Richard Dawkins Hero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 the.universal 12 Jun 15 10.19pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 9.39pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? To me, that's more believable than a man making it. I believe in people's right to religion, but if you break the various religious stories down, they are all fecking ridiculous. Plus, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, science will prove it so, and happily admit it. Religion styles itself as a different thing entirely, which can never be proved wrong. If an omnipotent God exists then that entity is clearly far more than a mere man or woman. I concur. And yet, he made us in his image. So what air does he breathe? And where does he poo? And why do I have an appendix? Religion's answer = don't ask such silly questions, just believe this x thousand year old book.
Vive le Roy! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
ChuFukka  12 Jun 15 10.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 9.58pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.43pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 9.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.18pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 9.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.04pm
Quote We are goin up! at 12 Jun 2015 8.00pm
The guy is a grade A c*nt. He forces his opinion on others, he's no better than a Jehovah knocking on your door or one of those loud preachers in your face on Croydon High Street. F*ck him.
So you insult Dawkins because he stands up for the voice of reason in a World where a huge chunk of the population are living in a religious delusion perpetuated by organisations whose only real ambition is to sustain their own power base.
Edited by ChuFukka (12 Jun 2015 9.46pm) Sorry squire, it was "We are going up". Apologies.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 12 Jun 15 10.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 10.19pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 9.39pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? To me, that's more believable than a man making it. I believe in people's right to religion, but if you break the various religious stories down, they are all fecking ridiculous. Plus, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, science will prove it so, and happily admit it. Religion styles itself as a different thing entirely, which can never be proved wrong. If an omnipotent God exists then that entity is clearly far more than a mere man or woman. I concur. And yet, he made us in his image. So what air does he breathe? And where does he poo? And why do I have an appendix? Religion's answer = don't ask such silly questions, just believe this x thousand year old book. These are separate arguments. The various religions describe God in different ways, 'in his own image' etc. What we were discussing is the possibility of an omnipotent God independent of the attributes assigned to it by religions. I should add here that I don't necessarily believe in such an entity, just that it is as plausible as the universe springing into being of its own accord.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the.universal 12 Jun 15 10.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
And what's a bit of a treat for those that believe in the Big Bang theory, we are all, literally, made of stars. A nice thought I feel for the non-believers.
Vive le Roy! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 10.19pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 9.39pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? To me, that's more believable than a man making it. I believe in people's right to religion, but if you break the various religious stories down, they are all fecking ridiculous. Plus, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, science will prove it so, and happily admit it. Religion styles itself as a different thing entirely, which can never be proved wrong. If an omnipotent God exists then that entity is clearly far more than a mere man or woman. I concur. And yet, he made us in his image. So what air does he breathe? And where does he poo? And why do I have an appendix? Religion's answer = don't ask such silly questions, just believe this x thousand year old book. Well if God is omnipotent, and wanted to breathe, he could simply conjure up some air. Similarly, if he wanted to poo, he could conjure up a toilet. He may have given you an appendix so that you could use it in a discussion on a football forum to try to prove that he did not exist. Mind you, it is difficult to judge the exact motives of an omnipotent being that made the universe. Bit like ants trying to understand what is happening when their nest is dug up by someone doing the gardening.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 12 Jun 15 10.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
It is a theory, there is no evidence.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 12 Jun 15 10.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
It is a theory, there is no evidence.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
It is a theory, there is no evidence.
Why is it commonly known as 'The Big Bang Theory' then?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.