But do you accept that people can have no desire to prove what they believe in?
The pope. Popeing about.
- Thread starter benneh
- Start date
But do you accept that people can have no desire to prove what they believe in?
Many do have their own proof. But it is outside sience. So there is no standard proof or acceptable proof for everyone.
Atheists have the same belive but opposite end with no evidence.
And this is not limited to religion, just look at Conspiracy theorists, alien believers and a million and one other things people believe with no scientific proof, in fact many of them have scientific evidence against them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,709
- Location
- Warwickshire
I believe that there could possibly be though. The problem being - what form does it take? Nobody knows so how on earth do people know that what they're doing bares any relation to the actual deity or deities?
What if the actual deity / deities is / are evil horrible ******** that enjoy destructive activities?
Religious people seem to refute the possibility that there is no deity.
Startling headline,wow, it must rank alongside the several discoveries of Noah's ark of several which turned out to be hoaxes & another was the remains of some shepherds hut.
So it's a computer simulation that shows the wind could possibly blow a passage through the sea from one side to the other is it ,did it hold the water there for several hours to allow thousands of people to walk across did it ?, lol That therefore of course totally proves the Exodus story does it
Do you believe in Global Warming or the science behind it? Do you have any idea how they predict these things?
Obviously not.
The Sea of Reeds and Red Sea are simply differing translations of the same phrase. The sea of reeds could simply mean the Nile Delta.
The US National Center for Atmospheric Research are just a bunch of geeks...
grow up.
The thing is, they see all the proof they need in the world around them, that you and I would not necessarily accept that as proof is irrelevant.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,709
- Location
- Warwickshire
There's one major difference between science and religion in the regard of progressive thinking: test and conclusion. At least science has some tangible, real world evidence to try and answer its posed questions. Mould is used to create the antibiotic penicillin. This was observed and tested, then proved to be effective. More than can be said for any given branch of religion.
Absolutely. I personally call it 'content living in la-la land'.
Athetists are almost equally as silly. They claim that there is no such thing as a diety when they can know no such thing. However, at least they don't spend hours of their lives 'worshipping' something that almost certainly doesn't actually exist in the form that they worship it.
I'm glad you made that comparison, as I lend equal credence to religious people as I do to conspiracy theorists.
Now you are beginning to sound like a rational agnostic...
The nature of God is an interesting concept, we already have the Chariots of the Gods analogy, and the obvious Abrahamic anthropomorphic God, or the vedic animist version of God and so on.
What if God and the Universe are one and the same, can we have any concept or understanding of a sentient conciousness so large that we are but a tiny part of it, much like the errant electrical impulse in our own brain.
When science explains how the universe spontaneously came into being and proceeded to expand and all the seemingly random events that led to us having this debate are just that random thoughts, but within the universal mind of a universal Godhead.
See a belief with no religion or political or human intent. Just a rational human being wondering about the nature of the universe and god.
An atheist would simply say I am mad or insane, yet am I, for simply thinking?
Last edited:
Indeed by a scientific viewpoint, but alas, not from a faith viewpoint, they would say that events and experiences in their lives were tangible proof to them and as faith is a personal thing, who are we to call them down on it without proof they are wrong.
And why do you think do many people religiuse, far more than you think once you include own belief and belief in something more, outside of the main ones. Why does every civilisation belive in more. I do not see it as a simple comfort or indoctrination. I firmly belive it is some sort of in built mechanism in most people.
Why are you so against personal believes it's a silly argument as everyone had millions of believes in every aspect of life as very little on life is certain.
Why are you so against personal believes it's a silly argument as everyone had millions of believes in every aspect of life as very little on life is certain.
Then the logical conclusion is that there are people, who can believe or not believe in deities 100%, and are therefore not agnostic.
No, they spend hours of their lives railing against those of faith who generally couldn't care less what Atheists think....
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,435
- Location
- Norfolk Broads
There's one really important observation I feel people have missed. Did anyone notice that when the Pope pronounced "father" that he sounded just like Goldmember in Austin Powers?
It cracked me up no end.
It cracked me up no end.
D
the Sea of Reeds and Red Sea are simply differing translations of the same phrase. The sea of reeds could simply mean the Nile Delta.
The US National Center for Atmospheric Research are just a bunch of geeks...
grow up.
I need to grow up ? that's laughable coming from someone who believes in an invisible being watching over you from above & waiting to welcome you into a hugely crowded place at the pearly gates.
is this place called La La land by any chanceIs there not current technology to test this theory of blowing a walkable passage through the sea for real rather than on computers , even on a smaller scale? show me someone walking across the sea bed and I'll denounce atheism
If their experiment failed do you think you would see headlines ' Exodus parting of the red sea could not have happened & therefore draw your own conclusions?
or NCAR computer simulation shows that it's not possible to rise from the dead ?
What would you say if the NCAR did a computer simulation that shows that creation wasn't possible & it's all down to evolution over eons of years ?
Oh wait -we know that already.
I need to grow up ? that's laughable coming from someone who believes in an invisible being watching over you from above & waiting to welcome you into a hugely crowded place at the pearly gates.
As far as I am aware Castiel is agnostic...
& yet always fights in the creationists corner as do many of the others
Because some arguments put forward are ridiculous! I still don't get how a scientific explanation is a bad thing considering it gives an argument that if the parting of the red sea did actually happen then it wasn't an act of a deity.
I say again, surely a scientific explanation is a good thing!!
& yet always fights in the creationists corner as do many of the others
Not at all, I just don't like people who use their ignorance as a cudgel to bully others or dismiss the beliefs of others without actually having any idea what they are talking about.
And no I am not religious, I hold no faith other than in my own ability to be tolerant, even towards fools like your good self...
Btw, I have never defended creationism, in fact quite the opposite. Neither did I say that the scientific theory regarding the parting of the Nile Delta was proof of God or Moses or anything other than it gives a level of credence to the historicity of the Bible.
Last edited:
Well you were first to jump on the bandwagon to ridicule me saying that it would be impossible to part the red sea as per the Exodus story, are you going to say that the simulation has proved that it can be done on such a big scale ?
Have you watched the actual video? because I defy you to tell me that it 'parts' the water as imagined in the Exodus story & how everyone reading about this simulation will think the same in that a narrow channel appears
It doesn't does it! what it shows is more like a simulation of tidal waters receding over vast flat sandbanks & then flowing back and to link this in with the Exodus story is frankly just sensationalism
How can you claim to have no religious beliefs on one hand whilst eagerly accepting one of the biggest biblical myths as true, it defies rational thinking it really does.
The bible lovers websites are already jumping for joy ,it's true ! they proved it's true & it's more proof of god etc.
Taking into account there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a mass Exodus of people living 40 years without trace there's already stuff appearing on the net pointing out that it would be nearly impossible for Israelites to stand in such a wind, much less walk to safety in what would undoubtedly be deep mud
The NCAR have already pointed out that it wasn't possible to create the simulation in the area depicted in the bible so they chose the Nile delta instead because it's conveniently really shallow in parts.
So already there's net postings of ' we should not take the bible literally', it was always the Nile delta but it was translated wrong'
Of course, this location raises another problem: The Nile Delta is not the Red Sea so basically they just sensationalised their experiment which otherwise would not have even entered the news would it.