Is there intelligent life out there ?

[snowychap]

Anyone that is not agnostic should be locked up in a rubber roam and the key thrown away because they are not mentally stable.

:shock:

I hope you didn't mean it but it appeared as though you were suggesting that those who were not mentally stable ought to toddle off in to a 'rubber room'.

I'm not really sure what is supposed to constitute 'mentally stable' by the way.

[Jondaken]

The bible teaches that by faith alone will you get into heaven.

See, I have zero problem with faith.

If you have faith in God and believe that faith will lead you to heaven then more power to you. It's when you start supporting that faith with "evidence" that contradicts science that I have a problem. Faith doesn't require evidence, in fact evidence is the enemy of faith, faith requires a complete lack of evidence else you're acting on reason.

If you want to say that you believe in God, there's nothing to support that belief other than the bible, but you've got faith in it and that faith will lead you to heaven then I'll take my hat off to you.

I don't understand how anyone can act on faith alone, but I'll respect it. Until they start supplementing that faith with pseudoscience that contradicts everything that science teaches.

I have more respect for the people that turn around and say that dinosaur fossils are put on this earth as a test of faith than those that try to explain them away in quotes in the bible about monsters.

But nowhere in this thread have I contradicted anything that science has told us! Infact I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.

[JulieB]

Wasn't entirely aimed at you, but really the whole 'You shall be condemed' preaching bollocks was never the dudes intentions. Far from it.

I presume you're talking about Jesus as the Dude?

Doesn't exactly fit with Jesus forthright condemnation of the Pharisees & the Sadducees and their turning the Temple into a

den of robbers. He was not afraid to stand up for what he beleived in at all.

It is not any mans right to condemn anyone. We are not judges at all.

And surely it is not wrong to point out when Chindie is espousing his wish to rid the world of religion...that I point out that in fact the Bible predicts the "end of false religion at the hands of mankind who will strip her naked of her power & wealth" for the very reasons that have been given why some on VT despise religion.

[TheDon]

Anyone that is not agnostic should be locked up in a rubber roam and the key thrown away because they are not mentally stable.

:shock:

I hope you didn't mean it but it appeared as though you were suggesting that those who were not mentally stable ought to toddle off in to a 'rubber room'.

I'm not really sure what is supposed to constitute 'mentally stable' by the way.

Only if they claim knowledge over the existence of God

Lock them away for the safety of the populace (or at least so I can walk to the bus stop without them preaching to me).

But nowhere in this thread have I contradicted anything that science has told us! Infact I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.

Never said you did. I was just using your quote to point out my issues with people trying to claim evidence over religion when religion itself is a matter for faith. When people start looking for evidence to support their faith, and saying "the bible prophesied this!" (despite no one claiming it did until it happened) then I start having huge issues.

calling someone on here as "dumb as f**k - not that it was aimed at me - is against VT rules as far as I know

I said he APPEARED dumb as ****, not that he was.

Appearances can be deceptive!

[kurtsimonw]

Aren't threads that get turned into a religous debate great.

No?

I agree.

It's a never ending and somewht pointless arguement. One side is basing everything on faith and pretty much dismisses anything science throws at them. The other half basis it on fact and therefore will not change their mind.

[Jondaken]

Aren't threads that get turned into a religous debate great.

No?

I agree.

It's a never ending and somewht pointless arguement. One side is basing everything on faith and pretty much dismisses anything science throws at them. The other half basis it on fact and therefore will not change their mind.

Wouldnt say its pointless, I learned what an athiest is today :winkold:

And again, noone has been dismising anything science has to say.

[Reality]

Oh take me with you aliens! Let me live your rogish lifestyle.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's a never ending and somewht pointless arguement. One side is basing everything on faith and pretty much dismisses anything science throws at them. The other half basis it on fact and therefore will not change their mind.

Unless your me, who claims it's all bollocks and backs it up with pretentious pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

Then goes on about how apes are awesome.

[kurtsimonw]

It's a never ending and somewht pointless arguement. One side is basing everything on faith and pretty much dismisses anything science throws at them. The other half basis it on fact and therefore will not change their mind.

Unless your me, who claims it's all bollocks and backs it up with pretentious pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

Then goes on about how apes are awesome.

To be fair I've agreed with most of your posts.

And apes are awesome.

[JB]

Aren't threads that get turned into a religous debate great.

No?

I agree.

It's a never ending and somewht pointless arguement. One side is basing everything on faith and pretty much dismisses anything science throws at them. The other half basis it on fact and therefore will not change their mind.

Totally agree. Being interested in thread title, I decided to give it a read but found that it once again got turned into an off-topic slanging match.

I wish this whole thing would just be put to bed on here.

I was pretty disgusted to see one poster call another "dumb as ****". It seems that, more often than not, the atheist side of the debate that starts throwing the insults around.

Personally, whilst not religious, I have an open mind. Faith is of great comfort to some people, and the apparent pleasure that others take in ridiculing, insulting and deriding this is quite disturbing. A belief in intelligent design doesn't mean you necessarily adhere to the beliefs set out in words written by men.

In my experience, it seems that when it comes to these debates, the atheists are the ones more likely to aggressively force their beliefs upon you.

[Risso]

In my experience, it seems that when it comes to these debates, the atheists are the ones more likely to aggressively force their beliefs upon you.

That's because we're right. Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

[tonyh29]

Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

Not trying to be semantic but secularism does not equate to atheism. Secularism is tolerance of all religions, not disbelief in the existence of god.

And Atheism is not usually a state policy , secularism is. :winkold:

[mjmooney]

Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

I don't think they ever mounted "atheist crusades", i.e. atheism was not the (stated or otherwise) "reason" for their appalling crimes. They had far more crude aims (power, generally), and didn't need much of an excuse for a bit of mass murder.

The early Christian martyrs died because they refused to renounce their faith in favour of some other religion, be it Mithraism, Islam, whatever. I don't recall any pro-science atheists crucifying anybody because they didn't believe in evolution, relativity or quantum physics.

Which has always been one of my problems with the religious - they so often take the line that all religions are simply different ways to the same god, but when the chips are down they still insist on the staggering importance of trivial points of dogma.

Is God one or three-in-one? Who cares? It's all absurd.

[kurtsimonw]

In my experience, it seems that when it comes to these debates, the atheists are the ones more likely to aggressively force their beliefs upon you.

I wouldn't like to think I was overly aggressive.

My stance on it, like everything, is pretty simple. Prove God existed/(s) and I'll be religious. It's like anything, nobody actually believes it exists until proven. But the religous types for some reason twist this around and say "prove he didn't exist", which is quite ridiculous! And to be honest, I think that is one of the reasons athiests may seem to be being aggressive because a question like that isn't really acceptable because it has no logic at all.

[JulieB]

Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

Stalin had lots of people, killed banished to Siberia & persecuted in the name of Atheism!

Wiki

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion"

[LondonLax]

Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

They were not killing in the name of atheism, they were mass murderers who happened to also be athiests.

[mjmooney]

Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

Stalin had lots of people, killed banished to Siberia & persecuted in the name of Atheism!

Wiki

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion"

Sorry, but this is disingenuous.

Dictatorial regimes often persecute religions, because - and this is the "good side" of religion - some of the believers actually insist on the "love thy neighbour" idea (and good for them). Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany was a classic example. So they either co-opt the religion (Catholicism is usually co-operative), or they suppress it. It's a means to an end - the end being absolute control.

The Russian Revolution came about in response to harsh economic and social depradation and incredibly reactionary and oppressive rule by the Tsars and aristocrats, which was actively supported by the Orthodox Church. It's not surprising that there was an anti-religion backlash.

By the time Stalin seized power, the original good (?) intentions of the Revolution had long since been lost, but he and his henchmen continued to pay lip service to the Marxist-Leninist line, part of which was "no religion". If it had been more convenient to use religion as a means to exercise power I have no doubt he would have done so.

To imply that atheism was in any way the raison d'etre of Stalinist rule is simply wrong.

[Risso]

Nobody ever died in the name of atheism.

Stalin or Mao ...their governments were both secular and atheist ?

They were not killing in the name of atheism, they were mass murderers who happened to also be athiests.

Exactly. It's like saying that Tony Bliar invaded Iraq in the name of Newcastle United because he's a Newcastle fan.

[ender4]

how the hell did a thread about aliens get turned into a god debate?

anyway, no more god stuff please.

If there are aliens, they may be so foreign to us that we can't even tell they are there.

They could be so large or so small that we can see them, they could only be visible in light spectrums that we can see, they could be non-carbon based so we couldn't even tell they are alive.