Richard Dawkins Hero

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 22 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

EaglesEaglesEagles 14 Jun 15 11.52am
Quote TheJudge at 14 Jun 2015 1.52am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 13 Jun 2015 2.12pm Quote TheJudge at 13 Jun 2015 10.59am It is not the detail that is important here but the principal. We know science gets it wrong. The key point is that the method is correct. Science wants to understand. By contrast, religion only promotes ignorance. It is ironic because once upon a time I'm sure religion was all about understanding why things are the way they are, but with limited knowledge comes superstition. Religion wants us to remain locked in to superstition and mumbo jumbo. In fact it relies on it. Even if there were a "god". whatever that means, why would any sensible person want to worship it ? Surely only the stupidest of people can really think that we get judged in some Biblical way when we die. A "creator" does not equate to a Biblical god and I don't understand why people can't get their head around that. I don't think that the universe or any part of it was created by intelligent design by the accepted definition, but so what if it was ? It makes no difference to me in my life. It is a profound thing to consider but nothing more. Religion has nothing to do with any of that. At it's worst, religion is a lot of self interested men dressing up in funny hats and making others feel guilty for their own selfish reasons. At best, it is well meaning but deluded. Edited by TheJudge (13 Jun 2015 11.00am) Well if religion in basic terms (not the great big organised power type movement you despise) is about discovering the meaning of a creator and possible intelligent design, then you should pay religious people more respect. If a creator cannot be disproved then theology and science should be separate fields of study. I'm not talking really about creation stories and whatnot which are to a lot of people allegorical anyway. Or the stories recorded in religious texts like the bible themselves. What I refer to is theology and that study of God which is not simply based on records or myths from these books. I don't think you really understand religion. It is driven exactly towards forming theology and the vast majority of religion's members and serving members are not wealthy, cruel and plotting lunatics looking to control,laughing raucously as they do it. Most religions and in my direct knowledge mainstream Christianity preach a code of love for others and respect for other peoples' beliefs. Richard Dawkins and others have rejected the notion of Islamophobia but they fail to notice fundamental good principles such as the need to give alms. Nowhere do I see principles of love and alms giving being promoted by atheist humanists and certainly not respect. It is simply that because their views differ sharply from those who are religious, atheist humanists aim to provoke and mock the religious and religions with labels of brainwashing and human rights failure. You write of sin and guilt festering within cruel, damning religions. But nothing that comes out of the atheist camp is really that positive at all, rather an 'in your face' position. An ironic reversal it seems of the high horse position. Of course because the atheist humanist position is based on a realist, scientifically proven background, they have every right to be offensive, disrespectful and undignified. Or not. Promote peace and respect. I'm sorry but you cannot justify all the negative things that religion promotes by mentioning a few so called good aspects. You don't need religion on any level to promote peace and love. These things are wishy washy nonsense anyway. People need to learn some reality not fairy tales and hippy happy tosh. Ignorance is bliss. And the hope religion gives to the destitute (false in your opinion) and many others to me is something wholly positive. I speak in these terms not because I believe in widespread religious brainwashing but because you refuse to show any respect to other peoples' beliefs. To try and illustrate the need to respect the religious for me has become pointless. Although you would no doubt express that you are an individual who would seek only to reveal the truth to the manipulated and deluded, you are in fact highly disrespectful and rude at the same time. You don't care. Fine. As for the negatives, the vast majority of religious people would condemn what they see as negative aspects of religion. But then again, this condemnation is based on the fact that humans are selfish and easily corrupted and so badness happens. A pretty much shared principle by all religions. A statement backed up by biology. Believe what you believe and feel free to think that religion is nonsense. I respect that. But don't delude yourself in thinking that some sort of irreligious, secular atheist world could ever be a utopia or even have significantly happier people. Corruption occurs everywhere (you'd no doubt agree) and I don't think a universal awareness of the ultimate futility of existence would change this. I would only say your efforts are worth anything if your only aim in your callous approach would be to reveal the truth to the moronic masses who have been so exploited. However, if your aim is in any way to improve their lives, I would suggest that your attempts are as pointless as you perceive religion. Good day Sir. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (14 Jun 2015 11.55am) I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.
Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles

14 Jun 15 11.52am

Send a Private Message to EaglesEaglesEagles

Quote TheJudge at 14 Jun 2015 1.52am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 13 Jun 2015 2.12pm

Quote TheJudge at 13 Jun 2015 10.59am

It is not the detail that is important here but the principal.
We know science gets it wrong. The key point is that the method is correct. Science wants to understand.
By contrast, religion only promotes ignorance. It is ironic because once upon a time I'm sure religion was all about understanding why things are the way they are, but with limited knowledge comes superstition. Religion wants us to remain locked in to superstition and mumbo jumbo. In fact it relies on it.
Even if there were a "god". whatever that means, why would any sensible person want to worship it ? Surely only the stupidest of people can really think that we get judged in some Biblical way when we die.
A "creator" does not equate to a Biblical god and I don't understand why people can't get their head around that.
I don't think that the universe or any part of it was created by intelligent design by the accepted definition, but so what if it was ? It makes no difference to me in my life. It is a profound thing to consider but nothing more. Religion has nothing to do with any of that. At it's worst, religion is a lot of self interested men dressing up in funny hats and making others feel guilty for their own selfish reasons. At best, it is well meaning but deluded.

Edited by TheJudge (13 Jun 2015 11.00am)

Well if religion in basic terms (not the great big organised power type movement you despise) is about discovering the meaning of a creator and possible intelligent design, then you should pay religious people more respect.

If a creator cannot be disproved then theology and science should be separate fields of study. I'm not talking really about creation stories and whatnot which are to a lot of people allegorical anyway. Or the stories recorded in religious texts like the bible themselves.
What I refer to is theology and that study of God which is not simply based on records or myths from these books.

I don't think you really understand religion. It is driven exactly towards forming theology and the vast majority of religion's members and serving members are not wealthy, cruel and plotting lunatics looking to control,laughing raucously as they do it.

Most religions and in my direct knowledge mainstream Christianity preach a code of love for others and respect for other peoples' beliefs. Richard Dawkins and others have rejected the notion of Islamophobia but they fail to notice fundamental good principles such as the need to give alms.

Nowhere do I see principles of love and alms giving being promoted by atheist humanists and certainly not respect. It is simply that because their views differ sharply from those who are religious, atheist humanists aim to provoke and mock the religious and religions with labels of brainwashing and human rights failure. You write of sin and guilt festering within cruel, damning religions.

But nothing that comes out of the atheist camp is really that positive at all, rather an 'in your face' position. An ironic reversal it seems of the high horse position. Of course because the atheist humanist position is based on a realist, scientifically proven background, they have every right to be offensive, disrespectful and undignified. Or not.

Promote peace and respect.

I'm sorry but you cannot justify all the negative things that religion promotes by mentioning a few so called good aspects. You don't need religion on any level to promote peace and love. These things are wishy washy nonsense anyway. People need to learn some reality not fairy tales and hippy happy tosh.

Ignorance is bliss. And the hope religion gives to the destitute (false in your opinion) and many others to me is something wholly positive.

I speak in these terms not because I believe in widespread religious brainwashing but because you refuse to show any respect to other peoples' beliefs. To try and illustrate the need to respect the religious for me has become pointless. Although you would no doubt express that you are an individual who would seek only to reveal the truth to the manipulated and deluded, you are in fact highly disrespectful and rude at the same time. You don't care. Fine.

As for the negatives, the vast majority of religious people would condemn what they see as negative aspects of religion. But then again, this condemnation is based on the fact that humans are selfish and easily corrupted and so badness happens. A pretty much shared principle by all religions. A statement backed up by biology.

Believe what you believe and feel free to think that religion is nonsense. I respect that. But don't delude yourself in thinking that some sort of irreligious, secular atheist world could ever be a utopia or even have significantly happier people. Corruption occurs everywhere (you'd no doubt agree) and I don't think a universal awareness of the ultimate futility of existence would change this.

I would only say your efforts are worth anything if your only aim in your callous approach would be to reveal the truth to the moronic masses who have been so exploited. However, if your aim is in any way to improve their lives, I would suggest that your attempts are as pointless as you perceive religion.
Good day Sir.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (14 Jun 2015 11.55am)

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Jun 15 6.16pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 14 Jun 2015 11.52am Quote TheJudge at 14 Jun 2015 1.52am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 13 Jun 2015 2.12pm Quote TheJudge at 13 Jun 2015 10.59am It is not the detail that is important here but the principal. We know science gets it wrong. The key point is that the method is correct. Science wants to understand. By contrast, religion only promotes ignorance. It is ironic because once upon a time I'm sure religion was all about understanding why things are the way they are, but with limited knowledge comes superstition. Religion wants us to remain locked in to superstition and mumbo jumbo. In fact it relies on it. Even if there were a "god". whatever that means, why would any sensible person want to worship it ? Surely only the stupidest of people can really think that we get judged in some Biblical way when we die. A "creator" does not equate to a Biblical god and I don't understand why people can't get their head around that. I don't think that the universe or any part of it was created by intelligent design by the accepted definition, but so what if it was ? It makes no difference to me in my life. It is a profound thing to consider but nothing more. Religion has nothing to do with any of that. At it's worst, religion is a lot of self interested men dressing up in funny hats and making others feel guilty for their own selfish reasons. At best, it is well meaning but deluded. Edited by TheJudge (13 Jun 2015 11.00am) Well if religion in basic terms (not the great big organised power type movement you despise) is about discovering the meaning of a creator and possible intelligent design, then you should pay religious people more respect. If a creator cannot be disproved then theology and science should be separate fields of study. I'm not talking really about creation stories and whatnot which are to a lot of people allegorical anyway. Or the stories recorded in religious texts like the bible themselves. What I refer to is theology and that study of God which is not simply based on records or myths from these books. I don't think you really understand religion. It is driven exactly towards forming theology and the vast majority of religion's members and serving members are not wealthy, cruel and plotting lunatics looking to control,laughing raucously as they do it. Most religions and in my direct knowledge mainstream Christianity preach a code of love for others and respect for other peoples' beliefs. Richard Dawkins and others have rejected the notion of Islamophobia but they fail to notice fundamental good principles such as the need to give alms. Nowhere do I see principles of love and alms giving being promoted by atheist humanists and certainly not respect. It is simply that because their views differ sharply from those who are religious, atheist humanists aim to provoke and mock the religious and religions with labels of brainwashing and human rights failure. You write of sin and guilt festering within cruel, damning religions. But nothing that comes out of the atheist camp is really that positive at all, rather an 'in your face' position. An ironic reversal it seems of the high horse position. Of course because the atheist humanist position is based on a realist, scientifically proven background, they have every right to be offensive, disrespectful and undignified. Or not. Promote peace and respect. I'm sorry but you cannot justify all the negative things that religion promotes by mentioning a few so called good aspects. You don't need religion on any level to promote peace and love. These things are wishy washy nonsense anyway. People need to learn some reality not fairy tales and hippy happy tosh. Ignorance is bliss. And the hope religion gives to the destitute (false in your opinion) and many others to me is something wholly positive. I speak in these terms not because I believe in widespread religious brainwashing but because you refuse to show any respect to other peoples' beliefs. To try and illustrate the need to respect the religious for me has become pointless. Although you would no doubt express that you are an individual who would seek only to reveal the truth to the manipulated and deluded, you are in fact highly disrespectful and rude at the same time. You don't care. Fine. As for the negatives, the vast majority of religious people would condemn what they see as negative aspects of religion. But then again, this condemnation is based on the fact that humans are selfish and easily corrupted and so badness happens. A pretty much shared principle by all religions. A statement backed up by biology. Believe what you believe and feel free to think that religion is nonsense. I respect that. But don't delude yourself in thinking that some sort of irreligious, secular atheist world could ever be a utopia or even have significantly happier people. Corruption occurs everywhere (you'd no doubt agree) and I don't think a universal awareness of the ultimate futility of existence would change this. I would only say your efforts are worth anything if your only aim in your callous approach would be to reveal the truth to the moronic masses who have been so exploited. However, if your aim is in any way to improve their lives, I would suggest that your attempts are as pointless as you perceive religion. Good day Sir. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (14 Jun 2015 11.55am) I get it. You prefer to live in a delusion because it is less painful. Good luck. And as for respect. I respect what deserves respect. Religion deserves no repect at all. I acknowledge that some people gain comfort from it. That does not justify it at all.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Jun 15 6.16pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 14 Jun 2015 11.52am

Quote TheJudge at 14 Jun 2015 1.52am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 13 Jun 2015 2.12pm

Quote TheJudge at 13 Jun 2015 10.59am

Edited by TheJudge (13 Jun 2015 11.00am)

Promote peace and respect.

Ignorance is bliss. And the hope religion gives to the destitute (false in your opinion) and many others to me is something wholly positive.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (14 Jun 2015 11.55am)

I get it. You prefer to live in a delusion because it is less painful. Good luck.
And as for respect. I respect what deserves respect. Religion deserves no repect at all. I acknowledge that some people gain comfort from it. That does not justify it at all.

Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 14 Jun 15 8.27pm
I really wouldn't bother Eagles. There is no 'justification' for it in the eyes of Judges, and because of that there is no need to show even a modicum of respect to the rights of those that do believe. What this thread shows, as all similar threads do, is that respect for others is actually something held and actioned out much more by people of faith. Never mind Judges, Jesus still loves you buddy My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 14 Jun 15 8.27pm

I really wouldn't bother Eagles. There is no 'justification' for it in the eyes of Judges, and because of that there is no need to show even a modicum of respect to the rights of those that do believe.

What this thread shows, as all similar threads do, is that respect for others is actually something held and actioned out much more by people of faith.

Never mind Judges, Jesus still loves you buddy

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Jun 15 9.00pm
Quote reborn at 14 Jun 2015 8.27pm I really wouldn't bother Eagles. There is no 'justification' for it in the eyes of Judges, and because of that there is no need to show even a modicum of respect to the rights of those that do believe. What this thread shows, as all similar threads do, is that respect for others is actually something held and actioned out much more by people of faith. Never mind Judges, Jesus still loves you buddy What sanctimonious crap. Everyone has a right to believe what they like. That doesn't make it sensible.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Jun 15 9.00pm

Quote reborn at 14 Jun 2015 8.27pm

What this thread shows, as all similar threads do, is that respect for others is actually something held and actioned out much more by people of faith.

Never mind Judges, Jesus still loves you buddy

What sanctimonious crap.
Everyone has a right to believe what they like. That doesn't make it sensible.

Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 14 Jun 15 9.12pm
You sound like you need a hug....go to the local church, they will be nice to you I promise. My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 14 Jun 15 9.12pm

You sound like you need a hug....go to the local church, they will be nice to you I promise.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Jun 15 9.25pm
Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 9.18pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 8.57pm Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 6.14pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 5.27pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened". Because scientifically we can only demonstrate it as a theory, based on existing understanding, to within fractions of a second after the event (this is one of the principle reasons for particle accelerators to replicate). Its one of a number of theories, that are in competition, the evidence accumilated points towards this being the most probable event, based on what is known. Where was this 'singularity' and how did it come into existence? There wasn't yet a where for it to occur (as the singularity created space-time). As to why a transition occurred creating the universe, that's the big question, can't say I know the answer to that. That's then next big question. There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown. For the record, I don't reject the possibility of a 'god', only that of the god presented by Religion and the cases made by those faiths. Divinity is a metaphysical debate, and as such is an argument about abstract associated concepts, rather than quantifiable qualities. Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm) I don't see how there can be this singularity containing the universe in an infinitely condensed form if there is no place for it to exist. Your view on the possibility of a God but a rejection of mankind's religions is pretty much my own view, although I've no idea what your last sentence means. That's the hard bit to get your head around, the dimensional aspects. Space-time is a dimension of reality, but everything that exists in all dimensions, although it may appear differently (and be perceived differently, dependent on the point of perception). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Jun 15 9.25pm

Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 9.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 8.57pm

Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 6.14pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 5.27pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm

Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened".

Because scientifically we can only demonstrate it as a theory, based on existing understanding, to within fractions of a second after the event (this is one of the principle reasons for particle accelerators to replicate).

Its one of a number of theories, that are in competition, the evidence accumilated points towards this being the most probable event, based on what is known.

Where was this 'singularity' and how did it come into existence?

There wasn't yet a where for it to occur (as the singularity created space-time). As to why a transition occurred creating the universe, that's the big question, can't say I know the answer to that. That's then next big question.

There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown.

For the record, I don't reject the possibility of a 'god', only that of the god presented by Religion and the cases made by those faiths. Divinity is a metaphysical debate, and as such is an argument about abstract associated concepts, rather than quantifiable qualities.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm)

I don't see how there can be this singularity containing the universe in an infinitely condensed form if there is no place for it to exist.

Your view on the possibility of a God but a rejection of mankind's religions is pretty much my own view, although I've no idea what your last sentence means.

That's the hard bit to get your head around, the dimensional aspects. Space-time is a dimension of reality, but everything that exists in all dimensions, although it may appear differently (and be perceived differently, dependent on the point of perception).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 14 Jun 15 9.26pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Jun 2015 9.25pm Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 9.18pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 8.57pm Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 6.14pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 5.27pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened". Because scientifically we can only demonstrate it as a theory, based on existing understanding, to within fractions of a second after the event (this is one of the principle reasons for particle accelerators to replicate). Its one of a number of theories, that are in competition, the evidence accumilated points towards this being the most probable event, based on what is known. Where was this 'singularity' and how did it come into existence? There wasn't yet a where for it to occur (as the singularity created space-time). As to why a transition occurred creating the universe, that's the big question, can't say I know the answer to that. That's then next big question. There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown. For the record, I don't reject the possibility of a 'god', only that of the god presented by Religion and the cases made by those faiths. Divinity is a metaphysical debate, and as such is an argument about abstract associated concepts, rather than quantifiable qualities. Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm) I don't see how there can be this singularity containing the universe in an infinitely condensed form if there is no place for it to exist. Your view on the possibility of a God but a rejection of mankind's religions is pretty much my own view, although I've no idea what your last sentence means. That's the hard bit to get your head around, the dimensional aspects. Space-time is a dimension of reality, but everything that exists in all dimensions, although it may appear differently (and be perceived differently, dependent on the point of perception). Sorry, don't understand your banter old chap.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

14 Jun 15 9.26pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Jun 2015 9.25pm

Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 9.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 8.57pm

Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 6.14pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 5.27pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm

Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened".

Its one of a number of theories, that are in competition, the evidence accumilated points towards this being the most probable event, based on what is known.

Where was this 'singularity' and how did it come into existence?

There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm)

I don't see how there can be this singularity containing the universe in an infinitely condensed form if there is no place for it to exist.

Your view on the possibility of a God but a rejection of mankind's religions is pretty much my own view, although I've no idea what your last sentence means.

Sorry, don't understand your banter old chap.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan 14 Jun 15 9.51pm
Quote the.universal at 13 Jun 2015 10.32pm I'm going to stick my neck out here and say this is the thread where we've all most over exceeded our knowledge (me included). If you look back through this thread there's some stunning examples of people making assertions that they do not possibly have the intelligence to make. Opinions are ok, but realistically, only a few hundred people in the world really understand this stuff. So let's not pretend that we do. If anyone on this thread disagrees with the above, I'm happy to hear your individual credentials on quantum physics/ theology/ astrophysics. My guess is this whole board could not sum up a single PhD on any of the above subjects. But, I'm happy to be proved wrong. Well thats me f***ed then, Guess I should give up, sell my telescope & walk away from amateur astronomy for good seeing as the oracle has spoken & decided only people with the relevent phd can discuss science... Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time
Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan 14 Jun 15 9.51pm

Quote the.universal at 13 Jun 2015 10.32pm

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say this is the thread where we've all most over exceeded our knowledge (me included).

If you look back through this thread there's some stunning examples of people making assertions that they do not possibly have the intelligence to make.

Opinions are ok, but realistically, only a few hundred people in the world really understand this stuff. So let's not pretend that we do.

If anyone on this thread disagrees with the above, I'm happy to hear your individual credentials on quantum physics/ theology/ astrophysics.

My guess is this whole board could not sum up a single PhD on any of the above subjects. But, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Well thats me f***ed then, Guess I should give up, sell my telescope & walk away from amateur astronomy for good seeing as the oracle has spoken & decided only people with the relevent phd can discuss science...

Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time

Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish Burgess Hill 14 Jun 15 9.59pm
Even as an atheist I don't think that The God Delusion was a great book. Dawkins should stick to science - the Greatest show on Earth was a fantastic read. Any religious types who feel like putting their superstitions to the test should read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation or, what is in my view the best ever demolition of religions of all types ever written, God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, (sadly missed). Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 14 Jun 15 9.59pm

Even as an atheist I don't think that The God Delusion was a great book. Dawkins should stick to science - the Greatest show on Earth was a fantastic read.

Any religious types who feel like putting their superstitions to the test should read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation or, what is in my view the best ever demolition of religions of all types ever written, God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, (sadly missed).

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish Burgess Hill 14 Jun 15 10.02pm
Quote derben at 14 Jun 2015 9.26pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Jun 2015 9.25pm Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 9.18pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 8.57pm Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 6.14pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 5.27pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened". Because scientifically we can only demonstrate it as a theory, based on existing understanding, to within fractions of a second after the event (this is one of the principle reasons for particle accelerators to replicate). Its one of a number of theories, that are in competition, the evidence accumilated points towards this being the most probable event, based on what is known. Where was this 'singularity' and how did it come into existence? There wasn't yet a where for it to occur (as the singularity created space-time). As to why a transition occurred creating the universe, that's the big question, can't say I know the answer to that. That's then next big question. There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown. For the record, I don't reject the possibility of a 'god', only that of the god presented by Religion and the cases made by those faiths. Divinity is a metaphysical debate, and as such is an argument about abstract associated concepts, rather than quantifiable qualities. Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm) I don't see how there can be this singularity containing the universe in an infinitely condensed form if there is no place for it to exist. Your view on the possibility of a God but a rejection of mankind's religions is pretty much my own view, although I've no idea what your last sentence means. That's the hard bit to get your head around, the dimensional aspects. Space-time is a dimension of reality, but everything that exists in all dimensions, although it may appear differently (and be perceived differently, dependent on the point of perception). Sorry, don't understand your banter old chap. It's quite simple - he caught a packet over Dover and popped his brolly for a wet landing in the old briney. It was a wizard prang. Wha could be clearer? Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 14 Jun 15 10.02pm

Quote derben at 14 Jun 2015 9.26pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Jun 2015 9.25pm

Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 9.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 8.57pm

Quote derben at 13 Jun 2015 6.14pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Jun 2015 5.27pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm

Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened".

Its one of a number of theories, that are in competition, the evidence accumilated points towards this being the most probable event, based on what is known.

Where was this 'singularity' and how did it come into existence?

There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm)

I don't see how there can be this singularity containing the universe in an infinitely condensed form if there is no place for it to exist.

Your view on the possibility of a God but a rejection of mankind's religions is pretty much my own view, although I've no idea what your last sentence means.

Sorry, don't understand your banter old chap.

It's quite simple - he caught a packet over Dover and popped his brolly for a wet landing in the old briney. It was a wizard prang.
Wha could be clearer?

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 15 Jun 15 11.46am
Quote reborn at 14 Jun 2015 9.12pm You sound like you need a hug....go to the local church, they will be nice to you I promise. There would be plenty of room inside. The thing is Reborn, I don't need a hug from your God bothering friends or "Jesus", because I have a real family who I can hug any time I like. It is only your deluded, stupid, smug, blind arrogance that makes you think that people should all seek a religious crutch like the one you clearly need. Your whole basis of belief is flawed and made up by people who didn't know any better. I'm being mean to you because your smug attitude really is quite repugnant.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

15 Jun 15 11.46am

Quote reborn at 14 Jun 2015 9.12pm

You sound like you need a hug....go to the local church, they will be nice to you I promise.

There would be plenty of room inside.

The thing is Reborn, I don't need a hug from your God bothering friends or "Jesus", because I have a real family who I can hug any time I like. It is only your deluded, stupid, smug, blind arrogance that makes you think that people should all seek a religious crutch like the one you clearly need. Your whole basis of belief is flawed and made up by people who didn't know any better.
I'm being mean to you because your smug attitude really is quite repugnant.

Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 15 Jun 15 11.57am
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 9.58pm I'd repeat the question to him if he has his brain cell switched on at the moment. Judge Please debate your point without insults. This thread is littered with examples, I've only highlighted one. Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 15 Jun 15 11.57am