Thetownend.com

Creationist based schools set to open

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/17/creationist-groups-approval-free-schools?newsfeed=true

Thoughts?

Oh My ALLAH

:clap:

Retards have to educate their children too.

In fairness it is no different from a catholic school or any other faith school.

I don't have a problem with it.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory.
Creationism is also just a theory.

Who's to say what's right and wrong?

Hinduism rules!

Don't have a problem with the theory of creationism being taught in schools, although I don't agree with it myself enough people do that kids should be made aware of it.

However teaching it as a science is ludicrous. Make it part of the syllabus in RE, History or another humanity but how can a teacher in good conscience educate about a 'scientific' theory without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up? Makes a mockery of the experimental method.

Creationism is wrong

Not sure if serious or...

Yeah, says you!

You also informed me about Alaskan Pipelining, so i'm not sure who or what to believe!?

I'm not serious, i'm just fishing.

I realise I gave up too easily, but I can't be arsed.

The fuck...

If it's not bad enough that I live by some deluded, septic, Mormon-retards we now have some other group allowed to open schools to force children to not think. Jesus fucking christ.

(Please note, this isn't hatred I have towards all religions, just the really fucking dumb ones. Although I don't entertain any religion on any level, the more established have at least evolved to try and include some reality around evolution and freedom of thought.)

Fucking cretins the lot of them - burn the bastards, I say.

Religion has been, and still is, the cause of most of the world's ills

Creationism is already taught as fact in schools.
Fucking lunacy

That's what really gets me.

There is a plethora of physical evidence to blow their creationism theory out of the water but they choose to ignore it.

From the little I know they reckon everything on earth is only 3000 years old - so showing them the dinosaur bones, or evidence of human remains from thousands of years before is just ignored.

At least with the usual faith based religions there is no actual evidence to disprove their fantasies, but creationism is just wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R370YkYhV0w&noredirect=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Proof!

These people want to educate children...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

Indoctrination should be outlawed.

Why the fuck should the tax payer pay for children to be taught things we know not to be true?

Ha ha

That's just plain embarassing

Join the Exclusive Bretheren and throw your TV in the bin. There is about 150 of the loons in Swindon

Even as a Christian I don't advocate teaching creationism as indisputable fact, or as 'science' - that's not what schools are there for. However, I would support it being taught in R.E. and being engaged with critically. Hear me out here...

In R.E. kids currently get fed the 5 pillars of Islam, the 5 k's of Sikhism, and a load of wishy-washy drivel about the sanctity of life rooted in nothing other than their own teachers' views. This leads to a large amount of ignorance and apathy towards religion, and a disdain for anybody with a religious belief.

Perhaps if the R.E. curriculum was changed so that people were taught what each religion believes about God and the world, we'd have a lot more understanding and a lot less mindless, reactionist debate like in this thread. Even if you don't agree with religious beliefs, or religion in general, I don't see how you can argue against the value of critical engagement with what other people in society think.

Back to the point...

Most people in this thread appear to have seen the word 'creationism', panicked, and hit the red button, despite at least one person admitting they don't actually know what it means. Not all Christians stand in opposition to evolution, and there are very few in this country who still follow the 'young earth' way of thinking. Also, notice that none of the schools in that article are advocating what people in this thread have suggested. I'm sure many of you will know that in the 1980s Said called this 'Orientalism' - where we construct a negative image of a group of people different to ourselves in order to assert our superiority over them.


Science explains what happens in our world, and how. Religious belief is almost entirely focused on the 'why'. Some crazy people in America, and a small minority in this country will reject all science in favour of their interpretation of Genesis 1 (which, incidentally, is a poem written to counteract mystic beliefs of the time, not a scientific document). Posting videos of such people in support of an argument shows a real disdain for religious people who take these issues seriously. One guy in my church is a professors of medical ethics, another a member of the Royal Society. Many more are doctors, scientific researchers, and graduates in the sciences from top universities. They're much smarter than I am, and a lot more knowledgable - are we going to write them off purely because they believe God created the world?

All I'm asking for is a bit of critical thought, and not a wild assumption that all people with religious beliefs are fundamentally stupid, ignorant, backward, and a threat to the progress of society. Oh, and a bit of mutual understanding and engagement.

I await your abuse.

Is it Deism, that advocates that evolution is in fact a creation of sorts - that a 'divine clockmaker' created the universe and all the scintific principles that apply henceforth? That's slightly more believable than the Adam and Eve stuff.

Although I disagree with Creationism personally, and think it's completely wrong to be taught as a Science, I'm not sure the existence of these new schools is necessarily a bad thing.

The children who are going to be attending these schools will be, in all likelihood, being raised by Creationist parents already. These parents have their beliefs and, if they feel strongly enough about them to send their children to a Creationist school, will also probably feel strongly enough to impart the beliefs onto the children at home anyway. I don't think that the existence of the schools will change what a child is taught, but just where they are taught it and who they are taught by.

A lot of children of Creationist parents are currently homeschooled, in order for the parents to tailor the education to their own beliefs. If these new schools mean that children that would have been homeschooled are now able to learn in a bricks and mortar school, albeit a Creationist one, then maybe that's a good thing? I'm aware there are benefits to homeschooling for some people, but the increased social interactivity a child experiences from schooling with other children cannot be undervalued.

Who knows, maybe mixing with others might even allow them to broaden their world view and consider alternatives to Creationism...

Genuine question then. If creationism isn't a popular or widely held belief among UK Christians of all varieties, why does it need to be taught in RE? Other, older or obscure elements of the faith or scism don't need to be covered so why this one?

Detracting from the topic slightly, I don't understand why religion is still taught in schools. I can see that it gives children/young adults an insight into faiths/beliefs other than their own, which you would think would lead to better appreciation of faiths (although society suggests it doesn't), but what value does it add to a person's academic career? Apart from those that are humanities based, what qualifications have religious studies as a default requirement?

 

It's because we have an Established Church in this country, so politics, religion and education are inseparable.  The church has been educating for centuries as well...long before the state took an interest in educating its people.

(Comments not intended to support the status quo.)

A good point.

First of all, I wouldn't say creationism isn't a popular belief - just that the media and our society has caricatured what this means into a stubborn 'young-earth-anti-evolution' type viewpoint. All Christians would agree that God created the world in one way or another.

Regarding whether or not it should be taught, I do feel that since it is such a commonly discussed topic (this thread being proof of that) it is something that should be addressed. What I'd like to see is an R.E. curriculum which takes each major world religion, teaches from that religion's scriptures/teachers who they believe God is, what they believe about life, death and the world we live in, and how those beliefs then translate into present-day issues/debates like the origins of the world, marriage, abortion and whatever else.

The problem is, all kids currently get taught is 'Christians hate abortion', 'Jews have to be circumcised', 'Muslims have to do this, this and this' and so on without any reference to the character and works of God that are foundational to these beliefs in their respective religions.

It takes people years to form and properly understand their own religious beliefs. How do you teach kids about all major religions in one or two hours per fortnight?

You mean to say no right minded politician would drop religion from the national curriculum for fear of upsetting the Church and losing the support of the electorate?

I think you're missing the point. It's not about me as an individual in my career, it's about the functioning of society. If we remain ignorant of people's faiths and thus their worldviews, how can we ever engage in serious philosophical ar even political debate when we can't understand where they're coming from?

But even from the individualist, career-focused perspective, there are benefits. When little Billy is a manager in a MNC based in London, the majority of his staff are going to be from other cultures, and many will have some sort of religious (or at least traditional) beliefs which will impact them in the workplace - the way they work, the requirements they have, the tasks they wll feel comfortable and uncomfortable performing... To ignore this in an increasingly multi-cultural society is in the first case a hindrance to the effective running of a business, and even more so a potential cause of intollerance, hatred and marginalisation of minority groups.

Very true. But there's plenty of time for forming some kind of foundational understanding. I spent a day at the mandir/temple in Neasden last year, and just through spending a few hours with some of the people there I learnt a lot about Hinduism and the way that their beliefs affect their attitudes and actions. I disagreed with a lot of what they said, but that's not the point!

Question....do I get involved in this debate....again????  Answer.....probably not!!

But let's be honest....we all have beliefs which cannot be proven.  They are deeply important to us, andd to some extent we shape our lives according to those beliefs (consciously or unconsciously).  The particular history of this nation and most others is that they have to some extent been shaped by (mainly powerful) peoples' beliefs.  To understand this is an absolutely valid - even crucial - aspect of education.  Indoctrination should not happen.  It is not allowed, and although in some religious traditions, there has been confusion between teaching RE and promoting faith-based activities (like First Communion preparation in RC schools), it should not happen like that.

Given the number of threads on this site alone which come back to this subject, it is also not unreasonable to think that the question of whether there is a God (some external creative, guiding force) by which the world is in some way ordered remains a first order question, and (as Reeves4England says) there are enough eminent scientists around who remain people of faith to demonstrate that.  So that too is surely a significant subject for young people to explore.

Inter-cultural understanding is another subject altogether (but certainly not unrelated) but unless there is the opportunity for young people to engage with the things that make different people tick, and to challenge the outrageous (but grossly over-stated) fact that religious belief has a bearing on some of the appalling history of the world, they will be ill-equipped for the modern world.

The moon is made of cheese. FACT!

Do they get Ray Guns?

 I think it would be good to have even greater diversity of schools....rather than having lumped together establishments, have separate places based on anything that suits the variety of the populous.  Then people's tax input into the education pot could be worth credits, which could then be spent in the school of choice.

I write as an atheist, however...

If those with belief can believe god created the Big Bang, then it is possible to believe god created the universe, the world and evolution with it.

Problem solved.

Next week - World Peace. ;)

Look, there is either something after you die or there is not.

If there is, great.

If not, you aint going to know about it cos you're dead.

End of

bit difficult teaching Creationism as a science as it is based in faith and can't be disproved

All religions are about power over the people.

Dangle the carrot of life ever-after in exchange for devotion to said religion during your lifetime and then throw in the stick of eternal damnation if you stray.

Can't understand why more people dont see through it.

But what if you could prove the existence of god...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N5e1R4-G9I

We've not had a religious debate on here for a while...

Good

How anyone can say whether God exists or doesn't has always puzzled me.
If He does and He's omnipotent, will he really care if people follow a man made method of worship? If he doesn't, there's a lot of people who have wasted a lot of time on their knees.

Humanism is the way to go.

That article states that all the schools have said they are not teaching creationism as a science and aren't allowed to.

You and your facts, getting in the way of a heated debate.

My atheism isn't based on the fact I don't believe in a god really. Im sceptical on the creation of the universe, but that's more due to the fact I don't fully understand the big bang theory and struggle to comprehend the whole something out of nothing argument.

I refuse to believe in a Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc god or whatever because of just how immoral their gods are. I don't understand these masochists who insist on living under what is essentially a totalitarianism dictatorship. I also firmly believe that religion is a poison and has greatly held back the development of our species. I don't buy into the fact that religion is a basis for morality either. How is it moral to mutate the genitals of children without their say?! Its cruel! I've never been religious at all and neither were my parents and I know (for the most part) what's right and what's wrong. I don't do it because Im frightened of what happens to me if I don't!

But I find the topic fascinating nonetheless. Needed to have a rant about it for a while!!

I got taught vague Christianity throughout my schooling,much like Trigonometry,French and being told to kill and dissect Frogs its had no lasting impact on me.

True, but all you can do is look at evidence and decide on the probability. And also, and I forget who it was that said this, and the exact wording, but they said something along the lines of, "If something cannot be proved or disproved, by experiment, then it needs to be dismissed entirely."

Occam's razor.

Wrong. All religions have been used to gain power over the people, but that's not the same thing.


Tails, that's a load of crap. You can't decide a god doesn't exist purely because you don't like them. If that were the case, this forum would be dead! And, at risk of sounding much more philosophical than I am or ever will be, if a god exists, and was the origin of all life, surely that god is the basis of all morality, and not us, a finite and temporary bunch of people who exist in a tiny corner of said deity's creation?

I didn't say they don't exist I said I don't believe in them because of it. I can't say whether they exist or not, no one can. I seriously doubt it as no one has provided me with sufficient evidence but they may do.

I will always question why god chose the mostly illiterate middle east to send his messengers though.

Oh and I normally get the ignorance argument on this one from Christians too. I've read and listened to William Lane Craig, Danesh D'Souza, Frank Turek as well as countless other Christian, Muslim & Jewish apologists. I admire them, their work is very good but I personally find someone like Christopher Hitchens a lot more compelling.

The middle east was more advanced than the rest of the world in bible times wasn't it?

When I was at Uni the god squad would try and sign up people by doing their washing up and giving them free cheese toasties. If God's up for bribing me with a lot of money then I'm in.

Atheism is a stupid as any faith. To dismiss anything totally, just because you can't prove it's existence is like dismissing all theory, on anything, until it's been proved. Science wouldn't exist if everyone thought that.
Bill and Ted's religion was the best, its only tenant was to be excellent to each other. Wise words that we can all agree on I'm sure.

We get free pancakes in the campus church from the jesusers on a friday night.

I partly put my matchday thread success down to these. However luckily even when I didn't bother we still won normally...

There are strange things afoot at the Circle K.

Back on topic, I view scientific theories as very different to other theories.  Scientific theories are simply theories because future scientific discoveries may alter them or disprove them completely.  So evolution is called a theory even though all the science we have to this point supports it, one day we may find something else...or fill in a few gaps (not 'the missing link' as by definition of evolution there is not one...and the changing shapes of skulls shows this).

Be excellent, herthab.  :)

Fair enough. Personally I find the inetellectual, academic approach to religion slightly nauseating, for the very reasons herthab outlined above. It is always interesting to hear the debates, but I never really expect anybody's position to be changed because of them.

Those Christian's are going to corrupt my kids!

We should all have a peaceful protest whilst shouting obscenities in order to raise awareness that this sort of thing is happening in our country.

Ironically, the biggest myth surrounding religion is that it's the cause of wars, conflicts and the how it's holding back world peace.

A load of old bollocks.

I think it's fairly well documented the odd war or two have been started in the name of religion. Fact!

Surely that's more to do with peoples warped interpretation than religion itself? There's nothing in Christian, Islam or Jadaism that advocates battering the fuck out of others, is there?

Religion is a fantastic excuse in which to start a war.

As does the theory of evolution, which has not and cannot be proven by experimental method.

I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught as a science.....unless of course you understand science to be what it was originally meant to be - knowledge.

If you want a good example of bad science then read up on evolution.

Incidentally, creationism is the only "theory" that can come up with a plausible explanation for how the universe started. The generally accepted theory of the Big Bang....followed by evolution.....cannot explain how matter can have been formed from nothing and cannot explain how life started.

So religion played no part in the Crusades then...riiiiiiiight....


Presumably those involved managed to make the religion fit their actions at the time. Given things weren't written down at the time of Christ, who is to say what part of religion is accurate and what is warped.  Quite literally God only knows.

I'm not a believer in a God, but if I were I wouldn't be any more sure that staying in bed on a Sunday morning would be any less likely to get me into heaven than attending some Church and living by their interpretation of God.

I think your "be excellent to each other" is as good a rule of life as any.

I think I remember a thread from a long time back where the same point was made.  The laws of physics as we understand them describe the universe only as far back as fractions of a second after the Big Bang.  Before this, the laws break down.  How did the Big Bang start?  No one knows...and current scientific understanding is unlikely to get closer to answering the question any time soon.

To my mind, this opens the door to the possibility that a higher force - that we do not and, possibly, cannot understand - was responsible for the Big Bang.  Whether you choose to label this as 'Creation' and attribute it to the involvement of God is up to you.  But I certainly don't think you can discount it.

Of course it did. But to give examples like that is to only present half the argument. First of all, events like the Crusades were not purely based on spreading faith - they were geopolitical in nature and to deny that is quite frankly naive. What was portrayed as the protection and spread of Christendom was effectively the violent assertion of power by those in the Catholic church - many of whom did not even hold to biblical teachings - at the expense of anybody who got in their path... even other Christians.

And then there's tha fact (sorry, FACT!) that more people were killed in wars in the 20th century than ever before, largely due to nationalism, communism, and aggressive secularism.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with territory, power and money whatsoever. zzzzzzzz

How can you separate religion from this. In some peoples eyes this defines the true original intent of religion - controlling the masses, gaining power and money.

Look at the Pope today. Arguably one of the most powerful men in the word, sitting in Vatican City - which isn't too shabby...

Batch, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't define many Roman Catholics let alone Christians and other religions.

Or the church preaching to give to the poor yet they're one of the richest organisations in the world, collecting wealth and land in the name of what? God? Give it to the fucking poor, why go all mother theresa on their followers?

Don't also forget they're renowned for stifling growth, improvement and endeavour amongst generations of the intrepid.

Were Darwin or Galileo embraced by the church? No, vilified and castigated would be correct. They don't help the human race, they damage it.

I think the average religious person, the sheep for want of a better word, tries to live their lives in a good way and respects others. Frankly a lot of ordinary religious people do a lot of good and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

Its the organisation itself, or parts of it, and the extremists of course that I have issues with. Oh and Jehova's witnesses, if I want to learn about God I'll come to you. Not you specifically because of your retarded views - particularly on blood donation.

And the Mormon faith, well I think South Park said it all.

And stupid religions, Creationism and Scientology are out.

And Catholicism, lack of birth control (I've had a vesectomy) and too much of a guilt trip. Every sperm isn't sacred.

And CoE seems a bit half arsed, Catholic light if you will.

And Buddhists can't agree on whether they should eat meat or not. I'm not risking veggieness.

And Muslims - lack of excessive Alcohol

And Jews - no bacon

And Hindus - no beef = no steak. Sacred cow my arse.

See I can't be religious, there isn't a good one.

The Catholic Church is the same as any other multinational organisation. Its set up as one - the Pope is the CEO, then you have the board and Snr Execs in each country etc. The product they peddle is God. Like all good multinational organisations, you've got to protect the brand which over the centuries the Vatican has been a tad overzealous on occasions. Its all about moving into new territories and keeping your existing customers. I think the majority of religions are pretty similar. Its all about the bottom line.

Anyone who believes in a god (whichever one you want to choose) surely has to believe in Creationism as well.........

Bit harsh on Galileo but I see where you're coming from with Darwin.

Agree with that, althought I think your treatment of the C of E is very harsh. Yes, they own a lot of land, but if they got rid of it they'd be in a mess and it would ruin everything they are trying to achieve. And as for the catholic-lite comment, I can totally understand where that comes from, but it's worth remembering that the C of E contains people right through from the wishy-washy liberal left to the hardline conservative right, including many bishops, vicars and parishioners who aren't overtly in favour of the way the church is run on the meta scale.

There are loads of gods worshipped by different religions, even if there is a god they cannot all be god can they? too many flaws with religions to take any seriously.

George Wald, evolutionist, American scientist and Nobel Prize:

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

    "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

    George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).


Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the majority of scientists these days. Belief in something that they know is impossible yet persevere in their belief because they can't bring themselves to accept the alternative.

The fool says in his heart "there is no God".

No, there's only one God. What are the "flaws" in God that you are thinking of?

I said religions are flawed. The constant changes they make to suit their religions when presented with evidence-changes in the world for starters. If there is one god, which one is it? There are over 2000 to choose from.

Well said.

"We're all atheists in the eyes of another religion, only some of us go one god further."

I guess it depends what you mean by flawed. If you mean no religious group know the answer to every question, then yes. But religion isn't supposed to answer every question, it's supposed to tell you who God is and who man is in relation to him. So, for example, the fact that the church (along with society at large) had to accept the earth wasn't the centre of the universe all those years ago didn't change the fundamentals of its teaching. They got something wrong, but that in itself doesn't mean the religion was flawed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3X5f3gY4iw&feature=related

I don't want to be rude to you again, Reevsey, but can you please offer up some evidence that your particular god exists, or at some point actually existed?

Good point. And why did it take God 13 Billion years to send his son down here to have a word with us? I've heard of being lazy but that's just taking the piss!

I've been trying to avoid sending this thread off down a 'my belief is better than yours' type tangent - it's happened numerous times on here and always ends up being a bit pathetic. It's been good to see people discussing a variety of topics.

In response to your request, I'm not really sure what evidence would ever prove or disprove the existence of God outright, and I don't buy the idea that either side has a burden of proof. The reason I believe what I do is that after a few years studying the Bible I came to believe the testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus. If they are true then it blows everything else out of the water. If they're not, then obviously it makes no sense to be a Christian from any point of view.

Fair enough. Your religion is your business. I respect that - even though I'm the polar opposite.

But I don't understand why you (believers) feel the need to spread the word about something that is purely faith / belief based.

By your own admission, there is no evidence.

Why bother trying to convince people of the crdibility of something that has so many holes in it?

I'm not religious but I pretend to be when I'm in Bosnia to conform to my grandparents' expectations of me. I can't say one way or the other if there is a god or not but what I do know is that religion/faith is needed in poorer countries, it's pretty much the only hope they have in their lives.

If there is a god, he's a bit of a fuckwit isn't he? Like that tsunami in 2004 which killed 230,000 people for the crime of living in a certain region of earth. Was he having a bad day at the time?

Not the sort of fella to be getting down on your knees and praying for.

Where did the god that created The Big Bang come from?  Was he created by another god in a previous big bang?  And what about that one?  Where did he (or she) come from?.....

I grew up as an unquestioning Christian in an unquestioning Christian house and eventually evolved into an apathetic atheist.

I do think that any God that would create humans and then tell them that they are all damned to an eternity of pain and suffering if they don't dedicate their lives to worshipping him is a vain and vicious one though!!

I do love The Big Bang Theory.  Sheldon Cooper is legendary and Penny is fit!!

That was supposed to be light hearted, not insulting! I went to a C of E school, when I was young I went to Sunday School but ultimately religion wasn't for me.

I wouldn't say I was atheist, more slightly agnostic or open to the idea of something after death. If it exists I'm not sure whether it will conform to "god" or science fiction type "ascension" to a higher plain, or most likely there is nothing at all.

Probably the most intelligent person I worked with was religious. I find that fascinating.

The last person to post in this thread gets to decide whether God exists or not.  That'll sort it, once and for all.

No one can prove there is a God and no one can prove there isn't, that's why it's a 'belief' one has.

There are worse ways to lead your live than according to the Lords teachings and as long as it doesn't affect others then each to their own.

I am a little uncomfortable with some of what the Church talks about because if Jesus and scriptures are correct in what they teach then most of the bigoted and sexist idiots who are heads of the church now would be out on their arse if the big guy was around.

I didn't say there is no evidence. I said there is no conclusive evidence either way.

If somebody earnestly believes that family members, friends, or the woman down the street is facing ultimate judgment, how can they stand by and not explain that? I've known non-Christians to find out what their Christian friend believes and said "If you were my friend and you truly believed that, why didn't you tell me?"

To me as a Christian, hiding your faith from somebody is like hiding the fact they're about to walk in front of a double decker bus. Only worse. I don't go out aggressively to insist people turn to my view, but I share it with them so they know what I believe and can make their own choice.

One thing I really don't get about believing in the bible.....

It has been proven to be wrong time and time again.
No, we did not come from Adam and Eve.
No, the Earth was not made in seven days.
No, the Earth is not 5,000 (or whatever) years old.
And so on

These aren't little things. These are bloody great big mahoosive errors and pretty much cornerstones of the whole kit and kaboodle. If I saw a maths text book that said 2+2 = 5, how could I have any faith in the rest of it? If a Thai translation book said the word for Elephant means Brussels Sprouts, why would I use that book for translations? If blatant lies were found in a biography, why believe anything else it says?

So why is it that believers can overlook such massive errors in the bible and choose to have faith in anything else within it? To do so just doesn't make one iota of sense.

Sorry went to bed without seeing this last night i wasn't ignoring you.
By flawed I meant to me personally. It leaves too many unanswered questions and just isn't logical. To believe in a god i would have to believe the teachings completely (ie the bible). I find them to be at times utterly ridiculous.

You can say exactly the same thing about the alternative - evolution.
Incidentally, the "evidence" for Creationism and evolution is exactly the same - it's just the interpretation that differs.

I'd be interested to see the proof that you mention.........unless you are over 5000 years old it'd be pretty difficult to prove anything from that period. What I guess you mean is that modern scientific "evidence" leads you to believe that these events didn't happen. Modern scientific evidence is based on certain suppositions - ie, guesswork - and is not provable because it can't be tested.

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. - Charles Darwin.

And what of fossils, geology, DNA sequencing, carbon dating etc?

Are you trying to tell me you believe the world is only 5,000 years old?

[url width=407 height=405]http://i.imgur.com/tTY3n.jpg[/url]

That is just pure and utter bollocks.

And stop putting evidence in quote marks as though to question it's legitimacy. Fossils, for example, are evidence whether you like it or not.

I find it hard to take seriously when you have a talking snake and a bush that talks when its on fire. Religion does make some sense in the fact that it tells people to be nice to each other be tolerant and respectful, don't steal etc. Other then that I don't buy into it. I respect people who believe in something I don't, but I don't like it when people accost me in town or knock on my door and tell me to repent because I live my life the way I choose. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Religion isn't for everyone.

What about them?
They are examples of evidence, not proof. It's how you interpret the results from them. And the results can be used to back up either theory.

Hurling insults around isn't proof of anything either. It's an indication that you don't have any valid points to make.

Try Google..........

Evidence of what?

We should have a religious thread once a week, they're fucking great entertainment.

This is such a flimsy argument.

It strikes me that the common Christian (or other) concept that is since they can't prove the absence of God then God must exist. The burden of proof falls on the one claiming the positive. If there is no proof you didn't commit murder does that make you guilty? Of course not, as the burden of proof is not on you. You are not expected to prove you are innocent because proving a negative is nearly impossible if not completely so.

So many double negatives in that post. Can't understand

As usual Dangerous Machine Rotations posts and wins.

Evidence of Dinosaurs!!!!!

I agree with you on the last bit. It's your choice and if you don't want to be bothered then that's up to you....

As for the talking snake and bush - I don't see how it is so difficult to understand. If you believe in God, a supernatural being, then it shouldn't be too difficult to believe it. Who's to say that snakes, and other animals for that matter, didn't talk before Adam and Eve sinned? As for the burning bush, the Bible states that it was God talking.

It's just as believable for me as life spontaneously starting from inorganic matter and all matter being created from nothing. Personally, I find it incredible that people swallow the evolution theory because scientists tell them it is true yet mock events in the Bible.

Remember that not so long ago people (including scientists of the time) believed the world was flat. If you had been around at that time you would have believed it too and if someone had suggested that it was round you would have laughed at them.....

Which proves what?

That dinsosaurs exisited!!!! I thought that was obvious?

The majority of Christians do not take the bible literally, Creationists do.

This is hard work. It's no wonder you are in exile Bob.

Praise the lord

Hahhahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaahahahhaahahhhahahaaaaa

I'll say it again... this depends what you mean by takign it literally, and by creationists. Nobody (not even 'creationists') takes the whole Bible literally - a lot of it is pictoral, using imagery to describe things. I believe that God created all things, and I believe in the fall of man, but that doesn't mean I take the Hebrew poetry of Genesis 1-3 as a literal record of how it happened.

So in your view God created AIDS, cancer, natural disasters, Justin Bieber etc... to what end? I refer you to my earlier Darwin quote...

You are saying God created a parasitic wasp that needs to completely devour another creature alive from the inside (missing vital organs so it stays alive for longer in immense pain and suffering) just to make it past gestation stage???

Why the fuck would an 'intelligent designer' create such a creature? If he exists, he's a fucking sicko.

I think you're missing a central point of biblical teaching, which argues that the world we currently live in is only a shadow of the world God created, and has been disrupted by things that take it from being a good creation to being one which groans and awaits renewal.

Although your point about Justin Beiber almost had me converted.

But surely if the world has been disrupted by "things that take it from being a good creation" and God "created all things" he also created those disrupting factors.  At the very least he is guilty of a lack of foresight and some poor judgement.

God is a DJ.

:)

Prove to me there's not a God and I'll follow you and as for saying; "The burden of proof falls on the one claiming the positive", who is claiming the "positive" then, the religious or the atheist?

Sicko and a drunk. Have you ever seen the nerve in a giraffes neck? The one that is badly "designed", due to it's evolution? Needless to say we don't need to go on to the eye, or the many other badly "designed" parts of living creatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

While searching for the above, I saw the below. This truly is superb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgXfkEGxE0

1. How you can accuse an eternal deity (who, by definition must exist outside the constraints of time) of a lack of forsight is a little beyond me.

2. Karl Benz invented the very first car. It was a good thing in that it improved the lifestyle of mankind. But people went on to misuse this good thing, resulting in accidents and death. Yet we wouldn't argue that Kalr Benz 'created' death by dangerous driving... he just invented soemthing with the potential for disaster if misused. Ok, so the analogy isn't perfect, but essentially all suffering comes from the entry of 'evil' into the world through our personal choice, not because of a design fault. It's one of those questions where it's much easier to sit down and discuss it for an hour rather than answer in one post. None of the world's problems/debates was ever resolved, or even furthered, on an internet forum!

On another note, I could argue against the concept of natural disasters, seeing as an earthquake is merely an event, and only becomes a disaster when coupled with social, economic, political factors... but that's another story for another day.

The religious of course. The atheist is claiming nothing, because by it's very definition it's stating to be without theism. Or to not believe anything.

Religion on the other hand is stating something IS there. As a non-believer I don't have to prove why I believe nothing to justify it, but those who believe that something does exist have to prove why. Nothing is the starting point. You come out of the womb an atheist, religion then gets added on over time according to the parents indoctrination.  

As for Barry's videos...

Christians believe there are reasons for imperfection in our world. Saying, "look this giraffe isn't quite right" doesn't go against anything in the Bible. he's a great scientist, clearly, but I often find his attempts at philosophy and theology flimsy at best. Instead of looking at the giraffe, he could just have easily looked at himself - I mean, what sort of self-respecting reproductive machine gets married three times and only has one child? Yes, I'm being deliberately provocative, but if he truly believed what he preaches then that's the logical conclusion he should come to.

I agree that the second video is nonsense. But a few Christians being a bit dim doesn't disprove the existence of the God they believe in. I made points about this a few pages ago.

Surely believing nothing is different to having a positive belief that there is nothing?

(I've already mentioned that I think burden-of-proof debates are pointless - I don't see why anybody has to prove what they believe to the other, I'm more interested in serious dialogue than points-scoring)

Sorry R4E, I wasn't directly attacking you here. As best as is possible I'm trying to stay off attacking you or being too opinionated. (I think I'm failing in the opinionated part!)

I was merely going back towards the whole designer creationism thing and just jumping on the end of what Jay O'Haitchenn happened to post. It was more directed at him in a, "look at this, it's interesting" way. :D

I don't have to prove anything, it's my belief and personal to me. If you want to go and chase some sort of evidence then be my guest but saying that religion has to prove God exists when you don't believe anyway is a bit odd.

There is evidence that points to a further being existing but I suggest unless a big bearded chap is thrust in front of your eyes you would be inclined to disregard any evidence put forward.

Didn't take any offence Barry, and didn't see it as an attack!! Everybody's welcome to their views - I just can't stand the arrogance of the many who put forward really flimsy arguments against religious beliefes and consider it conclusive because other atheists start nodding and applauding!

(Which you weren't doing)

I don't have a positive belief in there being nothing, because it's not a belief in nothing. I have no belief at all - it's having no belief in anything. There's nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And yes I agree on the burden of proof thing, like most religious discussions, the end result is a 0-0.


Of course you don't have to prove anything personally, I think you've slightly missed my point. You, like anyone else, can believe whatever you want, but if the religious community wants me to buy into it, they need to prove why. They can't just say, "here it is, believe it." There needs to be a reason and this is the point I was making.

The burden of proof is on someone telling me something exists, because I have no belief in anything. If the religious establishment was to convince me why I have to believe, they have to show me why.


Good. Let's get a room. :)

I get that point and for me religion is a personal thing but like you if others (Witness' in the main) knock on my door and want me to join then I will ask questions and probe a bit more and want some sort of tangible point to come back at me.

I don't go knocking on the local Mosque and demand to know why this, that and the other happen.

I just look at other religions and know that my one is right  ;)

That leads to a the question, why the bloody hell hasn't he. He could pop down, tell us all where we went wrong over the last 2000 years. Pop off again.

Didn't David Icke do this...as well as playing 37 games for Hereford

Yes, but while somebody wearing a turquoise tracksuit is quite un-human it isn't really the proof I was looking for.

Just believe Batch....just believe...

Enlighten me.

Not a dig either, I mean really, enlighten me.

I always find the passions aroused in the Creationism vs Evolution debate the theological equivalent of PC vs Apple

If there was ant evidence of any god i could maybe be swung.aint seen any yet

Do you not remember Glenn Hoddle at Birmingham away Arriba ?

What more fucking evidence does anyone need :) ???

Back home early from thew pub and drunk......

R4E. If I insult you, please don't take it personally. It's just a clash of opinions (and I'm drunk)

Exile Bob. If I insult you, then fair play to me. It's not a clash of opinions, you are just stupid.

Haha go arnnn Finchy

Bear with me.

Me fookin internet keeps cutting out

Evidence supporting evolution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Evidence supporting creation

Noah built the ark?

Why?

If god is all powerful why did he just not kill all the evil people and animals with a click of the finger? Why the need for a flood? Why kill so many innocent people/animals needlessly? What about the sea creatures? How did they get let off? (They would survive the flood?

How fucking enormous must that boat have been to float and support so many creatures? How did they feed the inhabitants? How did they stop them from eating/killing each other? How was the shit and pissed dealt with? How did they avoid disease?

THINK

Not to mention all the animals that went on the Ark lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

All religious texts are written by Man. What is written neither proves, nor disproves the existence of a God. Most religious texts were written millennia ago, when people were less advanced and couldn't explain, scientifically, certain events. Obviously they got a lot of it wrong.
I treat The Bible as a series of stories, some having a basis in fact, but a lot pure fiction. Once again though, it doesn't prove to me that God doesn't exist.

If I believed in a God, I think I would be more inclined to believe that they created the means for Life, the Universe and Everything, then left it to evolve.

There you go, I've just explained creation and evolution, maybe I should start a new religion (Unless the above is already practised by an existing religion, in which case let me know who they are and I might join up). 

Young children across the planet are suffering terribly from parasites and beasts feeding upon them. Causing them immense physical and emotional pain....... All caused by god

What kind of cunt what support such an evil fucker?

Its not caused by god though is it? It's caused by people's misinterpretations of this 'god' figure.

Aggressively atheist people annoy me more than religious people most of the time.

I don't believe in creationism. I don't know many religious folk who do.

If you take this as a religious angle then the Church says all that is man made. Greedy and corrupt governments are not God made.

Stories such as this in the Old and New Testament can be taken as not literal but as a metaphoric understanding of lessons and teachings.

I MUST ATTACK YOU FOR HAVING BELIEFS THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH.

So god is excused for all the suffering?

That's exactly it. I know a lot of Christians, and a lot of assertive atheists (you know the ones, the type who bum Richard Dawkins, hate religion but never stop talking about it). Its always the atheists who bring up god and religion first.

I personally think that the notion of there being an all seeing and all knowing, bearded presence in the sky is ludicrous. But until it can be proven what caused the big bang then an omnipotent being can't be discounted. Surely scientific principle dictates that?

And if believing that there's some higher power looking over us helps someone get through the drudgery of their life, do they deserve to be shouted down and ridiculed for it? As long as they don't try and peddle it on others (and it's only the minority of extremists who do), what harm is it doing to anyone?

I do struggle with some of religious teachings and the suffering of children is one big one and the reason why I can't fully be into the Church I guess.

In short the argument is that God created all and then left man to carry on and all things bad in the world are man made or part of nature which then affects man because of what they have chosen to do with their lot.

Now, extremists say that disease and illness is a punishment (Hoddle) to those nations/groups who oppose God or go against the teachings (AIDS for the gay community).

Would it surprise you to know that I agree with everything you said?

It would!!

Anyroad, i'm off out now to get drunk. I'll leave this here because it's funny and true

[url width=595 height=311]http://i.imgur.com/h2qIg.png[/url]

Anyway......

What he said, innit

Just brilliant. If the subject matter wasn't religion, then that would have given me at least a semi.

A religious or non religious view is unique to every human on earth.....if it needs to be taught then in my view it is not the thing for me.

A religious or spiritual person in old times worshipped everything on the earth....well except anything mankind.

If you wanted rain to water your food to not starve then you fucking well worshiped the rain gods.

The day men started preaching religion was the day religion was dammed.

And this in a nutshell should end the thread.People who go to my church do not bang on about god 24/7 like most people would want you to believe. If having a little belief helps the majority of people get by and try and live a better life for themselves who are they hurting.

As others have said the people who are more in peoples faces seem to be the ones always trying to prove a point. Most people who are religious choose to go to church etc they are not forced

I think certain people just like to argue with everything and won't stop until they can change the mind of the other. Though that never happens.

I think of them as the Jehovah's Witnesses of atheism.

We will never know one way or the other, not in our lives anyway.

Like DRS, I agree and think that's a very valid point.

Although I do feel I should also highlight that plenty of people who develop a belief in one god or another do so from a position of comfort, not deprivation. For example, last week I was editing a video interview with Louis Attrill, who won gold for GB in Sydney then became a Christian. Then there are people like Scott Harrison, who lived the high life until his conscience got the better of him - he then became a Christian and set up charity:water. Plenty of well off, happy and attractive young people attend 'trendy' churches like HTB in SW London. And I can't honestly say I've had any times of struggle in my life...


This.

Thats the biggest problem; religious people do peddle it on others. 

They cant help themselves.

It's forced on innocent kids all over the world in differing formats and from a very early age. In any other format that would be classed as mass brainwashing at best.

There lies the harm it can do to whole generations of innocent humans, when religious folk peddle their so-called harmless beliefs on a global scale.

ask fabrice muamba , the power of prayer is there for all to see

We interrupt this deep and meaningful for a bit of Steve Martin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU

That's why in the UK the number of non-religious people outnumber those who are religious.

I think I worked out I didn't believe in God by the time I was 9 or 10 years of age and I went to a school where we did prayers and sang hymns. Most of my peers were exactly the same.

Kids are more interested in kickabouts, Playstations and Sega than religion.

Hmm, fishing or not, can't decide.

Guess the doctors can just quit, they didn't do anything.

Couldn't agree more. My Mum took me to church and I attended Sunday School. My Mum isn't and wasn't religious for the record, she took me because she felt it was easier for me to decide if I saw both sides.

Needless to say I'm not religious because I found it incredibly dull and strange how these people believed this stuff. I also wasn't allowed any of "those white things all the old people get to eat at the front" during church, which really put my nose out of joint. Big time.

he just won an award , i think that explains eveything

What makes me laugh are the athiests who want to get married in a Church even though they dont believe in God, and worse still, when they die, they still want a ceremony at a Church as part of their funeral proceedings.

You get pushy parents in any form of anything. How different is a parent 'forcing' religion on their child to a parent 'forcing' their football club onto them?

Surely the non-religious have as much right to peddle their beliefs or lack of them and harm future generations?

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
  They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
  And add some extra, just for you

Yeah, I see your point.

R4E called a bunch of Americans crazy earlier because they believed in something different to what he does. Still, at least he didn't put it all in caps.

I'm not religious and have children. Funnily enough we don't really mention lack of religion or equally a lack of a god. I think this would be normal, why would atheists parents proactively poke holes in the religious just because they don't believe?

Why?

Why would god write the bible metaphorically?

Good didn't. Man did. Several years after Christ. Chinese whispers anyone?

Love the chinese whispers theory, Batch.

I can accept that I may be wrong in my Christian beliefs but the idea that the bible all came about as a result of a hilarious mix-up, Life of Brian-style is both thought provoking and funny.

Whoever did in fact write the bible (beardy bloke himself or the Batch theory), Flasheart asks Azza, why metaphor?

Religious context or not, metaphor is a bloody handy tool for getting across ideas on the human condition, the universe and everything.

You can't always go for a Haines manual with facts and detailed pictures and illustrations.  I'd be a little sceptical as to the ability of say, science, to explain a simple metaphor although it creates good theories on some of the big stuff.

Its not my theory ;) I though it was fairly well established the New Testament was written 50 or 60 years after Christ onwards.

Do you think that stories of Christ really remained unaltered over 6 decades? As I say, it will be subject of the rules of Chinese Whispers, tales based on fact but somewhat altered as handed from one person to the other.

I was just ironically flipping the idea that passing on religious values or ideas is somehow harmful (with the contrasting  implication that passing non-religious ideas or no values would not be harmful). 

I'm sure you pass on good values and non-religous ones at that including in due course :pint: and meanwhile STFC4eva

Oh I see, missed the context there sorry.

Found it......

This one's a classic Barry, start it at 25 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1RnwbFIps&feature=related

Just watched it on the throne. That's tough going. Dawkins has the patience of a saint.

A Saint minus all that religious stuff :)