Permabanned
Considering what you have to ignore in the OT to avoid having loss of faith problems. Deciding that the two descriptions of creation are mythic in nature is easy for the chrisitian religions.cleanbluesky said:
The Holocaust is a Myth
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Nitefly said: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
I find that funny too, much like claims that dinosaur fossils were put there by the devil to confuse us.....
But those aren't the majority of religious people, and that's what people tend to forget.
cleanbluesky said:
I personally go in for actually explaining my stance rather than posting something then declaring everyone else to be wrong or biased with no explaination. It makes things clearer and easier to understand, and avoids pages and pages of discussion with nothing gained. Present an argument that can be refuted, and all that.
Me too, but then I see no conflict between religion and science.
Dolph said:
Completely agreed. Many knock every religious group for stating such things, but it is the minority who refuse to accept some obvious facts. I find (personaly) many... well most religious beliefs completely unbelievable, but live and let live!
cleanbluesky said:
Funnily enough, evolution actually fits nicely into the Christian story of creation.
Nitefly said:
Variations in the speed of light keeps being suggested in physics. I believe there is currently investigations underway to prove that in fact the speed of light is not constant. The good thing for science is if that if light has not got a constant speed it helps to explain the big bang theory. I found that interesting when I read about it, no idea if you do though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,094
apolagies about saying religion is hogwash ( i get carried away in debates there great fun 
) to me it is however, i said im no expert in religion, not that i dont know anything about it, I know a reasonable amount about to make my observations of it
Exactly what im saying, if religious extremists of any faith go around saying that there religion is so.......and then change it on a whim when it suits them (and sometimes split forming there own religions,which often happens, cathloic church, church of england etc etc).........it is in the eyes of reasonable people is not credible as a solid source of understanding.
On the flipside if that happened in science, like person 1 said, this pen is red, another person says this pen is blue (reminds me of the 2 hat colours in red dwarf of the cat people ), and then split to form 2 'sects' of science, then neither would become credible (or moreover perhaps one would be credible as there stating the correct observed object/thing), if this continues to happen over and over, eventually surely one would lose sight of what 'is'
This is why I put my argument forward to science as there are methods to minimise this, it takes a lot of people to look at whatever your investigating and for them to all agree on it before it can be accepted as 'truth'
There will be bumps along the way, but eventualy weeding out all other possiblitys we should end up with something that at least closely resembles 'what is/truth'
PS: I know compairing colours is a bad example, as colour of course are subjective , but its a sat nite, and my brains half melted,lol
PPS: I know some people dont see religion/science as a conflict, but i do, if we remove religion from history id dare say there wouldnt of been nearly the amounts of wars we had, religion is nearly always used as a lame excuse to start a fight, maybe science should be the way forward, in that at least it would get everyone to agree to something solid with foundation and is highly plausable
) to me it is however, i said im no expert in religion, not that i dont know anything about it, I know a reasonable amount about to make my observations of it Exactly what im saying, if religious extremists of any faith go around saying that there religion is so.......and then change it on a whim when it suits them (and sometimes split forming there own religions,which often happens, cathloic church, church of england etc etc).........it is in the eyes of reasonable people is not credible as a solid source of understanding.
On the flipside if that happened in science, like person 1 said, this pen is red, another person says this pen is blue (reminds me of the 2 hat colours in red dwarf of the cat people
), and then split to form 2 'sects' of science, then neither would become credible (or moreover perhaps one would be credible as there stating the correct observed object/thing), if this continues to happen over and over, eventually surely one would lose sight of what 'is'This is why I put my argument forward to science as there are methods to minimise this, it takes a lot of people to look at whatever your investigating and for them to all agree on it before it can be accepted as 'truth'
There will be bumps along the way, but eventualy weeding out all other possiblitys we should end up with something that at least closely resembles 'what is/truth'
PS: I know compairing colours is a bad example, as colour of course are subjective
, but its a sat nite, and my brains half melted,lolPPS: I know some people dont see religion/science as a conflict, but i do, if we remove religion from history id dare say there wouldnt of been nearly the amounts of wars we had, religion is nearly always used as a lame excuse to start a fight, maybe science should be the way forward, in that at least it would get everyone to agree to something solid with foundation and is highly plausable
Last edited:
Combat squirrel said:Exactly what im saying, if religious extremists of any faith go around saying that there religion is so.......and then change it on a whim when it suits them (and sometimes split forming there own religions,which often happens, cathloic church, church of england etc etc).........it is in the eyes of reasonable people is not credible as a solid source of understanding.
On the flipside if that happened in science, like person 1 said, this pen is red, another person says this pen is blue (reminds me of the 2 hat colours in red dwarf of the cat people
Aah, but that does happen in science. You often find two or more sects existing in science at the same time, and that continues until one proves themselves to be correct. As an example the debate raging over the 13th (and consequent) dimensions. You have those that support, and those that disagree. Until it can be proven they will continue. Unfortunately, for religion, the only way to know which was right (if any) can only really be reached if you die. And then you answer is no good to the rest of us.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Dolph said:
Okay - what's your view on areas that religion^ and science* disagree on - principally the origin of the species and the age of the universe?
^Christianity of course, since we all everything about it represents all religions
* Science to be understood as the body of works and accumulated knowledge, based upon the concept of causality through directly observable and quantifiable phenomena and all that jazz
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Pudney@work said:
How? Adam and Eve vs understanding biology?
cleanbluesky said:Okay - what's your view on areas that religion^ and science* disagree on - principally the origin of the species and the age of the universe?
^Christianity of course, since we all everything about it represents all religions
* Science to be understood as the body of works and accumulated knowledge, based upon the concept of causality through directly observable and quantifiable phenomena and all that jazz
Depends whether you're taking a literal or philosophical interpretation of the work....
If you take the genesis account of creation are to be taken literally against the arguments of science, then science wins, hands down. (I'm talking 7 days to create the earth, adam and eve etc)
If the philosophical interpretation is taken, then things get more complicated. The theory of evolution provides a mechanism for people to have been created, but doesn't (and indeed cannot) preclude that the process was designed or monitored by an outside force.
However, as I'm not a christian (as you're well aware) the argument is not one I'd get into anyway, seeing as I don't believe in an omnipotent, single, all powerful god.
-Dolph
cleanbluesky said:
Well, firstly understand I'm not as strong at Biology as Physics. Now, I have to admit I don't actually see where evolution and the story of creation actually disagree, please note, intelligent design as wanted taught in American schooling is not synonymous with the story of creation. Next, study the order of the creation of life on Earth. Roughly speaking (please remember the bible only gives a simple overview to creation) the order is the same as evolution suggests. One day there is life in the seas. The next, animals, reptiles, birds and other creatures on land are created. The next day man is made. Which fits in with evolution.
Dolph said:
Well, six days to create it all. And they're not actually days, that's a translation error from the original text. A more apt translation would be 6 periods of unspecified time. But that doesn't have the same ring to it. Anyway, thought that was an interesting point, doesn't actually matter in any shape or form.
Arcade Fire said:
The recent polls showed a significant left wing bias in SC. The vast majority of those who posted a score sat way left of center. Their political views are very much to the left of the average person.
However if someone does mention how far left they are they do get annoyed about it. Indeed they consider themselves moderate but appear to be far from it.
Permabanned
There is no contempory evidence that he's a real figure, though there is cirumstantial evidence pointing to there being a real person at the root of the legend.VIRII said:
Sleepy said:
So the Jews were not led out of Egyptian slavery to the holy land by moses then? I assumed that as the OT is a bit of an historical record that this was considered to be reasonably close to the truth?
There seems to be more evidence for him existing than say God.
Permabanned
And as was pointed out at the same time the scales were arbitary. If we based the interpretation on you being right wing and anarchist being left wing then most participants were centre-left.VIRII said:
It should also be remembered that a life long tory voter came out as more left wing than a John Smith era labour voter in those tests.
Permabanned
can of worms, open.VIRII said:
Very few biblical scholars consider the OT to be an accurate historical record, as to how accurate it is varies greatly with who you ask. But note re the exodus there is no evidence (inc written or physical remains/artifacts/building) in Egypt ever discovered of a large Jewish slave population, nor is their any evidence for occupation of the sinai by a nomadic population.
no you are confusing islam with muslim.cleanbluesky said:So your comments on Islam were...ironic
My comments about islam apply equally to christianity, catholocism, judaism, the lot. Religion is a source of nothing but evil imo. Natiohood is something you are born into, not something you choose. Huge difference.
My hatred of religion is in no way xenophobic, in fact it is very rational.