Jebus

[axs]

You've said before you spell fine for work stuff? Is that just spellcheck being applied?

[Rich Pullen]

that's some great 'burnt-bit scraping' by someone.

Damn right - if Damien Hirst did it, it would be worth millions!

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

spell checker, I have my own typist so don't have to spell and the fact I sit with a dictoarny on my desk.

[STFC Village]

Still, it's suprising you can't spell 'Jesus'

 

[Lumps]

GFM and Reg.

The problem you're having here is that you're attempting to argue your case through reason. You're adopting a rationalist stance and you're expecting a theist to engage with you on the same basis, and you're wasting your time.

Religious believe is exactly that. A believe. R4E isn't (thankfully) making any attempt to rationalise his faith. He's just saying "I believe this". And that's fair enough I suppose. He's free to believe what he likes.

My only objection to religious faith generally is the expectation that a particular set of irrational believes should be given some sort of special status, and indeed should be regarded as on the same plane of demonstrable scientific knowledge with a weight of evidence behind it.

So should creationism or intelligent design be taught alongside evolutionary theory in science classes? Fuck no. I tell you what, show me some archeological evidence of the Garden of Eden complete with fossilized serpent and I'll think about it. Until then we can keep the primitive superstitions in RE lessons where they belong.

Oh and the idea that what Einstein believed in God in the sense that any christian, or jew would understand it is fucking laughable. He may have used the phrase at times in a metaphorical sense but the christians that lay claim to him as theist just really piss me off.

These quotes are pretty clear I think:

knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

[pauld]

Im confused.

Do all Christians believe in Creationism then?

No, it's still a minority fundamentalist view, at least outside the US.

[Tails]

Mormons are worse. Messed up religion that one....

[Reg Smeeton]

 Lumps...I have no problemo.  I'm not looking to argue with R4E...I'm just pointing out his rationale makes no sense...but as stated he's entirely free to think as he wishes.

[reeves4england]

So should creationism or intelligent design be taught alongside evolutionary theory in science classes? Fuck no. I tell you what, show me some archeological evidence of the Garden of Eden complete with fossilized serpent and I'll think about it

I agree. Science is about knowledge rather than theory. That's what the word means for crying out loud! Having said that, I was pissed off that the Big Bang theory and evolution were taught to me as proven facts in science. All it took was for the teacher to point out that they were theories backed up by some evidence rather than 100% certainties.

[flammableBen]

I agree. Science is about knowledge rather than theory. That's what the word means for crying out loud! Having said that, I was pissed off that the Big Bang theory and evolution were taught to me as proven facts in science. All it took was for the teacher to point out that they were theories backed up by some evidence rather than 100% certainties.

You don't get proven facts in science. You get theories which match the evidence we've got, but the whole point of science is to test these, and find out where they don't work. This is one of the points that religious people often seem to find hard to grasp (and often non-religious people, if we're being fair). The whole evolution vs. creationism isn't an argument that evolution is definitely 100% right. It's that it (and it's variations) are models which fit what we know about the world around us and how it's developed, it's something which is constantly being tested. Creationism isn't a scientific model, it's a religious belief, which means it isn't set up to be tested, in fact it's set up to be believed in whatever evidence there is to the contrary. This is why it has no place in science lessons.

I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing as me, but questioning that any science theory is 100% right isn't the point, they're not supposed to be. It's more important that they can be tested.

Edit: sorry that's all badly written, I'm a bit tired. But a theroy in science isn't the same as in everyday language - where it means just a guess or an idea. In scientific terms a theory is pretty much as good as you get.

[reeves4england]

You don't get proven facts in science. You get theories which match the evidence we've got, but the whole point of science is to test these, and find out where they don't work. This is one of the points that religious people often seem to find hard to grasp (and often non-religious people, if we're being fair). The whole evolution vs. creationism isn't an argument that evolution is definitely 100% right. It's that it (and it's variations) are models which fit what we know about the world around us and how it's developed, it's something which is constantly being tested. Creationism isn't a scientific model, it's a religious belief, which means it isn't set up to be tested, in fact it's set up to be believed in whatever evidence there is to the contrary. This is why it has no place in science lessons.

I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing as me, but questioning that any science theory is 100% right isn't the point, they're not supposed to be. It's more important that they can be tested.

Edit: sorry that's all badly written, I'm a bit tired. But a theroy in science isn't the same as in everyday language - where it means just a guess or an idea. In scientific terms a theory is pretty much as good as you get.

You make a good point Ben. I still hold to the fact that the Big Bang and evolution were, wrongly, taught to me as facts though. Fair enough if that's what the teacher believes to be true, but their opinions shouldn't influence what their students believe.

[flammableBen]

You make a good point Ben. I still hold to the fact that the Big Bang and evolution were, wrongly, taught to me as facts though. Fair enough if that's what the teacher believes to be true, but their opinions shouldn't influence what their students believe.

I'm sort of saying that nothing should be taught to you as a fact in science, there's nothing special in regard to the big bang and evolution in that regard. As science doesn't hold "faith" in it's theories. Infact science is about the opposite. Trying to prove your own theories wrong - so you can come up with better ones.

[Arriba]

the same should be for the teaching of god as a fact to children in primary schools.

[Boeta]

to further lumps' quotes on einstein, here's another:

it was, of couse, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. i do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied but have expressed it clearly. if something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

another is:

the idea of a personal god is quite alien to me and seems even naive

[herthab]

And yet another Einstein quote:

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

You can fit quotes to match your argument but it doesn't mean fuck all. Einstein stated he didn't believe in a 'personal' God. He was also sceptical about organised religion. But, as a scientist, he wasn't as arrogant as to believe there wasn't a God at all, he kept an open mind.

It must be great, believer and non-believer alike, to have such an arrogant faith in your own conviction, so much so that you really believe the other side is wrong, despite having no evidence whatsoever to back up your argument.

Surely the scientific way would be to accept the possibility of God, at the same time accepting the possibility of no God?

Atheists are just as closed minded as followers of a religion, us Agnostics are the only rational people..........