So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

The answer is, as I have said previously, to just put, proof of creation, on your computer and you will have at least 50 examples proving evolution is nonsense and creation can be explained, I am not going to start quoting other peoples work, it is there for all to see and there are far too many too list.

Yes, I've looked at christian websites that pretend to have 'proof' of creation. There is no proof of creation. Science has adequately debunked the myths of the bible on numerous occasions and has been debunking the bible for hundreds of years now.

I would love for you to trouble yourself and just give me one link to one website that has convinced you that there is proof of creation please? This is not too much to ask.

The answer is, as I have said previously, to just put, proof of creation, on your computer and you will have at least 50 examples proving evolution is nonsense and creation can be explained, I am not going to start quoting other peoples work, it is there for all to see and there are far too many too list.

You are starting to make it too obvious.

Tosh, just when will you come up with something representing common sense and is original and not quoting someone elseall the time gets tedious..

mmmm, indeed young man, sane people consider the scientific consensus is purdy relevant on scientific matters, you do not which makes you backward.

Sane peple consider all the relevant facts relating to any subject and not pick and choose those that fit their bill.

Creation has not been disproved because it is impossible to do so without an acceptable and provable alternative.

I have asked those who think evolution is the answer to explain how a beehive has honeycombs the shape they are, it is not so long ago that the scientists said it was because it made the best use of the space, the only wast being the wax etc.,

Now all I want is an answer as to where all the round and oblong and square honeycombs are before nature decided on the present shape?

That is just one question, there must be intelligence involved in all creation how anyone can believe that an oak tree was as a result of pure random events is nonsense, as is the case of the life span of a butterfly and all that that entails.

If you believe in evolution then just explain in a step by step method how the oak tree came about and all the intermediate examples, the same for the butterfly, just the two will do but there are millions of other examples.

Sane people consider every aspect of anything under consideration, scientists deal in theories more than anything else and are as often wrong as right.

Some people have shortcomings in the mental department and unfortunately, Tosh, from your posts it would appear a visit to the vets should be undertaken, at the same time as attending to you mantally he may expain the vast amount of intelligence that must be involved in creation.

You better get back before the next headcount.

Yes , Tosh. I am used to counting the inmates, what I cannot understand is how with your limited intelligence you managed to escape.

Yes , Tosh. I am used to counting the inmates, what I cannot understand is how with your limited intelligence you managed to escape..

Can you run through again your scientific objections to humans evolving from a common ancestor with primates, I haven't had a laugh since our last chat about butterflies.

Yes, but I bet you have cried a lot realising your limited intelligencve.

Yes, but I bet you have cried a lot realising your limited intelligencve. .

Still waiting for those scientific objections dear, they seem as sparse as your intellect.

They are only sparse to those like you who are not able to understand anything beyond the yearling stage.

There is help out there you know.

They are only sparse to those like you who are not able to understand anything beyond the yearling stage.

I am still waiting for you to provide the scientific objections, please proceed, you are saying you understand them not me.

tick...tock...tick...tock.

Ive been waiting a long time for something sensible from you, I thik the tick will have gone as well as the tock before there is even a glimmer of hope.

Ive been waiting a long time for something sensible from you, I thik the tick will have gone as well as the tock before there is even a glimmer of hope..

You keep forgetting to supply your scientific objections to evolution, do you suffer from selective amnesia ?

If you saw a fly crawling up the wall you would not believe it, so why bother trying to make you understand what is more certain than the fly having been created by the means af a maggot and talking of maggots:::

It's interesting to note that the behaviour of certain Christians on this board doesn't exactly make you want to run to your nearest church and become one does it?

If you saw a fly crawling up the wall you would not believe it, so why bother trying to make you understand what is more certain than the fly having been created by the means af a maggot and talking of maggots:::.

I do not believe this post contains any scientific objections to Common Descent.

Try again.

Tosh you ask for all you get, try being kind and others may follow, you must know by now you can be so easily be put down that you are way out of your depth.

Tosh has provided evidence for everything he claims. Polyglide does not. Polyglide makes assertions based on his own personal belief in the bible. We have asked polyglide on numerous occasions to provide evidence which he never provides. All he ever says is look at the websites but he never looks at the counter evidence which is scientifically corroroborated and proven. Scientific theories are not proven wrong by religion, polyglide. Scientific theories stand the test of time and they gather knowledge. If you are so sure that science is wrong and that religion is right why are you arguing about it on an online forum. Publish your results and your proof. Let the whole world know that you, polyglide, the wise and knowledgable, has evidence that science is wrong and that religion is right.

As for being kind, I think that is a Christian's remit to extend the hand of friendship and kindness in the name of Jesus. Tosh has been nothing but honest. Polyglide has been a hypocrite to his own cause. But that's alright, he just has to apologise to God and everything is square. Doesn't matter that polyglide is rude or ignorant so long as he asks for God's forgiveness. What bollocks.

I look at all the evidence starting with all living things.

I then consider the implications of how and why.

I then consider the evidence.

Evolution provides theories that do not stand up to close examination and are just that theories.

Scientists can prove that evolution takes place and I agree that it does but not that it is responsible for life itself and that is the important point.

I think anyone who looks at life and thinks it can have come about without an intelligence being involved must be unable to consider the obvious.

I think anyone who looks at life and thinks it can have come about without an intelligence being involved must be unable to consider the obvious.

You must recognise that your limited knowledge on the subject also limits your understanding of any concepts concerning the origin of life on this planet. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean an intelligent force created life.

Re: So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

Because it is supposed to be that way ?

You need very little knowledge or common sense to appreciate that the odds of life as know it comming about by chance are such that it it accepted as being impossible by the methods used to create the odds, and which are accepted by most people who understand the process.

You must recognise that your limited knowledge on the subject also limits your understanding of any concepts concerning the origin of life on this planet. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean an intelligent force created life.

You could say; science has limited knowledge,regarding everything in existence and all other matter unseen in the universe.

What we are good at is, making good theories regardless of where one comes from in background. Some Intelligent deduced ideas that can make good sense,depends on the individuals explanations to the idea and what we are able to observe.
(as we all know)

You need very little knowledge or common sense to appreciate that the odds of life as know it comming about by chance are such that it it accepted as being impossible by the methods used to create the odds

If the event is impossible, how can you calculate the odds of it happening?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

You could say; science has limited knowledge,regarding everything in existence and all other matter unseen in the universe.

Of course science has limited knowledge. We don't know everything. But the further we delve the more questions are raised. This is the pursuit of knowledge and truth and is solely based on tested, reproducible evidence. Scientists do not make claims unless there is evidence to support the claim whereas creatinionists make unfounded claims and then quit. No further investigation required. Done. Happy with that answer.

There is too much in the world to discover to sit back and be happy with the easy 'answer'.

.

we find true scientists couching their statements in scientifically cautious terms, such as “the evidence suggests”, thereby preserving scientific integrity in their statements.

Of course they do, Rock. But when deciding which evidence is more reliable, I would lean towards "the evidence suggests" rather than 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" which is a biblical claim, a statement of fact, for which there is no evidence that God did any such thing.

The bible does not say "In the beginning, it would appear that God created the heavens and the earth because we ancient Hebrews do not understand the mysteries of the origins of life, the beginning of the universe or the creation of our world so therefore it might be a supreme superpower God. No. The bible makes a claim as though it were fact. Perhaps, if the ancient scribes had couched their statements in cautious terms thereby preserving integrity in their statements, we wouldn't see all the division in the world in relation to religious dogma.

snowyflake wrote:

we find true scientists couching their statements in scientifically cautious terms, such as “the evidence suggests”, thereby preserving scientific integrity in their statements.

Of course they do, Rock. But when deciding which evidence is more reliable, I would lean towards "the evidence suggests" rather than 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" which is a biblical claim, a statement of fact, for which there is no evidence that God did any such thing.

The bible does not say "In the beginning, it would appear that God created the heavens and the earth because we ancient Hebrews do not understand the mysteries of the origins of life, the beginning of the universe or the creation of our world so therefore it might be a supreme superpower God. No. The bible makes a claim as though it were fact. Perhaps, if the ancient scribes had couched their statements in cautious terms thereby preserving integrity in their statements, we wouldn't see all the division in the world in relation to religious dogma.

The Bible is simply following a series of previous 'Creation' stories, all crediting a God or Gods with creating all things.

The Egyptians had several creation myths depending where you lived in Egypt. They all accept 'Nu' - chaotic lifeless waters from which all things were formed. 2300-2800 BC.
The Sumerian one being slightly later on a fragmented tablet (Eridu Genesis) of around 2200BC
Rig Veda and Bible around the same time 1000BC
Many others followed on similar lines. These are what we have evidence for. There will have been other unrecorded Creation stories.

Perhaps if scientists had added the precaution of saying that certain drugs might not be what they claim we would not have problems that are around today. I mention no drugs to avoid upsetting individuals. 'Certainty' is not confined to religions. Science has its problems.

As most religions accept the creation of the world by a God/gods I don't think it is creation that causes problems. It is the understanding each religion has of 'their' Gods nature and demands.

.

Hi Rock, I don't believe in or disbelieve in Big Bang. Big Bang is a plausible explanation to how the universe began but as I have said on numerous occasions there are unanswered questions....such as....what was before the Big Bang? To me Time is infinite going forwards and backwards. So the time before the Big Bang was sometime. There can never be nothing. Even the singularity must have been 'in' something. The creation of this universe by a big bang is a very plausible explanation given the physics and the mass of the known universe. What kicked off the Big Bang is anyone's guess. You think it was a supreme, intelligent, power. I think it was a power of some sort. I cannot say it was or wasn't intelligent but as all other things in the universe and on this planet seem to tick along quite nicely without supreme intervention, I'm inclined to think that intelligence has nothing to do with how we came to be. It is the ego of man that wants to think he's somehow supremely significant and belongs in the 'grand scheme of things'. We are not. But that does not mean that we shouldn't strive for peace, respect, equality, decency and above all love for our fellow humans and the other species who share this planet with us. You can have a secular view of the world and still hold a moral and decent world view without all the delusion of belief in invisible, supreme beings.

My objection is that you expect science to couch their assertions in cautious terms but the bible doesn't have to.

Take care, Rock. We've got snow in England. My mom has gone back to Canada today and we will miss her something fierce. She's a little spitfire

.

This is one example of why atheists often end up despising religion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20624236

Hi Rock

This does a better job than I do at explaining why the Big Bang theory does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's a beautiful, plausible explanation with evidence.

http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-bang-beginners-14-does-big-bang-theory-violate-second-law-thermodynamics

Neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Greek Bible is a science text/research findings publication. I expect, and reasonably so, that anything purporting to be scientific research be couched in scientifically-cautionary terminology.

I think when anyone makes claims, scientific or otherwise, it is incumbent on them to provide evidence that supports their claim. The bible does make scientific claims that have been proven wrong such as the order of 'creation' and how man evolved. It is quite clear that it is just a myth that is quite similar to creation myths from all around the world. The first chapter of Genesis gets it collossally wrong on all fronts. But not once does it couch it's narrative in cautious terms.

Anyway, let me know how you get on with the website and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Take care, Rock n Rolla

Don't forget to see Mr. Deity and The Woman at the end Rock. It's funny

I do not suppose you have seen the latest, a scientist now believes that life came from outer space having found life forms on a piece of material that fell from the heavens, where does that leave all those that think life came from a little pool of water near a volcano etc; ?. and who have based all their ideas on thaty presumption.

Poly that is what scientists have always believed, remember Earth came from outer space at one time. Called the big bang wasn't it?

I do not suppose you have seen the latest, a scientist now believes that life came from outer space having found life forms on a piece of material that fell from the heavens, where does that leave all those that think life came from a little pool of water near a volcano etc; ?. and who have based all their ideas on thaty presumption.

Hello polyglide. This is an old theory called Panspermia. The fact that life is here on Earth gives rise to the idea that life may have existed elsewhere in the universe during the universe's 14 billion year history. If an inhabited planet exploded and sent debris through space and ended up on the early earth, the conditions might have been just right to spark an organism hitch-hiking on a rock into reproducing. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any evidence to back it up except the fact of our own existence on this planet in this bit of space. Perhaps, when our sun dies and the solar system explodes in about 5 billion years, the organisms on this planet may spark life on another planet.

tlttf is right about one thing. All the matter in the universe was created in stars. Even you, polyglide, are made of stardust.

No one knows the age of the universe it is pure speculation.

No one knows the extent of the universe.

No human can comprehend the size of the universe.

If everything is made of stardust, where did the stardust come from?

You do not have to believe that there is no other life within the universe to believe in the Christian God.

The vastness of the universe that we can actually confirm is such that the probability is that there could be life of various kinds created by beings beyond our understanding and of a nature completely different to anything we know.

The biggest problem with the human is the inability to see that he/she is not the see all and be all of everythimg.