misinformation. The elite are losing control of the planet as we speak. Insider testiomony recently revealed that some key members have split from the ruling group and their is a power play going on right now. The insider predicted the first result of this would be seen in the Middles east and then China. Got a link for that Whitley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Parky, what's your take on this? Can't confirm it of course, but it looks good. An absolute massive amount of data has been hitting the Parky radar for a number of weeks...Mankind is moving to the edge of a big moments. * Reg the Annunaki it has been mistranslated and passed down incorrectly and we are aware it is misinformation: The Annunaki thing is completely made up. Anu (even going back to Sumer, Baylonian texts and later Egyptian) means spirit or a spirit guide, not a literal being at all. It is the moment when the 'earth meets the sky.' The 'Anu' guide you through the 'Book of the dead' and so on... Don't trust anybody who bangs on about the Annunaki as 7ft beings who has us as slaves and so on...Misinformation. The elite are losing control of the planet as we speak. Insider testiomony recently revealed that some key members have split from the ruling group and their is a power play going on right now. The insider predicted the first result of this would be seen in the Middles east and then China. Got a link for that Whitley? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lahey 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now