The Holocaust is a Myth

Nitefly · 11 Feb 2006 at 16:50

Pudney@work said:
You have of course missed my point. My post wasn't about whether the holocaust is a fact and whether religion is factual. My point is why is it ok for you to express your opinion (despite having no proof to back up the lack of existence) whereas it's not ok for someone to air their opinon?

I don't think its a case of denying a religion, its more a case of someone telling you a pen is red when its clearly blue

Its not even oppinion.

Pudney · 11 Feb 2006 at 16:55

Nitefly said:
I don't think its a case of denying a religion, its more a case of someone telling you a pen is red when its clearly blue

Its not even oppinion.

Of course it's an opinion. Opinion isn't factual information, it's someone's views on a situation, don't confuse the two.

AndyPants · 11 Feb 2006 at 16:57

dmpoole said:
Except me and I admit to it.

(I don't think that any races are superior to one another but I will take sides with my own race and I honestly believe that all people will do the same - if that makes me racist then so be it)

Lets imagine a law is passed where all the people have to get out of Wales and move to the rest of Europe while Wales is now given to Muslims to live in. It wouldn't be hard to imagine what the rest of the world thought about this action and I must admit that I'm on the Muslims side in this matter of Israel being created. Israel should have been put in Germany and not taken from the Muslims. No wonder they're bitching.

Jesus Man, Wales dont want to be given to the Jews nor no one else. We got the bloody English hypocrits forced on us and thats bad enough.

Nitefly · 11 Feb 2006 at 16:58

Pudney@work said:
Of course it's an opinion. Opinion isn't factual information, it's someone's views on a situation, don't confuse the two.

But the pen is blue....? It would be false truth. Theres not a fine line between stating an oppinion such as 'I live on the moon' and total garbage, in my oppinion at least, which is what I make of the holocaust comments presented.

Total garbage

Pudney · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:01

Nitefly said:
But the pen is blue....? It would be false truth. Theres not a fine line between stating an oppinion such as 'I live on the moon' and total garbage, in my oppinion at least, which is what I make of the holocaust comments presented.

Total garbage

If you honestly thought the blue pen was red then that is indeed your opinion. If I thought the world was flat, that would be my opinion. Opinions don't have to be correct, merely what you believe, like I said before, the truth is irrelevant to someone's opinion.

cleanbluesky · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:02

AndyPants said:
Jesus Man, Wales dont want to be given to the Jews nor no one else. We got the bloody English hypocrits forced on us and thats bad enough.

Damns thats some nice Anglophobia

Chronos-X · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:05

Maybe the pen is purple?

Combat squirrel · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:05

Pudney@work said:
You have of course missed my point. My post wasn't about whether the holocaust is a fact and whether religion is factual. My point is why is it ok for you to express your opinion (despite having no proof to back up the lack of existence) whereas it's not ok for someone to air their opinon?

As for a debate about religion you've overlooked several key points.

1) Science tells us the Big Bang created the universe. Why? Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why did intelligent life come to being on this planet when the probability of it happening is by the scientific definition impossible? Because that's the way it is? That's not acceptable for religious belief but acceptable for scientific belief?
2) Most religions don't believe the Earth is only 5000 years old. A radical minority do but the majority don't. That's a factually incorrect statement. Therefore your conclusion that "most of the world is off their rockers" is obviously a ridiculous statement to make.
3) There is no evidence that God exists, but there is no evidence that God doesn't. Therefore your conclusion that humans made them up is unsupported. Perhaps you can argue that religious texts were made up by humans, but unless you have access to a time machine the world doesn't know about then that is only your belief, and more importantly, unprovable, just as the existence of God.

I'm meant to be working, so that's it for now, but remember this, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, science seeks to answer how things happen, religion answers why they happen. To replace one with the other is ludicrous.

Good debate points sir, so in reverse order,

1) Whats religion got to do with 'why things happen' , you also stated science is for 'how things happen' isnt that both the same and 1 thing ? I certanly dont look to religion to answer the philosophical questions, I wonder how why and what we are doing here from the point of view as a human being, because my cognitive mind allows me to think of these things, a god (if he was 'designing' the human mind) would surly think twice about giving humans the ability to do this alone, if he wanted us all to worship him, he should have 'programmed us' to Irrefutably accept him, as a very basic design contingent that makes sense for a start.

2) No evidence for or against him existing, but theres a damn site lot of evidence telling us how we got here, and how the planet earth exists.........this evidence points to natural evoluition though and ergo no 'one' 'godlike' creator

3) True not all religions beleive earth is 5000 years old, ironiclly I was thinking of the jewish religion in my mind when i wrote that, however ALL religions say earth is only a matter of thousands of years old, and a lot younger than the OBSERVED age of the earth, hence all relgions have got that age wrong then.

4) We dont fully understand the true nature of the laws of physics yet, but at least we can comprihend them, and know of them, and observe and measure them, again better than 'because it is' without anything to back up your claim. Why not evolving intelligent life ? it makes sense in the evolutionary arms race. I bet there are thousands of intelligent beings in this universe, its just so vast we haven't got a hope in meeting any of them for along time. Also you are incorrect in your statement:

'Why did intelligent life come to being on this planet when the probability of it happening is by the scientific definition impossible?'

The actual numbers run and calculated put the possiblilty of intelligent life at a point in the universe as greater than 99%

And why does your mind and many other peoples mind instantly turn to religion when asking the big important questions about humans and the universe? We should get the religous nuts and take them on a field trip to actually observe the universe and see whats happening out there if that makes sense.............instead of reading it in a book written by some blokes?

Dolph · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:15

Religion != Judiasm/christianity/islam.

The rest of your argument is so riddled with flaws it's not even funny.... All religions believe the earth is a few thousand years old? Are you smoking something? Many religions don't even have any form of real explaination how the earth or man got here at all.....

I won't even start with the logical flaw that you are claiming science (which is a clearly defined man made construct based on observation and prediction) can in any way prove or disprove the unobservable, or the fact that science has so far come up with nothing that proves a god or gods could not exist, nor is it likely to unless they act specifically and observably in a situation where observations are being made......

Incidentally, do you have much in the way of scientific education?

Pudney · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:16

Combat squirrel said:
Good debate points sir, so in reverse order,

1) Whats religion got to do with 'why things happen' , you also stated science is for 'how things happen' isnt that both the same and 1 thing ? I certanly dont look to religion to answer the philosophical questions, I wonder how why and what we are doing here from the point of view as a human being, because my cognitive mind allows me to think of these things, a god (if he was 'designing' the human mind) would surly think twice about giving humans the ability to do this alone, if he wanted us all to worship him, he should have 'programmed us' to Irrefutably accept him, as a very basic design contingent that makes sense for a start.

2) No evidence for or against him existing, but theres a damn site lot of evidence telling us how we got here, and how the planet earth exists.........this evidence points to natural evoluition though and ergo no 'one' 'godlike' creator

3) True not all religions beleive earth is 5000 years old, ironiclly I was thinking of the jewish religion in my mind when i wrote that, however ALL religions say earth is only a matter of thousands of years old, and a lot younger than the OBSERVED age of the earth, hence all relgions have got that age wrong then.

4) We dont fully understand the true nature of the laws of physics yet, but at least we can comprihend them, and know of them, and observe and measure them, again better than 'because it is' without anything to back up your claim. Why not evolving intelligent life ? it makes sense in the evolutionary arms race. I bet there are thousands of intelligent beings in this universe, its just so vast we haven't got a hope in meeting any of them for along time. Also you are incorrect in your statement:

'Why did intelligent life come to being on this planet when the probability of it happening is by the scientific definition impossible?'

The actual numbers run and calculated put the possiblilty of intelligent life at a point in the universe as greater than 99%

And why does your mind and many other peoples mind instantly turn to religion when asking the big important questions about humans and the universe? We should get the religous nuts and take them on a field trip to actually observe the universe and see whats happening out there if that makes sense.............instead of reading it in a book written by some blokes?

1) I'll illustrate this with two examples, firstly science. The speed of light is constant, that's one of physics fundamental laws (I'm more knowledgable of physics than any other branch of science which is why I use it), but why is it the speed it is? Why isn't it 1m/s faster or slower? Or even more than that. Science doesn't answer in that, and in fact science does not even want to answer that because quite simply science tells us what things are or how things happen.

Secondly, religion (I'll use Christianity) tells us God created the universe. Why? Because he had the desire to. How? That's not important. The mechanism of universe creation has no bearing on religion.

2) You do realise the theory of Evolution is accepted by Chrisitianity as the mechanism that God created man. What exactly started this process off though? Knowing the mechanism doesn't disprove religion.

3) Actually, as far as I'm aware most religions don't place much emphasis on how old the world actually is, so this is incorrect.

4) Knowing, comprehending and measurability still don't answer why the laws of physics are the way they are.

Nitefly · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:17

Pudney@work said:
Opinions don't have to be correct, merely what you believe, like I said before, the truth is irrelevant to someone's opinion.

Then surely I am entitled to the opinion that his opinion was not an opinion - just garbage.....?

Sorry, thats just trying to wind you up

. I do know what you mean, but I do think slating his "opinion" into the ground is a fairly reasonable thing to do...

Sleepy · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:26

Pudney@work said:
1) I'll illustrate this with two examples, firstly science. The speed of light is constant, that's one of physics fundamental laws (I'm more knowledgable of physics than any other branch of science which is why I use it), but why is it the speed it is? Why isn't it 1m/s faster or slower? Or even more than that. Science doesn't answer in that, and in fact science does not even want to answer that because quite simply science tells us what things are or how things happen.

err quite why fundumental constants have the values they do is of overwhelming interest to science.

2) You do realise the theory of Evolution is accepted by Chrisitianity as the mechanism that God created man.

err there are quite a few xians who don't accept Evolution, YEC, OEC, IDers, POTUS etc

AndyPants · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:27

cleanbluesky, from me Its only a bit of humor .But i spose its exactly what Mr Iranian President is saying in Iran. Seriously, i really cant grasp the Guys concepts, nor for that matter most of the hostile Muslim countries/states. Taking Wales and England, both these countries had other nationals forced on us, and now couple of hundred years later, maybe were becoming a minority in our own country, but we sure as hell wouldnt be as advanced as we are if it wasnt for the "Imports"(for the lackof the right word?). Now we welcome any other nationals from any nation to join our workforce to make us stronger. Surely the most hostile Muslim States should do the same, instead of wanting to kill us innocents they should want to welcome us let us help and teach them how to make their country more successful.

Combat squirrel · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:42

Dolph said:
Religion != Judiasm/christianity/islam.

The rest of your argument is so riddled with flaws it's not even funny.... All religions believe the earth is a few thousand years old? Are you smoking something? Many religions don't even have any form of real explaination how the earth or man got here at all.....

I won't even start with the logical flaw that you are claiming science (which is a clearly defined man made construct based on observation and prediction) can in any way prove or disprove the unobservable, or the fact that science has so far come up with nothing that proves a god or gods could not exist, nor is it likely to unless they act specifically and observably in a situation where observations are being made......

Incidentally, do you have much in the way of scientific education?

Easy donkey, chill, yes I do have an education in science, im nearly completing a degree in ocean sciences, which covers biology, geology, physics and chemistry.

Your right im no expert in religion but i know enough to know most of its complete hogwash, a post above or below this states 'christianity now accepts evolution as the process in which god invented humans' REALLY HOW CONVENIENT, what did they do for the previous 1000 years? HOW ON EARTH can it be a religion IF every tom dick and harry is changing what there reigion accepts when it suits them

Of course I know that science is a 'human invention' as it were, hence why EVERYTHING i have said is 'theory of' or 'our understanding'

But you have also massively contradicted yourself:

'nor is it [science] likely to unless they act specifically and observably in a situation where observations are being made......

Thats exactly what is happening though, learning through observation, at least science has its roots in the observed universe, and what ACTUALLY happens

you also agree with me in the start of your post:

'(which is a clearly defined man made construct based on observation and prediction)'

the whole point in scientific scrutiny is to observe something, record it, AND make it reproducable by other people, when that is done, at least to my personal taste, I would 'agree' that that is how IT (whatever is under the microscope as it were) is therefore true

Theres ya big difference between religion and science, relgion just says its true BECAUSE IT IS

Science has to go though rigerious controls, as stated above before its marked as 'acceptable' you never know, it might not be true, but as long as it can be shown over and over and over again by different people, it therefore must be along the right lines of 'what is'

Pudney · 11 Feb 2006 at 17:51

Nitefly said:
Then surely I am entitled to the opinion that his opinion was not an opinion - just garbage.....?

Sorry, thats just trying to wind you up . I do know what you mean, but I do think slating his "opinion" into the ground is a fairly reasonable thing to do...

Of course you're entitled to that opinion, as I said, opinions don't have to be correct! And I was finding it more amusing than irritating

Sleepy said:
err quite why fundumental constants have the values they do is of overwhelming interest to science.

By why I mean a philosophical why, and not why as in how they came to be like they did if that makes sense.

Sleepy said:
err there are quite a few xians who don't accept Evolution, YEC OEC, IDers, POTUS etc

Haha, I have to apologise here, I've had a Catholic upbringing and so I instincitvely speak in a Catholic sense instead of the wider Christian sense without meaning to. I'll revise my statement that the Theory of Evolution is accepted by the majority of Christians as that should be a fairer and more balanced statement.

Dolph · 11 Feb 2006 at 18:02

Combat squirrel said:
Easy donkey, chill, yes I do have an education in science, im nearly completing a degree in ocean sciences, which covers biology, geology, physics and chemistry.

That makes a change, normally those who try and use science to disprove religion don't have a clue about it. (Chemistry graduate btw)

Your right im no expert in religion but i know enough to know most of its complete hogwash, a post above or below this states 'christianity now accepts evolution as the process in which god invented humans' REALLY HOW CONVENIENT, what did they do for the previous 1000 years? HOW ON EARTH can it be a religion IF every tom dick and harry is changing what there reigion accepts when it suits them

Firstly your first statement makes no sense apart from showing that you're posting from a clearly biased viewpoint. "I don't know much about it but I'm sure it's all hogwash" isn't exactly a convincing stance.

You also seem to be criticising religion for responding to evidence, which is rather odd. Most people criticise it for being stuck in it's ways, not for responding to good evidence. The idea that religious texts are not literal is a good one that has been around a long time, certianly amongst Catholics and other christian groups. There is nothing in evolution, for example, that contradicts the bible unless you go with the literal "Young earth" interpretation, which only really has any real hold in the US, and then only in certain parts and certain sects.

Are you saying that religion should be inflexible, would that suit your agenda better? Are you saying that all religions are the same as well?

Of course I know that science is a 'human invention' as it were, hence why EVERYTHING i have said is 'theory of' or 'our understanding'

But you have also massively contradicted yourself:

'nor is it [science] likely to unless they act specifically and observably in a situation where observations are being made......

I haven't contradicted myself at all. Science can only measure things by observing interaction. If there's no interaction, things can't be measured. To make things more complicated, if there is interaction, but it's consistant, it will become a constant, not a variable. If there was a higher power, and they (for example) ensured evolution always worked by manipulating things, in an entirely consistant manner, it wouldn't be noticable by observation if you believed it not to be there.

Science regularly utilises things such as Occum's razor to simplify models. The simplest model that fits the data is the one that's used, and that would exclude an additional body in favour of assumption of a natural circumstance or rule. Occum's razor (and other similar tricks used in the creation of scientific models) does not make the truth, it makes the simplest model for the data.

Thats exactly what is happening though, learning through observation, at least science has its roots in the observed universe, and what ACTUALLY happens

Which assumes that our observation is capable of correctly evaluting everything. It also assumes that being able to predict input/output values correctly is all that's needed to enable knowledge.

There's actually a long and deep discussion about this in the SC archives which I'd urge everyone to sit and read through (there's not much arguing in it either) to get a deeper understanding. (the thread in question does also stomp all over intelligent design)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17524269

Science is very good at what it does, which is providing predictive models and trying to further understanding of cause and effect.

Science holds no more truth about why than anything else, if you want to put faith in it in that way, go ahead, but you'll turn it more into a religion than anything else if you do.

cleanbluesky · 11 Feb 2006 at 18:05

Combat squirrel said:
Your right im no expert in religion but i know enough to know most of its complete hogwash, a post above or below this states 'christianity now accepts evolution as the process in which god invented humans' REALLY HOW CONVENIENT, what did they do for the previous 1000 years? HOW ON EARTH can it be a religion IF every tom dick and harry is changing what there reigion accepts when it suits them

Perhaps it would have been good sportsmanship for Christianity to say that since evolution proabaly disproved one part of their belief system, it throws doubt on all of it.

Pudney · 11 Feb 2006 at 18:11

I was about to rip apart Combat Squirrels last post but I noticed midway through that Dolph already has so I can no longer be bothered. Just to let you know I have both a good understanding of Science and Religion, and I'm quite amused that you'd make a statement such as religion is complete "hogwash" whilst also admitting you know nowt about it.

cleanbluesky · 11 Feb 2006 at 18:19

I think that Combat Squirrel has a point and Dolph has used several long posts to simply say that if Christian doctrine were right, science couldn't test for God anyway.

I suppose it comes down to the manner in which people learn and the manner in which people trust information.
If I were in a desperate situation I would likely rely on science to get me out of it, rather than God. If science couldn't help me, you bet I'd be praying to the Big Man instead.

Heh

Nitefly · 11 Feb 2006 at 18:23

A slightly unrelated note, but I find it humerous also that some religious groups disclaim geologic (Is that a word?) evidence about rock dates:

"The world is really around 20,000 years old! Rocks are dated millions of years old because the speed of light used to be faster! !"

Well I find it funny