All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Chindie]

Give it up fellas, we're back to 'father of the atheists' Anthony Flew. That was done to death well over 12 months ago. Nothing is going in here. You could present cast iron evidence there was no god and there would be an answer to it explaining how the Bible was right.

[TheDon]

Guess what, it doesn't matter how small the chance, we're only here to be able to comment on it because it happened. We have a biased sample size.

Of course it does. When something goes beyond the probability of what's considered a NIL probability in every other sphere of mathematics or science

Considered by who? In what context?

You still don't get it, a chance is a chance, you might ignore that chance due to it being improbably unlikely, but that doesn't chance the fact that there's still a chance it'll happen.

You seem to have some misguided idea that just because someone decides that when you get small enough it's considered a zero chance that that actually means there's zero chance of it occurring. It doesn't. It just means that it's statistically unlikely to have any bearing on anything within our lifetimes, so it's ok to ignore it.

You really don't have even the most basic grasp of statistics. It's embarrassing.

[Sie]

You incredulity beggars belief Julie and you're completely blind to it. It's not about my viewpoint, its about the scientific community's viewpoint. How many names do you think would be on this page if we could list every scientist in the world who dismissed ID because it doesn't hold water?

It doesn't matter WHAT anyone IS. What's important is WHAT they are saying!!

I don't care how many scientists agree or disagree with Dawkins or New Darwinsim. In a survey done in the US in 1997 4 out of 10 scientists admitted they beleived in a personal God. That was roughly the same since the survey was carried out in 1904.

According to an article in the Guardian many scientists in a more secular Europe feel so pressured into not supporting ID or a beleif in God that they keep private their opinions.

In complaining that Schroeder is a Jew - you are expressing classic Bulverism which is a logical fallacy in which, rather than proving that an argument in favour of an opinion is wrong, a person instead assumes that the opinion is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held it.

Scientists like Noble & Meyer were so outraged by the amount of mis-information that was being banded about about ID and what was being proposed by anti - theists like Dawkins - that they stood up and mad themselves heard last September and started the website C4ID.

That site would then give scientists the chance to voice both sides of the arguments - WITHOUT religion playing any part of it.

Has it ever occurred to you to question WHY they are saying it? You can bandy about accusations of bulverism all you like, it doesn't negate the massive elephant in the room - every single one of your sources is out prove the divine is real with predudice. They start with the conclusion of ID and set out to find things to support it or, rather, cast doubt on things that don't

[TheDon]

Give it up fellas, we're back to 'father of the atheists' Anthony Flew. That was done to death well over 12 months ago. Nothing is going in here. You could present cast iron evidence there was no god and there would be an answer to it explaining how the Bible was right.

I think the bible definitely has some thing right, like this:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Strangely in contradiction to Julie's signature though

[snowychap]

The probability that the building blocks of life came about when examined on a molecular level.

In otherwords IIRC the chains of amino acids being able to form in the right order, in the right conditions to form self replicating DNA, just by chance.

If you watch the video as I did last year, then it explains matters far better than I can.

You completely missed what I was asking.

You claimed, "When something goes beyond the probability of what's considered a NIL probability in every other sphere of mathematics or science ..."

I asked you what this level of probability was (i.e. give us some numbers, please) and not which event you believed satisfied this condition.

I also asked you who considered this particular level of probability 'a nil probability'.

Then we can start looking at whether it is some kind of fundamental principle or not.

You could present cast iron evidence there was no god...

I'm much less concerned about whether there is a god (or two, three, four and so on) or not and much more concerned about the kinds of claims such as the one detailed above.

[JulieB]

Has it ever occurred to you to question WHY they are saying it? You can bandy about accusations of bulverism all you like, it doesn't negate the massive elephant in the room - every single one of your sources is out prove the divine is real with predudice. They start with the conclusion of ID and set out to find things to support it.

Dawkins has an anti-theist standpoint - I guess that's why he says things? However you would argue that it makes no difference to what he says.

I wasn't an elephant in the room at all. I was raised by Atheist parents and taught evolution at home and at school.

I decided that Atheism didn't explain matters to my satisfaction I couldn't accept the Universe had no purpose..

However for sometime I just accepted I just didn't know.

Then I decided to look into matters from another perspective and gradually as I studied Bible I came to realise there was a God

and that he cares for me & the rest of humanity and that while we're busy destroying the planet - he has a plan.

If that makes me a hypocrit, a nutjob, lacking a grasp of statistics a pervader of mumbo jumbo grenades...... etc etc etc.

So be it.... I couldn't give a monkey sitting at a typewriter for a billion years trying to write the complete works of Shakespeare quite frankly.

[limpid]

Of course it does. When something goes beyond the probability of what's considered a NIL probability in every other sphere of mathematics or science

then people have every right to scratch their heads and say... "hold on a minute...just because we're talking about the origin of life and the origin of the building blocks of life, doesn't mean we can throw those fundamental principles out of the window"

I note the broken formatting again, I guess this is cut and pasted rather than your own opinion. The only probability considered to be "nil" is zero. If it is impossible it has zero probability. If it is highly unlikely, then it cannot be zero.

Science is not based on people scratching their heads or throwing things through windows. There is no "fundamental principle" here. Something is possible or it is not. Even if it is very, very unlikely, it is still possible.

As I said... Monkeys, Typewriters - Shakespeare and billions of years might have been Dawkins argument - but the only way he could demonstrate

it working was IF he inputted the answer into the programme.

More broken formatting. If you have not read the book this is paraphrased from, or at least the chapter that explains what the experiment was, then you shouldn't expect any comment you cut and paste about it to be taken seriously.

That took INFORMATION ....................... INTELLIGENCE

Information is not the same thing as intelligence. That's why they aren't the same word.

[Chindie]

You could present cast iron evidence there was no god...

I'm much less concerned about whether there is a god (or two, three, four and so on) or not and much more concerned about the kinds of claims such as the one detailed above.

You're about as likely as the rest of us to get a satisfactory answer I fear.

[limpid]

So be it.... I couldn't give a monkey sitting at a typewriter for a billion years trying to write the complete works of Shakespeare quite frankly.

No you would need an infinite number of monkeys for an infinite amount of time as I quoted previously. Although arguably, either one of those infinities is redundant.

[Chindie]

Give it up fellas, we're back to 'father of the atheists' Anthony Flew. That was done to death well over 12 months ago. Nothing is going in here. You could present cast iron evidence there was no god and there would be an answer to it explaining how the Bible was right.

I think the bible definitely has some thing right, like this:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Strangely in contradiction to Julie's signature though

That took INFORMATION ....................... INTELLIGENCE

Information is not the same thing as intelligence. That's why they aren't the same word.

These are the first things to raise any emotion in me beyond a kind of flabbergasted anger in about 5 pages of this thread. Thankfullt rhe emotion can be summed up with this

[JulieB]

Of course it does. When something goes beyond the probability of what's considered a NIL probability in every other sphere of mathematics or science

then people have every right to scratch their heads and say... "hold on a minute...just because we're talking about the origin of life and the origin of the building blocks of life, doesn't mean we can throw those fundamental principles out of the window"

I note the broken formatting again, I guess this is cut and pasted rather than your own opinion. The only probability considered to be "nil" is zero. If it is impossible it has zero probability. If it is highly unlikely, then it cannot be zero.

Science is not based on people scratching their heads or throwing things through windows. There is no "fundamental principle" here. Something is possible or it is not. Even if it is very, very unlikely, it is still possible.

As I said... Monkeys, Typewriters - Shakespeare and billions of years might have been Dawkins argument - but the only way he could demonstrate

it working was IF he inputted the answer into the programme.

More broken formatting. If you have not read the book this is paraphrased from, or at least the chapter that explains what the experiment was, then you shouldn't expect any comment you cut and paste about it to be taken seriously.

That took INFORMATION ....................... INTELLIGENCE

Information is not the same thing as intelligence. That's why they aren't the same word.

Oh dear Simon. You really are grasping at straws. All my own work. What's more if you check out Brumerican's post immediately preceding the one you quoted from it was him who used the broken formatting regarding Monkeys, Typewriters et al.

If I've need to copy & paste I've put it in quote marks in this thread so that it was clear it was copied and pasted.

Many are simple quotes from the Bible in posts back to yourself because we were discussing Genesis and the Hebrew word Yom.

The reasonings are my own. I've just tried to back up what I was saying.

Do you think I'm not capable of making the same points back to you just as quickly, if I was sat discussing these matters with you face to face?

I don't need to question other people about where they get their posts from in anycase. I try to debate the point they've made... not try and argue where they got it from..... ......if I want to break a post up that's up to me. I often do!

PS BTW the reason I mentioned nutjob was because of someone else's post in between answering your points.

[Sie]

Dawkins holds his views because of the evidence that led him there. There is no evidence for anything you or your sources have put forward. None, nada, zilch.

So why did you choose the bible? Why not another religious text from elsewhere in the world? Do you think you would be of the Christian faith had you picked up the Koran that day?

I asked earlier and you didn't reply but you bring it up again so I will ask again - why in your opinion does a universe not born of a divine hand have no purpose? Why does a universe need one? Is the worship of your creator the only purpose you see in existence?

[Brumerican]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.

35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

Julie, you are being schooled by men in here so I suggest you pipe down and take it all in .

Know your place says the lord. :winkold:

[mjmooney]

There is no Father of Atheism.

There is no atheist church.

There is no atheist credo.

Atheists only have as much in common with each other as people who do not believe in the tooth fairy.

I don't have a sports car.

I don't have red hair.

I don't have a rabbit farm in Uzbekhistan.

I don't have a pair of enormous clown shoes.

I don't have any religious belief.

I'd STILL like to have a chat with a non-fundie believer about the subtler points of their beliefs, rather than all this silly stuff.

[mjmooney]

It's a Julie B jubilee.

[limpid]

Oh dear Simon. You really are grasping at straws. All my own work. What's more if you check out Brumerican's post immediately preceding the one you quoted from it was him who used the broken formatting regarding Monkeys, Typewriters et al.

I feel we are getting close to the predicted ad hominem. I might be wrong about the formatting, perhaps you do randomly hit return in the middle of paragraphs.

I've just found a site which has extended Dawkins' Weasel program so that it doesn't have a pre-defined target. You can even run it yourself. A warning, you may have to read a little to understand what is being demonstrated, otherwise it is possible to think god is intervening every time you click the "Go" button.

[Brumerican]

1 Timothy 2:9-15

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet.

[JulieB]

Dawkins holds his views because of the evidence that led him there. There is no evidence for anything you or your sources have put forward. None, nada, zilch.

I disagree as I've tried to state.

So why did you choose the bible? Why not another religious text from elsewhere in the world? Do you think you would be of the Christian faith had you picked up the Koran that day?

I had lotes of questions about a God.....I thought if there was a God why does he permit wickedness?

I also thought that no God of Love would expect a person to go to war and kill another human being.

As it happens my ex's Mum was a JW. For a number of years I thought she was just potty -

Then I found out about the history of JWs and how they'd had the courage to stand up to Hitler and Stalin etc etc. That shocked me too.

She also gave me Hislops Two Babylons to read and some other stuff

I looked at the origins of all religins on the Earth - over 10,000 of them. All of them taught similar things, whatever Holy book they used. Immortality of the soul.

When I studied the Bible I realised many of these things that are taught in Church are not from that source but from pagan Sun worship...

etc etc etc... gradually as I asked more and more questions...and tried to prove to myself that it was bunkem... I realised that it was just having a deep impression on me & that it was changing the way I felt about matters. In the end I realised that it just made sense.

I asked earlier but you didn't reply but you bring it up again so I will ask again - why in your opinion does a universe not born of a divine hand have no purpose? Why does a universe need one? Is the worship of your creator the only purpose you see in existence?

To me if there is no intelligence behind matters coming into existence by chance, then how can there be a purpose to anything. We're here because we exist. To me a Universe without fundamental laws that governs it's functions would not be ordered - it would descend into chaos.

Worship of a creator is not the only purpose in existence - if you beleive in God that is loving and good then where does all the evil in the world come from?. God has enemies - these are the rebellious Demons headed up by an angel who sought glory for himself and lied to Eve,,,... him & they are working fundamentally to stop God's purpose for the Earth taking place. The demons have been influencing mankind to do wicked things from day one..... If they can't rule it...then they'll ruin it.

I don't expect you to understand because as I've said before as the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14. . "A physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually. . ."

[CrackpotForeigner]

Julie, could you please spell atheist with a small A. I don't believe in fairies. Does that make me an Afairyist?

[Chindie]

Julie, could you please spell atheist with a small A. I don't believe in fairies. Does that make me an Afairyist?

That ones come up before too.

You're dealing with a brick wall. In more ways than one.