Multiple shootings in Paris

Some inaccurate statements made regarding scientists. Maybe a little research into it might reveal some surprises.
 
gramps said:
The fact that something exists does not depend on proof being available, it only requires proof to satisfy the needs of those who doubt. I am not talking 'gullible' here I am talking evidence including both of a physical and spiritual nature.

Of Flew, he stated that, "it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
(There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind)
Click to expand...
Anthony Flew was not a biologist, never mind a molecular biologist, and his understanding of DNA and molecular biology is not very sophisticated (although I will concede that it's more sophisticated than that of most laymen). It's a classic case of the educated man making a fool of himself when talking outside of his field.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
And who designed that intelligent designer?... etc... etc... etc...


Steve,
Click to expand...
Yes. If complexity REQUIRES a designer then a designer, which must be complex, requires a designer and so on, ad infitum, ad infitum, ad absurdum.

All invoking an intelligent designer does is to arbitrarily move the goalposts. And your interrogator is therefore justified in moving them arbitrarily further. So who designed God?

"Oh, God does not NEED a designer!". Argument from special pleading.
 
Last edited:
Surely Gramps the evidence is that man evolved and wasn't created as is.
Given that we did evolve then God cannot have created man in his own image.
I accept hat's a littoral reading of the bible, and we all know it cannot be an accurate description of the way the world was created, it was in all probability written to explain what was at the time unexplainable.
However, all life, and thus DNA evolved back to a chemical reaction, was that intentional, or just a lucky accident of nature?
Obviously you would say it was intentional, some of us prefer the lucky accident, in the same way as the infinite monkeys with typewriters will eventually come out with Shakespeare. There's no evidence
supporting it being intentional, which is why faith comes into it, but faith isn't proof positive.
But to come back to the plot, you believe that God did something and for a reason. Is there a difference between your belief in that happening, and a fundamentalist believing that God wants him to do something we find repugnant, like shooting people for drawing pictures? And if that Fundamentalist should be educated that what he believes is wrong, because we say it is, should you be educated that much of Christian Belief is equally wrong, because he says it is?
 
dejongj said:
I think that is uncalled for. I mean suggesting that peaceful believers are more deluded than those killing other people is exactly that line being crossed. Totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Really? Islamic extremists are a product of upbringing and indoctrination. Many are from countries and backgrounds that result in them not having the education or access to information that the rest of us have. Put in simple terms they know no better that what's been rammed into them in the madrasas and training camps etc. On the other hand the vast majority of creationists are from the west, and they willfully choose to ignore evidence and facts to further their own agenda.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Really? Islamic extremists are a product of upbringing and indoctrination. Many are from countries and backgrounds that result in them not having the education or access to information that the rest of us have. Put in simple terms they know no better that what's been rammed into them in the madrasas and training camps etc. On the other hand the vast majority of creationists are from the west, and they willfully choose to ignore evidence and facts to further their own agenda.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that they choose to ignore facts to further any agenda, they just believe in something. The key word is believe, it requires no evidence as it is a matter of faith, and I for one can't even begin to argue with that.

As much as I just can't get my head around HOW people believe in any religion, I can't say that they are deluded (and certainly not more so than extremists!) as I have no knowledge that isn't available to them, so they have simply come to a different conclusion based on their life experiences.
 
I believe there are plenty of extemists who have willingly chosen that route.
 
Right, back on track, some posts deleted [apologies for the collateral damage] So far this thread has involved some strong debate but has not descended into purely insulting diatribe, which quite frankly @Ricardodaforce is what your post was. So, move on, discuss sensibly or find a less controversial thread to be part of.
 
Bernie174 said:
Surely Gramps the evidence is that man evolved and wasn't created as is.
Given that we did evolve then God cannot have created man in his own image.
Click to expand...
Maybe God is a big bearded amoeba that lives in the clouds. Created life in his own image and things kinda got a little out of hand?
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Maybe God is a big bearded amoeba that lives in the clouds. Created life in his own image and things kinda got a little out of hand?
Click to expand...
So you are saying God is Austrian? Cool. Could that mean that Mount Sinai is actually the Großglockner? :)
 
dejongj said:
So you are saying God is Austrian? Cool. Could that mean that Mount Sinai is actually the Großglockner? :)
Click to expand...

I always suspected he was Austrian - same as Adolph :)
 
Steve Smith said:
What? The bloke who invented the saxophone? That makes sense!
Click to expand...


Nope, he's a famous Belgian.

I've always thought Austria was cool though - they somehow convinced the world that Hitler was German and Einstein was Austrian. That's pretty impressive PR.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Maybe God is a big bearded amoeba that lives in the clouds. Created life in his own image and things kinda got a little out of hand?
Click to expand...
Close JP but not accurate enough.
I'm not going to start proselyting but our God is The Flying Spaghetti Monster and we of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will welcome any-one who would like to embrace our belief with open arms. However if you don't want to join us that's fine as well.
For more theological readings on this ancient religion go to http://www.venganza.org/about/

View attachment 28708

May His noodly appendages be upon you.
 
mjScall said:
Not to second guess the original poster I would assume he meant scientifically educated, which in terms of religious belief is the only education that would potentially be mutually exclusive (if you were to try and be a fundamentalist in that chosen religion and also scientific). I know there are a fair few religious scientists however they are in an extreme minority.
Click to expand...

if you're ever in West London and need something to help you sleep, you can drop round and read my PhD thesis, having a good science knowledge isn't mutually exclusive of anything. If anything it should open your mind

By the way saying there are a 'fair few' of anything and then describing them as 'in an extreme minoirty' is a bit of an oxymoron
 
I think his holliness the pope put it very well today

"The pontiff said religions had to be treated with respect, so that people's faiths were not insulted or ridiculed."
 
Mr Bump said:
I think his holliness the pope put it very well today

"The pontiff said religions had to be treated with respect, so that people's faiths were not insulted or ridiculed."
Click to expand...

Respect must be earned.
 
Well, he would say that wouldn't he.

The concept of freedom of thought and expression has always been a bit of an issue for the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
So you are saying God is Austrian? Cool. Could that mean that Mount Sinai is actually the Großglockner? :)
Click to expand...

I read that as australian at first - I can see him having a barbie in the sky with a few cold ones stashed in a nearby cloud , that would make Mount Sinai ,Ayers Rock
 
Mr Bump said:
Do you have a strong faith?
Click to expand...

yeah I strongly believe that a wise man doesnt hold a porcupine in his lap , at any time but particularly not while naked
 
boyfalldown said:
if you're ever in West London and need something to help you sleep, you can drop round and read my PhD thesis, having a good science knowledge isn't mutually exclusive of anything. If anything it should open your mind

By the way saying there are a 'fair few' of anything and then describing them as 'in an extreme minoirty' is a bit of an oxymoron
Click to expand...


It isn't an oxymoron at all. There are a fair few serial killers in the population, but they are in the extreme minority. Does that analogy make it easier for you to understand??

If you actually read the post you quoted you will see that I say that scientific knowledge is 'potentially' mutually exclusive with religious beliefs (and more specifically fundamentalism).

Feel free to dig up the statistics but the evidence will stack up heavily in my favour, and as you claim to be so scientific that should be good enough
 
mjScall said:
It isn't an oxymoron at all. There are a fair few serial killers in the population, but they are in the extreme minority. Does that analogy make it easier for you to understand??

If you actually read the post you quoted you will see that I say that scientific knowledge is 'potentially' mutually exclusive with religious beliefs (and more specifically fundamentalism).

Feel free to dig up the statistics but the evidence will stack up heavily in my favour, and as you claim to be so scientific that should be good enough
Click to expand...


I did read it ta ;), Analogy fail as well. If you wish to resort to those sort of comments I suggest you've lost any arguement.

As 'I claim' you asume I'm lying?

BTW it is an oxymoron. And scientists who were religous include Einstien. Peter Higgs (I'm assuming you've heard of him, the Higgs bosson, so called god particle and all that) he's an aetheist but argues very conviencingly why the two aren't incompatible.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Respect must be earned.
Click to expand...


If that were the case, then every single child would go into school being totally uncontrollable, because the teachers had not earned their respect. The same would apply to children and parents and employers and new employees, students and lecturers at university.
Respect must be earned is something which belongs to the "Gangsta" culture.
I respect anyone until they show that they cannot be respected, this is the culture of mutual respect.
 
boyfalldown said:
I did read it ta ;)

As 'I claim' you asume I'm lying?

BTW it is an oxymoron. And scientists who were religous include Einstien. Peter Higgs (I'm assuming you've heard of him, the Higgs bosson, so called god particle and all that) argues very conviencingly why the two aren't incompatible.
Click to expand...

It isn't an oxymoron as the example i posted proves, it doesn't matter how many times you post 'BTW it is an oxymoron'

And again you seem to miss the part where i say "potentially" and "more specifically fundamentalism". Or are you suggesting that either of those scientists believed in a literal translation of the bible?
And I have a mutually exclusive understanding of science and religion as what I know of one has convinced me that the other has no truth, which proves 100% that they are POTENTIALLY incompatible.

I made sure that word was in capitals as you seem to skim over it every time you read my posts
 
andy700 said:
If that were the case, then every single child would go into school being totally uncontrollable, because the teachers had not earned their respect. The same would apply to children and parents and employers and new employees, students and lecturers at university.
Respect must be earned is something which belongs to the "Gangsta" culture.
I respect anyone until they show that they cannot be respected, this is the culture of mutual respect.
Click to expand...

Content to agree to disagree.
 
mjScall said:
It isn't an oxymoron as the example i posted proves, it doesn't matter how many times you post 'BTW it is an oxymoron'

And again you seem to miss the part where i say "potentially" and "more specifically fundamentalism". Or are you suggesting that either of those scientists believed in a literal translation of the bible?
And I have a mutually exclusive understanding of science and religion as what I know of one has convinced me that the other has no truth, which proves 100% that they are POTENTIALLY incompatible.

I made sure that word was in capitals as you seem to skim over it every time you read my posts
Click to expand...


so was I lying? You skipped that bit.

I've no idea what Einstien's beliefs were - Higgs is an aethist so I assume not. Anyway no point going round in circles with you. I disagree if thats OK. & it is an oxymoron no matter how often you post it isn't. See something else just to disagree on. Hope thats OK ;)
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
If that were the case, then every single child would go into school being totally uncontrollable, because the teachers had not earned their respect. The same would apply to children and parents and employers and new employees, students and lecturers at university.
Respect must be earned is something which belongs to the "Gangsta" culture.
I respect anyone until they show that they cannot be respected, this is the culture of mutual respect.
Click to expand...

@viv1969 I think the above from @andy700 answers my question to you very well indeed.
 
andy700 said:
If that were the case, then every single child would go into school being totally uncontrollable, because the teachers had not earned their respect. The same would apply to children and parents and employers and new employees, students and lecturers at university.
Respect must be earned is something which belongs to the "Gangsta" culture.
I respect anyone until they show that they cannot be respected, this is the culture of mutual respect.
Click to expand...

Bravo so well put indeed sir.
 
boyfalldown said:
I did read it ta ;), Analogy fail as well. If you wish to resort to those sort of comments I suggest you've lost any arguement.

As 'I claim' you asume I'm lying?

BTW it is an oxymoron. And scientists who were religous include Einstien. Peter Higgs (I'm assuming you've heard of him, the Higgs bosson, so called god particle and all that) he's an aetheist but argues very conviencingly why the two aren't incompatible.
Click to expand...

Curiously, about a year ago, I actually heard a scientist on the radio working in genetics [in theory you would think one of the least compatible areas of science] argue that he could quite easily and happily both have a faith in God and still do what he does successfully. His argument was based around the fact that having a faith in God, [regardless of what you call your version of God, implying he was saying though he was what we would refer to as a Christian because he also believes in the teachings of Christ, his principles applied equally to Muslims and Jews too] did not mean having to believe every single word in the Bible or Koran in the literal sense. He firmly believed that all these texts were written as guide by which to live your life, a 'guide' that is adaptable and can be reinterpreted to fit modern thinking, science and discoveries. He pointed out that any such text was merely an interpretation of the author that wrote it and others could well have written about the same events differently then, just as they do now. His argument was that 'organised religion' would do itself a huge amount of favour if it actually started respecting it's God instead of simply applying good/guilt/punishment as per some words in a book/on a scroll that were probably out of date even when they were first written, never mind the umpteen translations they have had since. When we look at the way the words of the Bible or the Koran have wildly differing meanings to different sects of each religion, I guess it is quite easy to actually see his point. I can't agree with him about having a faith, but I can at least understand how he's thinking.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Then may I refer you to my response to him.
Click to expand...

Yes I just did and I have to say I feel quite sad for you that you feel you can have no mutual respect for anyone. I have to say my faith which is strong gives me great comfort and also great strength it also aids me in my dealings wiyh strangers and I deeply respect other peoples faiths and religions. The thought of insulting ones faith for no other reason but personal amusement causes me great sadness.
 
Mr Bump said:
Yes I just did and I have to say I feel quite sad for you that you feel you can have no mutual respect for anyone. I have to say my faith which is strong gives me great comfort and also great strength it also aids me in my dealings wiyh strangers and I deeply respect other peoples faiths and religions. The thought of insulting ones faith for no other reason but personal amusement causes me great sadness.
Click to expand...

Couple of points to be addressed I feel.

I have a great deal of respect for many people.
Religion? Go ahead....fill your boots if that's what you need. I, however have no such need.
Who's faith have I insulted?
I won't pussyfoot around when discussing religion for fear of people taking offense, but that's not the same thing at all.
Anyone totally secure in their own faith would not take offense anyway.
 
andy700 said:
If that were the case, then every single child would go into school being totally uncontrollable, because the teachers had not earned their respect. The same would apply to children and parents and employers and new employees, students and lecturers at university.
Respect must be earned is something which belongs to the "Gangsta" culture.
I respect anyone until they show that they cannot be respected, this is the culture of mutual respect.
Click to expand...

Just because you may not necessarily 'respect' someone (yet), doesnt mean you will just automatically be rude/uncontrollable etc. I dont remember my first day at school, but I can guarantee I didnt 'respect' my teacher at that point. I didnt know her, and she didnt know me. As far as im aware, I wasnt uncontrollable either. I do however, remember my first day at college/work, and I also didnt respect my lecturers/bosses as I didnt know them. I wasnt unruly, uncontrollable or rude there either, and I did end up respecting these people. Ive had many jobs, and many bosses, and I havent always respected them. I have however, had respect for the position they hold, and that is the difference for me. I dont feel I necessarily have to respect everyone (because, to be honest, I dont like everyone ive met), but I do know when to show respect for what people are. Big difference.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Just because you may not necessarily 'respect' someone (yet), doesnt mean you will just automatically be rude/uncontrollable etc. I dont remember my first day at school, but I can guarantee I didnt 'respect' my teacher at that point. I didnt know her, and she didnt know me. As far as im aware, I wasnt uncontrollable either. I do however, remember my first day at college/work, and I also didnt respect my lecturers/bosses as I didnt know them. I wasnt unruly, uncontrollable or rude there either, and I did end up respecting these people. Ive had many jobs, and many bosses, and I havent always respected them. I have however, had respect for the position they hold, and that is the difference for me. I dont feel I necessarily have to respect everyone (because, to be honest, I dont like everyone ive met), but I do know when to show respect for what people are. Big difference.
Click to expand...


In many cultures, individuals are considered to be worthy of respect until they prove otherwise. Courtesies that show respect include simple words and phrases like "thank you" and "please", as well as "Good morning" and "How are you?".
The fact that people are polite and considerate (well, most are anyway), shows that they have respect for others. The fact that some people are rude, impolite and show a general lack of consideration for others, shows that they are disrespectful.
 
I work with people that I absolutely cannot stand to be around, would not socialise with and do not respect them in the slightest. Yet, every morning, I will be polite/professional and say Good morning. Saying please and thank you is good manners, and has nothing to do with respect in my opinion.

It does appear that we all have different views on just how encompassing the meaning of 'respect' is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top